What Is Going Wrong?

[rodheadlee]

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....

At what point do you stop questioning certain items? If the Holy Spirit bore witness to you 6 years ago that Jeasus is the Christ, when do you stop questioning that? or do you look back and say it wasn't so, it was my imaginantion? if the Holy Spirit told you to get sealed in the Temple bfore it was too late after months of Scripture study, how long do you question that? if you had a revelation that your wife was terminally ill if something wasn't done, how long before you stop questioning the revelation and act upon it? If these things or similar experiences are true to you, does it matter where the Nephites lived? was there steel swords in pre-classic Mayan times? was there a city named Zarahemla in Central America? or how many wives did Joseph Smith have relations with? etc.....

The Church is lead by Christ but run by men, who are fallible, even at the top. At some point you have to trust your communications with Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit. All of these questions will work out in the end. You must bank the Truth in your memory all of your communications with Heavenly Father so that you have the faith to be patient for the knowledge that you seek. If you don't, you may be led away from the Church by the precepts of men.

If you have never had any communications with God through the Holy Spirit then it's a whole different situation.

[Jeff K.]

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!

I don't think I am missing the point. I believe his point, in real life is almost non existent. Go to the many many websites out there and then look at their approach. You will see deception, you will see items taken out of context, you will see condescension if you state your belief clearly. It is almost the equivalent of a small diamond in a large manure field, and the farmer saying the field is full of diamonds. Reality is often otherwise.

As to "serious questions about the church". One is forced to ask which serious questions?

But allow me to apprach certain suppositions.

1-

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

I agree with the second part, that many Latter-day Saints have made up their mind, they have reviewed the evidence, prayed and made their decision based on their investigations and prayer. I disagree that they have the complete truth. Where that so, the need for prophets would be substantially diminished. Indeed one of the quotes often pulled out here (to paraphrase) is that we seek truth wherever we can find it, implying that the complete truth is not known to us. Rather the truth of that which is necessary to salvation is known, while other information is not known, and not necessary for our salvation (though many, myself included would like to know).

2-

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.

I will tell you, as a convert. That such a reaction is not unique to any one church. Family members who decide to become Latter-day Saints often end up being shunned, being criticized, and even being ostracized for their decision. It is hard for a family to accept the rejection of their traditions for something they know little or nothing about. I will also state that it is rarely academia that convinces or draws one away from the church anymore than academia draws someone to the church. It is much more complicated than that and more often than not is something more basic within the individual.

Finally if you want reasonable non threatening answer to various gospel questions, or in the least an exploration, often or not raised by those academics outside the church, I would suggest a review here . Academia often raises questions, good questions, but the answers, especially on a theological basis, are rarely conclusive, meaning that the final evidence is not conclusive and still within the realm of faith.

[Mark Beesley]

I just love these non-debate forums . . .

[Libs]

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.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But, do you then believe that a true prophet can only be revealed by the Spirit? Or do you think there are other (more intellectual) means we can also add to that? Like looking in the Bible or examining a man's character (as I suggested)?

[Libs]

I just love these non-debate forums . . .

Yeah, I'm not really sure why this thread got moved over here.

[Deborah]

Like looking in the Bible or examining a man's character (as I suggested)?

Joseph Smith's friends and those who knew him best considered him to have the highest integrity and praised his character. He was very human but also had the greatest charity and was quick to forgive others who had hurt him and the church. He followed God in spite of great privation, persecution and difficulty and was the first to speak of his own great limitations. If that's the criteria he was indeed a prophet. If you look in the Bible then you have no reason to question Joseph's character or his being a prophet.

[Duncan]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But, do you then believe that a true prophet can only be revealed by the Spirit? Or do you think there are other (more intellectual) means we can also add to that? Like looking in the Bible or examining a man's character (as I suggested)?

yes, I believe a true prophet can be revealed only by a witness from the Spirit as per 1 Cor. 12:3,which obviously talks about we can only know that Jesus is the Christ by the Holy Ghost I say that we can only know the same about who is a real Prophey. Now we have reason that leads to revelation. What does a "Prophet" mean? he bears his witness that he got to us so that we can pray to get our own witness, "wish that all were prophets" said Moses. A Prophet is one part, all the scriptures area saying their witness and what that witness means so that we can take these witnesses to get our own witness. What does "Christ" mean and should those meanings give our everyday life meaning? We should learn about Joseph and others but as he said if we expect perfection from him he should expect from us. His life is interesting but ultimately not my problem to deal with ultimately, we are accountable for our own choices.

[Hayds]

I don't think I am missing the point. I believe his point, in real life is almost non existent. Go to the many many websites out there and then look at their approach. You will see deception, you will see items taken out of context, you will see condescension if you state your belief clearly. It is almost the equivalent of a small diamond in a large manure field, and the farmer saying the field is full of diamonds. Reality is often otherwise.

As to "serious questions about the church". One is forced to ask which serious questions?

But allow me to apprach certain suppositions.

1-

I agree with the second part, that many Latter-day Saints have made up their mind, they have reviewed the evidence, prayed and made their decision based on their investigations and prayer. I disagree that they have the complete truth. Where that so, the need for prophets would be substantially diminished. Indeed one of the quotes often pulled out here (to paraphrase) is that we seek truth wherever we can find it, implying that the complete truth is not known to us. Rather the truth of that which is necessary to salvation is known, while other information is not known, and not necessary for our salvation (though many, myself included would like to know).

