Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scottie writes:

Believe it or not, I'm on the Church's side here.

I don't think so. It certainly doesn't sound like it. And I find it interesting that both you and Rollo felt the need to express this. This is kind of like telling someone that the whipping you are about to deliver to them is for their own good. I simply don't see it that way.

With the small group of people I have encountered, when I tell them about JS & polygamy, it causes a pretty intense reaction. Most times, it just goes away. But there IS a reaction.

I can think of many reasons why this would be the case, but this IS not the case with nearly all of the LDS that I interact with.

Of course, I would be interested in finding out where you live. Where I live, out in the mission field, there really isn't any vested interest in keeping Joseph Smith free of polygamy. All of the issues surrounding polygamy in Nauvoo are generally not considered terribly significant. And so there isn't much of a need to attempt to theologically protect Joseph Smith. Of course, from my personal perspective, I also don't really have any particular expectancy of infallibility in my leaders, and I never have, so there isn't any need for me to theologically protect my views either. But this isn't the whole point. Even for those in whom it produces a reaction, that reaction isn't to up and abandon their faith, generally speaking.

Perhaps you are right and the vast majority would just say, "Oh, that's interesting." But from the posts I've read here and on RfM, people ARE disturbed when they find this out. Again, this is far too small a sample to base such a large generalization on.

This is utter nonsense. If we took a poll on RFM right now, and asked how many people there didn't know that Joseph Smith engaged in polygamy, the number would be tiny. Joseph's polygamy, usually described in language I wouldn't want used in my home, is a common topic there. And if you are suggesting that when you bring it up you get a strong reaction, it is merely because they already have strong opinions on the topic, not because they are discovering it for the first time. Even here, such a poll among the believers would show a nearly universal level of knowledge of the polygamy of Joseph Smith before participation in these forums began.

Then again most of the people on RFM are disaffected, and are trying to find a way to deal with the issues their separation from Mormonism is causing. Unfortunately, their program doesn't have a way to deal with people who need to get rid of the fundamentalistic worldview as much as they need to get rid of Mormonism. They get rid of Mormonism, but cannot escape their fundamentalism.

So, what I don't understand is why you think that this response here is typical of members of the church - or why you seem to be suggesting that the discussions on RFM are actually accurate descriptions of their first encounter with this information ... I certainly don't believe this. I do know people who have a hard time dealing with the issue of polygamy - but this is not typical of their responses. So let me repeat myself. This claim of yours is utter nonsense.

My argument is that it would be better for people to find out about this in a church setting where it can be discussed from the church's point of view. Not from someone stumbling across some anti-site and finding out from there.

Sure. If they are interested in the stuff, they should read it in published material. Personally, I don't want discussions on polygamy in church. It is not the place for it. It will not be spiritually rewarding (for most of the participants). And in my opinion, it simply isn't relevant (and most LDS that I know also believe this). I don't see the need for it that you express. I do feel that the time would be far better spent reading the scriptures more (in church). And of course, if we want to do history, a person will get far more from a good historical view of the Old Testament in terms of understanding their religion, than a discussion on Joseph Smith and all of the speculation over his wives, how many he had, which ones he slept with, the possible children, etc., that those who are interested in full disclosure want to see. I simply don't agree with you. And since I believe that the majority (a great majority) of the members of the church would side with me on this point, I see no reason to even make a token concession in your favor.

There was a post from RfM many months ago (deleted by now, I'm sure), but the poster said she was trying to do some research for a talk in Sacrament. I don't remember what she was searching for, but it led her to a site that talked about JS' multiple wives. She brushed it off, but it ignited a small spark of doubt. She researched more on LDS websites and found out it was true. According to her account, it REALLY disturbed her and it caused her to wonder what other things the church was hiding from her. It damaged her testimony.

Ah yes, the anonymous posting. You see, this goes back to the things I brought up earlier. It isn't about what she was finding. I found all the same things. It did not REALLY disturb me. My experience is that these things cause concern because people do not have a testimony of the gospel. They do not pray and have their prayers answered in a personal significant way. They have not received significant spiritual witnesses - and generally (although not always) that haven't even been looking. This is far more likely to occur within cultural Mormonism than within convert mormonism I think - where spiritual conversion doesn't have to happen for a person to be a TBM.

I know, I know...it's all out there and it is all her fault because she was just lazy and didn't read her history.

