Neutral Scholarship Re: Joseph Smith - Is it Even Possible?

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And what if JS was a fraud? Then where will you be? Doesn't leave much room, I wish Pres. Hinckley hadn't made it so black and white. The reason the ex-Mormons have engaged so long with Mormonism is because they might have gave years and years to it, and time, talents and money towards it. That is usually a big one on the list of feeling like they need to warn people away. And research for so long. Maybe verifying that they've made the right decision. It's people that were all in heavily that are the ones that won't leave it alone I'm guessing.

 

Regardless of scholarship you can't endure till the end without a witness of the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet. At that point the only way to think that Joseph Smith was a fraud would be to deny your Witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, bdouglas said:

Having said this (post above), it is very painful to see loved ones become enemies. There are some who leave and adopt a position of indifference, but usually they never knew much about it all to begin with.

I have found that most who leave, and who knew something about it before they left——I have found these do not just forget it. They cannot. It’s like Richard III, who says, “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover/ To entertain these fair well-spoken days,/ I am determined to prove a villain/ And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”

Or: “And therefore, since I cannot prove a saint, I am determined to prove an enemy.”

(Perhaps this judgement is too harsh and comes across as a slander of ex-Mormons. If so, I apologize in advance. But it is what I think. I didn’t always think like this, but I do now.)

"Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant."

Edited August 30, 2020 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

10 hours ago, bdouglas said:

What is that prevents the ex-Mormon from simply leaving and finding another church or belief system that suits him better than Mormonism, and then leaving it at that?

It would be wise to find a percentage of those that do this as there are many in my knowledge to draw comparisons with before drawing any major conclusions. There are many ex Catholics and ex almost everything I can think of that have chosen to turn negative about what they once embraced. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

A scholar is neither an apologist or critic. There is an element of curiosity and an eagerness to discover facts. Of course scholarship can be neutral and it is easily distinguishable in the writing style of the scholar. 

I don't care to comment on individuals; the critics mentioned bore me; they move from the banal to complete deceitfulness. I wish them well and pray for the salvation of their souls. 

I do think it is more rare that one simply leaves the Church, finds a new home, and leaves the past behind them. I have met several individuals that have done so, but it does seem that some, most?, have a horrible time following a path of peace out of the Church. 

Engaging in a dialogue for truth can be a peaceful path. It really depends on the state of mind. If a mind is attaching to falsehoods, the engagement is bound to be more conflicted for them. If however that mind is shedding falsehoods, the journey can be beneficial and a path of peace. Both LDS believers and exmormons can experience this peacefulness. Anybody can.

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, bdouglas said:

Having said this (post above), it is very painful to see loved ones become enemies. There are some who leave and adopt a position of indifference, but usually they never knew much about it all to begin with.

I have found that most who leave, and who knew something about it before they left——I have found these do not just forget it. They cannot. It’s like Richard III, who says, “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover/ To entertain these fair well-spoken days,/ I am determined to prove a villain/ And hate the idle pleasures of these days.”

Or: “And therefore, since I cannot prove a saint, I am determined to prove an enemy.”

(Perhaps this judgement is too harsh and comes across as a slander of ex-Mormons. If so, I apologize in advance. But it is what I think. I didn’t always think like this, but I do now.)

As an exmormon myself, it was very difficult knowing that I would by virtue of leaving the church already be considered an enemy by some members. That is very painful, especially when the majority of my friends and family of origin are LDS.

Can you imagine how that might feel? 

The church is not neutral about leavers. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

"Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant."

That is not true. It is a pretty horrible message to tell people who leave the church, and it is a horrible thing to make their loved ones believe that about them.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure you are really looking for an answer.  The way you frame your question, you seem to be more interested in finding fault and discrediting former members.  But I can give you an answer why Mormonism is so completely different than every other religion.  It is the claims that Mormonism makes.  They claim to have a prophet of God.  Someone who receives direct revelation from God. That key point is at the core of why the Church is important.  People make life changing decisions trusting that is true.  

I married a woman based on that trust.  I was told by Church leaders that if I married, then I would no longer be gay.  Church leaders claimed that this promise was not one they were making, but came from God.  Think about the implications of trusting that promise.  Think of the trajectory that put my life on.  And think about how devastating it was to find out that promise from God came solely from men.  There was no promise from God.  There was no revelation.  I never became straight.  Not even a little.

