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

[cinepro]

I suppose the only way for you to understand it would be to imagine possible scenarios where you receive a revelation of something new from God and it causes you to revise your opinion about how well you knew the history of the Church. What would it take?

If the answer is "nothing", then you'll never understand it.

(yup, that sounds condescending either way.)

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I don't find your comment to be condescending, and if someone were curious how people can maintain a testimony in spite of negative information about the Church, that's probably what I would say.

The whole point is that everyone has a different approach and "tipping point" on these matters. I've known at least two people who were active Church members and left the Church within weeks of finding out more information about Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and problems with the Book of Abraham. They looked at the best apologetics they could find, found they weren't enough, and they were out. I've known many others (both online and IRL) who knew as much or more than those who left, but maintained their belief and activity.

One interesting look into this is the recent Mormon Stories interview with a former CES instructor and his wife:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=2322

I found it fascinating that someone could be a CES instructor for 15+ years and then go through what he did. Yet, admittedly, there are CES instructors who know more than he does but don't react like he did. So it's some combination of information and psychology.

Since it's different for everyone, maybe the Church has the optimal balance between the information it shares through Sunday School and CES and the average tolerance of LDS for negative information based on testimony strength.

Edited January 18, 2012 by cinepro

[Duncan]

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I don't find your comment to be condescending, and if someone were curious how people can maintain a testimony in spite of negative information about the Church, that's probably what I would say.

The whole point is that everyone has a different approach and "tipping point" on these matters. I've known at least two people who were active Church members and left the Church within weeks of finding out more information about Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and problems with the Book of Abraham. They looked at the best apologetics they could find, found they weren't enough, and they were out. I've known many others (both online and IRL) who knew as much or more than those who left, but maintained their belief and activity.

One interesting look into this is the recent Mormon Stories interview with a former CES instructor and his wife:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=2322

I found it fascinating that someone could be a CES instructor for 15+ years and then go through what he did. Yet, admittedly, there are CES instructors who know more than he does but don't react like he did. So it's some combination of information and psychology.

Since it's different for everyone, maybe the Church has the optimal balance between the information it shares through Sunday School and CES and the average tolerance of LDS for negative information based on testimony strength.

I too found that very interesting but not enough to listen for 6 hours!!!

[Libs]

I listened to the McLay's story a couple of days ago. Heart wrenching, to say the least.

[california boy]

That's a good point-well, for me, I think I would stop attending any Church altogether! but that may have more to do with where I am now with Christ then for any historical reason!

I certainly understand you point of view. I left the church for other reasons than historical issues. But I have not searched for a church to replace it either. I personally could never accept the concept of a Trinity. I don't believe the bible teaches such a concept. And not understanding who God is seems more problematic than historical issues. So I have remained outside organized religion. That certainly does not diminish my relationship with Christ. If anything it is stronger than when I was attending church.

I personally would rank attending church far down the list of what makes someone more Christ-like person. Most of us already know how we should treat others and the Spirit guides us in directing our souls to become more like Him. One could argue that God must not feel organized religion is all that important for His children if that organization was so easily lost so quickly after His death. Only a very small percentage of His children have been compelled to belong to the church.

That is not to say that I don't think the church has value. I certainly encourage those members of my family involved in the church to stay actively involved. For those that find strength in the church then there is no reason for them to leave it even over historical issues.

[Libs]

This applies to stereotypes on both sides of the aisle.

It does.

I agree. Latter-day Saints are just people- no better than, and certainly no worse than- any other.

Agreed. Although, I always considered them much nicer, on average.

I read your earlier post before composing my own.

One of those phases was, as you described it, "the truth" as taught by anti-sites which put the worst possible spin on everything. By your own admission, you have since done a lot of reading and come to a more "balanced view".

While you were in your unbalanced view/"just couldn't stay" phase, would you say that you were really open to evidence in the Church's favor? Or were you suffering a rigidity of thought (however temporary)?

