Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You just agreed with me, despite saying that your experience was "very different."  You said "Most of the people I come across at church who are most "in" have no clue about some of the troubling doctrines, practices and history."  And when they leave, they leave just as ignorant.  I don't give your suggestion that there is an "in" crowd in Church serious belief -- I don't see it.  People who have an actual understanding of Mormonism are as rare as hen's teeth.  Most Mormons are practicing Mormons.  That is, they believe in the basics without reflecting on them because they have a testimony.  They do not have an intellectual understanding of the religion.  If they leave they take that same ignorance with them, but now without a testimony.

The level of theological, historical, and religious ignorance among Mormons is an objective fact.  It has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not.  Indeed, when I was young and shared that same level of ignorance, I was simply unaware of what I didn't know, and I made a lot of false assumptions on that basis.

On the other hand, God does not expect any degree of sophistication in such matters.  They are simply not essential to an acceptance of the Gospel, nor of continuing to live it.  Mormonism is praxis, not systematic theology.  One need only have a testimony by the power of the Holy Spirit.  It is the living of the religion which most impresses God, and that is what the Brethren teach.

I simply do not see those leaving the Church demonstrating (in their books, articles, or blog comments) any sort of "good understanding of the doctrine and history of the" LDS Church.  Nor do they have a good general understanding of religion in general, or of the Bible specifically.  That leaves them without adequate context.  Hard to make good judgments without context.

YES!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but I joined when I was 20 years old and in college. I knew about polygamy, and the Priesthood Ban. Plus the general order of the Church structure, and its truth claims. 

[Thinking]

According to Dustin Phelps,

Quote

1.  There’s Only One Credible Alternative to the Restored Gospel.

This, of course is from the perspective of one who believes that Mormonism possesses the restored gospel. Moving the focus to something else (alternatives) is a classic case of misdirection. The real issue isn't about alternatives, but whether Mormonism is true.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As I have said repeatedly, relativists acknolwedge that even relativism is only relatively "correct", if that sentence even is intelligible.

No it is not   

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But the notion of absolute truth is unintelligible.  

Neither is relativism.

Quote

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth… 

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes. 

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves. 

Let us dismiss philosophical argument and definitions for a second and simplify things.  If you want to respond to anything I just said, fine, but I can guarantee that things will get unintelligible.  So, first answer me simply:

Mark, do you believe that there is "one truth for all"?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

You started out saying it's impossible to even know how to answer my question, but then went ahead and did a pretty good job of answering it in a satisfactory way anyway. Can you see why many non-postmodern philosophy informed Church members would be rather skeptical of your approach when you say God is not a thing (something that exists) that can be known when the Savior says that by very definition eternal life is for men to have a most intimate infinite and eternal knowledge of him and his Father (God)? A knowledge so perfect and fully complete that we can know how to be exactly like him? 

Do you know if there are any members of the First Presidency and/or Quorum of the Twelve who subscribe to the postmodern philosophical  approach to the nature of truth? 

 

I do not know of any who subscribe to this view but I would not expect them to, and I do not find that troubling.

I don't think any of them know much about nuclear physics either and do not find that troubling either.   These are rather arcane views about the nature of truth, and I do not think they have much experience with these ideas.   But as Rorty says, we know what truth is, we just cannot define it

They do not define it nor try other than repeating the scriptures that say "Truth is things as they are" or some other similar phrase which is unintelligible philosophically and yet we know what it means, and within that paradigm, I completely accept that indeed, putting it poetically, that truth IS direct experience of things as we perceive them.   Direct spiritual experience in visions and inspiration is about as "real" as anything can be.

Sentences about those experiences however, are difficult to justify unless they are presented as subjective experiences.  "I had the experience of seeing God and it changed my life" is perfectly justifiable on my view, but is not justifiable in any other view.

THAT is the point.  I have tried to explain that in non-philosophical terms but it appears that has been to no avail.

Now to answer your question.   I am sorry I cannot make it simpler, apparently

If I ever said the words you ascribe to me- which I doubt- you have misunderstood the meaning of those words by seeing them through your own subjective lenses which includes confusion about what "objective" means.