Think about others who relied on the belief that the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored by the power of God.  Believing all the stories that were told to them.  A book written by Abraham himself, which Joseph claimed to translate by the power of God.  Only to find out that the scrolls had nothing to do with Abraham, could not have been written by him and were common burial scrolls.  Golden Plates that brought forth the Book of Mormon only to find out, it came from Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat.  Joseph having an adulteress affair with their maid and then claiming that he was told by God to marry her.  Using his power as a prophet of God to trick other young women to marry him, even promising them eternal salvation.

The list goes on.  And yes, I realize that faithful members can either ignore these and other issues or figure out a way to explain them away.  I think most of these former members start out explaining things away, until they can't any longer.  There is no other Church that basis its claims of a living prophet and revelation from God.  That it is His Church restored to the earth.  Hence, when for some, they look at the facts and find out that promise is not true, they start exploring all the other things that were told to them that don't hold up.  That is how you end up with a Bill Reel or a John Dehlin or a Jeremy Runnell.

I have long ago made my peace with the Church.  I recognize the good that it can be in peoples lives even if the revelation claims of Mormonism is not true.  The teachings are sound.  The goals are good goals.  The ethics are beneficial.  Families can be strengthened by its teachings.  

I am not going to debate the pros and cons of the reasons I have stated.  I have no interest in trying to undermine other peoples faith no matter what church they belong to.  But you asked the question.  And you do know that others have problems believing the issues that I brought up.  That part one can not argue.  Hopefully you will understand that my answer does not come from some easily dismissed anti Mormon diatribe, but rather an honest answer to your question.  You may not like the answer, but there are reasons for the way former members want to continue to disprove the claims of Mormonism even if they are no longer members.

 

My life experiences are the total opposite of yours, and the promises I expected have been fulfilled 100 times over.

I don't get it.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My life experiences are the total opposite of yours, and the promises I expected have been fulfilled 100 times over.

I don't get it.

What's the point of understanding that others have different perspectives than our own?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What's the point of understanding that others have different perspectives than our own?

That's not the point 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, alter idem said:

I've thought about this a lot, as it's seems to me that some want our scholars to 'prove' that the truth claims of the Church are true, and frankly that's just not what the Lord wants, IMO.  I love that scholars, archeologists, etc. offer examples to help support our beliefs, but to me, these are appreciated, powerful for those who already have a testimony, and have a valuable place, but they will never and should never be a basis for thinking they are useful in conversion, or proving the 'Church is true', imo.  However, I think the efforts of LDS scholars and writers can be extremely useful in countering the efforts by others (such as RFM and Dehlin) to plant seeds of doubt and cause members to question their faith and even reject their beliefs.  I really appreciate their efforts and feel they have a valuable role, but it is not to try to win an argument with a hardened non-believer, or dissident.  Like missionaries bible bashing, it is usually just futile to think it might help in conversion.

I think of Orson Pratt debating a Protestant cleric in the Tabernacle (with Brigham's permission), and I think of the great Hugh Nibley & Sterling McMurrin debates.  They can take place, but only if those so engaged are sincere and well-educated.  It does no good to have two yokels debate each other, regardless of their good intentions.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

As an exmormon myself, it was very difficult knowing that I would by virtue of leaving the church already be considered an enemy by some members. That is very painful, especially when the majority of my friends and family of origin are LDS.

Can you imagine how that might feel? 

The church is not neutral about leavers. 

False.  The LDS Church does not follow ex-Mormons around, persecuting them.  That is nonsense.  On the other hand, a surfeit of ex-Mormons do go about harassing and persecuting the LDS Church.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That is not true. It is a pretty horrible message to tell people who leave the church, and it is a horrible thing to make their loved ones believe that about them.

A lot of claims made by both Mormons and ex-Mormons are simply not true.  Most people are not that well-informed and make off the cuff statements which they later come to find out are false (and perhaps regret).  I've done that myself, and it is a problem hardly any of us can escape.  We should live and learn, and try to do as little damage as possible.

