Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, tietjens said:

I said, "90% or more of the experts are in the camp of the saints." I'm estimating.

Grant Palmer is a bit of an anomaly: he leaves the church and becomes a mainline Christian. It's like going backwards. People I know who've left Mormonism have become, most of them, agnostic, although a couple have become what I'd call New Age (i.e. they say they now only believe in "love"). But none has joined any of the traditional Christian churches. (If Mormonism, the Maybach of religions, doesn't work for you, what is?)

I haven't read any of Grant Palmer's books, only skimmed one or two, but do you think any of his books can be taken seriously as history? — in the same way, say, "Rough Stone Rolling" or "In Sacred Lonlieness" can be taken seriously as history?

I only raised the issue of Palmer since you claimed that "Of all of the people I know who've left the church ostensibly for historical reasons, not a one had any training in history and all have been poorly educated." Obviously that is not correct, and I was dealing with Palmer's false claims while he was writing under the pseudonym Paul Pry Jr back in the 1980s.  However, there are ex-Mormons (unlike Palmer) who were competent scholars and have joined mainstream Christian churches (Stephen F. Epperson).  In other cases, they have become Jews.  The point to be made is that such is quite rare.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I was not speaking of what you refer to as LDS "intellectual giants" who have left the church over intellectual issues.  I was speaking of individuals from all walks of life: they could be teachers, engineers, attorneys, accountants, doctors, factory workers,ditch diggers, etc.

if study and prayer are enough to lead anyone who does so into the church why can't it be valid to do personal study and even prayer and thus be led out of the church?

It appears to me that you have not bothered to read this thread, Teancum.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with people who want to leave Mormonism, no matter the reason, and most of those leaving follow the usual route in finding another lifestyle more in keeping with their own desires and personal needs.  Sociological research on religious switching (which I have cited in this thread) shows the commonalities, and no one is surprised by the basic reasons for leaving one religion and adopting another, or none at all.  People from all walks of life do become Mormons, and some do leave the faith.  Nearly all do so based on reasons of social comfort or discomfort.

What I have taken issue with repeatedly is the false claim that most of those who leave are doing so based on any sort of real understanding of Mormon history or doctrine.  That requires rigorous scholarship, which few have access to either by training or experience.  So, when I read that someone has left for doctrinal or historical reasons I naturally take that with a grain of salt.  After careful study and objective analysis of the explicit reasons given, it usually becomes apparent that such a claim was false.  Fawn Brodie is a prime example of such failure.

[pogi]

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

"Growth in what --- to what end? 

Growth in light, spirit, truth, and knowledge.  The end being the knowledge of God.  To know God (John 17:3).

12 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

simply enjoying Him for who He is.

You just captured Mormonism in a nut shell with those words.

For 20 minutes each morning and night, I sit in meditation and prayer and do just that...simply enjoy God for who He is. 

Mormonisms motives are not for self-glory, it is all for the glory of God.  Our end desire and purpose is to know God and glorify Him.  We cannot know God in his fullness until our truth corresponds with his truth.  When that happens, we will be like him.  The only way to know God in his fullness is to be God, otherwise you will always be viewing him through a glass darkly and never come to a full comprehension and perfect correspondence with God.  To enjoy God, glorify Him, and be one with Him in His fullness, that is our telos. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by pogi

[Thinking]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I have taken issue with repeatedly is the false claim that most of those who leave are doing so based on any sort of real understanding of Mormon history or doctrine.  That requires rigorous scholarship, which few have access to either by training or experience.  So, when I read that someone has left for doctrinal or historical reasons I naturally take that with a grain of salt.  After careful study and objective analysis of the explicit reasons given, it usually becomes apparent that such a claim was false.  Fawn Brodie is a prime example of such failure.

Can a non-Mormon investigator reject the message of the missionaries for doctrinal or historical reasons?

[Calm]

Tac, Tiet states Palmer becomes a mainline Christian.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It appears to me that you have not bothered to read this thread, Teancum.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with people who want to leave Mormonism, no matter the reason, and most of those leaving follow the usual route in finding another lifestyle more in keeping with their own desires and personal needs.  Sociological research on religious switching (which I have cited in this thread) shows the commonalities, and no one is surprised by the basic reasons for leaving one religion and adopting another, or none at all.  People from all walks of life do become Mormons, and some do leave the faith.  Nearly all do so based on reasons of social comfort or discomfort.

