why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Again, you continue to ignore the fact that much doctrine and practice within the church is based upon alleged historical events.The manuals in the church are teaching doctrine AND alleged history. It teaches many, many things as literal historical events and facts.The first two chapters in the current manual are about charity and what George Albert Smith taught about it. Now I do wish that there were more of a historical record of the early church and how the early church with JS stressed the need to help the least fortunate and give a background historical account of it. But... basically the message of the first two chapters was: to help one another and to help make this world a better place through the act of giving.
Mariner Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 It's in quotes because I question how honest the search is on the part of those who leave because of the history. The "vast majority" have found them false? I think not. You'd be surprised at how much people know but because it isn't an issue they don't bother to discuss it or anguish over it.How can you possibly argue against the fact that the vast majority of people who have considered the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church have judged them to be false or found them unconvincing?To start with, activity rates in the LDS Church worldwide are only something between 20% and 40%, depending on the region and country. It is not a stretch to say that those members of the Church who are inactive are not sufficiently convinced of the LDS truth claims to even attend Church. Even considering its members, there is already evidence that a majority reject LDS truth claims or are unconvinced that they mean very much.Consider the missionary efforts of the Church. Again, the majority of people who the missionaries talk to or teach do not join the Church. These people have also considered and rejected LDS truth claims. My sons, who went on foreign missions, met with hundreds of people but baptized only a very few. Significantly, none of those who my sons baptized were still active when my sons returned to their foreign mission areas within 4 years after returning home. Their mission experiences and outcomes are not unique.Now think about television audiences for documentaries on Mormonism such as the recently mentioned PBS Series The Mormons. Given PBS viewership ratings of approximately 1.5%, it is likely that some 4.5 million people in the US were introduced to the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church in this two part series (which aired several times and is now available online). This series even included the now famous interview with President Hinkley.It is certainly safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the viewers who were not LDS at the time they saw this special on the Mormons rejected the basic truth claims of the Church, including the claim of a living prophet (who spoke to them directly on camera), the Book of Mormon narrative, and the first vision stories, to name a few.In summary, a majority of the members of the LDS Church do not take its truth claims seriously enough to even attend meetings. In fact, in independent polls and surveys many members of record (up to 30% or so in some polls) do not even self indentify as LDS. The vast majority who hear LDS truth claims from missionaries or Church members reject them, as do the vast majority of people who consider LDS truth claims as reflected by high quality and factually accurate documentaries such as The Mormons on PBS.Most people in the US know the basic claims of Mormonism just as they know the basic claims of those who believe they have seen UFOs. Yet more people in the US demonstrate believe in UFOs and that the Earth has been recently visited by aliens from outer space (approximately 30%) than demonstrate believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church (less than 2%).
Brade Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 You should have based your faith on personal revelation then there wouldn't have been any cracks and holes. As soon as you base it on someone elses claims then it isn't long before another comes along poking holes in those claims, then anoter comes and pokes holes in that and pretty soon you have nothing to stand on.I'm my case it is first and foremost the methodology of believing certain sorts of claims on the basis of spiritual experience that I distrust. The history of the Church is secondary. If I trusted the Church's epistemological method, then I'd believe, history be damned.
LDSToronto Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 You should have based your faith on personal revelation then there wouldn't have been any cracks and holes. As soon as you base it on someone elses claims then it isn't long before another comes along poking holes in those claims, then anoter comes and pokes holes in that and pretty soon you have nothing to stand on.Would you trust a medical doctor who learned medicine by personal revelation? How about an automechanic who learned to fix cars by personal revelation? If not, why discount historical research?My experience is that LDS use personal revelation as a trump card any time their faith is threatened or their faith needs bolstering. Consider two scholarly papers, A and B. Paper A presents research supporting the truth claims of the church, paper B contains research refuting the truth claims of the church. Using the personal revelation trump card, most LDS would accept paper A and reject paper B.I've actually seen this happen. I've been in sacrament meetings and lessons where people march out studies that show caffeine is bad, or alcohol is bad, or pre-marital co-habitation is bad, or that certain historical events lead to belief, and they laud and honour these studies. Yet, when I have put studies on the table that show tea is good for health, that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial, that pre-marital co-habitation leads to a better marriage, and that certain historical findings point away from the church, well, these tend to be dismissed with the trump card of personal revelation, the same trump card that accepts the former claims.Which leads me to believe that personal revelation is not much more than institutionalized confirmation bias.H.
