For Those Who Stayed After Researching Church History

[Devobah]

A friend and I were talking the other day. He had recently left the church and while church history played a part in it, it actually wasn't the main reason that he left. I mentioned him a few days ago on Zealously Striving's post talking about what kind of members make up the board. 

He and I have healthy discussions about church subjects. He respects my belief in the gospel and I respect his lack of belief. 

The question I want to put forth is for those who have researched church history and have decided to stay. Those who have left for such matters seemingly suggest that after you are presented with the facts, that the only logical conclusion is to leave the church. For this reason I am fascinated by those who stay and either change their beliefs on certain things or just don't let such things affect them.

I know we're not supposed to share the narratives of why individuals stayed or left (conversion or deconversion stories and all that), so if this is a no no, I fully accept that the thread will be shut down.

Again the question is: If you have researched the church history, what has made you stay? Why have you chosen to stay?

[Duncan]

Listen to this podcast, especially the end part as to why Dr. Erekson stays

 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Devobah said:

If you have researched the church history, what has made you stay? Why have you chosen to stay?

My parents taught me there was value in other faiths and perspectives while still being devout themselves.  Mom was telling me about Swedenborg when I was ten or twelve and relating ideas pulled from him, Joseph Smith, and Carl Jung and others (I get my obsession with research from her most likely) because she had no adult to talk to and I was fascinated by mythology and psychology from a young age (the pictures in her psych texts were cool and I was a loner and my existence outside of school was pretty much reading in any free time I had).  My dad was quite practical, didn’t talk much, but was out helping whenever needed, so he was a great example of the gospel in action….he also hated red tape or bureaucracy that got in his very efficient way and it was obvious when he was irritated even when it occurred at Church.  So I grew up with a much more expansive idea of what the gospel is meant to be plus a less idealized view of the Church than many I have found.  Add to that for some reason as a young kid (like Sunbeams) I took a dislike to Joseph Smith because everyone was talking about how great he was, he was just too perfect (I think it was one of those hating something because people tell you that you will love it).  And then Brigham Young was called the Mormon Moses and I thought Moses was a jerk, so I didn’t like him even more (possibly due to watching Charlton Heston as Moses, Heston always came across as pure arrogance to me as a child, didn’t like him at all).  So I had a pretty strong disconnect from church ‘authority’ as a kid, never bonded with a bishop or teacher or any local leader.  By the time I got to BYU I had no interest in church history, but loved the Old Testament and the creation parts of the PoGP and focused my religious study on those.   I did read some church history texts out of a sense of boredom when they were the most interesting thing on the book shelf (Leonard Arrington is the author I most remember, he made it even enjoyable) and later out of obligation of wanting to be informed, so I had a decent general knowledge, but tried to ignore it as much as possible otherwise.

I got into church history back in 2001 when I hooked into an online message board, ZLMB.  I don’t like not knowing what is being talked about around me and sometimes was asked questions by nonmembers or others plus I was reading everything anyone said which led to lots of research because I had finally found a group of people who also wanted to talk religion.  Haven’t done much intentional research in church history outside of research into topics brought up on that message board and this one plus with FAIR, except for a couple quality books.

Anyway all that boils down to is starting in 2001 I was exposed to a lot of critical material, including some accurate history that did not put leaders in a good light at times.  Instead of being shocked by it, it made leaders appear more human to me and therefore more relatable and even in the case of Joseph with his quite practical, but undignified head in the hat to block out the light, I began to like him (maybe he wasn’t obsessed with looking like a prophet all the time like he once seemed to me).  Brigham…I can respect him in some ways, but can’t say I like him much yet. But don’t dislike him anymore either.

I hadn’t started from a position of practically infallible leaders, so never bothered by even major missteps, though bloopers and even bombshells might have made me wish the Church came off looking better at times because I want others to find value in it like I do because the gospel and the Church as a whole has been a great comfort to me in my life and a good vehicle for me for seeking God.  I came to a realization that having imperfect, even sometimes disasters as leaders require us as members to face the reality that we need to go to God ourselves if we really want to get to know him.  So I feel sorrow for those who suffer when leaders made and make mistakes, but it fits with my worldview quite well, so it doesn’t create obstacles to faith for me.  That is not where my faith rests.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

I have not studied church history all that exhaustively. But nothing I've learned in what I have studied has put me off the church.

