What Is Going Wrong?

[Walden]

The issue I have with anyone who says they leave because of some bits of information that don't jive with what they thought was true, is that they end up throwing out all the other good things, including the spiritual experiences which they have had up to that point. It just seems one ought to give more consideration to all the good things and recognize if there is so much good then there must be more to the story than what they are perceiving.

For me, I thought that some things were true because that is what I was taught growing up in the LDS church. Yes, I thought that it was true that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the Urim and Thummim because that is what I was taught all my years growing up in the church. There was never any mention of translating by looking into a hat. Likewise, what I was taught by the church regarding Joseph Smith's wives, the Book of Abraham, the first vision account, etc. was not completely truthful. Yes, I was naive enough to believe everything that the LDS church taught me, fully expecting that as god's "one, true church" they would have no reason to cover-up or whitewash their history.

In the end, these inconsistencies were not the only reason that I left the faith, but they did play a large role. Maybe if the church had exposed me to these during the 24 years I was a faithful member, it wouldn't have been such a shock. That is how I think that you keep members who are on the fence from looking to outsiders for answers....the church can innoculate members from being "shocked" by some of the facts that they uncover if the church is first honest about the facts themselves.

I have heard GAs state with regard to the LDS faith, and in particular, the Joseph Smith story, that "either all of it is true, or none of it is true." When I found out that not all of it is true, well, I adhered to their own advice.

[mapman]

I think that people just need to slow down. I've seen people come onto this board saying that they have questions and then a couple of weeks later they declare that they are no longer believers. That isn't the way to do it. People shouldn't be so willing to jump ship. It takes a long time to come to a good understanding of these things. It's like giving up on science when you learn about quantum theory.

[oremites]

Ultimately, the best solution to the problem would be for leaders to be more forthcoming about when they are acting under inspiration and when they are acting based on their own judgment.

That assumes it is always clear to the leader when it is inspiration and when it is personal judgment.

[Deborah]

Yes, I was naive enough to believe everything that the LDS church taught me, fully expecting that as god's "one, true church" they would have no reason to cover-up or whitewash their history.

Sigh. There's that word "cover-up" again. A word that is apparently very subject to interpretation. The fact is that Joseph at one time used the U&T and at another time used a stone in a hat and at another time translated without any aids. How is it a cover up that only one method of translation is spoken of. D&C 132 has always been there. I suppose it was naive to assume that Joseph wasn't practicing what he taught but that doesn't meant the church covered anything up. The reality is we do not have a very good record of these things to know what all the facts are. The multitude First Vision accounts were published back in the 70's in the church magazine. Real cover-up there. The BOA is still being reviewed by critics and members alike with no clear conclusions. But some people automatically assume there was a cover-up because the actual method is still not clear.

I had a thread a year or so ago where I asked if you had found out about these you things you question earlier rather than later would it have made a difference in whether you left the church. The conclusion was for most people it wouldn't have mattered when they heard it they would have left. So the idea that if only I had been taught this 24 years ago is a rationalization and an excuse for what one decides to do now. Furthermore that thread revealed that many of these things people said were never taught were actually discussed in church magazines or GA talks but at the time weren't an issue. Some things only become an issue when one is looking for a reason to leave.

What is amazing to me is how it is the same issues that keep cropping up in every exit story. Like talking points for political parties.

[Artemis]

I am new to this site and I don't really know how or why this discussion originated, but I do Know this: there isn't a church or religion on this planet that doesn't have issues regarding doctrine or something that some member did or said so many years ago that maybe wasn't quite the "right" thing to do. Until I have absolute and solid evidence that the church isn't true, I will continue in my CHOSEN faith.

[Deborah]

Artemis, welcome. And a very wise outlook.

God uses imperfect people to do his work. I'm amazed at how much he trusts us and the fact that the work still goes forth shows how true it all is. I'm currently re-reading the OT and I have to laugh when I hear criticism of our modern prophets. Apparently people aren't really familiar with those old prophets whom we revere so much. And I do revere them. One thing I have learned is that it isn't one's ability or one's degree of perfection that God looks at when choosing prophets but rather their humility, their loyalty to him and their willingness to serve.

