People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Again, I'll point out that social media is a pretty remarkable thing...some people post just about anything and everything about themselves.

When I see a person who, by their own public admission, not living the gospel, and then at the same time giving me their intellectual reasons for why the church isn't true...what am I supposed to think?  Do they get the benefit of the doubt?  Or are we allowed to believe that rebellion and poor choices adversely affect one's stance towards the church?  In other words, does sin deserve the warnings we learn in the church and scriptures or not?

Again, I'm not saying it's everyone, and I take the critics here at their word.  But surely no one thinks everyone who has ever left has ever done so for purely intellectual reasons.  I just know too many people who's intellectual reasons only came after some hard times/tragedy, being offended, failed addiction recovery, and even rebelling.

I'm not sure what social media has to do with it, Reiss is referring to her research.

To support your theory, you'd have to find out if people stopped "living the gospel" prior to discovering the issues that led them to lose their faith, or after.

But regarding what you've written above: Reiss is not saying that people leave for intellectual reasons... they are leaving because of a "trust gap".  I wouldn't call that an intellectual issue.

[Tsuzuki]

33 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Edited to add: so you eliminated Joseph as prophet becauseyou cannot believe in Christ, correct?

Pretty much. And it's a pity, since I like a lot of his esoteric ideas. You can take Mormonism out of Christianity, but you can't take Christianity out of Mormonism.

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, why me said:

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/manuals/institute-student/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual_eng.pdf

Just go to section 132. It is in the historical background....

What is in the historical background?  (I see nothing there stating that Joseph practiced polygamy). Maybe I missed it and I'll look again. But, from what I saw, it's just a history of the revelation explained.

And, there's not "much" in the lesson about "Emma and her lying" as you stated earlier.

You've completely misrepresented this manual and what it contains from what I saw (from the link you provided).

Edited April 20, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think establishing cliques are inherently more likely to occur with conservatives or with liberals or any other subgroup.  It is more about individual personality and the need to be in control imo, which is a quality that spans all types of humanity.  Even the 'underdogs' can create their own clique and spend most of their energy on talking down others in order to feel more secure.

I was not aware of extensive gossip in any of my past wards (some sharing of people's hardships in order to promote compassion and charity), but that might just be because no one thought to share it with me.  Was and am quite happy about that.

I didn't know it was going on in my ward until a few people told me about it. Likewise I don't think most cliques are intentional. I've been told I was the ringleader of a clique much to my astonishment and I doubt most of the ones I've noticed or found annoying were intentional either. It's natural to want to socialize with people you're comfortable with and hard to go out of your comfort zone - especially if you're shy or not naturally outgoing.

Likewise with Gossip I doubt most realize that's what they are doing. A lot of people like to talk about what's going on with the people around them. At what point does it become gossip? Hard to say. I tend to prefer talking about events and ideas. But I know a lot of people hate that. When young I thought it obvious talking about people was gossip and not to be done. As I've matured socially a bit I think it's much more complicated than that.

[SteveO]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what social media has to do with it, Reiss is referring to her research.

To support your theory, you'd have to find out if people stopped "living the gospel" prior to discovering the issues that led them to lose their faith, or after.

But regarding what you've written above: Reiss is not saying that people leave for intellectual reasons... they are leaving because of a "trust gap".  I wouldn't call that an intellectual issue.

A trust gap stemming from finding out about church history from "outside sources" and wondering why they didn't learn it in church.  

You guys seem to think that the problem is what's in the lesson plans--and I'm wondering why you immediately assume people aren't simply putting their best foot forward when answering questions over why they left.  There are a lot of issues facing millennials affecting their testimonies, and I'm not so sure church history and controversial issues are at the top of the list.

And yes, we'd have to find out if people "stopped living the gospel"...what percentage would you expect to volunteer that information? 

 

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What is in the historical background?  (I see nothing there stating that Joseph practiced polygamy). Maybe I missed it and I'll look again. From what I saw, it's just a history of the revelation explained.

"It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii)."

It doesn't clearly state he practiced it but that section and many others certainly strongly imply he did. I should add that I find the D&C intitute manual to be among the worst manuals the church ever put out. I'm constantly surprised it's still in print although it was revised somewhat in 2002. If ever there was a manual that needed further significant revision that is it. (And not primarily because of polygamy) It gives you an idea of how bad the prior manual was.

