Concerns About People Falling From The Faith

[Scott Lloyd]

Never mind. Misread the post.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Deborah]

...and admitting that sometimes the "philosophies of men" are actually right, will undermine faith and confidence in the church as an institution.

Seriously? I'm not admitting that. I think some would think they are wiser than God or his prophets and so think they know better how things should be done.

Dogma is always an interesting term to use since it has such a negative connotation, but the truth is there are things that the church will stand firm on and which are not changing. The history is what it is and my testimony has never been based on the history so when I hear new stuff I have to evaluate the source, what it means to the basic doctrine and beliefs and whether it makes any difference to the things I know versus the things that are only a part of what may be the truth (which let's face it, all "history" is).

[california boy]

I am not aware that the "Mormon church" has a "problem" that it needs help from anybody else to solve. You may have some problems that the Church can help you resolve; but I am conficent that the Church doesn't have any problems that it needs anybody else's help to solve. My suggestion to the critics is to try to take advice from the Church, rather than offering advice to the Church which is not sought nor needed.

Evidently you are so offended by the op question, that perhaps this thread is not for you. I was only offering my opinion in answer to the op question. If you think the church and it's members are perfect and without blemish, then perhaps you should ignore this thread. Do you not think that these kinds of questions are discussed by the general authorities????

[Heather_ME]

LDS critics seem to be very keen to try to fix a problem which doesn't exist. It ain't broke, and we don't need your help to fix it.

I am not aware that the "Mormon church" has a "problem" that it needs help from anybody else to solve. You may have some problems that the Church can help you resolve; but I am conficent that the Church doesn't have any problems that it needs anybody else's help to solve. My suggestion to the critics is to try to take advice from the Church, rather than offering advice to the Church which is not sought nor needed.

I think you have just got the wrong end of the stick. The Church does not have a problem, and does not need your help to resolve it. Why is it so hard for the critics to understand that?

Well, thank you for your concern; but let me assure you that the Church does not have problem that it does not know how to solve, or that needs your help to solve it. You may have a problem, that you could do with help from the Church to solve.

I am not aware that the Church does have such a problem; but if it did, I am equally confident that it doesn't need your help to resolve it. It knows how to cope with its problems better than you do. But by the look of it, you may have a problem that you could do with help from the Church to resolve.

AKA nobody has the right to have discussions about the church that aren't correlated and held under the auspices of church authority. So shut up everyone.

[Jesterss]

AKA nobody has the right to have discussions about the church that aren't correlated and held under the auspices of church authority. So shut up everyone.

Zerinus has spoken!!

[jo1952]

There are two things I am concerned with and don't know how the Church or its members should approach it.

1. I am concerned that many of the Ex-Mormon stories are faked or recycled to create the illusion of volume. I say this because there are a lot of flaky details that bother me.

a. Many Ex-Mormon stories start off with some unique reason that "started" them down the road (and I can list plenty that really do start with hurt feelings because either God or a member didn't treat them right. Then they fall into this "then I started reading the history, and I found out I was fooled".

b. I have also seen questionable details. One I read said that in a lesson, someone said that the most perfect man on Earth was Joseph Smith and everyone should follow in his example (never heard that) or some other Anti-Mormon sounding material

2. I am also concerned that many LDS that just come across historical materials that are controversial imagine themselves to have come across some hidden secret that no other LDS has ever seen. I worry that the power of knowing there are LDS out there who have seen the same things they did and actually came closer to the Church is being lost.

Should the LDS Church better address these challenges? Should we as members? Or is this a lost cause, and we should close our eyes and ride it out to the second coming? (Flaw being that we are commanded to Proclaim the Gospel, so waiting it out seems a bit wrong).

I think that there are many real experiences of ex-Mormons being discussed on various apologetic websites. Unfortunately, I also think that there are many fake experiences as well. Since I joined the Church 37 years ago (whoa....), I have seen a phenomenal increase in anti-LDS activity.

The Leaders of the Church are well aware of these issues. Better yet, Father is aware of them. I have faith that Father is already handling everything that is going on here on the earth in a manner which promotes His purposes. I believe that your concerns are born of love for your brothers and sisters. Follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost when confronted with individuals who are experiencing doubts about either God and/or the Church.

For the purpose of offering you solace and hope, do not automatically fear that someone who has left the LDS Church is "lost". A person does not need to be a member of the LDS Church to be "saved" or even to be Exalted. Remember to find comfort in the knowledge that Christ is our perfect Judge, and that Father is our God regardless of our religious affiliation.

