When some members think of anti-Mormonism, immediately they have an image pop into their minds of the Evangelical preacher standing outside the convention center with the bullhorn screaming that Mormons are members of an evil cult. Typically the arguments that come to mind have to do with either the Bible (FAIR only had one question on it this year) or the tension-state between faith and works (also only one question this year). For most members, those issues have been discussed and debated over many generations of anti-Mormons, and members typically dismiss them with a wave of the hand. And if those were the only issues that people dealt with, we probably wouldn’t need an organization like FAIR.
We get well over 100 questions each month. We had 150 sent to us just in the month of August alone. Typically the questions we get are from people who had an idea of what the Church was supposed to be like, and then didn’t know how to handle it when their image didn’t match something else they were told. The real question for us becomes how to respond.
In our recent, very successful FAIR conference one of the recurring themes was to treat people with kindness and to understand their pain.
For example, we recently received this email from a member who is leaving the Church along with her family:
“I have studied Journal of Discourses, church history and am sad
to say that the church is hiding so much information. They lie by
omission. Deliberately lie. If people knew the truth they would
not join. The church teachings aren’t even the same as they were
when I was growing up.”
This was, of course, followed by the member claiming to have found the Church-hidden facts from studying books published by the Church. My first reaction was a strong temptation to respond that the Church was very clever to hide all of those disturbing facts in Church books where no one would read them. But then I started to ask myself what would really help this woman and her family. What would comfort her?
Should we compare the accessibility of information in our Church with other churches? Ours is amazingly accessible. There isn’t much hidden for those who have the time and want to know. I have tried to get information from other church history libraries and find that while their historians are very nice, Mormons really are some of the best record keepers and they publish an incredible amount of historical information about the Church and its leaders.
Should we point out that other churches have as much or more dirty laundry than ours? Just think of American history: the massacres, the injustices, the denial of rights, the lack of moral values, the racism, even the witch trials, all put forward in a mostly Protestant America.
But I really don’t think any of these arguments will work. While these arguments might make us feel better, I doubt they would convince this member to stay in the Church and there is little to be gained by arguing that some things we have done may have been bad but some things others have done have been worse.
So, how should it be handled? What should we do? My answer is that I don’t know. That’s right, I am the president of the largest LDS apologetics organization, and I don’t really know how to help her.
So, I have to go back to what I do know. I have been taught that the best way to work through any problem is to first focus on what you do know.
- I know that God loves us. He loves all of us, including those leaving the Church, those who have left the Church, and those who are attacking the Church.
- I know that God wants the best for us.
- I know that God put the Church here to help us, and to help us help others.
- I know that the Church is filled with imperfect people who have extraordinary callings. These imperfect people rise to extraordinary heights and do amazing things. But, they also sometimes stumble and fall, even when acting within their calling.
So thinking of those things, the right answer is to try to listen.
Before we start listing possible apologetics, we should try to discern what the person really wants and needs. Will this stop the woman from leaving the Church? Probably not. But, it may help her maintain a relationship with members of the Church. And it may help her maintain a relationship with God.
I received an email from an active member married to a man who has left the Church. She has remained married to him and tries to keep her family together. Unfortunately, some of her worst experiences come from members who grill her on affiliating with individuals whose teachings are contrary to the Church. Some of the grilling has been directly of her husband in front of her children. I have to ask myself how that less-active or non-member husband is now supposed to feel about the gospel. Would he feel it is a gospel of love?
I have read those allegedly “hidden” things that shock people out of the Church. Thinking of the miracle of the Church, those things don’t shock me. Given the various personalities in the Church, I think it is a miracle that we get right the things that we do. But I know those things shock others. And I have to remember that they are not me. They are upset. They are hurt, and the hurting is real. I have to remember that in all of my conversations.
I hope that we can help people strengthen their testimonies and feel the love through us that God has for all of his Children.
Scott,
That is truly a most thoughtful and honest post.
I would like to make one honest observation, not intended to antagonize you, but to help you understand the “anti-Mormon” side of things:
You said,
I submit that the reason that those same issues are continually being presented is that historically, the Mormon answers given are woefully inadequate. Perhaps, it’s because the answers given sound good to Mormons, but to folks outside the LDS church, they sound like excuses, rather than sound thought/doctrine.
A very good example is the Book of Abraham. The apologetic answers for the problems stemming from this portion of your scripture are fine for your members who need to hear something from the LDS church. However, to “outsiders”, the answers the LDS apologists give are utter foolishness. Even non-religious entities do not recognize the LDS answers about the Book of Abraham as authoritative.
Personally, I do not like the term “anti-Mormon”, for I do not hate Mormons nor am I “against” individual Mormons. Perhaps “anti-Mormonism” is more to the heart of the matter?
Who are the “non-religious entities” Marcus.
My experience is that unbiased scholars frankly don’t give a damn about the Book of Abraham one way or the other. So they do not comment on it at all.
The only people who care about the Book of Abraham are Mormon scholars, and Evangelical counter-cultists. And that’s about it. There is really no such thing as unbiased, non-religious commentary on Mormon claims. Not that I’ve heard anyway.
So, if you’ve got somebody objective, I’m all ears.
Who are they Marcus?
Marcus, with all due respect, peer-reviewed articles like that published at http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html seem to contradict your premise.
I too think this is a good article from a refreshing point of view.
I do think that the term “anti-Mormon” is out of date. It’s sort of like “Those who love children” verses “baby killers” in the pro-life pro choice wars.
Perhaps I see this from a different angle since I’m a convert and maybe it’s very simplistic but…..why not just tell the truth?
Let me give you an example:
When I took the missionary discussions in 1981 I was told that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon “by the gift and power of God”. I was shown a picture of him looking over some gold plates with a pen. Okay, no problem. I assumed that this was the way it happened according to the missionaries.
Later on my mission I taught people the same thing except I felt a little bit of guilt because there was no discussion of the Urim and Thummim.
Then I discover the whole rock in a hat translation process. I also was told that the golden plates were not really golden plates but made of something called Tumbaga. I felt that I had been lied to by the LDS Church so that I would convert quickly. Of course this is just one example and was not the main reason I left the LDS Church.
The standard response is that I should have research the LDS Church more before I joined. I was never presented with that option. The missionaries did everything in their power to get me baptised as soon as possible and I had no reason to suspect they were lying to me. Besides, I lived in rural Georgia years before the Internet came out. Was I suppose to fly to Salt Lake City at age 17? And look for what?
All of this is in the past now. I’ve been out of the Mormon Church for over 10 years. Yet I feel a certain obligation to warn others not to fall into the same trap that I did. Rip-offs, be they religious, corporate, political or otherwise make me mad.
So just tell the truth. It may not win you thousands of converts, but it’s the right thing to do.
Two small nits with the above, Will. First, the missionaries told you that the plates were translated by the gift and power of God. Personally, I don’t see that as inconsistent with looking at a rock in a hat. (If that is the only way Joseph translated; we have differing accounts.) “By the gift and power of God” is the method; using a stone or looking at the plates is the means. If I have a testimony of the method, why does the means matter at all?
Second nit: Golden plates can still be made out of Tumbaga. Golden is, after all, a hue–a color.
Since lying involves intent, do you know for a fact that the missionaries intended to deceive you? If they didn’t (if you feel, now that you are older and wiser, that they could have simply been mistaken), then why characterize their teaching as lying? Do you feel no compunction to use the same degree of accuracy in description for which you fault the Church?
-Allen
Hi Marcus and Will.
Thanks for your feedback on this.
I wonder if the sense of deception flows from three factors:
* First, the church hierarchy sees their role is inspiring and leading a world-wide church. Thus, the messages are simple and positive with little nuance.
* Second, correlation and centralization of lessons, manuals and missionary tracts tends to result in homogeneous and simplified materials.
* Third, members tend to reflect that same tendencies in talks and lessons.
In truth, the story of the church is complicated. Take a few examples:
Joseph Smith is puzzle. Terribly charismatic, brilliant and insightful. Yet, he had many enemies both in and outside the church. And, there are a multitude of issues that aren’t very clear — polygamy, Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham translation and such. What on earth was he up to? What did he actually do?
Brigham Young — brilliant organizer who pulled together a people who had lost their leader, gave them leadership and settled much of the barren Great Basin. At the same time, arguable strains of racism and a harsh attitude towards some.
Mountain Meadows — incredibly horrific. How could local church leader do something so abominable. And, why for so many years was it taught that the local Indians were the perpetrators? I personally think the recent openness (Ensign article, new book) have been very positive.
Polygamy — What was the purpose? Why did Joseph hide it? What was Emma’s role? Why the young brides? I can suppose much but there are plenty of questions. Was it, possibly, mostly a tool to pull the Saints together??
There are many issues like this. The conflict between simplistic history and a more multi-faceted approach is tough.
It is understandable why leaders have done what they’ve done. But, in today’s connected world it may be time for something a bit different. Perhaps a bit more emphasis on dialogue and debate. Maybe more organizations like FAIR and Dialogue. Maybe training missionaries and members to say, sometimes, that a particular issue is a complicated one — and we, really, just don’t know.
It is truly foolish for some to suppose that they can devote themselves to tearing down something so important to many, and not understand that they will offend them.
