The June 2013 issue of New Era magazine (for Mormon youth) includes an article by LDS Seventy Steven E. Snow, “Balancing Church History.” The focus of the article is on warning Mormon young people about faith-challenging historical information they may encounter on the Internet, and encouraging them to be prepared for these encounters.
Mr. Snow follows the same path as others who have gone before him, suggesting some historical information about the Mormon Church found online may be “untruthful” and “out of context,” so readers “don’t really see the whole picture.”
I agree with Mr. Snow that balanced research is the best way to approach any issue; when it comes to Mormon Church history, the Church itself has a very long way to go in the area of providing “the whole picture” to interested parties. Consider, for example, the exclusion of Brigham’s plural wives from Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young and the continual Mormon misuse of Josiah Quincy’s remark about Joseph Smith (see Joseph Smith’s Powerful Influence). The Mormon Church itself perpetuates untruthful and out-of-context presentations of its history; people, therefore, “don’t really see the whole picture.” But Mr. Snow does not have the Mormon Church in mind when he warns the youth about historical sources.
After discussing the unreliability of what youth might read on the Internet, Mr. Snow says that some questions about “sad or confusing episodes in our history… might not be answered on this side of the veil.” He explains to his young audience that they will be unduly affected by negative information if they aren’t “personally worthy” and aren’t spending enough time reading the Mormon scriptures – they will be out of balance. He writes,
“If a friend came to me with an honest question about a controversial issue from Church history, I’d do my best to answer it. And if I found that he was spending a lot of time in that area, the first questions I’d want to ask him are: ‘Are you reading the Book of Mormon? Are you saying your prayers? Are you keeping your life in balance so that you can protect yourself against the storms of life?’”
Breaking down the way I see the psychology of Mr. Snow’s article: First, don’t believe everything you read on critical sites – there’s bound to be something wrong with it; Second, if you discover something troubling, it may be sad or confusing, but it can’t be wrong; Third, if it seems wrong, don’t look at it – you’ll get a full explanation after you die; Fourth, if you honestly ask about an issue and receive a faith-promoting answer, accept it without question and move on; Fifth, if you continue to be negatively affected by challenging information it is because there is something wrong with you – you have allowed your life to get “out of balance.” The pressure is on for these young Mormons, for as fifteenth LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley oft admonished,
“You are a part of the great processes of God under which men and women have gone before you. All that you have of body and mind will be transmitted through you to the generations yet to come, and it is so important, so everlastingly important, my brothers and sisters, that you do not become a weak link in that chain of your generations” (see here, here, and here for examples of this teaching).
In his New Era article Mr. Snow asserts, “The overwhelming evidence of Church history is positive and faith-promoting.” He cites the great sacrifices made by early Church members who left their homes to gather with the Saints, and the great accomplishments of the first Mormon missionaries. These stories, he says, inspire him and strengthen his testimony of the Restoration. They make up the “whole quilt” of Mormon history, though there may be a few controversial “threads” mixed in. He seems to echo Gordon Hinckley’s comments to Mike Wallace in 1996: “don’t worry about those little flicks of history…Now, there will be a blip here, a blip there, a mistake here, a mistake there. But by and large the work is wonderful, and vast good is being accomplished…”
I dare say the same could at one time have been said about The People’s Temple, the Branch Davidians and Heaven’s Gate (to name but a few). The members of these groups also left their homes to gather together. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice – 1046 of them gave their very lives to remain true to what they believed. In the grand historical schemes of these movements, the deaths of these people could be called “little flicks of history” — just a few confusing threads in an otherwise well-designed quilt. How wrong – and tragic – such thinking would be.
As Sandra Tanner has said, “The sacrifice of the pioneers is only faith promoting if Mormonism is true.” I encourage Mormons of all ages to be courageous in finding the whole truth about Mormonism — because ultimately sacrificing eternal life for a lie is not inspiring – it is the greatest of all tragedies.
There is (supposedly) coming from the Church Hierarchy, 13 “essays” on the troubling aspects of Church History. Mormonthink reports,
Church to release answers to troubling issues – 6/3/13
MormonThink has learned from multiple reliable sources that the LDS Church will soon begin publishing on the official Church website a series of at least 13 essays addressing controversial historical Church topics. The rising tide of accurate, first-hand historical source documents available for faithful members to research on the internet has forced the LDS General Authorities to move beyond giving shallow answers to the issues these documents raise.
The essays addressing historical concerns will provide more extensive details and will attempt to re-contextualize the first-hand source documents regarding topics that the Church deems most problematic for its members. Among the first essays approved by the First Presidency and slated for release at this time will be the multiple, differing accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision — a subject that will undoubtedly catch many lifelong members by surprise as most will learn about these alternate, conflicting First Vision accounts for the first time.
We are encouraged to hear that the Church leadership is finally acknowledging the reality of the varying historical accounts, and is making what appears to be a good-faith effort to share this factual information with the general Church membership. It is our hope that the growing availability of information that contradicts the Church’s depictions of historical events will encourage the Church to break its pattern of marginalizing and trivializing accounts that challenge official Church versions (e.g., Book of Abraham translation issues, Book of Mormon historicity, polygamy). We hope that Church leaders will be forthright regarding all aspects of the historical record and do not merely summarize the issues and quickly dismiss them. As always, we encourage faithful members to explore the information and source documents objectively to determine if the interpretations the Church provides are the most probable or likely interpretations.
We at MormonThink will be certain to examine these essays for historical and contextual accuracy and provide the most relevant and accurate information to our readers for a balanced review of the topics addressed. We are hopeful that the Church, with its vast resources, will provide full and complete detail on each topic. If it falls short on this, you can be assured that MormonThink, with its small team of volunteer contributors, will correct any misrepresentations and fill in any identified gaps.
The truth may be difficult, the truth may be harsh, but the truth is without agenda. It is the Truth.
Truth doesn’t attempt to negate someone’s faith, it either verifies or points someone in another direction. If the truth doesn’t lie in the LDS Church, then Jesus Christ(the source of all truth) is pointing to life outside the LDS Church.
“…and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32, ESV)
Honestly, I don’t have much faith that the LDS church is going to be completely honest and upfront. I see them using the same tired defences that we see on FAIR or FARMS. I don’t know how they could be honest and not send people running out the door. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.
I think the most intriguing aspect of all this would be the reaction of the resident apologists. In the extremely unlikely event of the LDS ‘coming clean’ about the past it’ll be interesting to see how they would handle it, after all, they’re the ones who have been telling us that the Corporation hasn’t been hiding anything.
Interesting. Clearly the prophet of the church will be writing these essays, who else would be worthy other than God’s mouthpiece to the whole world?
MT, and then he’ll need Mormonthink to correct any mistakes…
MT, I don’t think that Monson will be writing . The authors of the responses he might sign
off on will come from those who are paid to defend the church . There won’t be any apostle or
F.P. member doing the research or getting specific information directly from God that
is the answer to specific questions raised . These men are more businessmen and they are busy
running their billion dollar empire . Can we really expect to have OFFICIAL answers ? Nope.
The Mormon people need to ponder why is this even happening now ? They have joined an
organization whose leaders have become famous for restricting access to some of it’s archives .
The Mormon people give their money to a church that will not allow them to know how much
of a salary their leaders get , this same type policy is in play concerning full access to their
archives . The First Presidency keeps historical documents in it’s own vault , what are they ?
A huge fight insued in the 1980’s over this issue of letting members have full disclosure to and
knowledge of , historical documents in church archives . Why ?
Do the Mormon people stop and think that just maybe their church has morphed into something
it should’nt have — a massive wealthy business empire where the leaders and the rank and file
have become more and more detached ? The doctrines and policies that been created by the
leaders have become things that sincere members just can’t have confidence in , they’ve realized
this is a picture that simply does not hang straight . Many are leaving .