You are conflating: 

The reality of God as a being, which I personally have experienced directly in religious experience, "as He is", at least for me

With

1- What we can intelligibly SAY about that experience which many including of course you have had AND

2- With what inspired men (called prophets) HAVE historically SAID about their experiences of God and "the Savior" as they understand them as separate beings AND

3- Your ideas of what "existence" means, which apparently is synonymous with the word "things" for you- AND

4- Assumed that all "things" are extended objects in space and time, so that ideas are not "things" AND

5- Different senses of the word "knowledge", as in the type of knowledge we have of persons (Hebrew yada) and the knowledge we all share about objective things like chairs tables and chemical reactions

Yes we "know" God in a yada sense but that is not knowing God as we know a chair "exists". http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3045.htm

We know God the way we know our spouse, not like we know about chairs.  The God experience is more like a spouse experience than a chair experience, yet we "know" both, using this highly ambiguous word which you are using without any nuance whatsoever.

This is essentially the problem between us and my point.  You are taking what some men have SAID using words in ambiguous human language and thinking that these ambiguous and nuanced words which they perhaps have used wrongly themselves, and ascribing those words to be the "reality about God" when God is incomprehensible "as He really is".

You and others then argue about this word soup mixing nuances and based on conclusions which you have drawn from erroneous words written by humans about what THEY think about God without coming to your own conclusions.  And if 15 humans disagree, one must throw out one's own direct knowledge through personal revelation, in spite of what Moroni 10, James 1, DC 93, and may other scriptures tell us, that our personal testimonies are the basis of all of it.  

For me, there is one being I know with whom I communicate directly multiple times daily, who directs my life.

I have experienced a Catholic paradigm describing this being and compared it to my experience and it seemed right to me.  I have tried other paradigms.  Now I experience a Mormon paradigm- AS I UNDERSTAND that paradigm filtered through my own understanding of the nuances of language and my experience in philosophy

Your paradigm and understanding of the nuances of language have obviously been conditioned, as mine have been conditioned by my experience, yours also have been, by your life experience

Communication is a B.

I hope that helps some.

 

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but I joined when I was 20 years old and in college. I knew about polygamy, and the Priesthood Ban. Plus the general order of the Church structure, and its truth claims. 

Growing up in the church I also knew about polygamy.  I had been taught that it was practiced in the SL valley as a means of taking care of the many women who had been widowed due to the Saints forced emigration.  That turned out to be very, very wrong.

I also knew about the priesthood ban.  I was taught that it was a revelation from God to Joseph Smith.  Wrong, again.

I was taught and believed all the truth claims as well.  Even those that turned out to be false.

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

No it is not   

Neither is relativism.

Let us dismiss philosophical argument and definitions for a second and simplify things.  If you want to respond to anything I just said, fine, but I can guarantee that things will get unintelligible.  So, first answer me simply:

Mark, do you believe that there is "one truth for all"?

Truth is what each knows for himself.   I cannot know how you understand those words, only how I understand them.  They are just words.

And that phrase is not God breathed, but is a paradigm.  It is to be tested through Moroni 10:4-5 so that we can individually "know the truth of all things", whether or not it works for us individually.

It is a philosophy of men because it is in human language.  But yeah, I get what it means.  There is one universal paradigm for all to believe and it is found in Mormonism as I understand it.  Works for me.

But others will disagree with that and our job is to speak to them and convert them, and those words probably do not work for them

Good luck using your method.

People always like it when you say "I am right and you are wrong because I KNOW THE ONE TRUTH OF GOD"

They eat that stuff up.   But for the dogmatic, it probably doesn't matter what they think anyway.  After all, they are always right!

And no, I am not dismissing the philosophical argument.   That is all there is- these are all words and philosophy is about using them clearly.

Edited January 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Neither is relativism.

Fine.

Both are unintelligible and that is what the philosophical article says.  Truth is undefinable! We agree!

[Yirgacheffe]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please show me scientific evidence for revelatory truth.

Pick any truth you like

That God is a man?  That we can hear voices we ascribe to the "spirit"?  That the Book of Mormon comes from invisible historical people?

Any objective truth which is scientifically verifiable through scientific experimentation will do.   THAT is what you are asserting.   How much does God weigh?  He has a body right?  Where is it?  Why doesn't he show himself?  Does he really look exactly like the resurrected Christ?   Are there objectively 3 persons on the God head?   Is the Holy Ghost male?  Can he be examined to prove that?

Yes I believe all these things are true- that means that putting together all these paradigms results in a cohesive explanation for what we cannot see objectively.  I know they are true because God has testified of these things in my heart- SUBJECTIVELY, not objectively.

