Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[Deborah]

Because the reality isn't what we grow up believing.

"We?" Speak for yourself.

[sjdawg]

"We?" Speak for yourself.

Sorry. What I was taught from birth until adulthood wasn't reality. I blame myself for some of the ignorance as I could have studied more outside of the generic Sunday School teachings.

[Deborah]

Sorry. What I was taught from birth until adulthood wasn't reality. I blame myself for some of the ignorance as I could have studied more outside of the generic Sunday School teachings.

Serious question. Were you really interested when you were young in knowing any more? Most young people don't care about the history so it's a little disingenuous to say what you were taught wasn't reality when you may actually have heard some of these things but because you weren't interested you didn't pay attention.

[Libs]

Seriously? The "anguish"?

You know, hearing contradictory accounts of how the Book of Mormon was produced or of the First Vision or any other of a number of things that one can read or hear DOES cause anguish for some of us. I'm really sorry you consider that a laughing matter, because I assure it is not at all, for the person going through it.

[sjdawg]

Serious question. Were you really interested when you were young in knowing any more? Most young people don't care about the history so it's a little disingenuous to say what you were taught wasn't reality when you may actually have heard some of these things but because you weren't interested you didn't pay attention.

Would I have been interested in learning more about how the book of mormon came to be? Sure. The head in a hat version is much more interesting than the other versions. I didn't study outside the church's correlated teachings for a few reasons

1. I trusted enough to believe I was being taught the truth in its entirety.

2. I only knew LDS people and so I wasn't really aware of any conficting information

3. I trusted my parents and believed that everything they taught me was true and complete.

4. I was young and naive and didn't really have enough curiousity to even consider there was more to learn. I thought I was pretty well versed in LDS topics.

5. The information wasn't as readily available when I was younger. I couldn't just go onto lds.org and read old ensigns. I couldn't google topics of interest to me. I didn't have easy access to other material.

[bookofmormontruth]

You know, hearing contradictory accounts of how the Book of Mormon was produced or of the First Vision or any other of a number of things that one can read or hear DOES cause anguish for some of us. I'm really sorry you consider that a laughing matter, because I assure it is not at all, for the person going through it.

I apologize if I offended you and I have no intention in discounting what you are going through.

The concept of anguishing over every wind of doctrine, complete hearsay, pure speculation, anti-Mormon regurgitation and the likes is absolutely and completely foreign to me. I understand the anguish of losing a loved one, a broken heart or from hearing the tragedies going on in the world, but anguishing over how a simple artist's picture "portrays" or "not portrays" the translating process is worthy of anguish?

Anguish: Severe mental or physical pain or suffering.

Would it be safe to say your "anguish" is in losing your entire faith? Not on an "unsubstantiated fact"?

For example: you stated on this very thread: "I think this one about the stone in the hat is minor", yet others on here are "anguishing" over what you just described as "minor".

I will be honest and I will have to admit, I don't get it, at all?

[ERayR]

Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

All of you who have problems with the church, head in hat, BoM geograpy, etc, etc. I would chan it to this. Replying to Can The Church you Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[Libs]

I apologize if I offended you and I have no intention in discounting what you are going through.

The concept of anguishing over every wind of doctrine, complete hearsay, pure speculation, anti-Mormon regurgitation and the likes is absolutely and completely foreign to me. I understand the anguish of losing a loved one, a broken heart or from hearing the tragedies going on in the world, but anguishing over how a simple artist's picture "portrays" or "not portrays" the translating process is worthy of anguish?

Anguish: Severe mental or physical pain or suffering.

Would it be safe to say your "anguish" is in losing your entire faith? Not on an "unsubstantiated fact"?

For example: you stated on this very thread: "I think this one about the stone in the hat is minor", yet others on here are "anguishing" over what you just described as "minor".

I will be honest and I will have to admit, I don't get it, at all?

Thank you for the apology, BMT. I may have over-reacted, but I do get kind of emotional, when it feels like someone is being flippant about the pain I, sometimes, feel over leaving the church.

I do understand why you wouldn't "get it", because you haven't experienced it. But, just imagine if somehow, some way, something did shake your faith, to the core. It really is like losing a loved one. It goes deep and it can be very disorienting.

The anguish is over the lose of faith, in total, as you said, but (for me) that happened in bits and pieces (even if not this particular issue), over many smaller issues that finally, in total, became quite a heavy burden.

Appreciate your post...thank you, again.

