The Philosophy Of Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues-Like What Is It?

[Jeff K.]

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.

What if what they know is incorrect? Was there a follow up? Or are we simply relying on the surveyor to know depth versus personal understanding? Wouldnt knowing the wrong information pretty much make your claim false? In fact it would.

[Nevo]

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.

I do think most LDS history can be interpreted as faith-promoting. I interpret most of it that way myself.

Here is the problem with Terryl Givens: as a historian or as a writer: he lacked imagination...

LOL.

[LDSToronto]

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.

Exactly. So it should come as no surprise and should come under no criticism when people do leave for reasons relating to historical discrepancies.

H.

[Jeff K.]

How can someone rise from the dead? If that isn't a historical discrepency I don't know what is.

[Storm Rider]

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.

This is more the tired position of critics than actual reality. The vast majority of references critics and apologists use come from Church resources; the claim that these is a secret history that is hidden from the members falls into the all too common conspiracy theories so prevalent in today's society. If a member wants to read, then it is not hidden, but in plain sight.

The question is what meat is desired? Some think that it is the understanding of the galaxies, the First Cause, a total understanding of the nature of God, or the Atonement. Others find it in the understanding of faith, repentance, baptism, and Gift of the Holy Spirit. While still others spend their lives in gaining what some may think of as as more mundance matters of science and literature.

I tend to distrust those who talk a great deal about the meat of the gospel and yet fail to understand the very basic buildings blocks of the gospel. They do not even build a good foundation and yet run off trying to build a castle only to find that their foundation was firmly located on sand. Mankind never seems to change and the same problems of 2,000 years ago are very much the same problems of today.

[Mariner]

What if what they know is incorrect? Was there a follow up? Or are we simply relying on the surveyor to know depth versus personal understanding? Wouldnt knowing the wrong information pretty much make your claim false? In fact it would.

What are the basic truth claims of Mormonism? According to President Hinkley, one of the most, if not the most, important claim is the truthfulness of the official LDS version of the first vision (one of many versions, as it turns out).

Would you say that someone who stated that they know some or great deal about Mormonism would know that Joseph Smith claimed to have literally received a visit from God?

If those who know about this claim reject it, have they not rejected a central foundation truth claim of Mormonism?

Having rejected the truth claim regarding the first vision, is it then possible to truly accept any of those truth claims that are based upon the claim of the first vision?

[Jeff K.]

So you

What are the basic truth claims of Mormonism? According to President Hinkley, one of the most, if not the most, important claim is the truthfulness of the official LDS version of the first vision (one of many versions, as it turns out).

Would you say that someone who stated that they know some or great deal about Mormonism would know that Joseph Smith claimed to have literally received a visit from God?

If those who know about this claim reject it, have they not rejected a central foundation truth claim of Mormonism?

Having rejected the truth claim regarding the first vision, is it then possible to truly accept any of those truth claims that are based upon the claim of the first vision?

You stated they were well informed. I asked whether or not their information was correct.

Now you want to discuss the basic truths.

It is a non answer.

[why me]

I do think most LDS history can be interpreted as faith-promoting. I interpret most of it that way myself.

LOL.

A good history teacher teaches imagination to their students. To be able to use the imagination in historical context becomes very important in not just understanding the past but also with sympathy, empathy etc. A good history teacher has the class use their imagination as they read history. This can be compared to the sociological imagination when dealing with current life from a sociological perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_imagination

[Jeff K.]

Tell you what, if the survey outlines what they know, and you have that information, and that information is convincingly good that they do indeed know a great deal of Mormons, by jiggers, I will tip my hat and say you are right, they know a great deal.

[Brade]

How can someone rise from the dead? If that isn't a historical discrepency I don't know what is.

Exactly. So much the worse for the resurrection. You're welcome to say of me that, having realized a distrust in truth-via-spiritual-experience, I've gone ahead and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Brade

[Nevo]

I take it the Joseph Smith papers are alien to you? Rough Stone Rolling?

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was published by Alfred A. Knopf—not the Church. The Joseph Smith Papers project is sponsored by the Church—the project is staffed by Church employees and published by an imprint of the Church History Department—but isn't particularly accessible to the average member. I've spent over $200 for the three volumes that I own (and I am still missing two). Apart from the prohibitive cost, the books are densely annotated collections of documents, not popular (narrative) histories.

[why me]

Exactly. So it should come as no surprise and should come under no criticism when people do leave for reasons relating to historical discrepancies.

H.