But now you are asserting these "truths" are "objective"?

Remember the purpose of this is to explain your words to secular atheists so that they could look at what you say and say "HMMMM- ok, well I can see that works as a theory, I don't know if I believe it, but I suppose that if I saw the world that way then just maybe......."

They will NEVER listen to their hearts if they think that what they feel "in their hearts" is not true

THE PROBLEM is that what WE think is "TRUE" is ridiculous to them and they will not even listen because it is not even worth listening to

And you turn around and talk about revelation being "objective" and they think you are insane.

WE CANNOT SHOW THAT the world of Revelation is real to anyone this way.   They think these are hallucinations and you cannot answer a single question they ask because of the way you think about these things.

THE LANGUAGE OF REVELATION IS NOT SECULAR LANGUAGE.

We can bemoan the horrible word of secularism and zip ourselves up in a little artificial world in our little hermetically sealed world and let the church die, or we can learn how to speak differently about these things without losing their "truth"

It's up to us.

How do you know they are not listening to their hearts when they disbelieve claims of revelation?  That strikes me as pretty presumptuous since you are not them and can't know their reality.  I'm also at a loss as to why speaking differently about what goes on in your head (experiences and interpretations of those events in light of personal reaction) is going to be anymore convincing just because you use postmodern language.  It seems quite the opposite to me, since it's all subjective and based on what the individual experiences then a non-religious position is just as valid as a religious one and there really is no reason to convert from one religion to another.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 1/3/2017 at 4:02 PM, mfbukowski said:

Amplifying it further:

"The Book of Mormon must be proven historical or it is not valid"

This is based on the notion that spiritual truth must be based on scientific "reality".   Adopt a postmodern view and this goes away

"Joseph was a fallen prophet due to (pick from list)"  

This is based on the idea that the ideas of a prophet derive directly from the mouth of God in order for those ideas to be "true".  Because God exists scientifically, his words also exist scientifically and are literally cut in stone as the tablets of Moses.   Sorry.  Time to grow up.  The prophets language is the language of men and are true within a context. The are profound truths of the spirit to be spiritually verified by the audience - or not.

Again, adopt a postmodern view and this problem goes away.

If we adopt a postmodern view of truth, every single "problem" of religion in general goes away.

The very idea of following the spirit IS a "postmodern" way of viewing reality- there is no objective evidence for what the spirit tells us.  

If it is possible for the spirit to testify of truth to us individually, that can only be considered "truth" with a postmodern view of truth.

The truth is  that if we do not adopt a relativistic view of truth, we are out of business.   Of course that includes the idea that relativistic truth theories are only relatively true.

Grow up and get over it.

How do the problems go away for a person who's view is that the Book of Mormon must be proven historical or Joseph was a fallen prophet because (list), since truth is in the mind of the beholder they have a valid perspective.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

How do the problems go away for a person who's view is that the Book of Mormon must be proven historical or Joseph was a fallen prophet because (list), since truth is in the mind of the beholder they have a valid perspective.

Atheists often believe religion is meaningless.

It is not. This view makes religion irrefutable and as valid as science within its sphere

Edited January 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Thinking]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Atheists often believe religion is meaningless.

It is not. This view makes religion irrefutable and as valid as science within its sphere

No matter how religion makes you feel in mortality, if it can't deliver in the afterlife what it promises, then it is meaningless. GBH even admitted as much.

[Yirgacheffe]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Atheists often believe religion is meaningless.

It is not. This view makes religion irrefutable and as valid as science within its sphere

It makes both positions irrefutable and leaves the atheists view of religion as still not valid according to their subjective view, so I'm not seeing how changing the language is going to make any difference. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Yirgacheffe

[pogi]

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And that phrase is not God breathed, but is a paradigm.

Can you clarify this before I respond?  I don't know where you are pulling the phrase "God breathed" from, or what it has to do with what we are talking about. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jay Leno did not guffaw and make fun of anyone.  Instead he simply asked questions which each person should have been able to answer. 

I think it is very inappropriate to use Jay Leno and others' similar routines to measure knowledge for a number of reasons.  He may not be outright laughing in their faces, but the whole premise of the segment is looking for people to humiliate.

