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

[sjdawg]

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.

This attitude is one of the reasons some people turn bitter towards the LDS faith upon leaving the Church.

[ELF1024]

This attitude is one of the reasons some people turn bitter towards the LDS faith upon leaving the Church.

While Jeff K.'s statement could have been phrased in a kinder fashion; I do not see anything incorrect about his statement; at least according to my own experiences with going inactive, being dis-fellowship-ped, and being excommunicated, and since returning to the Church.

[sjdawg]

While Jeff K.'s statement could have been phrased in a kinder fashion; I do not see anything incorrect about his statement; at least according to my own experiences with going inactive, being dis-fellowship-ped, and being excommunicated, and since returning to the Church.

I'm glad that Jeff accurately expressed your experience.

[cinepro]

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?

People, let's be clear: the accounts of the seer-stone-in-a-hat translation method are not "second hand".

If I told you that at this moment I have a blue Sharpie on my desk, with a gray barrel and a blue cap, is this a first-hand account or second-hand? It's first-hand; I'm describing what I'm seeing.

Likewise, when Emma says "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. Herald House, 1951, Volume 3, page 356, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma."), that is a first-hand account. She is describing what she saw directly.

Entirely probably likewise for David Whitmer, Isaac Hale, Joseph Knight Sr. (while their statements don't explicitly say they saw the process, their proximity to the translation and congruency with Emma suggest they also actually saw what was going on).

The "second-hand" accounts come into play when a person describes something they couldn't see, such as what Joseph was seeing in the seer-stone. In this case, Joseph's description would be the first-hand account and the person describing Joseph's comments would be a second-hand account. Since Joseph didn't leave a written description, all descriptions of what he saw must be second-hand.

[ELF1024]

People, let's be clear: the accounts of the seer-stone-in-a-hat translation method are not "second hand".

If I told you that at this moment I have a blue Sharpie on my desk, with a gray barrel and a blue cap, is this a first-hand account or second-hand? It's first-hand; I'm describing what I'm seeing.

Likewise, when Emma says "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. Herald House, 1951, Volume 3, page 356, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma."), that is a first-hand account. She is describing what she saw directly.

Entirely probably likewise for David Whitmer, Isaac Hale, Joseph Knight Sr. (while their statements don't explicitly say they saw the process, their proximity to the translation and congruency with Emma suggest they also actually saw what was going on).

The "second-hand" accounts come into play when a person describes something they couldn't see, such as what Joseph was seeing in the seer-stone. In this case, Joseph's description would be the first-hand account and the person describing Joseph's comments would be a second-hand account. Since Joseph didn't leave a written description, all descriptions of what he saw must be second-hand.

I am not sure Emma's testimony is something I would accept; as she has denied numerous times the Prophet did not engage in polygamy. I am not sure she is a trustworthy source.

[cinepro]

I am not sure Emma's testimony is something I would accept; as she has denied numerous times the Prophet did not engage in polygamy. I am not sure she is a trustworthy source.

Denying that Joseph practiced polygamy isn't exactly the same thing as describing what she saw during the Book of Mormon translation process.

For example, I'm pretty sure I understand her motivation to lie about Joseph's polygamy. What possible reason could she have to make up stuff about how Joseph was sitting when he dictated the Book of Mormon?

And people, can we at least all agree on whether the "seer-stone-in-a-hat" translation method is an anti-Mormon claim or a pro-Mormon claim? We can't have LDS arguing that the Church has been teaching it all along and every LDS should know and believe it while at the same time other LDS are arguing that it's a fabrication based on lies and misreporting.

Y'all gonna make my head 'splode.

[ELF1024]

Denying that Joseph practiced polygamy isn't exactly the same thing as describing what she saw during the Book of Mormon translation process.

For example, I'm pretty sure I understand her motivation to lie about Joseph's polygamy. What possible reason could she have to make up stuff about how Joseph was sitting when he dictated the Book of Mormon?

People, can we at least all agree on whether the "seer-stone-in-a-hat" translation method is an anti-Mormon claim or a pro-Mormon claim? We can't have LDS arguing that the Church has been teaching it all along and every LDS should know and believe it while at the same time other LDS are arguing that it's a fabrication based on lies and misreporting.

Y'all gonna make my head 'splode.