If I were to spend all of my days videorecording every move that Marcus makes, and then edit out every “good” thing he does, and then provide a video to his wife and children that exclusively contained ONLY the bad things (that like all humans he is bound to do). I wonder how his family would take to that. Would any false-platitudes of, “You shouldn’t be afraid of the truth,” or “I’m doing this because I love you, and don’t want you to be deluded by someone who isn’t as he appears.” assuage any feelings of disgust? You may consider that loving. I consider it contemptible. You may consider it honest, I consider it dishonest because you simply reject data that doesn’t agree with your already formed conclusion. That is not how true seekers of truth work.
If you spend all your days trying to tear down something that I find so very good, you not only tear down that thing, but all those that believe it is a good thing. As an American you have the right to do it, I have to respect that right. However, I don’t have to respect you for it, and you do have to respect my right to not respect you for it. It is offensive to tear down Mormonism. Get over it, you’re an anti-Mormon as much as you are anti-Mormonism. We’ve accepted it, and it’s time for you to get over your cognitive dissonance over it.
Seth,
Your attitude is showing. But, nonetheless, here are six “non-religious entities”:
Dept. of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago
University of Berlin
University of Pennsylvania
University of Munich
London University
Ephesians 4:29
JDD,
I read the website article at the link you provided. With the same due respect, I disagree.
Will,
I agree completely. It would be better for the LDS church to simply “tell the truth”. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Allen,
If it’s “not inconsistent with looking at a rock in a hat”, then why not say so officialy? Why not have a picture in the flip chart that shows him doing just that…if indeed it’s no big issue.
If the LDS Church is uncertain about what the plates were made of…why not say so?
I never said that the missionaries conspired to lie to me. They didn’t write the missionary discussions and just went along with what they were taught. I also did the same thing as a missionary.
The lies came from a much higher level. Again, why not just tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
NOYDMB,
Hasn’t the LDS Church done the opposite with Joseph Smith? They have literally made a modern video of him and edited out all the bad parts.
But continuing with your scenario, if Marcus was marring other men’s wives, if he was getting married to teenage girls, if he was guilty of bank fraud…do you think his wife would thank you for showing her the truth?
I still come back to the basic premise that the LDS Church sends out thousands of missionaries who are instructed to go on private property and attempt to convert people to Mormonism. By doing so you have entered into the arena of ideas.
If you find it offensive for people to challenge what you so ardently put before the world, then I have a hard time feeling sympathy for you.
Will,
You wrote,
Your post points out the danger of basing one’s notions of history (or theology) on artists’ interpretations. It is not an uncommon problem in the Church.
Be that as it may, the rock-in-the-hat account is only one version of how Joseph Smith translated the plates. The man who knew the most about the process—Joseph himself—said little more than that he translated by the gift and power of God.
Do you you write that “the LDS Church is uncertain,” do you mean the entire Church as a whole, the leaders of the Church, or some members?
I doubt that most members or leaders of the Church are uncertain at all. According to Joseph Smith-History 1:34, Moroni informed Joseph Smith that “there was a book deposited, written on gold plates.” In the absence of further revelation (or an assay of the plates), most members would tend to take that description at face value.
Nevertheless, the description does not really tell us much about the plates. Even if gold refers to composition (and not color) it could properly be applied to any alloy that is predominantly gold. According to the World Gold Council, alloys having as little as 37.5% (9-carat) gold are called “carat gold.”
When you were a missionary, did you testify of the message of the Book of Mormon or the metallurgy of the plates it came from?
A lie is a untruth, told with the intention to deceive. Do you know that someone at a “much higher level” was lying?
I agree that one should tell the truth. But no one alive today knows the “whole truth” about the translation of the plates. The best any of us can do is express an opinion. The opinion may be wrong—but that does not make it a lie.
P. K.,
“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.”- David Whitmer
“….I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by [Joseph], he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”- Emma Smith
So you are saying they both made it up?
While a missionary I taught people what I had been taught and what I thought was true.
Why do you not know the “whole truth”? You have a prophet, right?
Again…if you only have opinion, then tell people that.
“It’s our opinion that Joseph Smith may have translated plates of gold. He may have put a rock in a hat and translated them but we really don’t know much about that and we don’t think others know much about it either”
Gee, I’m starting to sound like Gordon Hinckley!
The Prophet stated:
“The records were engraven on plates which had the APPEARANCE of gold…
With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breast plate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God. (HC 2, pp. 537-8)
Perhaps the breast plate and bow didn’t fit, or was uncomfortable, and Joseph took one of the stones out of the rim and put it in a hat to reduce the ambient light so he could read it better? Where is the problem?
Will Dunn wrote,
No, I am saying that we have different accounts which do not all agree on the details. That often happens, especially when people are reporting on events after the passage of many years. That does not mean they made up the accounts, only that they remembered things differently.
In 1834, Oliver Cowdery wrote that Joseph Smith translated with the Urim and Thummim rather than a seer stone (footnote to JS-History 1:71). Oliver spent more time than anyone with Joseph during the translation process, and he actually tried to translate himself. Moreover, his report is much closer in time to the actual events than Emma Smith’s 1879 statement or David Whitmer’s 1887 statement. Why prefer their versions over Cowdery’s?
But you are missing the larger point. Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, and David Whitmer all agreed that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the power of God. Are you saying that they made that up?
You taught what you thought to be true. It seems that now you think differently, but that does not mean you were lying before. Yet you are quick to accuse others of lying when they teach the same things you did. Does that seem fair?
Now you are being facetious.
You are putting words in my mouth, and silly words at that.
I may have an opinion regarding the process of translation, but that is relatively unimportant. What is important is to know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, translated from gold plates by the gift and power of God.
You have nothing to worry about.
Will: I confess to being dumbfounded by your concern about Joseph Smith looking at a stone in a hat. Let’s see — you seem willing to admit that Joseph could have translated if he had looked in a urim and thummim and then looked at the plates, but somehow it is disturbing if he looks at a seer stone in his hat? That’s like believing that Jesus can heal people if he speaks to God but if he puts mud on their eyes it is somehow no longer believable. God could have provided for translation in an infinite number of ways — what difference does a stone in a hat make compared to a urim and thummim? Seems like swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat to me.
In fact, it appears that you don’t know as much about the translation process as you appear to think. When Joseph Smith first began to translate, according to William Smith he put on the breastplate and the urim and thummim fit into it so that it fit in front of his eyes somewhat like spectacles (that’s how William described it when he saw it and when he saw Joseph translating). However, because it was cumbersome and it hurt his eyes, he switched to the seer stone. David Whitmer wasn’t there when Joseph first began to translate so he wouldn’t know anything about it. Emma described both use of the urim and thummim and also of the seer stone in the hat. It didn’t bother her that he did it that way. (I’ll get references if you want; but I’ll bet you already knew that).
As has already been pointed out, Joseph’s statements that he translated by the gift and power of God are accurate and consistent with the various methods that he used. It is just poor thinking to assert that if the Church used pictures of Joseph looking at the plates (he also did it that way some times!) that it has misled you or anyone else. It is just a weak argument that picks at nits in my view. Of course I’m aware that you’ve got other arguments — anyone who can crib from websites as you have done with these quotes would know.
The Church isn’t hiding anything. Do you think that all of the source material that we now have was always available? The scholars in the church and out have worked diligently to bring new historical awareness that the Church didn’t possess because it is a process of research and publishing. Your accusation that someone “much higher” was lying is naive. The church leaders have learned much of the Church history from more recent research along with the rest of us. They haven’t attempted to deceive anyone. Unless of course you mean “much, much higher,” like all the way to God. There is a lot he hasn’t told us and keeps a lot concealed on purpose. You might want to take it up with him.
Well, maybe ‘lie’ is a little tough to nail down. How about ‘mislead’? Try this… Walk into any Mormon congregation on Sunday and ask these questions:
– how many versions of the first vision are recorded and what are the differences in them?
– how many wives did Joseph Smith have?
– why did Joseph Smith marry teenagers and women who were already married?
– what is the picture displayed at the beginning of the book of Abraham?
How many life-long, 5th and 6th generation Mormons know the answers to those questions? It’s their own fault, you say? They should have read the Journal of Discourses in between FHE, scripture study, Sunday services, mutual, scouts, changing diapers, home teaching, prayers, and temple work. And once they find that information, they should still hold fast to the belief that Joseph Smith and Mormon leaders are trustworthy?
When people start looking into those and other questions, they find out the Mormon church has lied to them. They are understandably bitter and angry, as you would be if you were duped out of time, money, and the truth.
How many kids in high school are taught about the Mai Lai massacre when they cover the Vietnam war? How many of them move on to college? And of those who do, how many of them learn about it even there?
Anyone?
Almost none. And your point? Is the US government claiming to be God’s OneAndOnlyTrueChurchUponTheFaceOfTheEarth?
I realize these questions were meant to be inflammatory, but I still submit my answers (off the top of my head). I am by no means a scholar, just curious about things. I hope I’m not stepping on anyone’s toes? If I remember these wrong I apologize.
– how many versions of the first vision are recorded and what are the differences in them?
This has been answered by many, some of whom disagree with each other, while some draw hasty conclusions. Any member who wishes to know them can easily access the info. I guess four different versions are found. They were submitted to different people with different goals without meaning to be exhaustive, and aren’t necessarily contradictory.
– how many wives did Joseph Smith have?