Reasons not to trust appearance:

1) It last for a few minutes, while they likely were taping for quite some time.  Editing for the really 'choice' responses will skew the actual knowledge level demonstrated.

2). Sometimes it has nothing to do with knowledge and all about ability to think under unusual pressure.  Many people's minds go blank when put on the spot, including my own.  I would look like a kindergarten reject in a taping like that.  Otoh, due to years of being embarrassed about being embarrassed, I have gotten rather good (or so I am told, they may be just being nice) at hiding it in certain situations, so some people assume I am at ease and not under pressure when my mind is totally out of focus.

3). For some people, when under extreme pressure mentally they will flail around and grab anything that resembles safety.  If there are some hints, they just may latch on to them, no matter how ridiculous.

4)  Leno and many of the other comedians are well known.  People may make ridiculous comments because they know the game and have fun playing along.  Some may act really stupid because they know that will get them on TV.

There could be other reasons as well, including staff members who go out and feed stupid answers to willing participants in order to get a 'better' segment.  'Reality' TV is rarely real.

I haven't watched Leno in over a decade, am more familiar with a Canadian version where they often asked American college kids to prove how clueless they were about Canada.  These are kids on some big name universities where in order to get in they have to pass rigorous tests.  I find it highly unlikely they are as uninformed and stupid as they appear to be in these segments.  If they can manage to 'find' college level people who come out with stuff you wouldn't expect from a third grader, I have little doubt the "on the street" segments are not much more realistic than these.

It would be much better to appeal to actual studies to demonstrate education and knowledge level.  The ones I am aware of are still depressing, but don't come close to the gag reel of this kind of thing.

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No matter how religion makes you feel in mortality, if it can't deliver in the afterlife what it promises, then it is meaningless. GBH even admitted as much.

I think GBH was wrong about that. The value in religion is the good it can do today. 

[pogi]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

People always like it when you say "I am right and you are wrong because I KNOW THE ONE TRUTH OF GOD"

Do you remember my puzzle analogy of truth from way back when?  I don't claim to know the "one" truth of God.  I don't believe that there is "one" truth.  I claim to have a few limited pieces of truth within an almost endless sea of puzzle pieces.  My understanding of those pieces of truth evolve as new truths alter my perspective of old truths.  God is God because he has and knows all of the puzzle pieces.  He sees the big picture...he IS the big picture.  To know him is eternal life.  To know him is to know all, and to know all is to know him, and thus we become Gods like him, knowing all.  Mormonism is the only paradigm whereby we can "circumscribe all truths into one great whole" and see the big picture.  By this analogy we can successfully marry aspects of absolutism with aspects of relativism.  It suggests that truth is absolute, but that it can only be relatively understood in relation to mortal perspectives, until we have all the pieces. 

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It is to be tested through Moroni 10:4-5 so that we can individually "know the truth of all things", whether or not it works for us individually.

Once we "know the truth of all things" our knowledge is no longer "individual" or relative to our mortal perspective, but it is a collective and shared knowledge of all things and is therefore absolute in that nothing is not known.  That is what Joseph Smith was trying to show us.  That to me is Mormonism, and it is freaking awesome and worthy of conversion!  

That is how I share the message of Mormonism.  I can speak their language of at least a soft relativity, but without sharing the beautiful vision of absolutism and the ultimate gift of the knowledge of God and of all things, then our paradigm offers nothing more than what they already have.

They are going to hear you MFB and say, "oh, your message is to do what works for me?"  "Great! What I am already doing works for me...so see ya!"

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good luck using your method.

People always like it when you say "I am right and you are wrong because I KNOW THE ONE TRUTH OF GOD"

 Did you not say: "There is one universal paradigm for all to believe and it is found in Mormonism" 

Are you just not going to share that part with them?  Because if you do, then your message is the same:

"I am right and you are wrong because I know the one true paradigm."

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Truth is what each knows for himself.  

It is this kind of language where I get all tied up in knots. It is illogical in that it asserts relative truth by positing an absolute.  I feel that my analogy is more in line with Mormonism.   Now you know why we butt heads on this so often.  In Mormonism, It is not truth that is relative, it is our understanding of it that is relative, at least until we taste of immortality and eternal life.  Christ used metaphors to teach about truth.  "The kingdom of God is like unto..."  That is how I speak of truth as well.  Truth is like unto a puzzle...in every sense of the word. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by pogi

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Growing up in the church I also knew about polygamy.  I had been taught that it was practiced in the SL valley as a means of taking care of the many women who had been widowed due to the Saints forced emigration.  That turned out to be very, very wrong.

