Internet And Church History

[Jeff K.]

We're not looking at this the same way. I'm not saying I've looked at Bushman et al vs Vogel et al and declared Vogel et al as the winners.

I'm not a scholar or an academic. I don't care which side of the argument has produced the most peer reviewed publications. My process in this is to identify all the facts that are generally accepted by both sides and to interpret them the best I can.

Jeff K., on 01 August 2011 - 07:30 AM, said:

In other words, you don't care about the accuracy of the history, rather you care about the history that meets your perceptions? Talk about mixed up labeling, you know what you advocate isn't really history then right?

Nope. You've completely missed my point. In fact you've missed it so badly, it seems pointless furthering this discussion.

It may be because Anti Mormons really don't have many, if any peer reviewed publications. That is what is so amazing, and why "you don't care". Propaganda is what you you not truth.

Interpretation without context is the worst kind of history. Facts without context is a pretext for falsehood. In case you don't know what peer reviewed means, its historians who review the historical facts, the context and then place a critique regarding contextual understanding.

If you want to avoid the context, then run with your propaganda, but don't tell us its history.

[Senator]

And there are many others who have expressed their belief that learning about such things has either not affected or strengthened their testimony so it would seem that it is not the mechanism, but the individual 'applying' it that is the significant variable.

While I agree with your point, I disagree with JeffK's statement that difficult aspects of church history can only negatively effect those that want to leave the church. This is not true.

My own dear, deeply faithful mother was introduced to RSR and was very disturbed by it; to the point that I had to step in, in an apologetic fashion, to soften and "contextualize" Bushman's approach for her. She still doesn't like the book because of the feeling it left her with.

[robuchan]

It may be because Anti Mormons really don't have many, if any peer reviewed publications. That is what is so amazing, and why "you don't care". Propaganda is what you you not truth.

Interpretation without context is the worst kind of history. Facts without context is a pretext for falsehood. In case you don't know what peer reviewed means, its historians who review the historical facts, the context and then place a critique regarding contextual understanding.

If you want to avoid the context, then run with your propaganda, but don't tell us its history.

Wow, a little aggressive aren't you for such an innocuous post I made. This is my last sentence and the summary of my position.

My process in this is to identify all the facts that are generally accepted by both sides and to interpret them the best I can.

I don't care which side has the most peer reviewed articles.

I do care very much about which facts are generally accepted by both sides.

[robuchan]

It may be because Anti Mormons really don't have many, if any peer reviewed publications. That is what is so amazing, and why "you don't care". Propaganda is what you you not truth.

Interpretation without context is the worst kind of history. Facts without context is a pretext for falsehood. In case you don't know what peer reviewed means, its historians who review the historical facts, the context and then place a critique regarding contextual understanding.

If you want to avoid the context, then run with your propaganda, but don't tell us its history.

PS I include context as a subset of facts. I'll delegate the collection and publishing of facts (of which context is an important aspect) to the scholars. But I have to do the interpretation. I'm not going to let either Bushman or Brodie do the interpretation for me.

[LeSellers]

My process in this is to identify all the facts that are generally accepted by both sides and to interpret them the best I can.

I suspect that you did not "interpret them the best you [could]", but, rather, you interpet[ed] them the worst you [could]".

Yes, I am charging you and most others in apostasy with confirmation bias. The fact that two people can see the same evidence and come to conflicting conclusions is evidence of confirmation bias. The fact that those on your side resort to telling us that their decision was based on their own, typically, "Scholarly" (or "scientific") analysis is telling. The fact that those on our side relate spiritual confirmation is telling. You, of course, will come to an opposing conclusion.

Lehi

Edited August 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[robuchan]

I suspect that you did not "interpret them the best you [could]", but, rather, you interpet[ed] them the worst you [could]".

Yes, I am charging you and most others in apostasy with confirmation bias. The fact that two people can see the same evidence and come to conflicting conclusions is evidence of confirmation bias. The fact that those on your side resort to telling us that their decision was based on their own, typically, "Scholarly" (or "scientific") analysis is telling. The fact that those on our side relate spiritual confirmation is telling. You, of course, will come to an opposing conclusion.

Lehi

No I don't come to an opposite conclusion. I'll take people at their word both in and out of the church that they interpreted the facts the best they could. And I don't disregard the importance of spiritual confirmations.

[robuchan]

I suspect that you did not "interpret them the best you [could]", but, rather, you interpet[ed] them the worst you [could]".

Yes, I am charging you and most others in apostasy with confirmation bias. The fact that two people can see the same evidence and come to conflicting conclusions is evidence of confirmation bias. The fact that those on your side resort to telling us that their decision was based on their own, typically, "Scholarly" (or "scientific") analysis is telling. The fact that those on our side relate spiritual confirmation is telling. You, of course, will come to an opposing conclusion.

Lehi

Confirmation bias is very real. I don't have a great answer for it. I'm sure our minds play tricks on us at subconscious levels that we never understand.

Losing my testimony came with it great social costs. Extremely high social costs. So I don't know how to apply the confirmation bias thing to myself, but I'm sure it's possible.

[Jeff K.]