I doubt if there is a consensus on that. 33? It should be remembered, that he never cohabited with most of them nor did he father children with them as far as is known.
– why did Joseph Smith marry teenagers and women who were already married?
As for teenagers, the youngest was 14 or 16 depending on the source. Legal age was 10. Most American girls who did get married did so as teenagers in mid-19th century so Joseph’s teenage wives were not extraordinarily young in the circumstance. We shouldn’t judge early 19th century with 21st-century values.
And women who were already married: we have no sources as to the motivation. Perhaps he was groping for an understanding of the role of the sealing – they stayed with their husbands and their husbands remained friendly with Joseph and he certainly didn’t have orgies with them. You can probably get better answers to that.
– what is the picture displayed at the beginning of the book of Abraham?
It is apparently from Book of Breathings. The use of Egyptian imagery in Hebrew tradition is well documented as well as Egyptian copies of Hebrew writings. And my theory of the translation itself is that the papyri now available just don’t fit the contemporary descriptions of what Joseph Smith had when the process was under way.
Velska, I don’t think you answered Steve’s question. He asked how many members in a typical ward know about these things he didn’t ask for your opinion on them.
I see this discussion is going in the same direction it always does when I try to bring up the fact that the LDS Church is dishonest with converts and members about it’s history and doctrine.
I used Joseph’s hat trick as an example but I could have used the racist policy of making sure that LDS members didn’t get “black blood” in Salt Lake hospitals during the 1950s, or The Book of Abraham, or post-Manifesto polygamy, or any one of a dozen things that I ONLY learned after the internet became available. I could pick any one of these things and go around and around with you guys all day on it. But that’s not the point.
My point is why was I misled? When did the LDS Church plan on telling me about these things? Do the leaders just hope that converts and life members continue stay ignorant? Do the words “lying by omission” mean anything to church leaders?
The best I can get out of all of this is that while you deceived me, you didn’t intentionally deceive me.
As for the above explanations about rocks, hats and plates, they don’t mean a damn thing when we look at the bottom of the page:
“All opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual authors, and should not be interpreted as official statements of FAIR or the LDS Church.”
I feel that LDS members suffer from what I like to call “Officialphobia”. It’s the fear of saying anything concrete about LDS history and doctrine. I am NOT being facetious when I ask where your prophet is. He is suppose to prevent the membership from being lead astray right? Is it too much to ask that he do his job?
I feel that if it is true that “…Mormons really are some of the best record keepers and they publish an incredible amount of historical information about the Church and its leaders…” then the absence of official statements on controversial history and doctrine just confirms that the LDS leadership either enjoys watching all the confusion on sites like this or that they have much more to hide than we know about right now.
Again, just be honest with your converts.
I just wanted to weigh in with a couple of thoughts.
Firstly, don’t we lose sight of what is most important when we struggle and strain with these difficult to be understood questions?
It is the church of JESUS CHRIST, not the church of JOSEPH SMITH. We do not look to Joseph Smith as deity, as infallible, nor should we base our testimony of Jesus Christ on Joseph Smith as a person.
The purpose of the church is to bring individuals to Christ. This is often done by presenting simplified (some would call it “glossed over”, but those words carry a connotation) version of events that can be understood by all AS FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THEM.
Getting wrapped up in complicated matters is not necessary for salvation, and it is perilous. We are encouraged to stay near to the “trunk of the tree”, rather than venturing out onto the highest and furthest branches for a very good reason.
When someone has a crisis of faith regarding the LDS church, I always encourage them to ask themselves two questions: Is it true, and does it matter? Many, many, many of the allegations against the church and Joseph Smith are not true, and many more simply DO NOT MATTER.
Veslka, I didn’t want to start a debate about those questions. I merely wanted to point out that the vast majority of active members don’t know the answers. And that constitutes lying in my book. Other words might be deception, cover up, half-truths, or white-washing.
You are aware of those questions and have decided to believe certain answers for them. Other people – especially those who have no familial or social pressures to be Mormon – come to different conclusions.
And Ryan, I lived several decades telling myself the same thing. But when I finally got to the point where I allowed myself to ‘think’ that – just possibly – Mormonism was just another man-made religion, I was able to consider some new questions:
– what is the ‘world view’ of Mormonism and is it conducive to progress and a healthy society?
– what are the effects of having so much of one’s life dictated (women shouldn’t work, marry early, lots of kids, etc.)
– is prejudice (gays, blacks, other Christians) ever acceptable?
– are motivations for my actions important? Should decisions be made out of fear, obedience, conformity, greed?
– are there more effective ways of spending my time and money?
– am I as happy as I could be?
The conclusion I’ve come to is that a person can live freer, happier, and more authentically without Mormonism. I do think the LDS system is decent for teaching some basic morality and discipline, but beyond the age of 13 or so, I think people can do much better.
I’ve tried both sides of the fence and it’s true – I’m happier and healthier without it.
Your have a disturbing tendency to accuse others of dishonesty when they do not see things your way. You fail to acknowledge that people of good will can honestly disagree on the particulars of history and doctrine.
Do “poisoning the well” and “argumentum ad hominem” mean anything to you?
You have moved from facetious to presumptuous.
There is another possibility that you do not mention. The leaders of the LDS Church are busy preaching the gospel, perfecting the saints, and redeeming the dead; they do not have time to monitor web sites such as this one.
Ryan,
You said:
Why then are statements like these made by your prophets and presidents?
Those statements certainly make it sound like it is the church of Joseph Smith.
Which of these “allegations against…Joseph Smith are not true, and [which ones] DO NOT MATTER”?
P. K.,
Do you honestly believe that the LDS Church does not misled new converts?
Marcus,
True to form, you are taking statements out of context and dressing them up to be more than they were intended to be.
We honor and revere Joseph Smith as the first prophet of the restoration, much the same way Christians and Jews alike honor and revere Abraham and Moses for their accomplishments. Joseph Smith served the Lord by restoring His church and enabling mankind to come unto Christ and obtain salvation again, which they had not been able to do during the long night of apostacy. That is what is meant by “no salvation without Joseph Smith”.
There is nothing in those quotes that elevates Joseph Smith above Jesus Christ.
I sincerely hope you take also issue with scriptures in the Bible which refer to the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”, or any mention of “sitting with Abraham, and Issac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 8:11) or dying, and being “carried into Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22), or anything like that. Anything less would smack ever so slightly of a double-standard, or intellectual dishonesty.
Steve Cox,
Why does being the “True Church” guarantee or imply that you are going to handle your history any better than the US government handles its own?
Steve,
The “world view” of Mormonism is not, and should not be our primary concern when considering a church. The world judges early and often, and is regularly dead wrong.
As for being conducive to progress and a healthy society, I think the LDS church’s track record speaks for itself. We are an educated, active, and successful people who enjoy living in peace and comfort. I guess I must not be entirely sure what you mean by that, because that one seems painfully obvious to me.
It is not the doctrine of the LDS church to dictate anyone’s life to them. It may have evolved into our culture for women to behave that way. There may be social pressure for those things to take place, but it is not church doctrine. The two are not inextricably linked. Have you ever heard of anyone being excommunicated for not having 10 kids? Exactly.
The LDS church has maintained the friendliest relationship towards other Christian faiths that I have ever seen. Certainly far and away above the treatment that we receive in kind from them. I’m not sure where you’re going with that. Treatment of blacks and gays is, and has always been, dictated by the commandments of God. They have always been welcomed as brothers and sisters, but restrictions on their access to priesthoods and ordinances are NOT based on human prejudice, as you implied, but on the mandates set by God. I suggest you take it up with Him.
Decisions made out of a fear of God’s wrath, desire to be obedient to His commandments, and conformity to the boundaries He has set sounds perfectly reasonable to me. There is plenty of freedom to be found within those guidelines. If you prefer to skirt the edges and rebel, that’s entirely up to you. Greed? I’m not sure what role greed plays in this scenario. Perhaps you should elaborate.
Whether or not your time and money are being spent effectively depends entirely on what you hope to accomplish in this life. If you feel it serves your best interests to focus on obtaining the treasures of this world, then perhaps belonging to the church is not for you. As for me, I find that putting the treasures of heaven foremost on my priorities with a cheerful heart still leaves me with plenty of time and money for the things of this world that are worthwhile, and I don’t sweat the rest (because the rest usually ain’t worth it!)
And, again, your happiness depends entirely on you and what you want. Happiness can be subjective, elusive, and (often) deceptive. I have known friends who had truly convinced themselves that they were happier drinking and smoking. That’s fine for them. I remain suspicious of their true feelings, but, in the end, only you can know what truly makes you happy. Personally, I have lived on both sides of the line, and I have never been happier than I am now by living the gospel.
It’s true that governments sometimes issue propaganda and mislead their citizens in order to foster loyalty and patriotism. That’s been very evident in certain communist countries and to a lesser extent, even in ours. I therefore conclude that governments are man-made institutions and not led by the creator of the universe. And when I find the same things in a church, I come to the same conclusion.
I think a key belief of Mormons (and other religious folks, too) is that – to some extent – this deception is necessary and even good. If rules must be bent, facts hidden, appearances kept up in order to ‘help’ some maintain their faith, then those things are justified. President Hickley often said, “We don’t emphasize that”. Elder Packer once said, “Some things that are true are not very useful”.
