Only part of the truth

[Vance]

When it's horribly modified to try and make some stupid point that doesn't even work, yes, it most certainly makes me dumber.

Have you considered that it was your original point that was stupid?

[Ahab]

No, I'm asking for the church and apologists to acknowledge that there is a problem. So far, whenever this is brought up, it is met with a stone wall of resistance from apologists (not necessarily you) screaming that there is no problem.

Granted, many critics that bring this up do so in a "the church lied to me" approach, which would naturally bring up the defenses.

I don't share that animosity. I did at one point, but I've moved on. I don't delight in seeing people leave Mormonism like many critics do. I simply recognize that there is a problem and I believe the church should deal with it head on.

When a member leaves the church because he/she read a troublesome fact that they did not know about, does it really matter what % blame the individual has vs the church? The bottom line is that the member left, no?

Whether or not they have some responsibility in this, the church is the one that needs to take action. Perhaps it could be as simple as TSM asking that all members read RSR in the next GC. Start educating the members about these things in ways other than putting random snippets in the Ensign.

As someone pointed out in a recent post somewhere in some thread that I don't know where to find right now, the Church consists of individual people and many of them/us are writing articles/books/documents/posts on internet message boards/etc...etc...etc to share what we have learned about what others consider to be a problem.

So, bottom line: If someone leaves the Church because they find some tidbit of information which causes them to question the mission/message of the Church and our Savior, it's their own fault, because there is plenty of stuff out there in print to give any reasonable person some positive stimuli to help them remain in the Church and all that reasonable person needs to do is seek out that information through prayer AND study instead of just giving up.

[SilverKnight]

I simply recognize that there is a problem and I believe the church should deal with it head on.

I agree, and I am a believer (at least compared to Scottie).

For my ark-steadying part, I think the church should, as part of Sunday School, seminary, teach a RSR-level history course that divulges EVERYTHING.

Make sure every member has a cursory knowledge of all the 'problems'.

They do this and a million members will resign as part of a long, painful fallout. But ultimately we will be better off for it.

[Scottie]

As someone pointed out in a recent post somewhere in some thread that I don't know where to find right now, the Church consists of individual people and many of them/us are writing articles/books/documents/posts on internet message boards/etc...etc...etc to share what we have learned about what others consider to be a problem.

So, bottom line: If someone leaves the Church because they find some tidbit of information which causes them to question the mission/message of the Church and our Savior, it's their own fault, because there is plenty of stuff out there in print to give any reasonable person some positive stimuli to help them remain in the Church and all that reasonable person needs to do is seek out that information through prayer AND study instead of just giving up.

I can somewhat agree with this.

The problem I have is the questioning member usually doesn't know where to turn.

Lets say they learn about the problems in the BoA. They do a google search of "book of abraham". lds.org won't have any information they need. They may or may not know about FAIR or FARMS. The rest are pretty much anti sites. There is a good chance that they will venture to an anti site to read more.

And, heaven help them if they accidentally find THIS site and ask a question. They would be ridiculed and insulted for the first 20 posts, with the apologists screaming "TROLL!!!" and "yawn" and "asked and answered". Right, Zeez?

[Scottie]

They do this and a million members will resign as part of a long, painful fallout. But ultimately we will be better off for it.

I don't think this would happen. If presented in a church setting, with the proper apologetics, I believe most people would accept it.

[ttribe]

Lets say they learn about the problems in the BoA. They do a google search of "book of abraham". lds.org won't have any information they need.

Like this?

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=363661cb2b86b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=294cfd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=a8c1d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=19bd425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[gmormon]

I agree, and I am a believer (at least compared to Scottie).

For my ark-steadying part, I think the church should, as part of Sunday School, seminary, teach a RSR-level history course that divulges EVERYTHING.

Make sure every member has a cursory knowledge of all the 'problems'.

They do this and a million members will resign as part of a long, painful fallout. But ultimately we will be better off for it.

Who gets to define the problems ? The critics won't be happy until they get to write the manuals that we teach from. That's kinda like putting a fox in charge of the hen house.

[thesometimesaint]

Scottie:

Apologetics is not capable of doing such. At BEST it can present a argument for a belief, it can not instill that belief.

[ttribe]

The critics won't be happy until they get to write the manuals that we teach from.

I fear you may be right. I also fear I am becoming rather cynical.

[SilverKnight]

I don't think this would happen. If presented in a church setting, with the proper apologetics, I believe most people would accept it.

I think there are a lot of naive people in the church.

It is not entirely the church's fault they are naive, but everything they have learned about the church has come in a chapel classroom.

They have scarcely picked up a book, browsed the net, or watched a documentary program.

The folks would get their world rocked.

I credit part of my ability to recover from a major faith crisis to inoculation and shifted paradigms from my youth.