A better, albeit still poor, manual that mentions polygamy is the Church History manual. It gives a fair bit on the subject although it leaves out Fanny Algers and the early questioning on polygamy. While the D&C manual also doesn't mention Algers it does mention he was questioning such things in 1831.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said:

Pretty much. And it's a pity, since I like a lot of his esoteric ideas. You can take Mormonism out of Christianity, but you can't take Christianity out of Mormonism.

Honest question - do you find the figures in the Bible less problematic? If so why? Or is it just that they lived long enough ago that the sorts of things Abraham or Moses did don't bother you as much? 

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, SteveO said:

A trust gap stemming from finding out about church history from "outside sources" and wondering why they didn't learn it in church.  

You guys seem to think that the problem is what's in the lesson plans--and I'm wondering why you immediately assume people aren't simply putting their best foot forward when answering questions over why they left.  There are a lot of issues facing millennials affecting their testimonies, and I'm not so sure church history and controversial issues are at the top of the list.

And yes, we'd have to find out if people "stopped living the gospel"...what percentage would you expect to volunteer that information? 

 

Reiss' research is matching what I have observed over the years.  That's why it makes sense to me.  And I have also noticed that the people who struggle with what she describes as a "trust gap" tend to be the most active, faithful, committed-to-the-gospel members.  In my experience, those who aren't active and living the gospel don't ever even dig enough to care about those same issues.  And it makes sense:  the "gap" hits the hardest for those who have placed the most trust and faith in their leaders.

So, to answer your question above, I believe the answers that are coming from Reiss' research because they seem to align with what I see happening around me.

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Reiss' research is matching what I have observed over the years.  That's why it makes sense to me.  And I have also noticed that the people who struggle with what she describes as a "trust gap" tend to be the most active, faithful, committed-to-the-gospel members.  In my experience, those who aren't active and living the gospel don't ever even dig enough to care about those same issues.  And it makes sense:  the "gap" hits the hardest for those who have placed the most trust and faith in their leaders.

So, to answer your question above, I believe the answers that are coming from Reiss' research because they seem to align with what I see happening around me.

...eh

okay, fair enough.

I still think that a lot of the driving factors stemm from the same ones that millennials face in secular  society, e.g. Marriage, work, loneliness, etc.  

Its a tough world out there today!

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

"It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii)."

It doesn't clearly state he practiced it but that section and many others strongly imply he did.

Possibly.  But why me used this manual as an example of a publication where Joseph living polygamy was taught or discussed.  That's not accurate.  I think most members know that Joseph received the revelation.

(There is a quote by Wilford Woodruff in regards to him being given to "several women" in marriage, so there's that.  But no discussion included for the lesson).

Edited April 20, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Does your manual mention Fanny Alger or Helen Mar Kimball?  Or the Lawrence sisters?  Or Zina Huntington? 

Because when it comes to Joseph's polygamy, mentioning the woman Joseph was actually legally and publicly married to isn't the problem.

So true!

[california boy]

11 hours ago, why me said:

What should the manuals teach? Of couse, maybe there should now be a church history class. But what should be taught? And why as lds history defined the church when other churches more or less get a free pass when it comes to their history? Does the lutheran church teach lutheran history during their sunday school? Or any protestant faith? Or the catholic church? Whatever may be in their history, it is secondary to actually worshipping and becoming closer to god during worship service. So, why are the mormons singled out? All churches are vulnerable when it comes to history. But the concentration on the mormons seems to have a dubious purpose.

Quote

 

RevTestament

A large number of Protestant leaders had major faults. Luther was a raving anti-Semite. Calvin was a major factor in having Michael Severitus killed, yet there are still millions of adherents in the churches they set up. I'm not either because I disagree with their trinitarian theology(and other aspects) - not because of their personal faults. Joseph Smith was a sinner - he delayed receiving the gold plates because he sinned. He probably got the Urim and Thummim taken away because he sinned. He got rebuked of the Lord several times because he sinned. Ignoring gospel truths because of perceived sins of the man is playing into the hands of the adversary. This is his specialty... of course he works on other doubts people speak of. I don't worry so much about whether "the Church" is true. I believe perhaps most of its leaders have said stuff I believe is false. If that were my criterion, I could not be a member in good conscience. I am a member because the gospel is true. Leaving because of the faults of men is not an option for me.