What I have taken issue with repeatedly is the false claim that most of those who leave are doing so based on any sort of real understanding of Mormon history or doctrine.  That requires rigorous scholarship, which few have access to either by training or experience.  So, when I read that someone has left for doctrinal or historical reasons I naturally take that with a grain of salt.  After careful study and objective analysis of the explicit reasons given, it usually becomes apparent that such a claim was false.  Fawn Brodie is a prime example of such failure.

I think it's getting to be more that people don't leave over the history so much as they're leaving over the apologetics who once tried to say things were anti, are no longer anti but fact, as in the Gospel Topic Essays. 

[Foreigner]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I believe we exist to God's glorification and not that of our own. But that is how the Bible reads.

Impossible separation. This is God's glory: to glorify men. Examine your Bible first. John 17:

 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

And also: Romans 3

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

That means: we had glory before, and are to regain it for future.

See also: Romans 5:2, Colossians 3:4, 1Thessalonians 2:12, 2Thessalonians 2:14, Hebrews 2:10, 1Peter 5:4.

 

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think it's getting to be more that people don't leave over the history so much as they're leaving over the apologetics who once tried to say things were anti, are no longer anti but fact, as in the Gospel Topic Essays. 

If the LDS Church is true, it's extremely unlikely those who no longer believe it's true, and therefore no longer enjoy the companionship and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, will ever be able to accurately predict what the ultimate future of the Church will be. And aside from not having inspiration from the Holy Ghost, the other reason why former believers will never be able to accurately predict the ultimate future of the Church is because they fully expect the Church to fail, but in reality the Church will succeed gloriously beyond all expectation. But that glorious victory will not come until after the valiant members are tested by first having to wade through the great test of faith that's called the refiner's fire.

But just as it was when the unbelieving Nephites rejoiced in what they thought was total victory the day before the Savior was born, when the sign of the day the night and the day had not yet been given, the unbelievers will be shocked and frustrated to the greatest degree when they realize the  living Christ is the God of the Latter-Day Saints. Soon thereafter, shock and frustration will turn to the weeping, wailing and knashing of teeth when the unbelievers realize the stark reality that they failed to discern the truth.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If the LDS Church is true, it's extremely unlikely those who no longer believe it's true, and therefore no longer enjoy the companionship and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, will ever be able to accurately predict what the ultimate future of the Church will be. And aside from not having inspiration from the Holy Ghost, the other reason why former believers will never be able to accurately predict the ultimate future of the Church is because they fully expect the Church to fail, but in reality the Church will succeed gloriously beyond all exception. But that glorious victory will not come until after the valiant members are tested by first wade through the great test of faith that's called the refiner's fire.

But just as it was when the unbelieving Nephites rejoiced in what they thought was total victory the day before the Savior was born, when the sign of the day the night and the day had not yet been given, the unbelievers will be shocked and frustrated to the greatest degree when they realize living Christ is the God of the Latter-Day Saints. Soon thereafter, shock and frustration will turn to the weeping, wailing and knashing of teeth when the unbelievers realize the stark reality that they failed to discern the truth.

And if you're wrong, what then? But because of a lot of what you say, I'm still holding on, albeit with a pinky finger to the rod. Read this pinky comment today by someone else and I kind of liked it because it feels like what I'm doing, holding on with my pinky.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[tietjens]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly. As I've indicated several times before in this forum (see here, here and here), as a professionally trained historian, I find nothing odd or troubling whatsoever in the accounts of the First Vision. To paraphrase myself:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

*****

I realise that some who have posted in this thread have insisted that the correct response to those who claim to have lost their faith over Church history is to validate their concerns, but I personally think we are doing people an enormous disservice -- at minimum, on an intellectual level -- by not pointing out (lovingly and patiently, of course) when their 'historical concerns' are based on false assumptions and/or historiographical naivety.

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to share this.