Not only that, but we should all maintain a deep and abiding respect for other faith traditions.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  

What exactly is false?

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 The LDS Church does not follow ex-Mormons around, persecuting them.  That is nonsense.  On the other hand, a surfeit of ex-Mormons do go about harassing and persecuting the LDS Church.

 

Why do you say this? I did not say the bolded.

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of claims made by both Mormons and ex-Mormons are simply not true.  Most people are not that well-informed and make off the cuff statements which they later come to find out are false (and perhaps regret).  I've done that myself, and it is a problem hardly any of us can escape.  We should live and learn, and try to do as little damage as possible.

Not only that, but we should all maintain a deep and abiding respect for other faith traditions.

Sure. It's also important to be critical about the impact of powerful institutions. There is a difference between attacking a person and criticizing the institution. I find that people who can acknowledge those two types of actions as seprate tend to have better relationships with people of differing beliefs. I also think they, the believers and unbelievers of a given tradition, also help make each others lives mutually better and inevitably help make the tradition better.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

It would be wise to find a percentage of those that do this as there are many in my knowledge to draw comparisons with before drawing any major conclusions. There are many ex Catholics and ex almost everything I can think of that have chosen to turn negative about what they once embraced. 

There can be a degree of anger in the perception of having been deceived or misled in some way.  Among Roman Catholics, for example, there are many who are extremely angry about official coverups of pedophile priests and monks.  Others are angry at the Pope for not maintaining traditional, hard core Catholicism, with a Latin liturgy, etc.  Those who have contributed to and sent their children to Liberty University are very unhappy to find that Jerry Falwell Jr is an utter hypocrite and fake evangelical.  They are right to be angry.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, bdouglas said:

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

What is that prevented Lucifer from saying, “I’ll dwell here in my space, and let Christ, Abraham et al dwell in theirs. I can be as happy in my place as they are in theirs”? But Lucifer doesn’t do this. He cannot, will not, rest until God and Christ and goodness generally are banished from the universe.

Satan could easily have simply accepted the decision of the Council.  However, he and his followers all exhibited a fundamental character defect, which is the whole point of free agency -- to determine who will keep his First and his Second Estate.  That is the test, and it is crucial.

16 hours ago, bdouglas said:

I think the answer to this question is that it is not possible for anyone, once they have come into contact with JS and the Restoration, to take a neutral position. Once you come into contact with these things you are compelled to vote yay or nay; and if you vote nay——well then you become an enemy and you assume the posture of an enemy and it becomes a battle to the death.

False.  One can in fact remain neutral, and many scholars do so.  Some even praise Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  It is improper to insist that a decision be made immediately.

16 hours ago, bdouglas said:

And if you think it is anything less than a battle to the death, you are deluding yourself.

For this reason I think the turn LDS scholars made some time back to produce scholarship that was neutral on the truth claims of the church, or at least not front and center——I think this was/is misguided. Everyone has to stake out a position, and this position has to be clear and unequivocal.

So: let the battle commence.

This fundamentally misunderstand the nature of scholarship.  Scholars like Richard Bushman and Grant Hardy can remain even-handed in their work, and sometimes even come in for criticism from fellow Mormons for it.  Scholarship has its own rules and procedures, just like a religion.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Satan could easily have simply accepted the decision of the Council.  However, he and his followers all exhibited a fundamental character defect, which is the whole point of free agency -- to determine who will keep his First and his Second Estate.  That is the test, and it is crucial.

I not a real big fan of the back story here for a variety of reasons but if Satan really is behind the opposition we face in a test, all he really would have to do to make the whole thing fail is. . . nothing.

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  One can in fact remain neutral, and many scholars do so.  Some even praise Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  It is improper to insist that a decision be made immediately.

I think the whole question in the OP about neutral scholarship is simply a straw man to try and place all scholarship in a convenient box and then dismiss those parts we do not like by labeling the biased. 

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure you are really looking for an answer.  The way you frame your question, you seem to be more interested in finding fault and discrediting former members.  But I can give you an answer why Mormonism is so completely different than every other religion.  It is the claims that Mormonism makes.  They claim to have a prophet of God.  Someone who receives direct revelation from God. That key point is at the core of why the Church is important.  People make life changing decisions trusting that is true.  