 

I am surprised you can't really understand why church history is so closely tied to the Mormon church and not any protestant faiths.  Have you really not thought about this before?  The claims of Mormonism is directly tied to it's history.  That is why.  

Can someone be a faithful Mormon that doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God?  No other protestant leader claimed to have a visit from God himself.  Or from God and His Son.  Or from God and multitude of angels.  Or visits from Peter James, John, John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah etc.  So whether that historically took place is central in believing Joseph Smith is what he claimed he was.  People want to know if the history is accurate.  When you have multiple stories about God visiting you, it makes some people uncomfortable.

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe the Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with the people in the new world?  The history of how the Book of Mormon came about is essential to that claim.  Was the Book of Mormon translated from Gold Plates hidden in a mountainside?  Or were those plates irrelevant and Joseph just looked at a rock in a hat.  No protestant leader has every claimed to look in a hat and receive a record of a civilization that once lived on the American continent.  So were there Lamonites still living in the Americas?  Is the history true?  

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe in the Book of Abraham?  Joseph Smith made the claim that the papyrus were written by the hand of Abraham himself.  So basically Joseph is saying the reason these scriptures are important and should be believed is because we value the words of Abraham, and here we have his own writings, in his own hand.  That is a big deal.  And Joseph being able to translate those writings are a big deal.  No other protestant leader claimed to receive writings of Abraham or any other ancient prophet.  No other protestant leader claimed to be able to translate ancient writings.

These are key historical issues that when not believed, the claims of Mormonism are not to be believed.  There is nothing comparable in any protestant religion that makes these kinds of claims based on historical record.  And there are a whole slew of other historical claims that must be believed in order to believe in the claims of Mormonism.  Did God tell Joseph Smith that it was ok to start marrying 14 year old girls and promise their family salvation if she agreed?  If the historical facts turn out to not be true, then all the doctrine is just made up and there were no visits from God.  There were no Golden Plates. There were no writings of Abraham.  It is not the sins of Joseph Smith that are causing doubt, it is his historical claims.  

Hope that helps.

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Possibly.  But why me used this manual as an example of a publication where Joseph living polygamy was taught or discussed.  That's not accurate.  I think most members know that Joseph received the revelation.

(There is a quote by Wilford Woodruff in regards to him being given to "several women" in marriage, so there's that.  But no discussion included for the lesson).

Honestly I don't see how anyone could read that chapter and not think Joseph was a polygamist. I'm extremely critical of that manual's flaws but that's not one I'd lay at their feet. 

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am surprised you can't really understand why church history is so closely tied to the Mormon church and not any protestant faiths.  Have you really not thought about this before?  The claims of Mormonism is directly tied to it's history.  That is why.  

How is that not true of Christianity? If there was no Jesus or if Jesus was simply someone borrowing Egyptian magic practices combined with some eschatological beliefs of the Essenes is there any Protestantism? If Paul merely took the church of an iterant preacher executed during the tensions of those days and created a religion out of it, is there any Protestantism? Yes we might look to liberal Protestantism where most of the scriptures are allegorized away. But then there's no shortage of Mormons quite willing to do the same with Mormonism. 

There's a fundamental reason why any non-theologically liberal Christian emphasizes the history.

[clarkgoble]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Reiss' research is matching what I have observed over the years.  That's why it makes sense to me.  And I have also noticed that the people who struggle with what she describes as a "trust gap" tend to be the most active, faithful, committed-to-the-gospel members.  In my experience, those who aren't active and living the gospel don't ever even dig enough to care about those same issues.  And it makes sense:  the "gap" hits the hardest for those who have placed the most trust and faith in their leaders.

I'm pretty skeptical of her claims here. Not that I disagree with you on truth issues. I think those who have a kind of black and white view can be shattered when they find that view isn't correct. The question is what percentage of people who leave are in that group.