Well, I was in shock, at first, but I did very quickly start looking for some answers. What I wanted to hear was that, at least, some of what I discovered wasn't true. When I found out that the information about Josesph Smith was true (the information regarding polygamy/polyandry) , I did, then, go off into a very negative phase. I have to tell you, it was one of the worst times of my life. I cried a lot and I was very angry and depressed. That lasted for quite awhile (several months). I was still looking for reasons to go back to the church (I really missed it). I was reading quite a bit, here, and other places, when one day I saw a thread about Michael Ash's new book, Shaken Faith Syndrome. I read the book and it did encourage me to go back for awhile. (He talks about that "rigidity of mind", among other things). I went back and talked with my Bishop, got a Priesthood blessing. Every thing was great, for awhile. But, I couldn't shake the doubts and they just infiltrated every activity in the church. As much as I had missed it, there is some truth in the idea that you can't ever go back. It wasn't the same and I felt increasingly uncomfortable there...hypocritical, because I still had so many doubts. So, after six months, I left again.

Believe it or not, I've been accused of being a little...ummm.... positive... in my own thinking.

lol...yes, I have noticed.

Like everyone else, I still have my good days and my bad (though the early onset of senility is making them less distinct ).

I hear ya. lol

Nor were my comments intended to be a judgement or condemnation per se. I was simply offering my own observations on the commonalities of those who assert that "the Church is false because of incident X".

There are some commonalities, but people do leave the church for a variety of reasons. I have recently been involved in talking with former LDS who are gay. Talk about some heart wrenching stories.

As you have suggested, the revelation of our true selves lies in the coping mechanisms we adopt.

For the record, I consider that Latter-day Saints who studiously avoid anything even remotely critical are stunting themselves emotionally and spiritually.

Well, perhaps. But, I have, recently, become more tolerant of wherever people are with the church. Many are blissfully happy with what they have, and what they know...and I think that's great. I even envy that, at times.

True- but I think we can agree that those who "cope" by retreating into unreasoning dogmatism and by making paranoid and tendentious assertions about the hearts and minds of others have chosen the least healthy and least productive of the options available to them.

Yes, I would agree with that. Firm belief is wonderful, but unfair and unreasonable judgment is really pretty ugly.

[Duncan]

I certainly understand you point of view. I left the church for other reasons than historical issues. But I have not searched for a church to replace it either. I personally could never accept the concept of a Trinity. I don't believe the bible teaches such a concept. And not understanding who God is seems more problematic than historical issues. So I have remained outside organized religion. That certainly does not diminish my relationship with Christ. If anything it is stronger than when I was attending church.

I personally would rank attending church far down the list of what makes someone more Christ-like person. Most of us already know how we should treat others and the Spirit guides us in directing our souls to become more like Him. One could argue that God must not feel organized religion is all that important for His children if that organization was so easily lost so quickly after His death. Only a very small percentage of His children have been compelled to belong to the church.

That is not to say that I don't think the church has value. I certainly encourage those members of my family involved in the church to stay actively involved. For those that find strength in the church then there is no reason for them to leave it even over historical issues.

well put!

[thesometimesaint]

When many left Jesus he asked the Apostles will you also go away? Their answer is the same as mine. Where would I go? For you have the words of eternal life.

[Verum]

Historicial issues in and of themselves are not what cause many to leave...its comparing the historical narratives against what the church's own historical claims. Many people weigh all the evidence out in their mind and heart and find that they cannot in good integrity accept some of the fundamental truth claims of the church. Sometimes when weighing historical evidences, trying to fit all of the pieces together within the church's historical narrative just doesn't add up, and alternate theories and conclusions become much more probable and clear and in ones mind. Thus, by finally accepting those conclusions, one can move forward without the strong cognitive dissonance that occurs when one tries to force puzzle pieces to fit together within the church's narrative.