2-

I will tell you, as a convert. That such a reaction is not unique to any one church. Family members who decide to become Latter-day Saints often end up being shunned, being criticized, and even being ostracized for their decision. It is hard for a family to accept the rejection of their traditions for something they know little or nothing about. I will also state that it is rarely academia that convinces or draws one away from the church anymore than academia draws someone to the church. It is much more complicated than that and more often than not is something more basic within the individual.

Finally if you want reasonable non threatening answer to various gospel questions, or in the least an exploration, often or not raised by those academics outside the church, I would suggest a review here . Academia often raises questions, good questions, but the answers, especially on a theological basis, are rarely conclusive, meaning that the final evidence is not conclusive and still within the realm of faith.

Aside from all of this, the original poster is asking for a solution. You have not answered the OP's question and are proving my point that members of the church don't have the proper tools to deal with people who question the church and go to outside sources for answers. You have responded to me 3 times and all you are telling me is how crappy and lame anti-mormon sites/literature is. The base of OP's question is not if these websites are truthful or not. The base of the OP is why can't members of the church properly deal with their own kind who have questions that shake their faith and what can be done about it? Don't explain how these websites are deceptive and blow things out of context. It doens't matter. Many people are lured to them and many people end up buying the goods being sold. What environment needs to be fostered so a questioning person feels OK to discuss his/her concerns with faithful members without being treated like a leper? It all goes back to the BRT.

[Calm]

You are not "grown up" until you realize that everything is questionable, and you question everything.

Questioning just for the sake of questioning isn't particularly mature either. A four year old does that.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 May 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

I don't think I am missing the point. I believe his point, in real life is almost non existent. Go to the many many websites out there and then look at their approach. You will see deception, you will see items taken out of context, you will see condescension if you state your belief clearly. It is almost the equivalent of a small diamond in a large manure field, and the farmer saying the field is full of diamonds. Reality is often otherwise.

As to "serious questions about the church". One is forced to ask which serious questions?

But allow me to apprach certain suppositions.

1-

I agree with the second part, that many Latter-day Saints have made up their mind, they have reviewed the evidence, prayed and made their decision based on their investigations and prayer. I disagree that they have the complete truth. Where that so, the need for prophets would be substantially diminished. Indeed one of the quotes often pulled out here (to paraphrase) is that we seek truth wherever we can find it, implying that the complete truth is not known to us. Rather the truth of that which is necessary to salvation is known, while other information is not known, and not necessary for our salvation (though many, myself included would like to know).

2-

I will tell you, as a convert. That such a reaction is not unique to any one church. Family members who decide to become Latter-day Saints often end up being shunned, being criticized, and even being ostracized for their decision. It is hard for a family to accept the rejection of their traditions for something they know little or nothing about. I will also state that it is rarely academia that convinces or draws one away from the church anymore than academia draws someone to the church. It is much more complicated than that and more often than not is something more basic within the individual.

Finally if you want reasonable non threatening answer to various gospel questions, or in the least an exploration, often or not raised by those academics outside the church, I would suggest a review here . Academia often raises questions, good questions, but the answers, especially on a theological basis, are rarely conclusive, meaning that the final evidence is not conclusive and still within the realm of faith.

Aside from all of this, the original poster is asking for a solution. You have not answered the OP's question and are proving my point that members of the church don't have the proper tools to deal with people who question the church and go to outside sources for answers. You have responded to me 3 times and all you are telling me is how crappy and lame anti-mormon sites/literature is. The base of OP's question is not if these websites are truthful or not. The base of the OP is why can't members of the church properly deal with their own kind who have questions that shake their faith and what can be done about it? Don't explain how these websites are deceptive and blow things out of context. It doens't matter. Many people are lured to them and many people end up buying the goods being sold. What environment needs to be fostered so a questioning person feels OK to discuss his/her concerns with faithful members without being treated like a leper? It all goes back to the BRT.

"Aside from all this"?? You mean aside from the obvious, let us now look at the least obvious? It seems you have a penchant for either misreading or not understanding what is read.

The outside sources by and large are anti Mormon. This is the first problem (well not for you perhaps, but as a source of information it is tainted. Yet you ignore it. The majority of those sites are anti Mormon, the amount is quantitative and has an impact. You want to ignore that. As I have stated, you don't seem to notice the smell of the manure pile and are saying "what manure? Just change the way walk through it". Frankly such a view is naive and ridiculous and completely off base.

You seem to think that somehow the church does not or cannot deal with questions raised to gospel issues. Now I have to wonder how genuine you are in your approach, you haven't seemed to respond at all to the FAIR link provided. Is the link overly difficult for you to find? Or do you perhaps ignore it for other purposes? Nor have you critiqued the link, which I also find interesting. Which church questions presented FAIR on an academic basis have not been answered? Which member concerns that are legitimately put forth have been ignored by the FAIR website or perhaps not adressed when the academic question has been presented? The term "fish or cut bait" comes to mind.

So to be clear. The church, its members, and website presented do indeed respond properly to membership questions. Now if you can show how FAIR undermine's or makes questions from members less creidible in an incorrect way, please feel free to be specific.

Your interpretation of BRT is really a trite bit of malarchy with little to no content. As a CFO in a marketing firm, I can smell malarchy when it is presented, and when the material presented is misunderstood by the presenter. You have no point.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Deborah]

The church does have a solution to the questioning. But not everyone is willing to do it. Nor is everyone patient enough to wait for the answer, even if it doesn't come right away. The solution is to get on your knees and pray and then to have the faith to know that the answer will come in its own due time and then to just let the doubts go.

