Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Johnnie Cake]

Yes, it's not his educational level only that I find awe-inspiring, but his twisted sense of humour which at times passes beyond all understanding into the truly demented.

As I expressed earlier...we all are so very fortunate to have him sharing his intellect with the little people here

[ERayR]

When I mentioned it about 5 or so years ago, first to my neighbor shortly after seeing it on the internet and then with my VT's, and then my bishop. First my neighbor said it's all anti information, her mom is non LDS and tries to get her to see anti things all the time. The VT's were friends and one of them said she didn't want to hear anything that might hurt her testimony and I felt extremely guilty for even mentioning it to her and wrote her a note afterwards and apologized. The 4th person, my bishop, I had emailed him turning down a calling that one of his counselors had called me to, and he had me think about the calling to teach Primary first before turning it down. I decided to just email the bishop and tell him where I was at with my testimony and why, mentioning JS's wives, blood atonement, and Mountain Meadows Massacre that they were troubling to me after reading about these things on the internet. Never received an email back. So now I keep my mouth shut. The only person I mention it to now is my husband and you wonderful people on the board and NOM (in the past) and Staylds.com.

OK first it seems your neighbor had a somewhat constant bombardment with this kind of information and and gave it no credence and so to save herself time and aggravation had developed this method of dealing with it. Can't fault her her for that. Your VT seems to be one who does not want to take chances with her testimony. IMNSHO for some it is a wise decision. I can't understand why your Bishop did not call you in for an interview and discuss your concerns. Your husband is probably the best confidant for you to confide in and discuss these things with. Are you considering his counsel or are you chasing him round and round like you do on this board/

[ERayR]

I've always felt inferior to your superior intellect Nehor...and why shouldn't I. You are after all superior. And what an impressive academic résumé' you bring to MD&D ... No wonder I feel so inferior

Oh yeah, in the spirit of academia just wait until I decide to reveal my credentials. On second thought never mind as sometime in the past I have posted that all those academic credentials and a couple of bucks will buy a soda if I don't get too large of one.

[canard78]

By the way... the wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff who were conveniently written out of our history... are they also the "grease buildup behind the grill"? They sacrificed to live the principle asked of them. Shouldn't we at least recognize them rather than pretending they don't exist just so that we, as a church, can avoid working through the difficult questions?

I thought that was a strange analogy too.

[Calm]

Two possible answers to your question comes to mind. 1) There is a possibility that your approach is the problem or 2) Perhaps your family and friends find these issues irrelevant and a possible 3) is your tendency to go round and round the bush.

And sometimes when people don't feel they can help, they want to avoid the subject because they feel bad about not being able to help.

[Calm]

As I expressed earlier...we all are so very fortunate to have him sharing his intellect with the little people here

I cherish the moments myself.

[ERayR]

And sometimes when people don't feel they can help, they want to avoid the subject because they feel bad about not being able to help.

I knew there were more possibilities but just couldn't come up with them.

[The Nehor]

I've always felt inferior to your superior intellect Nehor...and why shouldn't I. You are after all superior. And what an impressive academic résumé' you bring to MD&D ... No wonder I feel so inferior

Facts: Nehor points out that others here have more impressive academic credentials then he does.

Your Conclusion: Nehor imagines he is superior to me. How dare he?!?!?!?!?

Conclusion of Those Witnessing Exchange: You are pathetically insecure and really need a hug.

As I expressed earlier...we all are so very fortunate to have him sharing his intellect with the little people here

Did I wander into the Liliputian forum again? All they ever do is make sarcastic comments about my size. I really need to get around to crushing them Godzilla style at some point.

Yes, it's not his educational level only that I find awe-inspiring, but his twisted sense of humour which at times passes beyond all understanding into the truly demented.

This is the best compliment anyone on this forum has ever given me. I need to go cry now.

[Calm]

She was the one I talked to immediately after seeing it on the web. I stood up and was trying to make it register in my mind, and went outside for something and she was across the street and she walked over to visit and I told her what I had seen, and in my mind it was just so new that I wondered if she knew about it. So no, I was still very TBM and not angry or negative.

Sometimes it is just someone else's uncertainty that causes people enough discomfort they want to avoid the subject. They don't want to feel responsible for making it worse.

Also you said she had a lot of negative experience with her mother so it could have just slipped into that habit of response for her.

[Calm]

I knew there were more possibilities but just couldn't come up with them.

I think there are probably infinite reasons that people do things they do, and I can practically guarantee that there is someone out there for each reason that would think it unreasonable no matter what it is....at least my experience leads me to hazard that guess.