That isn't it at all. I think that what I am pointing out is that for many people, it becomes an inevitability. At some point, their perspective of what the gospel is (read: ought to be) comes into conflict with what the religion is. And if they cannot resolve this issue, then they are going to have problems. For some, this becomes a stepping stone to a more mature faith in which recognize that there is going to be this gap. For others, there will never be recognition of the gap, and there will always be denial that such a gap exists. For some, the gap will become an impassable chasm. For others, the existence of the gap, and its acceptance then leads to criticism and cynicism, and a willingness to burst the bubble of faith for others (I read this as bringing up, for example, Joseph's polygamy, just to get a rise out of people). We could go on. I really like the book The Believing Heart by Bruce Hafen. It discusses this in some detail. But the issue isn't over what it was that triggered the awareness of this gap - or the realization of ambiguity, but with the way that we are prepared to deal with it. It isn't going to help build peoples faith to expose them to ambiguity - even if couched in a position of faith. That isn't what will help them. Some of those will still be unable to reconcile their views of what ought to be with what is.

This is the challenge. And this is where our focus needs to be. How to we convince people that personal revelation is achievable - that God still answers prayers - that we can achieve the miraculous. Have you ever had significant life-altering spiritual experiences that you will never be able to deny, and which have altered your life in a positive way forever? This is what we need to teach.

When Lehi had his vision, his sons took two approaches. Nephi asked God for a repeat of the vision (which, interestingly enough, was different for him than it was for his father - which doesn't negate either message). Laman and Lemuel asked Nephi to intepret it for them. So, which approach should we promote? Do we ask the prophet for an interpretation? Or do we ask for the revelation. These are the kinds of issues which need to become more of the focus of our worship.

Ben

[charity]

Rollo, said: I don't see any reason why every issue and event in Church doctrine and history shouldn't be discussed in a forum such as this.

I answer: Of course. We can discuss. But discuss is not the same as harangued.

Rollo said: Where I think change would be beneficial, I use my voice and influence to argue for positive change.

I answer: But you demand that we agree with you.

Rollo said: And I've seen positive change come from my words, if only in people becoming more informed and understanding the whole story (or at least more of the story), and that, I think, helps all of us (including you) become more open-minded.

I ask: How are you assessing "positive change?"

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

An excellent explanation of what I mean by "cognitive dissonance" and its relation to Mormon beliefs can be read in Bob McCue's paper at this link (starting around page 38 or so):

http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/d...nism%20true.pdf

Read and learn.

I have read it. Bob McCue has no idea what cognitive dissonance is. He has no credentials in a related field. The fact that you are willing to uncritically tout him as an authority is itself merely symptomatic of the things I am telling you about you.

2. I'm glad you know and understand my beliefs better than I do -- your confidence in this regard speaks volumes for the confidence you exude in other areas.

Good, I am glad that you approve.

3. You don't like my presence here? Darn .... I caused you to leave ZLMB? Darn ... again. Like I've said before, I only try to "give the other side of the story," the one members won't read in the Ensign or hear in Gospel Doctrine class. If you see this as only "negative," then I submit you have become addicted to a sugarcoated diet with it comes to Mormonism. Try some variety; you may like it.

Listen, it isn't that you merely present "the other side of the story" - its the fact that all you present is negative. Like Scottie, you somehow think that this is for all our good. Yet, you cannot confront your own fundamentalist outlook in any straightforward way. You suggest now that I really am not aware of the other side, that I haven't read anti-mormon literature or alternate approaches - because this is, perhaps, the only way that you can feel that I can maintain my position? Obviously this gets back to my comments on rational belief.

4. I participate on RfM about as often as you participate on ZLMB, which is rarely. The fact that I am "welcomed" there or anywhere is flattering.

If I post on RFM, the posts typically last about as long as it takes to blink (actually, there are many of us in that same position). I do not agree with their agenda, hence I am not a welcome guest there. Their habit of censoring faithful mormons there is quite widely known.

5. We all have different viewpoints, and this doesn't trivialize either side. You can characterize me and my arguments all you want, but it is no more than your opinion -- I have my own opinions about you and your arguments. As I've said to you many times before, if you dislike my posting so much, then simply don't read them. It's an easy solution that should resolve your deeply-held qualms about me.

It is not this easy is it. The fact that at ZLMB you and a few others began dominating the discussion which ultimately led to several leaving (and it has not recovered) is the case. I came here as my major forum simply so that I could avoid encountering you. But then you followed. I think, personally, that you lost the audience that you felt you need to "show the other side" to. And you followed them. So, no, I don't that your telling me to ignore you is really what you think - when you try to be so in-your-face about it.

Ben

[Abulafia]

BC Space Wrote:

Yes, but how many Christians actually know that?  Not very many.  And thus it is shown that yet another antiMormon tactic actually invalidates the Bible.

Hi BC Space, I am afraid you are going to have to explain what you mean here. I am a little confused.