 

[Jeanne]

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

I feel like Robert's POV is that there are no  "facts" regarding the church that could ever be damaging to a testimony as long as those facts are properly understood. 

Therefore, anyone who leaves because of those facts (i.e. Intellectual reasons) must be wrong or failed to understand properly.  

If one comes at the issue from that POV, it makes sense. 

For those of us who understand the flaw in that assumption, it seems like an arrogant attitude (at least the way Robert presents it).  I don't think he means for it to sound arrogant, he just can't see it any differently.  I'll admit that the 30 year old me might have had a similar attitude. 

Thanks so much for this.  I should think before I speak..I just feel like people are slamming me and good people without understanding.

My apologies to Robert Smith.

[tietjens]

8 hours ago, sjdawg said:

CFR that 90% of experts are in the camp of the saints.   How do you define expert?   How do you quantify which experts are in the saints?

If you read my posts I said I "estimate". I don't know how many experts there are among the ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons, but it doesn't seem to be very many; whereas in the church there are very many. By "expert" I mean someone who is credentialed, who has a Ph.D or at least an MA in the subject he is writing or opining about.

I have an email right now from someone I know who left the church a few years back. He has been reading on ex-Mormon reddit and has discovered "The Late War". In his email he triumphantly quotes passages from "The Late War" and then lines them up against similar passages from BOM.

"Ah-hah! This proves it. Joseph Smith copied the Book Of Mormon from the "The Late War'!"

Does this friend have any background in literature, literary analysis, or linguistics? No, not even a little. But yet he has figured out where Joseph Smith  got the Book Of Mormon from.

And you can bet that whoever he's been reading on ex-Mormon reddit, the guy who has it all figured out re: "The Late War" and the BOM, doesn't have any background in literature, literary analysis, or linguistics either. But there are people, people with backgrounds in literature, literary analysis, or linguistics among the faithful, in the camp of the saints who have written about "The Late War" and the BOM.

Who are you going to choose to read, the experts, the people with the relevant educational background, or the guys who fly by the seat of their pants? Most of the time people who are leaving the church choose the latter.

[Foreigner]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I've indicated several times before in this forum (see here, here and here), as a professionally trained historian, I find nothing odd or troubling whatsoever in the accounts of the First Vision.

You testify too much. Your professional knowledge helps to defend Joseph Smith credibility as a prophet at all. Yet there is something odd and troubling in the canonizing version: (in bold)

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

These words are only in this version and make huge problem in relations to other churches. Do you find this easy, that basic tenets of Christianity, very similar to LDS ones, are just abomination? I am afraid, You are going outside your professional skills, when declaring nothing odd here.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, tietjens said:

If you read my posts I said I "estimate". I don't know how many experts there are among the ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons, but it doesn't seem to be very many; whereas in the church there are very many. By "expert" I mean someone who is credentialed, who has a Ph.D or at least an MA in the subject he is writing or opining about.

I have an email right now from someone I know who left the church a few years back. He has been reading on ex-Mormon reddit and has discovered "The Late War". In his email he triumphantly quotes passages from "The Late War" and then lines them up against similar passages from BOM.

"Ah-hah! This proves it. Joseph Smith copied the Book Of Mormon from the "The Late War'!"

Does this friend have any background in literature, literary analysis, or linguistics? No, not even a little. But yet he has figured out where Joseph Smith  got the Book Of Mormon from.

And you can bet that whoever he's been reading on ex-Mormon reddit, the guy who has it all figured out re: "The Late War" and the BOM, doesn't have any background in literature, literary analysis, or linguistics either. But there are people, people with backgrounds in literature, literary analysis, or linguistics among the faithful, in the camp of the saints who have written about "The Late War" and the BOM.

Who are you going to choose to read, the experts, the people with the relevant educational background, or the guys who fly by the seat of their pants? Most of the time people who are leaving the church choose the latter.

Maybe he's just thinking...if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it is a duck! And what if the church is wrong. There are many, many discrepencies. And we're told to go by our feelings now, or faith only. But the Bible disagrees.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But yeah we are definitely there.   Finally.  Phew.