[Calm]

This is the best compliment anyone on this forum has ever given me. I need to go cry now.

[canard78]

"Each statement has been referenced, and the original spelling and punctuation have been preserved; however, the sources cited will not be readily available to most members. These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures is sufficient for instruction." (Introduction, Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Brigham Young, page v)

Actually, the introduction to the Lorenzo Snow manual states: "If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare a lesson from other materials."

The introduction to the Brigham Young manual states: "Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction." And: "Carefully avoid controversy."

The introduction to the Joseph Smith manual states: "Do not set this book aside or prepare lessons from other materials."

The introduction to the Wilford Woodruff manual has similar language but it actually counsels against being "tempted" to use other materials to prepare lessons.

We have one disaffected member of our ward who stopped attending church (in her previous ward) after she was reprimanded for using other materials in her Gospel Doctrine lessons. I admit to only knowing one side of this story but look at the quotes above (from books about polygamists which have been stripped of polygamy references)... church headquarters has not been placing a priority on "learning from the best books". The priority from SLC has been that we study from correlated material.

Between raising families, working, church callings, the 3-hour block on Sundays it is not a surprise that many members are not able to dig into other literature on a daily basis after completing their personal scripture study time. Many members must rely on those Sunday meetings for their more in depth study and unfortunately, that study has been limited to only correlated materials.

This is why lifelong members may get their first exposure to difficult topics from non-member friends or the internet. I'd prefer that the "first exposure" come in a gospel doctrine course among friends where an uplifting discussion can take place.

I entirely agree that this instruction is given in Sunday School. I disagree with it and prefer teachers who ignore it. That only says that Sunday School/Priesthood/RS lessons should stick to approved material. As you rightly point out, it's even considered a 'temptation' to do otherwise.

On missions, we're told to only read scriptures, ensigns and the 'approved library.'

The combined impression makes some people think that by keeping that rule in their personal study they are being more obedient and avoiding possible temptation. I once had that attitude. When a member was struggling with his testimony some years ago, the council I gave him as his branch president was: "spend the next year reading only the scriptures and official church manuals." He looked at me as if my head had just fallen off. I'm glad to say, he ignored my advice and worked things out.

Like I said, it's easy to get the impression that only the correlated content is appropriate reading material (even outside of lesson preparation). But it's the wrong impression.

[ERayR]

I entirely agree that this instruction is given in Sunday School. I disagree with it and prefer teachers who ignore it. That only says that Sunday School/Priesthood/RS lessons should stick to approved material. As you rightly point out, it's even considered a 'temptation' to do otherwise.

On missions, we're told to only read scriptures, ensigns and the 'approved library.'

The combined impression makes some people think that by keeping that rule in their personal study they are being more obedient and avoiding possible temptation. I once had that attitude. When a member was struggling with his testimony some years ago, the council I gave him as his branch president was: "spend the next year reading only the scriptures and official church manuals." He looked at me as if my head had just fallen off. I'm glad to say, he ignored my advice and worked things out.

Like I said, it's easy to get the impression that only the correlated content is appropriate reading material (even outside of lesson preparation). But it's the wrong impression.

Just a thought. Perhaps you would have been one of those better off if they had heeded that counsel.

[omni]

As I've said, and I'll keep saying it, go ahead and continue the mantra that we don't need to change and we will continue to see NYT articles like this one.

That may be sooner than you think. If you believe the rumors, Grant Palmer's GA will be "coming out" in October.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Does that matter? Even so it is a very strange practice especially when the first husband was alive, active and married, But hey Brigham was quite fine with a woman trading up.

At face value, it is situation without value. Just as the great Abraham, turned out a wife and child to die like dogs in the wilderness to die, causing God to set in an save him...well them both. Then we become the "seed of Abraham" when we accept Christ. I do so hope we all one day know all that we do not know in proper context.

[bluebell]

I entirely agree that this instruction is given in Sunday School. I disagree with it and prefer teachers who ignore it. That only says that Sunday School/Priesthood/RS lessons should stick to approved material.

They should.

They are called to teach the doctrines of Christ as the church has outlined them. They are not called to teach the doctrines of Christ according to their opinion.

[canard78]

Hidden is such an insidious lie. I am also tired of it Tacenda. Tired of the continuous chant around the bubbling cauldron. "Woe is me Woe is me They are hiding history:. There is no hidden history. If it were hidden you would hear nothing of it. There are only things the Church teaches which is connected to its mission and there are things left for you to find on your own. Do you really see the Church leaders as a bunch of shady characters hatching up nefarious plots to keep you in ignorance? The truth is you are having trouble handling what you know and it has nothing to do with how you found out but on how you choose to respond when you do learn it.