But I disagree. Most of the time the end does not justify the means. All truth is useful to an educated mind. Teach people to think. Educate them so they can make good choices. Give them the facts. Allow them to make choices without compulsion, coercion, bribery, or threats. Encourage dissent and discussion and change. An institution that does these things will be a spring of ‘truths’ that is self-correcting and will produce freedom, enlightenment, and progress.
I do know of one such institution. We broadly call it, ‘science’.
Thanks for your comments, Ryan. They are EXACTLY the answers I would have given a few years ago when I was an active Mormon. And I really don’t know where to go from there. I’ll just say that there’s a huge shift that occurs for people (like me) who one day decide to ignore the assumption that it’s all true.
Steve,
You’re right. There is a shift that occurs when leaving the church. It’s called “losing the gift of the Holy Ghost”.
I don’t say that to be rude, but you must recognize the loss of divine guidance, and how it’s been replaced with secular “wisdom” and the unstable doctrines of men and of the devil. I think that might contribute to the change in mind-set.
Again, I don’t say these things with a mean spirit, just matter-of-factly. You say you’re happy, and I’m happy FOR you. But, like the leaders of the church say, the hand of fellowship will always be extended to you, and I sincerely hope that you find your way back some day. God bless.
One other note, Ryan, regarding your friends who ‘convinced themselves’ that they were happy. As a Mormon, I remember telling myself that I could not possibly be happier. Several times I said, “I don’t know where I’d be without the gospel”. I felt I could not be a good parent without it. Surely I’d be a lousy husband. I felt sorry for those who ‘appeared’ happy, but surely must have been miserable, or at least not have had ‘real’ or ‘lasting’ happiness.
But now that I’ve actually experienced the other side, I find I was wrong. Without the gospel, I find myself much happier in every important way. I really am. I’m a better father. I’m becoming a much better friend and partner. The world looks much different in a very good way. But my Mormon family has the same attitude I had as a member – since I no longer have the spirit in my life, I must be miserable. I’ve told missionaries that I’m happier now and they don’t believe me (!).
Ryan,
How convenient to say that I have taken your quote out of context. It doesn’t appear to be out of context at all.
You addressed the first quote, but what about the others?
I would like to jump in here. I have some experience in the church having been very active through my 50’s. I have found this discussion very lively and enlightening. However, it is like so many I have followed. I have learned, since leaving the church, that people hate to have their core beliefs challenged. Also, for active Mormons, “The Church is true” trumps everything. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation in the face of that dictum. However, I still offer these thoughts.
The church does try to hide facts from the members. The priesthood manual containing the writings of Brigham Young is but one example. How many wives did BY have? If you had recently joined this church and read this manual you would say “one”. What were BY’s views about blacks? “Loving” you would have to say. Now that church leaders are encouraging members to read only “church approved” material concerning past leaders and church history where will a member learn the full truth about these men and their actions? Of course, because it’s “the true church” none of that matters. But, you must stop saying that church leaders don’t try to hide facts from its members.
Why was Hinckley and company trying to buy documents form Mark Hoffman? Because they thought the documents were authentic and contained embarrassing facts about Joseph Smith. They wanted to buy them and hide them so that no one, member and non-member, could read them.
Joseph Smith and other early church leaders told the public, including church members, that they were not practicing polygamy when, in fact, they were. Near the turn of the century, church leaders told the public and the federal government that the church had ceased the practice of polygamy when they knew it had not.
These are just examples. There are many, many more. Having worked in business for close to 30 years I know that all organizations lie to cover up embarrassing or libel facts. The big difference is that XYZ Corporation does not claim to the world that it was establish by God and it is the one and only “true” corporation. It’s OK with me if you want to say that the Mormon Church is the one and only “true” church on the earth. But please don’t insult me by telling me that church leaders are truthful and don’t hide facts from the members.
P.S. I am much happier since leaving the fold. Yes, I know – I only THINK I’m happier. It sure FEELS that way, though. Actually, I have made better decision since I “lost the gift of the Holy Ghost” than I ever did as an active member.
Ryan,
Then, you said,
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? I suppose you are trying to change the subject, because I don’t see the connection…unless you are equating Smith with Abraham. If that is the case, then you are incorrectly assuming that I recognize Smith as a prophet. I do not. I reject him as a prophet of God and as the vehicle for the “restoration” of the Gospel. The churches might have been broken, but the Gospel certainly was not. The Gospel didn’t (doesn’t) need restoring because it was never broke or incomplete. To suggest otherwise is blasphemous.
Very good post Mark. You can express yourself much better than I can.
I’m sorry if, as P. K. Andersen said, I have to always see things my way. I hope that I don’t.
Boiling it all down to the simplest of terms it all seems to be a matter of perception. For example, if you were to watch the following video of this man what would you think of him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1tX8VYEDa0&feature=related
Well, he enjoys his home life. He is surrounded by happy friends and he loves the outdoor, children and his dog. Judging from the comments, he still has many people who admire him. Setting aside any questions about the man’s good or evil points, those who made the video have the perception that this is a good man, a kind man and a great leader.
This is just an example and I am NOT comparing anyone or any organization to this man. I’m just pointing out how perceptions can vary from person to person.
Yet despite perceptions, the truth has to be somewhere. The truth about him, the truth about us the truth about our organizations and the truth about our perceptions of life.
If there is one thing that I can testify of it’s that the truth is not always pretty. Yet in the end, it’s always a comfort for me to know.
Marcus,
I didn’t mean you took my quote out of context, I meant you took the quotes you quoted out of context.
I did address them all, in a general sense. They were all saying the same thing, essentially.
How is it that you don’t see the connection? The scriptures I cited make reference to Abraham as a revered or near-divine individual the same way that the quotes regarding Joseph Smith do. To refer to death as a return “into Abrahams bosom”? Come on, now. They are no different.
Also, do you attack the Catholic and Orthodox churches for actually kneeling and PRAYING TO saints and apostles? Surely that is a greater demonstration of sacrilege than simply mentioning Joseph Smith’s name with reverence and gratitude.
No one ever said the gospel was broken. It needed to be restored because it had been taken from the earth. The same way Noah and the inhabitants of the ark were temporarily “taken” from the earth, only to be permanently restored. If you do not believe that the light of Christ ceased to strive among mankind for a period of human history, I suggest you study the years between the martydom of the Apostles and the Renaissance (roughly 1200-1400 years) and report back with a plausible explanation for why advances in science and knowledge came to a grinding halt.
Steve and Mark,
No one with any sense would find fault with you for being happy, or becoming better fathers, husbands, etc. That’s wonderful to hear, really.
There is also no one who would accurately say to you that it is not possible to be happy outside of the church. You are living testaments to that fact. Again, bravo.
However, I would submit that it, again, is dependant on you. What are you looking for out of life? What kind of happiness do you desire?
Equate it to… say, discipline. I could be a disciplined person on my own. I could focus and push myself and accomplish things. But, what if I had relied on someone more competent than myself to train me? What if I joined the military to learn discipline? It wouldn’t be easy. Many would say that they are happier NOT being in the military. It’s too hard. There are too many rules. I can’t live up to their standards. Fine. But if I want to be the very best that I can be, maybe I need to forget myself and be subjected to higher standards and find a way to be successful in that position.
Just a few thoughts.
I struggle mightily with anti-mormonism. I can’t get enough of it, and I’m always posting more on my blog.
I think this… addiction… to anti-mormonism caused me to lose my testimony of the church. I would ask where I could go for help in overcoming it, but I think I’m beyond help now…
Will Dunn wrote,
It is my experience that the members of the LDS Church (including those serving in leadership positions) generally try to tell the truth as they understand it.
So let me ask you: Do you believe that the members and leaders of the LDS Church are engaged in a vast effort to mislead the public about what they really believe?
I don’t know about the regular members, but I do believe the top leaders are engaged in changing church history, and covering up embarrassing doctrines.
Witness Gordon B Hinkley telling a national audience that “We don’t teach” that Man can become God.
Hi Measure. The issue that he was discussing had to do with whether or not God was once a man, not anything about Man becoming a god. You can read the transcript on it here http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Does_President_Hinckley_Understand_LDS_Doctrine.html
I don’t have the information in front of me, but I seem to recollect someone going back through 10 or 15 years of conference talks at that time and not finding references to this alleged doctrine.
If you want to say that the Church’s lesson manuals are lousy, you will get little argument from me. Had I been writing the Brigham Young manual, the issues you mention (and others) would have received different treatment.
However, it would be quite a stretch to say that the Brigham Young manual was an attempt to cover up polygamy or the Church’s ban on ordaining blacks. How would that work? D&C 131, Official Declaration 1, and Official Declaration 2 are found in the Standard Works. Is there a Mormon anywhere who does not know that Brigham Young had many wives, or that blacks were excluded from the priesthood until 1978?
Not so. The Church did not hide away the documents it acquired from Mark Hofmann. Indeed, one of the most embarrassing documents, the infamous Salamander letter, was published by the Church in April 1985, the same month it was acquired.
Another potentially troublesome document, the fraudulent Joseph Smith III Blessing, was donated to the Reorganized Church in March 1981. Gordon B. Hinckley discussed the document in the April 1981 conference.
The FAIR web site has links to a number of relevant articles here.