I think that people leave for various of reasons. However, with mormonism people leave based on interpretation and what interpretation they want to believe. But very few leave on facts. Here are the facts: JS has not been proven to be a fraudster. Neither have the witnesses. It has not been proven that JS wrote the book of mormon. In fact, when one considers 12 witnesses who saw the plates and none retracted their experiences, speaks loudly for the book. Those are facts that critics wish to ignore.

Now with polgyamy: it would be wonderful if 10 of the plural wives of JS would have spoken out and claimed that he was in it for lust. But none did. It would have been wonderful if even some of these women felt used and abused. None did. And yet, as you know, critics claim that JS was lustful. Do you see a problem here?

[Mariner]

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?

As a response to Deborah's denial that most who consider the truth claims of the LDS Church reject these claims, my post was exactly on point. In fact it devastated her position. You will note that results from the 2011 Pew survey on Mormonism also support my argument.

As for flaws in my logic, your response does not indicate that you would be able to see one if it were there.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 January 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

I take it the Joseph Smith papers are alien to you? Rough Stone Rolling?

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was published by Alfred A. Knopf—not the Church. The Joseph Smith Papers project is sponsored by the Church—the project is staffed by Church employees and published by an imprint of the Church History Department—but isn't particularly accessible to the average member. I've spent over $200 for the three volumes that I own (and I am still missing two). Apart from the prohibitive cost, the books are densely annotated collections of documents, not popular (narrative) histories.

It is indeed accessible to the average member. It is on their website, ibooks, it is very accessible. And the church was very open in allowing full access.

YOU SPENT 200 DOLLARS?

Would you like to use my link, its free.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/

Edited January 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[why me]

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was published by Alfred A. Knopf—not the Church. The Joseph Smith Papers project is sponsored by the Church—the project is staffed by Church employees and published by an imprint of the Church History Department—but isn't particularly accessible to the average member. I've spent over $200 for the three volumes that I own (and I am still missing two). Apart from the prohibitive cost, the books are densely annotated collections of documents, not popular (narrative) histories.

And this bring it back to the problem of desbooks and the books that they publish and the lds historians who write lds history. But desbooks did sell RSR in their book shops. I think that guys like you and others need to put pressure on desbooks to publish different interpretations of lds history by active members. That may do the trick.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 January 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

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?

As a response to Deborah's denial that most who consider the truth claims of the LDS Church reject these claims, my post was exactly on point. In fact it devastated her position. You will note that results from the 2011 Pew survey on Mormonism also support my argument.

As for flaws in my logic, your response does not indicate that you would be able to see one if it were there.

You apparently don't see the flaw in your logic. So you are left with a non answer, which in effect means you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge what is in front of you.

This may be why you have such a hard time with personal revelation. Think about it.....

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 January 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

How can someone rise from the dead? If that isn't a historical discrepency I don't know what is.

Exactly. So much the worse for the resurrection. You're welcome to say of me that, having realized a distrust in truth-via-spiritual-experience, I've gone ahead and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

Atheists have a better chance of avoiding the hypocrisy of that dichotomy.

[Mariner]

So you

You stated they were well informed. I asked whether or not their information was correct.

Now you want to discuss the basic truths.

It is a non answer.

What I stated was taken directly from the Pew survey report. What I am talking about in referring to the first vision is a fundamental truth claim of the LDS Church. What I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of those who hear this truth claim reject it. What part of this straightforward and evidence-backed argument do you not understand?

[Nevo]

If a member wants to read, then it is not hidden, but in plain sight.

If a member wants sanitized, faith-promoting history, it is readily available in Church publications: lesson manuals, the Ensign, Our Heritage, the Joseph Smith movie. If they want uncensored history, they will need to go to an academic press, Signature Books, Arthur H. Clark, or some other venue—and these are not "in plain sight" for the average member.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Nevo

[Deborah]

As a response to Deborah's denial that most who consider the truth claims of the LDS Church reject these claims, my post was exactly on point. In fact it devastated her position.

You love to quote surveys that show how few people accept the truth claims of the church without understanding the many factors that actually might be involved in determining such things. I am telling you that people who are seeking truth will hear the message and accept it. Not everyone is looking for something more and so when presented with what you call the truth claims just aren't interested. I have known people who actually accept the prophet and the BOM but for other reasons just don't want to join, often due to lifestyle and commitment. Surveys only tell part of the story.

And in any case so what? Why is it so meaningful to you that everyone accept the church for it to be true? Numbers have nothing to do with it. "Many are called but few are chosen" was true in the ancient church and is today. So gloat in the numbers all you want but realize they don't tell the whole story and in the long run are meaningless anyway to those who do find and believe.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 January 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

So you

You stated they were well informed. I asked whether or not their information was correct.