I married a woman based on that trust.  I was told by Church leaders that if I married, then I would no longer be gay.  Church leaders claimed that this promise was not one they were making, but came from God.  Think about the implications of trusting that promise.  Think of the trajectory that put my life on.  And think about how devastating it was to find out that promise from God came solely from men.  There was no promise from God.  There was no revelation.  I never became straight.  Not even a little.

Think about others who relied on the belief that the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored by the power of God.  Believing all the stories that were told to them.  A book written by Abraham himself, which Joseph claimed to translate by the power of God.  Only to find out that the scrolls had nothing to do with Abraham, could not have been written by him and were common burial scrolls.  Golden Plates that brought forth the Book of Mormon only to find out, it came from Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat.  Joseph having an adulteress affair with their maid and then claiming that he was told by God to marry her.  Using his power as a prophet of God to trick other young women to marry him, even promising them eternal salvation.

The list goes on.  And yes, I realize that faithful members can either ignore these and other issues or figure out a way to explain them away.  I think most of these former members start out explaining things away, until they can't any longer.  There is no other Church that basis its claims of a living prophet and revelation from God.  That it is His Church restored to the earth.  Hence, when for some, they look at the facts and find out that promise is not true, they start exploring all the other things that were told to them that don't hold up.  That is how you end up with a Bill Reel or a John Dehlin or a Jeremy Runnell.

I have long ago made my peace with the Church.  I recognize the good that it can be in peoples lives even if the revelation claims of Mormonism is not true.  The teachings are sound.  The goals are good goals.  The ethics are beneficial.  Families can be strengthened by its teachings.  

I am not going to debate the pros and cons of the reasons I have stated.  I have no interest in trying to undermine other peoples faith no matter what church they belong to.  But you asked the question.  And you do know that others have problems believing the issues that I brought up.  That part one can not argue.  Hopefully you will understand that my answer does not come from some easily dismissed anti Mormon diatribe, but rather an honest answer to your question.  You may not like the answer, but there are reasons for the way former members want to continue to disprove the claims of Mormonism even if they are no longer members.

 

Thanks for sharing your story, I hope that some good came out of your decision to marry, even if it wasn't the outcome you'd hoped or been promised.  Even our darkest trials can bring good into our lives that never would've happened otherwise, and I always try to remember that this life is such a tiny blip, we have a whole eternity waiting for us, but still, the experiences here,  good and bad, are what we take with us, and the relationships, the love we give and receive.  The memories of this life will go with us into the next and what we took from them.

I do have to ask one question, as you said;  'I was told by Church leaders that if I married, then I would no longer be gay.  Church leaders claimed that this promise was not one they were making, but came from God.  Think about the implications of trusting that promise.  Think of the trajectory that put my life on.  And think about how devastating it was to find out that promise from God came solely from men.  There was no promise from God.  There was no revelation.  I never became straight.  Not even a little.'

Did you pray about this counsel that your leaders gave you to be certain that it was from God? I wouldn't be surprised it you did not, as often we trust our leaders and feel it's not really necessary, but in this situation, it's clear they should not have said that, they had no basis for making such a promise.  If they really did say it in that way, it could be that they so very much wanted it to be true, that they weren't listening to the cautioning voice in their heads. But, whether or not you did pray, doesn't really matter now,  but I would like to remind anyone who reads what you wrote that there is that important part of the whole revelatory process that is on us to pray to receive confirmation that what we are being told, whether in church, in a Bishops office, or in General Conference, is truly revelation from Heavenly Father which we need to follow.

And I will just reiterate that we don't know what we signed up for in this life, but I'm pretty sure it was to tailor our life experiences to what we individually needed and desired even. 

 

You also said this:

"Think about others who relied on the belief that the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored by the power of God.  Believing all the stories that were told to them.  A book written by Abraham himself, which Joseph claimed to translate by the power of God.  Only to find out that the scrolls had nothing to do with Abraham, could not have been written by him and were common burial scrolls.  Golden Plates that brought forth the Book of Mormon only to find out, it came from Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat.  Joseph having an adulteress affair with their maid and then claiming that he was told by God to marry her.  Using his power as a prophet of God to trick other young women to marry him, even promising them eternal salvation."