Since I was teenager I knew religion was wrong on human origins and that polygamy was shady business.

In other words, if I was not already a bit of a secular-leaning skeptic when the internet LDS history monster was unleashed upon me, I would have never recovered.

More than one apostate has told me they would have survived their faith loss if they hadn't took it all so seriously/literally initially.

[Ahab]

I can somewhat agree with this.

The problem I have is the questioning member usually doesn't know where to turn.

That is a problem, but the solution is put out there for all the members to find, if they want to find it, and it is repeated often enough so that most members (and other people) often feel an urge to ask why things are repeated so often, over and over and over... again.

I'll repeat the counsel regarding who we should turn to for all of our answers:

First, we should turn to God for all of our answers, asking him and relying upon him (and what he tells us and has told us) once we feel he has sufficiently answered our specific questions. In the mean time, after asking God to answer our questions, and while looking and waiting for God to answer, we should study all the information we can find to give us thoughts to think about as we continue to ask God for his answer, never giving up until we feel sure God has assured us of what the truth is concerning a specific issue, at which time we can rest assured that we know what the truth is because it was God who told us the truth.

Now are you going to tell me that you've never heard that counsel, phrased some way or another???

That's the method we're supposed to use for finding the truth about anything, with GOD as the one we're supposed to turn to and rely on for all of our answers.

Lets say they learn about the problems in the BoA. They do a google search of "book of abraham". lds.org won't have any information they need. They may or may not know about FAIR or FARMS. The rest are pretty much anti sites. There is a good chance that they will venture to an anti site to read more.

And, heaven help them if they accidentally find THIS site and ask a question. They would be ridiculed and insulted for the first 20 posts, with the apologists screaming "TROLL!!!" and "yawn" and "asked and answered". Right, Zeez?

Hint: the people who post messages on message boards on the internet are not the God-person we're supposed to turn to when we want to find out what is true about something.

Some of us do have some pretty good ideas which have been inspired by the God we should worship, or at least I think so, but all of us are supposed to turn to our Father in heaven and rely on HIM for all of our answers, rather than relying on what someone says on the internet, or in some book/article/pamphlet... anti or otherwise.

Even when reading and studying scripture we still need God to help us understand the truth that is in it, and even to know that it is scripture.

[Vance]

Like this?

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=363661cb2b86b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=294cfd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=a8c1d7630a27b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=19bd425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Wow, Tim, that first article was in Oct if 1975.

"The Church", . . . hiding the truth since 1975!!

[ttribe]

Wow, Tim, that first article was in Oct if 1975.

"The Church", . . . hiding the truth since 1975!!

More shameful bad deeds.

[Facsimile 3]

No, I'm asking for the church and apologists to acknowledge that there is a problem. So far, whenever this is brought up, it is met with a stone wall of resistance from apologists (not necessarily you) screaming that there is no problem.

Granted, many critics that bring this up do so in a "the church lied to me" approach, which would naturally bring up the defenses.

I don't share that animosity. I did at one point, but I've moved on. I don't delight in seeing people leave Mormonism like many critics do. I simply recognize that there is a problem and I believe the church should deal with it head on.

When a member leaves the church because he/she read a troublesome fact that they did not know about, does it really matter what % blame the individual has vs the church? The bottom line is that the member left, no?

Whether or not they have some responsibility in this, the church is the one that needs to take action. Perhaps it could be as simple as TSM asking that all members read RSR in the next GC. Start educating the members about these things in ways other than putting random snippets in the Ensign.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand how this is the Church's responsibility. The last time I checked it existed to teach the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to multiply the Priesthood Authority and ordinances associated with human attainment of eternal life. It is a sociality (a ward family) of human beings helping each other to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ: Faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end; the whole purpose of the Church is to help people make these things practical in the lives and it is up the member to chose to put it into the practice in their life and direct them so that it may bear fruit.

Did you read Kevin Christensen's post? I think it serves as a useful illustration here; that a person choosing to leave the Church just based on shock of their exposed ignorance to some of the more obscure nuances in Church History really is far too individualized to be absolved by some "Final Manual of Truth." A person who has not been living the Gospel as a practical part of their life, or in other words feeling they are causing their lives to be directed to where they want to be (both now and after death) by living the principles and methods of the Restored Gospel, will have little to show for their membership in the Church and will be prone to major disruption.

[Doug the Hutt]

Making more money so that we can devote more money to caring for the poor, to building temples, to funding missions, to responding to natural disasters, and to printing the Word of God, among other things. I fully support the Church making investments, including in property and businesses. I would be disappointed if they didn't.

I've been under the impression that the for-profit-wing of the Church does not mix and match with the not-for-profit-wing. I thought the caring for poor, building temples/churches, publishing the Book of Mormon, etc. came from tithing and fast offerings, not from real estate investing. Is that a separate thread or can someone clarify here? Thx.

