Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Teancum]

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

I have no idea. I realize that if the church attempts an inoculation approach it may lose more members that it does now as people find things out on their own. It is a tough choice the church leaders face. There is a lot that there is just really no good answer for.

As for being faithful please define that. I still participate as an active member albeit one with doubts that talks about them to a few good friends and my spouse.

On the other hand I feel as many do that I based the center of my entire life on partial information that was presented in only the most positive light. I do feel that it would have been proper and even ethical if I had been able to make a choice with more full disclosure. Is the church afraid of what people will choose if a more balanced disclosure is made?

[Robert F. Smith]

Nevo, on 20 July 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

I thought the article was pretty good. The writer clearly did her homework—which is more than can be said for a lot of journalists who write about Mormons.

Robert F. Smith said:

I beg to differ. It was a fair to middling hatchet job.

A hatchet job on whom?

On the LDS Church.

The article is about people who are having doubts about the Church, with some of them leaving. If the article is accurately explaining why those people are doubting, but those reasons are "false" or easily answered by apologists, then the article is a "hatchet job" on the doubters. It makes them look bad, not the Church.

I was responding to the erroneous claim by Nevo that the journalist had done her homework, which of course she had not. It was a "fair to middling hatchet job," as those kinds of things go.

If the article misrepresents why the doubters are leaving (i.e. if they're not having problems with the things mentioned in the article but instead are leaving over other issues), then it is the doubters themselves who should be upset for being misrepresented. If that's the case, watch for negative feedback from the doubters via blogs and discussion board postings. But again, it doesn't make the Church look bad.

Obviously, LDS would have preferred an article titled "Things are Great in the LDS Church!" But just because it describes a very real situation (and a situation which Church leaders now appear to be aware of and trying to deal with), it doesn't make it a "hatchet job".

I would have preferred an accurate and hard-hitting article discussing real problems rather than the pretend problems which so often take center stage. The Book of Mormon doesn't say that "Things are Great in the LDS Church," but rather says things like

II Nephi 28:20-21,

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men,

and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify,

and lull them away into carnal security,

that they will say:

All is well in Zion;

yea, Zion prospereth,

all is well

—and thus the devil cheateth their souls,

and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

[bluebell]

As for being faithful please define that.

I suppose I was using the term to describe someone who believes the church is what it claims to be.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm sure Robert would just like to see it all go away, Cinepro.

Why would you say or think that, Tacenda?

I should have thought that we have each been on this board long enough for you to know that that is just not true.

[Teancum]

I suppose I was using the term to describe someone who believes the church is what it claims to be.

That definition excludes me then.

[ERayR]

Oh horse manure. I did not allow myself to become a doubter nor consciously choose it.

Oh horse manure. You had a choice to hold on to your belief or trade it for some critics horse manure. You had a choice and you made it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Kevin Christensen, on 21 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'm rather astonished that he claims that he didn't know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Last time I checked, the D&C included D&C 132, and for decades, its been easy to go into any LDS bookstore, or any anti-LDS bookstore, even if you don't have the energy to peek at the Journal of Mormon History, or Signature Books, BYU Studies, or Joseph F. Smith's Pamphlet on The Origins of Plural Marriage, or even the Work and the Glory. I showed the article to my wife, and exclaimed, "I can't remember when I didn't know this stuff!"

For someone get that high up and be so utterly naive strikes me as rather unusual. It's never a good idea to generalize from atypical situations. How about a poll of general authorities,and asking them how typical is it for someone to get to be a Seventy and not know about polygamy? How about asking how many of them do know and aren't scandalized by it? How about some stories from the side perspective of people who've known so long that they take it utterly for granted? Do you think it might be possible to learn from the behavior and experience of most well informed and well adjusted members? Or wouldn't that be news?

Yokel?

Yes. A yokel. What else would you call someone so unimaginably naive? Kevin agrees with me in emphatic terms. Do you have a better word than "yokel"?