There is a better way . Mormonism is not the answer .
I think the reader might find the statement on history of the Community of Christ, Mormon sect quite interesting. They seem to be a little more open and not all that into revisionists views of Mormon history. For example from their president:
“Because of my exploration of various credible works, and probing discussions with historians, some of my previously held notions have been challenged and adjusted in the face of additional knowledge. The “apologetic” approach to church history—presenting our story in as favorable a light as possible—is not sufficient for the journey ahead. That approach does not evidence the integrity that must be fundamental to our witness and ministry.”
http://www.cofchrist.org/OurFaith/history.asp
The only reason the Salt Lake City Mormons would have to hide, obfuscate, white wash and down right lie about their history, is because when the truth is presented, Mormonism just doesn’t hold up. In order to stay a Mormon, a person would have to “resolve” the conflicts to the point where they would be lying to themselves.
Mormonism dies quickly when a person reads the NT without Mormon reading glasses. Mormonism can’t be found in the Bible. Mormonism can ‘t be found in the BofB.
When we visited the site in Omaha, NE where the Mormons embarked for the trek out west. the nice little gal who was touring us kept emphasizing the faith of those 19th century Mormons. It was as if the faith of these folks made the religion true.
So wait a minute, are you guys suggesting that the LDS church will treat these essays the same way that they treat their own scriptures? The LDS Bible states the following, “It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.” Surely the LDS church cannot obfuscate EVERY important publication! Lest we forget that the LDS church has living Prophets who alone speak for God, certainly God’s Prophet to the whole world will give a clear and official position on something, and certainly something as important as all of this history which is confusing so many members!
Sharon,
I find the following paragraph in your article extremely troubling as a summary of Elder Snow’s article:
“Breaking down Mr. Snow’s article: First, don’t believe everything you read on critical sites – there’s bound to be something wrong with it; Second, if you discover something troubling, it may be sad or confusing, but it can’t be wrong; Third, if it seems wrong, don’t look at it – you’ll get a full explanation after you die; Fourth, if you honestly ask about an issue and receive a faith-promoting answer, accept it without question and move on; Fifth, if you continue to be negatively affected by challenging information it is because there is something wrong with you – you have allowed your life to get “out of balance.”
I cannot imagine a less accurate description of Elder Snow’s suggestions. This is complete fabrication and manipulation of what he presented.
Looking at your list of 5 things he says:
1. “Don’t believe everything you read on critical sites – there’s bound to be something wrong with it.” He never comes close to saying this. Why would you suggest that he did? I am really scratching my head trying to figure out where you go this from. He never makes such a blanket statement. Bizarre.
2. “If you discover something troubling, it may be sad or confusing, but it can’t be wrong.” Again, I have no idea where you came up with this statement. Another blanket statement you are forcing into his mouth.
3. “If it seems wrong, don’t look at it – you’ll get a full explanation after you die.” Again, I am at a loss as you where you are getting this. He never says to not read material that is critical of the church or that seems “wrong.”
4. “If you honestly ask about an issue and receive a faith-promoting answer, accept it without question and move on.” This is disgusting. Seriously. Elder Snow never suggests anything even approaching this.
5. “If you continue to be negatively affected by challenging information it is because there is something wrong with you – you have allowed your life to get “out of balance.” Very nice spin of a very basic and reasonable principle- having objectivity and balance in approaching history and maintaining the fundamentals in one’s faith.
Whatever credibility existed in my mind about your analysis of all things LDS is simply out the window completely after this article. I cannot believe your summary. I suppose most people won’t read the article themselves- they will eat up what is spoon fed them with no further thought.
This summary of yours is, like the others, very ironic. You demonstrate manipulative spin very blatantly about an article discussing among other things, manipulative spin.
A more accurate and fair summary might include these points instead:
1. Study history in context.
2. Seek objective analyses of history from well-trained historians, LDS or non-LDS.
3. Avoid sensational or mean-spirited analyses.
4. Maintain a balance in studying history by pursuing spiritual strength through scripture study and prayer.
It is quite shocking that you would find fault with these suggestions. Imagine what you would suggest non-Christians might do to obtain an appropriate perspective of Christian history when confronted with the arguments from atheists. Are there better suggestions than those offered by Elder Snow? I don’t think so.
What’s the saying, FoF, all truth is relative?
I just need to look at a recent question of yours to see there is some truth to Sharon’s take. You just asked a-getting-out-of-the-church Mormon last week, when he expressed his thoughts on the church if he is sincerely and diligently reading the Book of Mormon.
Forgive us if we view the balance as heavily tipped in favor of scripture study and prayer.
FoF,
I will say again, Your are a typical mormon who does not care about the truth and as usual You answer only what you want and dodge the rest.
Again, you only guys only answer the most basic simple questions like, Whats your name? How old are you, etc.
You had me and at least one other person tell you you dodge questions, and answer only the most basic things that you can handle. You even asked me to point out a question or two I feel you dodged. I did and you never got back to any of us or the questions, yet I find you have moved onto a new topic and are leaving a long broken down reply.
I know in my heart, you choose darkness over light just as the Bible says. And I suspect you wont answer the questions anyway. But My reason for stating this again, is for any lurkers that may have missed us pointing this out to you, or maybe they just came to this site today and read only this new topic. This is to show them Mormons both dodge questions and dont care about truth.
faithoffathers, in an effort to avoid misunderstanding and to clarify what I mean, I have changed the opening sentence of the paragraph in question to read, “Breaking down the way I see the psychology of Mr. Snow’s article…” Thanks for the heads-up on that.
MJP,
It must be very unsatisfying to always point away from what is immediately in front of you. When confronted with a line of evidence or an argument, almost all critics will point to something else over the horizon to deflect attention from the point at hand. And so it is here.
Go back and read that thread you refer to. I argued that a member of the church should keep themselves in the influence of the Book of Mormon as they study the gospel, including history of the church, criticisms, etc. I would agree wholeheartedly with Elder Snow on having a balanced approach. His suggestions are very much what I was maintaining in the other thread.
My argument in this thread is that Sharon’s summary is extremely skewed and spun to the point of being borderline dishonest. Elder Snow’s suggestions for studying history could not be more reasonable. Yet the mind of the critic somehow finds something sinister and evil to pull from the most simple and benign words on the page.
Another thing I notice is that few people answer the questions I ask. I try to answer as many questions as I can that are thrown at me despite the fact that the ratio of critic to defender is very unbalanced here (no- I am not claiming victimhood). But can you answer the question- what suggestions would you offer a Christian who was going to study the history of Christianity and was going to be talking with atheists who had very slanted arguments against Christianity? Do you have a response? Have you read the article from Elder Snow? How would your suggestions be different than his?
RickB- Do you have anything but rhetoric to offer? Yes- I know you think I love darkness and hate truth…….. But who looks like the partisan when you don’t back it up?
I asked you to provide the questions I hadn’t answered. If I remember correctly, you told me that I knew what those questions were but didn’t want to answer. If you don’t have the nerve to ask them, I won’t bother worrying about it.
And by the way, you might note how many critics there are insisting I answer their questions. Having only 6 posts per day, it is a little difficult to answer every single question from every single person.
Sharon- thanks for altering that sentence. I still think you are reading into the words of Elder Snow tremendously. We are all biased, but your take is far, far from warranted.
And your attempt to use Josiah Quincy’s statement about Joseph Smith as an example of the church’s manipulation of facts is quite unjustified, in my opinion. Quincy’s statement was:
“It is by no means improbable that some future textbook… will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written.”
How is that manipulated by the church? It isn’t in my opinion. It is never used in a way that suggests the Quincy agreed with Joseph Smith or our doctrine. It is simply a pronouncement that Joseph Smith had tremendous influence and that that influence would likely grow and increase.