A Couple of Thoughts
First: I find the use of the term ”Anti-Mormon” offensive. It is an emotionally charged word specifically designed to illicit a calculated reaction among the Mormon faithful. Anything given the tag of being “Anti-Mormon” immediately becomes forbidden information to believing members of the LDS church EVEN if this so-called “Anti-Mormon” information is TRUE.
Second: I once asked a member of FARMS why the church wasn’t more honest when telling its foundational stories to prospective converts. He got a huge grin on his face and in a rather smug and condescending manner replied. “Oh Craig, don’t be so naïve…if we told the truth, no one would join the church” I had to literally (hyperbole) pick my jaw up off the floor due to his rather surprising candor.
Third: And this may be viewed as a rather stupid observation…BUT why do church apologists always work from a position that the church is all it claims to be…even if reality doesn’t’ support this claim. I mean come on…in all seriousness…only in the small world of the Mormon apologist can a horse become a Taper, a wheeled chariot become an Indian travois, steel swords become a wooden club or a Mayan macuahuit or one Hill Cumorah becomes two…all meant to resolve difficult problems. Why can’t you just accept reality and tell the obvious truth…”We were had”. Why can’t the honest search for truth be the ONLY standard…rather than scratching at any inconceivable answer to prop up Mormonism truth claims? Maybe the easy answer (but hard to accept) IS the real answer …that Mormonism is a fraud.
Forth: The mere fact that FAIR and FARMS exist is evidence that Mormonism is a flawed man made religion in need of being propped up. Has Mormon apologetics really sunk to the level where its purpose is to supply those infected with “Shaken Faith Syndrome” with implausible plausibility’s? If so…then Mormonism is in more trouble than it cares to admit…
Scott, it’s exactly this kind of reply that gets me angry at covering up church doctrines and history.
Until FAIR decided to defend Gordon B Hinkley, “Man can become God” and “God was once a man” were ALWAYS the very same doctrine!
But in a fit of fear to cover up the lies of Gordon B, you separate them into TWO doctrines, and then claim one of them hasn’t been taught by the church for years.
It’s worse than watching hardcore fanboys protect glaring plot loopholes in star trek episodes.
Measure,
Don’t try to paint this as “fanboy Mormons” on one side, and cool and rational ex-members on the other.
I’ve seen just as many goobering fanboys in the ex-Mormon camp.
You say we have a real incentive to try and justify the belief system we have committed so much to?
Well, ex-members have just as much incentive to justify the non-belief stance they have decided to take.
You guys can be every bit as shrill, defensive, and irrational as any “TBM.” I’ve seen you guys do it on numerous occasions. Even some ex members think the Recovering from Mormonism message board is a ridiculous nut-house on occasion.
And you guys can be just as brainless in quoting Christopher Hitchens talking-points as any Mormon is in quoting the missionary discussions. I’ve seen just as many stupid cut-and-paste Evangelical counter-cultists as I have cut-and-paste FARMS folk. If I had a nickel for every Evangelical I’ve encountered who obviously only read Mormon materials while wearing his Lighthouse Ministries secret decoder ring….
So don’t put on airs here bud.
I am well aware that your crowd can be every bit as stupid and moronic and uncritical as any believing Mormon. So I reject your unsupported attempt to seize the moral high ground. You haven’t earned it.
Ooooh… “flying spaghetti monster”…. giggle, giggle.
Ooooh… Tal Bachman, will you tell me your fascinating story one more time?
Mormons? They ought to call em… wait for it… morons! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck….
Let’s have another rousing chorus of “pedophile Joe” folks!
Did you hear about Prozac in Utah?
….
Do you have any idea how stupid you guys sound sometimes?
The way I see it, missionary discussions, institute, sunday school and firsides are about teaching people how to get to heaven, NOT how the heavens go. Items from church history are used to help people learn how to get to heaven, they are not tought so that people can earn a phd in church history. Im probably the only one in my singles ward that knows about:
polyandry
post-manifesto polygamy
Kirtland Egyptian papers
“rock in the hat”
Adam-God
teen brides
etc. I didnt these thigs in Church, I learned them on my own. Do I feel lied to? Nope. I go to Sunday school to learn how to go to heaven. I never expected to hear the “full story”. Why should we? Perhaps one can say, “If I had known xyz then I would never had joined.” Really? And what of revelation? What about Moroni 10:4-5?
Looks like I struck a nerve there. I do not belive apologists are irrational, or stupid. I do believe they are sustaining a fantasy.
Measure,
I have been in interviews before, and I have taught college level classes. It is sometimes difficult to come up with a quick answer to explain something that has depth and meaning.
I just spent half an hour with an economics faculty member discussing how to explain the concepts of comparative advantage and trade to students who aren’t familiar with the topics. I doubt anyone would accuse him of dishonesty if he simplifies the concept and leaves out some of the more complex issues. But, when it comes to Mormonism, or even religion, it seems to be immediately about honesty. I don’t think that is very fair. There are a number of books out that go into great depth and detail on the topics you brought up. It also is very easy to go to either the BYU library or Church archives to get information. There are articles in Dialogue and BYU studies that are online. I have purchased DVDs with 40,000 pages of documents that even includes the day planners of Apostles. Their life really isn’t very private. The answers are there to be found, you just have to be willing to read the sources, and not just the secondary sources.
Have there been things in our history that people have been dishonest about?
Yes.
Go back to the 1840’s through 1900’s and you can find several things. I can give you rationalizations for this dishonesty, but I doubt you would accept it.
Is the church dishonest in its portrayal of history today? I think that would be stretch. I have seen the church going to great lengths to get the information out to people. Just look at the recent book on the MMM or the new Joseph Smith Papers project. On the other hand, critical books and Websites are filled with inaccuracies, half truths, rumors, and misquotes. Much of what FAIR does is look up original quotes and give those quotes back to those with questions. We give them the full quotes and it seems to make a huge difference in the understanding of those with questions.
It is an interesting subject you bring up as you believe the Church is dishonest. I see a great level of dishonesty among some of the anti Mormon ministries. I believe that many of the critics of the church are very honest. But, I can still reach different conclusions with them as I weigh different evidence. Also, I believe that some are mislead by the dishonest books and websites.
My question on Joseph Smith’s marriages is–why did he marry all of those women who were much older than him? 😉
Ryan,
I’ll just try to clarify, here. I’ll use fatherhood as an example. When a member, I was doing just fine by church standards. I was not a slacker member. I spent lots of time on callings, teaching my kids, and going to all meetings. I had lots of very responsible positions. So I don’t think I’m guilty – as you imply – of not living the fullness of the gospel. I was doing everything the church teaches about being a great father.
But since leaving the church, the following resources are now available to me:
– I have more time with my kids. With no church meetings to go to, we have some very fun, educational, bonding weekends together.
– I’ve read several parenting books and feel like I’ve learned much that I never would have learned through Mormonism. I can use any media that I find effective in teaching my kids, instead of being limited to certain books, movies, internet sites, etc.
– I have more money. I’m working on teaching the kids to invest. We all contribute to Kiva, a micro-loan program that helps 3rd world entrepreneurs. I don’t give 10% any more, but we give in ways that are much more direct and educational and character-building than simply handing over a tithing envelope.
So by using myself as an example, I was really trying to say that EVERY Mormon can be more successful in life without the LDS church. Not just me. Of course we all know men who have no interest in being good fathers and simply use the LDS church to raise their kids FOR them. But with a little effort, EVERY man can be a better father WITHOUT the LDS church. The LDS church holds people back by restricting resources (time, money, allowed media, etc.)
A collection of articles that explains how people can rise ABOVE the LDS church (be MORE honest, MORE loving, MORE fulfilled) can be found at http://www.swcox.com/Tolworthy/. You might check them out. I found them to be absolutely correct – It’s possible to do BETTER in every aspect of life by ditching Mormonism.
Having said that, Ryan, thanks for the discussion and I wish you all the best.
~Steve
P. K.,
I think that by leaving questions unanswered, the LDS leadership contributes to a great deal of disinformation. For example:
Polygamy-
• “It was practiced because there were more women than men”
• “It was practiced because women could not own property”
• “We just don’t know why we practiced it”
If you will go back and read the sermons from that time it’s very easy to know why they practiced it. It was, to them, essential to salvation.
Blacks and the priesthood-
• “We have no idea why they could not have the priesthood”
Again, go back to the sermons. Call it the personal opinion of Brigham Young if you will, but the truth is it was racism that kept them from having the priesthood.
Temple- (this is one from back in my day)
• “It’s sacred, not secret”
Before 1990 it was taught in the temple that it was, indeed, secret. The very word secrecy was used. I won’t go into detail here but those who went through before 1990 know what I mean.
I don’t know if it’s a vast conspiracy, but to quote Boyd Packer it seems to be the “unwritten order of things”.
I am not sure I follow you. Disinformation is usually taken to mean false information that is spread (often by intelligence agencies) with the intent to deceive. Is that what you are saying?
Or do you mean to say that the LDS leadership allows misinformation to go unchallenged, thereby allowing it to spread?
Thanks for the correct. Yes, I mean misinformation. I should not type and watch football at the same time.