[Teancum]

Oh horse manure. You had a choice to hold on to your belief or trade it for some critics horse manure. You had a choice and you made it.

Clearly like others you need to believe this. To accept the fact that one can come to these conclusions in a reasonable way puts your testimony in jeopardy. You don't know me, nor my journey, nor where I was nor my heart. Yet you judge me and others as somehow weaker than you. Another bad product of dogmatic certitude.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 21 July 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I beg to differ. It was a fair to middling hatchet job.

Is the best the apologists have? Ad hominem and character assassination?

So, "I beg to differ. It was a fair to middling hatchet job" is now "ad hominem and character assassination"?

Reminds me all the people who called Gregory Smith's article on John Dehlin "a hit piece" -- without having read it. John Dehlin himself succeeding in having the article suppressed (censorship) for awhile.

I was commenting on a fair to middling article on the Mormons which did not include critical scrutiny of the claims being made. In other words, the author did not do her homework.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

CV75, on 21 July 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

“Everything I’d been taught, everything I’d been proud to preach about and witness about just crumbled under my feet. It was such a terrible psychological and nearly physical disturbance.”

Bold: hyperbole

Underlined: more to the point

Much of trouble with faith begins with excessive reliance on the psychological and physical "arms of the flesh" when the Spirit is the real solution. Maybe this por brother simply forgot what he was talking about.

Bear in mind he's working with a second language. I think the point he's sincerely making is that it was emotionally, mentally and even physically devastating when he was discovering the history.

I can empathise with that. There were times when I thought I was close to vomiting when discovering some of the history for the first time. I know that sounds melodramatic. It's not meant to. I'm simply saying that I was so emotionally pained by some of what I read, so wound up inside that I think my body's physical reaction to the anxiety was to want to vomit. The phrase "sick to my stomach" usually speaks of an emotional experience but can have a physical manifestation.

Those who come from homes in which belief is rigid and brittle are more prone to this sort of problem. The solution is more in depth scrutiny of one's beliefs. As D. Michael Quinn has said, "The unexamined faith is not worth having."

[Robert F. Smith]

Our published RS/Priesthood manual on the life and teachings of Brigham Young doesn't talk about polygamy! As a church we do not make an attempt to discuss these issues. I understand that there are good reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact that we walked ourselves into this...

The issue remains that these faith crises are occurring among Mormons all over the world. You can continue to say that people have no excuse for not knowing this information, or we can face it institutionally, as a church and work on it.

Right now, it seems that we've left that responsibility to people like Givens, Dehlin, and Greg Prince. They are great people and maybe leaving it to them is the best way to handle it. Or maybe it's time for the church to step into this arena.

Or maybe we are the Church. Maybe we all need to accept some responsibility.

[cinepro]

I would have preferred an accurate and hard-hitting article discussing real problems rather than the pretend problems which so often take center stage.

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that the concerns expressed by Brother Mattsson and the other Swedish LDS in attendance at the meeting in 2010 are "pretend problems"?

Sounds like the Church sent the wrong person to talk with them.

[rockpond]

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?

Timing is just part of the issue. You'll notice I said that I found information that seemed to contradict the narrative I had been taught. So yeah, finding this stuff out after completing four years of seminary, after completing BYU's religion courses, after serving in an EQ Presidency, after serving in a bishopric, after serving as YM president, and during my first year as an early morning seminary teacher was part of the problem. That it felt contradictory to the historical narrative and doctrines I was raised on was a larger dilemma.

So, improving the youth curriculum (which they've been working on) is a great place to start but probably isn't enough at this point.

[rockpond]

Or maybe we are the Church. Maybe we all need to accept some responsibility.

You'll note that throughout my post I used "we". You and I agree on this point: We are the church... you, me, and others on this board. If I didn't think that "we" here had the power to start making changes, I wouldn't waste my time on this board. But I do think that we can change things... so I'm here.