There was a show I loved called Wonderfalls. The main character would have inanimate animals talk to her and tell her to do things that didn't make sense. They pestered her until she would and it was always for a purpose that ended up helping someone. One time she asked one of the animals why they talked to her and the answer was simply "Because you listen." There is a profound lesson there.

[Artemis]

Artemis, welcome. And a very wise outlook.

God uses imperfect people to do his work. I'm amazed at how much he trusts us and the fact that the work still goes forth shows how true it all is. I'm currently re-reading the OT and I have to laugh when I hear criticism of our modern prophets. Apparently people aren't really familiar with those old prophets whom we revere so much. And I do revere them. One thing I have learned is that it isn't one's ability or one's degree of perfection that God looks at when choosing prophets but rather their humility, their loyalty to him and their willingness to serve.

There was a show I loved called Wonderfalls. The main character would have inanimate animals talk to her and tell her to do things that didn't make sense. They pestered her until she would and it was always for a purpose that ended up helping someone. One time she asked one of the animals why they talked to her and the answer was simply "Because you listen." There is a profound lesson there.

You are right about OT prophets. Jonah is an excellent example of an Old Testament prophet who was very "human". The reason he ended up in the belly of a whale was because of his arrogance (and possibly fear). He believed that the people of Nineveh were unworthy of forgiveness and God's love and that his people were the only ones entitled to it and refused to obey God's message to him. Pretty much every prophet had moments where they either disobeyed God's command or attempted to argue the point with him.

I believe that we, being human, should try to focus more on forgiveness of others and ourselves rather than spend our time judging other's faults. If God's chosen prophets can be forgiven (and still remain prophets) then it should be even more possible for the rest of us.

[Walden]

Sigh. There's that word "cover-up" again. A word that is apparently very subject to interpretation. The fact is that Joseph at one time used the U&T and at another time used a stone in a hat and at another time translated without any aids. How is it a cover up that only one method of translation is spoken of. D&C 132 has always been there. I suppose it was naive to assume that Joseph wasn't practicing what he taught but that doesn't meant the church covered anything up. The reality is we do not have a very good record of these things to know what all the facts are. The multitude First Vision accounts were published back in the 70's in the church magazine. Real cover-up there. The BOA is still being reviewed by critics and members alike with no clear conclusions. But some people automatically assume there was a cover-up because the actual method is still not clear.

I had a thread a year or so ago where I asked if you had found out about these you things you question earlier rather than later would it have made a difference in whether you left the church. The conclusion was for most people it wouldn't have mattered when they heard it they would have left. So the idea that if only I had been taught this 24 years ago is a rationalization and an excuse for what one decides to do now. Furthermore that thread revealed that many of these things people said were never taught were actually discussed in church magazines or GA talks but at the time weren't an issue. Some things only become an issue when one is looking for a reason to leave.

What is amazing to me is how it is the same issues that keep cropping up in every exit story. Like talking points for political parties.

Wow, I didn't intend to ruffle feathers with my thread (not this time at least ), I was just trying to communicate my experiences and make actual recommendations that, for me, would have likely helped me digest the facts that I came upon in my research of the LDS faith

First, I am in no way seeking "rationalization" or an "excuse" for my decision, as you claim in your response. I have been at peace with my decision for quite a long time. Now, if only my LDS family could have the same peace....

And yes, if the "fact is that Joseph at one time used the U&T and at another time used a stone in a hat and at another time translated without any aids," why is only one method generally taught in the church? If all of these methods used by Joseph were actively taught by the church, then there would be little shock when one comes upon the truth.....that's all I'm saying.

Sorry I missed the "multitude First Vision accounts [that] were published back in the 70's in the church magazine,".....I was a Sunbeam back in the 1970's. However, I don't ever remember in all the years I sat through Primary, Young Mens, Seminary or Elders quorum that it was ever mentioned that there were in fact differing versions of the first vision story. Again, all I am saying is that if the church acknowledged these openly, then it wouldn't be such a shock.

Finally, even you mention that these "same issues that keep cropping up in every exit story".....maybe then you would concede that the church does a poor job of teaching it's conflicting history? If you see these same issues in every exit story, then don't you think that there might be some credence to it?