Of course the solution is to give people the more nuanced view that I think most people in leadership have. Honestly it's hard to be around leadership for long without recognizing these are fallible people trying their best. Ether 12 comes to mind. So I'm always especially surprised to find people who've been in leadership who see a trust gap as a problem since it suggests something very odd about their own experiences in leadership. My personal experience is that most of those who face these trust issues haven't been in or around leadership to see the practical way leadership works. (I'm not extending from that - just noting my experience) I think in some ways it was easier when it was fairly common to see the Apostles and recognize them as human. Now that the Church has grown so big and people are so disconnected from upper leadership it's easy to color them with an unrealistic idealization akin to how fundamentalists do scriptural figures.

But my main qualm with Reiss which I think I mentioned earlier is that "trust gap" is pretty vague. After all if you no longer believe for whatever reason you no longer trust them. So the cause of the trust gap seems more important to discern. Pointing to "trust gap" is one of those kinds of explanations that appears to explain a lot without actually giving you any more information than you had before.

Edited April 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Pointing to "trust gap" is one of those kinds of explanations that appears to explain a lot without actually giving you any more information than you had before.

It's part of a dysfunctional, codependent blame game.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I believe the answers that are coming from Reiss' research because they seem to align with what I see happening around me.

This pretty much explains why nearly all people believe what they do.

I'm a professional historian by training. I perfectly understand that 'history' is a storytelling exercise, almost like a parlour game on steroids: here are a whole bunch of data points; create a narrative that includes all of them and makes sense. The reality is that literally an infinite number of sensible narratives can be crafted that include all the data points. So how do we decide which is 'true' ... or even which are/is sensible? We pick what best aligns with our current understanding of our personal experiences.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[RevTestament]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am surprised you can't really understand why church history is so closely tied to the Mormon church and not any protestant faiths.  Have you really not thought about this before?  The claims of Mormonism is directly tied to it's history.  That is why.  

Can someone be a faithful Mormon that doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God?  No other protestant leader claimed to have a visit from God himself.  Or from God and His Son.  Or from God and multitude of angels.  Or visits from Peter James, John, John the Baptist, Moses, Elijah etc.  So whether that historically took place is central in believing Joseph Smith is what he claimed he was.  People want to know if the history is accurate.  When you have multiple stories about God visiting you, it makes some people uncomfortable.

Where did I say Joseph Smith was not a prophet? I think if you read my posts on this thread, you will find I say he is. There are already at least 2 prophecies in D&C which have come true. Some in the Book of Mormon already have, and started right after the book was published - more in the BoM  are about to. I never said Joseph lied. I said he sinned, and said some things that aren't right. For instance he said about 57 years(+/-) should wind of the scene. He was obviously wrong.

Quote

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe the Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with the people in the new world?  The history of how the Book of Mormon came about is essential to that claim.  Was the Book of Mormon translated from Gold Plates hidden in a mountainside?  Or were those plates irrelevant and Joseph just looked at a rock in a hat.  No protestant leader has every claimed to look in a hat and receive a record of a civilization that once lived on the American continent.  So were there Lamonites still living in the Americas?  Is the history true?  

On this very thread you will also see me saying that I have developed 30+ points of veracity concerning the BoM - things that a fraud or fiction writer simply could not have gotten correct - yet JS did. That is just too many to get without being an appointed translator of a valid book of God.

Quote

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe in the Book of Abraham?  Joseph Smith made the claim that the papyrus were written by the hand of Abraham himself.  So basically Joseph is saying the reason these scriptures are important and should be believed is because we value the words of Abraham, and here we have his own writings, in his own hand.  That is a big deal.  And Joseph being able to translate those writings are a big deal.  No other protestant leader claimed to receive writings of Abraham or any other ancient prophet.  No other protestant leader claimed to be able to translate ancient writings.

The Book of Abraham is the most problematic book in the Church with regards to authenticity, but I have vouched for its inspiration several times on this forum. Already a few points have been uncovered which support that it is not a piece of fiction, but  is an inspired work. However, I concede that it is not a valid Egyptian document of 200-300 BC. Its interpretation hearkens back to a much earlier date.