In the event where one perceives serious gaps between the church's narrative of a divine, historical event vs. the perceived actual history, they have 2 general choices:

1) Live with strong cognitive dissonance and accept it as a trial of your faith and remain active. You may put more trust in other people's faith promoting perspectives of historical accounts over your own, thus ignoring contrary conclusions even if they seems much more probable, and continue faithful until they eventually resolve themselves through the Spirit or forthcoming evidence; or

2) Follow what you ultimately believe, feel, and think to be right concerning conclusions that may be contrary to the church's claims and relieve the cognitive dissonance in your life in hope that mercy, along with your genuine desire to do what is right, is enough to cover you in the event that you are actually wrong.

Either option is admirable in my mind and passing judgment one someone personal decisions is un-Chrstlike ...in my opinion.

[Deborah]

1) Live with strong cognitive dissonance and accept it as a trial of your faith and remain active.

I don't think cognitive dissonance is part of the equation for those who stay. It's a matter of understanding that the historical narrative has lots of holes and is incomplete. What we think we know may not be fact and so because one has a confirmation of other things that are not questionable it is easy to put things in perspective and realize that incomplete knowledge is just that.

[thesometimesaint]

One definition of a friend is someone who knows all your faults, and foibles, but likes you any way.

The Church is my friend.

[Duncan]

One definition of a friend is someone who knows all your faults, and foibles, but likes you any way.

The Church is my friend.

another one is a friend will help you move, a best friend will help you move a body!

[Cobalt-70]

Can you offer a concrete example of this phenomenon? Please be specific in explaining how the Church is encouraging an unrealistic a/o unhealthy link between the lives of our forebearers and the personal faith of our members.

While I agree that this is remotely possible, I would like to see some additional specifics as to precisely how this would effect/infect an otherwise rationale, reasonable Latter-day Saint.

There are a few things about Mormon leaders that I think every Mormon should know, and be taught from an early age, so that they don't suddenly find out from the wrong source and have to go through a crisis of faith at their weakest moment. First, Mormons should know that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using the same method he previously used to find buried treasure. There should be no more Primary pictures showing Smith actually reading the plates, or wearing a breastplate with a set of spectacles resting on his nose. He ought to be shown looking at the stone in his hat, the way he actually translated. A lot of people get hung up on this, and Evangelicals love to throw this fact in the face of Mormons who don't know their own history. Let's embrace it: so Joseph Smith was a magical "seer" before he became a prophet. So Smith translated the Book of Mormon using methods that are externally indistinguishable from magic. So what? Moses animated a stick and turned it into a snake. Jesus alchemically transmuted water into wine. Why shouldn't we just teach this straighforwardly to children and new members? Better it come from the church than from Ed Decker.

Second, every Mormon obviously should know, and be taught at an early age, that Smith and Young were polygamists. Most long-time Mormons who have Utah ancestors already know this, but a surprising number of new members do not. Before the First Vision rose to prominence, polygamy was once the central element of Mormonism that distinguished it from all other faiths. It was what Mormons went to jail for in the late 1800s. Yet why are we so hesitant to even bring up the subject? That reluctance can sometimes be interpreted as either embarrassment or, even worse, deception.

Third, why have we just essentially forgotten the fact that the church discriminated against black people? Nobody talks about it. Mormons want to forget, and that comes across as trying to hide the fact. Why don't we use that fact in a very positive way, as an example of revelation in action? Lots of churches discriminated. But in our case, the change in 1978 was an example where the church was wrong, and the Lord corrected it. How great it is that we have revelation to correct the church and keep it on the right path!

Upon review, I also find the two portions delightfully (and ironically) contradictory.

In a single sentence, Cobalt is both demanding that we do a better job teaching about the lives of men other than Jesus Christ whilst simultaneously demanding that we we teach people to ignore the lives of those same men.

That's a strawman. I'm not suggesting that we ignore the lives of Mormon leaders. Quite the opposite, I think we can learn from their successes, but we can also learn from the "embarrassing" side of their histories, as well. How many people, for example, might find a source of hope knowing that as an apostle, George Albert Smith was bedridden for three years in a state of depression and anxiety, and even convinced his wife to pray that he would die. Yet he overcame his depression. Yet the only thing most members know about him offhand is the apocryphal story in which he gave his coat to a stranger on the street. Why don't we present these leaders as real people, rather than as bland, smiling caricatures?