[ERayR]

Clearly like others you need to believe this. To accept the fact that one can come to these conclusions in a reasonable way puts your testimony in jeopardy. You don't know me, nor my journey, nor where I was nor my heart. Yet you judge me and others as somehow weaker than you. Another bad product of dogmatic certitude.

I have not nor do I judge you. As I have stated many times that is beyond my pay grade. I made no judgements about how you came to this conclusions. I did say that your path and conclusions are a result of choices. Again I make no comparisons to me or anyone else but for you to say that choice played no role is simple incorrect. Right or wrong is not for me to say nor do I but you did and do make choices that determined your path and to deny you made choices and to blame others for them is simply wrong.

PS: I am happy to report that however you came to your conclusions it hasn't yet affected my testimony in the slightest. However I would dearly love to get you to see that where you are at today is clearly the result of choices you have made. If you are happy with where you are at I say great may you enjoy but if you are not then start by examining your choices, past and present. I assure you I have done it numerous times.

Edited July 24, 2013 by ERayR

[canard78]

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?

It's possible.

We already believe in some pretty ridiculous things to an outside eye. We revere a prophet who took his wife's servant as an extra wife and had a son and then, once his actual wife had a son, he kicked the servant and firstborn son out to die in the desert. Then... he took the second son out into the desert to stab him to death and only later returned with the son "because an angel gave me a ram to kill instead."

If Joseph had done that with his plural wives and kids the critics (some of them Christian) would be having a field day.

The other day I told my 10yo daughter about the plates often not being present when translating and that he would sometimes translate with his head in a hat and a stone at the bottom. She wrinkled her nose at first then shrugged and said "oh."

[Storm Rider]

It's possible.

We already believe in some pretty ridiculous things to an outside eye. We revere a prophet who took his wife's servant as an extra wife and had a son and then, once his actual wife had a son, he kicked the servant and firstborn son out to die in the desert. Then... he took the second son out into the desert to stab him to death and only later returned with the son "because an angel gave me a ram to kill instead."

If Joseph had done that with his plural wives and kids the critics (some of them Christian) would be having a field day.

The other day I told my 10yo daughter about the plates often not being present when translating and that he would sometimes translate with his head in a hat and a stone at the bottom. She wrinkled her nose at first then shrugged and said "oh."

The tone of this comment comes so much closer to being positive than many of your edits. It is also an edit that I wish many of our Christian friends would remember before they begin attacking Joseph; they so seldom don't even understand or remember the genesis of their own spiritual history. Thank you for sharing and for demonstrating that history is not something to be feared.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that the concerns expressed by Brother Mattsson and the other Swedish LDS in attendance at the meeting in 2010 are "pretend problems"?

Sounds like the Church sent the wrong person to talk with them.

I can't speak to whether the wrong person was sent to meet with them, but (as others point out above) that may not have been efficacious anyhow -- even if the Lord Himself came to see them. The "Oh dear me" hand-wringing by the locals suggests that deeper problems exist before we ever get to this point. I see a need for new and more serious procedures in two areas in both LDS seminary and adult religious education: (1) intellectual and historical inquiry should entail the Socratic method, rather than dependence only on rote learning or catechism class; (2) spiritual & meditative retreats on a par with those common in spartan Roman Catholic and Buddhist retreats (no cell phones).

We used to laugh about the idea that if Jesus showed up in long hair, beard, robes and sandals on the BYU campus, He would be promptly escorted off campus by BYU Police, and perhaps even held for observation at the Utah County Hospital in Provo (a psychiatric facility). The problem is that substance is apparently less important than rules. WWJD?

[Robert F. Smith]

It's possible.

We already believe in some pretty ridiculous things to an outside eye. We revere a prophet who took his wife's servant as an extra wife and had a son and then, once his actual wife had a son, he kicked the servant and firstborn son out to die in the desert. Then... he took the second son out into the desert to stab him to death and only later returned with the son "because an angel gave me a ram to kill instead."