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Consider the missionary efforts of the Church. Again, the majority of people who the missionaries talk to or teach do not join the Church. These people have also considered and rejected LDS truth claims. My sons, who went on foreign missions, met with hundreds of people but baptized only a very few. Significantly, none of those who my sons baptized were still active when my sons returned to their foreign mission areas within 4 years after returning home. Their mission experiences and outcomes are not unique.I don't think that they know lds truth claims at all. Most don't want to hear about any truth claims nor can they be bothered. And what are the lds truth claims? That JS translated a book from plates. People witnessed the event. And 11 people testified as to having seen the plates and 8 of those people actually touched the plates and turned the plates over. Plus, we have the whitmers mom who had an unique experience when she saw the plates. Such are the truth claims. What should they reject? That 12 people actually saw the plates and some saw the translation process?
Deborah Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Most people in the US know the basic claims of Mormonism just as they know the basic claims of those who believe they have seen UFOs. Yet more people in the US demonstrate believe in UFOs and that the Earth has been recently visited by aliens from outer space (approximately 30%) than demonstrate believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church (less than 2%).CFR that most people know this. Even if they've come into contact with Mormons they may have no understanding of what we actually believe. You are mistaking casual contact (and yes that even applies to missionary lessons) with in depth studying. People reject the church when hearing about it for many reasons. True many don't accept our version of the godhead or that Joseph Smith was a prophet but they are also influenced by years of teachings that contradict that such things can happen. That is something that a casual observer may not be able to overcome.I have found that those who are actively seeking the truth and come into contact with the church readily accept it's teachings. I knew some converts a few years ago who were what we call golden contacts. They were ready to receive the gospel and immediately accepted it. And guess what, they knew all about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Shocker.
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 How can you possibly argue against the fact that the vast majority of people who have considered the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church have judged them to be false or found them unconvincing?Again, how many actually thought about the truth claims or seriously took the challenge contained within the book of mormon? And please tell us what is unconvincing about the truth claims? I have yet to see any critic explain away all the witnesses and deathbed testimonies of the people involved in seeing the plates. Plus, just how the book came to be. However, the internet is full of hypothetical illustrations and innuendos about it all designed to cause doubt.
LDSToronto Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Again, how many actually thought about the truth claims or seriously took the challenge contained within the book of mormon? And please tell us what is unconvincing about the truth claims? I have yet to see any critic explain away all the witnesses and deathbed testimonies of the people involved in seeing the plates. Plus, just how the book came to be. However, the internet is full of hypothetical illustrations and innuendos about it all designed to cause doubt.Actually, why me, this is a question that I'd be interested in hearing you answer. You are an inactive member of the LDS Church, so I think you would have some excellent and very interesting insight into what is unconvincing about the truth claims of the LDS Church - what is it about the truth claims that leave you unconvinced enough to remain inactive?H.
Thinking Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 And that is fine. But your belief is a matter of opinion most likely based in the historical. But it is only your interpretation of how the book came to be. And it has much to do with historical interpretation. For example: If I go into the past about how the book came to be, I see Joseph with others engaged in bring forth the book. I have witness testimony that there were plates from which Joseph translated from and I see witnesses to the actually seeing of the book and from witnesses who actually handled the book.I then have witness accounts of how Joseph translated the book. Some claimed that his head was in a hat etc. Now I need to evaluate whether these people were deluded, fraudsters or sociopaths or they experienced exactly what they said to experience in their testimonies. I then have deathbed testimonies from some of the witnesses reconfirming their experiences. Now what do I do with all this historical information? And how do I interpret it?Now you can come up with other historical information and the two can be compared. But how to interpret the involvement of all these people sticking with it until the end of their lives?Wow! I tell you very simply that I don't believe in the Book of Mormon, and you proceed to tell me why you think I don't believe and why those reasons (which I never stated yet you assumed) are invalid.