Steve you have a lot of good points, but I highly doubt that it works in every aspect of life. For example how do you learn how to make green jello with carrots or sing hymns?
http://www.ldsartcollector.com/
If I’m honest with myself, I have to admit you’re really right, ldsartcollector. Other areas in my life have also suffered…
– I haven’t tied a necktie for years
– I’m sure my testimony bearing skills are just gone
– I don’t think I’d do so well in a scripture chase
Tradeoffs…
To clear up a point:
The “salamander letter”, the JS III blessing, the “Anthon Transcript”, and the Lucy Mack Smith letter were all published by the church. However, all these items had been “leaked” to the public beforehand and so the church published them, not as an act of good faith, but to cover their “backside”.
‘The JS “money-digging” letter, on the other hand, was purchased by Gordon B. Hinckley for $10,000 and hidden away in the First Presidency’s Vault for nearly two years until a typescript of it surfaced (Hofmann, without telling Hinckley, had given a copy to scholar/friends of his). An LDS spokesman was then asked if the Church had the letter and denied it. About a week later he had to reverse himself on this point. It was only then that the Church made public what they thought was the earliest known letter written in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting.’
How many other Hofmann forgeries were acquired with “sacred” church funds and privately stored in the First Presidency vault? Ask a General Authority and see if he will tell you the truth! If you have studied the details of the Hofmann incident you cannot, in truthfulness, tell me that the highest church leaders of the Mormon faith were honest and forthright in this sordid affair.
Mark,
What – no commentary about how it is indefensible that a “prophet” could be duped like that? It’s standard operating protocol when bringing up this subject. Tsk tsk.
I don’t know about your claims that the material was leaked beforehand, but I suspect that it simply another case of critics fudging timelines and making assumptions in order to dress the incident up as “convenient” and a “cover-up”.
What I DO know is that the Hoffmann saga was painfully embarrassing for the church. We may never know the stress and emotional turmoil Gordon B. Hinckley underwent during that time when he had to make public addresses and “own” what had happened. You’ve likely never been in a similar situation, nor will you ever. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge, yet you do, anyway.
Lest anyone forget, Hoffmann fooled many people with his forgeries, including agents of the federal government. These weren’t cheap parlor tricks. Pity he had to go and blow his stupid a$$ up with some of his own explosives. He could have been the anti-Mormon hero for many more productive years.
Mark,
And why wouldn’t the church try to acquire all of the documents? Are you now trying to give super human powers to the LDS leaders?
We could next ask why they aren’t able to walk on water.
I’m sorry, are we even talking about the same thing? You seem to be attacking me for arguments that I didn’t even advance. I was addressing the issue of the Mormon Church hiding (read: lying) events in it’s past and present. I know that Hofmann was an expert forger and fooled many experts. I didn’t advance the argument that the Lord’s prophets should have been directed by the Spirit to discern his scam because I know that they don’t have that kind of discernment. They are just people, like the rest of us, doing the best they can for a cause they believe in.
My argument was that they don’t tell the whole truth about Mormon Church history and deliberately give the members a water-down, “faith-promoting only”, version of it. If they would admit that that is what they were doing then I wouldn’t fault them. But when confronted with actual facts they, and you apologists, twist and turn the truth to suit your needs and desires. As “men of God”, I do fault them for not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Joseph Smith and many early church leaders lied to the members and non-members about polygamy. Joseph F Smith lied to the federal government about polygamous marriages ending. These are just a couple of examples taken from many such incidents. The current General Authorities continue this pattern with major omissions in official manuals, distortions in general conference talks, and lack of cooperation with federal and state authorities in such matters as the Hofmann investigation. They didn’t “come clean” until confronted with facts that even they couldn’t refute.
Ryan,
I think that you don’t have your timeline correct. I could care less about the church or Hofmann. I investigated the facts. Unlike most Mormons I know, I want to know what really went on. I will stand by what I wrote.
I have not idea what emotional turmoil Hinckley went through and neither do you. I am not judging him for being fooled by Hofmann. I am saying that he was less than completely truthful to investigators and church members. The only facts that we know from the church are things that the public found out through other sources and which the church then had to own up to in order to save face.
Scott,
I don’t care at all if the church wanted to buy up everything Hofmann owned including his shoes and underwear. That is not my argument at all and I don’t understand why you would bring it up. My point was that Hinckley and company were buying up the documents to hide them in the infamous First Presidency vault so that the contents wouldn’t prove embarrassing to the memory of Joseph Smith
I don’t understand your last two sentences at all, in or out of context: “Are you now trying to give super human powers to the LDS leaders? We could next ask why they aren’t able to walk on water.” Are you sure you weren’t breaking the Word of Wisdom, perhaps sharing a glass of sherry with the Prophet Joseph, when you wrote this post?
Scott,
I thought the LDS leaders had super human powers. Being able to translate ancient documents without any training and talking face to face with Jesus are nothing to sneer at.
My apologies Mark. That was my error. I am so used to that being the typical question with the Hoffman forgeries that I made incorrect assumptions.
The typical argument goes–if they really have the Spirit of revelations, then why wouldn’t they be able to discern the forgeries. This is, of course, contrasted with the “Why didn’t they use science” argument.
Will–I agree. But God is the one who decides what they can and cannot do. It doesn’t seem to be a skill or power that one can hang onto. Just look at Joseph Smith’s experience translating. It seemed to be much more of a gift given or taken away than an innate power.
>>P. K. Andersen Says:
Is there a Mormon anywhere who does not know that Brigham Young had many wives, or that blacks were excluded from the priesthood until 1978?
I taught a Sunday School class of 15 and 16 year-olds and not one of them (about 10 students) knew that blacks could not hold the priesthood until 1978. They know now though!
Scott,
You wrote:
“It seemed to be much more of a gift given or taken away than an innate power.”
To say that a person is a prophet but just at certain times….well I just can’t see how that would not lead to confusion among not only Mormons but non-Mormons as well.
I keep thinking about that scripture that states that God is not the author of confusion.
Mark wrote,
How do you know the motives of those who published the documents?
This apparently is a quotation. Can you supply the reference?
(Also, please explain to me the difference between “hidden away in the First Presidency’s Vault” and “stored in the First Presidency’s Vault.”)
I give up. How many?
Have you asked one? Did he tell you the truth? And how did you know whether he was telling you the truth or not?
Sorry Will,
I don’t presume to tell God how things should be done.
One of the challenges that all of us in the LDS Church face is that the church as an institution is imperfect.
That is a hard concept to put your arms around.
But, I think, it is helpful to look at previous prophetic instances. And, they are also filled with imperfection:
* Today we think of Moses as the one who split the Red Sea. Yet, much of his time was spend dealing with squabbling and factions. Much of his life was like that of a small town mayor: Filled with lots of complaining, backstabbing and factionalism.
* Jacob manipulated his father to gain his blessing. His sons were rebellious, even selling one son into slavery.
* Paul spent much of his ministry handling apostasy.
* Joseph Smith presided over a bank disaster, had many followers turn on him and created polygamy in a form that no one today quite understands.
It is little surprise that today’s church suffers from a tendency towards bureaucracy. Correlation creates materials that are often written for pre-teens. And, many members are often far too judgmental and unchristian.
Yet, we often treat the Church as God’s hand on earth. Perhaps, just perhaps, could it be better described as an expression of the Lord’s will burdened by a multitude of human failings? That God has to communicate through imperfect vessels using less than perfect organizations reflecting his believes with often imperfect focus. That more nuanced view is closer to the reality most individuals experience.
I wonder if such an approach might be a bit healthier.
Steve2 wrote:
“Yet, we often treat the Church as God’s hand on earth. Perhaps, just perhaps, could it be better described as an expression of the Lord’s will burdened by a multitude of human failings? That God has to communicate through imperfect vessels using less than perfect organizations reflecting his believes with often imperfect focus. That more nuanced view is closer to the reality most individuals experience.”
That could be a perfect description of 2,000 years of Catholicism or of the Protestant movement with it’s many factions.
That’s the thing about Mormonism. It’s described in one instance as unique…a restoration of Christianity. Other times it’s described as just another human organization.
Will the real LDS Church please stand up!
The LDS church is unique. It is a restoration of the church of Jesus Christ. But, it is an organization run by humans. I’m not sure why that is do difficult of a concept to grasp.
God restored many of the ancient truths. He guides us and helps us. But, he doesn’t control us. He doesn’t turn us into puppets. He wants us to learn and grow. That is the whole point of the plan of salvation. Think along the lines of Father and child. Do you do everything for your children?? If you do, I can guarantee they will be spoiled brats.
This idea that every church leader or church member is perfect, or has a perfect understanding goes against the fundamental beliefs of the church. Line upon line….
I think for me and countless others the concept is difficult to grasp because the LDS Church has intentionally muddied the waters.
Take for example the following quotes:
“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” (President Marion Romney quoting Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78)
“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.” (Elder Boyd Packer, General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)
“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” (President Wilford Woodruff, Manifesto in the D&C)
Using your example, if my child comes to me and asks me if I could ever make a mistake in my parenting of them, would it sound strange if I said “Always keep your eye on me, and if I ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let me as your father lead you and your sisters astray. Oh yeah…your job is to figure out when I’m speaking as just a man and when I’m speaking as your father.”
Would I be justified in getting frustrated with my children if they ended up confused by my council?
Steve, your assertion that life is better post-Mormon is truly unremarkable, but probably not for the reason you might think.
