Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[rockpond]

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.

The way I see it... when they leave because of the timing it's because they feel somewhat betrayed that they were told something different their entire lives (up to that point). So I agree with you that we need to get the full history into the curriculum earlier.

But I'm not fully on board with your second comment. I don't think it's the the history shows the church is "bad". I think some people arrive at that conclusion because they aren't able (or possibly willing) to have the more faith affirming historical discussions that I think could take place within the church. Meaning that I think that you can teach the full history, warts and all, and have it still be uplifting.

[Calm]

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.

Check out the suggested readings for the Institute Church History teacher's manual. Goes way outside the correlated content box.

[Calm]

You had a choice and you made it.

It may not be an obvious experience of choice though like one feels in front of the ice cream counter where one is asked "what flavour do you want?" though in the long run it is the same because our flavour choice is not random but based on what value or weight of importance to us we put on each flavour.

It may feel forced due to the fact that the choice is really made prior to what one sees as the choice event of deciding whether or not to believe, instead it is made in the choices we make about what we give more value to in our interpretation of life, the universe and everything. If we weight things a certain way, we lead ourselves to unbelief; if we weight things another way, we lead ourselves to a stronger belief, if we weight things yet another way, we are still in a balancing act of deciding what our choice will be....

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

But I'm not fully on board with your second comment. I don't think it's the the history shows the church is "bad". I think some people arrive at that conclusion because they aren't able (or possibly willing) to have the more faith affirming historical discussions that I think could take place within the church. Meaning that I think that you can teach the full history, warts and all, and have it still be uplifting.

I never meant to imply that the history of the church is bad (I obviously don't believe that or I wouldn't be an active member), but was talking about the perspective of someone who leaves the church after finding out the history. Elder Mattsson, who is struggling with his testimony even after having the discussion about history with church leaders, could be an example of what I mean I suppose.

Sorry for the confusion.

Edited July 24, 2013 by bluebell

[Calm]

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).

Nice idea.

[ERayR]

It may not be an obvious experience of choice though like one feels in front of the ice cream counter where one is asked "what flavour do you want?" though in the long run it is the same because our flavour choice is not random but based on what value or weight of importance to us we put on each flavour.

It may feel forced due to the fact that the choice is really made prior to what one sees as the choice event of deciding whether or not to believe, instead it is made in the choices we make about what we give more value to in our interpretation of life, the universe and everything. If we weight things a certain way, we lead ourselves to unbelief; if we weight things another way, we lead ourselves to a stronger belief, if we weight things yet another way, we are still in a balancing act of deciding what our choice will be....

That may be so but until they recognize it is a choice no progress can be made. What I am trying to do is hold up the mirror if they can not see then, until they do, no body can help them. All that can be done is offer soothing platitudes to make them feel good. The problem with a board like this is that it sometimes comes of as harsh when it is not meant that way.

[Calm]

That may be so but until they recognize it is a choice no progress can be made.

I agree. Just like everything else in life.... Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

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

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

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.

My main issue was your calling him a "yokel" (noun: a rustic; a country bumpkin). But also the suggestion that he had collaborated in a "hatchet job" (noun: a maliciously destructive critique or act).

So yes, to call him both a country bumpkin and malicious is an unfair attack on his character.

I'm aware that the "hatchet job" comment may have been solely aimed at the NYT journalist. Even so, that makes the journalist malicious and the interviewee a rustic/bumpkin who enables something malicious. Both of which are ad hominem because you are making assumptions about intelligence and/or ulterior motives. Not all non-Mormon journalists are out to get us. Some just want a scoop. Or sometimes even what they consider balanced journalism. The journalist may be mal-informed rather malicious.

You and Kevin are immersed in these historical topics. Not everyone else is. Some people feel they are too busy serving to spend time historically learning. Historical study doesn't clothe the naked, feed the hungry and care for the sick. President Monson makes serving others a central tenet of his prophetic message. He rarely mandates historical awareness as a church-wide expression of faith.

I personally hugely value the historical work that you and your counterparts do. It is a work of saving souls too because your ability to provide a counter-view to some of the critical claims has stopped me from marching out the door in unjustified outrage. Kevin's posts on "Prophets and Paradigms" may turn out to be one of the most significant "thought influencers" I've read this year. Or decade.

2 years ago I had very little interest in any of 1800s church history. I knew the bare basics. I considered the events of 180+ years ago to be of little consequence to my ability to live the gospel 'today.' But I'm no yokel/bumpkin. I would consider myself relatively well-educated. I'm, ironically, a history graduate (but in European history). I'm also a professional researcher. Which is why, when I started to finally engage in our history in 2012, I made myself read all sides of the story and the original sources, in context, if I could.

After a few initial weeks of "shocking revelations" (and many were entirely new news to me), which caused my confidence in the church to start to crumble, I made myself commit to at least one year of study before doing anything drastic. A year came and went. I'm still studying. Elder Mattsson took 8 years of study. And with similar resources to you, me and Kevin, he reached a different conclusion. My conclusions are different too and probably closer to Elder Mattsson's on the spectrum of belief.