Human history is chock-full of horrifying facts. This is because humans are horrifying in many ways. It would be a miracle worthy of divine intervention if any human institution did not have dark secrets going on with it. When you read the Old and New Testaments you realize that even among the most devout of believers there are horrifying facts. And these are the things we know about. Imagine the things going on behind the scenes that we never heard about because they weren't documented, or no documents survive describing them.

So why would we expect Christ's modern church to be free from disturbing things? 

Long, long time ago, I remember reading some early church history during the Utah period. Apparently there was some break-away faction of the church that went so far as to establish a break-away polity in rebellion not just against the church, but also against the government. They built a fort in order to resist being dealt with -- I'm unsure whom they were afraid of most, the church or the government. On the day forces surrounded the fort in order to deal with them, their "prophet" was giving a sermon in the open air in which he promised that no harm would come to those who followed him and his message. Just after he made this promise, a cannon outside fired a shot, and the cannonball that it fired came down within the fort and decapitated a woman standing listening to him. I was quite shocked! Holy cow! This was something that obviously wasn't talked about much, and it kind of shook me. Was the cannon firing the work of the church, or the government? In Utah, with Brigham Young as governor, the two were kind of synonymous. I don't now remember when this occurred, so it could very well have happened after the federal government invaded Utah and removed BY from the governorship.

The church will be perfect during the Millennium. Or as perfect as it can be. In the meantime, I'm perfectly willing to cut the church some slack. I know darned good and well that I'm not perfect. Why would I expect perfection from others?

Besides all that, I have a more sure word of prophecy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's authoritative church on earth, and that does not change.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Stargazer

[ZealouslyStriving]

I would encourage people to study traditionalist apologetic sources before believing everything they hear about "controversial" church history, even if those they are hearing them from are well-known Church scholars and historians. (Ex...there is plenty of pushback against the stone-in-the-hat theory).

https://ldsanswers.org/category/church-history/

 

[webbles]

16 hours ago, Devobah said:

Again the question is: If you have researched the church history, what has made you stay? Why have you chosen to stay?

I love seeing that historical characters are human.  Finding the faults of Joseph, Emma, Brigham, etc is actually helpful to me because it makes them more relatable.  I don't enjoy listening to the faith promoting stories that hide the ugly details.  I feel like those do a great disservice to the actual people and what they went through.

[MustardSeed]

If I left everything that had a sordid past I would have no religion, no country, no husband, and no self.  
 

I keep what works and reject what doesn’t in all areas of my life.  My story isn’t over but so far it all works for me. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Ex...there is plenty of pushback against the stone-in-the-hat theory).

Yes, I have studied it.  So far not impressed.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Mom was telling me about Swedenborg when I was ten or twelve...

Thanks for sharing your back-story.  You got off to a good head start on all the rest of us! 

17 hours ago, Devobah said:

If you have researched the church history, what has made you stay? Why have you chosen to stay?

Thank you for starting this thread.  I think this is a highly relevant question for the LDS Church today. 

I recall a post by someone on this forum who falls into the category you're inquiring about who said they stayed because the LDS Church has the priesthood authority and the temple ordinances. 

(Since I don't fall into the category - I didn't stay - I don't have a relevant response to your question, but I respect those who chose to stay.)

I assume you aren't asking this question out of mere idle curiosity.  Why have you chosen to stay?

Edited June 1, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would encourage people to study traditionalist apologetic sources before believing everything they hear about "controversial" church history, even if those they are hearing them from are well-known Church scholars and historians. (Ex...there is plenty of pushback against the stone-in-the-hat theory).

https://ldsanswers.org/category/church-history/

 

Pushback against the stone-in-a-hat theory? That some people don't believe in it, or that their belief in Joseph as a prophet is shaken? Or both.

I fly my drone during the day, and sunlight competes with my phone's screen so it can be hard to see what the drone is seeing. Here's a photo of some guy with a detachable hood over his controller/phone, and a hat with a bill to exclude the sunlight so he can see the screen. He sometimes has to touch the brim of his hat to the hood so as to keep extraneous light out.

If Joseph was having to read characters that were restricted to his view, seems there'd be no way to do so except to use a hat or something like it to exclude room light and keep his transcriptionist from seeing it.

 

[blackstrap]

I am currently rereading " Rough Stone Rolling ". History is messy but interesting. For some , leaving the Church was a long and difficult struggle. For others , all it took was a misspelled name or a sideways glance from Joseph. When I read about those who had marvelous and extensive spiritual experiences and yet left ( some returned ), it reminds me to keep a watchful eye on my testimony. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Pushback against the stone-in-a-hat theory? That some people don't believe in it, or that their belief in Joseph as a prophet is shaken? Or both.

