Satisfactory Answers.

[why me]

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

FAIR offers an interpretation of the facts. As do the critics. It becomes a question of what interpretation to believe. I think that some people are not interested in interpretations. They are more interested that the events occurred and are disappointed that these events did occur regardless of a FAIR interpretation.

Edited July 30, 2013 by why me

[Brian 2.0]

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."

If that's the prerequisite for finding an intellectual way through the issues then the church is doomed.

Is this your answer to the OP then? Are you saying the people that are still having trouble with the issues are trying to come at it intellectually and they shouldn't because they are unprepared because of lack of academic training and education? Only those with advanced degrees and years of research could hope to understand the issues correctly from an intellectual level?

[Robert F. Smith]

That's the thing, which First Vision? There were several, and his only handwritten, isn't the one used.

Yeh, Tacenda, Joseph told several different versions of the First Vision, and the discussion of that goes on still, some figuring that he made the whole thing up and began embroidering it with each retelling, according to his latest theological innovations. Others are well aware that ordinary people never tell the same version of some experience twice. There always variations. Especially when different audiences are being addressed for different reasons. A good historian realizes this based on hard research. The man in the street never reflects critically on his off the wall suppositions.

The Book of Mormon, now it is translated almost wholly out of a hat? Another biggy, now wrapping my head around that one.

Which some apologists use to indicate that Joseph didn't bring a prepared manuscript to his translation sessions. Too dark inside that hat . . . It strains credulity for many to imagine Joseph reading bright roman letters from an LCD screen inside his hat, even though such communication devices are clearly normal in our own time. Could God get his hands on a smart phone in Joseph's day?

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.

The LDS Church does not preach that anyone's eternal happiness rests on JS and the Church, but always on the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I hear that every Sunday.

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.

Jesus simply asked that, if we love Him, to keep His commandments (John 14:15). That should be enough to get started. His Church is His people, the Body of Christ (Rom 12:5, I Cor 12:27). It is they who serve Him and prepare the way for His Second Coming. Sharpen your focus and go to Him in prayer. He will get in touch with you, but maybe not in the way you expect -- check out Apostle Richard Scott's method to acquire spiritual guidance at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/to-acquire-spiritual-guidance?lang=eng .

[Calm]

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

Thankfully, admittance to the CK is not based on level of intellectual development, though I deeply believe if God has given us a talent for learning and placed us in an environment that we can learn and time to do so, then I believe we will be held accountable for...just as he will held us accountable for missing opportunities for serving when he has given us talent and time to do so.

[Robert F. Smith]

If that's the prerequisite for finding an intellectual way through the issues then the church is doomed.

Au contraire, mon frere. The success of the LDS Church does not now and has never depended upon intellectual testimonies, although some people like and utilize them. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is the great leveller when it comes to matters of truth, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Is this your answer to the OP then? Are you saying the people that are still having trouble with the issues are trying to come at it intellectually and they shouldn't because they are unprepared because of lack of academic training and education? Only those with advanced degrees and years of research could hope to understand the issues correctly from an intellectual level?

Yeh, pretty much. I don't want some wannabe doing brain surgery on me, even if he has the best of intentions. I want a board certified neurosurgeon whom I have met and trust.

I don't think that a wannabe lawyer can do me much good in court. I prefer a defense lawyer who is a respected member of the BAR, and who has earned his chops.

Same for the plumber or electrician I hire to do repairs. I want someone who has gotten his master certification and is licensed.

If I do not myself have those qualifications, then I depend on someone else who does. Make sense?

[why me]

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.

You seem to go from faith to non faith in the truthfulness of the church. The church does not guide me nor does it look after me. I am not living in a compound. And where has any leader of the church ever said because the lds have a church, they don't need Jesus?

And history? Do you think that we have the complete history of Christ and the apostles? The gospels were written years after the event when the christian church was in its infancy. Why do you think the gospel writers wrote the gospels? Basically it was to increase faith in Christ and if you notice something interesting in the gospels, there is nothing there that would decrease faith. It is totally faith promoting as is the entire new testament. We can only guess what was left out by the gospel writers. For example, it is widely assumed that some of the apostles were married. What choice words were said between them and their wives when they agreed to follow Jesus? And what conversations did christ have when he had dinner with the women who invited him and the disciples over? We have no idea. We only know what certain people wanted us to know.