I also knew about the priesthood ban.  I was taught that it was a revelation from God to Joseph Smith.  Wrong, again.

I was taught and believed all the truth claims as well.  Even those that turned out to be false.

This is me.  And then after all is said and done..they essays, in a way, made vomit for all those things I had been taught.  I mean they were a step in the right direction...but they it was like they through up gospel stuff in a deck of cards and let them fall where they may. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Jeanne

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you remember my puzzle analogy of truth from way back when?  I don't claim to know the "one" truth of God.  I don't believe that there is "one" truth.  I claim to have a few limited pieces of truth within an almost endless sea of puzzle pieces.  My understanding of those pieces of truth evolve as new truths alter my perspective of old truths.  God is God because he has and knows all of the puzzle pieces.  He sees the big picture...he IS the big picture.  To know him is eternal life.  To know him is to know all, and to know all is to know him, and thus we become Gods like him, knowing all.  Mormonism is the only paradigm whereby we can "circumscribe all truths into one great whole" and see the big picture.  By this analogy we can successfully marry aspects of absolutism with aspects of relativism.  It suggests that truth is absolute, but that it can only be relatively understood in relation to mortal perspectives, until we have all the pieces. 

Once we "know the truth of all things" our knowledge is no longer "individual" or relative to our mortal perspective, but it is a collective and shared knowledge of all things and is therefore absolute in that nothing is not known.  That is what Joseph Smith was trying to show us.  That to me is Mormonism, and it is freaking awesome and worthy of conversion!  

That is how I share the message of Mormonism.  I can speak their language of at least a soft relativity while in mortality, but without sharing the beautiful vision of absolutism and the ultimate gift of the knowledge of God and of all things, then our paradigm offers nothing more than what they already have.

They are going to hear you MFB and say, "oh, your message is to do what works for me?"  "Great! What I am already doing works for me...so see ya!"

 Did you not say: "There is one universal paradigm for all to believe and it is found in Mormonism" 

Are you just not going to share that part with them?  Because if you do, then your message is the same:

"I am right and you are wrong because I know the one true paradigm."

It is this kind of language where I get all tied up in knots.  I can't stand it when people define truth in relative terms.  It is illogical in that it asserts relative truth by positing an absolute.  This sentence makes no sense in the context of my analogy of truth  and the way it is taught in Mormonism.   Now you know why we butt heads on this so often.  I hate the concept of relative truth - I find it contradictory to the teachings of Mormonism.  It is not truth that is relative, it is our understanding of it that is relative, at least until we taste of immortality and eternal life.  Christ used metaphors to teach about truth.  "The kingdom of God is like unto..."  That is how I speak of truth as well.  Truth is like unto a puzzle...in every sense of the word. 

I think it would be much less confusing to say that within the framework of postmodern philosophy "truth is what each knows for himself;" But within the framework of the Gospel, truth is what God is, what God knows, and what God does, and from his point of view there is nothing at all subjective about any of it.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The stereotypes sometimes control how people who are outwardly different are treated.  A police officer, for example, may pull you over only because you are from a racial minority ("driving while black").  Whether affiliated or not. I treat you the same, remaining civil and restrained.  Even when I have been victimized by those who have made such false assumptions.  Too bad that our society is rapidly losing that sense of propriety and mutual respect.

Or a poster on this board may continually call you a hater because he doesn't like your answers. I certainly have been victimized by those who have made such false assumptions.

[Jude2]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Probably.  Most people join the faith (Mormonism) based on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and not based on any sort of intellectual appraisal.  There are exceptions (Bukowski comes to mind), but even they may end up with a personal testimony.  At the same time, most members were simply born into the faith, obtaining a real testimony years later.

The lack of an intellectual understanding of the faith is common for several reasons:  Most people don't have any understanding of theology, philosophy, or the history of religions.  Thus, they have no intellectual template with which to compare the various ways of understanding religion.  Many religions have formal, professional seminaries which require mastery of languages, history, liturgy, and theology, before allowing ordination into the clergy.  All of that provides some sort of minimal context for understanding the religion of which one is a part.  Mormons don't generally concern themselves with such learning.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, I've sat through some Sunday school class where I am amazed at the depth of understanding the whole room has. What they really lack is an understanding of how our doctrine compares to other faiths and perhaps an appreciation for their devotion to it.  