"Hide": To put out of sight

You say that "if it were hidden you would hear nothing of it." That's not what hidden means.

We can certainly talk about the intent. I agree that I don't think there is some plot by the brethren to bury and destroy some of our history.

But the church does not put all of our history in plain sight. They select aspects of our history to present (Marsh and the Milk Strippings) and aspects of our history to leave out (Marsh and his opposition to the Danites). Some they put in plain site and some they put out of site.

There are aspects of our history (usually the awkward parts) that are only available in sources that are not approved. The new lds search function does not mention polyandry anywere.

The document has been removed, but at the 2010 Sweden fireside Elder Jensen put it rather eloquently:

[Replying to a question of the church providing selective information]... this has changed a little bit in the course of the Church’s history. Where for a long time we were a persecuted minority in America and our hope was to present our best face to the world. And our history was often written in what was called apologetic style. We were defending the faith. And in doing that we were being selective. We were saying the best things about the Church. It was a very natural thing, I think, for us to do in those years. But in many ways, we’ve come of age in the church... And we are at the time, I think, when our history could be told as completely and fully as technology can allow us to tell.

What I want you to know is I think there is some hint of this, there’s some feeling that somehow the leaders of the church have manipulated the church history for some benefit. And I want you to know that is not true. Nor is it true today. There's never been an attempt to suppress the history of the church or to tell the church’s history in some untrue way to put it into an untrue light to gain some advantage, to gain converts, to gain popularity or acceptance. I think every generation has done its best within the circumstances of its own time. And that’s what we’re trying to do now...

I know that some of you have some sense of being betrayed in some way... We haven’t betrayed you. These things that you have learned about through the Internet, mainly, have always been known have always been out there in the books. The 19th wife wrote her story years ago. It’s just that it’s published now, everybody’s reading it... It’s been there forever. So I want you to know that there is honesty and good faith and an attempt to let the world see us as we really are. I wouldn’t want to be a part if it wasn’t that way.

Like I said, I know the transcript has been removed, but I was impressed with Elder Jensen's statement and felt it struck a balance between acknowleding the church in the past has been selective, but also saying we are moving towards a more open history.

[ERayR]

"Hide": To put out of sight

You say that "if it were hidden you would hear nothing of it." That's not what hidden means.

We can certainly talk about the intent. I agree that I don't think there is some plot by the brethren to bury and destroy some of our history.

But the church does not put all of our history in plain sight. They select aspects of our history to present (Marsh and the Milk Strippings) and aspects of our history to leave out (Marsh and his opposition to the Danites). Some they put in plain site and some they put out of site.

There are aspects of our history (usually the awkward parts) that are only available in sources that are not approved. The new lds search function does not mention polyandry anywere.

The document has been removed, but at the 2010 Sweden fireside Elder Jensen put it rather eloquently:

Like I said, I know the transcript has been removed, but I was impressed with Elder Jensen's statement and felt it struck a balance between acknowleding the church in the past has been selective, but also saying we are moving towards a more open history.

Nobody puts all their history in plain sight. All history is told per the perspective of the teller. Example: I spent a summer working for the Northern Cheyenne tribe. I had read history and thought I knew the Custer at the Little Bighorn river episode quite well but the version I heard from the Northern Cheyenne was quite different than the one in the history books. Both versions are probably correct from the perspective of the person relating the history and incorrect from the perspective of the other side as each is telling their own story. Neither is as good as they claim nor as bad as the other side portrays them. There are reasons, provocations and recriminations on both sides and when one makes judgments form this current vantage point they are bound to err, not knowing what the participants knew nor what motivated them, they are left with uneducated guesses.

[canard78]

Just to clarify on the quotes you provided in those lesson manuals-

When the church first started doing the "Presidents of the church" lesson manuals, the committee in charge of them wanted Pres. Hinckley to say a few words as a type of 'forward' to the series. He refused, saying that nothing needed to be added to the lesson manual or those in the future, not even words by him.

When it comes to the Priesthood and RS manuals, it's not an issue of only correlated things being allowed in the lessons. Teachers are not supposed to use anything but the manual and the scriptures-that includes not using GC talks, the Ensign, or any other lesson manual which is distributed by the church.

Such is not true of other Sunday school lessons. While a teacher certainly shouldn't believe that any material they want to teach from can be used, other church resources are allowed. Teaching: No Greater Call (the manual every teacher in the church is supposed to receive or have access to and be trained from) gives a list of generally approved resources for teachers to use:

If we can use other church resources then would everything on a search that comes up on lds.org be acceptable?