And regarding the "talking points" insult, have you been to a Fast and Testimony meeting lately?

[jskains]

Wow, I didn't intend to ruffle feathers with my thread (not this time at least ), I was just trying to communicate my experiences and make actual recommendations that, for me, would have likely helped me digest the facts that I came upon in my research of the LDS faith

First, I am in no way seeking "rationalization" or an "excuse" for my decision, as you claim in your response. I have been at peace with my decision for quite a long time. Now, if only my LDS family could have the same peace....

And yes, if the "fact is that Joseph at one time used the U&T and at another time used a stone in a hat and at another time translated without any aids," why is only one method generally taught in the church? If all of these methods used by Joseph were actively taught by the church, then there would be little shock when one comes upon the truth.....that's all I'm saying.

Sorry I missed the "multitude First Vision accounts [that] were published back in the 70's in the church magazine,".....I was a Sunbeam back in the 1970's. However, I don't ever remember in all the years I sat through Primary, Young Mens, Seminary or Elders quorum that it was ever mentioned that there were in fact differing versions of the first vision story. Again, all I am saying is that if the church acknowledged these openly, then it wouldn't be such a shock.

Finally, even you mention that these "same issues that keep cropping up in every exit story".....maybe then you would concede that the church does a poor job of teaching it's conflicting history? If you see these same issues in every exit story, then don't you think that there might be some credence to it?

And regarding the "talking points" insult, have you been to a Fast and Testimony meeting lately?

I bet Joseph Smith used a restroom of some sort, I would assume. Since they didn't detail it, they must be covering it up.

JMS

[Hayds]

It seems a lot of people are seeking help to their questions on the Church, yet they are getting fed by the Anti/Post/Whatever LDS who are going to bend them in a direction that the Church is "whitewashing".

What can we do as members to be the one to feed them instead?

JMS

I think most LDS members are not equipped to properly empathize, support, or deal with someone who has questions about church doctrine, history, or leadership that goes against the "faith promoting" mindset.

From my observations, there are usually 5 different ways most LDS react to a member who has doubts or questions:

1. Condescention: "The church is true and there is something wrong with you if you can't recognize that."

2. Dismissal: "If you want to know if the BOA is true you should read the BOA not xyz article/website." "Its not important to our salvation/God hasn't really revealed why xyz happened." "The church no longer practices xyz so get over it."

3. Worthiness: "What sin are you committing or want to commit so you can use this concern as a subconconscious excuse to leave the church?"

4. Head in the Sand:

Questioner: "I was reading on this website about the BOA and it raised some questions..."

Member: "GAAHHHH!! Don't tell me! I don't want to listen to any Anti BS! They lie in wait to deceive!" (plugs ears and shuts eyes)

Unfortunately none of these reactions instill confidence or provide comfort to someone with genuine questions.

On the flipside, when a person seeking answers stumbles onto the Anti/Post/Whatever's territory, they are treated with a little more courtesy. "You have a question about xyz? I don't blame you. I have an answer for you; here it is." Now the answer may or may not be the right answer, but the seeker was acknowledged, validated, answered, and not treated like a leper for even asking the question in the first place. After being treated several times with the 5 LDS reactions and several times by the Anti/Post/Whatever reaction, they feel more welcome and trusting of the Anti/Post/Whatever reaction than they do of the LDS reactions.

This is called Building Relationships of Trust or BRT. Those of you who served missions in the 90's know all about the BRT. The church does a phenomenal job of training missionaries to BRT potential members and a horrible job of training its membership to BRT current members who have uncomfortable questions about the church.

As a side note, it also does not help when apologists sink to the same level as the critics and revert to name calling and ad hominem attacks. Such behavior is immature and convinces the questioner that maybe the church can't answer the question because they seem to be attacking the Anti/Post/Whatever on a personal level and completely dismissing or ignoring the issue.

Keep in mind this response is purely my own opinion I have made based on my personal observations which are all I have. Take it as you may.

[Jeff K.]