First, this is how you perceive these things(and the perception is the same as what critics promote), many do not perceive them this way, I could one by one, tell you what I see wrong with these assumptions, but don't want to derail.  The point is, this is part of the problem with critics trying to 'save' church members from the church.  Since many don't share your perceptions, they don't see why they need to be 'saved'.  It's like insisting on saving a person you think is drowning, but the person is just enjoying the water, they won't appreciate your efforts.

[CA Steve]

18 hours ago, bdouglas said:

This is a curious thing. What is that prevents the ex-Mormon from simply leaving and finding another church or belief system that suits him better than Mormonism, and then leaving it at that?

The vast majority do. Given our claimed membership numbers versus our activity rates, there are millions of members who have walked away or no longer care and do so without any fanfare. This is what ought to concern you, not a few vocal critics.

Quote

What is it that prevents a Bill Reel or a John Dehlin or a Jeremy Runnells from doing the same? They are not content to leave Mormonism, they wish to see it burn, abolished, wiped from the face of the earth.

They are public internet personas who have been actively engaging Mormonism. That's what they do. You are active on the internet in Mormon related subjects so you know who they are but I would bet the majority of active members have never heard of them,  like my wife. She could care less what a small corner of the internet is saying about what she believes.

Quote

What is that prevented John Bennett or Symonds Ryder from simply walking away and saying, “Well I’m glad all that crazy Mormonism is behind me”? Why did they turn virulent enemy and seek the life of JS?

Bennett was a scoundrel when he arrived in Nauvoo and continued to be so after he left. His object throughout his life was to find easy ways to fame and fortune. It is not surprising he published his version of what happened in Nauvoo and then tried to capitalize on it.  I suggest reading The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett for a "neutral" view on who he really was.

Quote

What is that prevented Lucifer from saying, “I’ll dwell here in my space, and let Christ, Abraham et al dwell in theirs. I can be as happy in my place as they are in theirs”? But Lucifer doesn’t do this. He cannot, will not, rest until God and Christ and goodness generally are banished from the universe.

If there really is this demigod named Satan involved in some sort of test for us here on earth, all he would have to do to make that test fail is .....nothing. 

 

Your entire OP is  just over-the-top hyperbole trying to set up boundary maintenance for your own version of Mormonism. Frankly it looks like you are a lot more interested in building fences than bridges.

Edited August 30, 2020 by CA Steve

[bdouglas]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  One can in fact remain neutral, and many scholars do so.  Some even praise Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  It is improper to insist that a decision be made immediately.

This fundamentally misunderstand the nature of scholarship.  Scholars like Richard Bushman and Grant Hardy can remain even-handed in their work, and sometimes even come in for criticism from fellow Mormons for it.  Scholarship has its own rules and procedures, just like a religion.

In my opinion, speaking as a non-scholar, the neutral scholarship model doesn’t work very well. I’ve talked to ex-Mormons who still, even now, think Richard Bushman is a closet unbeliever. Why? Because in his writings he tries so hard to be neutral, impartial. Now Bushman really isn’t a closet unbeliever. He is very much a believer. But it is interesting to me that a while back he had to issue a statement saying that his beliefs today are the same as they were when he was a missionary. He believes the gold plates existed, etc. He was setting the record straight.

Why did he have to do this in the first place? Because when you read his stuff (at least some of it) you can’t tell what he thinks, or where he stands on the big questions. In other words, the “trumpet gives an uncertain sound.”

Now contrast Bushman with Hugh Nibley or B. H. Roberts. They are at least the equal of Bushman in terms of scholarship, but the reader is never in any doubt about where they stand on the big questions.

As a layperson, I have tried to read some of the impartial scholarship produced, and mostly given up on it. As one who is vitally interested in church apologetics, I have found such writings not only dense and hard to understand, but impossible to pin down. Where does the author of this piece stand on the big questions? You can’t tell. It is as though the authors of such works go out of their way to skirt these big questions altogether, to consciously steer clear of them.

Edited August 30, 2020 by bdouglas

[california boy]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My life experiences are the total opposite of yours, and the promises I expected have beenWhi fulfilled 100 times over.