How is that statement from Quincy any different than that from Joseph Smith, “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”
In fact, Quincy makes the following statement about Joseph Smith, “Who can wonder that the chair of the National Executive had its place among the visions of this self-reliant man? He had already traversed the roughest part of the way to that coveted position. Born in the lowest ranks of poverty, without book-learning and with the homeliest of all human names, he had made himself at the age of thirty-nine a power upon earth. Of the multitudinous family of Smith, from adam down (Adam of the “Wealth of Nations,” I mean), none had so won human hearts and shaped human lives as this Joseph. His influence, whether for good or for evil, is potent today, and the end is not yet.”
It is not a manipulation or exaggeration to use Quincy’s earlier statement about Joseph Smith as the church does. No support has been offered for the claim that the church manipulates its history or encourages an unreasonable approach to studying history in the article of this thread. But a striking example of making a man, Steven Snow, an “offender for a word” is certainly demonstrated.
FoF,
I wish Mormons were as Honest and as forth coming as Sharon.
You pointed out something to her, she corrected it, Yet as we have said before, all these changes in Mormon History are being white washed and sanatised, yet you guys keep avoing this subject and still do it.
@FaithofFathers
I heard a hymn sung in sacrament service about Prophet Joseph Smith, entitled “Praise to the Man”:
“Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven! Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren; Death cannot conquer the hero again.”
“Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven; Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice. Millions shall know “Brother Joseph” again.
Unfortunately this epitaph isn’t true.
1. Joseph Smith had to prove his repentance by works. “Christ paid the debt of my sins on one condition, and that is that I will believe him and keep his commandments.”Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:131, 1954.
“And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;” (Moroni 8:25)
In order to have your debt paid, you must keep the commandments. Because, “… I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.” ((1 Nephi 15:34))
2. Joseph Smith declared both in D&C and in his discourses, that using alcohol was simply unacceptable, a sin. “That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.” (D&C: 89:5)
Also John J. Stewart, Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, p.90::
“no one can hold high office in the Church, on even the stake or ward level, nor participate in temple work, who is a known user of tea, coffee, liquor or tobacco.”
3. However, Joseph Smith, in the last test of his probationary mortality, committed a the sin of imbibing wine:
“The guard wanted some wine. Joseph gave Dr. Richards two dollars to give the guard; … The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; … Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as brother Taylor and the doctor, and the bottle was then given to the guard, who turned to go out” .History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.616
“Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing: our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us…. I believe we all drank of the wine…” History of the Church, vol. 7, p. 101.”
4. Prophet Spencer Kimball states that a person who is imprisoned cannot repent of his sin:
“Repentance is inseparable from time. No one can repent on the cross, nor in prison, nor in custody.”President Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.167, 1969
Therefore, Joseph Smith after disobeying the ‘Word of Wisdom’ revelation, could not repent, as he was in custody/prison. He simply died with (at the very least) that sin on his soul. Since no unclean thing can enter God’s kingdom, he would have been denied entry. No Godhood, no mingling with Gods.
On the one hand, I’d like to say, “It’s about time!” when it comes to the LDS Church addressing the “blips” in Mormon history. I really am curious to see how they deal with it. But on the other hand, I’m a little nervous that those who are seeing big red flags by researching on their own will be satisfied with whatever explanations they come up with. And even worse, it’ll only give the TBM’s an faith-promoting boost. Because now that they’re going to address these issues, there won’t any reason for them to keep researching elsewhere. Either way, it sounds like the Church is panicking that their numbers are dropping like flies. It will definitely be interesting to watch.
One or two of the contributors here will have noticed that I will no longer be contributing anything more to this site but before leaving I will post the following written by a (inactive) member of the LDS corporation. It is not concerned with any particular topic & is posted here simply to give an insight into the mindset of LDS apologists. So as not to be accused of bias I have quoted him in full. There are a couple of things that some Christians may wish to dispute & if that is the case then please don’t have a go at me, I didn’t write it.
“As a former apologist (NOT a former Mormon, I am just seriously inactive), I can say unequivocally, the PROBLEM with the assumption of apologists is that they BEGIN with the truth. Apologetics is about circling the wagons around the camp and defending the turf. It is not about learning, or discovering truth, or even analyzing new information. It is all about DEFENDING what one has, and that is simply, without question, THE TRUTH.
I was on the FAIR apologetics email list for decades, I KNOW how apologists think, and I argued with them at times about it. They can’t help it, they have a specific task, and they dutifully carry it out.
As a researcher (and you CANNOT see this when you are on the inside, I swear this is the most shocking thing I have personally discovered for myself) you begin with the answer. Then you find anything and everything that simply supports your already arrived at answer. You truly for the most part, ignore anything of dissent apart from the conclusion you have already arrived at, and the carefully selected evidence you choose gets you to that conclusion as well. That is why in ANY organized religion, they all simply pick and choose which verse in the scripture is comfortable and then pretend like THAT is the whole context and whole Gospel. NO ONE SECT actually *believes* what the Bible says and means. It is always and forever self interpreted with self interest in mind, without exception, even when they deny that is what they are doing.
I was one of the VERY best in that regard. My zeal just blew my knowledge out of the water. I could put together research papers of 55 pages, with well over 400 sources cited in just 2-4 weeks. It was a snap. Read through gajillions of articles until you found something that had even a sort of similarity to what you have concluded and throw it in there. It looks mighty impressive to see a paper with 400 footnotes!!!
It’s all phony though. That isn’t research. That doesn’t lead us to anything realistic or actual. It leads us to the goal we already are determined to arrive at and it’s quite frankly, simply wrong. But, and I stress this, unless you have actually been there you cannot fathom how this works, I cannot fathom it either, YOU DO NOT SEE YOURSELF DOING THIS!
OK,
So this is an LDS apologist (inactive) and what he’s saying is he started out with a premise, which he believed or wanted to believe was true, then he proceeded to find information that would support his premise, right?
The first thing I thought when I read this was, what were the sources of his four hundred footnotes? Hugh Nibley was an LDS “researcher” and he use to rack-up countless footnotes. Problem was, his footnotes were often questionable.
I looked for some information on this and I can’t quite tell if this blogger is LDS or not. None-the-less, the point is that I don’t have a whole lot of trust in what comes from LDS apologists and their scholarship. So it’s very difficult for me to believe that the attempt by the Salt Lake City branch of the LDS church to produce anything of historical value to shed light on a topic would be accurate.
The excerpt:
Mar
24
A Footnote to the Debate Over Nibley’s Footnotes
A while back, Ron Huggins wrote a fairly devastating critique of Hugh Nibley’s use and abuse of his sources. More recently, Huggins’s critique was critiqued by Shirley Ricks in the FARMS Review. My critique of the critique of the critique follows.
In her entire lengthy article, Ricks does not respond to any of the specific examples Huggins offered. She spends a considerable amount of time discussing issues with which Huggins was unconcerned– specifically, incomplete or inaccurate citations. Huggins was more interested in cases where Nibley misused or misrepresented his sources. These issues are almost entirely glossed over in the FARMS response.
The FARMS response is also largely an argument from authority, mostly just citing the assessments of Mormon scholars who think Nibley was right more often than he was wrong. It also makes a pretty lame dig at Huggins when it assumes that the reason he compared Nibley’s translations with the published translations of professional scholars was that he lacked confidence to do his own translations. (One suspects he would have been criticized for hubris had he used his own translations as the standard for comparison.)
http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2010/03/footnote-to-debate-over-nibleys.html
Sorry for posting that quote, I thought that by so doing I might be helping to explain why the apologists in here are so adamant they are right, even when confronted with obvious truth. I guess I was wrong.