The Church isn't hiding it. There are so called "peepstones" on display in Church museums.

However, I don't find it credible.

[Libs]

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.

Thanks, Hamba. I agree, the church is (was) a blessing in many ways.

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.

That's good that you worked it out. My situation had nothing to do with avoiding personal responsibility. My leaving was based on a loss of faith in Joseph Smith, having to do with historical information presented to me, that I had never heard. (Polygamy, Book of Abraham, primarily)

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.

Yes, I stated earlier that this particular issue was not of much concern to me (although, it was a surprise to learn about the seer stone in the hat). But, not major, and not a cause for leaving (or for anguish).

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.

Yes, I've considered all angles. What has bothered me about Joseph most is the polygamy and whether or not God would direct him to do the things he did..in the way he did them. That issue was of more concern to me than any other. And, if God did not direct Joseph to do the things he did, how can I trust that God directed him to do any of the things he claimed?

The problem is, I do still have some "feelings" about certain things (like the Book of Mormon) that keep me still wondering, if I am mistaken. So, I keep investigating & pondering (and praying).

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 31 May 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

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.

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

Amazing, and your sincere and honest opinion does not allow anyone else an honest and sincere opinion, rather we should all praise you for your sincere and honest opinion while ignoring some very key implications that come out.

The key points being:

1-Why do unanswered or unanswerable questions in history lead one away from the church but not necessarily from Christianity?

the second related to the first

2-Why is it that something unanswerable the same as an accusation of falsehood?

And finally the third

3-Why didn't following the Holy Ghost play a part in your decisions, unless you never believed it would lead you accordingly.

I too have had my inactive period, and I know how it feels to lose the spirit in which you question and tend to criticize since it makes it easier to justify that loss. You description so amply follows my path, and the paths of others, the thing is we eventually learned differently and were able to call upon the spirit, in some things some of us learned later than others (I myself took a while to come to the realization as to what was and wasn't important), but we learned. You seem to have chosen a path of not learning the lessons we know so well.

[Deborah]

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.

I appreciate your response but I still wonder why it is that something that you learned later bothers you when you say it wouldn't have if you'd learned it earlier.

The "Church" is a body of people who bungle along as best they can. Some teachers are more knowledgeable and impart more information than others. The official manuals of the church present a brief summary of our history and it would really be impossible to include every theory or every account ever given. So what they do is take the most authenticated account and use that, or the one that gives the best description of what took place. We have accounts that Joseph at one time used the U&T. At another time he used a seer stone. And at another time he didn't need any aids. Others have pointed out that the tools he used were nothing more than a means of focusing so that he could receive the spirit to translate. I don't see why it makes any difference what tools he used or didn't use.

[sjdawg]

Amazing, and your sincere and honest opinion does not allow anyone else an honest and sincere opinion, rather we should all praise you for your sincere and honest opinion while ignoring some very key implications that come out.

The key points being:

1-Why do unanswered or unanswerable questions in history lead one away from the church but not necessarily from Christianity?

the second related to the first

2-Why is it that something unanswerable the same as an accusation of falsehood?

And finally the third

3-Why didn't following the Holy Ghost play a part in your decisions, unless you never believed it would lead you accordingly.

I too have had my inactive period, and I know how it feels to lose the spirit in which you question and tend to criticize since it makes it easier to justify that loss. You description so amply follows my path, and the paths of others, the thing is we eventually learned differently and were able to call upon the spirit, in some things some of us learned later than others (I myself took a while to come to the realization as to what was and wasn't important), but we learned. You seem to have chosen a path of not learning the lessons we know so well.

I did not say that church history led me out of the Church. I think I said that the Peepstone issue was a little annoying but it had no bearing on why I left the LDS Church. I don't try and encourage anyone to leave the LDS Church. If fact, I have been asked previously by friends for advice on how they should work with people who are struggling with the LDS faith and I have provided the best advice I am able to give. If the LDS Church makes people happy I hope they keep it in their lives. For me, it did not work.

[Jeff K.]

Denying that Joseph practiced polygamy isn't exactly the same thing as describing what she saw during the Book of Mormon translation process.

For example, I'm pretty sure I understand her motivation to lie about Joseph's polygamy. What possible reason could she have to make up stuff about how Joseph was sitting when he dictated the Book of Mormon?