From my observations, there are usually 5 different ways most LDS react to a member who has doubts or questions:

1. Condescention: "Only an idiot would believe someone like Joseph Smith could be a prophet."

2. Dismissal: "Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy." "Trinity, trinity, trinity." "Forget the council of Nicea, forget the idea of prophet.. Nyaaahh, (hands over ears) false prophet, false prohet, false prophet." "You can't fully answer my questions so you obviously must be in the wrong"

3. Worthiness: "You are going to hell for listening to a false prophet"

4. Head in the Sand:

Questioner: "I was reading on this website about the BOA and it raised some questions..."

Member: "Not really sure of all the ins and outs, but some anti Mormon websites, in fact most take things out of context and they lie." "Apologetics lie", "They all lie"

One of the things we faithful Latter-day Saints know, we know it is not our policy or job to tear down other churches. We merely offer what we think is true. We bear our testimonies. We love the Lord, and we live up to the precepts as best we understand.

Yeah, we members of the Church of Jesus Christ are treated with the utmost courtesy. You can see it in the people shouting at us around Temple Square, the anti Mormon websites that make outrageous and false claims. All of those things show how much love and courtesy are extended to us.

Your opinion is duly noted. But it seems to go up against the preponderance of the evidence you seem to be ignoring.

[Hayds]

From my observations, there are usually 5 different ways most LDS react to a member who has doubts or questions:

1. Condescention: "Only an idiot would believe someone like Joseph Smith could be a prophet."

2. Dismissal: "Polygamy, polygamy, polygamy." "Trinity, trinity, trinity." "Forget the council of Nicea, forget the idea of prophet.. Nyaaahh, (hands over ears) false prophet, false prohet, false prophet." "You can't fully answer my questions so you obviously must be in the wrong"

3. Worthiness: "You are going to hell for listening to a false prophet"

4. Head in the Sand:

Questioner: "I was reading on this website about the BOA and it raised some questions..."

Member: "Not really sure of all the ins and outs, but some anti Mormon websites, in fact most take things out of context and they lie." "Apologetics lie", "They all lie"

One of the things we faithful Latter-day Saints know, we know it is not our policy or job to tear down other churches. We merely offer what we think is true. We bear our testimonies. We love the Lord, and we live up to the precepts as best we understand.

Yeah, we members of the Church of Jesus Christ are treated with the utmost courtesy. You can see it in the people shouting at us around Temple Square, the anti Mormon websites that make outrageous and false claims. All of those things show how much love and courtesy are extended to us.

Your opinion is duly noted. But it seems to go up against the preponderance of the evidence you seem to be ignoring.

Jeff, I don't disagree with you. There are critics of the church who behave in a horrible and childish way. I don't think the type of person the OP is speaking of is seeking out and finding acceptance in the above type of group. The group you are explaining are highly evangelical and get more caught up in the whole trinity and "you believe in the wrong Jesus" argument which is baseless. Most non-Mormons find these types of groups annoying. Also, I don't think annoying temple protestors are swaying or influencing very many members. I think the LDS church does a fairly good job of combatting and refuting these types of groups. I also feel these types of groups you are speaking of have little influence on most members of the church.

The type of "anti" groups I believe the OP is talking about are groups that present themselves in more of an academic secular manner. These people are very subtle. They aren't screaming and protesting at GC. They aren't showing viewings of the God Makers. They aren't saying Mormons aren't Christian. They aren't making up slanderous lies about church leaders. They aren't calling the church a cult. These people do a very good job of using the church's own material, writings, and quotes to answer the question seeker's questions. Most of these kinds of people have carefully thought out and researched writings. These people are usually atheistic or agnostic in nature, so using the Bible or Nicean Council as a common ground to punch holes in their arguments are useless because their arguments are such that Bible verses don't do anything to add to the discussion. Often times, these people were once card carrying members of the church so they understand the culture and thought processes within Mormonism. They aren't blatantly and openingly attacking the church. They present themselves as sheerly academic people with no axe to grind.

It is these types of people who are doing a better job of empathizing with LDS members who have questions or shaken faith than the LDS members are doing. I have seen this happen way more times than I can count. Again, I am not an expert on this. I can only base my opinion off of things I have seen. Take it as you will.

[Jeff K.]

Actually I have gotten more respect from evangelicals than I have from some of the other groups who classify themselves as intellectual critics.