Quote

These are key historical issues that when not believed, the claims of Mormonism are not to be believed.  There is nothing comparable in any protestant religion that makes these kinds of claims based on historical record.  And there are a whole slew of other historical claims that must be believed in order to believe in the claims of Mormonism.  Did God tell Joseph Smith that it was ok to start marrying 14 year old girls and promise their family salvation if she agreed?  If the historical facts turn out to not be true, then all the doctrine is just made up and there were no visits from God.  There were no Golden Plates. There were no writings of Abraham.  It is not the sins of Joseph Smith that are causing doubt, it is his historical claims.  

Hope that helps.

It helps to illuminate your position. However, to believe you that there were no golden plates I have to believe that a man like Martin Harris was willing to mortgage his farm and hand over 5000 dollars to help foist a complete fraud on his fellow citizens and then lie about seeing the plates by the hand of an angel. That is just not tenable - that is like $100,000 in todays money. Fraudsters just don't do that. Martin was clearly convinced of what he witnessed. There is no evidence that Harris was this sort of man, nor the Whitaker family which also said they felt and handled the gold plates.

Is there something sinful about marrying a 14 year old girl in the 1830s? I'm sure a fair number of people did it. Even more in Biblical times. It is not like they went to college in the 1830s. They finished school and got married. While it is young by modern standards, there are still states which allow it. If you are going to try to turn Joseph Smith into Mohammed, that simply is not possible. Muhammed married a six year old, and probably thighed her until consummating the marriage at nine. On the other hand I'm sure many biblical prophets married 14 year old teenage women. Do I think God told them to? No. God clearly did allow his prophets to enter polygamous marriages tho.

You haven't given any information to invalidate Joseph Smith as a prophet or the restoration of the gospel, nor the restoration of priesthood keys to the earth. I've already plainly stated that Joseph Smith was a sinner, and did some stuff I don't like. I've done stuff that I don't like, and am ashamed of. Yet, that doesn't invalidate that God uses sinful, faulty men as his representatives.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

"It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii)."

It doesn't clearly state he practiced it but that section and many others certainly strongly imply he did. I should add that I find the D&C intitute manual to be among the worst manuals the church ever put out. I'm constantly surprised it's still in print although it was revised somewhat in 2002. If ever there was a manual that needed further significant revision that is it. (And not primarily because of polygamy) It gives you an idea of how bad the prior manual was.

A better, albeit still poor, manual that mentions polygamy is the Church History manual. It gives a fair bit on the subject although it leaves out Fanny Algers and the early questioning on polygamy. While the D&C manual also doesn't mention Algers it does mention he was questioning such things in 1831.

I prefer the previous Barrett manual though the research is at times out of date.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

How is that not true of Christianity? If there was no Jesus or if Jesus was simply someone borrowing Egyptian magic practices combined with some eschatological beliefs of the Essenes is there any Protestantism? If Paul merely took the church of an iterant preacher executed during the tensions of those days and created a religion out of it, is there any Protestantism? Yes we might look to liberal Protestantism where most of the scriptures are allegorized away. But then there's no shortage of Mormons quite willing to do the same with Mormonism. 

There's a fundamental reason why any non-theologically liberal Christian emphasizes the history.

You do realize you are moving the goal post.  The question was, why protestant religions don't spend much time on their church history.  And why is Mormon church history so important to be taught and understand.  The answer to that is in my post.

If you want to discuss the believability of Jesus Christ compared to Joseph Smith, that is another thread. And one I would gladly participate in.  

[Garden Girl]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

I must admit, I learned early on to not trust church leaders when they falsely made a promise in the name of God that if I marry a woman, then over time, I would no longer be gay.  Kind of hard to trust church leaders when you make very important life choices as a foundation of your life only to find that the foundation was a complete lie.  I don't know if I am the very elect or not, but I have to admit, I was totally deceived.

Hello California Boy... 

I've read your posts over time here in an effort to understand you better... However, I disagree that you were purposely "deceived"... or that false promises were purposely made... on purpose with intent to deceive you.   Sadly, I believe the leaders really believed what they were telling you because of ignorance of the science regarding homosexuality... this was not unusual at the time.  It has only been relatively recently that people have benefited from the research that dispelled previously held incorrect notions, attitudes, and beliefs that homosexuality was a individual choice or could be "changed."... even the Church has had to change its stance under the weight of the scientific evidence... You have to be aware that the position and rhetoric of the Church has noticeably changed these past several years from what it was in earlier years... leaders now address the issues much differently... I'm sorry that you were subjected to those years of ignorance.  That said, this is still a difficult area because of chastity issues... there have been times during the past 19 years that I've been widowed that I would have dearly loved not to be subject to the Law of Chastity... but I am subject to it and have made covenants that I believe in and honor... and always will... and keep the law because I have chosen to remain single, in spite of occasionally feeling my aloneness. 