Men are willing to dimiss the restraints of society (call them social costs if you must) if it pleases them and meets their conclusions. As a convert to the church, in a soceity of relentless anti Mormonism in the South I would say many aren't fully aware of what "social costs" are. Believe me, leaving the church in Salt Lake is absolutely nothing like joining it in the south. I have two friends in Orem who decided to leave the church, the experiences they shared with me are nothing compared to becoming a member in a southern state filled with evangelical born again baptists who sincerely consider the church the church of the devil. They too claim to be factual by the way.

[robuchan]

Men are willing to dimiss the restraints of society (call them social costs if you must) if it pleases them and meets their conclusions. As a convert to the church, in a soceity of relentless anti Mormonism in the South I would say many aren't fully aware of what "social costs" are. Believe me, leaving the church in Salt Lake is absolutely nothing like joining it in the south. I have two friends in Orem who decided to leave the church, the experiences they shared with me are nothing compared to becoming a member in a southern state filled with evangelical born again baptists who sincerely consider the church the church of the devil. They too claim to be factual by the way.

My point in this thread was to show that apostasy due to the internet and church history factual issues does not come exclusively from reliance on Anti-Mormon or critical material. For me, and many others I know, Bushman and other LDS scholars were the primary sources for these factual issues which ultimately resulted in loss of testimony. I don't really care to get into a tangent on the psychological reasons why I left the church. It's fine if you believe I wanted out and found a reason.

[thesometimesaint]

I made a commitment to this Church over 40 years ago. A long time before the internet was even a thought. NOTHING I have read todate has come even close to putting a dent in(let alone fractured) my testimony of the Restored Gospel, and of the Lords Church. I don't expect the Church to reverse selling itself. The information has long been available if nonmembers, and members alike want to know. IE; Polygamy has been in our Scriptures from the very earliest years. Anyone can find it in the Bible and in Doctrine and Covenents Section 132.

[Jeff K.]

My point in this thread was to show that apostasy due to the internet and church history factual issues does not come exclusively from reliance on Anti-Mormon or critical material. For me, and many others I know, Bushman and other LDS scholars were the primary sources for these factual issues which ultimately resulted in loss of testimony. I don't really care to get into a tangent on the psychological reasons why I left the church. It's fine if you believe I wanted out and found a reason.

Then explain to us what aspect specifically of Bushman's research caused you to lose testimony? Now be specific and then explain why Bushman's research into the area did not give you sufficient explanation. Let us be specific to know, as you call them, the facts. Having read Bushman's book, and even looked up a number of his sources (too many to find in my lifetime), I would be interested in knowing specifically what it is you found testimony losing.

Facts are always good as you seem to imply. Give us some from Bushman's book.

[robuchan]

Then explain to us what aspect specifically of Bushman's research caused you to lose testimony? Now be specific and then explain why Bushman's research into the area did not give you sufficient explanation. Let us be specific to know, as you call them, the facts. Having read Bushman's book, and even looked up a number of his sources (too many to find in my lifetime), I would be interested in knowing specifically what it is you found testimony losing.

Facts are always good as you seem to imply. Give us some from Bushman's book.

You're in the mood to fight, aren't you? You'll win because I'm not in a mood to fight on this issue. If you're honestly curious, I'll answer your question.

I mentioned earlier the sorts of issues:

Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc

There are a dozen others like it.

The old method was to encounter one of these issues and quickly dismiss it as an Anti-Mormon lie, because there were so few or so few widely known LDS resources that acknowledged any of these issues.

Now, you have Bushman and others in easily accessible publications acknowledging and addressing these issues. So the answer now is not a simple dismissal calling it an Anti-Mormon lie. Now the answer is more complex. Yes this is a true fact, but here's the context. Here's why it's OK. Here's how you can come to terms with that fact and still believe in the church. These interpretations and explanations eventually failed for me.

So Bushman didn't cause me to lose my testimony. But he and others like him validated facts about the difficult historical issues which previous to them had gone unvalidated.

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

And each and every one of those issues has been addressed many many times. So it really comes down to whom you choose to believe.

[robuchan]

robuchan:

And each and every one of those issues has been addressed many many times. So it really comes down to whom you choose to believe.

Yep.

[Jeff K.]

You're in the mood to fight, aren't you? You'll win because I'm not in a mood to fight on this issue. If you're honestly curious, I'll answer your question.

I mentioned earlier the sorts of issues:

Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc

There are a dozen others like it.

The old method was to encounter one of these issues and quickly dismiss it as an Anti-Mormon lie, because there were so few or so few widely known LDS resources that acknowledged any of these issues.

Now, you have Bushman and others in easily accessible publications acknowledging and addressing these issues. So the answer now is not a simple dismissal calling it an Anti-Mormon lie. Now the answer is more complex. Yes this is a true fact, but here's the context. Here's why it's OK. Here's how you can come to terms with that fact and still believe in the church. These interpretations and explanations eventually failed for me.

So Bushman didn't cause me to lose my testimony. But he and others like him validated facts about the difficult historical issues which previous to them had gone unvalidated.

Be specific. You are mentioning generalities.

I note the wavering when faced with facts you imply are your basis.