The problem with Mormons and their history is that they either don’t know the facts or the spin they put on the facts is so totally lame that only the most ardent TBM or the most naive TBM would find it acceptable.
Take any topic. How about polygamy? If we can get these folks to admit that it was practiced in the Mormon religion, we’ll get an explanation that it was done because there were all these women/widows on the frontier without husbands. So these weren’t really sexual unions but were done out of compassion to take care of these poor widows.
How about the use of Free Mason rituals in the Mormon temples. Well this Masonry is really ancient wisdom and it was revealed to the restored church.
It goes on-and-on. If the LDS church pulls this kind of routine, their attempt to get out ahead of this will be a total joke.
You guys never focus on what is in front of you. Nobody has responded to the significant break in logic and content between Elder Snow’s article and Sharon’s summary above. You are always pointing over there, somewhere. And that way, you never have to deal with the immediate issue. Just in this thread, people are talking about Hugh Nibley footnotes, the hymn “Praise to the Man,” polygamy, etc. Nobody will answer my questions or directly look at the summary from Sharon compared to Elder Snow’s words. It is a perfect, immediate measure of the tendancy to change the subject, something you guys constantly claim LDS do.
Old man- I know Kerry Shorts has changed his position drastically when it comes to the church. That doesn’t prove a darn thing. You will find those opinions that agree with you, and use those opinions to justify your own position. That is human nature.
The issue is that the critics do precisely what Shorts is describing. And that is why Sharon produced such an astonishingly misleading summary of Snow’s short article. Sharon and everybody here apparently see in Snow’s comments an attempt to blind members of the church and keep them from learning anything meaningful about our history. But if you read his article, such a meaning is nowhere found. There is essentially no criticism that is dismissed by critics. Anything negative about the church or its leaders or its canon is accepted with essentially no thought. And another ironic thing I have noticed is that the critics will always, always limit information to try to control the conversation.
The scholarship available from LDS researchers is light-years ahead of that from the critics. But I rarely meet a critic who is really familiar with the best LDS scholarship.
FoF, did you even read my comment? I precisely gave you my opinion on the matter. Yes, it is my opinion, but it seems the focus is balanced in favor of staying within LDS approved documents. You asked Johnny Boy if he has kept reading the BoM, as if his failure to do so is the reason, which implies that he does not have enough faith or dedication to LDS books. Others have said this is a common theme they have seen when they have left the church.
You accuse us of not seeing what is in front of us. No, we see what is in front of us. It is you who is blinded for being too caught up in something to recognize what it is. Tactics such as asking, “Are you reading the Book of Mormon enough?” serve only bring guilt and pressure on someone. They will naturally respond as if they are not DOING enough to remain a faithful member of the church.
In my experience as a Christian, I have found most Christians don’t respond to those who doubt with, “Are you reading the Bible more?” That may be a part of the answer, but it is less common than addressing the issues holding the individual up head on. Of course, prayer is also part of the answer, but I have never seen someone accused of doubt because they do not pray enough or read the Bible enough.
Yet, that is precisely what you yourself have done. Your first response to JB was to ask how much he reads the BoM. You did not directly address his concerns. You went straight to his commitment to reading the BoM. You cannot deny that this is a loaded question from you. It means much more than, “Are you reading the book faithfully and sincerely.”
And you, apparently, are not alone. This is a common question from TBM’s as they address others less strong in their faith. So, forgive us if we read words from Snow’s article and see something very different than what you see. Understand that we see what is right in front of us, too. We see his comments summed up in this three sentences: “Sure, study history and our past, but never leave your comfort zone in terms of your faith. Read the critics and their positions, but don’t believe them because you will only find truth in our faith. And in the end, your faith is only uplifted if you focus not on these other things, but by focusing on our scripture books and by partaking in our rituals.”
Notice that I am not saying the LDS church does not tell its members to avoid critical or other non-LDS information. But I am suggesting there is a strong focus on immersing oneself in LDS culture to fully build faith. I am suggesting that there is an (unstated?)belief that failure to do this will lead to doubt and people leaving the culture.
“I agree with Mr. Snow that balanced research is the best way to approach any issue; when it comes to Mormon Church history, the Church itself has a very long way to go in the area of providing “the whole picture” to interested parties. Consider, for example, the exclusion of Brigham’s plural etc. wives from Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young and the continual Mormon misuse of Josiah Quincy’s remark about Joseph Smith (see Joseph Smith’s Powerful Influence). The Mormon Church itself perpetuates untruthful and out-of-context presentations of its history; people, therefore, “don’t really see the whole picture.” But Mr. Snow does not have the Mormon Church in mind when he warns the youth about historical sources.”
Sharon agrees that balanced research is the best way to approach any issue. As usual Mormons will complain about her conclusion without factoring in her balanced approach. What they conveniently leave out is how the church omitted Brigham Young ‘s polygamy etc. The truth is, the LDS church is not what it claims to be and has painted itself into a corner by all the lies, cover ups, and lies by ommission. LDS missionaries are STILL lying by ommission every day. The church has lied about polygamy, Mountain Meadows, is still lying about what happened at Carthage jail daily through their missionary tour guides, the BoA, obviously they were dishonest through the whole Salamander affair from start to finish, the list goes on and on. Mormons need to focus their attention on these issues and stop shooting the messenger. For once hold your church accountable instead of blaming everyone and everything around them. Those of us who post here, including Sharon, know both sides of this story, it’s hard to talk to anyone who won’t look at anything from the other side and who are clueless to their own side of the story because they have been lied to about it. Talk about out of balance.
FoF,
“Sharon and everybody here apparently see in Snow’s comments an attempt to blind members of the church and keep them from learning anything meaningful about our history.”
If your church would have been up front and honest with it’s history from the beginning, this problem wouldn’t even exist. Have you researched why people are leaving in droves? It’s because they are reading church history for the first time. Why didn’t I know my own church history? All I knew was what I was taught by the church. A dishonest and whitewashed version of the truth with some parts ommitted completely. LDS people should be encouraged to research all of Mormonism, the good and the bad and make their own conclusions, not be encouraged to only look at faith promoting and church approved stuff put out by the LDS church. Either your church doesn’ t believe it’s members are intelligent enough to do this or they have something to hide. When I started asking questions do you know what I was told? You are just losing your faith. No one would talk to me or answer my questions, I was basically shunned. Better to shun me than go against the church’s teachings right?
I don’t feel Sharon made a “significant break in logic and content between Elder Snow’s article and Sharon’s summary above. ” I think she is spot on. The problem isn’t Sharon’s summary, the problem is you don’t believe her. That doesn’t make you right. From my own experiences with the dishonesty and problems with your church, I’d say she’s more right than you.
FoF
I was hoping not to come back here to defend myself but yet again I have to do so because of what you said here:
“Old man- I know Kerry Shorts has changed his position drastically when it comes to the church. That doesn’t prove a darn thing. You will find those opinions that agree with you, and use those opinions to justify your own position. That is human nature.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about. When did I mention Kerry Shorts? I know nothing about the man & to be honest I don’t want to know anything about him. I have not the slightest interest in Kerry Shorts & I made NO comment concerning him. So 1) why are you accusing me of something I haven’t done, & 2) why are you doing it in such an insulting manner?
Did you even read what I said before offering that quote in my previous post? If you had you would have known that I was making no critique of anything.
I gave my reason for posting that quote in perfectly legible English, legible to anyone but you perhaps. I explained that I would not be posting in here anymore & I was leaving the quote in the hope that it might help others to understand the apologetic mindset. I even said that I was copying it in full so as not to be accused of bias as the writer was clearly being critical not just of Mormonism but of ALL organised religion.
Is that so hard to understand, or are you, like certain other Mormons in here, so deep in the apologetic quicksand that you have to invent something to be critical of even when you are reading the truth? Do me the courtesy of reading what I said again, but this time read it properly.
