Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Calm]

So you find it easier to believe that a quasi-mythical person named Jesus actually lived and died for your sins, based on 2000 year old stories written by uneducated people passing on rumors, than that a guy named Joseph actually restored what Jesus originally taught?

I happen to have a testimony of both but it certainly is not based on stuff I read on the internet.

I didn't get that from his post. I saw this as the central theme:

But I contend that if you don't first have a personal relationship with Jesus, the living Messiah, the Logos of God, then nothing else matters.

I think he is saying it is more about having that personal spiritual relationship with God than having a knowledge of history, whether from 1 AD or 1830 AD or even a spiritual witness of something besides God. That spiritual relationship with God provides an anchor of trust to get one through tempests and tragedies.

[Calm]

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.

Thank you for that clarification, I was not aware of this but can see it as appropriate due to the mass of material that is in the manuals, material that is not just repetition of past manuals either. I knew the Church wanted people to keep the manuals as reference materials and I find them quite useful in the regard myself. Edited July 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

We now have of at least four incidences where members in foreign countries have discovered this information who have relied on the church for their information and lost belief as a result once discovering the truth...England, Sweden, Africa and the old thread about the youth in Milan, Italy...this coupled with the reality of US members discovering these difficulties...isn't it about time we stop shooting the messenger and direct fault at the one sending the the message?

For me it has never been about someone not previously knowing something that then surprises them to learn it. I have seen too much variation in the way people learn plus it should be obvious that when it is additional personal study that is required to learn such things in detail that some won't choose to do it and others who might have chosen to study won't have easy access or be able to afford additional materials (especially those outside of the US and Canada and even in the US and Canada, one generally has to purchase materials or at best make use of the interlibrary loan system that many are not even aware of exists to have access to them as the best stuff are often not on the shelf of their local library, sad to say).

For me it has always been about how one chooses to react when one finally becomes aware of the material (whether they've been previously exposed and it just didn't sink in or they had not been exposed to it for whatever reason). There too we have a wide range of reactions, some going to the extreme of feeling betrayed by the Church, others going to the other extreme of 'who cares' and most probably in the middle between "that's interesting, let me learn more" and "this troubles me, let me learn more". Out that range you then have many that choose to react negatively (with anger, fear, distrust and a belief that greater knowledge will bring greater pain) and others that choose to react positively (with confidence and trust that answers will be found eventually that will inform one's life in a better way).

I find it very unfortunate when people choose to react negatively when it seems to me it is so unnecessary...yet they are so convinced that this is the most reasonable way to react...as convinced it seems as the many I know who have found only a greater testimony of faith in God and his works as they learn more.

I think one needs to be careful not to assume that criticism for a reaction to learning is a criticism for not learning about it earlier or that pointing out that information is available is an automatic condemnation of a person not taking advantage of that availability rather than a simple response to claims that it wasn't available.

****some of my comments above were meant to refer to prior to internet access, which has greatly expanded availability of not only critical sources but positive sources of information such as Maxwell Institute, the Interpreter, FAIR, Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations in Context as well as putting most church materials online for easy searching of past articles in magazines.

Edited July 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Any member of the church can teach about church history during Family Home Evening, for example, and the curriculum for that really is endless.

When my nephew was about to go on a mission, we gathered with another aunt and uncle with him and his parents to discuss the lessons in Preach My Gospel for FHE. We emphasized not only the principles that were being taught, but the challenges that would be given to those principles (such as questions and condemnations about the First Vision) as well as trying to help him see things from an investigator's POV, something that he had little experience with before.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't get that from his post. I saw this as the central theme:

I think he is saying it is more about having that personal spiritual relationship with God than having a knowledge of history, whether from 1 AD or 1830 AD or even a spiritual witness of something besides God. That spiritual relationship with God provides an anchor of trust to get one through tempests and tragedies.

As usual, I was probably too harsh.

My point was that hearsay - on the internet or off- should make or break anyone's testimony. Only direct revelation can do that. History is his-story, one story among many human interpretations none of which are directly available to anyone.

The only think that counts is what God himself tells you.

[bubbachen]

So you find it easier to believe that a quasi-mythical person named Jesus actually lived and died for your sins, based on 2000 year old stories written by uneducated people passing on rumors, than that a guy named Joseph actually restored what Jesus originally taught?

I happen to have a testimony of both but it certainly is not based on stuff I read on the internet.

I gotta believe that there is a Jesus before I can believe Joseph Smith restored what He originally taught, yes?