Recently, members of an Internet forum where Mormons, antis, etc. post were asked whether they were happier as Mormons or not. Almost without exception, everyone was happiest with their current status, whether that was active Mormon, inactive Mormon, exmormon, or one person that was an exmormon but rejoined.
So saying that you are happier now as an exMormon isn’t really saying much.
If the discussion turns to why people leave the church then the notion that they did so because of “intellectual honesty” reasons just doesn’t hold water. I have never interviewed anyone over my twenty five year professional life, who left the church who had not first given up on the gospel internally many months or years earlier. They turned from the pursuit of a holy life to the pursuit a worldly life first. I can’t think of a single person where this was not true. The numbers I speak of are in the hundreds of members, former members, families and loved ones. Certainly I did not ask each person the specifics of what happened. Some volunteered it. Loved ones almost always acknowledged the failure of the person to live the gospel came first followed by the decline of their moral character and finally their emersion into the ways of the world. The intellectual honesty meme is just cover. It is intended to shield the person from the real reason they quit what ever it actually is. They didn’t just quit the church they quit the gospel, themselves, their loved ones and Christ. Some have taken refuge in other religious denominations where they can find fellow travelers who have developed this new persona. But I have yet to find a man or woman who hangs his hat on “intellectual honesty” who ever was more than a member in name only or really understood and practiced the Gospel.
Jack Fuller,
I can’t speak for other former members, but personally of all the low, cheap shots taken at me while I was struggling this was the worst. It was the worst because I was doing everything I was told to do and yet my questions still were not answered.
When I began to seriously questioning Mormonism, I had a current temple recommend, was branch clerk and taught Gospel Doctrine class. I was really digging into the scriptures and trying to deal with all the new information I had about the LDS Church. I shared this with my branch president only to find out from him that I was “lazy”. I don’t know what rumors began to float around about me, but people whom I thought were my friends began to back away from me. I guess the figured that I must be some sort of really wicked sinner.
Believe it or not there are many people out there who do leave for intellectual reasons. Many more leave for the simple reason that Mormonism is a high control group like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, The Unification Church and many branches of Fundamentalist Christianity. You will find these groups using the same ad hominem tactic that you are using here. Does it say something about the persons that leave these groups or about the groups themselves?
Phrases such as “decline of their moral character”, “[real] reason they quit”, “member in name only” are designed to put the focus on the individual and off the legitimacy of questions they may have had. You can wave goodbye to the wicked sinners who dare to question Mormonism and say “good riddance”. If it makes you feel stronger or more superior then that’s fine. But you can’t wave goodbye to the tough questions they pose.
Those questions ain’t going anywhere!
Surprisingly I somewhat agree with Jack Fuller’s premise, that people only leave the church who have first given up on the gospel internally many months or years earlier.
In other words…after spending a lifetime of pounding their heads against the “brick wall” of the gospel…trying to make its claims real and believable…reality sets in…and YES these formerly active members give up trying to make the church what it claims to be. Or in other words, these people who leave the church face up to reality by accepting the fact that the church is “not” what it claims to be.
No matter how much someone may want the sun to rise in the west….no matter how much faith one exercises in this pursuit…it’s just not going to happen. Those who struggle to make the church something that it is not…are just the ones who “give up” trying to bend their brains into pretzels to accommodate all of the wacky inconsistencies and unanswerable questions Mormonism requires its active members to believe. Questions that should be answerable with believable answers. I mean come on…why can’t a horse be a horse…when the BoM says a horse. why can’t a chariot be a chariot? Why can’t a translation process be honestly taught, why can’t the pronouncements of a so-called prophets be counted on irrregardless of whether they are alive or dead…if they are what they claim to be…sholdn’t their pronouncements be credible to their own generations and those that follow…if they are in fact human beings that really do have the ability to talk with the creator of all things.
But no! Mormonism has to have unbelievable conditions, qualifiers and props to support its outlandish claims. Joseph…married other men’s wives after he sent some of them on mission’s…ah because the Lord commanded him to…ah yeah that’s the ticket or what’s your problem with Joseph using a rock he dug up in a well to translate the golden plates… a rock he also used in other fraudulent activities. Oh and did I mention that he didn’t even have the plates with him during the translation process?…but hey whats the problem IF it was done by the gift and power of God…I mean come on…
“The gospel” as taught and practiced within the Mormon Church is a beautiful concept. The notion of Eternal Families, Godhood, a Loving Father who answers prayers etc…I mean come on who wouldn’t want this in their lives? So it begs the question….WHY would anyone who understands these concepts walk away from them?
It’s an easy question to answer… people only leave the church who have first given up on the gospel internally many months or years earlier…that have struggled for YEARS to make the jig saw pieces of Mormonism fit into a logical meaningful picture. Some of the pieces do fit…some seem to be from a mish mash of other puzzles… and some will never fit…no matter how much we want them to. It is only when one tries to fit all of the pieces of the mormon jig saw puzzel together…that Mormonism falls apart.
In the end…to borrow from Thomas Edison…”For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” and I might add “Mormonism, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.”
Craig: your perspective is interesting in that it requires a God and religion to do exactly what you yourself would expect. “Why does the BoM translation say ‘horse’?” The issue of translation deserves more thought and time than simply declaring that it ought to be exactly what we expect it to be.
I suppose one could ask that same “horse question” of the Maya. According to Michael D. Coe in his book “Breaking the Maya Code” (p. 53):
“If I see three horses in a pasture, I would count them as ox-tul-tzimin (ox, ‘three’; -tul, classifier for animate things; tzimin, ‘horse’ or ‘tapir’).”
I think the Joseph translated the word “horse,” because I think that Nephi wrote the word “horse.” The question is what Nephi saw that caused him to write the word “horse.”
I think the Joseph translated the word “horse,” because I think that Nephi wrote the word “horse.”
———————————————————–
I think Joseph translated the word “adieu”, because I think Jacob wrote the word “adieu”.
The question is how Jacob got to Paris for the weekend. 😉
As long as the LDS apologists claim that their church is “TRUE” irrespective of conflicting evidence. As long as these apologists offer ridiculous implausible solutions to shore-up the shaken faith of questioning members…the LDS church will continue to see an ever increasing OUT FLOW of once active, tithe paying, temple attending members.
One thing church apologist don’t seem to understand is that those that are questioning…often go to the FAIR and FARMS sights for help…and end up only having their worst fears confirmed. (That was my case anyhow) Church apologists attempts to shore up faith often only ends up doing the exact opposite.
Speaking only of myself, All my life I had been told that many of the difficult issues were lies made up by the evil anti Mormons…FAIR and FARMS sights merely set the record straight for me…that the evil anti Mormon’s had been the truth* tellers all along…while it was the church that had been involved in the whitewashing and cover-up of the “REAL” history and foundational claims. This reality literally broke my heart. It crushed me.
* I use the term truth loosely as there is often exaggeration in both camps…
I might add…that even NOW, I want the LDS Church to be everything that it claims to be. Loosing belief in the church was a very painful process. But for me…I just do not know how to reinvent my religion to accomodate the FARMS/FAIR version of the LDS Church. The church I loved and believed in turned out to be a fantacy that never really existed except in my own mind and the FARMS/FAIR version of Mormonism is just plain unbelievable.
Craig,
I find your claim about anti Mormons being the truth tellers to be implausible. Most of the responses from FAIR go back to the early documents and show the anti Mormon claims are typically taken out of context, or out of cultural context.
Anti Mormons often are in the position of never meet a source they don’t like–so long as it is negative about Mormonism. Having worked with newspapers I have some understanding of sources and quotes.
While there are some legitimate differences, and while some LDS apologists have been incorrect in their positions as well, much of anti Mormonism is pure propaganda. Even the ADL has made comments about it. They can recognize it for what it is.
You can’t say I haven’t read it, because you know that I have. But, I have gone back and read other sources, other sides of the issue, and examined the sources for credibility. In so doing, I have gained a stronger testimony of the gospel.
You know Craig…
You seem to be under this odd little assumption that scientific evidence, that we all can duplicate and reach the same results, is the only evidence that ANYONE should EVER consider or take seriously. Your above posts show a relentless demand that everything about the Church be something you can logically validate and replicate.
But this just isn’t the way the world works. For instance. This morning, I didn’t want to get up and my stomach really hurt. I know this happened. But it’s not like I can prove it to you. It’s not like you can replicate it or anything.
Now, I suppose you might tell me this never happened, and it’s all just the effects of a “deranged mind.” After all, you have no way to prove it, right? So I’m obviously just making it up. Likewise you dismiss the faith experiences of Mormons, and probably even your own. It was all just silly daydream right? But now you’ve seen the light and exposed Mormonism to the harsh glare of your indomitable LOGIC!
How impressive. If I ask nicely, do you think you’d let me touch your slide rule?
This is the thing about the “intellectual” style of ex-Mormons. They have this bleak and sterile view of how the world works. All emotion must be suppressed as dangerous and unreliable. Intuition must be reviled and mocked for the false messenger that it is. Only cold, hard, facts are allowed any play in this imaginary world they’ve constructed for themselves. Even genuinely happy religious experiences they once had in the Church are shoved under the rug, because they don’t square with the series of logic games they’ve been playing for the last few years.
You know Craig, if you want to pretend to be Mr. Spock, and raise your eyebrow at us in a superior fashion, I guess that’s your right. You can even get some pointy ears for effect.