One last point, unlike you I follow the truth wherever it may lead me, I don’t look for things to back up any preconceived beliefs I may have, I look at & try to understand both sides of an argument. Recognizing that one is wrong can be quite a painful experience but I don’t suppose you know anything about that. So, please don’t superimpose the failings of your human nature on to my or anyone else’s human nature, they are yours alone.
FoF,
“The scholarship available from LDS researchers is light-years ahead of that from the critics.”
Please provide evidence to back this up…
Kate wrote:
FoF,
“The scholarship available from LDS researchers is light-years ahead of that from the critics.”
Please provide evidence to back this up…
Yea, I’d like to see that myself. These dudes must really be heavy hitters. Sandra Tanner speaks about going to the Mormon history association meetings and how they are surprised by her presence. You see folks like Sandra are looking for information; accurate, truthful information.
I’m wondering if FOF likes the work done by Mormon Michael Quinn and other Mormon scholars. Here’s an interesting article.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/d_michael_quinn_and_mormon_excommunication_the_complicated_life_of_a_mormon.html
Old man- I mention Kerry Shorts because you quoted him in your post. That long statement is from Shorts.
How do you know that I don’t follow truth wherever it leads? Assumptions?
MJP- I asked that gentleman if he was actively reading the Book of Mormon out of a personal matter of interest of my own which I expressed. It is about balance. And I articulated just that very thing. It is interesting that no critic has answered my question as to what they would suggest a person do who is struggling with their faith in the Bible and Christianity in general or who was discussing the Bible with an atheist. Why is that?
Kate- did you read anything beyond Sharon’s first sentence? Do you understand my post and argument about Sharon’s article. Will you address it directly, or will you insist on pointing someplace else- the church has lied………… Sharon’s conclusions about Elder Snows article are in no way, shape, or form justified or supported by what he actually wrote. She is reading into his words, sentences, and paragraphs that which she believes.
– about LDS scholarship. I shouldn’t even have to point any further than the recent threads on this site- this one about Elder Snow’s article, the thread about Elizabeth Smart, and the others I have posted on. Each one of the articles to which I responded are atrociously misleading and show extremely poor scholarship on things that are out there for all of us to evaluate.
But since you will certainly dismiss mine as a blind or biased assessment, here is what I think is an honest assessment from Owen and Mosser, evangelical scholars, on the topic:
“There are many evangelical myths concerning Mormon scholarship. The first is that there are few, if any, traditional Mormon scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical Mormon debates. This is simply false. It is a myth that when Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology and philosophy they invariably abandon traditional LDS believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith. It Is a myth that liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS believe that Mormonism is crumbling apart. It is a myth that neo-orthodox Mormons have influenced the theology of their Church to such a degree that it will soon abandon traditional emphasis and follow a path similar to the RLDS or the World-Wide Church of God. These are myths based upon ignorance and selective reading. These myths must be abandoned by responsible evangelicals.
The title of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of “intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages.” Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.
The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be “the definitive” book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors’ integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.”
Nothing has changed since Moss and Owens made this statement. The critics continue to throw out the same old arguments that have been refuted decades ago. But because most people do not investigate things for themselves, the critics are given credibility. Still, I rarely meet a critic who is familiar with much of the LDS scholarship.
@old man
I believe that a person when confronted with strong evidence that his position doesn’t hold, should admit it at the very least. I think a lot of apologists do admit, in which case their credibility is still untouchable, because they are learning.
I’m sorry to see you leave, please do come back.
@Faithoffathers
“You guys never focus on what is in front of you.”
Um, from my experience, you really haven’t responded to most of my points about celestial glory over various posts (comments following).
Can a pot call a kettle black?
I highly suggest you do first what you claim others are not able to do.
FoF, you said, “It is interesting that no critic has answered my question as to what they would suggest a person do who is struggling with their faith in the Bible and Christianity in general or who was discussing the Bible with an atheist. Why is that?”
I beg, absolutely beg, you to read my post again. I could very easily copy and paste it here, but since it is just a few posts up original, go read it. Its in the 3rd paragraph. If you do not understand my response, ask, but check it out. If you aren’t satisfied, tell me, but don’t ignore it.
As to your personal interest in the question, why is it of so much personal interest? You say balance, but if they are well aware of the content, what balance does it provide?
MJP,
I see your comment. You essentially said that reading the Bible is part of the answer. But answering the question or concern is what you would do. What happens when you can’t really answer the question? If you think that anybody has an evidence based satisfying answer for every criticism of the Bible, you need to take a more “balanced” approach. Read criticisms of the Bible from atheists. How do you react when you don’t have a good answer for their criticism? Or do you always have a really good answer?
As to my personal interest in the whole reading the Book of Mormon and leaving the church thing- I recognize very clearly the internal message and claim of the book that one must stay close to the Lord through prayer, worship, and reading the word of God. Lehi’s vision is a good demonstration of that. King Benjamin’s statement to his sons regarding the necessity of consistent reading of scripture: “I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief.”
The book provides a very clear message about keeping one’s self always into the word of God. When we let go of it, we risk “dwindling in unbelief.” And that is what I have seen, in my own life and in the lives of many others. I don’t know anybody who has drifted into inactivity or left the church who was consistently reading the Book of Mormon. A person must let go of the Book of Mormon before they leave.
My interest comes from the simple desire to understand human nature and the nature of God.
@Faithoffathers
Read criticisms of the Bible from atheists. How do you react when you don’t have a good answer for their criticism? Or do you always have a really good answer?
1. The important answers come from a proper study of the Bible. Usually most of the answers that I’ve sought have found me after years of study.
I know that you’ll agree that making sense of the Bible is a primary goal of TBM such as yourself simply because the Bible is one of your scriptures or standard works.
If the Bible doesn’t make sense, then any LDS shouldn’t carry it. Or at the very least, the parts that don’t make sense or disagree with LDS theology should be removed, and the remaining scriptures should be carried by a LDS.
If the BoM doesn’t make sense then a LDS shouldn’t carry it or believe in it. Same logic.
2. Some criticism from atheists comes from absolving certain crucial factors.
These are for example, the circumstances permeating situation described criticism. Generally, and this is not always the case, an atheist tries to force meaning that is not consistently derived from the context of the text when trying to interpret the Bible.
I hope this helps you.
Here is the entire first paragraph of the quote by Quincy:
The article quoted by Sharon (Joseph Smith ‘most influential’ 19th century American) contains nothing about Quincy’s real conclusions about Smith, that he was a “Fanatic, imposter, charlatan.” Nowhere does Quincy name Jo as having “the most powerful influence”. He says “may be thus written”. Instead, He speaks of “demoralizing doctrines”, and “dark revelations” and “fanaticism”. The problem I see is that the article only uses the lead-in quote (and a few other ones about his appearance). Read for yourself,
Quincy, in his recollection says that Jo would be a “powerful influence” … for subversiveness. And Jo’s quote about Moroni was made in 1838, long after he was already influential. They even misapply Ford’s quote. He wasn’t saying that Mormonism would end with Smith, only that he was (as we all know) a “successful impostor”. Quincy’s real conclusion about Smith was this,
And,
The problem was, Quincy did not have all of the information that we now have about Jo Smith. Hands down there were more influential men than Jo Smith that arose in the 19th Century, Abraham Lincoln for one.
FoF, I’ll answer the personal interest first. Don’t you find it interesting that you apparently share this same interest with many, many other LDS such that most of those who leave report being asked this very question?
Second, how would I answer the atheists critiques? I’ll address them head on. And at the moment, we are talking hypothetically. I cannot give you an example. But that is what I have always seen– Christians addressing critics head on. For every critique, there is an answer, a rational answer. I am not afraid of any critique for that reason. I don’t feel the need to hide anything, even that which makes me uncomfortable.