Darth_Bill Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I know I have some issues with the BoM because just a little too much 19th century issues are in there. Also the idea that JS had a superior memory, (Brant Gardner's thoughts), could easily attribute much of the biblical references being throughout the text. As an aside, in a conversation with my wife let me know that I had a bit of that too. She expressed frustration because I could bring up scriptural references without looking at the text. "You never pick up the scriptures! How do you do that?" I mumbled something about "I did read them....once." This actually was an epiphany for me because it explained so much about myself. I'm not even very good at it but it could easily explain how he quoted so much of the bible in the BoM. As to the witnesses, don't know. I guess that is a mystery yet to me. I also don't feel the need to explain visions and testimonies of Hindu's and Muslims and Catholics and Protestants....The biggest historical problems are those I find in the NT. There is arguably only two "eye-witness" testimonies in the NT, and one of them was possibly a 5 second vision. At the end of the day, I just couldn't understand the logic of a sacrifice of a human-god that overcomes my character flaws and somehow calling that justice. It doesn't make anymore sense than animal sacrifice or any other scapegoat religions or other rituals. If I can ever make sense of the atonement, other than the strong emotional response which I do feel, I'll be more dedicated. I just see too many human fingerprints in religion. I don't know how to get myself past that anymore.
ERayR Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I'm my case it is first and foremost the methodology of believing certain sorts of claims on the basis of spiritual experience that I distrust. The history of the Church is secondary. If I trusted the Church's epistemological method, then I'd believe, history be damned.And my experience leads me the other direction. As I have learned to trust those spiritual promptings I have avoided much trouble and heartache and my life has improved.
Brade Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Wow! I tell you very simply that I don't believe in the Book of Mormon, and you proceed to tell me why you think I don't believe and why those reasons (which I never stated yet you assumed) are invalid.Consider yourself lucky. A year ago when I mentioned in a comment that I was going to step away from activity in the Church I was told several times that the reason I was making this decision was because I wanted to live a crazy lifestyle.
Darth_Bill Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Consider yourself lucky. A year ago when I mentioned in a comment that I was going to step away from activity in the Church I was told several times that the reason I was making this decision was because I wanted to live a crazy lifestyle.Really. I live the same lifestyle regardless. I don't drink because I can't see what it would gain me and I've always thought that. I can't think of a single thing I did or didn't do as a member that was a result of a church command. I fit in because I didn't have to change or overcome anything. The church's lifestyle makes sense and can lead to happiness either in or out of the church. I feel no need to alter it if I become inactive.
Brade Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) And my experience leads me the other direction. As I have learned to trust those spiritual promptings I have avoided much trouble and heartache and my life has improved.I think that's wonderful. That's slightly tangential to the issue, however. The question isn't whether it's ok to behave a certain way because of putative spiritual experiences; rather, the question is whether spiritual experiences provide the good reason to believe certain very specific sorts of propositions. So, I happen to think that in some cases certain kinds of mystical experiences are good enough reason to pursue the way of life associated with the experience. But, one and the same experience is not good enough reason to believe certain sorts of propositions associated with the way of life at issue. One way out of the concern I raise is to adopt a wholly pragmatic view of truth - ala mfbukowski. Edited January 21, 2012 by Brade
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I have found that those who are actively seeking the truth and come into contact with the church readily accept it's teachings. I knew some converts a few years ago who were what we call golden contacts. They were ready to receive the gospel and immediately accepted it. And guess what, they knew all about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Shocker.This is true. However, in this internet age it is usually skim, scan or glance the critic sites and this has an ill effect on many who search about the lds faith. And as they skim, scan and glance at critic interpretations of church history they become convinced that the lds church may be not for them.
LDSToronto Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 This is true. However, in this internet age it is usually skim, scan or glance the critic sites and this has an ill effect on many who search about the lds faith. And as they skim, scan and glance at critic interpretations of church history they become convinced that the lds church may be not for them.Why me, what convinced you that the LDS Church is not for you? If not history, then what?H.