You stated:

For me, and many others I know, Bushman and other LDS scholars were the primary sources for these factual issues which ultimately resulted in loss of testimony

then you state

So Bushman didn't cause me to lose my testimony.

For someone who enjoys the facts you should learn how to keep them straight.

Allow me to be very clear. I doubt you have read Bushman, or else you would have been able to bring up both the issue he raised and you would have explained why the context he established was not acceptable to you

In essence you chose to leave the church and are using other people as an excuse. Just another anti Mormon looking to blame someone else for their own choices.

Jeff K has left the building.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Minos

[robuchan]

Be specific. You are mentioning generalities.

I note the wavering when faced with facts you imply are your basis.

You stated:

then you state

For someone who enjoys the facts you should learn how to keep them straight.

Allow me to be very clear. I doubt you have read Bushman, or else you would have been able to bring up both the issue he raised and you would have explained why the context he established was not acceptable to you

In essence you chose to leave the church and are using other people as an excuse. Just another anti Mormon looking to blame someone else for their own choices.

Wow, you're completely wrong about me. Have read Bushman. Haven't left the church. Not an anti-Mormon. Unless you call all non-believers anti-Mormons.

I'm not interested in this type of discussion.

[Senator]

The rumors and he was charged with was for practicing "Polygamy", he wasn't practicing Polygamy, so when he said he wasn't, he actually wasn't, and thus wasn't lying.

Yes, in private he was practicing a Religious "Sealing Ordinance", but that's not Polygamy which was the charge.

Come now ldsfaqs...

Do you have RSR readily available? If you do, go to page 323. The first sentence under the header "FANNY ALGER" reads: "There is evidence that Joseph was a polygamist by 1835".

Now, do you just not believe this, or do you know something that Bushman doesn't?

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

I'm not sure that he was practicing polygamy with Fanny. Yes I have seen the evidence. What I've seen so far is that she was some type of house servant to Emma. I'm not sure about is that it is conclusive evidence.

[Senator]

Senator:

I'm not sure that he was practicing polygamy with Fanny. Yes I have seen the evidence. What I've seen so far is that she was some type of house servant to Emma. I'm not sure about is that it is conclusive evidence.

Maybe.

But that's irrelevant for my response to lsdfaqs's statement.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Senator

[Jeff K.]

Come now ldsfaqs...

Do you have RSR readily available? If you do, go to page 323. The first sentence under the header "FANNY ALGER" reads: "There is evidence that Joseph was a polygamist by 1835".

Now, do you just not believe this, or do you know something that Bushman doesn't?

Rather than edit it, tell us what else it says...

[Jeff K.]

Wow, you're completely wrong about me. Have read Bushman. Haven't left the church. Not an anti-Mormon. Unless you call all non-believers anti-Mormons.

I'm not interested in this type of discussion.

Being duplicitous is akin to being an anti Mormon. Read my monicker below.

[cinepro]

The information has long been available if nonmembers, and members alike want to know. IE; Polygamy has been in our Scriptures from the very earliest years. Anyone can find it in the Bible and in Doctrine and Covenents Section 132.

While your point is generally true, it seems to be that some LDS are shaken when they learn the specifics of polygamy. I've known about Joseph Smith and Nauvoo polygamy since I read the book "The Storm Testament 2" when I was 10 years old. But I didn't know about the degree to which Joseph hid it from Emma, or the circumstances in which many of those marriages came about, or other details which were a little more disturbing than what can be found in the Bible or common LDS presentations of the practice.

D&C 132 is another matter entirely. I suspect almost no LDS have actually read the entire section and given it thought. I thought I had until I listened to this podcast where they read each verse and ask "What is this saying? What does it mean?"

D&C 132 for Dummies

I recently heard about a friend who had a faith crisis after his (upset) wife asked him to read Section 132 carefully. After doing so, it nearly put him out of the Church.

And frankly, I don't want to know what would happen to my wife if I were to sit down with her and read through the section with her. She's TBM now, but I suspect it would be a very negative experience for her and I don't know where it would end.

So while it's technically true that "anyone can find [polygamy] in the Bible and D&C 132", in some ways it's hidden in plain sight.

Not to mention that there's a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible that we ignore, so saying anything is "in the Bible" doesn't do much to argue for its legitimacy as far as I'm concerned.

Edited August 1, 2011 by cinepro

[Daniel Peterson]

Here are five entries on "Mormon Scholars Testify" that are relevant to the question of whether or not Mormon history has been falsified and distorted, such that the truth about it can only be found among critics:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2620/leonard-j-arrington

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2593/kenneth-w-godfrey

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2065/steven-c-harper

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1477/gordon-a-madsen

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/442/davis-bitton

There are others, but those will do for now.

[Senator]

Rather than edit it, tell us what else it says...

I'd rather not as he goes on for two pages, double sided, single spaced.

Instead, I felt quoting this appropriately terse openening statement, rather adequate in response to ldsfaqs's equaly brief bald assertion.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Senator

[robuchan]

Being duplicitous is akin to being an anti Mormon. Read my monicker below.

Your insults are getting discouraging. I haven't engaged in this site in a long time. I thought I was ready. I guess not.