Best regards,

jo

[Libs]

I think that there are many real experiences of ex-Mormons being discussed on various apologetic websites. Unfortunately, I also think that there are many fake experiences as well. Since I joined the Church 37 years ago (whoa....), I have seen a phenomenal increase in anti-LDS activity.

The Leaders of the Church are well aware of these issues. Better yet, Father is aware of them. I have faith that Father is already handling everything that is going on here on the earth in a manner which promotes His purposes. I believe that your concerns are born of love for your brothers and sisters. Follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost when confronted with individuals who are experiencing doubts about either God and/or the Church.

For the purpose of offering you solace and hope, do not automatically fear that someone who has left the LDS Church is "lost". A person does not need to be a member of the LDS Church to be "saved" or even to be Exalted. Remember to find comfort in the knowledge that Christ is our perfect Judge, and that Father is our God regardless of our religious affiliation.

Best regards,

jo

Amen.

Very nice post, Jo..

[jo1952]

Amen.

Very nice post, Jo..

Thank you, Libs. BTW, I enjoy your posts very much. I believe the Holy Ghost is absolutely manifested in them.

Love,

jo

Edited November 12, 2011 by jo1952

[jskains]

I think you will find that most people would say the Church is not presenting a fair picture, and that it does this on purpose to promote faith. The god I believe in would not mislead like that.

A fair picture, or THEIR picture? There is a big difference. You can hide behind the demands of "fairness", all the while you are actually telling the Church you want it to present what YOU have decided is the truth, demanding it submit or die.

I am getting a bit tired of these types of "loaded" statements. It's like the old, "does your mother know you are stupid?"

Lets say there are three stories about William James. One is that he is a Child Molester.. One is that he is just that he made a mistake. And one is that he is being falsely accused. Why would you have an obligation to tell all three stories? Why would you be obligated to tell people there are those who are claiming you are a pervert? Why wouldn't you just tell people what you know is the truth?

I think it is rather insane to demand the Church present anything other than what it feels is the truth. Just because you think there is a different angle, does not obligate it to tell that angle.

There is a lot of insanity in the Ex/Anti-LDS world, methinks..

JMS

[jskains]

As an addition, is Ford obligated to show not only it's promotional videos, but also show the bashing videos of GM? Does a salesman have to say "This is a Ford Vehicle. GM thinks it is an ugly car. Mercedes thinks it handles poorly"?

Really?

[Brade]

I don't think there's anything the Church ought to do besides remain just as it is. If anything, I agree with BC that it ought to be bolder about its fundamental and unique claims. I don't assent to much of what the Church teaches in that respect, and that's why I don't participate anymore, but I don't go around making claims about how the Church should change. I think that's the Church's business, and I'm happy to let it sort out its own affairs.

I do have a sense that the Church hasn't been forthcoming about its history, but I'm not sure that it has any obligation to be. For me, that the Church hasn't always been forthcoming didn't enter into my assessment of the evidence and I'm quite certain I wouldn't feel differently about which way the evidence tips even if the Church was more forthcoming. I was aware of all the major issues quite a long time ago, I made a sincere effort to sort them out, but after more than a decade I openly accepted what I knew all along, which is that I don't have good enough reasons to devote the time, energy, and money I was to the organization. So I've stepped away. No hard feelings. I just don't believe the organization is was it claims to be, and that my eternal life hangs at all on whether I participate in it or not or believe certain Mormon claims or not.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Brade

[Glenn101]

Reminds me of the NTSB finding in many aircraft accident reports that the fatal crash was the result of a failure to maintain sufficient altitude.

And both may be fatal.

Glenn

[Senator]

A person does not need to be a member of the LDS Church to be "saved" or even to be Exalted.

Ever?

[Senator]

Does a salesman have to say "This is a Ford Vehicle. GM thinks it is an ugly car. Mercedes thinks it handles poorly"?

Obviously, it's not Ford that has a problem.

Toyota is slow to learn that lesson, wasting millions, when the problem lie in the owners and drivers not reacting correctly, that when the throttle sticks, you should immediately put the car in neutral, come to controlled stop, and then turn off the vehicle.

Why should Toyota be held responsible for individual's poor driving skills?

[William James]

A fair picture, or THEIR picture? There is a big difference. You can hide behind the demands of "fairness", all the while you are actually telling the Church you want it to present what YOU have decided is the truth, demanding it submit or die.

I am getting a bit tired of these types of "loaded" statements. It's like the old, "does your mother know you are stupid?"