I don’t see that with your faith. The ignoring of questions, the excuse, “the spirit is gone”, the historical white wash, changing of difficult beliefs at opportune times, etc all lead me to conclude the LDS church is not interested in holing fast to its beliefs and will avoid that which is problematic.
Am I wrong? Maybe, but the evidence I see suggests I am not.
FoF,
“It is interesting that no critic has answered my question as to what they would suggest a person do who is struggling with their faith in the Bible and Christianity in general or who was discussing the Bible with an atheist. Why is that?”
I’d like to answer your question because your conclusion of, “I don’t know anybody who has drifted into inactivity or left the church who was consistently reading the Book of Mormon. A person must let go of the Book of Mormon before they leave,” is ridiculous.
I read the Book of Mormon three times during the year prior to my decision that I didn’t believe anymore. I was praying and fasting more than ever. When I told my parents I was having doubts about the Church they did nothing to talk about my issues. They sent me a packet with their testimonies, a conference talk, and the advice to read the standard works and pray. Things I had been doing all along. This advice was not helpful at all in helping me to retain my LDS membership. In fact it was primarily my prayer and scripture study that led me out of the LDS Church. I was a picture perfect example of a happy, active Molly Mormon. I had everything to lose in leaving the LDS Church. The only reason I left was because I found the truth about God and truth demands action, despite the consequences.
So as to your question. If my kids ever decided to leave the Eastern Orthodox Church or Christianity in general. I would sit down with them and ask them their specific concerns. I would investigate and study any issue they had. I would attempt to understand their point of view and provide my perspective.
This is not what I have encountered with Mormons. In fact I have had to learn to let go of the resentment that I have felt towards my parents and other close family members who have decided to avoid the subject at all cost and just tell me to read Book of Mormon and pray. They have not even attempted to understand where I am coming from. They have showed fear and an inability to confront the issues. And to make it worse, they not only refuse to try to look at my issues (which were not studying scriptures and praying, I regularly did that) but they decide to make judgments on my life, that I have abandoned truth, I have evil spirits, I will not live with God, I am not raising my kids in truth, blah, blah, blah.)
I am not afraid of information. I am not afraid to read atheist materials. I have spent quite a bit of time there actually. My mother asked me to be just as hard on my new faith as I have been on Mormonism. I took that challenge and who’s the hardest on Christianity? In my opinion, atheism.
My children may very well have doubts about Christianity. But I will not impose my own recipe on how to keep them Christian. I will let them voice their own concerns. I will let them direct the conversation. I will look at whatever they want me to look at. I will answer their questions the best I can. And if that isn’t good enough for them, I will let them go with the confidence that they are seeking answers. They will know that my door is always open and they hopefully will not be afraid to speak with me on any topic.
There is a big elephant in the room when it comes to my LDS family, that they have put there. Religion is not to be discussed. I would love to openly discuss faith and religion in a loving and open manner with them. But they are scared of me. They are terrified that addressing the issues might cause them to doubt. I say if their foundation of truth is that weak, that is sad indeed.
That is because you live in a bubble. I’ve personally read more LDS material than you have. I know it because you can’t even spell Kerry Shirts name correctly, so how could you know anything about him. In fact here are some quotes from Carl Owens, AFTER he wrote the paper you are quoting,
I disagree that many of the issues have “long since been refuted”. They have been answered by Mormons, but not “refuted.” And we do use Mormon literature here to critic the Church. We do it all the time. You simply don’t know what you are talking about and using quotes from Mosser & Owens the way you do has been decried by Owens himself:
Grindael,
Your last post demonstrates very clearly a bias in your reading of Quincy’s statment. There can be no doubt that you apply a double standard, and it could be no clearer than this post.
You say that “Quincy’s real conclusions about Smith, that he was a fanatic, imposter, charlatan.” But you are basing that statement on a sentence from Quincy wherein he uses the clause, “he may have been.”
In your very next sentence, you switch gears and take the opposite approach with essentially the same clause. You dismiss the idea that Quincy stated that it would be said of Joseph that he had more influence on his countrymen than any other person. Instead, you point out that Quincy uses the clause, “Thus it may be written..” and hence noted the presence of possibility, not certainty in his position.
You are very clearly showing your bias in the way you read text. When it works against Joseph Smith to ignore the clause, you ignore it. When it works against Joseph Smith to emphasize the clause, you emphasize it.
Why the difference in interpreting these sentences with almost identical clauses if not for bias (“thus is may be” and “he may have been”)?
You do the same thing with “submersive doctrines.” He states that the foundation of the LDS community “may at any moment be made subversive of every duty which we claim from the citizen.”
Again, you ignore the “may” in this sentence to insist on one meaning and your are putting words in Quincy’s mouth (or removing them). Why the difference?
And in 1838, do you really think that the statement was fulfilled which said, “[Joseph Smith’s] name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people?” Not even close.
And you mess up interpreting the text again regarding a quote supposedly from Ford. You are saying that the article in Deseret News is attributing something to Ford that it is not. The article in Deseret News says that “when Joseph was killed at Carthage Jail, many believed the death of the dynamic leader would result in the end of Mormonism — that the religion would prove to be no more than a “flash-in-the-pan.” Yet here you protest that “they even misapply Ford’s quote.” (It should be quotation, not quote, by the way.) The article says that “may believed [Joseph’s death] would result in the end of Mormonism.” You completely misinterpret the text.
Yes- we have a great deal of information. But you consistently misinterpret the information that we have.
And this very much demonstrates the very thing I am protesting about Sharon’s article. You guys completely mishandle texts, yet make others “an offender for a word.”
MJP- this discussion is really a twist on what I really asked. I asked what you would suggest to a fellow Christion who was going to study Christian history when interracting with atheists with their own view of that history. Do you have anything you would suggest to Christians in that context?
And it makes sense that members of the church just might be interested in a person’s habits of scripture study when they leave. It is what the Book of Mormon teaches- when you let go of the “iron rod,” you open yourself up to more temptation and close the door to some extant on the amount of light in your life. Makes sense.
Sorry to bring this up again but FoF said
“Old man- I mention Kerry Shorts because you quoted him in your post. That long statement is from Shorts.”
I wasn’t aware of any names when I left the quote & knowing who wrote the article is completely irrelevant; you deliberately misrepresented & falsely accused me. How about admitting, just this once, that you were wrong.
You then said
“How do you know that I don’t follow truth wherever it leads? Assumptions?”
That’s not an assumption, the fact that you follow the teachings of false prophets rather than the teachings of our Lord is proof enough that you don’t follow the truth wherever it leads. You’re still a Mormon aren’t you?
RiKKiJ
Thank you for your kind words, please believe me when I say that at the moment there are some pretty compelling reasons for my decision but I would rather not go into them right now.
Jaxi,
You said, “I read the Book of Mormon three times during the year prior to my decision that I didn’t believe anymore.”
I suggest that had you continued to read the Book of Mormon, you would not have left. “The year before” means you stopped reading, correct?
As to your answer about your children wanting to leave Christianity- I have no doubt you would encourage them to read the Bible and pray along with other investigations and inquiry. I would do not differently from my perspective. And that is what I and others have been saying- a balanced approach. I can’t imagine not encouraging somebody to read the scriptures who was troubled in their faith.
I am sorry about your relationship with your family. Please don’t conflate them with me, though. Family relationship are very complex and dynamic. I don’t think we can point to one single thing as the explanation for any given behavior.
Grindael- forgive me for mispelling Kerry Shirts. I had friends with the last name of Shorts. But I have never been one to follow Shirts blogs, videos, etc.