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Growing up in the church I also knew about polygamy.  I had been taught that it was practiced in the SL valley as a means of taking care of the many women who had been widowed due to the Saints forced emigration.  That turned out to be very, very wrong.

I also knew about the priesthood ban.  I was taught that it was a revelation from God to Joseph Smith.  Wrong, again.

I was taught and believed all the truth claims as well.  Even those that turned out to be false.

That reminds me of a Sunday School class I taught a few months ago.  It as the 17-year-olds, and there is one especially bright and knowledgeable girl in the class.  The topic of the lesson was "How to Know the Truth", and as part of the lesson I pointed out to the kids that there are times that even Church leaders can be very mistaken about things.  As an example, I brought up the essay on the Priesthood Ban.  Most the kids had heard about it, but when I explained it, I included the part about black members not being able to go to the Temple or get married in the Temple.  That girl's eyes nearly popped out of her head; she had never heard that facet of the ban.

I think that's the next phase of "knowledge" that is being brought to Church members.  Many knew the superficial (or inaccurate) story of the priesthood ban, polygamy etc.  But a lot of what we thought we knew wasn't totally correct.  And it's the correction that can be bothersome.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but I joined when I was 20 years old and in college. I knew about polygamy, and the Priesthood Ban. Plus the general order of the Church structure, and its truth claims. 

If you don't mind me asking, how much of Joseph Smith's polygamy did you know about? All the specifics?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not playing a game here either.  Then again, I didn't use a comedy bit as a comparison.  Leno most certainly did "guffaw" and make fun of people.  That was the point.  And I imagine that there was considerable editing going on to make the sketch as funny as possible.

You need to take another look.  Jay was particularly straight, not being at all comedic.  However, we could have anyone do the questioning and the absurd result would still be the same without editing.  People really just don't know.  An example would be he ACLU asking straight questions about the Bill of Rights.  Turns out that Americans not only do not know what the Bill of Rights are, but a majority would reject them if they were up for a vote.  Ignorance dominates out political as well as religious scene.  That was the point.

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

When I spoke of moving the ball forward, I refer to improving how we as a church respond to questions and challenges to faith.  Consider Elder Ballard's address last February to CES instructors wherein he acknowledges the need to "inoculate" the younger generation, challenges them to provide accurate context and understanding of the restoration, encourages transparency, and warns against "overclaiming".

"Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church."

Ballard's points are certainly well taken, and good on you for quoting him.  I was saying as much myself already over a half century ago -- when there was no internet with which to discuss it openly.  Times have indeed changed.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

If this were true (I'm not agreeing that it is, universally)...

Who do we look to when a person who was raised in the church, graduated from seminary, graduated from BYU, served an honorable mission, attends church nearly every week, does personal scripture study, has held callings and served in leadership positions for decades decides to leave the church for doctrinal issues?  Does the institution hold any of the blame for failing to properly teach what you claim is the correct contextual understanding of the gospel?  Or is it just that person's fault for failing to "get it" after devoting their entire life to the church?

I have always recommended that people follow their conscience in such matters, and I have even stood by as a supportive friend when a couple of friends decided to convert from general Christianity to Judaism.  That is their decision to make, and I make no effort to interfere or dissuade.  Instead, I sincerely with them well.

As a general fact, however, all of the background you suggested for that theoretical Mormon who decides to leave the LDS faith lacks a couple of major ingredients.  First, adequate professional academic training in the religion was not included, meaning that the likelihood that such a theoretical person actually understood the theological, historical, or intellectual basis of the religion is highly unlikely.  Second, and oh so very telling, you failed to mention the single most important element of the Mormon faith:  Testimony.  Everything else is merely the mise en scene, and one might similarly describe the background of a religious person from nearly anywhere on the planet.

Indeed, one does not need to have an intellectual appreciation of the LDS faith in order to be a good Mormon (in God's eyes).  God judges by the heart, not by intellectual acumen.  God wants to know that you walk the walk, not that you can talk the talk.  Mormon religion is belief in actu, not doctrine.  That theoretical person who devotes his entire life to the Church without getting that message is certainly justified in leaving, but not because he actually understands Mormon history or doctrine, which is unlikely.  But because he was never a real Mormon to begin with.