Glory, glory...we have finally found a foundation or back bone to communicate effectively through 

For ease of future communication, let me explain to you what words I use to imperfectly reference or describe capital-T Truth.  My paradigm of truth is primarily influenced by Alma 32, D&C 88, and D&C 93.  I use the language of these scriptures to communicate my theory of truth.  These passages explain the means by which God's truth is absolute, and how that truth is communicated to us.  It is all centered in the "light of Christ" aka. "spirit of the Lord", "Light of life", or "spirit of truth”.   

For instance, Christ is “the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (D&C 93:2; see John 1:9). The light of Christ fills the “immensity of space” and is the means by which Christ is able to be “in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things.” It “giveth life to all things” and is “the law by which all things are governed.” It is also “the light that quickeneth” man’s understanding (see D&C 88:6–13, 41). 

God’s truth, or absolute truth, seems best described in our theology as “light” and “spirit”.  These are obscure words which do not capture the truth in its entirety, but they are none the less inspired and used for a reason.  Truth cannot be spoken in purity through the tongue of man, but if anybody ever asks me what truth is, the closest answer I can give them is “light” or “spirit” of God.  Those obscure words are simply the seeds of understanding. 

This light and spirit of Truth rarely communicates with me via sentences.  By the time a photon (not literally speaking) or piece of the light of Christ passes through the filter of interpretation by means of my imperfect perspective and is translated through a corrupt tongue, it is obscure, but none the less inspired.  That is how I view the scriptures and prophesy.  I think revelation is mostly received in the unspeakable language of the spirit.  With that understanding, I view the words of scripture and prophesy as obscure absolutes in that they are applicable to all and inspired by God’s truth, but also relative in that they are relative to the interpretation and translation of man.

For future ease of communication, let me point out one distinction where we have struggled in the past and clarify my perspective via this foundation we have established.  I have struggled with the idea that “only sentences can be true”.  That seems limiting to the concept of truth as I understand it.  Truth from God is rarely communicated to me via sentences, and indeed cannot be captured by sentences.  Sentences are man’s version of truth and relative, but when I think and speak of “truth”, mostly I think of that truth which cannot be uttered and is absolute.  It is one of those beliefs which cannot be justified (except by the spirit) but are true, as Rorty talked about.  Truth is the light that speaks to our heart in Alma 32, but because that light is not limited to the hearts of man, but encompasses all things, it is the means of absolute understanding.  Thus, truth is also "knowledge of things as they are...(D&C 93:24)"

Some of my favorite passages on truth in D&C 88:

Quote

 

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

19 I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.
 
20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

37 Light and truth forsake that evil one.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by pogi

[tietjens]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe he's just thinking...if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it is a duck! And what if the church is wrong. There are many, many discrepencies. And we're told to go by our feelings now, or faith only. But the Bible disagrees.

Well I suppose we will never KNOW, in the sense that I know this is a rock because I just stubbed my toe against it and it hurts like hell. But then if we did know in that way it would defeat God's purposes, would it? I mean the purpose of our probation.

[tietjens]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe he's just thinking...if it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it is a duck! And what if the church is wrong. There are many, many discrepencies. And we're told to go by our feelings now, or faith only. But the Bible disagrees.

I suppose the best we can do is what Bro. Bushman did when he suffered a faith crisis at Harvard. He said, "I went to where I knew I would find goodness."

There's a lot of wisdom in that little anecdote: go where you find goodness.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It appears to me that you have not bothered to read this thread, Teancum.

As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with people who want to leave Mormonism, no matter the reason, and most of those leaving follow the usual route in finding another lifestyle more in keeping with their own desires and personal needs.  Sociological research on religious switching (which I have cited in this thread) shows the commonalities, and no one is surprised by the basic reasons for leaving one religion and adopting another, or none at all.  People from all walks of life do become Mormons, and some do leave the faith.  Nearly all do so based on reasons of social comfort or discomfort.

What I have taken issue with repeatedly is the false claim that most of those who leave are doing so based on any sort of real understanding of Mormon history or doctrine.  That requires rigorous scholarship, which few have access to either by training or experience.  So, when I read that someone has left for doctrinal or historical reasons I naturally take that with a grain of salt.  After careful study and objective analysis of the explicit reasons given, it usually becomes apparent that such a claim was false.  Fawn Brodie is a prime example of such failure.