I believe that if people are impatient and continue searching in the wrong places they will never find the truth. They only will find what is presented as the truth but no one, not even the critics, has the whole story of our early history, nor how translations took place, nor all the facts about how early sealings were done. If you think you have all the answers you have been deceived plain and simply because the documentation is not there. The Joseph Smith Papers project is only now gathering all the information that has lain dormant for years and those scholars working on the project have come away convinced in the prophetic calling of Joseph and his claims.

If one really wants to hold on to his faith he will table those things he questions and continue to read and study the scriptures, get on his knees and pray and hold on to the faith he has and his testimony in the things he does know. In time the answers will come, sometimes when least expected. I know this is so because this was my experience. All the questions and doubts I had were eventually answered, but not that night or that week but years later. Meanwhile I continued enjoying the fellowship of the saints and the power of the scriptures and had experiences of the spirit which were true miracles.

The key isn't studying all those things to which we don't have all the facts but to study the scriptures which will give us power to move forward even with doubts.

[Questing Beast]

At what point do you stop questioning certain items? If the Holy Spirit bore witness to you 6 years ago that Jeasus is the Christ, when do you stop questioning that? or do you look back and say it wasn't so, it was my imaginantion? if the Holy Spirit told you to get sealed in the Temple bfore it was too late after months of Scripture study, how long do you question that? if you had a revelation that your wife was terminally ill if something wasn't done, how long before you stop questioning the revelation and act upon it? If these things or similar experiences are true to you, does it matter where the Nephites lived? was there steel swords in pre-classic Mayan times? was there a city named Zarahemla in Central America? or how many wives did Joseph Smith have relations with? etc.....

The Church is lead by Christ but run by men, who are fallible, even at the top. At some point you have to trust your communications with Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit. All of these questions will work out in the end. You must bank the Truth in your memory all of your communications with Heavenly Father so that you have the faith to be patient for the knowledge that you seek. If you don't, you may be led away from the Church by the precepts of men.

If you have never had any communications with God through the Holy Spirit then it's a whole different situation.

My wife received a definite answer to her prayer to know if the BoM is true. She was in high school. She's stood by that revelation her whole life. Because we share what we are thinking and learning she has been with me every step of the way as I have questioned what I know in order to see it in the most informed light: as a result her thoughts about the Church, its history and doctrines, has undergone an alteration too. She admits this. There are no simple assertions vis-a-vis Church history, that are unquestionable. All of it under scrutiny opens up to further questioning. If she had blocked out what I was saying, and refused to consider the facts that are available to all and easily studied, then she would be effectively ceasing to learn further. Often along the way, she has asked me: "But I know it's true, all of it. God told me. What about the answers to my prayers?" To which I reply, "God is speaking to you. I don't doubt for a moment that the Church is true for you. And you are supposed to be in it all the way as you are."

"How does that fit with what you have been saying?" she asks further.

"I reckon that as we are uniquely individual in our thinking we are also unique in the spiritual paths we follow. I can't react to what I have never received or known. My testimony was always founded upon an intellectual knowledge. I've always assumed that my mind and my heart must agree in order for a thing to be true."

So questioning remains an individual matter. Nobody can tell you when to stop questioning something. Ignoring or denying that a question exists in your mind is surely a form of dishonesty. Sooner or later the question(s) must be answered. They do not go away....

[Libs]

Good post, QB.

Our relationship with God is very personal and individual, as you said, and I agree that the paths are also, somewhat individual. I couldn't continue to believe in a God who only approved of one church, out of the thousands that are upon this earth. I think all of them, in their own way, lead back to God. He loves all of his children, without exception, even those who lose their way and no longer believe in him.

[Hayds]

"Aside from all this"?? You mean aside from the obvious, let us now look at the least obvious? It seems you have a penchant for either misreading or not understanding what is read.

The outside sources by and large are anti Mormon. This is the first problem (well not for you perhaps, but as a source of information it is tainted. Yet you ignore it. The majority of those sites are anti Mormon, the amount is quantitative and has an impact. You want to ignore that. As I have stated, you don't seem to notice the smell of the manure pile and are saying "what manure? Just change the way walk through it". Frankly such a view is naive and ridiculous and completely off base.

You seem to think that somehow the church does not or cannot deal with questions raised to gospel issues. Now I have to wonder how genuine you are in your approach, you haven't seemed to respond at all to the FAIR link provided. Is the link overly difficult for you to find? Or do you perhaps ignore it for other purposes? Nor have you critiqued the link, which I also find interesting. Which church questions presented FAIR on an academic basis have not been answered? Which member concerns that are legitimately put forth have been ignored by the FAIR website or perhaps not adressed when the academic question has been presented? The term "fish or cut bait" comes to mind.

So to be clear. The church, its members, and website presented do indeed respond properly to membership questions. Now if you can show how FAIR undermine's or makes questions from members less creidible in an incorrect way, please feel free to be specific.

Your interpretation of BRT is really a trite bit of malarchy with little to no content. As a CFO in a marketing firm, I can smell malarchy when it is presented, and when the material presented is misunderstood by the presenter. You have no point.

LOL! I never said outside sites were not inherently anti-Mormon. What am I ignoring? I believe I said many questioners were going to those sites for answers because they weren't getting them from their member network. I was agreeing with the OP.

