Yesterday's Anti-Mormon Lies are Today's Church Teachings

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to ask yourself if a pathological liar can produce the Book of Mormon and other scripture.  Manipulating other people is one thing, can they construct words to convey the Spirit?  If you don't see the Book of Mormon and at least some of the rest as having the coherency and depth that comes from being the Word of God, I don't know where to tell you to look, but perhaps you should focus on examining the Book of Mormon itself to see if it is a product of revelation or lies.

Also what do you make of other leaders claiming revelation?  Not just confirming the morality of another person, but explaining they had visions and other forms of revelation.  Do you see this as wishful thinking or possibly lying as well?

This must be a real struggle for you. I am sorry you and your family are going through it.  I hope you find peace, whatever form that takes.

Perhaps it might also help to go back to much earlier posts and read what you wrote there about your personal experiences with the Spirit and belief and see how that all fits into your new paradigm.

No, I don't think a pathological liar can produce scripture. That's the problem.  Everything else falls apart after that.

My dear parents believe in the Church, but I believe that the bulk of their testimonies and feeling rest on the character of Jesus Christ. I believe we can receive good feelings specifically about good things, but I'm not gonna try to second guess the personal revelation of others.

Good friends of mine recently testified of their vision of Christ. I believe they believe it. But it was not my experience. I can only be honest about my own experience.

Thank you for your kind words, Calm. It means a lot.

I have already begun to list my values that I feel the Spirit has confirmed for me in my church life. There are portions of the BoM and D&C that I love. But there was also a bunch of good stuff coming out of Joseph Smith's time. Maybe he repackaged inspired words of his contemporaries, but I don't think he was a prophet. 

It is pretty shocking to me to even write that down. I was born in the Church! But there it is

Edited February 24, 2017 by Meadowchik

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There is sin and then there is grievous sin. 

For me, if I had read about my experience with my ward member I could have attributed the same to Joseph without changing my belief about him being a prophet. 

But I didn't read it, I experienced it.

There were lines this person crossed which to me are comparable to blasphemy, lines which I didn't understand until I experienced them. And I believe Joseph did worse.

We see him differently.

I still know he restored the true principles in the NT. Baptism for the dead, the truth about three heavenly kingdoms, true priesthood principles, and many others. I cannot help you much with whom and what you believe concerning Joseph Smith. But I will point out that almost all that negative history is hearsay, and there is much demonstrable false hearsay evidence regarding Joseph Smith - for example the stories made up about the Spalding manuscript, which now sits in the Oberlin library. Yet, this story had supporting affidavits, etc, and was spun in such a believable way. It is important to remember that probably every one or at least most of those stories you are apparently believing were told/written after Joseph Smith died - a lot by people who were strongly opposed to polygamy and had axes to grind. I am more inclined to believe Emma, but even then implying something doesn't necessarily make it true vis-a-vis her version of the Fanny Alger story. ie What exactly was "the act" that she caught JS in? Sitting and talking in the hay? Kissing? or ??? I can understand how any one of those might make her upset, but not all are necessarily sinful.

Anyway, I will bow out because I do not want to get into a discussion about JS' polygamy.

God bless Meadowchick

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I still know he restored the true principles in the NT. Baptism for the dead, the truth about three heavenly kingdoms, true priesthood principles, and many others. I cannot help you much with whom and what you believe concerning Joseph Smith. But I will point out that almost all that negative history is hearsay, and there is much demonstrable false hearsay evidence regarding Joseph Smith - for example the stories made up about the Spalding manuscript, which now sits in the Oberlin library. Yet, this story had supporting affidavits, etc, and was spun in such a believable way. It is important to remember that probably every one or at least most of those stories you are apparently believing were told/written after Joseph Smith died - a lot by people who were strongly opposed to polygamy and had axes to grind. I am more inclined to believe Emma, but even then implying something doesn't necessarily make it true vis-a-vis her version of the Fanny Alger story. ie What exactly was "the act" that she caught JS in? Sitting and talking in the hay? Kissing? or ??? I can understand how any one of those might make her upset, but not all are necessarily sinful.

Anyway, I will bow out because I do not want to get into a discussion about JS' polygamy.

God bless Meadowchick

Thank you very much, and God bless you, too, RevTestament! 

