Satisfactory Answers.

[HairBear]

I’ve heard all these supposed “problems” with Church History and thanks for people like FAIR I’ve been satisfied by the answers and perspective of the issue they’ve provided, along with the witness of the Spirit I’ve received. What I don’t get is when someone says that they are not satisfied by the answers FAIR, or whoever, have given, and still hold on to the troubling information that they’ve heard from some other source as if it is 100% accurate and true, and have it affect their testimony of the Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc.

Are the answers to the problems only unsatisfactory because that person wants them to be? Is there more to it? And what makes the answers of FAIR so unsatisfactory?

[Questing Beast]

What do you do when you experience a "window of opportunity", when it becomes possible to see a wider view of what/who "God Is", that, because of the loss of dogmatic faith, points to a paradigm of the world of humans where religion is man-made? And "God" works within them all according to the individuals and their needs, as well as outside of religions, of course. In order for the answers to invalidate such an expanding religious world view, you would have to be mistaken now. If you are mistaken now, then your belief that you were not mistaken before requires that you discard the undeniably strong feeling that you are finally onto something bigger than you ever believed before. If while this feeling grows, you see "fruit" of the reality of the process, and it isn't just your wishful thinking or imagination, then wouldn't you be wrong to "go back" for any complex of reasons? Wouldn't that be like "sinning against the greater light"? Yes.

If my life remains grounded in desire to be right with "God", and my behavior defines that desire as valid and not self-serving (i.e. I do not, because of my loss of faith in dogmatic organized religion, take it upon myself to dispense willynilly with all of the traditional moralities and disciplines that the religious institutions of man have held in common), then why should I believe in less when I am convinced that I am getting more?...

[Tacenda]

When the answers aren't answers and when anti info turns out to be 100 % true. That's when all you have left is faith, and it's all up to the person. But when the stack is so big with true anti information, it kind of crumbles and as soon as you build it back up, another thing comes up. The only way to steer clear is to go at it with your focus on only reading LDS.org, scriptures and pray. But something on FAIR or a board, keeps nagging away in your mind. So as much as I love FAIR for being an open book, it's hard to accept the truth, it hurts so much.

[HairBear]

When the answers aren't answers and when anti info turns out to be 100 % true. That's when all you have left is faith, and it's all up to the person. But when the stack is so big with true anti information, it kind of crumbles and as soon as you build it back up, another thing comes up. The only way to steer clear is to go at it with your focus on only reading LDS.org, scriptures and pray. But something on FAIR or a board, keeps nagging away in your mind. So as much as I love FAIR for being an open book, it's hard to accept the truth, it hurts so much.

The thing is I've never found any anti info being 100% true and accurate. When context and other fuller information is given by FAIR or whoever, that changes things.

When are the answers not answers?

[Brian 2.0]

The thing is I've never found any anti info being 100% true and accurate. When context and other fuller information is given by FAIR or whoever, that changes things.

When are the answers not answers?

I think that "context and other fuller information" is enough for you, but it's not enough for other people.

Joseph Smith was involved in polygamous and polyandrous relationships, at times without Emma's knowledge.

That right there is enough of a "problem" for some people and they have a hard time with it despite any context or fuller information.

[HairBear]

I think that "context and other fuller information" is enough for you, but it's not enough for other people.

Joseph Smith was involved in polygamous and polyandrous relationships, at times without Emma's knowledge.

That right there is enough of a "problem" for some people and they have a hard time with it despite any context or fuller information.

That point reminds me of when Christ said that eating his flesh and drinking his blood would bring eternal life, and because of misunderstanding without context or fuller information many of his disciples left Him.

It seems it is peoples assumptions about Joseph's polygamous and polyandrous relationships that are causing the problem.

[Brian 2.0]

But you admit that he had them, and some if them were sexual?

[HairBear]

But you admit that he had them, and some if them were sexual?

That's it isn't it, "if" some of them were sexual, and also which ones. It's quite a big assumption to risk your eternal happiness over. And anyway, Joseph's polygamous and polyandrous relationships have nothing to do with the validity of the First Vision, or the Book of Mormon, or anything else about the truthfulness of the Church or the exisitance of God. It's between Joseph and Emma, and only they know the complete truth about it.