When people write about the historical Jesus, they get very little from the NT. They need to go into the culture at that time and attempt to piece it all together. For example, the miracles attributed to Jesus were really no big deal for the people at that time since there were miracle workers before Jesus' time and during jesus' time. And these made a far greater impact than Jesus. In fact, Jesus made very little impact during his ministry which is why Josephus gives him only a paragraph. What I am saying is that history is never perfect and people attempt to put only the faith promoting facts in it. It has been that way since the beginnings of the christian church and the writers of the gospels are witnesses to that.

Edited July 30, 2013 by why me

[HairBear]

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.

I didn't say I've heard all "the" supposed problems, I said I've heard all "these" supposed problems. Big difference.

[HairBear]

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

You could say the same for the accuracy and truth for the account of "problems". I dare say FAIR is far more accurate and truthful than them.

[HairBear]

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.

I look for the other side of the story. To take one persons side of events without seeking the other is the cause of many problems with how people see the "truth" of the world, not just of the Church.

[canard78]

You could say the same for the accuracy and truth for the account of "problems". I dare say FAIR is far more accurate and truthful than them.

You "dare say?"

That's a lot of reliance to put on someone else.

Your best bet is to go and read the original sources. FAIR also are actively interested in promoting faith. While I celebrate their work I also read their content with the awareness of what they aim to do.

[canard78]

I look for the other side of the story. To take one persons side of events without seeking the other is the cause of many problems with how people see the "truth" of the world, not just of the Church.

You look for the other side of the story on FAIR? So were do you get the first side?

Edited July 30, 2013 by canard78

[HairBear]

You "dare say?"

That's a lot of reliance to put on someone else.

Your best bet is to go and read the original sources. FAIR also are actively interested in promoting faith. While I celebrate their work I also read their content with the awareness of what they aim to do.

Do you read the "anti" stuff with the awareness of what they aim to do?

[HairBear]

You look for the other side of the story on FAIR? So were do you get the first side?

What, do you want a list? We get the "first side" to different things every day, what with newspapers and TV, and anywhere else we get information from. As regards the LDS Church, I let all you guys on this forum, both believers and critics, post stuff on here and then check out its validity as best I can, from FAIR, but not just from FAIR.

[canard78]

Do you read the "anti" stuff with the awareness of what they aim to do?

Of course I do. I laugh out loud at some of it. I don't actively seek out "anti" content. But I do try to read many perspectives. Often that's the best way of getting an issue. But then I prefer to go and find the original source to read for myself.

My favourite 'find' so far was: Joseph H. Jackson, A Narrative of the Adventures and Experiences of Joseph H. Jackson in Nauvoo, (1844)

I've not read anything so ridiculously salacious before. The best proof you really can have lots of smoke with no fire.

[HairBear]

Of course I do. I laugh out loud at some of it. I don't actively seek out "anti" content. But I do try to read many perspectives. Often that's the best way of getting an issue. But then I prefer to go and find the original source to read for myself.

So do I.

[canard78]

What, do you want a list? We get the "first side" to different things every day, what with newspapers and TV, and anywhere else we get information from. As regards the LDS Church, I let all you guys on this forum, both believers and critics, post stuff on here and then check out its validity as best I can, from FAIR, but not just from FAIR.

It's ok, I just meant church history.

Actually, joking aside. I'm aware that sometimes my posts have an audience beyond the person I'm replying to. I figure that if people stay here more than a day or two they know what they're here for and the kind of stuff they'll read about. It's never been my intention to cause pain or distress to anyone. I hope my questions lead to better answers. For me if no-one else.

The other day a friend and I were speaking a little jestingly about seer stones and iPhones (not disparagingly. He's also a more orthodox member than I am). One of the other people there was looking a little wide-eyed at what we were talking about so I changed the subject. I don't want to be the cause of anyone's house of faith to tumble.

[CV75]

Are the answers to the problems only unsatisfactory because that person wants them to be?

The person may not necessarily want the answers to be unsatisfactory (though soemtimes this is the case), but whether he is satisfied or not with the answers is ultimately purely subjective.

[cinepro]

FAIR offers an interpretation of the facts. As do the critics. It becomes a question of what interpretation to believe. I think that some people are not interested in interpretations. They are more interested that the events occurred and are disappointed that these events did occur regardless of a FAIR interpretation.

It's not just an "interpretation of facts."