[Deborah]

No, I'm asking for the church and apologists to acknowledge that there is a problem.

I guess it depends on whether you consider it a "problem" or just a matter of the way things are. I don't think it's the church's problem in any case, considering how much they preach studying and learning in all areas. It is an individual problem if the individual makes it so. Not everyone who hears problematic issues for the first time is willing to throw out all the good because of them, as witnessed by so many of us here.

[Hamba Tuhan]

When a member leaves the church because he/she read a troublesome fact that they did not know about, does it really matter what % blame the individual has vs the church? The bottom line is that the member left, no?

Whether or not they have some responsibility in this, the church is the one that needs to take action.

I could be wrong, but it has been my personal experience that people will react differently to 'troublesome facts' based in large part upon their prior practical experiences. To argue from two (possible) extremes:

A person who in the month of April has 1) received verifiable personal revelation, 2) experienced healing via a priesthood blessing, 3) been inspired to be in the right place at the right time to save someone's life, 4) rejoiced with a home/visiting teaching family member who has returned to activity via his/her efforts, 5) received clear and valid answers to prayers, 6) felt the burden of sin lifted upon sincere repentance, 7) been changed miraculously in his/her core nature, provided food to a grieving family, 9) found peace and strength and clarity in the temple, and 10) made conscious changes to behaviour based upon principles gleaned from daily scripture reading is unlikely to learn something troublesome in May and leave the Church.

At the same time, a person who during the month of April has 1) thought about doing home/visiting teaching but chafed at 'assigned friendship,' 2) prayed over meals and at bedtime because his/her spouse expected it, 3) skipped the ward service project because God would understand how necessary a bit of a sleep-in had become, 4) attended the temple specifically hoping to get the video with the 'hot Eve' or 'dreamy Adam,' 5) attended Church faithfully but spent much of that time thinking about football or fiddling with the new mobile phone's super-rad apps, and 6) considered how many months of unpaid tithing would be enough to afford a proper home theatre system just might be bothered by the same bit of information.

If so, is the action the Church needs to take some kind of 'master class' in critic-selected topics, or is it to encourage the Saints to actually live and experience the miracle of the Restored Gospel which, when applied, works precisley the way it should if its truth claims are valid?

[Hamba Tuhan]

A person who has not been living the Gospel as a practical part of their life, or in other words feeling they are causing their lives to be directed to where they want to be (both now and after death) by living the principles and methods of the Restored Gospel, will have little to show for their membership in the Church and will be prone to major disruption.

Precisely.

To repeat an analogy I've used before, people who regularly use and enjoy the benefits of the incandescent lightglobe do no throw away their electric lights upon reading something 'troublesome' about Thomas Edison.

And to draw from a series of lessons I taught to the priests quorum in December, the quickest way to burn out a clutch is to keep it partially engaged.

[ERayR]

Once again, denying that there is a problem.

Even if it is readily available in publications, for some reason, those are not resonating with the members.

I work in manufacturing and we have to deal all the time with a great design that doesn't work. Sure, it works great for us. But when we get it in the field, for whatever reason, the homeowners can't use it. We could sit all day and say, "We printed instructions! The buttons are labeled! It's great and we're not going to change it!" How far do you suppose we would get if we took this stance instead of saying, "We don't really understand WHY people aren't able to use this correctly, but obviously they can't. Lets redesign it."

Perhaps the church needs to stop saying, "It's all out there! We don't really understand WHY people are shocked by this. We're not going to change anything."

Sure. Just take a stroll to RfM and see just how many exit stories have the phrase, "I never knew about" or "when I found out about".

Yet if an esoteric bit of information was even remotly available to Joseph Smith then he had it from a source other than revelation. And we can't have the expectation that information in readily available publications is insufficiently available? Which way is it going to be?

[ERayR]

Once again, denying that there is a problem.

Even if it is readily available in publications, for some reason, those are not resonating with the members.

I work in manufacturing and we have to deal all the time with a great design that doesn't work. Sure, it works great for us. But when we get it in the field, for whatever reason, the homeowners can't use it. We could sit all day and say, "We printed instructions! The buttons are labeled! It's great and we're not going to change it!" How far do you suppose we would get if we took this stance instead of saying, "We don't really understand WHY people aren't able to use this correctly, but obviously they can't. Lets redesign it."

Perhaps the church needs to stop saying, "It's all out there! We don't really understand WHY people are shocked by this. We're not going to change anything."

Sure. Just take a stroll to RfM and see just how many exit stories have the phrase, "I never knew about" or "when I found out about".

Poor job of hiding it. They found it and all of the antis get it from LDS sources.

[Calm]

Perhaps the church needs to stop saying, "It's all out there! We don't really understand WHY people are shocked by this. We're not going to change anything."

Is the Church saying this?

