Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

For most non-Mormons in the West, polygamy has long been the thing most people attach to Mormonism, and the priesthood ban comes up in conversation frequently.  When I do meet people unfamiliar with such facts, I am always a bit astonished.  The thing that I rarely encounter is any understanding of the historical or religious context of such facts.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

According to Dustin Phelps,

 

Quote

 

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.

Yes, and one can hear something similar from Roman Catholics and other religions.  However, it is silly to demand that everyone become a Mormon.  There are good people in all religions, and all will be judged fairly.

The real issue isn't about alternatives, but whether the Gospel is true.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

7 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.

More indications as to the lack of actual understanding of Mormon history and religion by Mormons themselves.  This could only happen to a group which did not take seriously an intellectual approach to Mormonism.  However, perhaps that was expecting too much from the pioneers who were busy with just eking out a living on the frontier.  Not what God expected of them anyhow.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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

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.

All your comments are good enough, and certainly possible.   However, when I recall how ignorant I was as a young man, it makes Leno appear quite sober.  My own experience with people's lack of knowledge has sometimes bee surprising to me:  For example, when in my twenties I was working on a paleolithic excavation in the Jordan Valley in Israel.  Two young Jewish girls from Hawaii were on the team, but were just tourists and not archeology students like me.  in conversation, the nature of the languages of Polynesia came up, and i found that they were completely ignorant of the fact that Polynesian languages are closely related -- as are the Polynesians themselves.  Not only did they not know that elementary fact, but they were impervious to acceptance of that information.  Richard Howard, once the RLDS Church Historian, referred to that sort of thing as "invincible ignorance."  It is not at all uncommon.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

I have always termed you a hater only based on your actual hate speech.  Your own words (which I quoted) are indicative.  I encounter the same thing from people in various walks of life, especially in the political realm.  Hate-mongering is all too common, california boy.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Jude2 said:

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.  

I too hear some deep comments from members of my Sunday school classes, but they seldom rise to the level of understanding which I have been discussing.  Moreover, often I do not hear the sort of obvious comments which I would expect from professionals -- the sorts of things I hear when attending meetings of the Society for Biblical Literature, or the American Academy of Religion.  However, should I really expect that sort of thing?  No, and God doesn't worry that a Mormon Sunday school class isn't able to gain the ancient context or understand the actual Hebrew text.  Appreciating the Gospel does not require that sort of academic preparation.  What it does require is the presence of the Holy Spirit and regular repentance.

And, yes, they do lack any understanding of other religions.  They should all read Huston Smith, The World's Religions, available online at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FZqBnwA9S7PI6kA655LiWZ4GsvtJXVJbMNv8-cUsr7s/edit .  Prof. Smith just passed away at age 97.  He was a Methodist minister, as was my own grandfather Smith.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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.

Yes.  Good point.

I also didn't realize that blacks were denied saving ordinances, even by proxy, because of the ban.

Edited January 6, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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.

You don't seem to have taken to Ballard's points based on your commentary here.  Just my observation.  There is far more than that one quote I provided.  I have tried to stay away from quoting snippets because one really needs to read the entire address to understand the full meaning and context.  Your commentary here on this thread stands in contrast to what Ballard said in that February address.

Jay was straight when on camera but the point was to get "guffaws" from the audience watching.  Which he did.  That was the objective of the bit.  And, as has already been pointed out, there was likely significant editing.  "Reality TV" is rarely real.  I'm surprised you're trying to double down on this point.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Seems like you are changing the goal post now.  What do you expect from church members?  A testimony?  Adequate professional training in the religion?  Both?

Yes, testimony is critical.  And it is often destroyed when one learns that the foundation they built their testimony one... the foundation taught them IN THE CHURCH was incorrect.  That's the point I've been making.  And it relates to what Ballard taught CES instructors last year.

I'll admit to being confused by your response.  Perhaps you would care to answer the question I posed to see if we can find some common ground to work from:

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?

Or was there a reason you avoided answering the question?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For most non-Mormons in the West, polygamy has long been the thing most people attach to Mormonism, and the priesthood ban comes up in conversation frequently.  When I do meet people unfamiliar with such facts, I am always a bit astonished.  The thing that I rarely encounter is any understanding of the historical or religious context of such facts.

Why would you be astonished that people are unfamiliar with the facts?  The church has avoided widely disclosing the true narrative for most of its history.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More indications as to the lack of actual understanding of Mormon history and religion by Mormons themselves.  This could only happen to a group which did not take seriously an intellectual approach to Mormonism.  However, perhaps that was expecting too much from the pioneers who were busy with just eking out a living on the frontier.  Not what God expected of them anyhow.

So Mormons in general just don't live up to your standards, eh?

Yes, I think I agree - the level of understanding you seem to want everyone to have is probably too much to ask from people who are raising a family, trying to make a living, maintaining their homes, volunteering in the community, trying to missionary work, serving many hours per week in a calling, attending meetings, sacrificing to go to the temple, and on and on.