I fly my drone during the day, and sunlight competes with my phone's screen so it can be hard to see what the drone is seeing. Here's a photo of some guy with a detachable hood over his controller/phone, and a hat with a bill to exclude the sunlight so he can see the screen. He sometimes has to touch the brim of his hat to the hood so as to keep extraneous light out.

If Joseph was having to read characters that were restricted to his view, seems there'd be no way to do so except to use a hat or something like it to exclude room light and keep his transcriptionist from seeing it.

 

There are those of us that believe the Urim & Thummim were given for the purpose of translation and were used for that purpose, in the way intended- like spectacles attached to the breastplate. We believe Emma, in her advancing aged was influenced by David Whitmer, who was not a scribe and was in no position to relate the translation process. Her son didn't even use the stone in the hat narrative after his mother related it, indicating skepticism. Neither Joseph nor Oliver ever stated the stone in the hat method was used.

The stone in the hat theory has caused doubts among former believers as it ties into the false hoodoo charges against Joseph and his family, which for some bizarre reason Bushman and others have accepted.

Edited June 1, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That some people don't believe in it

Some members don’t believe it.

Oops, see zealous already answered.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

My more troubling issues are with church history. With a decent knowledge of scriptures, I first entered as a newbie on the apologetic side, I had to learn historic issues on the fly. With 99% of the time, anti-mo's read from the same books with one-sided arguments, lock step, I'd go read a FAIR Article, and beheld there were two sides to every story, and some leeway to pick which version of history you favor. When you are seasoned read, you find there were more than just two sides. I once tried to justify the priesthood ban as inspired, based on precedent; I find in defending the church doesn't mean you have to die on that hill, it's easier to just say the church was in error and changed for the better, like a good church should. I just engage with most issues according to ancient precedent. LDS is my favorite modern religious movement. The church is a great machine, it takes care of its people like a good church should. The people it produces tend to be healthier, happier, better educated, and more committed to family values. They are also more likely to be socially connected and engaged in volunteerism and charitable giving. What more could I ask for? Why leave? For long past historic issues that might not even be true, as more than once a new apologetic book comes out challenging it. I'd put my foundation in a spiritual witness over some shaky field of study as church history. I bet most people, including most Ex-Mos would believe in spite of history, or even the earth is flat, if they ever felt the touch of God. What are any of these things compared to the word of the All Mighty in your soul?

Edited June 2, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Some members don’t believe it.

Oops, see zealous already answered.

For various reasons, if he actually used the stone-in-the-hat method it doesn't bother me, because I can appreciate why he might have. If he didn't, then it doesn't bother me, either. I find this method to be entirely plausible -- and I almost wrote "stone-in-the-cat," but managed to catch it before I hit Submit.

I guess "Cat in the Hat" was on my mind.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

and I almost wrote "stone-in-the-cat," but managed to

My dog had kidney stones, cats most likely can too.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

There are those of us that believe the Urim & Thummim were given for the purpose of translation and were used for that purpose, in the way intended- like spectacles attached to the breastplate. We believe Emma, in her advancing aged was influenced by David Whitmer, who was not a scribe and was in no position to relate the translation process. Her son didn't even use the stone in the hat narrative after his mother related it, indicating skepticism. Neither Joseph nor Oliver ever stated the stone in the hat method was used.

The stone in the hat theory has caused doubts among former believers as it ties into the false hoodoo charges against Joseph and his family, which for some bizarre reason Bushman and others have accepted.

For me, one of the most impressive stories in the Book of Mormon is that of the Brother of Jared asking God to touch the stones to provide light, which He then did. Presumably the stones were clear or translucent (quartz crystals?), and were no more of divine origin than the Seer Stone that Joseph had. Jesus spat on the ground and used the mud produced to cure a blind man. Moses paraded a statue of a snake to cure snake bites.

Is there such a thing as a miraculous mud? A holy rock? Sanctified crystals? The hair of the dog that bit you? Or the snake?

No. There is the power of God, which has been used in various forms through human history. When Naaman was told to wash seven times in the Jordan, was the cure in the Jordan? No, the cure was in doing the will of God. Baptism makes you wet, but it is not the water that forgives you of your sins. The forgiveness is in the faith in Christ demonstrated by doing the will of Christ.

Irrespective of whether Joseph received the translation of the Book of Mormon through the Urim and Thummim, or a stone in a hat, or by neither, it was the power of God that provided the translation.