Yes I do believe, but more than that I actually know Jesus is the Son of God. I know He is the Son regardless of Joseph's claims. Decades ago I constantly studied and tried to live His life as described in those 2000-4000 year old stories, and I could actually FEEL He was the truth, but not necessarily that the biblical texts were infallible. The YHWH or Jesus of the Bible is more easily believed because we have some hard texts and archaeology for support. If we had the gold plates and could confirm their hebraic/egyptian origins, the "difficult history" would suddenly become less difficult... However, we don't have the plates, and it is easier to believe in Jesus without the restoration than it is to believe in a restoration without first believing in Jesus, IMHO. If general LDS membership really treated the Bible as the other testament of Jesus Christ, I think they would be more able to withstand the current historical issues. Do members put in as much study and prayer into the Bible as they do the BOM? Hardly. Is the church as a whole suffering because of this? Obviously. There is a reason why Jesus is the cornerstone and the Rock of salvation.

[Calm]

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.

We are, of course, talking about people with access at least to the Internet, though if they don't know English, their resources are much more limited. Those who don't have access to internet not by choice, but by location and financial level will not be able to have the same level of access to educational materials as though who do...but then they probably aren't the ones who are protesting on the Internet that they never had the chance to learn of this stuff before either.

add-on: the internet has changed how people learn. It will take society awhile to figure out how best to use the tools it offers. I remember back when it first became thought of as a possibility, working from home and having kids taught at home in personalized curriculums were going to become standard in just a few years...and yet we have barely enter into either of those as a reality. Oh, and let us not forget our paperless society that was supposed to materialize as well.

In educational tools, I don't expect the Church to be on the cutting edge of research though I see plenty of evidence that they are working hard to make use of technology to expand the typical member's access to as many church materials as possible AND to cut down on expenses of educational materials so as to be able to put resources into other important areas.

Edited July 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

If general LDS membership really treated the Bible as the other testament of Jesus Christ, I think they would be more able to withstand the current historical issues. Do members put in as much study and prayer into the Bible as they do the BOM? Hardly. Is the church as a whole suffering because of this? Obviously. There is a reason why Jesus is the cornerstone and the Rock of salvation.

Through anecdotal evidence I am unable to agree with this.

[Calm]

The only think that counts is what God himself tells you.

If this is a typo, I think it is dead on.

[Johnnie Cake]

For me it has never been about someone not previously knowing something that then surprises them to learn it. I have seen too much variation in the way people learn plus it should be obvious that when it is additional personal study that is required to learn such things in detail that some won't choose to do it and others who might have chosen to study won't have easy access or be able to afford additional materials (especially those outside of the US and Canada and even in the US and Canada, one generally has to purchase materials or at best make use of the interlibrary loan system that many are not even aware of exists to have access to them as the best stuff are often not on the shelf of their local library, sad to say).

For me it has always been about how one chooses to react when one finally becomes aware of the material (whether they've been previously exposed and it just didn't sink in or they had not been exposed to it for whatever reason). There too we have a wide range of reactions, some going to the extreme of feeling betrayed by the Church, others going to the other extreme of 'who cares' and most probably in the middle between "that's interesting, let me learn more" and "this troubles me, let me learn more". Out that range you then have many that choose to react negatively (with anger, fear, distrust and a belief that greater knowledge will bring greater pain) and others that choose to react positively (with confidence and trust that answers will be found eventually that will inform one's life in a better way).

I find it very unfortunate when people choose to react negatively when it seems to me it is so unnecessary...yet they are so convinced that this is the most reasonable way to react...as convinced it seems as the many I know who have found only a greater testimony of faith in God and his works as they learn more.

I think one needs to be careful not to assume that criticism for a reaction to learning is a criticism for not learning about it earlier or that pointing out that information is available is an automatic condemnation of a person not taking advantage of that availability rather than a simple response to claims that it wasn't available.

Excellent analysis...Very well said...

[bubbachen]

I can't talk about JS's wives or I'm going to hurt someone's testimony? If that's the case their testimony is built on sand. And why can't our testimonies be primarily on the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Not on Joseph Smith? Because that's where it's at. Sure maybe some men can bring that idea closer with their words in books etc. But our testimonies shouldn't be whether the church is true, but whether Christ came down and took on the sins of the world is true. We need to get to that portion of the Gospel. Too often people mistake the Gospel as the being a church.

Tacenda, I'm usually disturbed by your posts, but I agree with you this time! However, I really believe that if one does believe in Christ, and is living as His disciple, and has Jesus "in his heart" in an eternal relationship, the testimonies that Joseph Smith is a prophet, the BOM is true and is an ancient text, and the church is led today by a living prophet - these testimonies will fruit as a result from real belief in Christ. The testimony that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God must be gained first, I contend. Then if one follows this Jesus, true doctrine will be progressively revealed.

Tacenda, take care how much evangelical theory and belief you give sway to, because they have their own skeletons in the closet. Too many have become idolators of the bible, worshiping the words in the book instead of the Living One the book points to.

[Calm]

Excellent analysis...Very well said...

Thank you.

[mfbukowski]

If this is a typo, I think it is dead on.