On the history topic I can only give my personal experience. I was always aware that polygamy was a part of the early lds church practice. I was always aware that it is viewed as a practice that will be relevant in the 'celestial kingdom'. I was always aware of Brighams Young's wives and that some of them didn't like it so much.

I was also pretty much aware (because humans are humans) that it wouldn't have been practiced perfectly. Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was always shrouded in mystery. 30 years ago, there was no internet, and the country I am from had no book stores or libraries that sold books on church history.

I think that polygamy has been the life blood of the LDS church, and without it, the church probably wouldn't be as solid as it is today.

I still think it's a tricky one to deal with. I remember reading Van Wagoner's book on Mormon Polygamy which I purchased from an LDS history symposium. I naively went into a Deseret Bookstore when I was in SLC and told them they should take it off the shelves because it wasn't particularly faith promoting, and showed a Joseph Smith that I wasn't aware of from everything else I had learned at church. A rather bemused assistant told me that it was actually one of the better ones on polygamy (I am talking the 80's here!!)..

It really is a tricky one, but I think if people know right from the beginning the colour in the history that they would be better able to deal with it.

Just my opinion.

[Rollo Tomasi]

We can discuss. But discuss is not the same as harangued.

...

But you demand that we agree with you.

...

How are you assessing "positive change?"

1. How do I "harangue"? If anything, personal attacks are leveled against me over and over, and I try very hard not to reciprocate. I simply try to discuss the issues in a civil and courteous way.

2. I have never "demanded" that anyone agree with me. My posts are my opinions alone, and everyone is free to agree or disagree.

3. I assess "positive change" by the feedback I've received.

[charity]

Scottie wrote: Fair enough. More and more it appears that I am completely wrong and my little subset was an anomoly. It would appear that most members either already know, or when they find out are unphased. Good enough for me.

Scottie, I think this is a useful feature of the message board. You got to see outside your own experience.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scottie writes:

Are you denying that they ARE hiding polygamy?

Yes.

I said this before, but from my point of view, if I look at polygamy from the mindset that God commanded it, there are tons of holes that I can't resolve. If I look at polygamy from the mindset that JS was a man abusing his powers to gain sexual licence, it all makes sense.

It's kind of funny that no one accuse Moses of this - but the Law of Moses requires polygamy under certain circumstances.

If I had ever received this testimony, perhaps I could say this. As it is, I am one of the poor schlums left to rely on history and common sense.

And this demonstrates my points -

1) insufficient testimony and

2) the notion that common sense (i.e. rationality) points away from the church.

If most Mormons do act this way, then I am completely wrong and there is no problem. I'm just relating my experiences.

Of course, but I don't think being completely wrong will change your position on belief either, will it?

Do you really think you choose what you believe? Even if I wanted to go back, I don't think I could just decide to believe again. It just doesn't work like that.

I have had a paradigm shift. I see things from outside the Mormon church and a LOT of it doesn't make sense, unless you go with the option that JS made it up. I can't just shelve it all like you do.

Now, that being said, I will admit that there is a lot that doesn't make sense from outside either. There are evidences for the BoM and Mormonism in general, and I accept these as evidences. For me, it just isn't enough to counter the evidence against.

You haven't really changed paradigms. You have simply substituted what you think is authoritative.

Ben

[Magyar]

I tried an experiment yesterday. I asked my sweet wife, who is very smart and devout but not interested at all in Mormon apologetics, if she knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

"Yeah. Do you think I'm stupid?" said she.

"Does it bother you?" I asked.

"Why should it?" she said, shrugging her shoulders, and we went on to other things.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Bob McCue has no idea what cognitive dissonance is. He has no credentials in a related field. The fact that you are willing to uncritically tout him as an authority is itself merely symptomatic of the things I am telling you about you.

...

Listen, it isn't that you merely present "the other side of the story" - its the fact that all you present is negative.

...

If I post on RFM, the posts typically last about as long as it takes to blink (actually, there are many of us in that same position). I do not agree with their agenda, hence I am not a welcome guest there. Their habit of censoring faithful mormons there is quite widely known.

...

It is not this easy is it. The fact that at ZLMB you and a few others began dominating the discussion which ultimately led to several leaving (and it has not recovered) is the case.

...

I came here as my major forum simply so that I could avoid encountering you. But then you followed. I think, personally, that you lost the audience that you felt you need to "show the other side" to. And you followed them.

1. I think Bob McCue is quite brilliant, regardless of his "credentials." I simply cited to him because he explains the issue very well. If you disagree, please share your reasons.

2. What you may see as "negative," others may view as "enlightening." Truth just is, Ben. And the fact it may make us feel uncomfortable does not change it in the least. Information is knowledge. There is no good reason to hide (or downplay) any part of LDS history from members, imo.