[Brian 2.0]

My "if" was a typo. It should say and "some OF them are sexual". FAIR itself says that some of them are sexual, so if it is a big assumption, it's a big assumption that both sides are taking.

I'm not trying to debate polygamy. You asked why people

Find certain things troubling when FAIR has the answers.

I'm just saying that for some people the fact that JS was involved in polygamous and polyandrous marriages, that some of those marriages were sexual, and that Emma was sometimes in the dark regarding these marriages... Those facts are troubling for some. And those facts are not in dispute on FAIR's site. And some additional context doesn't help the swallowing of those facts for them.

I understand that you have found the answers satisfactory, and thats great, but you must see that there are honest truth seekers that still have trouble with those answers.

[ERayR]

But you admit that he had them, and some if them were sexual?

Why not?. What is your fascination with Joseph Smiths sex life with his wives?

[The Nehor]

Are the answers to the problems only unsatisfactory because that person wants them to be? Is there more to it? And what makes the answers of FAIR so unsatisfactory?

The standard of proof or evidence varies from individual to individual. Some people can believe in the Illuminati or that aliens built the pyramids based on crazy people on the internet. Some people do not believe the gospels are enough evidence for the existence of Jesus. Some do. Some think string theory is stupid because it is an unprovable hypothesis with almost no ramifications. Some embrace it in spite of this.

Emotions, desires, and personalities also play a role. Only white supremacists tend to think Hitler's art was any good (it was awful). Only some varieties of Libertarians can read Atlas Shrugged and imagine it is a philosophical treatise of significance and not a woman's weird sexual fantasy painted on a larger and duller canvas.

Some read the accounts of Joseph Smith and see the kind of man that comes about once a dispensation (this is me). Some see a bright theologian with a flair for the dramatic. Others see a weirdly devout con-man. Some see the devil incarnate.

[jim_mason]

Hairbear intellectual answer are subject to intellectual rebuttal, thus intellectual focused sites and answers are usually not satisfactory. You claim a witness of the Spirit.

[Tacenda]

That's it isn't it, "if" some of them were sexual, and also which ones. It's quite a big assumption to risk your eternal happiness over. And anyway, Joseph's polygamous and polyandrous relationships have nothing to do with the validity of the First Vision, or the Book of Mormon, or anything else about the truthfulness of the Church or the exisitance of God. It's between Joseph and Emma, and only they know the complete truth about it.

That's the thing, which First Vision? There were several, and his only handwritten, isn't the one used. The Book of Mormon, now it is translated almost wholly out of a hat? Another biggy, now wrapping my head around that one. Ok, so my eternal happiness rests on JS and the church? I'd like to go by Christ's words, that His yoke is easy. This church and it's history hasn't been easy or light. It's so difficult when you believe more in an institution then you should. I think I left God/Christ high and dry. Always going by the goodness of others and their good works. And with the church guiding, looking after you, who needs Jesus? I've had a dependence on that more than the Lord. It's been more tangible than the Lord has been. It's like letting go of a relationship, thats been in your life, your whole life. Wish I was able to be satisfied with the answers, I keep asking for signs, answers but they haven't been there yet.

[HairBear]

Hairbear intellectual answer are subject to intellectual rebuttal, thus intellectual focused sites and answers are usually not satisfactory. You claim a witness of the Spirit.

But not only a witness of the Spirit. I am intellectually satisied with my beliefs first, and the Spirit just reassures what I already know.

[ERayR]

I'd like to go by Christ's words, that His yoke is easy. This church and it's history hasn't been easy or light.

It's only as difficult as you choose to make it. Were you to concentrate on what is relevant It would be easy.

[HairBear]

That's the thing, which First Vision? There were several, and his only handwritten, isn't the one used. The Book of Mormon, now it is translated almost wholly out of a hat? Another biggy, now wrapping my head around that one. Ok, so my eternal happiness rests on JS and the church? I'd like to go by Christ's words, that His yoke is easy. This church and it's history hasn't been easy or light. It's so difficult when you believe more in an institution then you should. I think I left God/Christ high and dry. Always going by the goodness of others and their good works. And with the church guiding, looking after you, who needs Jesus? I've had a dependence on that more than the Lord. It's been more tangible than the Lord has been. It's like letting go of a relationship, thats been in your life, your whole life. Wish I was able to be satisfied with the answers, I keep asking for signs, answers but they haven't been there yet.