If Joseph had done that with his plural wives and kids the critics (some of them Christian) would be having a field day.

The other day I told my 10yo daughter about the plates often not being present when translating and that he would sometimes translate with his head in a hat and a stone at the bottom. She wrinkled her nose at first then shrugged and said "oh."

There is hope yet, canard. There is hope.

[canard78]

The tone of this comment comes so much closer to being positive than many of your edits. It is also an edit that I wish many of our Christian friends would remember before they begin attacking Joseph; they so seldom don't even understand or remember the genesis of their own spiritual history. Thank you for sharing and for demonstrating that history is not something to be feared.

Thanks. I'm aware that on this forum I'm often negative and appear to be critical. That's partly because of my motives for participating on this specific forum. I want a place to test my ideas and perspectives. I know that if I did that on several other boards in the "bloggernacle" I'd get little more validation.

This board keeps me on my toes. I've certainly changed my perspectives both closer to and further from "orthodoxy" by being here. If it's any reassurance, on other boards I'm seen as a defender of the faith (because I still have some). I participate in multiple forums to strike a personal balance.

I don't aspire to change anyone's mind here and I'm not trying to "preach any other gospel." I'm aware that my perspective on the gospel of Christ might be different to yours, but I still think it fits within that gospel. I don't think many people change their opinion because of things they debate on a message board. But I think the process of testing your perspective rigorously is a good way of refining them. And this is one of the most rigorous places I've found.

[canard78]

There is hope yet, canard. There is hope.

As I said in my previous post, I apologise for appearing to be solely negative. I try to also acknowledge the positive, such as on the thread about BoM as keystone.

[bluebell]

It's possible.

We already believe in some pretty ridiculous things to an outside eye. We revere a prophet who took his wife's servant as an extra wife and had a son and then, once his actual wife had a son, he kicked the servant and firstborn son out to die in the desert. Then... he took the second son out into the desert to stab him to death and only later returned with the son "because an angel gave me a ram to kill instead."

If Joseph had done that with his plural wives and kids the critics (some of them Christian) would be having a field day.

The other day I told my 10yo daughter about the plates often not being present when translating and that he would sometimes translate with his head in a hat and a stone at the bottom. She wrinkled her nose at first then shrugged and said "oh."

I have an 11 year old son and I also try to teach him these things early, because like you, I think that most of the shock is just finding out that the history doesn't match what we have assumed or been taught in earlier years. When people are taught these things early, they don't seem to have much of an issue with them at all.

But what kind of bugs me about that line of reasoning is the implication that people are leaving the church thinking it's because the history they are learning doesn't mesh with what they believe the early church or it's founders should have been doing, but that they are actually leaving because the history is different than what they thought.

History that implies an organization or person is bad and is not what you thought it was is a problem worth getting worked up over. Leaving an organization that you have otherwise loved and which has served you well because the history is just different than you thought, seems, well, lame.

[The Nehor]

Clearly like others you need to believe this. To accept the fact that one can come to these conclusions in a reasonable way puts your testimony in jeopardy. You don't know me, nor my journey, nor where I was nor my heart. Yet you judge me and others as somehow weaker than you. Another bad product of dogmatic certitude.

As much as you need to believe your decision was entirely based on "the facts" and there were no other motives whatsoever for your choice. Gotta love symmetry.

[rockpond]

History that implies an organization or person is bad and is not what you thought it was is a problem worth getting worked up over.

I think that what you've stated here IS why many members are leaving... at least the ones that I've listened to.

[bluebell]

I think that what you've stated here IS why many members are leaving... at least the ones that I've listened to.

Some for sure.

But if they are leaving over information that would not have harmed their testimony if they'd learned it earlier, then they aren't. They aren't leaving because of the information at all. They are leaving only because of the timing.

And that's a good argument for the church doing better at getting its history into correlated items.

If people are leaving because the history shows the church is bad, then any argument about how the church needs to be more open is a moot point. If such were true, then being more open wont serve the church at all.