My observations over the years of the efforts of the organization in general to provide first a solid foundation of spiritual teaching through correlation on Sundays plus an introductory level of knowledge of basic doctrine and church history in the seminary and institute programs along with extensive in depth areas through the Internet and other publications (such as supporting the Maxwell Institute and the Church Historian dept which is now publishing the JS papers) is that the Church is constantly trying to find new ways to teach its members the basics while providing for those that want more information in a variety of areass additional avenues of exploration.

[ttribe]

Poor job of hiding it. They found it and all of the antis get it from LDS sources.

Didn't you know? Hiding things in plain sight is the worst type of deception.

[Calm]

I agree, and I am a believer (at least compared to Scottie).

For my ark-steadying part, I think the church should, as part of Sunday School, seminary, teach a RSR-level history course that divulges EVERYTHING.

Make sure every member has a cursory knowledge of all the 'problems'.

They do this and a million members will resign as part of a long, painful fallout. But ultimately we will be better off for it.

And the members who don't attend those classes or who do but for whatever reasons don't process what is being taught and later on are shocked and wonder why they don't know it? What does the Church do for those?

We have evidence of the classes have been taught on these subjects or that the Church has asked members to read materials that mention some of these topics (the lesson manuals that mention the issue, Ensign and other magazines, the scriptures). I have been to a number of church firesides and not been to more that have discussed such things as well. While more might be reached if a specific class was taught, there would still in my opinion based on past performance be a significant section that would still be in ignorance for a variety of reasons.

At what point is the Church seen as absolved from having the responsibility for a particular individual's lack of knowledge on a particular subject?

My position is that at some point the Church must draw a line as to what is taught institutionally and what is left to personal study/responsibility by the individual. They can assist that personal study by providing easy access to materials, but it is not effective to attempt some sort of force feeding beyond a basic level. I know that many talk about how much more interesting it would be to talk in church about something beyond the basic, but from my observations at BYU of institute classes (and plenty of nonreligious university courses over the years) it wasn't the in-depth ones that were popular but the ones where the students were entertained. I think it is totally inappropriate to demand that one receive a higher level of teaching when one isn't willing to put out effort to receive it, the responsibility of learning needs to be a two way street in order to be effective over a long term period.

The Church is committed to perfecting the Saints, not protecting the Saints. The leadership does not tell people that it's okay not to pay tithing if financial difficulties arise, it does not hand out welfare support without any effort by the person in need of that support, it does not encourage people to forget about the sacrifice of time and service because of personal time constraints, it does not wave responsibility for personal chastity commitments because one falls in love with someone who doesn't have the same standard.

The Gospel has never been taught as an easy lifestyle where all the answers will be provided for you and then you can make an "informed" choice free of any fear that you might be wrong, free of the need to take that leap of faith. Whether it's historical issues or whether it's not being healed of a chronic illness or not being able to a faithful spouse or any other myriad of hardships people are presented with in life, the Church has always taken the position that we are here to learn to act for ourselves, not to be acted upon and I think it would be counterproductive in the long run for it to provide an environment that makes it appear that it is accepting responsibility for an individual's progress.

If there are those that are truly harmed by lack of opportunity to learn, then it is a matter of trust that the Lord will provide a way to balance out the hardships with blessings...either now or in the future; and if one lacks that level of trust, then whether it's a historical issue or something else, then all that the Church can do is put off the stumbling, it will happen eventually because it needs to happen to give that person what they need to learn what is most important to them eternally speaking.

[ttribe]

At what point is the Church seen as absolved from having the responsibility for a particular individual's lack of knowledge on a particular subject?

When critics say so, and not before then.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And the members who don't attend those classes or who do but for whatever At what point is the Church seen as absolved from having the responsibility for a particular individual's lack of knowledge on a particular subject?

It's not just lack of knowledge but lack of correct interpretation as well. We can know that the Church has dutifully fulfilled its responsibility when every last member has been thoroughly and systematically taught that Joseph Smith was a lecherous conman; that the Book of Mormon is a fraud; that there is no God, no Christ, no heaven or hell, no sin or Atonement, no angels, no visions, no revelation, no healings, and no miracles; that plural marriage was all about men taking licence with and exercising power over vulnerable women; that priesthood restrictions were all about racism; that priesthood itself was invented to shore up leadership claims in the face of possible schisms; that the Bible is a collection of myths at best; that the purpose of both tithing and temples is to bind people up so tightly that they dare not leave; etc.

Even after all of this, however, I fear there may still be recalcitrant believers, so the Church would need to come up with some strategy for dealing with them. If people can still believe, clearly they still don't know enough, so more intensive indoctrination in even more obscure but hopefuly more troublesome points would need to occur. When everyone has finally reached the same conclusions as Zeezrom, then the Church can finally rest assured that it has taught 'all of the truth.'