3. I agree with you that RfM does not tolerate posts by faithful members, and it is a glaring shortcoming on that bb; this bb affords much greater diversity, imo, than RfM.

4. I did not "dominate" at ZLMB -- the 5 post per day limit made sure of that. The posting limit is what did in ZLMB, and they are trying to fix that by removing any post limit (but it may be too late now).

5. I "followed" you here? I can assure you that I am not stalking you. Being a bit paranoid, Ben?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

1. I think Bob McCue is quite brilliant, regardless of his "credentials." I simply cited to him because he explains the issue very well. If you disagree, please share your reasons.

The problem is, that what you say (and what Bob McCue says in places) does not demonstrate any kind of real knowledge of what cognitive dissonance is. This is why I directed my comments to you. What you said is in error. It is not reconcilable with cognitive dissonance theory. There are plenty of good websites on the internet which discuss it from a scholarly standpoint. I recommend you read some.

2. What you may see as "negative," others may view as "enlightening." Truth just is, Ben. And the fact it may make us feel uncomfortable does not change it in the least. Information is knowledge. There is no good reason to hide (or downplay) any part of LDS history from members, imo.

It is negative. The fact that you are claiming that feeding me negativity is somehow positive is, in my opinion, somewhat baffling. And it isn't just about LDS history. Every topic that you present or start is simply negative in tone and nature. There is nothing positive or productive about it.

4. I did not "dominate" at ZLMB -- the 5 post per day limit made sure of that. The posting limit is what did in ZLMB, and they are trying to fix that by removing any post limit (but it may be too late now).

It wasn't the limit, it was the content that caused the changes on ZLMB.

5. I "followed" you here? I can assure you that I am not stalking you. Being a bit paranoid, Ben?

No paranoia. You arrived here after I started posting here more frequently. Actually lots of people came here from ZLMB. Some have since left, some have been forced to leave. But I think it was your audience you were after. So that you could "help" us with your negativity.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

rameumptom writes:

From one Morg-bot to another, thanks for your rant. I totally agree with it. I was wondering if I could use it as part of my .sig?

Sure.

[Rollo Tomasi]

What you said is in error. It is not reconcilable with cognitive dissonance theory.

...

The fact that you are claiming that feeding me negativity is somehow positive is, in my opinion, somewhat baffling. And it isn't just about LDS history. Every topic that you present or start is simply negative in tone and nature. There is nothing positive or productive about it.

...

It wasn't the limit, it was the content that caused the changes on ZLMB.

...

No paranoia. You arrived here after I started posting here more frequently.

1. Perhaps your own cognitive dissonance is getting in the way of your understanding?

2. Paraphrasing the old adage, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. Sounds to me as if we ought to keep even the negative history in mind, lest we have to do it all over again. "Sugarcoating" and "whitewashing" helps no one, even if it makes you feel better.

3. Go over to ZLMB -- the nearly universal feeling is that folks left due to the posting max.

4. I note that I registered here OVER ONE YEAR after you did. If I'm stalking you, then I'm not very good at it. I come here a lot more frequently that you do; I find this bb stimulating discussion and very tolerant of divergent views. I'm not here because of you, Ben (but you can think that if it makes you feel better), or other ZLMB folks, but just because I like the conversation. If all you want is the "positive" (from your point of view), perhaps you should try the Nauvoo Forum? But, if you want to stick around here, you need to get a thicker skin.

[charity]

Rollo: "1. How do I "harangue"? If anything, personal attacks are leveled against me over and over, and I try very hard not to reciprocate. I simply try to discuss the issues in a civil and courteous way."

I answer: I see haranguing when someone posts back to you, and you do not appear to even consider that what they say has any merit.

Rollo: "2. I have never "demanded" that anyone agree with me. My posts are my opinions alone, and everyone is free to agree or disagree."

I answer: Your opinion alone? When you say that what you think about something virtually demands an action from someone else, this does not appear that you are recognizing that you are stating an opinion.

Rollo: "3. I assess "positive change" by the feedback I've received."

I answer: If you are referring to the feedback you receive on this message board, what I have seen is this: I can predict those who will always agree with you. Since they already share your viewpoint, I don't see any "change."

[Rollo Tomasi]

I see haranguing when someone posts back to you, and you do not appear to even consider that what they say has any merit.

...

Your opinion alone? When you say that what you think about something virtually demands an action from someone else, this does not appear that you are recognizing that you are stating an opinion.

...

If you are referring to the feedback you receive on this message board, what I have seen is this: I can predict those who will always agree with you. Since they already share your viewpoint, I don't see any "change."