And congratulations on “reading more LDS material than” me. Is that the place to which we have arrived? How funny. It is an amusing claim you make, and very hard to believe when one considers the fact that you have claimed within the last few days that according to our doctrine, grace only applies to the universal resurrection. That claim in itself made me believe that you are to be given little credibility in all things LDS.
You have no evidence to support the fact that you have “read more LDS material than” me or that I “live in a bubble.” I can claim that I have know the Book of Mormon a hundred times better than you- are you convinced?
And many of the criticisms have been “refuted.” Even Mosser and Owen admit that. And nobody ever claimed that you and other critics don’t use LDS material in your arguments. That is a straw-man argument.
And I wouldn’t expect Mosser and Owen to agree with our conclusions. Otherwise, they would join the church. So what? They concluded in their research that the critics are not familiar with LDS scholarship and do a shoddy job in their arguments, often manipulating the facts and literature. And we have to go no further than this very thread to see that happen.
Old Man- how in the world did I misrepresent you? The quotation you posted is from Kerry Shirts. I simply pointed that out and asked what that proved. It doesn’t prove anything that he left the church. And I claimed that the critics do precisely what Shirts describes in making a conclusions and then trying to find stuff to support those conclusions.
It happens here every day.
FOF
wants to know what we, as individuals would do, if someone was having a crisis of faith, in Christianity.
How about this. I’d do nothing!
If they had some specific questions for me and wanted to have a discussion, I’d be more than happy to engage in such a discussion. However it’s not my job to keep someone believing. I’m not going to put that kind of pressure on myself.
My guess is that God has far more interest and perhaps responsibility to deal with someone with doubts than I do.
I think Mormons get far too exercised about someone leaving their program than they need to. They really appear to be a bunch of busy-bodies. They just can’t handle someone leaving the LDS fold. Why is that? Let people lead their own lives and make their own decisions.
Would I un-friend someone. Absolutely not!
Mormons can’t make the same claim. You leave the LDS church and you lose your LDS friends. That’s the end of it. It’s a form of shunning.
So what would my response be to someone having a crisis of faith?
“You’ll figure it out. It’s all part of the program.”
@OldMan
My sympathies with you. Hope you come back!
FoF, trouble is that I would still tell them to tackle the discussion head on. My answer wouldn’t change. Of course, the Bible would be involved. It is inevitably the subject of discussion. The Bible will hold its own, and so will our faith.
And, yup, its what the BoM teaches… Sure, it makes sense, but is it fair to lay the blame of one falling out of the church on a failure to read the BoM? Ultimately, that is a large reason the question is asked. It puts the blame on the person rather than anything else. It assumes there is nothing wrong with the doctrine.
Now, as I think about my faith, and how I would react if someone simply stopped believing. I don’t find fault with my faith, and therefore can’t blame that.
But do we simply stop there in the context of a discussion concerning Mormonism v. Christianity? I don’t think we can. Logically, if we both cannot find fault in our faiths, we both end up at a place where faith is necessary. Logically, fault falls somewhere outside of the faith. This, then, is where we have to look at outside sources, whether it be the individual or the source feeding the individual information.
The individual can’t always be blamed, though, if we use a measuring stick of emotions, which the burning in the bosom is an emotion. And if an individual claims to have a burning in the bosom, whose to say that same burning can or cannot disappear? I happen to think people can get all fired up about even my faith, only to lose steam down the road. How is that the individual’s fault? It is easy to lay all the blame on the faith or effort of the individual, but what if he or she did investigate, read, or pray fully? How is that not effort?
I would express sorrow to see them fall away. But I would never lay the blame at their lack of effort or faith. I would find out their stumbling blocks, try to answer them, and let them know I was there to help if needed.
As to the critics themselves? I would never call them a liar. Perhaps they believe what they say is true. In truth, they do believe it or they would not be skeptical. They are not lying. All I can do is present them with my truth, Christ’s truth.
No they did not. They said most ACADEMIC scholars. He said specifically that the Tanners, Walter Martin, to name a few have not. They are more concerned with AUTHORS and published material by academics and that many don’t take Mormon scholarship seriously. (Funny how the Mormon “apologists” don’t take Quinn seriously, one of the best Mormon SCHOLARS I know. And I have all his books and have read them). You on the other hand have read the Book of Mormon over and over. Wow. How impressive. And as we can see from this very thread, you have quoted little to no church history, no refutation about the translation method you claim was made exclusively by(the interpreters) which is positively wrong and nothing but a lame opinion. Even Mormon Historians say you are wrong. I’ll let the viewing audience decide who knows more. From what you post, you know very little, and yeah, you live in a bubble. Again I quote Owens,
And I would add, (in your case) everything else including your dismal understanding of Mormonism, it’s doctrines and history. That is exactly what you are doing with all the other critics, including the Tanners. Owen was talking about people like YOU. You don’t know what you are talking about. As usual. STOP misinterpreting Owens & Mosser. Stop now.
LOL FOF,
You are really reaching. Here is the exact quote:
They finished the thought with a quote by Ford to make their point. But that’s not what he said. And it should have be “the” quote by Ford. That was an honest typo. You said Kerry Shorts over and over again, and if you had read his material, you would not have made this mistake. As for Quincy, let’s see if I’m right. He said,
And,
There is no “may” in his assessment that Smith was a pretender of “monstrous” claims. Quincy was just fascinated that so many people would believe in him and carry on his legacy, which he said was a potent force. That is all. He speculated that at some future time, he MAY be CONSIDERED as the most influential man of the 19th century simply because of the fanaticism that he saw in Smith’s duped followers and the havoc they might wreak with their “dark revelations”.
As for the “good and evil” quote. Please show me where it had appeared before 1838? (And I know there was a version of it in the Smith/Cowdery 1834 History, but by that time Mormonism Unvailed had been published.) By that time, Smith’s name was being bandied about as being good and evil. Not a stretch to conclude that it would continue to be. I have misinterpreted nothing, but you have, and continue to do so.
How about all of the Fundamentalists that read the Book of Mormon continually? They believe you have gone terribly astray. Seems like that approach just doesn’t work, does it?
I don’t expect everyone to agree with my perspective on Steven Snow’s article. I freely admit that my understanding of his comments is informed by the greater context of Mormonism and my decades of study and interaction with members of that faith. If my blog post is not clear enough, in order to aid readers in tracking with my logic as I discuss the psychology of Mr. Snow’s comments, I offer the following explanation of my conclusions, informed by my personal experiences, based on faithoffathers’ noted concerns. The indented content below is from FoF’s posted comment; that is followed by my remarks.
1. “Don’t believe everything you read on critical sites – there’s bound to be something wrong with it.” He never comes close to saying this. Why would you suggest that he did? I am really scratching my head trying to figure out where you [get] this from. He never makes such a blanket statement. Bizarre.
Mr. Snow classifies critical historical information about the Church as “information that tries to embarrass the Church” – having already introduced the idea that there is untruthful historical information on the Internet that is out of context (which is likely true enough), Mr. Snow denigrates the “embarrassing” information as unfair and subjective.
2. “If you discover something troubling, it may be sad or confusing, but it can’t be wrong.” Again, I have no idea where you came up with this statement. Another blanket statement you are forcing into his mouth.
Mr. Snow talks about early church members who “had their difficulties and struggled with things just as we do today.” They were “human and made mistakes.” There are “sad and confusing episodes” in Mormon history that it would be good to “understand better.” As an example, Mr. Snow puts forth Joseph Smith, “a remarkable person” who wasn’t perfect; he was mortal, just like the rest of us. And what did Joseph Smith do? He “offended a few people.” Because he struggled with the same things young Mormons struggle with today, because, like them, he wasn’t perfect, they might discover “sad and confusing” information about The Prophet. This is the context Mr. Snow suggests for when people come across controversial information about the Church. If they discover, for example, that Joseph Smith “offended” people by illegally marrying other men’s wives, that information should fit neatly into the category of “sad and confusing,” chalked up to common struggles consistent with the broader human experience.