[Libs]

Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

All of you who have problems with the church, head in hat, BoM geograpy, etc, etc. I would chan it to this. Replying to Can The Church you Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

Some? Yes. Maybe.

[cinepro]

Actually it does in the footnote (I have the actual manual). Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p 135.

Cumorah.org has the book online, and while it doesn't have the page numbers, you can find the part that deals with the loss of the plates and U&T after the 116 pages go missing. Regarding the continuation of the translation process, she writes:

I will now return to Joseph's recital.

"After the angel left me," said he, "I continued my supplications to God, without cessation, and on the twenty-second of September, I had the joy and satisfaction of again receiving the Urim and Thummim, with which I have again commenced translating, and Emma writes for me, but the angel said that the Lord would send me a scribe, and I trust his promise will be verified. The angel seemed pleased with me when he gave me back the Urim and Thummim, and he told me that the Lord loved me, for my faithfulness and humility."

What's missing from that quote...?

Why would the church teach questionable accounts? We have what Joseph Smith told us and if he didn't elaborate why the need for so many to wrestle with this?

You know what they say: "What's good for the mission presidents and printed in the Ensign, is good for the gander."

[ERayR]

Some? Yes. Maybe.

The following is not meant to be mean and I hope it doesn't come across that way. If any of these things are deal breakers why don't you just leave and get on with your life. As you can see they obviously are not deal breakers for others. If it doesn't work for me I just turn my back and walk away. After almost 7 decades I find that life is just to short to keep gnawing at old bones. If it doesn't work don't spend your precious time fussing about it, find something that works or at the very least spend the time fishing. Better yet spend it with family and friends.

Obviously I won't agree with you and will be sorry you can't see what is so plain to me but then you don't have to agree with me to have a good life. However, to have a good life you do have to let go of what hasn't worked for you and find something that does. Trying to make others as miserable as you are doesn't make it any better.

[Libs]

The following is not meant to be mean and I hope it doesn't come across that way. If any of these things are deal breakers why don't you just leave and get on with your life. As you can see they obviously are not deal breakers for others. If it doesn't work for me I just turn my back and walk away. After almost 7 decades I find that life is just to short to keep gnawing at old bones. If it doesn't work don't spend your precious time fussing about it, find something that works or at the very least spend the time fishing. Better yet spend it with family and friends.

Obviously I won't agree with you and will be sorry you can't see what is so plain to me but then you don't have to agree with me to have a good life. However, to have a good life you do have to let go of what hasn't worked for you and find something that does. Trying to make others as miserable as you are doesn't make it any better.

I have a good life, ERay, and I spend a lot of time with my family. I'm not trying to make anyone miserable. Really.. I am very sorry, if I'm coming across that way. I'm not trying to convince anyone to leave the church (just the opposite in, at least, one case, just recently). I have "moved on" in many respects, but a part of me is having a difficult time completely letting go. I can't seem to help but continue to examine it. When I am ready, I will either leave completely or go back into the church. In the meantime, I'm somewhere in between.

[Jeff K.]

Thank you for the apology, BMT. I may have over-reacted, but I do get kind of emotional, when it feels like someone is being flippant about the pain I, sometimes, feel over leaving the church.

I do understand why you wouldn't "get it", because you haven't experienced it. But, just imagine if somehow, some way, something did shake your faith, to the core. It really is like losing a loved one. It goes deep and it can be very disorienting.

The anguish is over the lose of faith, in total, as you said, but (for me) that happened in bits and pieces (even if not this particular issue), over many smaller issues that finally, in total, became quite a heavy burden.

Appreciate your post...thank you, again.

Many who claim they have "anguish" because they aren't sure of some aspect of the gospel delve much too deeply into their navels and don't understand life. Anguish is about losing family, about realizing and overcoming one's shortcomings. Anguish entails a deep sorrow. Sometimes converts and apostates experience anguish because they decide to change their lives and it requires them to sacrifice much.

Anguish over a painting or question of the gospel? No, certainly not a single question of how painting should perhaps look. Certainly not an unanswered or unanswerable question. When one measures the strength and wonder of the gospel and how its changed lives and brought us closer to God, and then compared it to the trifling "what the definition of "is" is, type of arguments, I frankly don't see anguish so much as the need to grouse.

Indeed there are contradictory stories regarding Joseph Smith. Heck, there are contradictory stories of my wedding day, and I was there! There are contradictory stories of Christ, and that is after centuries of heavy editing. To want to know with absolute truth is to want something that cannot be given by anyone on this earth. Anti Mormons love chipping away at the faith by placing absolute demands in the paths of Latter-day Saints while ignoring their own failings in having absolutes in their life.