1. I do consider the merits of all posts back to me (unless they are just personal attacks, which is often).

2. I don't "demand action" from anyone that I recall. I am simply arguing my position.

3. Some feedback is from this bb, some from other bb's, and others from private messages. Some folks will always disagree with me (like you), others may always agree -- and some may even change their opinion. It's up to the individual, as it should be.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rollo writes:

1. Perhaps your own cognitive dissonance is getting in the way of your understanding?

Not at all. Let's look at your comment again, shall we? You wrote:

I have never said that members' discovery of heretofore unknown polygamy details cause a "testimony-breaking" experience. Quite the opposite is true, imo, for I find that many TBM's are easily able to brush off troubling issues from Church history with the typical "we don't know everything now, and God will explain it all in the next life" explanation -- cognitive dissonance can be very handy for those who choose to believe no matter what.

In other words, members brush off troubling issues because of cognitive dissonance.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance :

In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compel the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

So, what thought has been acquired, or invented, or modified to minimize the dissonance? You suggest that this is a common response (i.e. this belief that God will explain). So it cannot be new, it isn't changed or modified. There doesn't seem to a process of cognitive dissonance demonstrated in your comments. Here is a better way of looking at it:

http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html

From this site, I quote some:

The magnitude of dissonance between one cognitive element and the remainder of the person's cognitions depends on the number and importance of cognitions that are consonant and dissonant with the one in question. Formally speaking, the magnitude of dissonance equals the number of dissonant cognitions divided by the number of consonant cognitions plus the number of dissonant cognitions. This is referred to as the dissonance ratio. Holding the number and importance of consonant cognitions constant, as the number or importance of dissonant cognitions increases, the magnitude of dissonance increases. Holding the number and importance of dissonant cognitions constant, as the number or importance of consonant cognitions increases, the magnitude of dissonance decreases.

In other words, to the TBM, the fact that there are any number of important cognitions supporting their belief, the introduction of a consonant cognition creates alomst no dissonance - certainly not sufficient enough dissonance to force the individual to change their beliefs or create new ones. Thus, the TBM in your example doesn't experience cognitive dissonance. And cognitive dissonance shouldn't be described as being useful to them - simply because it isn't. In any case, I don't have any challenges with my understanding - it is your presentation and Bob's presentation that I have issues with. Perhaps you would be willing to defend your comments without referring us to Bob.

2. Paraphrasing the old adage, those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it. Sounds to me as if we ought to keep even the negative history in mind, lest we have to do it all over again. "Sugarcoating" and "whitewashing" helps no one, even if it makes you feel better.

Yes, ever so willing to justify the non-stop barrage of negativity. Listen, your defense of what you do is meaningless to me. I haven't accepted it so far, and your rationalization of your behaviour isn't going to change my mind.

Go over to ZLMB -- the nearly universal feeling is that folks left due to the posting max.

I am aware of this. On the other hand, I left. And so did others. Those who remained didn't like the capping. But I think the consensus among those of us who left is something far different. Perhaps you will remember that the 5 post cap was discretionary, and that some of us were not subject to it. ... It did not affect my posting ability there in the slightest, and it was not the reason I left.

4. I note that I registered here OVER ONE YEAR after you did. If I'm stalking you, then I'm not very good at it.  I come here a lot more frequently that you do; I find this bb stimulating discussion and very tolerant of divergent views. I'm not here because of you, Ben (but you can think that if it makes you feel better), or other ZLMB folks, but just because I like the conversation. If all you want is the "positive" (from your point of view), perhaps you should try the Nauvoo Forum? But, if you want to stick around here, you need to get a thicker skin.

I didn't say you were stalking. I think you were looking for an audience to assist with your negativity. On the other hand, I have been posting here for many, many years. I was even a moderator for quite a while. I am happy with the environment. I even manage to ignore most of your material. It isn't the material that bothers me. It is the constant barrage of negativity that you are a part of.

You don't come here more frequently - you post here more frequently. But, as on ZLMB, I would suggest that substance is preferrable to quantity. ...

Ben

[charity]

Rollo: 1. I do consider the merits of all posts back to me (unless they are just personal attacks, which is often).

I answer: If you do consider the posts, may I suggest that you indicate this in the posts you send back?

Rollo: 2. I don't "demand action" from anyone that I recall. I am simply arguing my position.

I answer: You demand the Church apologize, recant, and/or change the curriculum to comply with your ideas. I don't see that as merely arguing a position.

Rollo: 3. Some feedback is from this bb, some from other bb's, and others from private messages. Some folks will always disagree with me (like you), others may always agree -- and some may even change their opinion. It's up to the individual, as it should be.

I answer: I only see this message board. I don't have time for more so I can't say what your experience is on others. We have to be very careful with subjective assessments. It is really easy to overestimate positive and underestimate negative, unless you are actually keeping a tally, so you will know numbers. And it is easy to think something is an agreement, when it is really only an acknowledgement of understanding. Caution is advised before making such statements.