GG

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Where did I say Joseph Smith was not a prophet? I think if you read my posts on this thread, you will find I say he is. There are already at least 2 prophecies in D&C which have come true. Some in the Book of Mormon already have, and started right after the book was published - more in the BoM  are about to. I never said Joseph lied. I said he sinned, and said some things that aren't right. For instance he said about 57 years(+/-) should wind of the scene. He was obviously wrong.

On this very thread you will also see me saying that I have developed 30+ points of veracity concerning the BoM - things that a fraud or fiction writer simply could not have gotten correct - yet JS did. That is just too many to get without being an appointed translator of a valid book of God.

The Book of Abraham is the most problematic book in the Church with regards to authenticity, but I have vouched for its inspiration several times on this forum. Already a few points have been uncovered which support that it is not a piece of fiction, but  is an inspired work. However, I concede that it is not a valid Egyptian document of 200-300 BC. Its interpretation hearkens back to a much earlier date.

It helps to illuminate your position. However, to believe you that there were no golden plates I have to believe that a man like Martin Harris was willing to mortgage his farm and hand over 5000 dollars to help foist a complete fraud on his fellow citizens and then lie about seeing the plates by the hand of an angel. That is just not tenable - that is like $100,000 in todays money. Fraudsters just don't do that. Martin was clearly convinced of what he witnessed. There is no evidence that Harris was this sort of man, nor the Whitaker family which also said they felt and handled the gold plates.

Is there something sinful about marrying a 14 year old girl in the 1830s? I'm sure a fair number of people did it. Even more in Biblical times. It is not like they went to college in the 1830s. They finished school and got married. While it is young by modern standards, there are still states which allow it. If you are going to try to turn Joseph Smith into Mohammed, that simply is not possible. Muhammed married a six year old, and probably thighed her until consummating the marriage at nine. On the other hand I'm sure many biblical prophets married 14 year old teenage women. Do I think God told them to? No. God clearly did allow his prophets to enter polygamous marriages tho.

You haven't given any information to invalidate Joseph Smith as a prophet or the restoration of the gospel, nor the restoration of priesthood keys to the earth. I've already plainly stated that Joseph Smith was a sinner, and did some stuff I don't like. I've done stuff that I don't like, and am ashamed of. Yet, that doesn't invalidate that God uses sinful, faulty men as his representatives.

You completely missed the point of my post.  Please reread.  The questions were not directed at you or what your beliefs are.  Here are the questions I asked.  

Can someone be a faithful Mormon that doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God?

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe the Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with the people in the new world?

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe in the Book of Abraham?

I am not asking if you believe those things.  I am asking if a person that doesn't believe any of those things still believe the Mormon church's claims are true.  If the answer is no, then, they walk away from the church.  Again, it is not about the sins of Joseph Smith that is causing people to leave.  It is the loss of trust in the narrative that must also be believed in order to accept the claims of Mormonism.

 

 

 

[William Jones]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the histories of this were pretty accurate. The faith promoting part of the story was how people reacted to the difficulties, not the ignorance of leaders who got them into the trouble. Also I think when judging it you have to consider the poverty of the Church at the time. It's not like there were a lot of choices. The worst mistake was leaving so late of course. The claim of a whitewashing was of course the theme of books like Devil's Gate but I'm not sure I buy that. Certainly all the writeups in my life, such as the Ensign article on the subject, seem pretty balanced. My own ancestors involved in it considered it faith promoting. Since they lost limbs and family members in it I think they have the right to make that kind of judgment.

My own view is that there was no shortage of mismanagement by leadership to go around. On the other hand they were struggling to deal with things as best they can. 