I don't get it.

Which is probably why you are still in the Church and I am not.  You still trust Church leaders.  I do not.  At all.  

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  The LDS Church does not follow ex-Mormons around, persecuting them.  That is nonsense.  On the other hand, a surfeit of ex-Mormons do go about harassing and persecuting the LDS Church.

A lot of claims made by both Mormons and ex-Mormons are simply not true.  Most people are not that well-informed and make off the cuff statements which they later come to find out are false (and perhaps regret).  I've done that myself, and it is a problem hardly any of us can escape.  We should live and learn, and try to do as little damage as possible.

Not only that, but we should all maintain a deep and abiding respect for other faith traditions.

I don't think anyone is saying that the LDS Church follows ex-Mormons around persecuting them.  I also don't believe there are ex-Mormons going around persecuting members.  Maybe you could give some examples of the harassing and persecution members of the Church have had to face.  See if you can name some persecutions that members themselves have not done to some who have left.

I can tell you my experience with members of the Church when I left.  My family had nothing to do with me for 13 years.  Never invited to any family events, reunions, baptisms, birthdays, missionary farewells, holidays, nothing.  While I tried to stay in contact with them, it ended up being a one way street.  At some point, I got the message.  

As far as ward and stake members, I only ever heard from 3 people ever again.  I didn't think of them as the enemy.  But it was hard to think that they were still my friends.  

I do want to say that after 13 years, my family has decided that I could be a part of them now.  Those painful years are water under the bridge.  Both my partner and I are now invited to family events.  The scars are still there.  But hopefully over time, healing will take place.  

Partly why I point this out, is this animosity is not a one way street.  Both sides engage in less than Christlike behavior at times.  We are all humans with flaws and emotions that sometimes cloud our judgement.  

[smac97]

21 hours ago, bdouglas said:

Alter Idem on Robert Ritner thread said:

This is a curious thing. What is that prevents the ex-Mormon from simply leaving and finding another church or belief system that suits him better than Mormonism, and then leaving it at that?

The specific reasons no doubt vary from person to person.  There do, however, seem to be some common trends/characteristics amongst those who leave but "can't leave it alone."

21 hours ago, bdouglas said:

I think the answer to this question is that it is not possible for anyone, once they have come into contact with JS and the Restoration, to take a neutral position. Once you come into contact with these things you are compelled to vote yay or nay; and if you vote nay——well then you become an enemy and you assume the posture of an enemy and it becomes a battle to the death.

Except that there seem to be plenty of people who, having previously "come into contact with JS and the Restoration," do not array themselves against the Church, who are generally indifferent to it (not unlike your wife's perspective on Catholicism).

21 hours ago, bdouglas said:

For this reason I think the turn LDS scholars made some time back to produce scholarship that was neutral on the truth claims of the church, or at least not front and center——I think this was/is misguided. Everyone has to stake out a position, and this position has to be clear and unequivocal.

Could you clarify what you are referencing here?  Are you thinking of Spencer Fluhman and the Maxwell Institute?  Or something else?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

21 hours ago, alter idem said:

I've thought about this a lot, as it's seems to me that some want our scholars to 'prove' that the truth claims of the Church are true, and frankly that's just not what the Lord wants, IMO. 

I'm not sure about that.  I think their objective to persuade that the truth claims of the Church are plausible.

"And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  (Moroni 10:5)

Quote

I love that scholars, archeologists, etc. offer examples to help support our beliefs, but to me, these are appreciated, powerful for those who already have a testimony, and have a valuable place, but they will never and should never be a basis for thinking they are useful in conversion, or proving the 'Church is true', imo. 

I agree.  And I don't think they are presented with the intention of "proving the 'Church is true.'"

Elder Holland summed things up well (emphasis added) :

Quote

My testimony to you tonight is that the gospel is infallibly true and that a variety of infallible proofs supporting that assertion will continue to come until Jesus descends as the ultimate infallible truth of all. Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence—we still need that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we have spoken—but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth.