When we devote 3+ hours EVERY week of our lives to instruction at church, we expect to learn what is most important for the salvation of our souls.  If the church can't manage to do that after all that we have devoted to it, we ought to look to the Church (capital C) not blame the individual who's integrity demands that he/she leaves the church.

[rockpond]

Del

Edited January 6, 2017 by rockpond

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

When they picked up their eyeballs off the floor, can I assume you did not bother to explain the practical REASON that these temple ordinances were not performed.  For the same reason that a WHITE teenager cannot have them done until they receive the Melch phd.  Also at that time, temple ordinances were not generally given to unmarried women, even if they were white.

Temple ordinances were not based on skin colour, but on holding the proper priesthood.  Again, considering their reaction, I assume you forgot to explain that little point to your young charges.  Or am I mistaken.

Edited January 6, 2017 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

When they picked up their eyeballs off the floor, can I assume you did not bother to explain the practical REASON that these temple ordinances were not performed.  For the same reason that a WHITE teenager cannot have them done until they receive the Melch phd.  Also at that time, temple ordinances were not generally given to unmarried women, even if they were white.

Temple ordinances were not based on skin colour, but on holding the proper priesthood.  Again, considering their reaction, I assume you forgot to explain that little point to your young charges.  Or am I mistaken.

Am I correct that you believe that blacks weren't ready before 1978 to hold the proper PH?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have always termed you a hater only based on your actual hate speech.  Your own words (which I quoted) are indicative.  I encounter the same thing from people in various walks of life, especially in the political realm.  Hate-mongering is all too common, california boy.

I am sure  that makes you feel better about yourself.  But I have yet to post a single thing that was not fact.  And I have backed them up with documentation whenever someone has asked.  The one thing I have come to understand is that some members of the church want to bend the facts to fit their own image of what the church has done.  That has been going on since the beginning of church history.  Your only recourse in your mind is to attack me personally.  it is understandable.  What else are you going to do?  Respond to what I have said with supportable claims?  What a novel idea.  This is a discussion board after all.  But hey.  I totally realize where you are coming from.  It is too bad you have made our discussions adversarial.  It certainly was not my intent.  

It doesn't stop me from giving you a hug though.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/4/2017 at 8:24 PM, Bobbieaware said:

Very well put. My concern is the members of the Church should be less concerned with offending the sensibilities of postmodern philosophers and more concerned with upholding the testimony of the scriptures concerning the objective reality of divine revelatory truth. I hope I'm wrong but what I seem to be hearing is that all perceptions of reality are just as valid, worthwhile and acceptable as God's own perception of reality. But the problem is Mark probably understands all of this very well and is frustrated because there's something truly valid about what he's saying but we're just not "getting it." Therefore, I'm open to further instruction.

Thanks, that's right but the gap is vast and time is short. 

I don't mean to be short with you because I know you are actually interested in communication whereas others not.

I am pretty much out of here I think, I have helped a few, I know.

Edited January 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

When they picked up their eyeballs off the floor, can I assume you did not bother to explain the practical REASON that these temple ordinances were not performed.  For the same reason that a WHITE teenager cannot have them done until they receive the Melch phd.  Also at that time, temple ordinances were not generally given to unmarried women, even if they were white.

Temple ordinances were not based on skin colour, but on holding the proper priesthood.  Again, considering their reaction, I assume you forgot to explain that little point to your young charges.  Or am I mistaken.

That "reason" does not make the policy any less racist nor offensive to me. 

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks, that's right but the gap is vast and time is short. 

I don't mean to be short with you because I know you are actually interested in communication whereas others not.

I am pretty much out of here I think, I have helped a few, I know.

One last thought. Other than the one quote from Alma, where he tries to explain to the as yet unconverted Zoramites what it will feel like if they succeed in conducting the experiment of planting the word of God in there hearts, are there other scriptural references you could let me know about that could help me understand where you're coming from. You don't have to include your thoughts on how those scriptures fit in to the post modern paradigm, chapter and verse will be enough. Just two or three verses will suffice in providing me with points to ponder, but if there are even more verses you could provide, that would be great. In addition, if there is a General Conference talk or two you could provide that more or less fits into the postmodern model, that would be even more appreciated. Thank you and all the best.

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, cdowis said:

When they picked up their eyeballs off the floor, can I assume you did not bother to explain the practical REASON that these temple ordinances were not performed.  For the same reason that a WHITE teenager cannot have them done until they receive the Melch phd.  Also at that time, temple ordinances were not generally given to unmarried women, even if they were white.

Temple ordinances were not based on skin colour, but on holding the proper priesthood.  Again, considering their reaction, I assume you forgot to explain that little point to your young charges.  Or am I mistaken.

I remember when I was younger and less wise, insightful and mature I used to take a sort of perverse pleasure in shocking the members with controversial facts they likely didn't know when teaching the Gospel Doctrine class. But since those days of a more reckless youth I have learned teaching the principles of the Restored Gospel is a great and solemn responsibility, and that the Lord expects us to focus on the main points of the lesson at hand so that those being taught are strengthened spiritually and edified. Teaching members, especially the youth, the Gospel should not be used as an occasion to shock members with controversial material that is not germaine to the behavioral objective of the lesson because you, as the teacher, have a pet peeve you want to vent about so that others will be drawn into the turbulent vortex of your own angst and frustration.