What response are you looking for on the FAIR wiki link you provided? What critique do you want from the link? When I click on the link it takes me to the WIKI with the featured article being about BYU's homosexual aversion therapy which has nothing to do with this post. Secondly there are thousands of subcategories on the site. Which one do you want me to critique? How about this article:http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals/Horses/Loanshifting:_deer_and_tapirs. Tapirs? Have you seen a tapir? Do these types of articles make sense or add any credibility to someone who has questions about the church? If the member had questions about modern science saying horses were not in America at the time the BOM takes place, would this article really sooth their mind on the issue? What about the disclaimer at the bottome of the homepage?: All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief, or practice. So at the end of the day, the stuff FAIR puts out could or could not be legit, but it sounds like the official LDS church doesn't even give them a stamp of approval.

I don't think the church can't handle tough questions nor did I say that. I said the church doesn't do a good enough job of training its members how to deal with people who are having serious questions or doubts about their faith which proves my point if the members are advising them to read articles about tapirs really being horses from a website that has a disclaimer telling members it is not official.

Lastly, how does being a CFO lend itself to the debate? What does accrual accounting or balance sheets have to do with this thread? It is true. I am not a C level exec. You have proved to me that I am out of my league and have no business discussing this further. LOL!

[Libs]

Ed Decker is posting over on the Walter Martin board, defending his book (movie?), "The Godmakers". He is not getting much of a rebuttal, and there are a whole lot of people who believe his stuff.

Is it a good thing for LDS to try and rebutt the distortions on sites like that? Or is it better just to ignore it?

Edited May 8, 2011 by Libs

[Hayds]

Ed Decker is posting over on the Walter Martin board, defending his book (movie?), "The Godmakers". He is not getting much of a rebuttal, and there are a whole lot of people who believe his stuff.

Is it a good thing for LDS to try and rebutt the distortions on sites like that? Or is it better just to ignore it?

It depends. The people who usually believe Ed Decker's crap are usually Westboro Baptis types who will never join the church anyways. There is tons of stuff online that expose Decker for what he is. Most anti-Mormons even think he is a joke. I don't know any LDS members who are leaving the church over Decker's material. I am sure there have been, but I doubt its enough to be truly concerned about. You can try and rebutt it, but my experience with Decker types is they just want to Bible bash and in the end they end up shouting you down and telling you that you believe in a fake Jesus. Its tiresome.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Hayds

[Messenger]

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....

Questioning everything is moot and a waste of time if you have a testimony of it. Now, I don’t mind questioning why things happened, and how to improve the way people, bishops, and leaders of the church do what we do. But to question the foundations of our religion simply highlights the importance of gaining a testimony of the foundations of our religion.

Perhaps this is a good time to outline the steps of gaining a testimony...

1. Read. Research the topic of which you want to know the truth of.

2. Ponder. Think about the perspectives of people and the situations you are wondering about.

3. Pray. Choose what you think is right, and take it to the Lord in sincere prayer wanting to know if your choice is right.

4. Change. Repent of the things that take you away from what you now know to be true. Give your new testimony often so that others may gain theirs.

For me, quite simply the church is true. I don’t say for any other reason other than the fact that I found out myself. Here are a few things that I have been revealed to me with a spiritual confirmation.

1. President Monson is the prophet of our church, the one that knows Christ, and is influenced by Christ, and is the one chosen by Christ to lead us today on this earth.

2. I know that Christ lives; I know that he atoned for our sins and that he leads our Church. After his death, and before his resurrection, he set up his organization in the spirit world so that those that died could be taught and accept him if they chose to.

3. I know that the three degrees of glory are true. We, in the end, will live in a place where we ourselves have chosen, by the actions we have demonstrated in the past.

4. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I have felt the spirit testify the truthfulness of it through the writings of those on this continent.

If we had a testimony of these things, and are now having doubts, I would ponder and pray about why a person is having those feelings and doubts. After all, if a person trusts the answers of man, over God, perhaps discovering why he/she would do that would be the best question to find the answer to.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Messenger

[Questing Beast]

Questioning everything is moot and a waste of time if you have a testimony of it. Now, I don’t mind questioning why things happened, and how to improve the way people, bishops, and leaders of the church do what we do. But to question the foundations of our religion simply highlights the importance of gaining a testimony of the foundations of our religion.

Perhaps this is a good time to outline the steps of gaining a testimony...

1. Read. Research the topic of which you want to know the truth of.

I have always done this. You could say that reading is what gets me in trouble.

2. Ponder. Think about the perspectives of people and the situations you are wondering about.

Further pondering is what cements me in trouble.

3. Pray. Choose what you think is right, and take it to the Lord in sincere prayer wanting to know if your choice is right.

I've always believed in prayer; in asking a "higher power" to "help me to not screw up" and to understand things. And central to my very existence is my total commitment to "being right". When I am confident in my soul that I am right nothing in the world can move me from it.

4. Change. Repent of the things that take you away from what you now know to be true.

I question my actions and desires constantly. As far as I can tell, I have nothing to repent of: I'm "temple worthy" in my actions, and I believe that my desires are no worse than Joseph Smith's: the desire to commit sin is not in my nature.

Give your new testimony often so that others may gain theirs.

...

I could never say, "I know the Church is true; I know Jesus Christ is real; I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet; I know that the Book of Mormon is true", etc. Once-upon-a-time, I could say "I believe" those things. But now I would have to qualify my "testimony" by admitting that I believe that "God" works in all religions: that Mormonism is merely one of a myriad of religions, all of which are valid and invalid, all manmade, all necessary and expendable, etc. To me, religion is the product of our species seeking answers to the "terrible questions". And Joseph Smith was no different; just, perhaps, more talented and hyper spiritual than most religion-makers. that's not much of a "testimony", so I don't get up and bear it in the presence of other Mormons. And this is the result of sincere fasting and prayer, study and commitment to learning the truth. I can't say I am disappointed. But I am surprised, still, that what I was taught to believe as the "one truth faith", went away, to be replaced by I don't know what. I wouldn't call my belief paradigm "nothing", far from it: but it surely doesn't boast of much exegesis or doctrine when held up beside the faith of my forefathers....