The issue I have with some academics is or "anti apologists" if you will is how poorly they do their research, and how often they ignore context. There was one for instance that claimed Joseph Smith fought openly with his brother in a high priests meeting. This was proved wrong (he did fight his brother, in the home he helped his brother build, during a heated debate, not a church meeting). As a convert I was often assailed by people who stylized themselves this way, indeed it caused me to show more interest in the history of the church (from both an LDS perspective and a non LDS perspective).

Atheists can be the worst by the way. Theirs is a faith based system which I can respect, but they claim it is "the truth", as if not knowing the truth somehow makes one the holder thereof. I wouldn't use the term atheist as a credibility marker.

They aren't blatantly and openingly attacking the church. They present themselves as sheerly academic people with no axe to grind.

There are some like that, but they are a miniscule minority who do not, in any sense overcome the massive shouts of those who attack, and basically attack, versus seeking understanding and context. I have a friend who is an atheist, and because of our friendship he respects my decision, doesn't agree with it, but he doesn't see the position as intellectually weak either, nor does he deride faith or downplay logic held in faith based systems. In the end we both came to the conclusion that for now opinions do not match and we will wait and see.

[Libs]

i see what what you are saying but at the end of the day I don't see why it matters about Joseph Smith all of us will be judged for our actions and thoughts not someone's else's- Faith in Christ is what will save us not faith in anyone else, regardless of who they are or think they are

I agree with that, but if that's really true, why do we need the church? I think most LDS believe that Joseph Smith's role is very important, in that God gave him authority to establish his church here on earth, with the necessary keys and authority to perform necessary ordinances. If one doesn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, then a lot of what the LDS Church stands for, goes down the tubes.

[Duncan]

I agree with that, but if that's really true, why do we need the church? I think most LDS believe that Joseph Smith's role is very important, in that God gave him authority to establish his church here on earth, with the necessary keys and authority to perform necessary ordinances. If one doesn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, then a lot of what the LDS Church stands for, goes down the tubes.

I just think of why we need the Church when we read in Moroni 6:

1And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.

2Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.

3And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.

4And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

5And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.

6And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.

7And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.

8But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven.

9And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.

I agree with your second part. My testimony of Jesus being the Christ and Joseph being a Prophet comes from the Holy Ghost-Obviously he wasn't perfect and neither am I but I am only accountable for me and my sins and choices, if Joseph Smith sinned, which he did, it doesn't bother me or affect me in anyway. I am more troubled by people I know and have met! but again at the end of the day it is me and my choices and my reactions to others.

[Libs]

Why do you think anyone is dismissing anything. It's just that some people understand that not everything is as it appears to be. Furthermore some people have had so many confirming spiritual experiences that we can't possibly throw those aside just because we hear something that doesn't fit with our rosy image. It has already been said that rather than making a hasty judgment sometimes you need to just table the information until you can understand better what the truth is. Just because you hear or read something doesn't mean it's the truth. Truth is more than just apparent "facts". There is a whole context that isn't always known.

The issue I have with anyone who says they leave because of some bits of information that don't jive with what they thought was true, is that they end up throwing out all the other good things, including the spiritual experiences which they have had up to that point. It just seems one ought to give more consideration to all the good things and recognize if there is so much good then there must be more to the story than what they are perceiving.

I can't speak for "everyone", only for myself, and I did not just hear a few pieces of information and throw up my hands and say, "I quit". Not at all. (And I seriously don't think it is like that for most who leave).. It took me four long years to leave..I was in and out the last couple of years. It was painful, because I loved the church...it's also painful to hear active members judging members who have left, giving reasons that were not mine, at all. I wasn't looking for a reason to leave (just the opposite). I didn't commit any big sin. I was an active Temple recommend holder until the very end. I even worked in the Temple for a year.

I admit, I did throw everything out, at first. I was convinced I had to do that, because if Joseph was not really a prophet, then it was all a lie. But, after a bit, I came to realize that my spiritual experiences were not negated, even if the church was not true. The experiences were real and they were between God and myself. So, I ceased throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Someone here (CeeBoo) hit on the answer to the OP (IMHO):

IMO, the best thing you can do "to feed them" (as members) is to extend love, compassion, understanding, and remain a supportive friend (just like you were before they began to "question") no matter where their journey leads.