3. “If it seems wrong, don’t look at it – you’ll get a full explanation after you die.” Again, I am at a loss as you where you are getting this. He never says to not read material that is critical of the church or that seems “wrong.”
Mr. Snow’s set-up, that the questioner is confused (not that Joseph broke the law, for example), coupled with the statement that these things might not be answered on “this side of the veil” suggests that the questioner should set it aside and not worry about it – it will become clear after death.
4. “If you honestly ask about an issue and receive a faith-promoting answer, accept it without question and move on.” This is disgusting. Seriously. Elder Snow never suggests anything even approaching this.
I understand Mr. Snow’s comments on this as a 2-part sequence. Mr. Snow says he’d answer an honest question on a controversial topic (I’m making the assumption that his answer would be faith-promoting rather than soul-destroying) but THEN if the questioner isn’t satisfied with the answer…
5. “If you continue to be negatively affected by challenging information it is because there is something wrong with you – you have allowed your life to get “out of balance.” Very nice spin of a very basic and reasonable principle- having objectivity and balance in approaching history and maintaining the fundamentals in one’s faith.
…but then if the questioner isn’t satisfied with the answer Mr. Snow has given, the questioner will continue to “spend time in that area” as he tries to find a more reasonable answer. In that case, Mr. Snow would assume that the questioner is out of balance, asking about his spiritual disciplines rather than trying to find a more satisfactory answer to the historical question – i.e., to continue to question leads Mr. Snow to conclude that there is something wrong with the questioner’s spiritual life. This isn’t just about having objectivity in approaching history. Mr. Snow says you must be “personally worthy” and have a “strong testimony” (i.e., believe the Church is true) or you will be troubled by “adversity” (defined by Mr. Snow as online critical information); if you weren’t “out of balance” you wouldn’t be “unduly” affected by it (“If you were in proper balance, they [negative things] wouldn’t [have an unduly strong effect on you].”).
As I wrote in the original post, I agree with Mr. Snow that research should be balanced. I agree that people of faith should take care to nurture their faith as well. Where I take exception is in the greater context of his remarks–remarks that seem to blame and shame people who sincerely struggle with the controversial history of Mormonism.
FoF,
“I suggest that had you continued to read the Book of Mormon, you would not have left. “The year before” means you stopped reading, correct?”
You make me laugh. I stopped reading when I decided to leave, not when I started to have questions and doubts. You think think if I started reading again I would become Mormon again? That is absurd.
“I am sorry about your relationship with your family. Please don’t conflate them with me, though. Family relationship are very complex and dynamic. I don’t think we can point to one single thing as the explanation for any given behavior.”
I am comparing them to you, because you both have the same view that as long as you read the Book of Mormon you will stay Mormon. Since I was reading, what are you going to say next? I wasn’t reading sincerely enough? I wasn’t studying long enough? This view is completely offensive to exLDS who took their faith incredibly seriously, did everything the LDS Church asked of them, and left because it’s not true. I’m not sure how many more hoops I could have jumped through for the Mormon faith and I still have to hear stuff about how I didn’t do enough.
“I would do not differently from my perspective. And that is what I and others have been saying- a balanced approach. I can’t imagine not encouraging somebody to read the scriptures who was troubled in their faith.”
How is telling someone to read their scriptures, when they are already doing so going to help? You are not suggesting a balanced approach, you are suggesting scripture reading makes everything all better no matter what. I am saying that is a BIG assumption and an incorrect one at that. Not all LDS need to be told to read their scriptures, and by doing so you are ignoring the real problem.
FoF,
Also you quote me as saying ” the year before” if you read what I actually wrote, I said “during the year prior.”
You also talk about people dwindling into inactivity in another comment. Not everyone does this. In my case, I went from around 100 percent attendance to 0. I didn’t stop any church activity until I was certain of my decision.
FoF,
“Kate- did you read anything beyond Sharon’s first sentence? Do you understand my post and argument about Sharon’s article. Will you address it directly, or will you insist on pointing someplace else- the church has lied………… Sharon’s conclusions about Elder Snows article are in no way, shape, or form justified or supported by what he actually wrote. She is reading into his words, sentences, and paragraphs that which she believes.”
The fact that your church has lied, whitewashed and covered up is very relevant to this discussion. Like I said, this wouldn’t be an issue if your church were honest. Elder Snow wouldn’t have to lecture kids on what they find on the Internet about their history. You’re not talking to a person who has never been LDS here. I know exactly what elder Snow is saying. Don’t look at ANYTHING not church approved and when the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done, I had this pounded in my head for many, many years and because of this, when I started researching I wouldn’t look at ANYTHING not church approved for a good year. That’s OK though because I didn’t need to look further than the LDS church’s own publications. I see elder Snow encouraging kids to just read the BoM more and don’t worry about ” those little flicks of history.” Look here not there, and any questions you don’t like the answers to, don’t worry you can just find it out when you die.
I ask you, why on earth would someone want to continue reading the BoM after discovering all the problems with it during research they encountered on the Internet? Do you really think they will just jump back into the fold and forget about no archeological evidence or the DNA problems and the church changing the introduction about the American Indians in the front? Or the fact there were no horses, coins, etc., etc. in the Americas at the time the BoM people lived here? The battle that Joseph said happened near the hill comorah, oh wait, because of DNA evidence we now have to believe LDS apologists when they say that there was a second hill comorah somewhere else and that’s where it really happened. Reading the BoM AGAIN will fix this? How foolish this is. I’m sorry, but people are more intelligent than this. By the way, why are you (and elder Snow) pointing people to the BoM and not Jesus? Don’t say it’s the same thing because it’s not. Questioning Mormons need to turn to Jesus, put all of their faith and trust in him, not the BoM.
As for Owen and Mosser, really? Opinions of 2 Evangelical scholars is what you are using to back up this:
“The scholarship available from LDS researchers is light-years ahead of that from the critics.”
I was LDS. I know what is taught about obedience to leaders. I know that if a Mormon doesn’t conform they will be hauled in for a bishop’s interview and a possible “court of love.” I know what is taught about people like me who leave. I really don’t care what 2 evangelicals think about scholarship, it’s 2 out of how many million Evangelicals? Besides, you said LDS scholarship is light-years ahead of that from the “critics.” You’re wrong. We critics use the published words of your own leaders. Are you saying that your LDS scholars are light-years ahead of your prophets and apostles? Like I said, one really doesn’t need to look further than your church’s own publications. I will take your prophets and leaders at their word. You can twist, deny, or whine about it all you want, and like it or not, it’s all on the Internet for Mormons to see.
Kate & others,
Don’t be too concerned about what FOF has to say. It’s pretty obvious that he suffers from spiritual dyslexia.
I’ve encountered other Mormons exactly like him on this site over the years. It’ll drive you nuts until you figure out that you’re dealing with a particular brand of thinking that is not normal in terms of thought processing. That’s why he’ll read something and not have the ability to respond to what’s been clearly written.
Here’s the good thing though. Those Mormons who come here and read can see through guys like FOF. JB told us that he thought just like FOF not too long ago. But he had the light bulb go on and he can’t return to that way of thinking. It’s just a Mormon thought process.
Frankly I don’t get it because I’ve never thought like that but it’s all about the process of conditioning that goes on in Mormonism. “The church is true”……..and everything is shaded in light of that premise. That’s why TBMs accept such obvious nonsense as the real deal. They just make it fit their Mormon world view.
Hay but just think of this. Mormonism can’t hold on to its members. And it’s not because people aren’t reading the BOM.