And people, can we at least all agree on whether the "seer-stone-in-a-hat" translation method is an anti-Mormon claim or a pro-Mormon claim? We can't have LDS arguing that the Church has been teaching it all along and every LDS should know and believe it while at the same time other LDS are arguing that it's a fabrication based on lies and misreporting.

Y'all gonna make my head 'splode.

From my aspect the polygamy issue, which was known when I converted to the church, was irrelevant because it seemed to have had a scriptural precedent.

As to the seer stone questions. In one sense they bothered me, but not entirely because I felt some sort of answer or understanding would be forth coming, in essence you might say I developed a certain level of faith that somehow the spirit would lead me to what I consider an acceptable conclusion. I believe I found that balance when I read "Rough Stone Rolling" which is the best contextual answer to many of the questions out there. It works for me and I generally recommend others read it. It goes into both the society of the times and the details in order to provide context beyond the pro and con. Sometimes the image isn't the best we would want of Joseph Smith, given the times when apothesis was suggested, but overall and excellent read that ended up strengthening my testimony.

[sjdawg]

I appreciate your response but I still wonder why it is that something that you learned later bothers you when you say it wouldn't have if you'd learned it earlier.

The "Church" is a body of people who bungle along as best they can. Some teachers are more knowledgeable and impart more information than others. The official manuals of the church present a brief summary of our history and it would really be impossible to include every theory or every account ever given. So what they do is take the most authenticated account and use that, or the one that gives the best description of what took place. We have accounts that Joseph at one time used the U&T. At another time he used a seer stone. And at another time he didn't need any aids. Others have pointed out that the tools he used were nothing more than a means of focusing so that he could receive the spirit to translate. I don't see why it makes any difference what tools he used or didn't use.

I'm not sure if it would have bothered me if learned earlier or not. My point was that if there is potentially controversial or disruptive information out there that could be true it is best to learn if from the people you trust and not those on the outside. It would simply serve to reinforce credibility.

I also think that if we are discussing the Stone in a Hat method of "translating" that we are far beyond it being simply a theory. How many different "theories" are there for the translation process? You named 3. That doesn't seem overly cumbersome for a manual. It appears (admittedly in hindsight) that the Church chose the method that seemed easiest to accept and went with it. While that is not lying by definition it could be perceived by some as a little bit deceptive or misleading.

Now, I will readily admit the information was out there but as someone who went to Church every Sunday, had a Stake President as a Father, and enjoyed the complete LDS experience until I was in my 30's I had never heard the theory. I have admitted that I need to assume some of that blame. But as a primary age child I rarely read the Ensign.

http://lds.org/ensig...query=translate

[sjdawg]

I appreciate your response but I still wonder why it is that something that you learned later bothers you when you say it wouldn't have if you'd learned it earlier.

The "Church" is a body of people who bungle along as best they can. Some teachers are more knowledgeable and impart more information than others. The official manuals of the church present a brief summary of our history and it would really be impossible to include every theory or every account ever given. So what they do is take the most authenticated account and use that, or the one that gives the best description of what took place. We have accounts that Joseph at one time used the U&T. At another time he used a seer stone. And at another time he didn't need any aids. Others have pointed out that the tools he used were nothing more than a means of focusing so that he could receive the spirit to translate. I don't see why it makes any difference what tools he used or didn't use.

Here are snippets from various manuals on the Translation Process.

Primary

Explain that the writing on the plates was in a language that Joseph could not read. Joseph received a special tool to help him translate the writing on the plates.

• • Do any of you know what the Urim and Thummim are?

Explain that the Urim and Thummim are like special glasses through which Joseph could look to help him translate the ancient writing on the plates. With Heavenly Father’s help and by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph was able to translate the words on the gold plates into words we could understand. When the translation into English was completed, the book was printed. It was called the Book of Mormon.

Preparing for Exaltation

revelation Comes in Many Different Ways
Chalkboard discussion
Explain that the revelations of God come in a variety of ways.

• • What are some of the methods God uses to communicate with his children?

List class members’ responses on the chalkboard. As class members mention a method, ask if they can think of an incident in the scriptures or Church history when this method of revelation was used. (Spend only a few minutes on this discussion.)