The answers provided about the First Vision accounts satisfy me, the translation of the Book of Mormon using a hat I have no problem with at all, in fact it makes far more sense than the so called "offical" account. I didn't say your eternal happiness rests on Joseph Smith and the Church. Are you saying that if you take on Christ yoke your life will be light and easy? Really?

I didn't say anything about leaving God/Christ high and dry. Maybe your understanding is wrong, because I don't agree with pretty much most of what you said.

[canard78]

I’ve heard all these supposed “problems” with Church History and thanks for people like FAIR I’ve been satisfied by the answers and perspective of the issue they’ve provided, along with the witness of the Spirit I’ve received. What I don’t get is when someone says that they are not satisfied by the answers FAIR, or whoever, have given, and still hold on to the troubling information that they’ve heard from some other source as if it is 100% accurate and true, and have it affect their testimony of the Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc.

Are the answers to the problems only unsatisfactory because that person wants them to be? Is there more to it? And what makes the answers of FAIR so unsatisfactory?

I started the process of investigating church history as a way of trying to find answers for two relatives. I was not looking for unsatisfactory answers. I was looking for answers. I know several people who started with the same positive intentions.

There are some aspects of LDS history that even the (greatly appreciated) work of FAIR does not answer. I can list them if needed but that would only end up in a thread tangent where people wanted to show that it was/wasn't/was/wasn't answered.

I would suggest some people do the exact opposite of what you've mentioned. People read FAIR etc and choose to believe it. Church foundation cannot be proven by history. I also don't think it can be disproven.

There's really only enough information in many cases for the critics to cast doubt on the advocates claims and for the advocates to cast doubt on the critics claims.

After that we all make a choice to believe or not.

[canard78]

Why not?. What is your fascination with Joseph Smiths sex life with his wives?

Because for some people, setting a certain standard is important. If Joseph is shown to behaving outside of the "bounds The Lord has set" then they will not accept him as a prophet.

The evidence for Fanny Alger being something more than within the bounds set has some merit, though as with most things is inconclusive.

But... Joseph's legacy was written commentary on God's plan for us. That can be read, applied and its principles found to have merit - or to be 'true' - regardless of their provenance.

God works with imperfect tools. I'm glad I didn't have a personal recorder following me around when I was a Branch President.

Another but... That also means that I take their words as a human created, albeit inspired, thought piece. I evaluate it on merit, whether it guides me towards or away from godliness. I don't expect everything a prophet says to do so. So I am comfortable recognising I am no more perfect than they are.

And in the end I will not be able to say "but he told me to," to God.

I do not accept the advice from Marion G. Romney to: "... always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”

I accept prophets as inspired men. But I don't believe a "curriculum" written for 14million individuals (or 7billion depending on your perspective) is better for me than the one I personally write with God.

I prefer this attitude from Nibley:

There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit. Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things.

That's 3 uses in as many days, I'll go find another quote now. There are plenty more like it and far fewer like Elder Romney's. And yet that is often the pervasive attitude among my fellow saints. I suppose that for people who are happy for someone else to do the thinking for them the prophets not a bad option.

[cinepro]

I’ve heard all these supposed “problems” with Church History

Wow. You know all the problems? That's impressive. I've been reading up on this stuff for a little over 10 years and I still don't think "I've heard all the supposed problems".

Unless you've spent years going through the Church History Library, the First Presidency's vault, and the major Mormon history collections at libraries all over the country (and world), and independently produced an apologetic reference rivaling the output of FAIR, FARMS and SHIELD, it might be a little more accurate to say that you've heard "some" of the supposed "problems", or the most common of the supposed "problems", and be patient with those of us who don't take your word for it.