[Ouagadougou]

On 06.02.2017 at 11:25 AM, churchistrue said:

There was a thread a while back discussing this idea.  I would have added this comment on that thread without starting a new one, but it was closed.  Here's an example from a blog post I wrote.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/teaching-messy-lds-church-history/

 

In this post, I talk about the Mormon Interpreter's scripture roundtable discussion from four years ago where this was said, referencing D&C Section 8 http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/scripture-roundtable-9-dc-gospel-doctrine-5/:

 

That was four years ago.  Since then, the church published the article Oliver Cowder's Gift.  

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng

 

 

I am not blasting the church or anyone in particular for why this is.  But I do believe there is a need for the narrative to change.  I believe it's changing and will continue to change.

This also reminds me of the following:

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24."

Doctrines of Salvation 3:225

Today the church says the following:

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

 

 

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

This also reminds me of the following:

"While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24."

Doctrines of Salvation 3:225

Today the church says the following:

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

Oh my gosh. Old man doesn't know everything in Church archives. Stop the presses. Contrast this with Joseph Fielding Smith offering to show the Seer Stone to a random visitor in 1971.

[rockpond]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Oh my gosh. Old man doesn't know everything in Church archives. Stop the presses. Contrast this with Joseph Fielding Smith offering to show the Seer Stone to a random visitor in 1971.

I think that's the point of many of us saying that the Church narrative needs to change.  There's no reason that we, as members, shouldn't know how the Book of Mormon was translated/revealed.  If a poll was taken among active members, I think only a minority would correctly state that the Book of Mormon we have today came to us through the seer stone in a hat method.

[Teancum]

On 2/6/2017 at 4:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

What "plenty of Mormons" think or say and what the Church authoritatively teaches (or does not teach) do not always coincide.

Yet what plenty of Mormons think or say is significantly influenced by what the church teaches.  Either this is the case or active members are simply ignoring what the church teaches on this subject or perhaps more so, due the lack of a position, simply conclude on their own based on scriptures, lessons and what they have read from various GAs on the issue.

[Jeanne]

On 2/24/2017 at 0:09 PM, Meadowchik said:

No, I don't think a pathological liar can produce scripture. That's the problem.  Everything else falls apart after that.

My dear parents believe in the Church, but I believe that the bulk of their testimonies and feeling rest on the character of Jesus Christ. I believe we can receive good feelings specifically about good things, but I'm not gonna try to second guess the personal revelation of others.

Good friends of mine recently testified of their vision of Christ. I believe they believe it. But it was not my experience. I can only be honest about my own experience.

Thank you for your kind words, Calm. It means a lot.

I have already begun to list my values that I feel the Spirit has confirmed for me in my church life. There are portions of the BoM and D&C that I love. But there was also a bunch of good stuff coming out of Joseph Smith's time. Maybe he repackaged inspired words of his contemporaries, but I don't think he was a prophet. 

It is pretty shocking to me to even write that down. I was born in the Church! But there it is

I so admire your honesty and that you seem to know yourself and what matters to you.

[Jeanne]

Just an observation that I feel compelled to make..or admit.  This may have no affect on this thread at all but I want people to know that some of us who are no longer in the church or perhaps have stepped away...we wanted so much..so much..for the church to be true.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Just an observation that I feel compelled to make..or admit.  This may have no affect on this thread at all but I want people to know that some of us who are no longer in the church or perhaps have stepped away...we wanted so much..so much..for the church to be true.

I'm still "in" and active and there is a big part of me that would also LOVE to be able to go back to the days when I believed all the church's claims were true. 

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet what plenty of Mormons think or say is significantly influenced by what the church teaches.  Either this is the case or active members are simply ignoring what the church teaches on this subject or perhaps more so, due the lack of a position, simply conclude on their own based on scriptures, lessons and what they have read from various GAs on the issue.

I find the claims that the Church holds little or no responsibility for the erroneous beliefs of its members to be a laughable assertion. 

The priesthood is under divine directive to teach the members.  With that directive, the Brethren use consecrated funds to produce curriculum and mandate its exclusive use.  The Church also has claim on the eyes and ears of members for three hours per week.  Further, the leaders of the church have selected the narrative the wanted taught.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think only a minority would correctly state that the Book of Mormon we have today came to us through the seer stone in a hat method.

But this (bolded) is not a correct statement. The use of the stone in a hat was not the exclusive method, and the overarching method of any used was the gift and power of God. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I find the claims that the Church holds little or no responsibility for the erroneous beliefs of its members to be a laughable assertion. 

The priesthood is under divine directive to teach the members.  With that directive, the Brethren use consecrated funds to produce curriculum and mandate its exclusive use.  The Church also has claim on the eyes and ears of members for three hours per week.  Further, the leaders of the church have selected the narrative the wanted taught.

How much responsibility does she hold for your erroneous belief that “the Book of Mormon we have today came to us through the seer stone in a hat method” is a correct statement? https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think that's the point of many of us saying that the Church narrative needs to change.  There's no reason that we, as members, shouldn't know how the Book of Mormon was translated/revealed.  If a poll was taken among active members, I think only a minority would correctly state that the Book of Mormon we have today came to us through the seer stone in a hat method.

Which considering the push the church has done to get the materials out there to the members even pushing it in The Friend says something about member knowledge and desire to learn.

Although I'd second being more careful in the claim. Although I'm assuming your point was that the U&T was used for the 116 pages and not the section we have.

Edited February 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

On 2/24/2017 at 5:41 AM, Meadowchik said:

I think that, for me, this is a major crux and crisis for the church: the extent of Joseph Smith's deceptions and how they have become ((especially with a fuller more mature understanding of human nature, as was in my case)) indefensible.

I’m not sure I understand the connection between 1 and 2. Judas betrayed Christ. Does that mean any apostle can? Of course. That all do? Of course not.

You have chosen to believe that Joseph Smith lied. Given the same evidence, others have not made that same choice. Either conclusion is not a function of the reports alone but of personal experience, which runs much deeper. Many things, including as you pointed out, personal experience, affect our response to information about Church history: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/02/understanding-church-history-by-study-and-faith?lang=eng

The choices we make as to what to believe are as much irrational as rational, and both can be impaired or enhanced by our subjectivity. I think this why we are encouraged in many key places in the scripture to “remember.”

I think that, while objectivity is an admirable but fallible discipline, no one in the end can deny that his subjective experience is most real, even as it changes.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I so admire your honesty and that you seem to know yourself and what matters to you.

Thank you for listening.

This is actually quite scary, I'm realizing. But it is also unexpectedly strange. I remember questioning in the past and feeling like I could decide to jump across the chasm, but instead I held on to something and found my faith again in the Church.

But it wasn't like that this time. I just had a very difficult experience, and got out the other side and found myself on the other side of the chasm. Instead of a choice to believe one or the other, it's knowledge.

I think that you were perhaps referring to such knowledge in your post subsequent to this one, right?

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You have chosen to believe that Joseph Smith lied. Given the same evidence, others have not made that same choice. Either conclusion is not a function of the reports alone but of personal experience, which runs much deeper. Many things, including as you pointed out, personal experience, affect our response to information about Church history: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/02/understanding-church-history-by-study-and-faith?lang=eng

 

The choices we make as to what to believe are as much irrational as rational, and both can be impaired or enhanced by our subjectivity. I think this why we are encouraged in many key places in the scripture to “remember.”

 

I think that, while objectivity is an admirable but fallible discipline, no one in the end can deny that his subjective experience is most real, even as it changes.

 

I already knew Joseph Smith lied. The question was whether that fact carried implications to his claim of being a prophet. In my experience, I learned the answer to that question.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you for listening.

This is actually quite scary, I'm realizing. But it is also unexpectedly strange. I remember questioning in the past and feeling like I could decide to jump across the chasm, but instead I held on to something and found my faith again in the Church.

But it wasn't like that this time. I just had a very difficult experience, and got out the other side and found myself on the other side of the chasm. Instead of a choice to believe one or the other, it's knowledge.

I think that you were perhaps referring to such knowledge in your post subsequent to this one, right?

I was..and I hung on for as long as I could..then I had to let go..simply and no so simply because I could no longer grasp my teachings with the reality around me. None of us are the same because our experiences are different and personal. I just wanted you to know that there are things you can keep and belong..on both sides.  My very best to you on your journey.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I was..and I hung on for as long as I could..then I had to let go..simply and no so simply because I could no longer grasp my teachings with the reality around me. None of us are the same because our experiences are different and personal. I just wanted you to know that there are things you can keep and belong..on both sides.  My very best to you on your journey.

Thanks so much, Jeanne!