I'm not saying that Mormons should not learn from the lives of their leaders. All I'm saying is that Mormons should not be taught to base their faith on those lives, or on the idea that somehow these leaders are more saintly than the woman down the road that volunteers at the homeless shelter, or the man in the ward who anonymously supports three missionaries from poor families.

[mercyngrace]

My apologies in advance if I am repeating something already posted (I haven't had time to catch up on the whole thread) but Elder Marlin K. Jensen (church historian as well as recently made emeritus member of the Seventy) recently shared his feelings on this matter and that meeting (Q&A) is available for download here:

When asked "how he would educate the rest of the membership on how to treat those that feel uncomfortable with church history and, thus, the church", Elder Jensen responded in the following manner:

“I could see a committee of forty people working on your question for ten years and not coming up with an answer. I think that the question has an application to gay members of the church or of society. I don’t think that straight people have done a good job yet, of providing an atmosphere of safety and a welcoming place. We need to do the same for those people who are feeling disaffected – for whatever reason… doctrinally, or socially. I mean, if we really are truly Christian, it has to start there. Being less judgmental. Being more open and welcoming and inclusive. Someone asked Robert Frost once, ‘What’s the ugliest word in the English language?’ And he said, ‘Exclusive.’ I think it is, too, in a way. So, if that environment can be created, and it should be, but often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he’ll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn’t know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, ‘Get in line and don’t question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.’ And that isn’t helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what’s brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled.”

(emphasis mine)

I thought some of you might find it relevant to this thread and deem it worthy of a listen.

[Duncan]

My apologies in advance if I am repeating something already posted (I haven't had time to catch up on the whole thread) but Elder Marlin K. Jensen (church historian as well as recently made emeritus member of the Seventy) recently shared his feelings on this matter and that meeting (Q&A) is available for download here:

When asked "how he would educate the rest of the membership on how to treat those that feel uncomfortable with church history and, thus, the church", Elder Jensen responded in the following manner:

(emphasis mine)

I thought some of you might find it relevant to this thread and deem it worthy of a listen.

I listened to it earlier, fascinating stuff!

[Uncertain]

I have never understood the philosophy of why someone would leave the Church over historical issues. I have a degree in History, have taken philosophy classes and have had a lifelong interest in history. I am also very active. I am obviously not saying I am a some smartie artie but I am not dumb as a plum either-I hope! But what idea is out there that says that the Church can't be true because of X Like why would someone leave the Church over some historical issue(s) I am absolutely not judging anyone or downplaying history like "you stopped coming because Martin Harris did X? seetus lupetus, you must a hit at parties..." I am trying to seek understanding in this! I don't stay in the Church because of historical issues and not to sound smug or anything but I believe I have had spiritual witnesses to me that the Church is true, Joseph Smith is a prophet and Jesus is the Christ and history to me, briefly, is not what is true (we can't know every thing) but what happened and believed. An example is what did Winston Churchill believe about God? to me that is a historical question, whether or not he was right or if there is a God is irrelevant and not a historical question. Thoughts?

My own loss of faith in certain LDS truth claims has very little to do with early church history but I do view history as a legetimate source of evidience regarding truth claims. There are many many competing claims to divine inspiration and a person must pick and chose who they think is right and who they think is wrong. What role if any does morality play in such decisions? Suppose for example I have two persons claiming to be inspired by a perfectly moral and loving God Jane and Joe. Jane is a spotless example of loving charity engaging all day every day in selfless service to her fellow men. Joe on the other hand seems to be a vicious sociopath spending his time hunting down and torturing innocents to death. Is it not reasonable to conclude based on their behavior Jane's claim to be in communication with a loving God is more likely to be true than Joe's same claim? Suppose Joe really believes his actions are dictated by a loving and perfectly moral God. Can we still not say his actions reduce the probability he really is being guided by a loving moral God? The point I am trying to make is when judging whether or not an individual or organization is really and truly being guided by a perfectly moral loving God their actions are a legitimate way to judge their claims. Perhaps not the only such way but certainly something to take into account.