From the newly revamped lds.org search engine of "safe and official" sources comes the following when searching for "Fanny Alger":

Fanny Alger, the first plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr

http://www.lds.org/search?q=fanny+alger&domains=all〈=eng

[canard78]

You really can talk about all of these 'secrets' (which actually aren't secrets at all of course), you just have to know where to do it.

Any member of the church can teach about church history during Family Home Evening, for example, and the curriculum for that really is endless. Or they can attend Institute (JS's plural marriage-though not all the particulars--is taught as part of the Institute courses). Maybe taking a religion class online from a church school if possible is option.

Though the church does not teach its history very in-depth on Sundays, there are other options a person can choose from if they really want to learn more and discuss these subjects with others.

Tacenda, perhaps one of these options would be a good avenue for you.

Institute gives a barely mentioned passing reference from Pres. Woodruff, tucked away at the end of the D&C 132 lesson. Given there is always more material than lesson time, it could easily be missed.

And some members join the church after the institute age. Or get married and have kids before they complete institute.

[bluebell]

Institute gives a barely mentioned passing reference from Pres. Woodruff, tucked away at the end of the D&C 132 lesson. Given there is always more material than lesson time, it could easily be missed.

And some members join the church after the institute age. Or get married and have kids before they complete institute.

I did a cursory search on the topic and in one institute manual it is mentioned in 7 or 8 different lessons so i'm not sure what you are referring to exactly.

And I realize that not everyone will be able to attend institute, but besides taking such classes, the manuals are available online (or the church library/ward) and teachers can teach from them during Sunday school as they are approved resources, which was my only point.

[bluebell]

If we can use other church resources then would everything on a search that comes up on lds.org be acceptable?

From the newly revamped lds.org search engine of "safe and official" sources comes the following when searching for "Fanny Alger":

http://www.lds.org/search?q=fanny+alger&domains=all〈=eng

I don't see why that would be a problem. It's an official church source and a part of FamilySearch. Other lesson manuals teach that he was married to other women besides Emma so I don't think teaching the names of any of them would be all that scandalous.

[Teancum]

We will continue to see NYT type articles, change or no change.

As I have said before this is a time for each to sift and sort themselves to a place where they are most comfortable.If that comfort level is as a doubter then something will come up to allow them to be doubters. It is a matter of choice. Some will choose to let themselves be swayed by doubt some will not. "Choose ye this day. . .".

Oh horse manure. I did not allow myself to become a doubter nor consciously choose it. I was solid believing LDS for all adult life till maybe perhaps seven years ago. And then a prayed, studied, read, defended and so on till it became for me untenable to defend and then later to accept as I had been taught. I did not have a comfort level as a doubter and then grab something that simply came along to confirm those doubts. Doubts were created by information I found, you know, like you ranted on about earlier in this thread, when studying it on my own. the church certainly did not provide anything but a faithful narrative. And as I said, I resisted these doubts and did everything to stuff them away until they could no longer be stuffed and I had to accept that it is very likely the LDS church is not what it claims to be. It has been a sad journey. My choice now is to follow the evidence and my conscious.

[bluebell]

Oh horse manure. I did not allow myself to become a doubter nor consciously choose it. I was solid believing LDS for all adult life till maybe perhaps seven years ago. And then a prayed, studied, read, defended and so on till it became for me untenable to defend and then later to accept as I had been taught. I did not have a comfort level as a doubter and then grab something that simply came along to confirm those doubts. Doubts were created by information I found, you know, like you ranted on about earlier in this thread, when studying it on my own. the church certainly did not provide anything but a faithful narrative. And as I said, I resisted these doubts and did everything to stuff them away until they could no longer be stuffed and I had to accept that it is very likely the LDS church is not what it claims to be. It has been a sad journey. My choice now is to follow the evidence and my conscious.

So, do you believe that if the church had taught these things in Sunday School, you would still be faithful?

[bluebell]

I haven't had the chance yet to listen to the MS podcast interview with Mattson, so I'm not sure how to answer that.

But I know my own personal faith crisis was caused (in my late 30's, as an early-morning seminary teacher) by finding out information that seemed to contradict the narrative I had been raised on. Not because I was searching the internet for "anti" sites but because I was trying to do a good job teaching the "D&C + Church History" year to my seminary students.

So, I would say that being more forthright about our history would have helped me.

Sorry, I just saw this.

So, if I understand you correctly, it's not the information that was the problem, but the timing.

If people could learn about the information sooner, then it wouldn't bother them?