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

[Minos]

If this continues to be a debate over the unsolvable mystery of who had sex with who the thread will be closed. Read the board guidelines, threads about sex are not allowed.

[Duncan]

If this continues to be a debate over the unsolvable mystery of who had sex with who the thread will be closed. Read the board guidelines, threads about sex are not allowed.

thank you!

[Uncertain]

This is, of course, and important passage regarding false prophets, but "Ye shall know them by their fruits" may not, in personal practice, be the same thing as "ye shall know them as soon as you hear anything that you find personally distasteful." The Bible also includes at least 70 or so arguments put forth by those who rejected true prophets. Those arguments include all sorts of rightious indignation and disapproval that has not lost its edge to the present day. The trick, I think, is to figure out what really characterizes good fruit.

This sort of thing, for instance.

http://www.fairlds.o...hettestsfv5.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

(bold added by me)

Fair enough, I certainly don't disagree. Of course it all depends on how exactly distateful a persons actions are. I dare say if I heard someone was claiming God told him to kill hobos and bury them in his basement. This one distateful action would be enough to cause serious doubt in my mind that he really was being guided by God.

Best,

Uncertain

[Analytics]

From what I understand, the practice of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph as early as 1831, but he kept it private from the general membership of the Church for a considerable period of time. But to make the claim that Joseph had nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy and that it actually originated with Brigham strikes me as pure revisionist nonsense. Here is what I found from the LDS newsroom and FAIR Wiki websites, respectively.

While I agree with you that he did secretly teach and practice polygamy, calling the theory that he didn’t “revisionist nonsense” is ironic. In May of 1845, almost a year after the death of Joseph Smith, a Latter-day Saint in Kalamazoo Michigan wrote an editorial in the local paper defending the church against a potpourri of anti-Mormon claims. It was republished in Nauvoo by the Times and Seasons. It said in part,

As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have BUT ONE WIFE, and one woman but one husband except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again." Sec. 13, par. 7. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and NONE ELSE."

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v6n08.htm#894

Joseph Smith went to his grave not only denying the allegations of polygamy, but also libeling the whistleblowers such as William Law who told the membership of the church the truth. The Church didn’t admit Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy until the summer of 1852, over 8 years after Joseph Smith died. Many people, not the least of which was Joseph’s son Joseph Smith III, believed that Joseph Smith was an honest man who told the truth and never practiced polygamy. The “revisionist history” was the claim that he did.

[Damien the Leper]

This is a person to person case scenario. To some extent I think we all have run into something in history that made us upset, or caused us to doubt.

That said, it is important to be sensitive to those who feel hurt or lied to in this type of situation. Their emotions can be very raw and how they are approached is crucial to avoid any further possible damage.

A friend who went through this and who is now back in the church put it this way:

1) The individual is hurt

2) The individual is going to get angry

3) Because information that was not known before is now known, further research must be done

4) The individual may get even more angry

5) Friends and family are to be there to help weather the storm of a roller coaster of emotion

I don't know that others would give this advice but it seems to have worked for him.

[Duncan]

This is a person to person case scenario. To some extent I think we all have run into something in history that made us upset, or caused us to doubt.

That said, it is important to be sensitive to those who feel hurt or lied to in this type of situation. Their emotions can be very raw and how they are approached is crucial to avoid any further possible damage.

A friend who went through this and who is now back in the church put it this way:

1) The individual is hurt

2) The individual is going to get angry

3) Because information that was not known before is now known, further research must be done

4) The individual may get even more angry

5) Friends and family are to be there to help weather the storm of a roller coaster of emotion

I don't know that others would give this advice but it seems to have worked for him.

I would agree. I don't get the whole I was lied to thing unless the person was actually lying and the person being lied to knew they were lying. Someone may not know the answer or just offer their opinion but I wouldn't characterize that as lying. Now, if someone I knew knew the answer and I asked them again about it and they told me something different then before then maybe they are lying but again if I knew they knew the answer then why would I ask again? And what is more if someone in the Church lied to me I wouldn't place the blame at the feet of the whole Church just that person

[KevinG]

What your link and you get so completely wrong is the realities that Fawkes was fighting for...as I stated in my first post on this subject...he wanted to restore the Catholic church...and its form of authority it is true...but what I believe you fail to understand is that at the time he was doing so he was the underdog, he was the protester, the reble and the minority fighting against the repressive majority protestant power of the day, that since the days of Henry the VIII had been waging war agaisnt the English Catholic church...THAT is the message you are missing ...Fawkes is the symbol of the minority fighting the repressive powers of the majority. He is the freedom fighter and symbol of the minority... standing up to authoritative abuses,...that is where you and your link get it so wrong.

No need to chuckle now that I've been able to educate you...