[Jeff K.]

LOL! I never said outside sites were not inherently anti-Mormon. What am I ignoring? I believe I said many questioners were going to those sites for answers because they weren't getting them from their member network. I was agreeing with the OP.

No you are ignoring that outside sites tend to be inherently anti Mormon, and you are stating that those are sites (sites outside of LDS sites) members with questions should go to. This is both ridiculous and disengenuous on your part since you now acknowledge that most of the sites are anti Mormon.

What response are you looking for on the FAIR wiki link you provided? What critique do you want from the link? When I click on the link it takes me to the WIKI with the featured article being about BYU's homosexual aversion therapy which has nothing to do with this post. Secondly there are thousands of subcategories on the site. Which one do you want me to critique? How about this article:http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals/Horses/Loanshifting:_deer_and_tapirs. Tapirs? Have you seen a tapir? Do these types of articles make sense or add any credibility to someone who has questions about the church? If the member had questions about modern science saying horses were not in America at the time the BOM takes place, would this article really sooth their mind on the issue? What about the disclaimer at the bottome of the homepage?: All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief, or practice. So at the end of the day, the stuff FAIR puts out could or could not be legit, but it sounds like the official LDS church doesn't even give them a stamp of approval.

The sites do make sense, they are academically approached in FAIR and they are researched. Sorry if it wasn't your typical anti-Mormon site. As to the disclaimer you so desperately hang your hat on... it is a general disclaimer since they do the best secular academic research possible, they are not prophets who speak for the church of the Jesus Christ. Other sites outside the church, especially those who are atni-Mormon have no problem claiming Gods authority or implying it by making no disclaimer of opinion. Apparently that difference is so subtle as to escape you completely. Or perhaps you understand the issue completely and your position is one to openly have members go to sites which are inherently critical without any disclaimer. Is that your version of "BRT".

Nor does a prophet of God cater to the curiosities of man, whether it be about horses, DNA, or metal plates. As I recall President Monson has continually asked us to seek spiritual guidance through the Holy Ghost. You seem to want to reject such and desire academic guidance, which by its nature cannot confirm faith or spiritual things. Your position is illogical, it is without foundation, and it merely seems to be another attempt to justify seeking anti Mormon websites.

I don't think the church can't handle tough questions nor did I say that. I said the church doesn't do a good enough job of training its members how to deal with people who are having serious questions or doubts about their faith which proves my point if the members are advising them to read articles about tapirs really being horses from a website that has a disclaimer telling members it is not official.

See my answer above. The church does and excellent job of training members regarding the doctrines of the church and how those doctrines feed us spritually and guide us. Perhaps you haven't paid attention to seminary, to YMYW, to Sunday School, to a mission, to conferences, to exhortations to read not just the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, but also the Old Testament, New Testament and a number of other works. You latch on to this vague "serious questions or doubts about faith", while ignoring the words of prophets and apostles. Indeed members who have questions everyday find the answers they need, and they do so by following the the words of prophets and apostles, by going to the education they recieved, both in their own reading, and in a more organized way at church. If you don't like the approach to academia (which is entirely secular and academic in its attempt to answer questions), and you simply cannot understand the spiritual guidance from prophets and apostles and the many programs at church, you of course will not find what makes you happy, because you have chosen to ignore all of the sites that can show you what you need to know (not necessarily what you "want" to know).

Lastly, how does being a CFO lend itself to the debate? What does accrual accounting or balance sheets have to do with this thread? It is true. I am not a C level exec. You have proved to me that I am out of my league and have no business discussing this further. LOL!

It comes to discernment in regard to someone shoveling animal excrement and telling me its really fresh hay. In business CFO's (who go way past merely dealing with balance sheets and accounting) often see people blandishing all kinds of "fresh new ideas" that upon quick review are little more than the same old line trotted out with different verbage. I am not saying my job provided an exclusive insight (many other professions offer a similar stance), but it is something that was required of me that I learned. So when you trot out the old BRT marketing line while encouraging people to seek websites that are more likely than not anti-Mormon because for some reason the church "doesn't answer questions" per your opinion. I would be forced to respond:

Given the church's phenomenal growth and its survival during years of incredible persecution (not experienced by any other church in this nation) that your "obersvations are way off base and without the least level of merit. The church not only answers questions, it answers them well. At least for those who have the ears to hear it.

[Jeff K.]

It depends. The people who usually believe Ed Decker's crap are usually Westboro Baptis types who will never join the church anyways. There is tons of stuff online that expose Decker for what he is. Most anti-Mormons even think he is a joke. I don't know any LDS members who are leaving the church over Decker's material. I am sure there have been, but I doubt its enough to be truly concerned about. You can try and rebutt it, but my experience with Decker types is they just want to Bible bash and in the end they end up shouting you down and telling you that you believe in a fake Jesus. Its tiresome.

It is definately not simply the "Westboro Baptist Types" who watch and are influenced by "The God Makers". My son was approached by other students who have viewed it in Google. The film, which seems amaturish by today's standards in video quality does an excellent job of using half truths to lead to wrong conclusions. I hardly find that something that is easily dismissed or ignored. It continues to thrive and come up out there quite often.

A good counter though is provided by Criticism of Mormonism/Video/The God Makers/Cartoon on Fair. It takes an organized approach in delineating or carving out the truth and disposing of the half truths.

Nor is it good to dismiss some types of people from other denominations because they hold fast and strong to their beliefs. Saul who later became Paul was of the same type.

[Deborah]

Knowledge of spiritual things can only come by the spirit. That doesn't mean study isn't involved, but to throw out the spiritual part of the equation in gathering knowledge one will be deceived and never come to a knowledge of the truth. Truth is not the same as mere facts because facts can be distorted or misinterpreted and even false or deliberately misleading. As we read in 2 Timothy 3:7 "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

And thus it is someone like QB says "I could never say, 'I know the Church is true; I know Jesus Christ is real; I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet; I know that the Book of Mormon is true'" while others can stand up and say I know that Jesus Christ is real, I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true. Knowledge in the sense that our faith has taken us to the point where we no longer doubt. For what is faith but the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I find it interesting in defining faith the scriptures use terms like substance and evidence. For the person who only wants to accept what is in front of his eyes, he will never be able to see beyond to the evidence that only the spiritual eyes will see. He limits his own ability to get to the truth, while a person who sees with spiritual eyes not only has the advantage of study and facts but the discernment to understand what is true and what is not.

[Hayds]

No you are ignoring that outside sites tend to be inherently anti Mormon, and you are stating that those are sites (sites outside of LDS sites) members with questions should go to. This is both ridiculous and disengenuous on your part since you now acknowledge that most of the sites are anti Mormon.

The sites do make sense, they are academically approached in FAIR and they are researched. Sorry if it wasn't your typical anti-Mormon site. As to the disclaimer you so desperately hang your hat on... it is a general disclaimer since they do the best secular academic research possible, they are not prophets who speak for the church of the Jesus Christ. Other sites outside the church, especially those who are atni-Mormon have no problem claiming Gods authority or implying it by making no disclaimer of opinion. Apparently that difference is so subtle as to escape you completely. Or perhaps you understand the issue completely and your position is one to openly have members go to sites which are inherently critical without any disclaimer. Is that your version of "BRT".

Nor does a prophet of God cater to the curiosities of man, whether it be about horses, DNA, or metal plates. As I recall President Monson has continually asked us to seek spiritual guidance through the Holy Ghost. You seem to want to reject such and desire academic guidance, which by its nature cannot confirm faith or spiritual things. Your position is illogical, it is without foundation, and it merely seems to be another attempt to justify seeking anti Mormon websites.

See my answer above. The church does and excellent job of training members regarding the doctrines of the church and how those doctrines feed us spritually and guide us. Perhaps you haven't paid attention to seminary, to YMYW, to Sunday School, to a mission, to conferences, to exhortations to read not just the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, but also the Old Testament, New Testament and a number of other works. You latch on to this vague "serious questions or doubts about faith", while ignoring the words of prophets and apostles. Indeed members who have questions everyday find the answers they need, and they do so by following the the words of prophets and apostles, by going to the education they recieved, both in their own reading, and in a more organized way at church. If you don't like the approach to academia (which is entirely secular and academic in its attempt to answer questions), and you simply cannot understand the spiritual guidance from prophets and apostles and the many programs at church, you of course will not find what makes you happy, because you have chosen to ignore all of the sites that can show you what you need to know (not necessarily what you "want" to know).

It comes to discernment in regard to someone shoveling animal excrement and telling me its really fresh hay. In business CFO's (who go way past merely dealing with balance sheets and accounting) often see people blandishing all kinds of "fresh new ideas" that upon quick review are little more than the same old line trotted out with different verbage. I am not saying my job provided an exclusive insight (many other professions offer a similar stance), but it is something that was required of me that I learned. So when you trot out the old BRT marketing line while encouraging people to seek websites that are more likely than not anti-Mormon because for some reason the church "doesn't answer questions" per your opinion. I would be forced to respond:

Given the church's phenomenal growth and its survival during years of incredible persecution (not experienced by any other church in this nation) that your "obersvations are way off base and without the least level of merit. The church not only answers questions, it answers them well. At least for those who have the ears to hear it.

I cannot respond to this response until you dial it back and stop putting words in my mouth. Show me direct quotes I made in this post where I encourage members to seek anti Mormon websites. Show me where I say those sites are the sites Mormons should go to? You made those two claims about me above and I never made them. So in essence because you are a CFO that means you have been around the block enough times that you can make false assumptions about people's intentions and put words in their mouth. Got it.

"Given the curches phenomenal growth and survival..." So they grow fast and have survived persecution so that should be enough to satisfy someone who has questions? J-Dubs and 7th day adventists are growing at record numbers. Have you heard of Falun Gong? Its a religion founded in China in the late 80's/early 90's. It has grown larger than Mormonism. Their members have been persecuted 100 times more than the early LDS and the persecution is ongoing to this day. So based on your last statement we should regard J-Dubs, 7th day Adventists, and Falun Gong as true religions because of their phenomenal growth? In essence it sounds like you are saying people who have questions can stick it because the church has been around for awhile and suffered persecution so its earned its claims and anyone who can't see that is out of place or too weak/unintelligent to recognize a good thing. Feel free to elaborate. I don't think you mean that, but that is how I am reading it.

[Jeff K.]

I cannot respond to this response until you dial it back and stop putting words in my mouth. Show me direct quotes I made in this post where I encourage members to seek anti Mormon websites. Show me where I say those sites are the sites Mormons should go to? You made those two claims about me above and I never made them. So in essence because you are a CFO that means you have been around the block enough times that you can make false assumptions about people's intentions and put words in their mouth. Got it.