I have certainly read the thread.

Apparently you are not reading my posts.  Perhaps we are taking past each other. I understand you are fine that people leave the Church.  What I reject is that there are some, and its likely more than you think, that do leave based on a real understanding of Mormon History. I reject your premise to reach such a conclusion requires rigorous scholarship with heavy academic or whatever training.  In other words I disagree with you.  Strongly.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

Can a non-Mormon investigator reject the message of the missionaries for doctrinal or historical reasons?

For Robert apparently not unless they have a rigorous scholastic background.  I wonder if he things before say a good Catholic rejects Catholicism and accept Mormonism because they claim intellectually they do not accept the claims of Catholicism if he thinks they would need to same rigorous scholastic background in Catholic topics?

[pogi]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But yeah we are definitely there.   Finally.  Phew.

One last final thought.

I love the idea of truth as being relative because it suggests a familial type of communion and relationship with truth and God, and a relative relationship between one piece of truth and another piece of truth.  Our truth is relative to the limited pieces of truth we have (limited perspective).  The more pieces we receive the more our relationship with each piece of truth is clarified and revealed and the closer we get to absolute correspondence with God.  

Here is my idea that I will posit for thought: God’s truth is absolute not because it is not relative, and not because it is relative to nothing, but because it is relative to everything via the atonement which is really the at-one-ment of all truth.  

Quote

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth (D&C 88:6)

When thought of in this light, I can agree that all truth is relative, even God’s.  God’s truth just happens to be absolutely relative to all things via the atonement and light of Christ.  It is the perfect marriage between the concepts of absolute truth and relative truth. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by pogi

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks so much for this.  I should think before I speak..I just feel like people are slamming me and good people without understanding.

My apologies to Robert Smith.

Well Robert's position seems to be that if you say it was historical issues and an intellectual analysis of the historical founding claims that persuaded you the church is not what it claims that you are not qualified to make such a determination. That is unless you have a rigorous scholastic back ground.  So there is some other reason you do not believe.

Of course what qualifies as a rigorous historical background?  I have a rigorous scholastic background and training in my chosen profession.  But that profession is not history, it is not religious studies.  But it is a fairly respected field of study applied for years to my profession along with annual training requirements as well as my own personal reading in professional journals etc.

For me personally what has led me to question the LDS truth claims absolutely are rooted in the historical claims, the evidence at least to me not supporting the claims of divine intervention and revelation, scientific issues that make many of the LDS truth claims less plausible to me and so on.  I had no desire to end up where my current beliefs are.  I was fully devoted,  As much as anyone here.  I was serving near the end of my time as a bishop when for me the proverbial light turned on and I realized that for me at least, I could not say I knew the Church was true like i had been saying since I was 17 years old.  I had no desire for a new social structure, was not offended by anyone, had no desire to go live some lifestyle that was not in accordance with the LDS orthopraxy.  Everything I was up to that point was molded and shaped by the LDS Church including so much of my identity. And this not only in the Church but out of work to.  I had far more to loose than gain by what was happening in my mind and in my heart.  It was simply devastating.  This was 10 years ago and I am still attend church and tithe, etc.  For a while I asked not to have a calling. A year ago I was asked to teach High Priests once a month and felt I could at least do that.  Imagine talking to the person who was your successor as bishop in your ward about this.  It was not fun. Imagine taking to your stake president about this, a man who is a dear friend.  It was horrible. If I could have found another way and stayed honest to myself I would have.  

So yes I think my my take on the LDS Church is based on an intellectual pursuit and examining evidence that is there best I can with an open but skeptical mindset.  But according to Robert I likely have some other reason and am really not qualified to make a decision based on an intellectual level.

And oh by the way, this is why I have gone very slow and am still.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well Robert's position seems to be that if you say it was historical issues and an intellectual analysis of the historical founding claims that persuaded you the church is not what it claims that you are not qualified to make such a determination. That is unless you have a rigorous scholastic back ground.  So there is some other reason you do not believe.

Of course what qualifies as a rigorous historical background?  I have a rigorous scholastic background and training in my chosen profession.  But that profession is not history, it is not religious studies.  But it is a fairly respected field of study applied for years to my profession along with annual training requirements as well as my own personal reading in professional journals etc.

For me personally what has led me to question the LDS truth claims absolutely are rooted in the historical claims, the evidence at least to me not supporting the claims of divine intervention and revelation, scientific issues that make many of the LDS truth claims less plausible to me and so on.  I had no desire to end up where my current beliefs are.  I was fully devoted,  As much as anyone here.  I was serving near the end of my time as a bishop when for me the proverbial light turned on and I realized that for me at least, I could not say I knew the Church was true like i had been saying since I was 17 years old.  I had no desire for a new social structure, was not offended by anyone, had no desire to go live some lifestyle that was not in accordance with the LDS orthopraxy.  Everything I was up to that point was molded and shaped by the LDS Church including so much of my identity. And this not only in the Church but out of work to.  I had far more to loose than gain by what was happening in my mind and in my heart.  It was simply devastating.  This was 10 years ago and I am still attend church and tithe, etc.  For a while I asked not to have a calling. A year ago I was asked to teach High Priests once a month and felt I could at least do that.  Imagine talking to the person who was your successor as bishop in your ward about this.  It was not fun. Imagine taking to your stake president about this, a man who is a dear friend.  It was horrible. If I could have found another way and stayed honest to myself I would have.  

So yes I think my my take on the LDS Church is based on an intellectual pursuit and examining evidence that is there best I can with an open but skeptical mindset.  But according to Robert I likely have some other reason and am really not qualified to make a decision based on an intellectual level.

And oh by the way, this is why I have gone very slow and am still.

About 10 or so years ago my world changed too, after stumbling onto some history about Joseph's polygamy and it started me on a search. One day after a couple of years of searching and learning, I distinctly remember the moment that it all fell apart. I was standing behind my bathroom door and I thought it out loud that Joseph could have made up the whole thing. I had never once thought the church could not be true before that and I was never the same after that. Maybe it was something I needed to do to get a real testimony, well...according to some out there anyway. But like you I am not completely out. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Non LDS historians who have studied LDS history in depth.

I personally don't know of a single person like this. Do you?

Quote

if the LDS history is compelling why wouldn't your non LDS colleagues want to read the Book of Mormon.

(a) I personally don't find LDS history 'compelling'. You however had suggested that it was somehow disqualifying. It is neither.

(b) Of the historians with whom I used to work, the only one that I know for certain has even heard of the Book of Mormon would be my former supervisor, and the only reason she would have heard of it would be because I worked under her for nearly five years, during the first year of which we shared an office. I would suspect that a few others will have heard of the book, but they would no doubt be in the minority, and since most of them would be religiously agnostic or even outright atheists, many of whom not even having come from a Christian cultural background, why would they have any interest in reading the Book of Mormon?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Do you find this easy, that basic tenets of Christianity, very similar to LDS ones, are just abomination? I am afraid, You are going outside your professional skills, when declaring nothing odd here.

I don't entirely understand your points or your questions, but you are certainly right that this not an issue of historical concern in any way.

You mention 'tenets', but the canonised account of the First Vision mentions 'creeds'. The Christian creeds are a very specific corpus of statements that evolved in various councils over the course of centuries, and Latter-day Saints do indeed reject them as authoritative and see them generally as having introduced a false understanding (if it can be called such) of the nature of God. Consider, for example, the following:

Quote

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible...

And then contrast it with this:

Quote

 Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Can a non-Mormon investigator reject the message of the missionaries for doctrinal or historical reasons?

Of course, and I suppose that he could also accept the message of LDS missionaries for doctrinal and/or historical reasons.  However, that is not the point.  Aside from the fact that LDS missionaries normally bear a testimony which is likely only to make sense in spiritual terms (via the Holy Spirit), one must have the proper preparation and knowledge to adequately assess the Mormon message on a serious intellectual basis.  One of my friends, the late Allen Lambert, brought a number of serious intellectuals into the LDS faith by appealing to their scholarly understanding of religious history and doctrine.  He was dealing with fellow academics, and Mark Bukowski could tell a similar tale.  But that is a bit unusual.