Lets say there are three stories about William James. One is that he is a Child Molester.. One is that he is just that he made a mistake. And one is that he is being falsely accused. Why would you have an obligation to tell all three stories? Why would you be obligated to tell people there are those who are claiming you are a pervert? Why wouldn't you just tell people what you know is the truth?

I think it is rather insane to demand the Church present anything other than what it feels is the truth. Just because you think there is a different angle, does not obligate it to tell that angle.

There is a lot of insanity in the Ex/Anti-LDS world, methinks..

JMS

There are some critical differences between Ford and the LDS Church. I have never heard Ford say that it is the one and only true carmaker on the face of the earth, or that people who drive a GM or a Toyota are bound to be miserable. Ford's goal is to make money. The Church's goal, we hope, is to save souls. Ford is legitimate to not mention outside criticisms of its product to potential customers because it does not demand that its customers gain a spiritual conviction of Ford's superiority over competing products. By contrast, in the realm of religion, truth is supposed to reign supreme. To ignore, distort, or downplay religious history is to encourage spiritual confirmations and testimonies by psychological manipulation.

You have insinuated that the church has no duty to acknowledge certain things in history because they are simply false. I am curious what you include in this category. Most likely you are simply mistaken- staunch LDS apologists who are well-versed in the history will acknowledge that so many of the troubling aspects of church history are true. Are you discrediting them?

Let's take one example as I recall it. Joseph Smith admitted in court that he used divination to seek buried treasure. He was paid three dollars per day. In fact, that is what brought him to Emma Hale's neighborhood when they met. Is it mere coincidence that he happens to find buried plates of gold during the same period of his life? What are the odds? Now, if someone hears the watered-down first discussion on the topic, it will sound more plausible that the BoM is authentic. But if someone also knows some of the background (established by Joseph's own admission), they will more likely conclude that Joseph was just making it all up. If we tell people not to read the literature about those facts, aren't we manipulating them? Shouldn't they go in with their eyes open?

[Deborah]

But if someone also knows some of the background (established by Joseph's own admission), they will more likely conclude that Joseph was just making it all up. If we tell people not to read the literature about those facts, aren't we manipulating them? Shouldn't they go in with their eyes open?

So Joseph used divination; so did many others at that time. He himself admits it. That doesn't mean the story of finding the plates isn't true. The church tells the story of finding the plates as recorded by the Prophet. Why on earth would they even imply that the gold plates were found any other way. If others want to speculate on that it is their prerogative. That doesn't mean the church should teach what it doesn't believe.

[Brade]

So Joseph used divination; so did many others at that time. He himself admits it. That doesn't mean the story of finding the plates isn't true. The church tells the story of finding the plates as recorded by the Prophet. Why on earth would they even imply that the gold plates were found any other way. If others want to speculate on that it is their prerogative. That doesn't mean the church should teach what it doesn't believe.

I don't think James is suggesting that the Church ought to imply that the gold plates were found in a way other than the way Joseph claimed to have found them. I think what he's suggesting is that the Church ought to be more forthcoming about the best available evidence with respect to the context in which Joseph claimed to have found them. Do I understand you correctly James?

Additionally, you're right to point out that Joseph's divination doesn't entail that the Church's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon aren't true. Those facts might, however, weigh against the reasonableness of concluding that the Church's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon are true, since those facts are suggestive of non-supernatural explanations for its origin; which, unless you're already committed to the truth of the Church's claims and/or believe that you have got or can get special knowledge directly from God on the matter through prayer, we should investigate first before accepting the version of the story that posits lots of extra things like people returning from the dead, floating humans, humans moving around through beams of light, histories of places inconsistent in many respects with the best available scholarship, rocks through which languages appear and other information is transmitted, etc.

Withholding judgement, or believing that the best available evidence is not suggestive of the truth of some claim is not to say that the claim is false. It's just to say that the available evidence isn't suggestive that it's true.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Brade

[Deborah]

I think what he's suggesting is that the Church ought to be more forthcoming about the best available evidence with respect to the context in which Joseph claimed to have found them. Do I understand you correctly James?

How is the church not forthcoming about the context if the context wasn't related to Joseph's earlier activities?

[William James]

Correct, Brade. Thanks.

[Brade]

How is the church not forthcoming about the context if the context wasn't related to Joseph's earlier activities?

Now wait a second, why should we not think that information in the historical record about Joseph's activities with peep stones and attempts at treasure digging are not related to the later activities with the Book of Mormon? For example, according to some reports one and the same peep stone used for treasure digging was used in translating the Book of Mormon, his treasure digging attempts were attempts to find valuable things buried in the ground, and the Book of Mormon was a valuable thing found in the ground. Those seem related enough to me to be part of the whole context of the Book of Mormon. And saying that they're related, or part of the context of the Book of Mormon is not to say that they prove the Book of Mormon is a fabrication. I think you might be unfairly imagining a criticism/counterclaim that nobody is making.

Why would this be a bad way for the Church to present the origin of the Book of Mormon? Are the elements I've included not part of the context of Joseph's bringing forth of the Book of Mormon? If not, why are they not part of that context? Why should they be ignored in telling people about the origin of the Book of Mormon?

Joseph Smith was raised during a time and in a place where folk magic was not uncommon. Evidence suggests that Joseph himself was involved in using peep stones in attempts to find treasure buried in the earth. It is perhaps this sort of open-mindedness that allowed God to work the miracle of bringing forth ancient inspired records through Joseph Smith.

In 1823 Joseph was visited by an angel who identified himself as an ancient inhabitant of the Americas. He told Joseph of a record of these inhabitants which was, amazingly, located not far from the Smith home. Joseph wasn't immediately permitted to retrieve the record. For several years after this encounter Joseph worked as a farmhand and continued to attempt to find treasure with peep stones, though he was never successful. Finally, in 1827 the angel Moroni permitted Joseph to take the ancient record and Joseph was instructed to translate it, which he did using various divine methods including use of the same peep stone he used in his attempts at treasure digging.

Because the ancient record was translated by the gift of God, the record itself appears not to have been used during the translation process. For example, primary witnesses reported that Joseph would place his peep stone in a hat to block out the light so that as he put is face to the hat's opening he could see the translation as it appeared on the stone. The plates were often covered, hid away, or in a box during this process.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Brade

[jo1952]

Ever?

That is my belief. I believe that the Church is currently God's vehicle He uses for purposes such as (but not limited to) performing the necessary Ordinances for mankind. However, performing these ordinances for the dead does not equate into the dead becoming members of the LDS Church. It does equate into having accomplished the ordinances required for Exaltation. The records for these ordinances are being kept by the LDS Church. If they should accept the work done on their behalf, they will achieve Exaltation if Christ deems them worthy.

Once the earth has been renewed, the resurrections have been completed, and the Millenium is over, I do not believe that Christ will call His kingdom "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". In fact, those who are in any glory of the Celestial Kingdom will be in Father's kingdom. Those who have been Exalted will be receiving their own "subset" of Father's kingdom as joint-heirs with Christ. There will be no more "latter-days", as this an earthly/worldly distinction. Once we are resurrected, we re-enter the spiritual realm of the eternities. I don't know what this will look like; but I do not believe the LDS Church will still be necessary. By then, it will have fulfilled its purpose within this world's Plan of Salvation. IOW, I think that the LDS Church's life-span (if you will) is limited to this dispensation. It was not in existance before the Restoration; and, it will not be required after all the ordinance work has been completed. I also do not agree with others who believe that The Church of the Lamb of God and the LDS Church are one and the same. In fact, once the Millenium is over, I really don't think that "church" will be a distinction that will be made. Rather, "kingdom" or perhaps, "level of Heaven" (with their accompanying name and subsets) will be used.

Best regards,

jo

[Palerider]

As to the issue of the authenticity of the stories, how can you reasonably conclude they are faked or false just because they may bear resemblance to each other? Couldn't the same thing be said about conversion stories? From the perspective of an outsider (which I am not because I have been LDS all my life), our conversion stories may very well sound like they have to fit a certain pattern/narrative. But does that make the conversions less than genuine? I think you would say "no." But I guess here's one challenge for you: devise a Mormon exit story which would sound authentic to you, and post it here. Perhaps the reason they sound fake or contrived to you is that you do not perceive any legitimate reasons why people might decide to leave. Many well-meaning TBMs have developed a world view which provides at least a theory to dismiss anyone else's choice to leave: for example, if a person prays about the Book of Mormon and does not get an answer, TBMs jump to conclusions to explain it- i.e., they weren't sincere, they didn't really want to know the truth because knowing would compel them to have to stop sinning, they were deceived by the Devil, the asked amiss, or didn't wait long enough for an answer, or they didn't fast, or they didn't read the entire book with real intent, or they lack faith, or they were supposed to assume that it's true before even asking, etc. But when we look closer at individual stories, we start having to call a heck of a lot of people's integrity into question if we are to dismiss their honesty and sincerity. Stated another way, I believe that one of the greatest subconscious temptations we as religious people face, is to assume that our subjective spiritual experiences are universally accessible to all. Religious tolerance is in large part an outgrowth of recognizing that this assumption is wrong. In fact, if we would look closer at our own LDS doctrine, we could see clues about this principle. For example, the scriptures talk about faith as being a spiritual gift. For some, it is easier to believe than for others, and I believe we must take this into account before we judge unbelievers or former believers so harshly. Our brains are forced to work harder when we accept that things are not so simple, black and white. I may have a conviction that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but I accept that other people have not experienced what I have experienced, and because of that, they will subjectively process the question about whether he was a prophet much differently than I will, and I cannot blame them for coming up with a different conclusion. One of my family members was raped by a member of her bishopric when she was a girl. What is a TBM's explanation for that? Was the perpetrator called of God or not? If yes, then wouldn't we agree that God sure did not make a very good choice? If no, then doesn't that necessarily disrupt the simple-minded view that all callings given in the Church are God-inspired, and is there any rational way we can determine when they are and when they aren't (before the tragedy)? And is it a good enough explanation to simply say that we can pray to know? What if the bishop or stake president prayed to know and got a warm fuzzy feeling about this closet sex predator? That then undermines our entire premise about the reliability of perceived spiritual confirmations of truth. Some people respond to these problems by tossing out spritual witnesses altogether as being worthless. For me, I have decided not to toss them out, but instead to recognize how psychology can play a role in distorting perceived revelation. Fear, hope, ignorance, greed, pride, and many other factors can distort our ability to get true answers from God. Because of that, I believe we as LDS must inject far more study, contemplation, and reason into our process of spiritual development. A criminal background check on an confession-role ecclesiastical leader is at least as valid as (if not more valid than) a spiritual witness that he/she should be called. On the issue of history, your post seems to suggest the following: 1. None of the LDS Church's history is sufficiently problematic to cause any member to reasonably choose to leave the Church; 2. The fact that some well-read members stay active after learning of problematic historical issues proves that it is reasonable for everyone to stay; and 3. You personally are aware of the historical problems which cause members to leave. Let me start with number 2 above- There is such a thing as reasonable disagreement. We have many very bright, scholarly types in the Church who choose to stay despite learning about troubling history. Generally, in order to do this, they have to come up with apologetic arguments to explain away the problems. It is fine with me if that satisfies them, but we cannot demand that all people hold the same standards of what seems and does not seem plausible. As to numbers 1 and 3 above, I think it would be helpful to do a little exercise. You, as a member familiar with church history, can make a list of what you consider to be the top 10 problems in church history for those who have left the Church. Then, provide a one-paragraph answer for each one, explaining why it is not a problem and should not prevent someone from believing in the Church. Then, we will see how well you grasp the issue. If you demonstrate that you understand and appreciate the concerns of those who have left, then in my view, you will have maintained at least your credibility in my eyes. But I suspect it is far more likely that you simply do not understand the arguments of the other side; otherwise, you would not be so critical of them.

Thankyou for that well thought out, concise, and reasonable post. It is very much appreciated. Probably one of the best I have read since coming to this site.

[Mariner]

As an addition, is Ford obligated to show not only it's promotional videos, but also show the bashing videos of GM? Does a salesman have to say "This is a Ford Vehicle. GM thinks it is an ugly car. Mercedes thinks it handles poorly"?

Really?

Using a similar analogy, does Ford have the right to claim that its cars are just as good as the comparably sized Mercedes - that they are as powerful, handle as well, will last as long, and hold their value as well?

If they did so, would they be telling the truth?

Does Ford not have the obligation to disclose the truth about its cars?

What should Ford do when its customers found out that this was not the truth?

Did Ford not learn about non-disclosure from its experience with the Pinto?

Edited November 13, 2011 by Mariner

[zerinus]

AKA nobody has the right to have discussions about the church that aren't correlated and held under the auspices of church authority. So shut up everyone.

I am not shutting anybody up. I am giving them the answer they need to hear.

[thatjimguy]

I wouldn't worry about this history thing. As long as they Truly study it and ponder, it shouldn't be a problem. I am a convert and looked up all the controversies in the church and got past just about all of it with a little investigation. Now granted, I was very into it and that's different than some one who is looking at it bitterly...they just might not want to dive as deeply.