Now you want to discuss the basic truths.

It is a non answer.

What I stated was taken directly from the Pew survey report. What I am talking about in referring to the first vision is a fundamental truth claim of the LDS Church. What I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of those who hear this truth claim reject it. What part of this straightforward and evidence-backed argument do you not understand?

Yes, you qouted a survey without knowing its content. Its a common mistake.

Your post was this....

Mariner, on 21 January 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

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.

This is what your post is based upon, that people already know the church well and are rejecting it.

I asked you, quite plainly, how do YOU know if the surveyor knew the depth of knowledge of those answering the question? You don't. So the amount of knowledge held by all those questioned is unknown, but you claim it means that because they THINK they know the church well, it obviously means they must.

Now do you see the flaw in your logic?

You don't know what truth people know, you aren't sure what their depth of knowledge is, but you base this as your main argument. Why anyone would put a mortgage or argument on that house of cards is beyond me.

[LDSToronto]

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.

Please clarify - are you saying it takes a personal revelation from god to discern which historical material is accurate and which is not? Because that's what I was talking about...

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?

You have hit on the central problem of personal revelation because I'd suggest that not even the Mormon using personal revelation can claim that revelation came from god with any degree of proof.

"Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." Joseph himself acted on revelations he thought were from god but turned out to not be from god.

If a prophet is unable to tell, how can a regular member?

But even forgetting Joseph's troubles for a moment, how does one go about supporting the claim that their personal revelation comes from god? Why should one ever entertain the possibility? How can one say that, in light of historical evidence that supports an alternative reality than the one currently presented by the church, personal revelation, originating from god, overrides?

And I don't think the answer is as simple as, "You have to have a desire to believe". A desire for something to be true does not make something true.

H.

[KevinG]

How to tell truth from falsehood when we don't have all the first hand accounts? How to tell good revelation from bad?

The short answer is a long term realtionship with God that starts with trust/faith then builds on the fundamentals, brings us to a greater knowledge of God and grows from there... Obedience to His revelations is the requirement for gaining further light and knowledge.

Edited January 21, 2012 by DaddyG

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 January 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

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.

Please clarify - are you saying it takes a personal revelation from god to discern which historical material is accurate and which is not? Because that's what I was talking about...

Your analogy was silly. You presumed that upon things medical, that people should use spiritual tools. It creates a false and flawed argument, so it is easily rejected.

Personal revelation plays an important part in all things spiritual.

Two people, a member of the church and an anti Mormon can look at historical evidence and come out with different interpretations, because historical evidence is open to interpretation, it is open to subjective understanding. You and I for instance can look at evidence and see distinct positions based on that evidence. And believe me I have seen much more evidence than you from much stronger anti Mormons.

[Jeff K.]

Please clarify - are you saying it takes a personal revelation from god to discern which historical material is accurate and which is not? Because that's what I was talking about...

You have hit on the central problem of personal revelation because I'd suggest that not even the Mormon using personal revelation can claim that revelation came from god with any degree of proof.

"Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." Joseph himself acted on revelations he thought were from god but turned out to not be from god.

If a prophet is unable to tell, how can a regular member?

But even forgetting Joseph's troubles for a moment, how does one go about supporting the claim that their personal revelation comes from god? Why should one ever entertain the possibility? How can one say that, in light of historical evidence that supports an alternative reality than the one currently presented by the church, personal revelation, originating from god, overrides?

And I don't think the answer is as simple as, "You have to have a desire to believe". A desire for something to be true does not make something true.

H.

Nothing of the sort, I have merely stated the obvious.

If a prophet is unable to tell, how can a regular member?

A prophet can, the warning was for people who cannot.

But even forgetting Joseph's troubles for a moment, how does one go about supporting the claim that their personal revelation comes from god? Why should one ever entertain the possibility? How can one say that, in light of historical evidence that supports an alternative reality than the one currently presented by the church, personal revelation, originating from god, overrides?

And I don't think the answer is as simple as, "You have to have a desire to believe". A desire for something to be true does not make something true.

If you cannot see the color yellow, no matter how I describe it, you will remain incapable of the concept, so to you it will simply not exist. Your deficiency disallows from knowing what it is, how to differentiate from others, indeed, you are lost when others attempt to explain it to you.

Maybe one day you will have a desire to know, a true desire. Right now you only have a desire to disbelieve.