I've made a list of the values I have formed throughout my life within the Church and my own personal faith experiences. That helps. 

[Meadowchik]

56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure I understand the connection between 1 and 2. Judas betrayed Christ. Does that mean any apostle can? Of course. That all do? Of course not.

 

 

(1) is about argument by popularity, to put it simply. I learned that having people believe in you, even very good people who sacrificed, does not make you correct. It's actually a pretty straightforward fallacy which I've managed to reject lots of times in my life. Maybe I held on to it this with this because the people I love the very most are in the population under question?

(2) is about disqualifications. 

They are independent and not necessarily connected.

Cv75, thanks for the link!

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 Further, the leaders of the church have selected the narrative the wanted taught.  

 

I was a Baptist for many years, and they did not teach me in Primary orSS that they supported slavery, and preached sermons giving Biblical justification and forbidding blacks in the chuch.   How often do the churches teach about the Inquisition (both Catholic and Protestant), and the Crusades.

May I suggest that you form a Christian church and stop lying about the history of Christianity, starting with nursery school through adults.  Each year have at least three lessons on the "difficult history" of the Christian faith.  You can then teach your narrative, and each church, including the LDS church, can do the same.

Edited February 25, 2017 by cdowis

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Which considering the push the church has done to get the materials out there to the members even pushing it in The Friend says something about member knowledge and desire to learn.

Although I'd second being more careful in the claim. Although I'm assuming your point was that the U&T was used for the 116 pages and not the section we have.

The church just recently started "pushing" (I'd actually call it: gently nudging) a different narrative -- it will take time to undo decades of teachings. 

Yes, my understanding is that what we DO have and read today (not the 116 pages) came from the hat and seer stone. 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I was a Baptist for many years, and they did not teach me in Primary orSS that they supported slavery, and preached sermons giving Biblical justification and forbidding blacks in the chuch.   How often do the churches teach about the Inquisition (both Catholic and Protestant), and the Crusades.

May I suggest that you form a Christian church and stop lying about the history of Christianity, starting with nursery school through adults.  Each year have at least three lessons on the "difficult history" of the Christian faith.  You can then teach your narrative, and each church, including the LDS church, can do the same.

I'm unclear on your point.  I didn't say that the Church needs to teach members about Mountain Meadows or the Kirtland Safety Society Bank... Just that we should be teaching a more accurate version of our historical and doctrinal narrative. 

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited February 26, 2017 by Tacenda

[cdowis]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm unclear on your point.  I didn't say that the Church needs to teach members about Mountain Meadows or the Kirtland Safety Society Bank... Just that we should be teaching a more accurate version of our historical and doctrinal narrative. 

What exactly do you mean by "more accurate"?    Specific example, please.

If you mean "include more historical details", who is to judge whether such details are in the main text of the teacher/student manual, and when they are relegated to "footnotes", such as lds.org, institute class, and other supplemental materials.

Edited February 26, 2017 by cdowis

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I already knew Joseph Smith lied. The question was whether that fact carried implications to his claim of being a prophet. In my experience, I learned the answer to that question.

It seems then that you first concluded that Joseph Smith lied repeatedly 170 years ago but there was no harm done, but then you and others were duped and victimized by a self-professed prophet, which experience flavors your feeling that Joseph Smith, like him, could not be sustained as a prophet. Joseph did not abuse you; this other man did.

I think our spiritual inclinations are impacted for better (by nurturing) or worse (by trauma). In a fallen world, with few exceptions (such as familial love) human experience tends to be detrimental to spirituality. The conclusions you drew for Joseph and the man who hurt you are spiritual in nature, made under the separate spiritual conditions they each created. What Joseph Smith did in your behalf seems to be very different from what this man did to you.

23 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

(1) is about argument by popularity, to put it simply. I learned that having people believe in you, even very good people who sacrificed, does not make you correct. It's actually a pretty straightforward fallacy which I've managed to reject lots of times in my life. Maybe I held on to it this with this because the people I love the very most are in the population under question?

(2) is about disqualifications. 

They are independent and not necessarily connected.

Cv75, thanks for the link!

I think this is why it is important to remember, and in remembering also project and compare. It is fairly easy to assess the impact of what the Lord did through Joseph Smith on your world, and to compare it with the reasonably foreseeable impact of this man on the world 170 years on, especially in consideration of the continued impact of what was done through Joseph Smith.