Getting hung up in what one thinks is "reasonable" or "less weird" leads to demonstrating faithlessness. My testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from the book as confirmed through the Spirit. It doesn't matter how Joseph received the translation. God does things His way. See my signature.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Getting hung up in what one thinks is "reasonable" or "less weird" leads to demonstrating faithlessness

Or more prophetlike….

George Watts alter sermons to sound more dignified according to LaJean Carruth.  I wonder how many journals and other sources were embellished for the same purpose and if anything ended up truly doctrinally significant, might have changed things.

Better to see the struggles and simpleness imo.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or more prophetlike….

George Watts alter sermons to sound more dignified according to LaJean Carruth.  I wonder how many journals and other sources were embellished for the same purpose and if anything ended up truly doctrinally significant, might have changed things.

Better to see the struggles and simpleness imo.

I am the stake history specialist.  In our recent stake conference one the less experienced speakers gave a very muddled talk. I had to get creative to provide a summary for the report. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am the stake history specialist.  In our recent stake conference one the less experienced speakers gave a very muddled talk. I had to get creative to provide a summary for the report. 

I agree there are times it isn’t going to match as it could even come across as patronizing to perfectly or intending to insult if one chose to transcribe a sermon with all the ums and breaks and such, a good effort to write what you truly believe they were trying to say and not what you hope or wish they said is very different imo.

Edited June 1, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

For me, one of the most impressive stories in the Book of Mormon is that of the Brother of Jared asking God to touch the stones to provide light, which He then did. Presumably the stones were clear or translucent (quartz crystals?), and were no more of divine origin than the Seer Stone that Joseph had. Jesus spat on the ground and used the mud produced to cure a blind man. Moses paraded a statue of a snake to cure snake bites.

Is there such a thing as a miraculous mud? A holy rock? Sanctified crystals? The hair of the dog that bit you? Or the snake?

No. There is the power of God, which has been used in various forms through human history. When Naaman was told to wash seven times in the Jordan, was the cure in the Jordan? No, the cure was in doing the will of God. Baptism makes you wet, but it is not the water that forgives you of your sins. The forgiveness is in the faith in Christ demonstrated by doing the will of Christ.

Irrespective of whether Joseph received the translation of the Book of Mormon through the Urim and Thummim, or a stone in a hat, or by neither, it was the power of God that provided the translation.

Getting hung up in what one thinks is "reasonable" or "less weird" leads to demonstrating faithlessness. My testimony of the Book of Mormon comes from the book as confirmed through the Spirit. It doesn't matter how Joseph received the translation. God does things His way. See my signature.

What is the point of Joseph receiving the Urim and Thummim (interpreters) which were made specifically to interpret writings of an ancient date- if Joseph wasn't meant to use them? 

Weird doesn't bother me at all- I gained a rock-solid testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. at age 16. But I choose scriptural and historical explanations over clouded memories by those who left the main body of the Church many years previously, or claims originating with enemies of the Church, when the choice between the two is given.

[Devobah]

3 hours ago, manol said:

I assume you aren't asking this question out of mere idle curiosity.  Why have you chosen to stay?

You would be half right. Part of it is curiosity, but part of it is seeing the reasons people stay beyond "the brainwashing" and not wanting to disturb the peace of their familial and friend relationships. Are the answers that are provided by apologists actually helping? It seems you would depend on who you ask. I just want get a poll of things. I love research and getting the opinions of the people. I ask lots of questions. It is both a blessing, a curse, and something that I've wanted to develop over the last few years. (It's the English teacher in me 😜 I can't help it sometimes)

Well I suppose it's only fair that I offer my two cents to my own thread.

I'll give the cliffnotes journey that I've been on: Born and raised in the church, like most on this board. Went through high school not thinking much of it. Family is super faithful. Struggled with a few vices in high school and a bit in college. Went on a mission to Oklahoma (2015-2017), where I got a HUGE rude awakening, started a faith crisis, then had a few sacred, religious experiences that I cannot deny (including a dream about what I believe to be my future). Came home, came across the CES letter, endured many a sleepless night because of the "thang ding" (props if you get the reference. We are now best friends), then went on my own journey with church history and doctrine. Joined a few Facebook groups to help with that, and found mixed reviews. Like what many have seen, one of the plays is to attack the messenger and their characteristics whatever it may be, while others choose to attack the argument itself.

Ultimately what's kept me in are the doctrines. Mainly that of the plan of salvation. I still believe in God and Christ, and believe that Christ is necessary for salvation. And in order for God to be just, He must offer that salvation and the chance to hear to everyone, both living and dead. My family has also been incredibly supportive in this process (when I did finally decide to let them in on what had been happening in my life) and they just don't seem bothered by anything. 