Answers may include:

1. 1. Heavenly messengers (Moroni’s appearance to Joseph Smith; the angel Gabriel’s appearance to Mary, the mother of Jesus).
2. 2. Visions and dreams (Moses’ vision of the earth’s creation; Lehi’s dream; Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream; Brigham Young’s dream of Joseph Smith, discussed in lesson 14).
3. 3. Sacred instruments (Lehi’s use of the Liahona for direction; Joseph Smith’s use of the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon).
4. 4.
   Inspiration (Oliver Cowdery receiving peace and a testimony through the Holy Ghost; Nephi determining how to obtain the brass plates from Laban).

• • Which method of revelation will most members of the Church likely experience? (Inspiration.)

I used the search function to try and find any reference to a peepstone in any church manual but I couldn't find one. I'm not saying they don't exist just that I couldn't find one in a current manual.

I don't think the LDS Church is hiding from the Stone in a Hat translation method but I do think they would prefer that most people don't give it much thought.

[Jeff K.]

You might be right in that they don't need people asking the question so much. But it may be because it is a complicated question, and in modern times, everyone wants a soundbite instead of an explanation. Preconcieved notions generally take precedence over thoughtful discourse. A case in point would be Huckabee's soundbite regarding Mormons. "They believe Christ's brother was Satan don't they?".

Soundbites carry the day with most.

[Deborah]

I don't think the LDS Church is hiding from the Stone in a Hat translation method but I do think they would prefer that most people don't give it much thought.

Do you honestly think that most people do give it any thought? I never did when I was growing up. I didn't care about the history. It's only in recent years I've looked into it. The Joseph Smith Papers project has really piqued my interest and I find the documentary on that full of information that has lain dormant for years. I'm convinced if everyone could watch that a lot of their questions would be answered.

[Pahoran]

Here are snippets from various manuals on the Translation Process.

Primary

Preparing for Exaltation

I used the search function to try and find any reference to a peepstone in any church manual but I couldn't find one. I'm not saying they don't exist just that I couldn't find one in a current manual.

Funny how loading the dice is such a reliable way of getting the result we are seeking.

Since neither the prophet nor any of the witnesses that I am aware of reported him using a "peepstone," and since that particular descriptor is always found in the words of hostile commentators, why on earth would you expect the Church to co-opt that term?

OTOH, if you were to search on seer stone, you might actually find something.

But the question is: do you really want to?

I don't think the LDS Church is hiding from the Stone in a Hat translation method but I do think they would prefer that most people don't give it much thought.

Actually, I agree with you. There are much more important things for us to devote our time to.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hamba Tuhan]

The problem is, I do still have some "feelings" about certain things (like the Book of Mormon) that keep me still wondering, if I am mistaken. So, I keep investigating & pondering (and praying).

Which is why you'll be perfectly fine in the end, and that's what matters.

One of my priests only became active 18 months ago, and he seems very impatient, wanting everything to work out immediately, answers to prayers to come now, etc. I have to keep reminding him that we're here to learn and grow, and that process takes time. For the vast majority of it, we're nowhere near where we need to be, but the only way to get there is to continue with the process. It sounds like you already know this. God bless you in your journeying and in your seeking.

[Craig Paxton]

They don't get it do they? This really is the issue. It's the fact that we have the BOM that matters, not the details of how it was translated. Only those who want an excuse to complain will use the ruse of how it was translated as the main issue. Joseph Smith said it was translated by the gift and power of God. Other than that we have second and third and even fourth hand accounts.

REALLY???? I completely disagree...I contend that it DOES matter how we came by the Book of Mormon. To the outside world…the orthodox story is crazy enough…but when you add that...in fact it’s even more bazaar… i.e. seemingly magical rocks dug from well, golden plates that weren‘t even necessary and then the whole head in a hat thing…it borders on unbelievable.

To make my point, imagine that instead of golden plates, an angel and seer stones...Joseph claimed that he found a magical lamp buried in a hill, that by rubbing the lamp a genie would appear. Further let's imagine that Joseph claimed that this genie gave him the golden plates and a crystal ball which he could look through in order to translate…would it then make any difference?

I suspect that it would then make a difference….it is only because you are familiar with the orthodox story that you find it acceptable. If I am wrong….well then nothing…could make it unbelievable.