To that point I mention that while we were living and serving in England, I became fond of the writing of the English cleric Austin Farrer. Speaking of the contribution made by C. S. Lewis specifically and of Christian apologists generally, Farrer said: “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[10]
...
[10] Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (1965), 26.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2020 by smac97

[california boy]

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

Thanks for sharing your story, I hope that some good came out of your decision to marry, even if it wasn't the outcome you'd hoped or been promised.  Even our darkest trials can bring good into our lives that never would've happened otherwise, and I always try to remember that this life is such a tiny blip, we have a whole eternity waiting for us, but still, the experiences here,  good and bad, are what we take with us, and the relationships, the love we give and receive.  The memories of this life will go with us into the next and what we took from them.

I do have to ask one question, as you said;  'I was told by Church leaders that if I married, then I would no longer be gay.  Church leaders claimed that this promise was not one they were making, but came from God.  Think about the implications of trusting that promise.  Think of the trajectory that put my life on.  And think about how devastating it was to find out that promise from God came solely from men.  There was no promise from God.  There was no revelation.  I never became straight.  Not even a little.'

Did you pray about this counsel that your leaders gave you to be certain that it was from God? I wouldn't be surprised it you did not, as often we trust our leaders and feel it's not really necessary, but in this situation, it's clear they should not have said that, they had no basis for making such a promise.  If they really did say it in that way, it could be that they so very much wanted it to be true, that they weren't listening to the cautioning voice in their heads. But, whether or not you did pray, doesn't really matter now,  but I would like to remind anyone who reads what you wrote that there is that important part of the whole revelatory process that is on us to pray to receive confirmation that what we are being told, whether in church, in a Bishops office, or in General Conference, is truly revelation from Heavenly Father which we need to follow.

And I will just reiterate that we don't know what we signed up for in this life, but I'm pretty sure it was to tailor our life experiences to what we individually needed and desired even. 

Thanks for your reply.  I feel like you really are trying to understand my life experience with the Church.  I think your question requires a bit longer answer than just a yes or no.  My answer was probably a little to personal, but you asked a very personal question.  I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old.  I hated being gay.  I wanted to be just like the other boys, normal.  I was this kid that tried to do everything God ever asked of me in hopes that He would show mercy and make me straight.  I was in every leadership role an Aaronic priesthood boy could have because leaders knew I would do everything I could to make sure I did a good job.  When it came time to go on a mission I literally felt like if I go on a mission when I stand before God to be judged I won't have any defense for being gay, but I could say, I did serve you for 2 years.  

I felt like I had received an answer to my prayers about the truthfulness of the Church and the truthfulness of it being led by a prophet.  I admit, I wanted it to be true.  I didn't trust myself because, well after all, I was gay,  and as Spencer W. Kimball clearly stated in the Miracle of Forgiveness, I was an abomination just for being gay.  I focused all of my fasting, prayers, service, on not being gay.  I cried out to God for so many years to take this abomination away from me.  When Church leaders told me to just marry and it will all go away, I wanted that to be true also.  After all, they said it came from God.  I was not going to question their promise.  It was literally the last straw of hope for me.  God clearly was not answering my own prayers to Him,  so I turned to those who claimed to have direct contact with Him.  I was a 20 year old kid looking for a way out.  

Throughout those years while being in the Church, I aways felt God's love for me.  That connection with God has only become stronger since leaving the Church.  I guess that is a big reason why I have never wanted to tear down someone else's faith no matter where they find God if it helps them connect with diety.  It is only when their relationship with God starts to be torn apart that it becomes better to sever their ties with whatever is causing that tear.  For me, and perhaps for a lot of people, that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

 

2 hours ago, alter idem said:

 

You also said this:

"Think about others who relied on the belief that the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored by the power of God.  Believing all the stories that were told to them.  A book written by Abraham himself, which Joseph claimed to translate by the power of God.  Only to find out that the scrolls had nothing to do with Abraham, could not have been written by him and were common burial scrolls.  Golden Plates that brought forth the Book of Mormon only to find out, it came from Joseph Smith sticking his head in a hat.  Joseph having an adulteress affair with their maid and then claiming that he was told by God to marry her.  Using his power as a prophet of God to trick other young women to marry him, even promising them eternal salvation."