Fortunately, I am blessed to have just these kinds of LDS friends, who, although they would love to see me come back into the church, have been very supportive of my journey and continued faith in Christ.

[Duncan]

I can't speak for "everyone", only for myself, and I did not just hear a few pieces of information and throw up my hands and say, "I quit". Not at all. (And I seriously don't think it is like that for most who leave).. It took me four long years to leave..I was in and out the last couple of years. It was painful, because I loved the church...it's also painful to hear active members judging members who have left, giving reasons that were not mine, at all. I wasn't looking for a reason to leave (just the opposite). I didn't commit any big sin. I was an active Temple recommend holder until the very end. I even worked in the Temple for a year.

I admit, I did throw everything out, at first. I was convinced I had to do that, because if Joseph was not really a prophet, then it was all a lie. But, after a bit, I came to realize that my spiritual experiences were not negated, even if the church was not true. The experiences were real and they were between God and myself. So, I ceased throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Someone here (CeeBoo) hit on the answer to the OP (IMHO):

Fortunately, I am blessed to have just these kinds of LDS friends, who, although they would love to see me come back into the church, have been very supportive of my journey and continued faith in Christ.

i went through a HUGE crisis of Faith, when I came off my mission and got married, I went to university to learn how to figure it all out! I hope I don't come off as condescending by any stretch, but what I learned was that this phrase you used, "Joseph was not really a prophet" is a theological statement of faith or not and not a historical one. A historian would never ask the question was Joseph a Prophet. A historical question question would be like "What did people think of Joseph Smith?" or "Joseph smith' legal entanglements" Whether he was a prophet, whether he was right or wrong in what he did or didn't do, or does God exists or doesn't is irrelevant and not something a historian would ask. Once I learned that lesson again and again and again in a host of university classes my life got easier, I still got divorced because of the Church mainly (it is complicated) but my testimony was intact-i can't say I have struggled because I have but like you I move forward in faith in Christ!

[Hayds]

Actually I have gotten more respect from evangelicals than I have from some of the other groups who classify themselves as intellectual critics.

The issue I have with some academics is or "anti apologists" if you will is how poorly they do their research, and how often they ignore context. There was one for instance that claimed Joseph Smith fought openly with his brother in a high priests meeting. This was proved wrong (he did fight his brother, in the home he helped his brother build, during a heated debate, not a church meeting). As a convert I was often assailed by people who stylized themselves this way, indeed it caused me to show more interest in the history of the church (from both an LDS perspective and a non LDS perspective).

Atheists can be the worst by the way. Theirs is a faith based system which I can respect, but they claim it is "the truth", as if not knowing the truth somehow makes one the holder thereof. I wouldn't use the term atheist as a credibility marker.

There are some like that, but they are a miniscule minority who do not, in any sense overcome the massive shouts of those who attack, and basically attack, versus seeking understanding and context. I have a friend who is an atheist, and because of our friendship he respects my decision, doesn't agree with it, but he doesn't see the position as intellectually weak either, nor does he deride faith or downplay logic held in faith based systems. In the end we both came to the conclusion that for now opinions do not match and we will wait and see.

Jeff, I can relate to what you are saying, but I think you are missing the OP's point which is: People who have serious questions about the church are getting their answers "fed" from other sources other than the church... what can members of the church do to solve this? It has nothing to do with whether the academics are giving correct info. I am not using the term atheist as a credibility maker. Atheisits are as difficult to debate with as Mormons both parties think they have the complete "truth' and both parties have pretty much made up their minds already. However, I think agnostic/atheist secular critics of the church do way more harm than evangelical critics. Currently the church has poor tools to combat these types of critics. The academics present their stuff in a well written non threatening way and are not defensive or uncomfortable when the questioner asks them questions compared to the 4 reactions they most likely get from LDS family members and friends. It goes back to BRT.

I don't think many LDS people question their faith over some story that claims JS got in a fight with his brother. I have brothers and JS had twice as many as me. I am sure there was plenty of fights in that household. LOL!