Abe was feeling downcast because he needed a new suit in the worst way and couldn't afford to buy one when he passed a new store by the subway at 72nd Street that had a sign in the window,

"What d'ya think - my name is Fink and I sell clothes for nothink!"

So Abe went into the store and chose a beautiful suit. He was so happy to have it and planned to wear it to his new job the next day. The depression had been on for a long time. This was the first job he'd had since the crash. However, his joy was cut short when he strode out of the store looking so good and feeling so lucky when Fink stopped him at the door and demanded payment for the suit.

Abe was shocked, to say the least, about this turn of events! He said,"your sign in the window says "What do you think, my name is Fink and I sell clothes for nothink." How come you now want payment?

"Well", said Fink, "you read it wrong! It says, "What d'ya think? - My name is Fink? - and I sell clothes for nothink???

http://jewishmag.com/63mag/humor/humor.htm

[mfbukowski]

I gotta believe that there is a Jesus before I can believe Joseph Smith restored what He originally taught, yes?

Not for me.

It's all hearsay- history is someone's story and a story 150 years old is better than a story 2000 years old if you are thinking of it that way.

But without a testimony, it is all bunk anyway. But thank God, I have a testimony

[bubbachen]

Through anecdotal evidence I am unable to agree with this.

Take a look at Dr. John F. Hall's talk "As Far is it is Translated Correctly The Problem of Tampering with the New Testament" from a fairlds conference on youtube. He's got a "personal anecdote" that "highlights the present day lack of familiarity with the new testament" amongst LDS members, especially youth. Through my own experience with LDS members and my different perspective as a protestant convert to the church, the second place position of the Bible in comparison with the BOM amongst the regular members is real and glaring.

[bubbachen]

The only think that counts is what God himself tells you.

Amen. And He can only tell you what He needs to tell you if you are obeying what he previously told you. Say that fast five times...

[bubbachen]

Not for me.

It's all hearsay- history is someone's story and a story 150 years old is better than a story 2000 years old if you are thinking of it that way.

But without a testimony, it is all bunk anyway. But thank God, I have a testimony

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.

[ERayR]

Take a look at Dr. John F. Hall's talk "As Far is it is Translated Correctly The Problem of Tampering with the New Testament" from a fairlds conference on youtube. He's got a "personal anecdote" that "highlights the present day lack of familiarity with the new testament" amongst LDS members, especially youth. Through my own experience with LDS members and my different perspective as a protestant convert to the church, the second place position of the Bible in comparison with the BOM amongst the regular members is real and glaring.

I don't doubt your anecdotal evidence but am saying mine does not correspond to it especially with the young who have and do attend seminary.

[rockpond]

Taking out sacrament meeting (which doesn't seem like an appropriate place for controversial historical topics) we have roughly 70-80 minutes of church instruction time each Sunday, not three hours. This is important to realize when talking about trying to fit other topics into this timeframe.

Plus we have to consider the mission of the church and what the objective is specifically concerning Sunday instruction.

We know there are good, better, and best options for what should be taught and that the church leaders must choose which options are best for fulfilling the objective of Sunday worship and instruction with 80 minutes to use to do so.

Given those realities I'm not sure polyandry, for example, could be covered with any degree of success in resolving issues that lead some to crises in faith on Sunday. Especially when we consider that the church's thoughts on the issue did nothing to resolve Mattsson's problems with it.

Agreed, you would have to "uncorrelate" the church's thoughts on the issue. So to speak.

70-80 minutes over the course of 50 weeks per year seems like plenty of time to me. Or, like I've said, we can just keep doing what we are doing and let Givens/Prince/Dehlin/Reel take the helm on the more difficult stuff.

[rockpond]

From DJBrown in another thread;

Consider Christ's responses in several situations- "Come follow me....." Or the response He gave to the rich young man. He certainly put people in the position of having to choose "in or out." It makes sense that His servants and church just might do the same thing at some level.

Yep, and when a member feels that the church... the organization that was to help them in their discipleship... has betrayed them they'll find a new way to follow Christ. I know members who have taken that route.

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.

[rockpond]

Do we go to Church to learn how to be more Christ-like or to learn History?

If you want to learn history then do it on your own time and don't waste mine just because you want to be spoon fed everything.

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.

[ERayR]

Do you think that the work John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, Dan Peterson, and all the other dedicated, faithful LDS scholars are doing is irrelevant?

Without a testimony through personal revelation it is all irrelevant. Even with that testimony I would place them in the "nice to know" category. Don't get me wrong I enjoy their work very much and it adds to and supports my testimony.

[bluebell]

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.

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

[bluebell]

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.

The church's authority in a person's life stems from personal revelation. A testimony can be gained without knowing anything of the church's history. It's history is interesting and important but I'm not understanding how it is authoritative.

[rockpond]

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

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.