Edited July 30, 2013 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

When the answers aren't answers and when anti info turns out to be 100 % true. That's when all you have left is faith, and it's all up to the person. But when the stack is so big with true anti information, it kind of crumbles and as soon as you build it back up, another thing comes up. The only way to steer clear is to go at it with your focus on only reading LDS.org, scriptures and pray. But something on FAIR or a board, keeps nagging away in your mind. So as much as I love FAIR for being an open book, it's hard to accept the truth, it hurts so much.

Hi Tacenda,

Khalil Gibran said something like: "The pain within you is self-chosen. It is the physician within you that heals your sick self."

[cinepro]

What I don’t get is when someone says that they are not satisfied by the answers FAIR, or whoever, have given, and still hold on to the troubling information that they’ve heard from some other source as if it is 100% accurate and true, and have it affect their testimony of the Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc.

And just so we have a baseline for how you judge these things, what is the percentage for accuracy and truth for FAIR?

[Robert F. Smith]

But you admit that he had them, and some if them were sexual?

which ones? The polyandrous ones, or the polygynous ones, or both?

If sexual, how many actual births resulted, and to whom? One thing which has been an obstacle in the path of claims that Joseph had wide-ranging sexual relationships is the lack of children which can be attributed to him, except by Emma. Here is a question which DNA could easily solve.

How do the scholars evaluate the evidence?

How conversant are you with the serious books and articles which have been written on these subjects? Or do you give them short shrift?

[Calm]

Wow. You know all the problems? That's impressive. I've been reading up on this stuff for a little over 10 years and I still don't think "I've heard all the supposed problems"......

There also sounds like a touch of clairvoyance in there as well assuming the likelihood of some new future issue.

However, the problems do tend to follow patterns so I suppose one could say that one is familiar with all the patterns so far....

Now whether or not the method of addressing each pattern (which is somewhat different even while sharing similar actions and ideas) is satisfying depends on an individual's own assumptions and paradigms, imo.

Edited July 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................

I'm just saying that for some people the fact that JS was involved in polygamous and polyandrous marriages, that some of those marriages were sexual, and that Emma was sometimes in the dark regarding these marriages... Those facts are troubling for some. And those facts are not in dispute on FAIR's site. And some additional context doesn't help the swallowing of those facts for them.

I understand that you have found the answers satisfactory, and thats great, but you must see that there are honest truth seekers that still have trouble with those answers.

P. T. Barnum had a lot of fun (and made a lot of money) from "honest truth seekers." My question is, When the show in the Big Top is over, did you have fun? Did you get taken for a ride? And was the sleight of hand worth the price of admission on the Midway? Satisfaction is measured according to individual taste, not according to the hard bitten cynicism of members of the bunco squad.

The most honest truth seeker on the planet hasn't got a chance of coming up with something meaningful without adequate preparation. Until he has a master's in history (or the equivalent) in hand and several years of research under his belt, he is still one of P. T. Barnum's "suckers."

Hey, Brian, I was once a yokel. That was many moons ago. I can still recall the realization that I didn't know squat. That was the day in 1963 when I walked into the Smith Fieldhouse at BYU with a roommate to listen to the legendary Hugh Nibley hold forth on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He lectured and I understood nothing. We went home, and I listened to my roommate's tape recording of the lecture. Still non compos mentes so far as the ancient Near East was concerned..

Years later I began to understand Nibley, and Albright, and all the rest, in their blatherings about the ancient world. I could even begin to separate the wheat from the chaff. It all began to make sense, regardless of whether I was studying at the University of California, at the Claremont Colleges, or at some other rigorous school. Scholarship everywhere made the same universal demands and was unrelenting in its self-critical reviews.

Without proper preparation, honest truth seekers have no hope of making intellectual progress. They have no hope of separating the wheat from the chaff.

[why me]

The thing is I've never found any anti info being 100% true and accurate. When context and other fuller information is given by FAIR or whoever, that changes things.

When are the answers not answers?

I think that we need to look into why people would search FAIR. I believe that some search FAIR hoping that the find what the critics are saying are not true, that what bothers them never happened. For example, polyandry, head in the hat, multiple versions of the first visions. When they discover that they did happen and FAIR can only offer an explanation, they become disappointed. They may not be interested in an explanation.