[TAO]

There is a way to punch holes in a secular argument... you have to attack the senses. A hard thing to do, but possible, altogether possible.

[Questing Beast]

Apparently in some people's minds, usually those who leave the church, you aren't grown up until your questions lead you out of the church. That is thinking for yourselves.

Apparently you are leaping to conclusions. You are not "grown up" until you realize that everything is questionable, and you question everything. Simple as that. Unthinking, infantile-like (ignorant) faith is surely the exact opposite of the nature of "God". But who said that such a state is an automatic leaving off of anything? Faith and belief change, but behavior and action that follows change does not necessarily require "leaving the Church". If someone is that easily "led out of the church" then they were never firmly grounded in anything in the first place....

[Deborah]

Apparently you are leaping to conclusions. You are not "grown up" until you realize that everything is questionable, and you question everything. Simple as that.

Really? Everything is questionable. I don't agree with that at all. I do agree that questions will arise but that doesn't mean you have to question everything. And I think it is a sign of maturity when you reach the point where you realize some things are not changeable and even when there are apparent conflicts, they are only apparent and you need to step back and evaluate why it is something appears to be in conflict. If one believes everything is questionable how do you ever rely on anything, including God.

[Walden]

I bet Joseph Smith used a restroom of some sort, I would assume. Since they didn't detail it, they must be covering it up.

JMS

Bravo, way to add to the discussion at hand.

jskains, I have seen your posts before and therefore know that you have greater intelligence than to obscure the point I am attemtping to make with such a nonsensical comparison between Joseph Smith's bathroom habits and his claim of restoring gods one, true church.

If the type of bathroom that Joseph used was an important and critical part of the "restoration", and there was evidence that the church and/or Joseph attempted to change the story of Joseph's bathroom habits to make the church look better, then you might have a point.

Otherwise, your comment adds nothing to the discussion.

[Mars]

Apparently you are leaping to conclusions. You are not "grown up" until you realize that everything is questionable, and you question everything. Simple as that. Unthinking, infantile-like (ignorant) faith is surely the exact opposite of the nature of "God".

My exasperation with this concept comes when someone implies that because I still believe I have not thoroughly questioned and therefore have not 'grown up.'

[Libs]

i went through a HUGE crisis of Faith, when I came off my mission and got married, I went to university to learn how to figure it all out! I hope I don't come off as condescending by any stretch, but what I learned was that this phrase you used, "Joseph was not really a prophet" is a theological statement of faith or not and not a historical one. A historian would never ask the question was Joseph a Prophet. A historical question question would be like "What did people think of Joseph Smith?" or "Joseph smith' legal entanglements" Whether he was a prophet, whether he was right or wrong in what he did or didn't do, or does God exists or doesn't is irrelevant and not something a historian would ask. Once I learned that lesson again and again and again in a host of university classes my life got easier, I still got divorced because of the Church mainly (it is complicated) but my testimony was intact-i can't say I have struggled because I have but like you I move forward in faith in Christ!

Thanks, Duncan. I agree with you that whether or not someone is a prophet is not, primarily, an academic question. But, it is a question that can be answered, somewhat, academically, with the help and guidance of the Spirit. We can know the character of the man and whether or not he prophesied accurately (which the Bible says is the test of a true prophet).

Very sorry to hear of your divorce, but I'm glad to know you are moving forward in Christ. I've come to realize that Jesus Christ is all we really need.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Libs

[Duncan]

Thanks, Duncan. I agree with you that whether or not someone is a prophet is not, primarily, an academic question. But, it is a question that can be answered, somewhat, academically, with the help and guidance of the Spirit. We can know the character of the man and whether or not he prophesied accurately (which the Bible says is the test of a true prophet).

Very sorry to hear of your divorce, but I'm glad to know you are moving forward in Christ. I've come to realize that Jesus Christ is all we really need.

As the Beatles say, "Getting better all the time!" An academic would look at what people had to say about prophets or what they believed about the prophets, whether or not they are right or wrong isn't an academic question-a look at what is believed rather then the correctness of the Belief. A Historian could look at what did US President Martin Van Buren think about God? whether there is a God or whether he is right or wrong is not what a historian is after.