[Matt Andrews]

For what it is worth,

Rollo did use the term "cognitive dissonance" incorrectly, though I expect he does know what the term means.

....

[Rollo Tomasi]

In any case, I don't have any challenges with my understanding - it is your presentation and Bob's presentation that I have issues with. Perhaps you would be willing to defend your comments without referring us to Bob.

...

I haven't accepted it so far, and your rationalization of your behaviour isn't going to change my mind.

...

Perhaps you will remember that the 5 post cap was discretionary, and that some of us were not subject to it. ... It did not affect my posting ability there in the slightest, and it was not the reason I left.

...

I didn't say you were stalking. I think you were looking for an audience to assist with your negativity.

...

I even manage to ignore most of your material.

1. When I hear a member push aside an issue because "we just don't understand it, and the Lord will explain it to us in the next life," this tells me they are suffering from cognitive dissonance -- i.e., the member is faced with a conflict between one's belief and evidence. Something has to give, and often the member simply mentally buries the conflicting evidence in the proverbial file marked "I don't understand it now, but God will explain it in the next life." This is the most typical result of a TBM with congnitive dissonance -- however, others may fight the dissonance by trying to harmonize the conflicting belief and evidence, which often leads to absurd arguments (some of which we see on this bb), but if they can convince themselves that such arguments are true (or even remotely possible), then the dissonance may be resolved (at least temporarily).

2. I agree with you that I'm not going to change your mind. That's been obvious for a very long time.

3. It seemed like most, even uber-TBM's, were limited on ZLMB. I remember Joshua Skains and Scott Lloyd, both very TBM, complaining about the posting limits on them.

4. I was simply looking for an audience to discuss very divergent views of Mormonism -- and I found that here.

5. All I can suggest is that you keep ignoring me and my posts -- you'll have less indigestion.

[Calm]

As moderator over on ZLMB, I did some collecting of stats (what posters started threads, how many posts a particular poster made over time, percentage of various groups on the active users list, etc.) and POVs (what people wanted, liked or disliked, etc.) prior to the various changes as part of the decision making process.

There was a significant (both in numbers and type) portion of posters who had either left completely or who had decreased their posting down to pratically nothing prior to the change to the 5 post limit. The limit did have a common effect on those who were almost never there to finish their departure.

Of those who were left after the 5 post limit and who had been posting quite a bit, some stated that it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, but not the 'heaviest' straw by any means. Still it would hardly be surprising that since those who left primarily for content were already essentially gone, that those remaining would cite the post limit most often as their reason to go if they did. There was also a significant difference between most of those who had left for content and those that had left because of post limitations. There were very few of the posters with less restricted posting (higher than 10 per day) who significantly changed their posting habits.

Comparing numbers from the stats and correspondence, I'd have to say that the content that existed prior to the the 5 post limit and continued to exist after it was the more significant factor in people's decision.

As far as the cognitive dis discussion, Ben's remarks follow very closely what I learned in my psych training. And according to the way Rollo casually uses the term from time to time, I have doubts that he understands the proper usage of the theory.

add-on: Josh was limited before the 5 post limit; IIRC, his status was actually better after the limit was imposed. There were a couple of other LDS in the same situation as he was. Scott was limited at 5 only at the beginning, I believe I had somehow missed placing him in the higher bracket. If he complained later, I do not recall it. There were some LDS who didn't like the limitations on those they talked with, but most correspondence with me was about content.

add-add-on:

Bob does use the phrase 'cognitive dissonance theory' at times, when he is actually trying to discuss how people work to minimize such dissonance. This seems a little muddled.

Being able to give an accurate description of a theory does not seem to me to be the best indicator of understanding. How one uses it is a much better approach, imo (think those vocabulary tests--give definitin AND use it properly in a sentence). That McCue is muddled when he applies it seems indicative of a less than complete understanding.

[cinepro]

I tried an experiment yesterday. I asked my sweet wife, who is very smart and devout but not interested at all in Mormon apologetics, if she knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.

"Yeah. Do you think I'm stupid?" said she.

"Does it bother you?" I asked.

"Why should it?" she said, shrugging her shoulders, and we went on to other things.

Magyar, can we continue the experiment and have your wife read "Mormon Enigma" and Von Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy"? Possibly even Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness"? At the very least, it might answer your wife's "Why should it?" question.

This whole issue is fascinating to me. I, for one, don't have a problem with the Church's current approach to polygamy.

And why is that?