It is somewhat obvious and you have admitted that most websites out there are anti Mormon, and the way you lovingly described how nice the people are on many of these websites in showing those with questions what their versions of the answers are. I would call that pretty encouraging. When you set up a dangerous environment for members with questions you pretty much take responsibility for the actions. I would suggest you rethink your admiration of such sites, that you also rethink your criticism. Whether you respond or not is irrelevant to a somewhat disengenuous position which does little more than encourage people to seek knowledge from those who wish to lead us astray.

Given the curches phenomenal growth and survival..." So they grow fast and have survived persecution so that should be enough to satisfy someone who has questions? J-Dubs and 7th day adventists are growing at record numbers. Have you heard of Falun Gong? Its a religion founded in China in the late 80's/early 90's. It has grown larger than Mormonism. Their members have been persecuted 100 times more than the early LDS and the persecution is ongoing to this day. So based on your last statement we should regard J-Dubs, 7th day Adventists, and Falun Gong as true religions because of their phenomenal growth?

I have never given much thought to the number of Jehovah Witnesses who become such, or 7th Day Adventists. I don't go around comparing the numbers in my belief system with the numbers in other belief systems. Truth is not based on popularity or numbers. When I speak of the phenomenal growth here in the US, even under great difficulty, I speak of its growth and truth. You apparently can strip the truth which is a given in this forum, and quickly slide to mere numbers.

In essence it sounds like you are saying people who have questions can stick it because the church has been around for awhile and suffered persecution so its earned its claims and anyone who can't see that is out of place or too weak/unintelligent to recognize a good thing. Feel free to elaborate. I don't think you mean that, but that is how I am reading it.

Education is a wonderful thing, both in life and in academia. Sometimes people lack an academic background, and so they often find themselves with a limited understanding of what is being said. Sometimes people have some academic knowledge, but couldn't get through a crowded room of diverse people because they are flawed in their experience of life. The characteristic both share is they flail about without understanding what is going on around them.

Lets see what it is I said....

It comes to discernment in regard to someone shoveling animal excrement and telling me its really fresh hay. In business CFO's (who go way past merely dealing with balance sheets and accounting) often see people blandishing all kinds of "fresh new ideas" that upon quick review are little more than the same old line trotted out with different verbage. I am not saying my job provided an exclusive insight (many other professions offer a similar stance), but it is something that was required of me that I learned. So when you trot out the old BRT marketing line while encouraging people to seek websites that are more likely than not anti-Mormon because for some reason the church "doesn't answer questions" per your opinion. I would be forced to respond:

Given the church's phenomenal growth and its survival during years of incredible persecution (not experienced by any other church in this nation) that your "obersvations are way off base and without the least level of merit. The church not only answers questions, it answers them well. At least for those who have the ears to hear it.

If the church were weak or incapable of responding to questions or needs of its members, indeed if they could not respond the spiritual quest we all take upon ourselves, the church would not grow at all. Indeed it would diminish and almost disappear as the Strangites did, or the Rigdonites, or it would change its core being as the Reogranized church has done, shedding so many positions and changing itsself as to be unrecognizable to those who have not studied its changes. Given the church's phenomenal growth and its survival during years of incredible persecution (not experience by any other church in this nation), your observations regarding the church not being able to respond to the needs of members is way of base and without merit. The church not only answer questions, it answers them well. At least for those who have ears to hear.

I also stated, in direct answer to your charge the church does not answer questions of its members well...

The church does and excellent job of training members regarding the doctrines of the church and how those doctrines feed us spritually and guide us. Perhaps you haven't paid attention to seminary, to YMYW, to Sunday School, to a mission, to conferences, to exhortations to read not just the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, but also the Old Testament, New Testament and a number of other works. You latch on to this vague "serious questions or doubts about faith", while ignoring the words of prophets and apostles. Indeed members who have questions everyday find the answers they need, and they do so by following the the words of prophets and apostles, by going to the education they recieved, both in their own reading, and in a more organized way at church. If you don't like the approach to academia (which is entirely secular and academic in its attempt to answer questions), and you simply cannot understand the spiritual guidance from prophets and apostles and the many programs at church, you of course will not find what makes you happy, because you have chosen to ignore all of the sites that can show you what you need to know (not necessarily what you "want" to know).

In other words, ff the church were weak or incapable of responding to questions or needs of its members, indeed if they could not respond the spiritual quest ...... You get the picture now I think

Now you also responded the need for a secular for site that answers members questions. You dimissed FAIR because of a disclaimer they had (among other things). Have those doubts been answered or are you now simply ignoring the answer? Mainly that

The sites do make sense, they are academically approached in FAIR and they are researched. Sorry if it wasn't your typical anti-Mormon site. As to the disclaimer you so desperately hang your hat on... it is a general disclaimer since they do the best secular academic research possible, they are not prophets who speak for the church of the Jesus Christ. Other sites outside the church, especially those who are anti-Mormon have no problem claiming Gods authority or implying it by making no disclaimer of opinion. Apparently that difference is so subtle as to escape you completely. Or perhaps you understand the issue completely and your position is one to openly have members go to sites which are inherently critical without any disclaimer. Is that your version of "BRT".

Nor does a prophet of God cater to the curiosities of man, whether it be about horses, DNA, or metal plates. As I recall President Monson has continually asked us to seek spiritual guidance through the Holy Ghost. You seem to want to reject such and desire academic guidance, which by its nature cannot confirm faith or spiritual things. Your position is illogical, it is without foundation, and it merely seems to be another attempt to justify seeking anti Mormon websites.

So now that you know all these things the church does, which have apparently escaped you all these years. Perhaps you can explain how inexperienced and lackluster the church is in answering the questions of members, both new converts and those whose families have been in the church for generations. How the church's growth somehow happens without properly answering questions. How the church is such a rudderless ship in dealing with the many questions placed before its members.

And yet, somehow I do not think you will get the gist of what I am attempting to say.

[Messenger]

As far as I can tell, I have nothing to repent of: I'm "temple worthy" in my actions,

I would say that you are a better person ... maybe .... than me or other members. I always have something to repent of. Repentance is simply another word for change. I am not perfect, but must strive to be so, that way I can earn grace. I’m pretty sure that’s why I go to church and take the sacrament.

I could never say, "I know the Church is true; I know Jesus Christ is real; I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet; I know that the Book of Mormon is true", etc. Once-upon-a-time, I could say "I believe" those things. But now I would have to qualify my "testimony" by admitting that I believe that "God" works in all religions: that Mormonism is merely one of a myriad of religions, all of which are valid and invalid, all manmade, all necessary and expendable, etc.

I would have you to consider a simple suggestion from someone that has been in similar shoes to yours. Beware of pride my friend; Pride in our own logic does not equate to superior direction and beliefs. However, if you are a member now, and have your name removed, I can promise you that the day the church sends its letter of confirmation, you will know the church is true. And, it will no longer be a matter of faith, it will be pure knowledge. Of course, you will be welcomed back. Before you make a change into that direction, I would have you Pray to Heavenly Father to know what it feels like to not have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. I bless you to have the answer and KNOW, not just believe.

Mark

[Hayds]

It is somewhat obvious and you have admitted that most websites out there are anti Mormon, and the way you lovingly described how nice the people are on many of these websites in showing those with questions what their versions of the answers are. I would call that pretty encouraging. When you set up a dangerous environment for members with questions you pretty much take responsibility for the actions. I would suggest you rethink your admiration of such sites, that you also rethink your criticism. Whether you respond or not is irrelevant to a somewhat disengenuous position which does little more than encourage people to seek knowledge from those who wish to lead us astray.

I have never given much thought to the number of Jehovah Witnesses who become such, or 7th Day Adventists. I don't go around comparing the numbers in my belief system with the numbers in other belief systems. Truth is not based on popularity or numbers. When I speak of the phenomenal growth here in the US, even under great difficulty, I speak of its growth and truth. You apparently can strip the truth which is a given in this forum, and quickly slide to mere numbers.

Education is a wonderful thing, both in life and in academia. Sometimes people lack an academic background, and so they often find themselves with a limited understanding of what is being said. Sometimes people have some academic knowledge, but couldn't get through a crowded room of diverse people because they are flawed in their experience of life. The characteristic both share is they flail about without understanding what is going on around them.

Lets see what it is I said....

If the church were weak or incapable of responding to questions or needs of its members, indeed if they could not respond the spiritual quest we all take upon ourselves, the church would not grow at all. Indeed it would diminish and almost disappear as the Strangites did, or the Rigdonites, or it would change its core being as the Reogranized church has done, shedding so many positions and changing itsself as to be unrecognizable to those who have not studied its changes. Given the church's phenomenal growth and its survival during years of incredible persecution (not experience by any other church in this nation), your observations regarding the church not being able to respond to the needs of members is way of base and without merit. The church not only answer questions, it answers them well. At least for those who have ears to hear.

I also stated, in direct answer to your charge the church does not answer questions of its members well...

In other words, ff the church were weak or incapable of responding to questions or needs of its members, indeed if they could not respond the spiritual quest ...... You get the picture now I think

Now you also responded the need for a secular for site that answers members questions. You dimissed FAIR because of a disclaimer they had (among other things). Have those doubts been answered or are you now simply ignoring the answer? Mainly that

So now that you know all these things the church does, which have apparently escaped you all these years. Perhaps you can explain how inexperienced and lackluster the church is in answering the questions of members, both new converts and those whose families have been in the church for generations. How the church's growth somehow happens without properly answering questions. How the church is such a rudderless ship in dealing with the many questions placed before its members.

And yet, somehow I do not think you will get the gist of what I am attempting to say.

I give up. You are not addressing my points but creating your own. Your CFO skills have exposed my secret evil ulterior motives. You continue to put words in my mouth, so I cede my arguement. You win. Lets conclude the following.

1. I love anti mormon websites and encourage all members to visit them

2. FAIR is the church's official source for getting questions answered and is completely flawless. All questioning members should use FAIR to clear up their questions.

3. The church has 13 million members so it handles itself well when confronting members' questions. Its the member's fault if their questions aren't adequately answered

Its interesting that my FIL is a Stake Pres and my Bro. is a Bishop and the number 1 thing on both their list is members falling away due to reading academically slanted websites about Mormonism. FIL had 6 seperate families have their names removed from the church records within the last year and both are constantly having members drop out of activity and blame it on church history stuff they read online. FAIR does not seem to be working 100%. I think the OP has a valid question and I tried to attempt to answer, but you have derailed it into a completely different territory. My opinions are formulated based on what I have seen personally and your arguments do nothing to convince me otherwise, but prove my point about the 4 reactions members have about other members who have questions. Obviously the OP and myself don't know what we are talking about because we are not C level execs which obviously gives you extra credibility on the matter. You have won. Bask in the glory. I am done wasting my time on this thread.