So why did/does some stuff bother me and not them. I told my dad, expecting minds to be blown and destroy my family, but he just pulled out some of the stuff he had researched and what he had seen and done. He talked about the Godmakers and the Gospel Topics Essays. When I asked him why he never brought this stuff up to the rest of us, his answer was twofold: 

1) we never asked

2) his job as a parent was to prepare his children to meet God. That included teaching them correct principles and the Gospel. If church history came up, it came up and he would answer. If it didn't it didn't and he would be here if it eventually did.

Hopefully that answers your question! 

I have a few more comments on here I want to get to but I only have the time for this one at the moment, and I feel that it was the one worth answering with my limited time.

[Devobah]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

For various reasons, if he actually used the stone-in-the-hat method it doesn't bother me, because I can appreciate why he might have. If he didn't, then it doesn't bother me, either. I find this method to be entirely plausible

To make a little levity on the situation, I think Sarah Allen put it best when she said (I'm paraphrasing): You either believe in one "magic" rock, two, or both. it shouldn't change how we see the translation. And that changed my whole perspective on it. I never had the visualization of the spectacles like some did. The way that I visualized it was Joseph holding the stone over the plates and that was how he saw the English words. During this time I was probably more in the "tight translation" camp than anything else. The more I learned about languages and how we understand what is being said versus what is actually being said my views began to change. Funnily enough, I actually recently started to get stuff on Instagram that has to do with the translation of languages. Italian and Spanish are interesting languages because what we understand isn't what is being said. A "tight" translation wouldn't make sense to us, but a looser translation does. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

"thang ding" props if you get the reference.

{typing} Being in a character video is not something he's too cool for. I should know. I filmed the thang ding.

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What is the point of Joseph receiving the Urim and Thummim (interpreters) which were made specifically to interpret writings of an ancient date- if Joseph wasn't meant to use them? 

I think he used them, and lost them when he lost the Book of Lehi. Joseph had five seers stones if you trust Brigham's say so,

“Oliver sent me Joseph’s first seer stone; Oliver always kept it until he sent it to me – the second seer stone Dr. Williams had – the third one was a very large – and Joseph found two small ones on the beach in Nauvoo – a little larger than a black walnut without the shock on – Joseph said there is a stone for every person on the earth – I don’t know that I have ever had a desire to have one.”  (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Ed. Richard S. Van Wagoner, Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City (2009)).

I am a big fan of Bible diviner lore. Ever read about the Tzohar chain midrash? The Jewish commentaries and lore that all the greatest prophets had divining rocks. Adam's Sapphire/Book of Raziel, a book or stone (sefer=book, sapphire=precious stone) that taught Adam how to read and write (Genesis 2:4). Noah's Tzohar (Light) stone that provided light in the ark, and divined whether it was day or night in the ark (Genesis 6:16). Joseph of Egypt put a divining stone in his divining cup, buried his face in his cup to interpret dreams (Genesis 44:5). Moses had Prescious Stones written upon by the finger of God of a clear sapphire from under the throne (Exodus 24:9-14). Also, Jonah's Pearl inside the fish, through which he could clairvoyantly see everything (Jonah 2:1-6).

The way Joseph put the seer stone in a hat is how the Urim and Thummim was used. The High Priest divined answers to questions by sitting in the dark, and the two rocks would glow. If Joseph had seer stones, it's not less true, it sounds truer to my ear. Joseph wasn't a witch, he was a prophet, like all great ones.

*Tzohar stones as depicted in the film Noah (2014)

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

I love seeing that historical characters are human.  Finding the faults of Joseph, Emma, Brigham, etc is actually helpful to me because it makes them more relatable.  I don't enjoy listening to the faith promoting stories that hide the ugly details.  I feel like those do a great disservice to the actual people and what they went through.

Maybe that is why I had such a crisis of faith. My parents didn't delve much into church history that I know of and then I grew up with the almost perfect church leaders in the various lessons I heard. So in my mid 40's I had a rude awakening when finding out about Joseph's specific polygamy. Already thought I knew all there was to know since I knew BY lived it. But now know he didn't live it like I thought. 

I stay in, but currently not active. I look active, haha, wear the g's. Have all LDS friends, for the most part. I can't escape it because it's in my blood, the LDS people are my tribe I guess. And having this board is probably how I hang on so long while reading posts, and feeling less lonely in my knowledge of the warts and all.