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Actually, why me, this is a question that I'd be interested in hearing you answer. You are an inactive member of the LDS Church, so I think you would have some excellent and very interesting insight into what is unconvincing about the truth claims of the LDS Church - what is it about the truth claims that leave you unconvinced enough to remain inactive? H.As you know I have been a big defender of the truth claims of the lds church regardless of my inactivity. I think that many former members who may not have had respect for inactives as members may not quite understand reasons for inactivity. I am not saying that you are one of these former members but as you know I have experienced them. One reason why I have not abandoned the ship is because of these truth claims and my spiritual experience when I prayed about the book of mormon. And when I look at the history of the early lds church I see a lot of wonderful information about JS and the early beginnings of mormonism such as the witnesses who I readily identify with because many also became inactive. Also, contrary to critic interpretations of mormons, I see lds history with a critical mind where I weigh both sides of the argument through questioning and reach a conclusion.And my conclusion is simple: I see no reason for the witnesses to lie. And knowing human nature as I do, I see no reason for them to continue the lie as many members suffered during the years of persecution of the early members. I think that there is more to this than meets the eye. I believe that they believed in their experience and could not separate themselves from some aspects of mormonism either in Strang or in the Reorganized lds. They may have been believing that Joseph was a fallen prophet but their experiences with him convinced them that god lives. 1
Jeff K. Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 How can you possibly argue against the fact that the vast majority of people who have considered the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church have judged them to be false or found them unconvincing?To start with, activity rates in the LDS Church worldwide are only something between 20% and 40%, depending on the region and country. It is not a stretch to say that those members of the Church who are inactive are not sufficiently convinced of the LDS truth claims to even attend Church. Even considering its members, there is already evidence that a majority reject LDS truth claims or are unconvinced that they mean very much.I didn't realize that the church claimed its people are mere automatons, that once they are baptised or commit to something that is all they are. Nor did I realize that the church claimed all baptism was the end all be all, that once baptised no further issue exists. People go through a myriad of cycles in their life, some are able to bear the burdens of responsibility that come with membership in the church of Jesus Christ, others do not. Some can resist temptation and others must repent, and some sadly, cannot find it in themselves to repent. There is much truth to the saying "Many are called, but few are chosen". The attack of anti Mormons regarding activity rates is a good reminder of that.Consider the missionary efforts of the Church. Again, the majority of people who the missionaries talk to or teach do not join the Church. These people have also considered and rejected LDS truth claims. My sons, who went on foreign missions, met with hundreds of people but baptized only a very few. Significantly, none of those who my sons baptized were still active when my sons returned to their foreign mission areas within 4 years after returning home. Their mission experiences and outcomes are not unique.Very few people join the church in Europe, it is a difficult field, trodden down by so many. Many people join in South America and Africa. I would say that sometimes people forget what missions are about, both members and anti Mormons sometimes think its about the numbers, when in fact it is, in large part, a clarion warning, a call to repentance, a sharing of the gospel and an opportunity to learn. So far the points raised are higly irrelevant.Now think about television audiences for documentaries on Mormonism such as the recently mentioned PBS Series The Mormons. Given PBS viewership ratings of approximately 1.5%, it is likely that some 4.5 million people in the US were introduced to the foundational truth claims of the LDS Church in this two part series (which aired several times and is now available online). This series even included the now famous interview with President Hinkley.It is certainly safe to say that the overwhelming majority of the viewers who were not LDS at the time they saw this special on the Mormons rejected the basic truth claims of the Church, including the claim of a living prophet (who spoke to them directly on camera), the Book of Mormon narrative, and the first vision stories, to name a few.Funny, I thought it was a documentary, not a missionary tool. Did they pray the spirit would be with all those watching? Did they seek to bear their testimonies? Without the spirit documentaries are, well, documentaries, not necessarily there to convince.In summary, a majority of the members of the LDS Church do not take its truth claims seriously enough to even attend meetings. In fact, in independent polls and surveys many members of record (up to 30% or so in some polls) do not even self indentify as LDS. The vast majority who hear LDS truth claims from missionaries or Church members reject them, as do the vast majority of people who consider LDS truth claims as reflected by high quality and factually accurate documentaries such as The Mormons on PBS.Most people in the US know the basic claims of Mormonism just as they know the basic claims of those who believe they have seen UFOs. Yet more people in the US demonstrate believe in UFOs and that the Earth has been recently visited by aliens from outer space (approximately 30%) than demonstrate believe in the truth claims of the LDS Church (less than 2%).In summary, most of your post was irrelevant. If the world turns from democracy to dictatorships or monarchies (as it has done in the past), does that mean democracy is wrong? So few people vote that we must assume (using the logic presented here) that they no longer believe in democracy, indeed, the lack of people interested in politics shows that our government is the wrong government, and that monarchism or some other form of centralized authority is the way to go.I trust you see the flaw in your logic?
Nevo Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues.I think Terryl Givens puts it well:LDS doctrine as a whole is rooted inescapably in history; its claims to divine authority and restored truth are entirely dependent on the narratives of LDS origins. Without an uncompromising belief in Joseph Smith's literal visitation by God and heavenly angels, verbally communicating and physically transmitting to him ancient records and priesthood keys, and without verifiable evidence of a continuing conduit linking Joseph's successors to God—a God who personally directs the continuing work of the restoration—Mormonism would utterly lose its claim to be the unique institutional form of the one true gospel. What this means in practice is that challenges to orthodox accounts of the church's past strike at the very heart of the faith.— Terryl L. Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 222.The Church's official version of its history—the version that it presents to members—is carefully controlled and sanitized because the Church understands exactly what is at stake. It's the "milk before meat" approach. As Givens notes, leaders worry that "even truth, as a surgeon's knife...could obliterate faith, given an incomplete context, a too-vulnerable audience, or insensitive treatment" (240). Hence, Boyd K. Packer's famous charge to LDS religious educators not to tell "everything."Members desiring a less anemic diet will not, as a rule, find "meat" (if they even know it exists) in anything bearing the Church's logo (or Deseret Book's). Instead, they will need to look to outside sources—and that carries a certain amount of spiritual risk. Edited January 21, 2012 by Nevo
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 Why me, what convinced you that the LDS Church is not for you? If not history, then what? H.I never said that the lds church is not for me because of history. Lets just say, that I cannot do it 100 percent or perhaps 25 percent. Such is life. We humans are complicated people with interesting human experiences.
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I think Terryl Givens puts it well: The Church's official version of its history—the version that it presents to members—is carefully controlled and sanitized because the Church understands exactly what is at stake. It's the "milk before meat" approach. I think that you are wrong. Even during the days of JS the church was growing and these members lived the history that we are now reading. And yes, some left too over the history that they were living, ie, the kirkland bank crisis. But we also need to remember that many who were living the history stayed faithful and had wonderful spiritual experiences as members. And through persecution they remained faithful. And yes, others left because they felt JS did not live up to their image of a prophet.Do you actually believe that the lds church could not spin any aspect of their history as faith promoting? Most lds history can be interpreted as faith promoting by most lds historians. When I read bushman I saw much that was faith promoting regardless of the history written in that book.
why me Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) I think Terryl Givens puts it well: Here is the problem with Terryl Givens: as a historian or as a writer: he lacked imagination. History also needs to be written with an imagination. To imagine JS as a young man writing the book of mormon (where, when, how), to imagine the witnesses seeing what they saw, to imagine what it must of been like to experience what JS experienced and still remain on track, to imagine what it must have been like to be oliver, emma, martin, and david, living the moments with JS and yet, still living the moments long after he was murdered. Now that takes imagination and history needs imagination. Edited January 21, 2012 by why me
Jeff K. Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 ERayR, on 21 January 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:You should have based your faith on personal revelation then there wouldn't have been any cracks and holes. As soon as you base it on someone elses claims then it isn't long before another comes along poking holes in those claims, then anoter comes and pokes holes in that and pretty soon you have nothing to stand on.Would you trust a medical doctor who learned medicine by personal revelation? How about an automechanic who learned to fix cars by personal revelation? If not, why discount historical research?My experience is that LDS use personal revelation as a trump card any time their faith is threatened or their faith needs bolstering. Consider two scholarly papers, A and B. Paper A presents research supporting the truth claims of the church, paper B contains research refuting the truth claims of the church. Using the personal revelation trump card, most LDS would accept paper A and reject paper B.H.Faith is based on personal revelation. Doctoring is based on being a doctor. We don't ask someone who knows about being a doctor and knows nothing about the spiritual to be a spiritual guide. The opening statement is sadly flawed. But somewhat typical of those who reject any kind of personal revelation from God. Since they have rejected God they cannot conceive or dare not conceive of others having such a gift. In fact they don't want others to have