That Catholics were a repressed minority? Tell that to Spain, France and the rest of the European continent. Out of power in England perhaps but hardly any more oppressed than any other group out of power at the time.

James is an ancestor of mine BTW. My family sided with the Protestants on the Scottish and English sides.

Edited January 19, 2012 by DaddyG

[Damien the Leper]

I would agree. I don't get the whole I was lied to thing unless the person was actually lying and the person being lied to knew they were lying. Someone may not know the answer or just offer their opinion but I wouldn't characterize that as lying. Now, if someone I knew knew the answer and I asked them again about it and they told me something different then before then maybe they are lying but again if I knew they knew the answer then why would I ask again? And what is more if someone in the Church lied to me I wouldn't place the blame at the feet of the whole Church just that person

Note that in my response that the individual may feel lied to. I did not imply that they were. That is separate situation the individual will have to cope with.

[KevinG]

I have learned from my discussions here an elsewhere that it is not a good idea to perpetuate Mormon myths or be dismissive when an investogator or child comes up with a hard question (i.e. why polygyny?) That leads people to feeling lied to.

[Sky]

While I agree with you that he did secretly teach and practice polygamy, calling the theory that he didn’t “revisionist nonsense” is ironic. In May of 1845, almost a year after the death of Joseph Smith, a Latter-day Saint in Kalamazoo Michigan wrote an editorial in the local paper defending the church against a potpourri of anti-Mormon claims. It was republished in Nauvoo by the Times and Seasons. It said in part,

http://www.centerpla...s/v6n08.htm#894

Joseph Smith went to his grave not only denying the allegations of polygamy, but also libeling the whistleblowers such as William Law who told the membership of the church the truth. The Church didn’t admit Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy until the summer of 1852, over 8 years after Joseph Smith died. Many people, not the least of which was Joseph’s son Joseph Smith III, believed that Joseph Smith was an honest man who told the truth and never practiced polygamy. The “revisionist history” was the claim that he did.

There appears to be some conflicting information out there. What is your response to this? One thing seems clear to me is that hiding the practice from the membership actually presented a whole new set of problems in itself. The schism that polygamy has created pains me. If it weren’t for polygamy, the RLDS Church might not have ever existed.

[Duncan]

Note that in my response that the individual may feel lied to. I did not imply that they were. That is separate situation the individual will have to cope with.

I switched to drinking coke, I didn't know what I was doing!

[LDSToronto]

Yes: it's true.

My personal views are unimportant in light of this fact.

I am in my seventh decade. In the 1960s, what I thought about the Church in my teens is not what I know to be the case today. I did not leave when I heard the news in June of 1978, in spite of my thought , at the time, that Elder M^cConkie was right. And this, even though the Priesthood ban was unexplained and, thus, confusing to me.

What I though about the Church when I was fifty is not what I know to be true today. My view of the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, for instance, was a different thing in 1998 than it is today. I did not leave the Church over that, either.

The examples could stream endlessly. But the fact that what I thought may not have been correct (in historical terms) does not affect the fact that it's true.

Lehi

Lehi,

I appreciate this perspective; I'm curious - what do you perceive to be the difference between you and someone who decides to leave the church?

H.

[Pahoran]

If the, rather modern, claim the Joseph was merely "sealed" to these women is true- why all the claims that he fathered children? (all, btw, which so far have been proven false through DNA testing) Those women claimed to have had "marital" relations with him, so why the claim now that he didn't?

You mean -- you really expect that absolutely every one of Joseph's plural marriages / sealings would be absolutely identical to all the others? That they were all part of a one-package deal?

Just how black-and-white a world do you live in, anyway?

The fact that previously supposed descendants have turned out not to be is strong evidence against the nasty, prurient "Old Joe's libido" theory of Mormon polygamy, which continues to be entertained by the terminally spiteful (including some participants on this thread, who shall remain nameless.) However, the evidence that Joseph was in fact sealed to women in addition to Emma, and that at least some of those ladies regarded their sealings as marriages in more than name, appears to have convinced everyone who isn't determined to reject the facts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

You mean -- you really expect that absolutely every one of Joseph's plural marriages / sealings would be absolutely identical to all the others? That they were all part of a one-package deal?

Just how black-and-white a world do you live in, anyway?

The fact that previously supposed descendants have turned out not to be is strong evidence against the nasty, prurient "Old Joe's libido" theory of Mormon polygamy, which continues to be entertained by the terminally spiteful (including some participants on this thread, who shall remain nameless.) However, the evidence that Joseph was in fact sealed to women in addition to Emma, and that at least some of those ladies regarded their sealings as marriages in more than name, appears to have convinced everyone who isn't determined to reject the facts.

Regards,

Pahoran

Perhaps BookofMormonLuvr should read Todd Compton's book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith rather than the rag put out by the Price couple: Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Valentinus

[Analytics]

There appears to be some conflicting information out there. What is your response to this? One thing seems clear to me is that hiding the practice from the membership actually presented a whole new set of problems in itself. The schism that polygamy has created pains me. If it weren’t for polygamy, the RLDS Church might not have ever existed.

I disagree with the spin that article puts on it. He didn't merely "not always tell others about plural marriage." He actively denied it and actively created an exhaustively comprehensive personal history that could be used to “prove” he wasn’t involved in it. The laws of the church as canonized in the D&C expressly forbid members from practicing polygamy, and when conscientious leaders of the church tried to hold him accountable, he accused them of lying about it and excommunicated them. When they tried to take their case directly to the Saints, Joseph Smith demanded that the city council destroy their press.

Despite all that, was Joseph merely in a tight spot, doing his best to follow the will of God as he understood it? That’s ultimately for God to judge, but it’s hard to reconcile what we know about Joseph Smith’s plural marriages and sealings with the rules for polygamy that were outlined in the revelation that is now known as D&C 132.

I totally agree with you that hiding the practice presented a whole new set of problems. If he would have been honest and public about it from the beginning, then the chain of events that lead to his death would have been avoided (i.e. Nauvoo Expositor). It is usually asserted at this point that had he been honest, things would have turned out even worse for the Saints than they actually did. Maybe, but it’s hard for me to imagine how.

What I do know is that if he would have been honest about this, his words wouldn’t ring so hollow when he said, “the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent....”

Getting back to the point of the thread, for many of us, when you study history and see the details and the big picture of the way Joseph practiced polygamy, it's really, really, hard to believe that God was involved in it. This calls into question the credibility of Joseph Smith regarding his other truth claims. And even if you still believe Joseph Smith established the true church, understanding these events can make it seem much more likely that the church went back into full-flung apostasy before Joseph Smith died.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Analytics

[Pahoran]

I disagree with the spin that article puts on it. He didn't merely "not always tell others about plural marriage." He actively denied it and actively created an exhaustively comprehensive personal history that could be used to “prove” he wasn’t involved in it.

You disagree with the "spin" because you have your own.

I was just told, in another forum, that "only the vile smear the dead." Your spin on Joseph's statement derives from no "analytics," and is false. He did not "actively create an exhaustively comprehensive personal history that could be used to 'prove' he wasn’t involved in it;" he merely appealed to the record of his activities. Your "conspiracy" accusation is one that you have no good-faith basis to claim to believe to be true.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

You disagree with the "spin" because you have your own.

I was just told, in another forum, that "only the vile smear the dead." Your spin on Joseph's statement derives from no "analytics," and is false. He did not "actively create an exhaustively comprehensive personal history that could be used to 'prove' he wasn’t involved in it;" he merely appealed to the record of his activities. Your "conspiracy" accusation is one that you have no good-faith basis to claim to believe to be true.

Regards,

Pahoran

So what is your spin on it Pahoran. Did Joseph Smith practice polygamy or not? Was he sealed to other wives or not? If he was sealed to other wives, would there be a reason for Joseph to not have relations with his other wives or not? I am a bit confused by what you are trying to assert you think is true.

[Analytics]

You disagree with the "spin" because you have your own.

I was just told, in another forum, that "only the vile smear the dead." Your spin on Joseph's statement derives from no "analytics," and is false. He did not "actively create an exhaustively comprehensive personal history that could be used to 'prove' he wasn’t involved in it;" he merely appealed to the record of his activities. Your "conspiracy" accusation is one that you have no good-faith basis to claim to believe to be true.

Regards,

Pahoran

Joseph Smith claimed he had a record made by clerks that accompanied him everywhere and carefully kept a history of everything he did and said.

I'm honestly curious about what you think about this record. Why did Joseph Smith claim this record would prove that he was innocent of the accusations of polygamy that were made against him? Why doesn't this record mention any of his sealings?

Joseph said, “my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.” If that argument would have happened and one of his wives would have charged him with marrying her in a specific day, time, or place, would have Joseph’s records indicated that he really didn’t?

Does his record constitute proof that he wasn’t involved in polygamy? He said it did.

It's fine if you really don't connect the dots. But really, don't you think you're going a little overboard when you accuse me of having bad-faith for connecting them?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Analytics

[LDSToronto]

My thoughts on leaving the church -

Most people who leave the church were never really a part of it. In my experience, a lot of newly baptized members don't make it past the first few months. I doubt it has much to do with history and more to do with never quite gaining a solid footing or becoming a part of the culture.

In my case, I left for what could be considered historical reasons and for social reasons (anti-gay stance, etc). No need to get into the specific historical discrepancies, its a whole web rather than isolated things. The Church demands complete moral fidelity from it's membership, and in return, appears less than scrupulous when it takes less than moral social stances and presents a history that is different than what is presented from historical research.

Some say they can live with this. I can't. I need to have no doubt that modern scripture is what it claims to be, came about exactly as the church claims it did, that prophets are really spokesmen for a god consisting of flesh and bone. It makes no difference to me if the church does good - lot's of organizations do good and I could be a part of any of those.

No, if there is any doubt that the church is less than it claims to be, then I can't see how I should be beholden to it.

H.

[Pahoran]

Joseph Smith claimed he had a record made by clerks that accompanied him everywhere and carefully kept a history of everything he did and said.

I'm honestly curious about what you think about this record. Why did Joseph Smith claim this record would prove that he was innocent of the accusations of polygamy that were made against him? Why doesn't this record mention any of his sealings?

Let me guess: because they weren't recorded?

Joseph said, “my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.” If that argument would have happened and one of his wives would have charged him with marrying her in a specific day, time, or place, would have Joseph’s records indicated that he really didn’t?

Does his record constitute proof that he wasn’t involved in polygamy? He said it did.

It's fine if you really don't connect the dots. But really, don't you think you're going a little overboard when you accuse me of having bad-faith for connecting them?

You're not "connecting" anything. You're making something up out of whole cloth.

Joseph said that the record cleared him of polygamy -- or at least, of polygamy as his enemies accused him of practicing it. (Interesting, isn't it, how the successors of the lynch mobs never quite get around to discussing the particulars of the accusations Joseph was dealing with? But I digress.) Evidently, the record does not support those accusations. However, does that support the out-of-thin-air accusation that there was a "conspiracy" to create a vast, bogus record for that purpose?

No. It does not.

At most it allows for the bare possibility that the record left some details out. But the ridiculous tinfoil-hat accusation that the whole vast record-keeping effort was merely a "conspiracy" to perpetrate a cover-up? Do black helicopters follow you around?

Here's an example of how "connecting the dots" actually works: There's an website out there. It's called "lds4u." It does its best to convince people that joining the Church is not for them. Conclusion: this is an anti-Mormon website, and its domain name is mere sucker-bait.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

My thoughts on leaving the church -

Most people who leave the church were never really a part of it. In my experience, a lot of newly baptized members don't make it past the first few months. I doubt it has much to do with history and more to do with never quite gaining a solid footing or becoming a part of the culture.

In my case, I left for what could be considered historical reasons and for social reasons (anti-gay stance, etc). No need to get into the specific historical discrepancies, its a whole web rather than isolated things. The Church demands complete moral fidelity from it's membership, and in return, appears less than scrupulous when it takes less than moral social stances and presents a history that is different than what is presented from historical research.

Some say they can live with this. I can't. I need to have no doubt that modern scripture is what it claims to be, came about exactly as the church claims it did, that prophets are really spokesmen for a god consisting of flesh and bone. It makes no difference to me if the church does good - lot's of organizations do good and I could be a part of any of those.

No, if there is any doubt that the church is less than it claims to be, then I can't see how I should be beholden to it.

H.

I didn't know you weren't a member of the Church!

[noel00]

Look at Cumorah.com. There seems to be a really great difference between the numbers the church says it has converted and actual activity. Those who no longer attend may be members of other faiths. My wife found a number of people in the local Assemblies of God church who were Mormons but did not go through the process of getting their names taken off the rolls. Perhaps people prefer the music. Hillsong and other similar churches have made worship music an important part of their services. I think they try to live an equally moral life but then one cannnot really tell as they do not have to be interviewed by the "Bishop" I know one Assemblies of God pastor will not have people in leadership if their lives are not up to scatch.

[KevinG]

The problem with some is not so much that the Church isn't what it claims to be but that it isn't what their unrealistic expectations say the Church should be.

Read the Old Testament if you really want to be shocked by the behavior of God's prophets.

[KevinG]

Look at Cumorah.com. There seems to be a really great difference between the numbers the church says it has converted and actual activity. Those who no longer attend may be members of other faiths. My wife found a number of people in the local Assemblies of God church who were Mormons but did not go through the process of getting their names taken off the rolls. Perhaps people prefer the music. Hillsong and other similar churches have made worship music an important part of their services. I think they try to live an equally moral life but then one cannnot really tell as they do not have to be interviewed by the "Bishop" I know one Assemblies of God pastor will not have people in leadership if their lives are not up to scatch.

People will be counted until they formally renounce their membership. Can you imagine the uproar caused if we started ex-ing people who don't show up to Sacrament meeting for more than a year!!

I suspect the official number is high while the critics numbers are low. Ultimately it is up to the Savior to judge if our name is in the book of life, so I don't sweat the numbers or brag about them.

[wenglund]

In answer to the OP, the philosophy is simply: greater faith and trust in man than in God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-