So the critical argument as I understand it is that Joseph Smith behaved at times in seemingly morally repugnant actions such as on occasion marrying other women without the permission or knowledge of his wife Emma. Hence this should be taken into account as negative evidence when we evaluate his claims to being guided by a perfectly moral loving God. Sure maybe he really believed God wanted him to institute polygamy and this is the reason he behaved the way he did. But simply because a person who behaves in a morally objectionable fashion believes God wants them to so behave does not in fact mean God really does want them to.

Now a possible response is to point out God sometimes commands morally objectionable actions the Old Testament is a great resource here . Now this response is dependent on the critic accepting the Old Testament or such resources as a reliable record of what God does and doesn't do which will be a questionable assumption for many. Still even if we accept that God sometimes commands or engages in what appear to be morally questionable actions we can confidently say this is very rare. For example although God may have on occasion in the past commanded genocide. He does not in general approve of genocide and most acts of genocide are in fact deadly sins not pleasing to God. Hence most who claim "God told me so" as justification for the morally questionable acts they perform are very likely to be wrong even if a very small number of them are right. Therefore questionable moral actions by those claiming divine inspiration can still reasonably be used as negative evidence for said claims.

Now I am not arguing church history should necessarily lead a person to leave the chruch. As mentioned my doubts concerning LDS church claims have little to do with church history I am mostly satisfied with apologetic reponses although not completely satisfied in some instances. I am simply arguing that the actions of a person or institution are fair game when evaluating claims to divine guidance by a loving and just God. Therefore using church history as evidence either positive or negative regarding church claims to divine inspiration is perfectly legitimate.

Best,

Uncertain

[Craig Paxton]

"The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues." -- Elder Marlin Jensen, LDS Church Historian, 2011

[Duncan]

My own loss of faith in certain LDS truth claims has very little to do with early church history but I do view history as a legetimate source of evidience regarding truth claims. There are many many competing claims to divine inspiration and a person must pick and chose who they think is right and who they think is wrong. What role if any does morality play in such decisions? Suppose for example I have two persons claiming to be inspired by a perfectly moral and loving God Jane and Joe. Jane is a spotless example of loving charity engaging all day every day in selfless service to her fellow men. Joe on the other hand seems to be a vicious sociopath spending his time hunting down and torturing innocents to death. Is it not reasonable to conclude based on their behavior Jane's claim to be in communication with a loving God is more likely to be true than Joe's same claim? Suppose Joe really believes his actions are dictated by a loving and perfectly moral God. Can we still not say his actions reduce the probability he really is being guided by a loving moral God? The point I am trying to make is when judging whether or not an individual or organization is really and truly being guided by a perfectly moral loving God their actions are a legitimate way to judge their claims. Perhaps not the only such way but certainly something to take into account.

So the critical argument as I understand it is that Joseph Smith behaved at times in seemingly morally repugnant actions such as on occasion marrying other women without the permission or knowledge of his wife Emma. Hence this should be taken into account as negative evidence when we evaluate his claims to being guided by a perfectly moral loving God. Sure maybe he really believed God wanted him to institute polygamy and this is the reason he behaved the way he did. But simply because a person who behaves in a morally objectionable fashion believes God wants them to so behave does not in fact mean God really does want them to.

Now a possible response is to point out God sometimes commands morally objectionable actions the Old Testament is a great resource here . Now this response is dependent on the critic accepting the Old Testament or such resources as a reliable record of what God does and doesn't do which will be a questionable assumption for many. Still even if we accept that God sometimes commands or engages in what appear to be morally questionable actions we can confidently say this is very rare. For example although God may have on occasion in the past commanded genocide. He does not in general approve of genocide and most acts of genocide are in fact deadly sins not pleasing to God. Hence most who claim "God told me so" as justification for the morally questionable acts they perform are very likely to be wrong even if a very small number of them are right. Therefore questionable moral actions by those claiming divine inspiration can still reasonably be used as negative evidence for said claims.

Now I am not arguing church history should necessarily lead a person to leave the chruch. As mentioned my doubts concerning LDS church claims have little to do with church history I am mostly satisfied with apologetic reponses although not completely satisfied in some instances. I am simply arguing that the actions of a person or institution are fair game when evaluating claims to divine guidance by a loving and just God. Therefore using church history as evidence either positive or negative regarding church claims to divine inspiration is perfectly legitimate.

Best,

Uncertain

I would agree to a point, oh fuge, I spilled my pepsi everywhere, but isn't the person we should be following Christ, not Joseph Smith or anyone else? I see prophets or just regular joe q member as a witness for us to evaluate and get our own witness. So, in essence I can stand independant of others and not have to make judgement calls on who is really living a Christlike life. As to the OT morality question, I'd just say God deals with his people in whatever situation they are living in and what was "right" back then, because there isn't a list of God's morality in the OT or a sense of right and wrong, it just is-that "right" won't work today. I don't know if tha makes sense or not!

[Duncan]

"The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues." -- Elder Marlin Jensen, LDS Church Historian, 2011

love Elder Jensen! I heard that QA earlier

[Uncertain]

I would agree to a point, oh fuge, I spilled my pepsi everywhere, but isn't the person we should be following Christ, not Joseph Smith or anyone else? I see prophets or just regular joe q member as a witness for us to evaluate and get our own witness. So, in essence I can stand independant of others and not have to make judgement calls on who is really living a Christlike life. As to the OT morality question, I'd just say God deals with his people in whatever situation they are living in and what was "right" back then, because there isn't a list of God's morality in the OT or a sense of right and wrong, it just is-that "right" won't work today. I don't know if tha makes sense or not!

(bolded added by me)

Hi Duncan,

Sorry to hear about your Pepsi . I am not entirely sure I am following your train of thought I bolded in your response what I view as a key point. That is in the process of evaluating a persons or institutions claim to divine guidance. It is my argument given above how they behave is fair game in helping to determine whether or not their claims are true. I am not claiming behavior is the only source of evidence regarding their claims only that is a legitimate source of evidence. Do you disagree if so what is your counterargument?

If I understand you correctly you would not necessarily disagree with my point you just think a personal spiritual witness trumps any an all other sources of evidence. That is if a person gets a spiritual witness that person A is a prophet they should believe person A is a prophet regardless of how he or she behaves. If this is your position I would strongly disagree.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited January 18, 2012 by Uncertain

[Duncan]

(bolded added by me)

Hi Duncan,

Sorry to hear about your Pepsi . I am not entirly sure I am following your train of though I bolded in your response what I view as a key point. That is in the process of evaluating a persons or institutions claim to divine guidance. It is my argument given above how they behave is fair game in helping to determine whether or not their claims are true. I am not claiming behavior is the only source of evidence regarding their claims only that is a legitimate source of evidence. Do you disagree if so what is your counterargument?

If I understand you correctly you would not necassarily disagree with my point you just think a personal spiritual witness trumps any an all other sources of evidence. That is if a person gets a spiritual witness that person A is a prophet they should believe person A is a prophet regardless of how he or she behaves. If this is your position I would strongly disagree.

Best,

Uncertain

I would say that I can see how people living in close proximity to Jesus or Joseph Smith or Pres. Monson or even a lay clergy can be turned off by their actions, I am by certain things I have seen from my own actions or others' but I guess in the end it's that witness that keeps me going and what not who necessarily I should be following. I am not going to be held accountable for their actions but maybe my own reactions to them. It's harder though in dealing with people like Joseph, Jesus, or whoever that we have never met and we only know them what others have said about them and whathas survived-but I am in the dark still about Joseph Smith saying that we should get a witness of him being a prophet-maybe he never intended our testimony to consist of him being a prophet, haven't thought that out much!