First, this is how you perceive these things(and the perception is the same as what critics promote), many do not perceive them this way, I could one by one, tell you what I see wrong with these assumptions, but don't want to derail.  The point is, this is part of the problem with critics trying to 'save' church members from the church.  Since many don't share your perceptions, they don't see why they need to be 'saved'.  It's like insisting on saving a person you think is drowning, but the person is just enjoying the water, they won't appreciate your efforts.

I agree this is how I perceive things.  And I understand you perceive things differently.  But we are talking about people who don't perceive things the way you do and their reasons for leaving the Church.  I think you have to admit, these issues are a big problem for a lot of people who have heard your defenses but find them to fall short.  And there are plenty of well intended members who are trying to save those that don't share your point of view on these and many other issues.  Both sides are insisting on saving someone who they think are drowning but the person is just enjoying the water. 

I am hoping my comments are adding understanding to the question of why some can't just walk away, rather than the reasons why they walked away in the first place.  And why the claims of the Mormon Church are not like any other religion.  Other churches don't have a figurehead claiming to have direct contact with God through revelation.  As Joseph Fielding Smith and Jeffrey Holland said, it is either the greatest message of all time or a complete fraud.  There is no middle ground.  This is not about just choosing another congregation to attend. 

[gopher]

Does anyone believe Joseph Smith was a prophet solely as the results of scholarship?  I'm always impressed at how informed the doubters and former believers are on Egyptology, metallurgy, Ancient America history, archaeology, agriculture, etc, but it's been difficult to find anyone that bases their belief on those things.  It's easy to find believers that claim they believe as a result of the Holy Ghost confirming that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but it's rare to find anyone who claims they stopped believing because the Holy Ghost confirmed that he was a false prophet.  Runnells claimed he gathered 8-9 thousand pages of material against the church and Joseph Smith.  Why does it take so much effort to stop believing Joseph Smith is a prophet when it seems fairly easy to gain a testimony that he was?  The Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith story as told by young and uneducated missionaries often seem to be enough to bring a witness from God through the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was a prophet. 

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And what if JS was a fraud? Then where will you be? Doesn't leave much room, I wish Pres. Hinckley hadn't made it so black and white. 

I think the problem is that the choice sometimes gets transmuted from "Joseph Smith was either a prophet or a fraud" to "Joseph Smith was either an infallible, pristinely perfect person or a fraud."

I addressed this topic in a thread last December.  An excerpt:

Quote

I think the above quotes from General Authorities were given to us in response to some of us becoming perhaps a bit inattentive, even halfhearted, in the fostering and maintaining of our faith and devotion.  Apparently some were even adopting what Elder Holland called a "bizarre middle ground" (I think he may have had in mind the "Inspired Fiction" or comparable have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon and the Restoration).

However, what has been happening lately is, as noted above, a "glitch."  Members of the Church are encountering "Big List"-type compendia, and then take an all-or-nothing approach to the Gospel, but one that I do not think was contemplated by the Brethren.  That is, they are running into stuff described by Jeff Lindsay here:

Quote

One of the challenges in defending one's faith is coping with critics who use the "Big List" technique in their attack. This involves throwing out numerous arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage that decimates the faith in question (see the related post, "If Only 10% of These Charges Are True..."). The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren't written in search of a real answer. If there is a good defense to the arguments raised at first, never mind, there are many more to be launched in different directions.

Another challenge is that some folks, having encountered these "Big Lists," can end up adopting a variant of the "Nirvana Fallacy."  This fallacy is described here:

Quote

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
...
In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, who said:

Quote

The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

 

My sense is that some members of the Church are harboring idealized, unrealistic expectations about the Church, and its leaders and members, and its history.  This is the "perfect" part of Voltaire's maxim. 

Then these folks encounter "big lists" and other online resources that distill and summarize all sorts of controversies, errors, shortcomings, etc. by members and leaders of the Church.  Such compilations are full of cheap shots presented for shock value.  Presentism.  Facile criticism.  Misrepresentation by omission and distortion.  A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized.  Sarcasm.  No effort to study or meaningfully understand.  And intermingled with them are some legitimate criticisms. 

These summaries of the Church are, understandably, difficult or impossible to reconcile with the Church's narrative about itself, which has long tended toward an idealized presentation (though the Church's publication of Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth is signaling some real change on this issue).

Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

• Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
• Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac