Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I understood it as him not knowing about the more controversial aspects of polygamy such as the number of wives, polyandry, and the age of some of JS's wives.

I agree that a member of the seventy not knowing about polygamy would certainly be odd, but the other stuff is a little more understanding. Ironically I just watched an old episode of Sister Wives about a polygamous Utah family. In the episode they visited Nauvoo and during a tour, their LDS tour guide told them about the number of wives and the polyandry and the family was shocked...and they're polygamists!

The reaction is not carried by the information by provided to the interpreter. Interpretation happens in how a person responds to the word they receive. I remember exactly what my reaction was when I read about the articles on polyandry coming out in Dialogue. "Oh. That's interesting. I did not know that. Maybe I should read up."

When Chicken Little gets bonked on the head by a shingle, that is data. Interpretation is "The sky is falling!" Another interpretation is, "Oh. I got bonked on the head by a shingle. Perhaps I should be more careful."

The word is like a seed, explains Jesus. "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

Knowing my teachers growing up, I had no reason to suppose that they knew about this stuff, since I knew the effort it was taking me to take responsibility for my own further education. No conspiracy. I just assumed that people who didn't tell me didn't know.

That an interpretation. Same seed, different soil. Different nurture, different harvest.

Paradigms are established by standard examples. Elder Mattssen is not typical of the General Authorities, or the membership in this regard. The interview does not display much learning. So why is he being put forward as a standard example regarding the way LDS deal with problems? Why not talk with Bushman or Peterson? Whose agenda is putting down the ink and running the presses?

And back in Kirtland, we did have church apostles vocally leaving the church.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Teancum]

Even the Devil can quote Scripture in order to deceive.

Here is the truth about polygamy.

The Book of Mormon allows for it under Gods' command.

The Doctrine and Covenants 132 allows for its earthly practice.

OD 1 disallows its earthly practice at this time.

We, as individual members, must study, ponder , and pray for the answers and not become overly reliant on our Leaders to spoon feed us the answers.

There is no excuse to not speak up, after we have done all we can to get the answer. However we do need to be receptive to the answers.

Ah the pat Sunday School answer. With defenses like this good luck ever having anyone take them seriously.

[Teancum]

There is no evidence, but much speculation, that the polyandry of JS included marriage rights.

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.

[cinepro]

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!"

I think the author of the article poorly phrased that part. Here's what the article says:

But when he discovered credible evidence that the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist and that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were rife with historical anomalies, Mr. Mattsson said he felt that the foundation on which he had built his life began to crumble.

Obviously, the fact that Joseph Smith was a "polygamist" is in D&C 132 (including the heading), and while it's not discussed much in Church or in other official Church publications, the concept of polygamy in general is pretty benign (no one ever leaves after finding out Brigham Young was a polygamist, for example).

I suspect the article should have clarified that it wasn't the fact that Joseph Smith "was a polygamist", but instead should have read "But when he discovered the details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy..."

Since it seems to be the details that cause all the problems.

And with all due respect, those bullet points are spot-on in their framing and summary of the core issues that cause "doubt" among online LDS. So if you feel they are either inaccurate or intentionally negative or opaque, you should probably spend some time reappraising your understanding of how others see these issues. Because if your responses and "clarifications" are illustrative of your recommended apologetic approach, you're missing the broadside of the barn but probably think you're hitting bullseyes.

Edited July 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

Hmmm...very interesting. Does this have anything to do with Palmer? I know he claims he was meeting with a current member of the seventy who was supposed to come out in July, but if memory serves me correct he was also meeting with another leader who was not a GA. Could this be him?

What in the world do you think this document was that the unnamed apostle was allegedly supposed to show the members in Sweden and why didn't he (according to Mattson) end up showing them?

You have only one side of the story here, and from a yokel at that (can anybody actually believe that he didn't know that Joseph Smith was a practicing polygynist?). I feel very sorry for the otherwise intelligent people who have been taken in by this nonsense, while I am equally certain that Grant Palmer is celebrating.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

[cinepro]

FYI, there's video too:

http://www.nytimes.c...mon-doubts.html

Also this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo

Edited July 22, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

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

A hatchet job on whom?

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.

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".

Edited July 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

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

[cinepro]

So, should I just stop going to church, stop paying my tithing, stop going to the temple, stop wearing garments, stop taking the sacrament, stop going home teaching, and stop doing my calling?

Does it make any logical sense that Jesus would bleed from every pore to atone for the sins of every person who would ever live on this world? Is there a God?

Is there no room for belief? Is it possible that God could still be overseeing this work, even if the people are imperfect and sometimes even made terrible mistakes? Why should the Church have any value in my life or in anybody's if the foundation is essentially false?

Just some questions that I'm asking myself....

I'm sticking with Elder Holland's approach for now:

http://www.lds.org/g...elieve?lang=eng

If that's the way you see it, then I would definitely stick with "belief".

[Senator]

You have only one side of the story here, and from a yokel at that (can anybody actually believe that he didn't know that Joseph Smith was a practicing polygynist?). I feel very sorry for the otherwise intelligent people who have been taken in by this nonsense, while I am equally certain that Grant Palmer is celebrating.

Yokel?

[canard78]

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?

Firstly I'd be very interested in a poll of the GAs to see who knew the full extent of Joseph's plural marriage. One of us would be surprised. Probably me.

I don't think you can underestimate the 'European effect.' We simply don't grow up around it. We don't have the pioneer heritage that crowbars us into a detailed awareness of it. Yes we're aware there was polygamy around BY's time, but usually it's brushed away as some welfare solution.

Is this the kind of things 70s talk about? I'd have thought they a bit busier than that. I'm often being told on this forum to focus on the gospel, not the minutiae. It's unlikely that a 70 (especially a Q3 variety that's mostly focused on his local responsibilities) gets given an historical briefing on his calling.

Also bear in mind this from Bushman:

Mr. Bushman said in a telephone interview: “You would be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It just wasn’t talked about. It was never mentioned in church periodicals. That was policy.”

What policy is this? It certainly seems to have worked.

Also this from the full transcript of Elder Jensen's visit to Sweden:

Now everyone who’s decided to believe, not everyone, but most of us who have decided to believe are as aware of the questions that you have as you are and maybe even a lot more questions that you haven’t thought about yet. I just want you to understand that everyone’s experiencing kind of a similar situation.

Question: When you say—sorry—when you say, “we are aware of the questions that you have,” it sounds like you and many more of you, I don’t know. Is it the apostles you’re talking about?

MJ: No, I’m just talking about brother Turley and me who have received questions from some you in preparation for this meeting.

http://mormonstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Turley_Jensen_Stockholm_2010.pdf

Elder Jensen wouldn't confirm or deny that all the Apostles are aware of all the issues. Maybe you should do that poll. You'd probably be better placed than the NYT.

And while the tone of the article is reasonable (given that the whole point is to be as sensational as possible, while pretending not to be), I do notice the accuracy slipping away the further along the bullet points I read. And there is a reliance on insinuation throughout, rather than any effort whatsoever to contextualize the information.

Take this one:

Is this insinuating that when Joseph Smith was looking into the hat to obscure the light, that any of those witnesses thought that Joseph Smith was doing anything other than translating the plates?

I'd not read it that way. I think the question is if witnesses say he translated with his head in a hat with a stone previously used for treasure hunting, why does the church portray it as a more literal translation. If you listen to the full interview with John Dehlin this is certainly the focus of his question.

And while we're not really asking this question, obviously not looking things up in something useful like Bush and Mauss, Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race issue in a Universal Church, let's not notice that we are also not asking why Slavery was still going on in much of America in 1847 and why the federal government gave up on reconstruction, and what Jim Crow means, and why statistics on lynching could be kept, and why 100 years after being emancipated, the Civil Rights movement had a reason to be at its peak.

Those could be questions, but the simple question that remains unanswered (even on this forum) is why was it introduced and why was it perpetuated for so long. The official church answer to both of those is "We don't know (but we promise we're not racist now)."

The supposed identification of "the papryus that Smith used in translation" is not at all certain, given the number of papyrus that Joseph Smith had compared to what we have, and considering that the text of the Book of Abraham predates the KEP. LDS scholars have published translation of the Hor Book of Breathings (Nibley and Rhodes). They are not scandalized by their contents. (Nibley had pointed out in Abraham in Egypt that the Egyptian scholars had pointed out ties between the Abraham Apocrypha and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.) Who kept Mattsson from reading them? He is certainly of age of have been aware of the 29 part series that Nibley ran in the Improvement Era, including the first color photographs published very quickly after the Metropolitan Museum.

But he wasn't concerned about history then, so might not have read it. just because it was written doesn't mean every member read it. Do you think the GAs today read every word of the Ensign, New Era, Friend, Church News and scholarly books published by NAMI/Deseret?

Mattsson mentions (to John) that this only became a concern 8 years ago when friends raised questions. Before that it was true, so why look into it. He approached senior leaders to get answers for his friends (including a Stake President) and got the brush-off from an Apostle (probably L. Tom Perry). When the SP followed up he was told to stop asking questions.

A simulation of an even journalistic tone is not the same thing as informed and balanced.

Notice the wide-eyed innocent wonder with which we juxtopose "dozens of wives" with the not actually accurate "some as young as 14" we might as well mention that one, Helen Mar Kimball by name, and consider what she personally reported about the situation. The personal accounts by wives, as well as the lack of DNA evidence of descendants outside of Emma, does raise some interesting questions about what it really meant to be a plural wife of Joseph Smith. But that kind of journalism takes more work than the hint and run approach.

Nancy Winchester was also 14. So 'some' is accurate. Around a third of the 30+ identified were in their teens at the time of the marriage. Another third were already married to other men when Joseph married them.

Annoying.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

It's also annoying that the response Elder Mattsson and the fellow Swedish doubters seems to have got from senior leaders was "be quiet, choose your side and stop asking questions."

I hope that events like this will lead to more understanding and support for those who have a faith crisis.

[Scott Gordon]

There are theological issues and there are scholarly issues. One of the problems that I see is that many members of the church confuse the two. They go to the ecclesiastical leadership to find answers to historical problems.

There is a belief that we teach history in Sunday school, when we only use stories from history in sunday school to teach gospel principles.

[canard78]

Yokel?

Indeed! What's that about speaking ill... It's a shame when the defenders of the faith resort to ad hominem attacks. Yokel: "noun

a rustic; a country bumpkin." Where I'm from "yokel" is quite insulting.

If they were to listen to his full interview they would realise that it's not simply polygamy but the nature of the polygamy that troubles him.

The apologists will do themselves a great disservice over the coming weeks if they attack the questioner rather than answer the question.

[canard78]

There are theological issues and there are scholarly issues. One of the problems that I see is that many members of the church confuse the two. They go to the ecclesiastical leadership to find answers to historical problems.

There is a belief that we teach history in Sunday school, when we only use stories from history in sunday school to teach gospel principles.

And some of those stories in SS are not even accurate (eg Thomas B Marsh).

As a member in the UK, if I have concerns about why the prophets from BY introduced and perpetuated a ban on blacks attending the temple or if I want to understand the eternal purpose of JS/BY marrying other men's wives and sending the husbands off on missions while they did it, where should I go? What church source can I use. If the church does not provide an answer they have no grounds to complain about where I go to get my answers.

[canard78]

“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.

[Scott Gordon]

And some of those stories in SS are not even accurate (eg Thomas B Marsh).

As a member in the UK, if I have concerns about why the prophets from BY introduced and perpetuated a ban on blacks attending the temple or if I want to understand the eternal purpose of JS/BY marrying other men's wives and sending the husbands off on missions while they did it, where should I go? What church source can I use. If the church does not provide an answer they have no grounds to complain about where I go to get my answers.

Yes, sometimes stories grow and get put in by the writers of the Sunday school manuals. Remember, the prophet doesn't write those either.

The best thing is to look to places like the Mormon History Association, FAIR, Maxwell Institute, Smith Institute, Interpreter. Richard Turley has his book on the MMM. You can look at blacklds.org.

The "opposition" does not have clean hands on this. There is a long history of quoting history from less than reputable sources, quoting rumors as facts, and leaving out important details and information. The very thing that the church is accused of doing is clearly done by the "Opposition."

Here is a good page on the polyanderous wives.

http://en.fairmormon...ry/Book_chapter

Make sure to look at the "supporting data" at the bottom.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Scott Gordon

[canard78]

So sad to see another victim of literalism bite the dust so publicly.

I'm not sure what you mean. Elder Mattsson started seeking because he wanted to help Swedish members who had questions. A stake president (among others) expressed concerns. When he couldn't get answers from official sources (including Marlin Jensen) he tried to find answers himself out of concern for his friends.

All of this rings true for me (albeit at a less 'elevated' level). I wouldn't say I'm a victim of liberalism.

You look at any church literally and they are all absurd. People don't rise from the dead. Martin Luther was a proud sinner. Islam? Well you can't even mention that without getting threatened. Hinduism? I have never seen anyone walking around with an elephant head. Buddhism is great if you want to sit and a corner and meditate but some of us have to work for a living.

You have to see religion for what it is- a path to God, and Mormonism is the best I have found after years and years of searching. That makes it the "truest religion on earth" for my money.

I do find it interesting that I also have this issue. I was willing to believe that an angel visited Joseph, gave him gold plates over 1000 years old which he translated with a strange contraption that sounded more like a scuba diving kit than a divine instrument.

I believed that the resurrected Peter and James accompanied by the immortal John (or Highlander as we call him in UK) visited Joseph and Oliver to hand over the priesthood. I believed that God the father himself visited Joseph in person in 1820, taking time out from his busy schedule of running the universe (who was answering prayers for the other billion during that visit - did they get the answering machine?). I believed that people were brought back from the dead, that an old patriarch was willing to stab his son to death at God's command before an angel with a ram and a thicket arrived to stop him.

Elder Mattsson believed all of this too. He still does for some of it. The issue is not a willingness to believe the fantastical (and I was intentionally flippant in my list above to show that for a non-believer these things do seem somewhat a stretch of credibility), the issue is in the unexplained behaviours (and unanswered questions around them) of church leaders, church practice and doctrine from Joseph on down to present.

(ETA: Elder Mattsson still recognises that Mormonism is a good way. He just doesn't feel it's the only way).

Edited July 22, 2013 by canard78

[Sky]

If that's the way you see it, then I would definitely stick with "belief".

But is there a better way? You seem to think so.

And I just want to add that while I may express myself in a less-than-tactful way at times or be too "literal" for some people's tastes, I'm not dumb or ignorant with regards to church history or Mormonism in general.

Last time I checked we still believed in a literal Satan - and that he stirs up the hearts of men to anger and to oppose the work of God.

[canard78]

Yes, sometimes stories grow and get put in by the writers of the Sunday school manuals. Remember, the prophet doesn't write those either.

The best thing is to look to places like the Mormon History Association, FAIR, Maxwell Institute, Smith Institute, Interpreter. Richard Turley has his book on the MMM. You can look at blacklds.org.

The "opposition" does not have clean hands on this. There is a long history of quoting history from less than reputable sources, quoting rumors as facts, and leaving out important details and information. The very thing that the church is accused of doing is clearly done by the "Opposition."

Here is a good page on the polyanderous wives.

http://en.fairmormon...ry/Book_chapter

Make sure to look at the "supporting data" at the bottom.

Thanks for the links. Many members have not heard of FAIR.

The church is now actively discouraging people to 'google' the history and have created what they position as a 'safe and official search' for LDS content.

FAIR, NAMI and blacklds (all of which I stumbled upon either through google or word of mouth) are not included in the results (I know fair is not "official").

http://www.lds.org/church/news/new-ldsorg-search-harnesses-power-of-google?cid=HPL2P06W01029〈=eng

The LDS.org search, however, only returns links to official Church-approved content that is currently available on LDS.org and other Church websites. And even though Google’s technology is used, no user information is provided back to Google. “It provides a safe, private, shock-free environment to search for approved gospel resources,” said Brother Ward.

In other words, parents won’t need to worry that they or their children might stumble onto inappropriate content listed in other search engine results.

Thankfully, if the Givens rumours are true, the church is finally taking this seriously and are publishing answers to the issues. Revelations in Context is a good start, even though they are not linked to from the actual Sunday school lesson online. My mother is Sunday school teacher and halfway through the year. She'd not heard of RIC until I told her a month ago. She's no laggard and has been a FARMS subscriber in the past and uses FAIR frequnetly.

Maybe one day the contents of Elder Perry's briefcase that answers every one of these concerns will be published like he promised the Swedish leadership. One wonders why such a document would be kept secret.

[canard78]

I think the author of the article poorly phrased that part. Here's what the article says:

Obviously, the fact that Joseph Smith was a "polygamist" is in D&C 132 (including the heading), and while it's not discussed much in Church or in other official Church publications, the concept of polygamy in general is pretty benign (no one ever leaves after finding out Brigham Young was a polygamist, for example).

I suspect the article should have clarified that it wasn't the fact that Joseph Smith "was a polygamist", but instead should have read "But when he discovered the details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy..."

Since it seems to be the details that cause all the problems.

And with all due respect, those bullet points are spot-on in their framing and summary of the core issues that cause "doubt" among online LDS. So if you feel they are either inaccurate or intentionally negative or opaque, you should probably spend some time reappraising your understanding of how others see these issues. Because if your responses and "clarifications" are illustrative of your recommended apologetic approach, you're missing the broadside of the barn but probably think you're hitting bullseyes.

Exactly!

And Exactly!

[canard78]

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

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

Elder Mattsson sincerely went to LDS historians seeking answers. He got very few. The 8 years of study (hardly a yokel!) lead to having doubts.

NYT have reported the questions that are being raised by people around the world.

The full nature of Joseph's polygamy and issues like DNA and the shrinking 'limited geography' (when even in the 70s and later there were apostles teaching the native Americans were literal lamanites - see my LeGrand Richards thread for a 1978 example) were enough for "the foundation on which he had built his life began to crumble." But that was the start of 8 years of study, covering many credible books (including Bushman), that lead to his final conclusion, not just some whimsical 180 turnaround. He has also done all of this in his second language.

Yokel! Seriously?

[Hamba Tuhan]

The line from the article that saddens me most is this one: '"I was just in a bubble, and we felt so happy," Mr. Mattsson said'.

It reminds me of Lyman Johnson's purported words spoken on one of his visits to Nauvoo:

If I could believe ‘Mormonism’ as I did when I traveled with you and preached, if I possessed the world I would give it. I would give anything, I would suffer my right hand to be cut off, if I could believe it again. Then I was full of joy and gladness. My dreams were pleasant. When I awoke in the morning my spirit was cheerful. I was happy by day and by night, full of peace and joy and thanksgiving. But now it is darkness, pain, sorrow, misery in the extreme. I have never since seen a happy moment.

And, more personally, it reminds me of my former flatmate when I was studying in America. For 'spring break' a close mate and I took a 10-hour road trip to the temple, and said flatmate asked if he could tag along because the temple was half the distance to the home of his brother, whom he was planning to visit on his holiday. For much of the trip this poor soul bemoaned over and over again how much he missed the peace of the temple. When I could take it no longer, I pointed out that, if I missed the temple that much, I'd sure as hell be doing everything in my power to be able to enjoy those blessings again. No, he said; that would be 'intellectually dishonest' of him.

[Duncan]

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

Elder Mattsson sincerely went to LDS historians seeking answers. He got very few. The 8 years of study (hardly a yokel!) lead to having doubts.

NYT have reported the questions that are being raised by people around the world.

The full nature of Joseph's polygamy and issues like DNA and the shrinking 'limited geography' (when even in the 70s and later there were apostles teaching the native Americans were literal lamanites - see my LeGrand Richards thread for a 1978 example) were enough for "the foundation on which he had built his life began to crumble." But that was the start of 8 years of study, covering many credible books (including Bushman), that lead to his final conclusion, not just some whimsical 180 turnaround. He has also done all of this in his second language.

Yokel! Seriously?

Elder Mattsson should try being an academic historian! questions are many but answers not so much! somethings are better known about then others

[Hannah Rebekah]

And polyandry...?

Abrahamic Test????