First, I understand that the Church's purpose isn't to "teach history". Teaching "history" doesn't help the Church grow, or increase Tithing revenues. The only value "history" has is to help people understand why they need to be obedient to the current Church leadership, with a little persecution/ "peculiar people" identity solidifcation thrown in to try and bring the people together.

"Stories" (but not "history) are also used to try and convince people that the Church is unique in some way that isn't evident from their day-to-day experience. For example, most people never consider the irony of there being sign-language interpreters at Temple dedications, when there is a Prophet (or Prophets) sitting in the room that could supposedly put them out of work. Here you have a group of faithful deaf saints, in the Lord's house, with the Prophet....? Hmmmmm.... So instead we convince ourselves that the Church leaders do have some sort of power by reminding ourselves of the stories we've heard about, like Joseph Smith and blessing those with yellow fever. Or something we heard in conference. Or that miracles are happening all the time, but we just don't talk about them anymore because they're sacred...

But what purpose could there be to telling "stories" that don't lead to increased loyalty to current leadership, or a greater conviction in the uniqueness and divinity of the modern-day Church? Absolutely none. From the Church's standpoint, the only purpose "other" stories have would be to satisfy the curiousity of the Church members. As noted earlier, this would be a waste of time in Church meetings, since most members aren't curious about such things to begin with.

Some doubting-Mormons and others who are antagonistic, disenchanted, dissafected, or offended by the Church seem to have a problem with the Church's approach to "telling stories". But upon further thought, I can't imagine it being any better for them, and the reason is easily summarized in two words: The Temple.

As we all know, the Temple is the extreme expression of graduation into full-fledged Mormon-ness. It is there that you become part of the tribe, a member of the inner-circle. You learn the secrets (or is it "sacreds"?) that set you apart from the rest of the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing spiritual inferiors that toil about their meaningless lives, totally unaware of the blessings they're missing out on.

But have you ever realized just how much is said about the "Temple" in Church meetings, without ever once saying anything actually about the Temple? From almost the first day of nursery, Children are focused like a laser beam on the Temple. They sing about it. They color pictures. They make promises. New converts are given the Temple as a goal, they're next step before they truly become blessed members. But at no time, in any of this, are the Children or pre-Temple adults actually told what is going to happen, or what they're going to wear, or see, or do. Their preperation is clouded in euphamisms, analogies, proof-texted scriptures, and ambigious comments.

And then, for some, the Temple is the most incredible combination of weird, silly and disturbing they ever couldn't have imagined. Forget Polygamy, Mountain Meadows, Adam-God, moon-quakers or anything else that you thought was weird or disturbing about early Church history. For some, the Temple tops it, and it isn't "history": it's going on right now, as we type. So why isn't the Temple the catalyst for more people leaving the Church? (I understand that many, many people have wonderful, spiritual experiences the first time they go to the Temple...I'm talking about the few don't).

A lot of it has to do with the subtle or overt influence of the experience. I've had a few people tell me how they were sitting there their first time, and they had to continually remind themselves of all the Church members they knew and respected, and say to themselves "Bro. so-and-so does this, and he's cool..." Then, some also convince themselves that they just need to "get used to it", or they'll learn more as they go back more frequently. This works for some, while others go repeatedly without ever getting the understanding, while others just stop going, and only renew their recommend for weddings. Assuming from the recent changes, there may have been more than a few who fell into the latter category.

So what does this have to do with the subject at hand? It's easy.

If the weird and disturbing parts of Church history were taught openly, fully, and honestly in a Church setting, with faithful Church members sitting in a group nodding their heads, most people would eventually assimilate these things as normal. A lot of that already happens to some degree, with some members saying "Well, Dan Peterson is a smart guy, and he believes in the Book of Mormon", or "If this is as non-sensical as it appears, certainly Hugh Nibley would have figured it out".

But in a Church setting, these things would lose their "shock" value, and there would be fewer "Holy Crap...!" moments from people Googling late at night as they try to answer more and more questions about The Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith and Nauvoo-era polygamy. And it is just this shock that leads to the pivotal, crucial moment on the way to being a doubting or ex-Mormon: the moment when someone admits, just for a moment, that the Church might not be "true", and then they start trying to figure out if there's a way they could determine whether or not that is the case using something more reliable and consistent than the feeling they get when they stop eating for a day or two and kneel down to pray for a while.

So, the anti's should quit complaining about all the stuff the Church leaves off the lesson plan. It would be much, much easier for Church members to assimilate disturbing information in a Sunday School setting, which is exactly what the anti's should be trying to avoid.

Conversely, since most TBM's aren't going to go and look for the disturbing aspects of Church history in such a way that they get "jolted" off their sure foundation of belief, there isn't much point in wasting time covering the issues anyway.

So the purposes of both camps are served equally well. Can't we all just get along?