[Uncertain]

I would say that I can see how people living in close proximity to Jesus or Joseph Smith or Pres. Monson or even a lay clergy can be turned off by their actions, I am by certain things I have seen from my own actions or others' but I guess in the end it's that witness that keeps me going and what not who necessarily I should be following. I am not going to be held accountable for their actions but maybe my own reactions to them. It's harder though in dealing with people like Joseph, Jesus, or whoever that we have never met and we only know them what others have said about them and whathas survived-but I am in the dark still about Joseph Smith saying that we should get a witness of him being a prophet-maybe he never intended our testimony to consist of him being a prophet, haven't thought that out much!

Hi Duncan,

I am still not sure you disagree with me. I am not claiming how a person or institution behaves is the only source of evidence regarding whether or not we believe their claims to be speaking for God. I am arguing it is a legitimate source of evidence. To me this is self-evidently true. Hence early church history is a legitimate source of evidence when evaluating the churches claims to divine guidance. How much weight a person places on that evidence is of course subjective and dependent on the person.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited January 18, 2012 by Uncertain

[KevinG]

"The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues." -- Elder Marlin Jensen, LDS Church Historian, 2011

As an aside Craig,

I find it extremely ironic that you as a person who seems to be opposed to certain types of authoratative organized religion, would use a Guy Fawkes mask as your icon.

[Cobalt-70]

"The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues." -- Elder Marlin Jensen, LDS Church Historian, 2011

This is a great observation. In Kirtland, the crisis was the fact that Joseph Smith mismanaged investments in a failed bank which he said God told him to establish. Today, the crisis is the internet.

I'm wondering if we can learn anything today from how the church dealt with the Kirtland apostasy crisis. Maybe it is a lesson in what not to do. Back then, the church started excommunicating people, and then after charges were filed against Smith and Rigdon, they slipped out of Kirtland in the dead of night and moved the church headquarters to Missouri, where their newfound political stridency unnerved the local population, contributing to a bloody war, Smith's imprisonment on capital charges, and the ethnic cleansing of Mormons from the state of Missouri. Though the church eventually thrived in Nauvoo, you have to wonder what would have happened if Smith had acknowledged his failings in Kirtland, made amends with Oliver Cowdery, and attempted a program of reconciliation with those who had left the church because of Smith's failure to live up to his image.

[Duncan]

Hi Duncan,

I am still not sure you disagree with me. I am not claiming how a person or institution behaves is the only source of evidence regarding whether or not we believe their claims to be speaking for God. I am arguing it is a legitimate source of evidence. To me this is self-evidently true. Hence early church history is a legitimate source of evidence when evaluating the churches claims to divine guidance. How much weight a person places on that evidence is of course subjective and dependent on the person.

Best,

Uncertain

I don't know why early church history has to be a legitimate source of evidence though. As a missionary, I don't know if you served or not, you shared Moroni's promise and said if they had faith in Christ, made some decision of it and then pray and ask God he will tell you if its legitimate

Edited January 19, 2012 by Duncan

[cinepro]

"The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues." -- Elder Marlin Jensen, LDS Church Historian, 2011

In the Mormon Stories podcast with John and Brook McLay (the CES instructor who left the Church), he tells the story of visiting with an unnamed apostle after they left the Church, and then on their way out of the building they bump into President Monson.

You can hear what happens 1:20:00 in part three...

As Cobalt-70 said, today the crisis is the internet. When the final history of the Church is written, it will have two parts:

Part I: Before the Internet

Part II: After the Internet

I'm not sure which will do more damage: the easy access to pornography or the easy access to damaging Church history. But either way, the world has changed for the Church, and only time will tell what happens.

Edited January 19, 2012 by cinepro