I think we should show him a little more respect than making accusations of naivety, being a yokel, having malicious intent and, by implication (or direct accusation from other participants), of being a fraud.

[canard78]

That may be so but until they recognize it is a choice no progress can be made. What I am trying to do is hold up the mirror if they can not see then, until they do, no body can help them. All that can be done is offer soothing platitudes to make them feel good. The problem with a board like this is that it sometimes comes of as harsh when it is not meant that way.

I agree with you ERayR that it's a choice. You and I and everyone else have the same access to the same limited evidence and the same opportunity to approach and interact with deity.

Once we've made the best of those resources we have to make a choice.

I chose to not believe in the church in the way used to. I chose to adapt my faith. No third party influence made me do it. Agency was not relinquished. It may be that the new evidence put everything else in a very different context. It certainly felt overwhelming at times and felt like I was being dragged to the new position of perspective (are those last 3 words tautological?). But I chose to move "there" just as you choose to stand where you are based on the evidence and personal experiences.

I think that's twice we've agreed in the last couple of days. One of us may be going soft

[mfbukowski]

Some bunk is easier to believe and some bunk is more easily dismissed, even though I agree it is all bunk without revelation from God. Do you think that the work John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, Dan Peterson, and all the other dedicated, faithful LDS scholars are doing is irrelevant? In this age of cynicism and information overload, can't we all use a little more feasibility in our religion? Sorenson's Mormon's Codex is coming out in August. Mesoamerican archaeology and studies push on. People will have more reason to even consider JS's claims as we gather data. Surely all this isn't bunk.

It is not important to me at all, but certainly it might be for others. Frankly I think that such "scholarly" works are only valuable if you actually think that scholarly work makes a difference to religious belief, and I don't think it does.

There are millions of intelligent devotees to a god who is a boy with an elephant's head. Do you think they would be swayed by scholars who that such beliefs are ridiculous?

Eastern religions totally get this principles, but in the west we worry about the location of Zarahemla or for evidence of the Flood. Ridiculous.

Although he is known by many other attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him particularly easy to identify.^[9] Ganesha is widely revered as the Remover of Obstacles^[10] and more generally as the Lord of Beginnings and the Lord of Obstacles,^[11] patron of arts and sciences, and the deva of intellect and wisdom.^[12] He is honoured at the beginning of rituals and ceremonies and invoked as the Patron of Letters during writing sessions.^[13] Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

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

Perhaps in a hundred years, the greatest concentration of members will be in Asia where they understand that what Mormons actually worship is the Family and translations of Egyptian hypocephali or the search for sites mentioned in the Bible become irrelevant to religious studies.

[mfbukowski]

Right... Hans Mattson was asking to be spoon fed everything as he spent years serving in church leadership positions.

p.s. The church's authority to teach us how to become Christ-like is derived in its historical narrative. You cannot separate the two quite so easily as you suggest.

Why do Eastern Religions do it all the time?

Why can't we?

[mfbukowski]

What do you believe the church could have done to keep Mattsson from losing his testimony?

Teach him some philosophy and comparative religion.

[Calm]

Not sure if this has been posted yet or not:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/07/skeptical-about-the-nyts-mormon-skeptic-piece/

[mfbukowski]

and from an earlier thread...we learned...

What a truly impressive educational array you bring to the various posts and threads you have chosen to bless us with here at MD&D. How fortunate we should all be that you have selected this board to share your superior genius with. I for one am very grateful. Rarely do mortals get the opportunity to bask in the light of true genius; I for one do not feel myself worthy…but do want to express my sincere indebtedness to you. What a blessing it is to all of us. And while I dare say we are not worthy of your contribution…we do appreciative that you have chosen this forum to share a portion of your vast knowledge, wisdom and experience with…how truly fortunate we all are.

I doubt that we will ever be able to put into words and be able to fully express how truly indebted we are to you for imparting your wisdom to us through your contributions here but please know that it does not go unappreciated by me. My only hope is that others in this community will take the time to express their wholehearted gratitude to you…just knowing that someone with such an impressive educational resume’ would take their time away from truly more important matters to enlighten us with their wisdom and knowledge really speaks volumes to your love of this community. Thank you for that. It goes a long way to show us all who the real Nehor is, the man behind the name. Rarely are posters such as us able to get a peek behind the curtain. Thank you for enlightening all of us…

Uh, the links you quoted don't say that, Mr. Wonderful. They are misquotes.

And a Linguistics major with a minor in econ? What's the big deal about that? Your snarky passive-aggressive approach is just a little too much.

[mfbukowski]

I had no idea having a dual major and a minor was that awe-inspiring to you. You will find many on this board who have achieved much more academically. Be careful. You may develop an inferiority complex and then your whole house of cards about the highly educated and wealthy such as yourself fleeing the church might collapse.

Exactly exactly right.

He has no clue how badly that post hurts him here

[mfbukowski]

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.

I am totally jealous. You never called me demented.

[rockpond]

Why do Eastern Religions do it all the time?

Why can't we?

We could... if we wanted to be just another religion.

[canard78]

Teach him some philosophy and comparative religion.

Can you design the new Sunday school manual? Pleeeeeeease!

You make a great point about the Eastern religions. I was chatting with a friend from India about this the other day. He's a Hindu-Catholic (it's complicated, but his name is not Pi). We were talking about Hindu mythology and the Old Testament.

He was talking about the different gods in the Hindu legends and the lessons they take from them. In a pause in the conversation I asked: "But does anyone actually believe these things really happened in history?" He laughed and said "Of course not, but then I also don't believe a flood really covered the entire planet and that only Noah and his family survived it. What does it matter if these things actually happened? We still talk about them and try to live by them as if they did."

[mfbukowski]

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?

Indeed. And Kevin teaching the Perry Scheme. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html

Edited July 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Can you design the new Sunday school manual? Pleeeeeeease!

You make a great point about the Eastern religions. I was chatting with a friend from India about this the other day. He's a Hindu-Catholic (it's complicated, but his name is not Pi). We were talking about Hindu mythology and the Old Testament.

He was talking about the different gods in the Hindu legends and the lessons they take from them. In a pause in the conversation I asked: "But does anyone actually believe these things really happened in history?" He laughed and said "Of course not, but then I also don't believe a flood really covered the entire planet and that only Noah and his family survived it. What does it matter if these things actually happened? We still talk about them and try to live by them as if they did."

Exactly! They get it!

Where do you think I stole all my ideas?? I can post here til I am blue in the face about this and no one listens. I just need to go on a mission to India! I promise they will not worry about the Book of Abraham or where it came from. I think they would laugh at all the fuss we make about such things, as your friend did.

Edited July 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Not sure if this has been posted yet or not:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2013/07/skeptical-about-the-nyts-mormon-skeptic-piece/

It's odd. They make a big deal of this: "everyone is taught that Joseph Smith introduced the principle of polygamy. I’m not sure how much people get into how much he practiced his own teaching, but for those of us with some knowledge of LDS teaching on the matter, the idea that it would be foundation-crumbling to learn he practiced what he taught is — weird.

But only a passing reference to this: "For what it’s worth, Bushman is quoted saying that many Mormons don’t think Smith practiced polygamy."

Given Bushman has probably given more firesides/talks than most on Joseph's polygamy, so is probably in the best position to comment on it. He says it is not taught in church as a matter of policy and as a result many don't know about it. Turley, in the Sweden fireside, says something similar.

I do agree with one thing though. That survey by John Dehlin is not reliable data to quote in the way this article has. It's a useful way to get a rough profile of the people who are disaffected AND engaged in the bloggernacle (where sampling was done), but it's in no way representative of "why people leave." But journalists rarely seem to worry about research rigour in surveys. There's a huge online company in UK (onepoll.com) who run daily surveys of 1000-2000 people. The questions are phrased so that there's a headline in it whether you pick answer 'a' or 'b.' The respondent don't care because they're getting 10p per survey completion, the journalist/editors don't care because they get to fill column inches with fluffy stories and the clients don't care because when a story says "a survey by WidgetsRus said..." they imagine it's going to impact brand awareness and sales in some way.

[canard78]

Check out the suggested readings for the Institute Church History teacher's manual. Goes way outside the correlated content box.

Thanks. Like I said, I accept I'd reached the wrong conclusion. It's good to have an example like institute if the question comes up in future.

[ERayR]

I agree with you ERayR that it's a choice. You and I and everyone else have the same access to the same limited evidence and the same opportunity to approach and interact with deity.

Once we've made the best of those resources we have to make a choice.

I chose to not believe in the church in the way used to. I chose to adapt my faith. No third party influence made me do it. Agency was not relinquished. It may be that the new evidence put everything else in a very different context. It certainly felt overwhelming at times and felt like I was being dragged to the new position of perspective (are those last 3 words tautological?). But I chose to move "there" just as you choose to stand where you are based on the evidence and personal experiences.

I think that's twice we've agreed in the last couple of days. One of us may be going soft

You and I agree. It surely must be the end times.

I have no problems with how you or anybody else chooses to direct their life. It is yours to direct. What bothers me is the refusal of some to take responsibility for their choices. I don't buy the mantra that "if the Church had only told me about ____ things would have been alright". The only difference is one would have been faced with the choice earlier.

As state somewhere in this maze am only trying to hold up the mirror". Until one recognizes and takes responsibility for their choices they are going to spin their wheels, throw mud everywhere and still be stuck and unable to move on. Perhaps, once the own the choices they can think through it and like Cowdery, Marsh and others will see their way back. At the very least they can move on with their lives.

[canard78]

We could... if we wanted to be just another religion.

We are. But not "just."

[Calm]

Thanks. Like I said, I accept I'd reached the wrong conclusion. It's good to have an example like institute if the question comes up in future.

It will be nice if it spreads to other manuals, including the students.