it, it might reveal a fatal flaw in their own nature.The truth is God uses personal revelation as a trump card, but only for those who can recieve Him. Mormons, and other religions pray mightily to God and frankly all often recieve such based on their desire to listen and carry out what they feel inspired to do. Now if a member of the church is confronted by an anti Mormon who claims the Mormon uses personal revelation as a trump card, how does the anti Mormon differentiate between the individual using it or God? Anti Mormons can't, but it sounds better if you don't mention God when talking about the church, at least for anti Mormons.I've actually seen this happen. I've been in sacrament meetings and lessons where people march out studies that show caffeine is bad, or alcohol is bad, or pre-marital co-habitation is bad, or that certain historical events lead to belief, and they laud and honour these studies. Yet, when I have put studies on the table that show tea is good for health, that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial, that pre-marital co-habitation leads to a better marriage, and that certain historical findings point away from the church, well, these tend to be dismissed with the trump card of personal revelation, the same trump card that accepts the former claims.Which leads me to believe that personal revelation is not much more than institutionalized confirmation bias.I have seen studies for different products, I have seen studies against different products.... Coffee good for you, Tea bad for you...... Tea good for you, well maybe not, wine good, ok good in moderate levels, or maybe not. There are so many studies out there. Its fine that someone would put their faith and belief system on what a study says. I have read studies that repudiated Alfred Wegner and how poor Ignaz Simmelweiss was repudiated by other scientific studies only to die in an asylum. I like scientific studies they do much to increase our knowledge of the world, more oft than not they can be wrong, in fact if scientific studies, the majority of them were ever right, than science would cease to advance. Faith in a scientific study is not always a good thing.Of course that is all irrelevant. The Word of Wisdom is given to us. It holds many blessings for us. It doesn't tell us what we are avoiding is automatically good or bad, we look to it and try to divine the mind of God in order to "catagorize it" as good or bad for some reason or another, whether it be smoking, drinking, tea and coffee or what not. The point isn't to weigh whether or not the items we are asked to abstain from are good compared to one scientific test or another, or whether they are bad compared to one scientific study or another. The Word of Wisdom is a bid to make sacrifice to the Lord and to abstain because we are commanded to. Are the results of not drinking tea and coffee and smoking cigarettes (or chewing) something that is inherently negative? Are people for instance dying because they can't get their cigarette or tea? If not, then a neutral choice not to imbibe in those particular products should not be a problem. And it isn't a problem for most people. But I swear, it drives anti Mormons up the wall.
Mariner Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 CFR that most people know this. The Pew Memorial Trust is the largest of the Pew Trusts and operates one of the leading public opinion polling organizations in the country. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is an active and trusted component of the Pew organization.In 2010, the Pew Trust published the results of a survey entitled Mormons in America .In a follow-on 2011 Pew survey 49% of non-Mormons say that they know some or a great deal about Mormonism.If 49% or non-Mormons know something or a lot about Mormonism, and Mormons make up approximately 2% of the US population, then one can reasonably assume that 51%, (or most) people in the US would be familiar with the basic Mormon truth claims. However, of the roughly 50% who are familiar with the Mormon truth claims, only about 4% have joined the Church at any time in their lives. This means that more than 90% of the people who are familiar with the truth claims of Mormonism have rejected them.I would call that an overwhelming majority.
Jeff K. Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 I think Terryl Givens puts it well:The Church's official version of its history—the version that it presents to members—is carefully controlled and sanitized because the Church understands exactly what is at stake. It's the "milk before meat" approach. As Givens notes, leaders worry that "even truth, as a surgeon's knife...could obliterate faith, given an incomplete context, a too-vulnerable audience, or insensitive treatment" (240). Hence, Boyd K. Packer's famous charge to LDS religious educators not to tell "everything."Members desiring a less anemic diet will not, as a rule, find "meat" (if they even know it exists) in anything bearing the Church's logo (or Deseret Book's). Instead, they will need to look to outside sources—and that carries a certain amount of spiritual risk.I take it the Joseph Smith papers are alien to you? Rough Stone Rolling?We have been eating and are eating some fine steak, its a shame you missed out. Kind of kills your entire prepared TV dinner doesn't it.
Recommended Posts