The church has nothing to apologize for, as an organization authorized by God, it muddles as best it can with men who aren't perfect but who do receive revelation in order to keep them on the right track. Sometimes the execution of the Lord's directives is less than perfect, but always, the church has tried mightily to keep with the Lord's task and time table (not ours). As a convert, who joined the church with his eyes wide open, and the information regarding Joseph Smith (both good and bad and often exaggerated) and the Book of Mormon well known to me, I have relied upon the spirit to guide me as to whether or not this is the church of God. And yes, in my youth as the only member there was anguish, but when I matured I realize those growing pains the slights from others, weren't really that awful, but the moment made them feel that way.

Very few things should cause anguish, many might cause feelings of regret, but anguish? I would reserve that word for burying children, losing a dear friend or family member. But not as a rhetorical tool to make God's church apologize for the weakness of some.

[Hamba Tuhan]

When I am ready, I will either leave completely or go back into the church.

For what it's worth, I personally hope you'll come back. The blessings I've experienced as a Church member are such that it causes me very real anguish whenever I think of someone missing out on them.

[Jeff K.]

I have "moved on" in many respects, but a part of me is having a difficult time completely letting go. I can't seem to help but continue to examine it. When I am ready, I will either leave completely or go back into the church. In the meantime, I'm somewhere in between.

There was a period of time when I was of the same mind. But not necessarily because of questions regarding the church history or background (though it would have been a terrific justification to avoid personal responsibility), but from a personal standpoint. I was ready to "move on" but could not let everything go because something kept calling me back. I am glad it did.

[sjdawg]

I have a good life, ERay, and I spend a lot of time with my family. I'm not trying to make anyone miserable. Really.. I am very sorry, if I'm coming across that way. I'm not trying to convince anyone to leave the church (just the opposite in, at least, one case, just recently). I have "moved on" in many respects, but a part of me is having a difficult time completely letting go. I can't seem to help but continue to examine it. When I am ready, I will either leave completely or go back into the church. In the meantime, I'm somewhere in between.

I have pretty much moved on completely with my life. Every now and again a well-intentioned but annoying LDS member will show up on my doorstep for some improptu lecturing or preaching, or there will be some religious disagreement with my familty that renews my interest (usually annoyance) in LDS conversations.

I also come here to see what is going on in the LDS world. It helps me anticipate and in some cases avoid potential conflict with family. For the record, the Book of Mormon translation method (and whether or not the church was forecoming on that issue) has nothing to do with why I left the LDS Church. It is a minor annoyance but nothing more.

[Deborah]

Would I have been interested in learning more about how the book of mormon came to be? Sure. The head in a hat version is much more interesting than the other versions. I didn't study outside the church's correlated teachings for a few reasons

So are you saying if you knew about the stone in the hat (which you must recognize is still a second hand account) when you were young it wouldn't have upset you but for some reason when you are a mature adult just learning about it, it did?

[sjdawg]

So are you saying if you knew about the stone in the hat (which you must recognize is still a second hand account) when you were young it wouldn't have upset you but for some reason when you are a mature adult just learning about it, it did?

What I am saying is that if I had learned about the stone in the hat method (may be a second hand account but I think it is fairly well accepted as truth) in a church setting or in my home it would have been easier to accept. I don't understand the Urim and Thummin either but I accepted them because I was taught them in a trusted setting. As an adult I was told many things about many different topics that didn't jive with what I had learned from the Church. My first instinct was always to disregard them as false (and some were). It is the ones that turned out to be true that planted the initial seed in my mind telling me the LDS Church had not always been as forthcoming with me as I believed. It is just one reason that I now view the LDS Church as being no better and no worse than most other religions.

[ERayR]

I have a good life, ERay, and I spend a lot of time with my family. I'm not trying to make anyone miserable. Really.. I am very sorry, if I'm coming across that way. I'm not trying to convince anyone to leave the church (just the opposite in, at least, one case, just recently). I have "moved on" in many respects, but a part of me is having a difficult time completely letting go. I can't seem to help but continue to examine it. When I am ready, I will either leave completely or go back into the church. In the meantime, I'm somewhere in between.

Others have expressed the hopes that you will find your way back. I add my hopes for that also. So in the spirit of trying to help have you ever considered that your 20th century understandin is hampering your ability to really understand 18th century actions? You stare at a computer monitor to focus your attention and receive information. You find seer stones and the like to occultish and it bothers you. What is so different about computer monitors that you can accept them and not seer stones? Computer monitors are common place and you understand them. I look at seer stones as a tool. It was something that Joseph used early on to focus his attention. In later years he had learned to focus without them. If he actually did use a hat I can understand that its probable use was to filter out distraction and aid in focusing attention. Now if the seer stone and hat are not a problem move on and look at other issues in the same manner. Joseph Brigham and other early church leaders and members were not idiots. They built cities and societies. They usually had a reasonable (18th century) reason for what they did.

[ERayR]

I have pretty much moved on completely with my life. Every now and again a well-intentioned but annoying LDS member will show up on my doorstep for some improptu lecturing or preaching, or there will be some religious disagreement with my familty that renews my interest (usually annoyance) in LDS conversations.

I also come here to see what is going on in the LDS world. It helps me anticipate and in some cases avoid potential conflict with family. For the record, the Book of Mormon translation method (and whether or not the church was forecoming on that issue) has nothing to do with why I left the LDS Church. It is a minor annoyance but nothing more.

I am sorry but I beg to differ with you. If you had moved on you wouldn't be here gnawing on this old bone.

[Jeff K.]

What I am saying is that if I had learned about the stone in the hat method (may be a second hand account but I think it is fairly well accepted as truth) in a church setting or in my home it would have been easier to accept. I don't understand the Urim and Thummin either but I accepted them because I was taught them in a trusted setting. As an adult I was told many things about many different topics that didn't jive with what I had learned from the Church. My first instinct was always to disregard them as false (and some were). It is the ones that turned out to be true that planted the initial seed in my mind telling me the LDS Church had not always been as forthcoming with me as I believed. It is just one reason that I now view the LDS Church as being no better and no worse than most other religions.

Second hand accounts are rarely contextually accurate. A "scene" in history can be accurate but misconstrued. It appears to me you lost your trust, not that the church is somehow false since there is no real complete answer. As I have studied and taught history I have found that people who say historically something "is true" means they have chosen an opinion, not necessarily that it is "true" in a contextually accurate sense, which history rarely is, especially in areas of controversy where you have people on both sides of the issue raising good points.

So in the end your opinions being what they are, it appears you no longer adhere to the spirit and the Holy Ghost, therefore you are indeed left to your own devices. Its no wonder you left the church, you left the spirit first, when that is gone you are left with little more than a hollowness that offers no source of salvation, only socialization, which is never enough.

[Jeff K.]

Others have expressed the hopes that you will find your way back. I add my hopes for that also. So in the spirit of trying to help have you ever considered that your 20th century understandin is hampering your ability to really understand 18th century actions? You stare at a computer monitor to focus your attention and receive information. You find seer stones and the like to occultish and it bothers you. What is so different about computer monitors that you can accept them and not seer stones? Computer monitors are common place and you understand them. I look at seer stones as a tool. It was something that Joseph used early on to focus his attention. In later years he had learned to focus without them. If he actually did use a hat I can understand that its probable use was to filter out distraction and aid in focusing attention. Now if the seer stone and hat are not a problem move on and look at other issues in the same manner. Joseph Brigham and other early church leaders and members were not idiots. They built cities and societies. They usually had a reasonable (18th century) reason for what they did.

If your cell phone has a dim light and you were being sent images to write about, would you put it in your hat to see it more clearly? If hats were in style?

[sjdawg]

Second hand accounts are rarely contextually accurate. A "scene" in history can be accurate but misconstrued. It appears to me you lost your trust, not that the church is somehow false since there is no real complete answer. As I have studied and taught history I have found that people who say historically something "is true" means they have chosen an opinion, not necessarily that it is "true" in a contextually accurate sense, which history rarely is, especially in areas of controversy where you have people on both sides of the issue raising good points.

So in the end your opinions being what they are, it appears you no longer adhere to the spirit and the Holy Ghost, therefore you are indeed left to your own devices. Its no wonder you left the church, you left the spirit first, when that is gone you are left with little more than a hollowness that offers no source of salvation, only socialization, which is never enough.

What a relief. I was worried people would be judgemental if I shared an honest opinion.

[bookofmormontruth]

What a relief. I was worried people would be judgemental if I shared an honest opinion.

And in your honest opinion there was no judgement?

[sjdawg]

And in your honest opinion there was no judgement?

I was asked a sincere question and I gave a sincere answer.