[ERayR]

People, let's be clear: the accounts of the seer-stone-in-a-hat translation method are not "second hand".

If I told you that at this moment I have a blue Sharpie on my desk, with a gray barrel and a blue cap, is this a first-hand account or second-hand? It's first-hand; I'm describing what I'm seeing.

Likewise, when Emma says "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." (History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. Herald House, 1951, Volume 3, page 356, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma."), that is a first-hand account. She is describing what she saw directly.

Entirely probably likewise for David Whitmer, Isaac Hale, Joseph Knight Sr. (while their statements don't explicitly say they saw the process, their proximity to the translation and congruency with Emma suggest they also actually saw what was going on).

The "second-hand" accounts come into play when a person describes something they couldn't see, such as what Joseph was seeing in the seer-stone. In this case, Joseph's description would be the first-hand account and the person describing Joseph's comments would be a second-hand account. Since Joseph didn't leave a written description, all descriptions of what he saw must be second-hand.

People, let's be clear: the accounts of the seer-stone-in-a-hat translation method are not "second hand" does NOT matter. It is only a red herring, a distraction. It was a method of concentrating, focusing his attention. What matters is what was translated.

It is the "Entirely probably likewises..." that bother me. Those are usually "Entirely probably likewise" filled with speculation steeped in 20th century preduces concerning 18th century attitudes and practices.

[ERayR]

Thanks, Hamba. I agree, the church is (was) a blessing in many ways.

That's good that you worked it out. My situation had nothing to do with avoiding personal responsibility. My leaving was based on a loss of faith in Joseph Smith, having to do with historical information presented to me, that I had never heard. (Polygamy, Book of Abraham, primarily)

As I said and want to reiterate as I am really sincere about it, I do hope you can find your way back. If I can be of any help no matter how small please let me know.

As for polygamy I have mixed feelings but if it were a deal breaker I would have to reject all religion as scripture is replete with prophets practicing polygamy.

As for the Book of Abraham I obviously don't have any hard and fast, undeniable information but neither can I find any on the side of the detractors. In this case look at what has been produced, look to the message. Are the fruits good or sour. Then until proven otherwise give the benefit of the doubt to Joseph and the Book of Abraham and not to the detractors. Those who would do harm.

Yes, I stated earlier that this particular issue was not of much concern to me (although, it was a surprise to learn about the seer stone in the hat). But, not major, and not a cause for leaving (or for anguish).

Yes, I've considered all angles. What has bothered me about Joseph most is the polygamy and whether or not God would direct him to do the things he did..in the way he did them. That issue was of more concern to me than any other. And, if God did not direct Joseph to do the things he did, how can I trust that God directed him to do any of the things he claimed?

As stated above if polygamy itself was the deal breaker I would have to side with athiesm or at the very least agnosticism. The way I see it God instructed Joseph to do several things and then left him to work out the details. I do not believe that God gave Joseph detailed instruction in all things. I think he said you need to organize my church so get to it and get it organized. Then I think God told him to reinstate the practice of polygamy and the order of celestial marriage and left it for him to learn and work out the details. With this method are mistakes made? Yes, but valuable lessons are learned and strength gained.

The problem is, I do still have some "feelings" about certain things (like the Book of Mormon) that keep me still wondering, if I am mistaken. So, I keep investigating & pondering (and praying).

Where else are you going to find something like the Book of Mormon? How could someone who was able to receive what so obviously came from God then deliberatly foist something you think of as repugnant? Perhaps he was not doing it deliberatly but working his way through line upon line, precept upon precept. Making mistakes as a human being called to do divine things is apt to do. Perhaps the principle is correct but implementation had some bumps.

[ERayR]

I don't think the LDS Church is hiding from the Stone in a Hat translation method but I do think they would prefer that most people don't give it much thought.

I don't think the church as an organization gives it much thought at all. There may be some leaders who think about it but I think they are more concerned about teach principles of exhaltation that about hiding anything.

[Messenger]

Since it is quite obvious that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the church made mistakes (just like any other person on this earth has done), do you think the Church will ever decide to make a big announcement to the world that these mistakes were made in an effort to heal and move on with their current agenda of becoming a more "mainstream" church?

For example, they could announce on www.lds.org and Deseret Morning News something about Joseph's practice of polygamy. They don't need to go into detail, but they could just say Joseph made a mistake in the way he practiced plural marriage. If the public asks for more, they could point them to FAIR.

What good would this action take?

It would provide a way for the church to truly move on. It would be a way of repenting and healing. I think the public would appreciate this as a sign of maturity in the organization.

Now when young people start looking on the Internet and see weird LDS church history, they will know it was a mistake and be able to understand that their beloved church is in a better place now. It would provide some comfort to those who wish to stay LDS.

Thoughts?

Cion,

I know there are a multitude of posts here, and I didnt read them all. But when I re-read your post (quoted above) and I have some thought on my own about the church making mistakes.

Quite some time ago (either at BYU or Church) I heard someone talk about Samual the Lamanite. Samual the Lamanite was one of those guys that simply did what the spirit told him, no matter what the consequences. The nephites at the time hated him for it. But somehow Christ remembers.

The passage below from the Book of Mormon is interesting ....

3rd Nephi Chapter 23

6. And now it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he said unto them again, after he had expounded all the scriptures unto them which they had received, he said unto them: Behold, other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not.

7. And it came to pass that he said unto Nephi, Bring forth the record which ye have kept.

8. And when Nephi had brought forth the records, and laid them before him, he cast his eyes upon them and said:

9. Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

10. And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.

11. And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?

12. And it came to pass that Nephi remembered that this thing had not been written.

13. And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written therefore it was written according as he commanded.

In this case, Jesus is saying, hey you made a mistake by not including Samuel the Lamanite's testimony. Why they didn’t one can only guess, but I suppose it was because he was a Lamanite directed by the Lord. The church did make a mistake by not including his words as scripture. And Jesus reprimanded them by telling them they were indeed wrong and that they needed to include his testimony in the scripture records.

My ADHD seems to be a magnet for me recognizing everything a church leader does wrong. Its that realization that I see things that might be normal behavior, that I've learned that they are human beings, and make mistakes. Lord knows, I wish they were perfect, and I wouldn't be irked by them. But, this is simply my testimony; I had some really good experiences in the church, with some really great people.

The Lord knows people make mistakes, but I don’t think Plural Marriage was a mistake. That’s just me. But with my ADHD, it would have definitely been a mistake for me!!! HAHA!

But what I find interesting with the scripture above. The Lord simply said, this has to be fixed. I suppose being a church leader, whether it be in the book of Mormon times, or now, is often difficult. I think we as members need to forgive no matter what. But that doesn’t mean that justice will not be served. We've all heard the following statement, "The church will stand blameless at the last day". I think we all will be blameless on the last day, because by then, we all will have repented of the things we have done wrong an are simply waiting for final judgment.

[Jeff K.]

I'm glad that Jeff accurately expressed your experience.

Given the defensiveness of your response I would say it reflected a number of experiences that people aren't always happy to admit.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 31 May 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Amazing, and your sincere and honest opinion does not allow anyone else an honest and sincere opinion, rather we should all praise you for your sincere and honest opinion while ignoring some very key implications that come out.

The key points being:

1-Why do unanswered or unanswerable questions in history lead one away from the church but not necessarily from Christianity?

the second related to the first

2-Why is it that something unanswerable the same as an accusation of falsehood?

And finally the third

3-Why didn't following the Holy Ghost play a part in your decisions, unless you never believed it would lead you accordingly.

I too have had my inactive period, and I know how it feels to lose the spirit in which you question and tend to criticize since it makes it easier to justify that loss. You description so amply follows my path, and the paths of others, the thing is we eventually learned differently and were able to call upon the spirit, in some things some of us learned later than others (I myself took a while to come to the realization as to what was and wasn't important), but we learned. You seem to have chosen a path of not learning the lessons we know so well.

I did not say that church history led me out of the Church. I think I said that the Peepstone issue was a little annoying but it had no bearing on why I left the LDS Church. I don't try and encourage anyone to leave the LDS Church. If fact, I have been asked previously by friends for advice on how they should work with people who are struggling with the LDS faith and I have provided the best advice I am able to give. If the LDS Church makes people happy I hope they keep it in their lives. For me, it did not work.

It seems you are suddenly less than specific as to what it is about the church that somehow "drove" you away. I commented on the description you gave and wondered at questions that remain unanswered, nothing more.