For instance, If the object of a lesson is to help young people to know how to discern truth, the last thing a teacher of impressionable 17 year-olds should do is undermine the prophetic leaders of the Church in their role as one of the main disseminators of divine truth by referring to the controversy surrounding to the priesthood ban. especially when the Church essay on the ban clearly states the lifting of the ban was in fulfillment of prophecy and that a most dramatic special revelation was NEEDED in order to lift the ban so that the prophecy could be fulfilled. By introducing such a controversial subject to impressionable 17 year-olds, so as to be able to vent on a controversial pet peeve, the instructor did something that Paul warned Timothy about -- ministering questions rather than than building up and edifying students with sound, uplifting doctrine. I always ask myself, if a member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve were teaching a particular class, is this something they would bring into the lesson?  And when teaching the youth I also ask myself if their parents would approve of my material and approach? Members who teach need to be especially carful they don't unwittingly become the wolves is sheep's clothing warned about in the scriptures. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Am I correct that you believe that blacks weren't ready before 1978 to hold the proper PH?

You are incorrect.

I believe that the church withheld the priesthood by revelation.  The reason why is a matter of speculation, and not of belief.

 

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I remember when I was younger and less wise, insightful and mature, I used to take a sort of perverse pleasure in shocking the members with controversial facts they likely didn't know when teaching the Gospel Doctrine class. But since those days of a more reckless youth, I have learned teaching the principles of the Restored Gospel is a great and solemn responsibility, and that the Lord expects us to focus on the main points of the lesson at hand so that those being taught are strengthened spiritually and edifide.

I had the distinct impression that our friend here did this for his personal amusement.  Rather than being concerned and disturbed by a testimony possibly being destroyed, it appears to have met a goal of shocking them for his own amusement.  I could be wrong, so that's why I asked the question.

But I  have done the same thing, nothing new here for any of us.

Edited January 6, 2017 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Good point.

I also didn't realize that blacks were denied saving ordinances, even by proxy, because of the ban.

I had never really made the connection that the priesthood/temple ban was also enforced after death. Do you have any kind of source that states that posthumous temple work couldn't be done for blacks?

[Bobbieaware]

3 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I had the distnct impression that our friend here did this for his own amusement.  Rather than being concerned and disturbed by a testimony being destroyed, he appeared to have met his goal of shocking them for his own amusement.  I could be wrong, so that's why I asked the question.

I agree. That does seem like the most likely scenario. I believe before any teacher delves into controversial and disputed material there should be full transparency on the part of the teacher, with full pre-lesson disclosures to the bishop, or at very least the Sunday School President, of what the teacher intends to disclose and discuss in class.. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Seems like you are changing the goal post now.  What do you expect from church members?  A testimony?  Adequate professional training in the religion?  Both?

I have repeatedly stated that professional training is not a requirement.  Not by God, and not by me.  You missed that point.  However, for anyone pretending to judge the Mormon faith (or any other faith) on an intellectual basis, yes, such knowledge is required.  If, on the other hand, one wishes to leave Mormonism because it just doesn't feel right, or doesn't satisfy social needs, by all means leave with a clear conscience.  However, do not attempt to dignify that exit with phony claims about the historical or theological nature of the faith.  I hear so much malarky from such folks that it is clear that they actually know little about the faith.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes, testimony is critical.  And it is often destroyed when one learns that the foundation they built their testimony one... the foundation taught them IN THE CHURCH was incorrect.  That's the point I've been making.  And it relates to what Ballard taught CES instructors last year.

Boloney.  A testimony by the power of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with an intellectual appraisal.  They are wholly different modes of thought, even when combined by the unreflective person.  Familiarization with a religion mediated through some instruction (like Roman Catholic catechism class) is a good idea, but must not be confused with actual mastery of the history and theology of a religion, be it LDS or any other.  Most CES instructors certainly do not know enough to do that anyhow.  It is merely glorified Sunday School.  Improve it by all means, but do not imagine for a moment that this will make intellectual giants of the Mormons.  There are universities which perform that serious intellectual function.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'll admit to being confused by your response.  Perhaps you would care to answer the question I posed to see if we can find some common ground to work from:

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?

Or was there a reason you avoided answering the question?

I answered that question quite well already, but to restate:  People who pretend to leave based on an intellectual understanding which they do not have are kidding themselves and others.  Casting blame on an institution for one's own lack of serious intellectual preparation is a cop-out.  The failure is more likely in another area of personal responsibility:  Testimony through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Personal embarrassment for failure to focus on one's testimony may lead to false claims about the intellectual basis of Mormonism somehow being flawed.  But those claims seldom hold up under serious intellectual scrutiny, as I have been pointing out for years on this board.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had never really made the connection that the priesthood/temple ban was also enforced after death. Do you have any kind of source that states that posthumous temple work couldn't be done for blacks?

Chapter 4 of "The Rise of Modern Mormonism" (McKay bio).  Sorry I don't have a more specific reference.