[Kenngo1969]

Kennego, I most certainly don't find your remark one bit funny.  Members who dared to speak the truth were sometimes killed or dismembered.

I find your remark to be quite disgusting in fact, and totally out of the character of one possessing the promised Holy Spirit.  "By their fruits ye shall know them."

I assume you're addressing your remarks to me, notwithstanding the fact that there's no second "e" in my screen name. Thank you for your appraisal. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. That's the great thing about America: people can believe, for example, that the moon landing was staged (or even that the moon itself is made of Swiss cheese, for that matter) and as long as they don't infringe on others' rights in doing so, they are perfectly at liberty to hold such beliefs.

As for your judgment of me, it's merely a perfect illustration of the old adage that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"; I doubt you're an angel, so that only leaves one other option... With all due respect, how would you know to what degree I possess the Holy Spirit or what fruits it has borne in my life, and what qualifies you to make such judgments based on an anonymous posting on a message board? (Hint: It should give you pause

[Rollo Tomasi]

As moderator over on ZLMB, I did some collecting of stats (what posters started threads, how many posts a particular poster made over time, percentage of various groups on the active users list, etc.) and POVs (what people wanted, liked or disliked, etc.) prior to the various changes as part of the decision making process.

...

As far as the cognitive dis discussion, Ben's remarks follow very closely what I learned in my psych training. And according to the way Rollo casually uses the term from time to time, I have doubts that he understands the proper usage of the theory.

1. Thanks for the inside dope on posting at ZLMB.

2. I'm no shrink, but I think I do understand how cognitive dissonance causes the phenomena we see when TBM's are faced with evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs. The most common, of course, is the "burying-the-head" technique of simply ignoring the issue with the hope that it'll be explained in the hereafter. I see this method employed all the time just on this bb. Another is to try and come up with any argument (no matter how silly) that may seem to harmonize the conflicting belief and evidence. The least common, imo, is to face up to the fact that there's a real problem that can't be swept under the rug or explained away.

[USU78]

{snip}

I'm no shrink, but I think I do understand how cognitive dissonance causes the phenomena we see when TBM's are faced with evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs. The most common, of course, is the "burying-the-head" technique of simply ignoring the issue with the hope that it'll be explained in the hereafter.

{snip to end}

Anybody else annoyed at the sneering superiority evidenced by this ^?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Anybody else annoyed at the sneering superiority evidenced by this ^?

Not me. It was neither "sneering" nor "superior."

[KevinG]

As moderator over on ZLMB, I did some collecting of stats (what posters started threads, how many posts a particular poster made over time, percentage of various groups on the active users list, etc.) and POVs (what people wanted, liked or disliked, etc.) prior to the various changes as part of the decision making process.

...

As far as the cognitive dis discussion, Ben's remarks follow very closely what I learned in my psych training.  And according to the way Rollo casually uses the term from time to time, I have doubts that he understands the proper usage of the theory.

1. Thanks for the inside dope on posting at ZLMB.

2. I'm no shrink, but I think I do understand how cognitive dissonance causes the phenomena we see when TBM's are faced with evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs. The most common, of course, is the "burying-the-head" technique of simply ignoring the issue with the hope that it'll be explained in the hereafter. I see this method employed all the time just on this bb. Another is to try and come up with any argument (no matter how silly) that may seem to harmonize the conflicting belief and evidence. The least common, imo, is to face up to the fact that there's a real problem that can't be swept under the rug or explained away.

It is human nature to wrestle with things that don't fit our paradigm. It is not endemic to the LDS moreso than other groups. It doesn't indicate that we are more reluctant to accept other points of view either.

In other cases something one who thinks as a child would perceive as a mountain would be nothing more than a molehill to one who thinks as an adult. (For example I find comfort that the old testmant prophets were obviously human, because it gives me hope that as a scoundrel I can be redeemed by Christ also)

You are eager to "teach" the LDS things you assume (erroniously) that they don't know, but very quick to get defensive if you are told that your teachings are incomplete or one sided. (i.e. citing Zina Huntingtons experience while leaving out the critical prologue and epilogue to her marriage with Bro. Huntington from her own writings)

I am astonished that you and others feel called to be the Mormon gadfly, yet are quick to claim "personal attacks" when others verbally swat at you.

Then you tell others that they must have thicker skin?

Your credibility suffers, and I among others tend to scroll past the one-sided lectures. Unfortunately innocents who are not as experienced or well versed may find touchpoints that damage their testimony of Christ and His Ordained Servants.

Even the truest of statements, in proper context, can damage someones ability to grow and eventually grasp the whole truth, if given to them in the wrong period of their development. The Lords plan, line by line, precept by precept is sound and wise and eternal.