It might be correct to say that we approach the facts with our own expectations and preconceived notions, and that FAIR and other apologists attempt to blend the "facts" with these expectations. But the root of the problem is that the Church is most responsible for shaping these expectations.

In other words, apologetics (regarding things that are "facts") boils down to "You expected this....., the truth is this......., therefore you need to adjust your expectations." Obviously, if something is false, then the proper response is to correct the falsehood.

The only cure for the long-run is for the Church to change the way it teaches and presents certain things so that church members' expectations match the "facts", and therefore they don't get bothered when they learn the facts.

In many cases, this doesn't even mean teaching a "warts and all" approach in official Church lessons. It just means backing off in those areas where the truth can't be shared, such as discussions of the Book of Mormon translation, or the origins of the Book of Abraham.

[why me]

The other day a friend and I were speaking a little jestingly about seer stones and iPhones (not disparagingly. He's also a more orthodox member than I am). One of the other people there was looking a little wide-eyed at what we were talking about so I changed the subject. I don't want to be the cause of anyone's house of faith to tumble.

Thus, the problem. Why would this person's faith tumble over peep stones? By remaining silent you may have allowed this person's faith to tumble if they find out from a less friendly source. Much better to explain with a faith promoting remark and then by telling them to go to lds.org and search peep stones. What would be the problem with that?

You may have been suffering from a sense of 'superiority' in believing what you know should not be told to members because their faith is so weak that they would tumble down the hill.

[why me]

It's not just an "interpretation of facts."

It might be correct to say that we approach the facts with our own expectations and preconceived notions, and that FAIR and other apologists attempt to blend the "facts" with these expectations. But the root of the problem is that the Church is most responsible for shaping these expectations.

In other words, apologetics (regarding things that are "facts") boils down to "You expected this....., the truth is this......., therefore you need to adjust your expectations." Obviously, if something is false, then the proper response is to correct the falsehood.

The only cure for the long-run is for the Church to change the way it teaches and presents certain things so that church members' expectations match the "facts", and therefore they don't get bothered when they learn the facts.

In many cases, this doesn't even mean teaching a "warts and all" approach in official Church lessons. It just means backing off in those areas where the truth can't be shared, such as discussions of the Book of Mormon translation, or the origins of the Book of Abraham.

I know of no church that has its warts on its website. It is really up to other sources to convey information. This is why there is FAIR, BYUstudies, Maxwell Institute etc and other friendly sites. I will not find out much catholic history from the vatican. But I can go to the catholic apologetic site to find out answers or to the New Advent site. Or I could go to sites that are more critical. But the vatican will tell me very little. However, I do believe that the lds.org search engine could be much better. And certainly the lds church could give a short explanation of polyandry. This will not satisfy the critics but it could go a long way in educating members a little.

[HairBear]

I know of no church that has its warts on its website. It is really up to other sources to convey information. This is why there is FAIR, BYUstudies, Maxwell Institute etc and other friendly sites. I will not find out much catholic history from the vatican. But I can go to the catholic apologetic site to find out answers or to the New Advent site. Or I could go to sites that are more critical. But the vatican will tell me very little. However, I do believe that the lds.org search engine could be much better. And certainly the lds church could give a short explanation of polyandry. This will not satisfy the critics but it could go a long way in educating members a little.

Will anything satisfy the critics, or is that a rhetorical question?

[Ahab]

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?

Answers from anyone other than God are unsatisfactory to me. Without his testimony it's just a bunch of what ifs.

[The Nehor]

Will anything satisfy the critics, or is that a rhetorical question?

Individually maybe. Generally, no.

[canard78]

Thus, the problem. Why would this person's faith tumble over peep stones? By remaining silent you may have allowed this person's faith to tumble if they find out from a less friendly source. Much better to explain with a faith promoting remark and then by telling them to go to lds.org and search peep stones. What would be the problem with that?

You may have been suffering from a sense of 'superiority' in believing what you know should not be told to members because their faith is so weak that they would tumble down the hill.

Go on then, read into my mind and diagnose my motives.

I did it out of a sense of consideration for them. But it's a fair suggestion, next time I should take the opportunity to inoculate them.

I'll tell them to search on lds.org for "polyandry" too. That will give them a really great understanding of the practice. Oh... hang on...

[cinepro]

And certainly the lds church could give a short explanation of polyandry.

This is not certain.

They might be able to describe it though.