I think your response shows why there is a trust gap. I am sure the leadership mismanagement is never talked about at the various trek outings every year - it would kill the miracle/testimony purpose behind telling the one-sided story.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello California Boy... 

I've read your posts over time here in an effort to understand you better... However, I disagree that you were purposely "deceived"... or that false promises were purposely made... on purpose with intent to deceive you.   Sadly, I believe the leaders really believed what they were telling you because of ignorance of the science regarding homosexuality... this was not unusual at the time.  It has only been relatively recently that people have benefited from the research that dispelled previously held incorrect notions, attitudes, and beliefs that homosexuality was a individual choice or could be "changed."... even the Church has had to change its stance under the weight of the scientific evidence... You have to be aware that the position and rhetoric of the Church has noticeably changed these past several years from what it was in earlier years... leaders now address the issues much differently... I'm sorry that you were subjected to those years of ignorance.  That said, this is still a difficult area because of chastity issues... there have been times during the past 19 years that I've been widowed that I would have dearly loved not to be subject to the Law of Chastity... but I am subject to it and have made covenants that I believe in and honor... and always will... and keep the law because I have chosen to remain single, in spite of occasionally feeling my aloneness. 

GG

Well perhaps church leaders should not make promises that they say came from God himself when in fact it was just their opinion.  That was the deception.  If they had told me it was their opinion, I would have taken their advice as their opinion and not as a promise from GOD.  Do you see the difference?  They weren't basing their promise on known science at the time, so what was understood by science is irrelevant to the promise they made to me.  They told me they were basing their statement on revelation.  It was a promise from GOD.  Not an expression of their own opinion.  And not current scientific understanding.

What I sadly learned is that when church leaders tell me they have received a revelation from God, it may not be true.  When a church leader tells me they know the will of God, it may not be true.  When a church leader asks me to make life changing events based on their inspiration, it may not be true.  I was a 20 year old kid that believe in revelation and that church leaders spoke for God. That the prophet was His mouthpiece on earth.  That was not true either.  

Basically what you are saying is that I should trust in science and not any claim of divine knowledge from church leaders.  Yeah well, after decades of trusting church leaders,  I certainly learned my lesson.  I would clearly say this to anyone. If you are making life changing decisions do not think for one moment you can trust a church leader when he tells you he knows what God wants you to do.  They don't.  

If you read my posts, you also know that there is A LOT I like about the church.  Heck just today I was giving missionary advice on another thread.  But that doesn't mean for one second I will trust any church leader that claims to know the will of God.  They are welcome to their opinion.  But it is just that, their opinion.  I hope that gives you a better idea of my beliefs.  I have tried to be very clear in my response.

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

You completely missed the point of my post.  Please reread.  The questions were not directed at you or what your beliefs are.  Here are the questions I asked.  

Can someone be a faithful Mormon that doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God?

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe the Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with the people in the new world?

Can someone be a faithful Mormon and not believe in the Book of Abraham?

I am not asking if you believe those things.  I am asking if a person that doesn't believe any of those things still believe the Mormon church's claims are true.  If the answer is no, then, they walk away from the church.  Again, it is not about the sins of Joseph Smith that is causing people to leave.  It is the loss of trust in the narrative that must also be believed in order to accept the claims of Mormonism.

No, I did not miss the point of your questions. Your questions are geared towards believing various aspects of church history in response to my post about how the adversary works to get doubts into people - attack he messenger. If you were not responding to me, then why did you quote me? I am merely pointing out that there are plenty of reasons to believe JS was a prophet, and that the BoM is a record of God, etc. Of course people can fall to the ad hominem type of attacks on JS, but I can't stop people from choosing to believe or not believe on that kind of basis. It is a faulty approach. I am merely pointing out that on that basis, people wouldn't believe the denier, Peter, or just about any other prophet. Again you're asking if people should leave if they disbelieve some part of the narrative, and my response is no. I believe why they don't believe is critical. Again, choosing not to believe based on the common ad hominem attack on Joseph Smith is not a wise approach, but many believe character assassinations. If they decide that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, because he made no true prophecies in their interpretation, and did not receive a response to an earnest prayer about the BoM, nor believe any of my many points of veracity in the BoM, then yeah, I'd say they cannot really be a true member of the Church.

Edited April 21, 2017 by RevTestament