But I’ll thank you to point that phaser in the other direction.
Well I’m glad to hear that it works for you Bro. Gordon. You must have been blessed with the mental flexibility that would make a 14 year old Chinese gymnast green with envy. When any doctrinal problem can be ignored, massaged or altered to make it more palatable to accommodate reality…then Mormonism become meaningless as an organization that stands for something.
Take the doctrine of a Universal Flood. So much of Mormon dogma stands on this belief.
01. Credibility of so called prophetic pronouncements
02. Earthly baptism preparatory to earths burning
03. Credibility of the Bible as something you can actually base your religion on
04. Credibility of the Book of Mormon scriptures that speaks to the historicity of the flood
05. Scriptures that set the actual number of human survivors (again a credibility issue)
If Mormon prophets and scriptures can’t even be relied upon as credible…what can one hold onto?
Yet the universal flood doctrine (yeah I know FAIR and FARMS do not support the Universal flood as doctrine…part of the massaging of former Mormon doctrine) has so many problems in light of scientific realities as to relegate it to nothing more than biblical fiction.
01. Universal flood conflicts with reality of Amerindians being in the America’s for 20,000 years
02. No scientific support of catastrophic universal flood
03. World animal diversity negates reality of universal flood.
04. Human DNA migration negates reality of universal flood.
But the good folks at FAIR are good at discounting dead Mormon Prophets and Apostles. After all these were just men (mind you they were men who supposedly talked to the creator of everything) and the realities facing a living prophet trump the dead ones every time… that is until he too is dead…after which his words will be relegated to the mere ramblings of a dead once mortal man.
Case in point: The inspired words of God’s Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith;(back door escape clause, he was an apostle when he wrote these words) …”There is no question but what many of the so-called geological changes in the earth’s surface, which according to geological theories took place over ages of time, in reality occurred in a matter of a few short weeks incident to the universal flood “(Man: His Origins and Destiny, pp414-436)
Thank goodness Joseph Fielding Smith is dead…so we can totally dismiss his pronouncements as the mere ramblings of a deranged misguided uninformed mind. Ummm but isn’t this exactly what one would expect to find in a man-made church?
Oh the things I could say about Seth’s desire to touch my slide ruler.
Sung to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”
If it’s longer than it’s wide, then it’s phallic
[clap, clap]
If it’s longer than it’s wide, then it’s phallic
[clap, clap]
If it’s not longer than it’s wide
Then you turn it on its side
Now it’s longer than it’s wide, so it’s phallic
[clap, clap]
🙂 Ok Ok…well done Seth, You made me laugh
Hi Craig,
Since the flood story is common for Christianity, that really isn’t something that would predict prophetic ability. Likewise, it really isn’t something that most anti Mormons bring up.
But, since you do, I can say I am a member in good standing who does not believe in the universal flood. I don’t believe that, and I am not an outsider in any way, shape or form. How do I reconcile that? I have some understanding of ancient cultures and writing and know that things written had to do with what they were familiar with. Noah didn’t have satellites in place to see exactly how much of the earth was covered. As far as he was concerned, it was the whole earth.
We have to be careful about presentism and how it affects our frame of reference.
As for gymnastics–I like to think of it as an understanding of the world, and of cultures. It is not imposing my culture on my readings. It is also understanding that not everything said by general authorities comes directly from prophecy. Their job is to preach Christ and to try to help us become more like him. Their job is not to be a historian, a keeper of documents, or even an anthropologist. Prophecies come few and far between. Most of what they teach comes from scriptural understanding–and even they learn line upon line.
I believe that God only gives us prophecy when we are ready to work with it. No sense in teaching your 3 year old how to use a nuclear particle accelerator. And no, I don’t think that is lying by omission.
You might want to take a look at these two articles related to the Book of Mormon production culture. Maybe they might help.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Case_for_Historicity.html
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008_Mormons_Editorial_Method_and_Meta-Message.html
Who says those words of Joseph Fielding Smith were inspired? Did he present them as a revelation to the Church? (No escape clause needed: He could have presented such a revelation to the Church when he was president.) Was his opinion on this matter ever considered binding on the Church as a whole? Must one share his views about geology to be saved?
We “Mormons” do not believe our prophets to be infallible; we do not live by every word that proceeds from their mouths; we (and they) are allowed personal opinions on a wide range of matters.
Although we accept some revelations as binding on the Church (such as those contained in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), even these are not considered inerrant or complete. We believe that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Article of Faith 9)
Personally, I look forward to receiving more light and knowledge from God. I fully expect to discover that much of what I think I know is not quite so, and that God has in store even greater things than I have ever imagined.
Who says he was deranged, misguided, or uninformed? I may not agree with everything Joseph Fielding Smith said or wrote, but I would not dismiss his work as “mere ramblings.” Undoubtedly he was right about some things and wrong about others.
For instance, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died for our sins, arose from the tomb on the third day, and ascended into heaven. He taught that faith in Jesus Christ is essential for salvation. I wholeheartedly concur.
Your comment about a “man-made church,” raises some questions: How do you imagine a “God-made” church would look? How would it be organized and governed? What kinds of people would belong to it? Does such a church exist today?
Ahhh the squishy, Jiggly, Jell-o(y) nature of Mormon Doctrine. I LOVE IT! I’d be luckier pinning bubbles to a clothes line than pinning down Mormon doctrine.
You see naive Craig…God’s Prophets words have to be vetted, processed and aged in order for them to be worthy of our consideration…only after they have under gone years of review by FARMS/FAIR can we LDS members even begin to accept them as having come from God. How silly it is of you to think that God’s Prophets should be taken literally at their word when they deliver a General Conference address…after all they may only be speaking as a man when they give their address. We won’t know for certain for years. Who knows some future generation may discover some ridiculous comment hidden in those comments. So after they have undergone years of vetting and review…then and only then can our dear prophets words be taken as having come from God and not the mere ramblings of his human mind.
So what good is a Mormon Prophet if his pronouncements can’t be taken to the bank, when uttered?
“Who says he was deranged, misguided, or uninformed? I may not agree with everything Joseph Fielding Smith said or wrote, but I would not dismiss his work as “mere ramblings.” Undoubtedly he was right about some things and wrong about others.”
Ok…but when do you KNOW when he is speaking as a man and not as a prophet. I’ve pointed out several situations when BY used the term “Thus sayeth the Lord”…that FAIR has discounted as BY merely speaking as a man…because the doctrines he was espousing had been repudiated by the modern LDS church…so surely the use of “thus sayeth the Lord” can’t be the qualifier. And we know that Conference talks aren’t a qualifier either since much of BY most controversial subjects were delivered in General Conference.
So by what standard are God’s words God’s words and thoughts when uttered by your so-called prophets? Under what circumstances can a Mormon Prophet be held accountable for his words?
There’s a simple answer:
The listener has the responsibility to discern when something is spoken by the Holy Ghost.
I have answered your questions. I am still curious as to how you would answer my questions about your criteria for recognizing a “God-made” church.
I like having an open-ended doctrine. It leaves a lot of room for flexibility, allows us to be inclusive of a variety of viewpoints, encourages theological innovation and fresh new ideas, and leaves us open to receiving further direct knowledge from God.
What’s not to like?
This is why fundamentalist thinking doesn’t work well in the LDS church. Our doctrine is squishy, and it is nuanced, and it is always changing. If you are looking for hard and fast rules about doctrine, this isn’t the right church for you. We don’t have a systematic theology.
Do we have rules and boundaries? Sure, but they mainly relate to behavior. As far as doctrine, we are always trying to learn. As we learn, we are willing to modify our thinking and improve our approach. We ask very few questions about belief. 1) Belief in God. 2) Belief in Jesus Christ and that he is the savior. 3) Belief that we have prophets today.
But, I think our nuanced approach is one reason that we attract people with higher education levels. The LDS church is one where the higher the education level, the MORE likely they are to be an active member of the church.
I know this squishy approach doesn’t sit well with everyone. But, I think it enables us to continue to learn, adapt and change.
Alas, some people have a low tolerance for ambiguity.
Some years ago, while teaching a university geology course, my wife observed that diamond is an inorganic form of carbon. One of the students disagreed vehemently. He said that he had been taught in his organic chemistry course that carbon compounds are organic. (Whether the chemistry professor actually said that all carbon compounds are organic is debatable; however, that is what the student heard.)
Later that same student explained why had chosen to major in science. In science, he said, every thing is cut and dried. There is always a right answer; everything is definite; there is no ambiguity.
Of course, that student’s view of science was nonsense. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete and tentative. Although some things in science may be settled and unambiguous, others are not. At some level, we find that we really do not know what we are talking about. That forces us to study and learn—and in many cases, unlearn what we thought we knew.
Why should it be any different in religion?
Bro Anderson Asked:
“Your comment about a “man-made church,” raises some questions: How do you imagine a “God-made” church would look? How would it be organized and governed? What kinds of people would belong to it? Does such a church exist today?”
Well at least you made me think…
First your questions assume that there is in fact a God and that this God has a church. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that this premise is correct. So let’s assume that Cr@ig P@xton has reached the Celestial Kingdom and Godhood and now wishes all of his children dwelling on some distant planet recently created by me to have the opportunity to worship and praise me. How would my God made church be organized and what would it look like?
What would my “God-made” church look like?
First and foremost…My God-made church would pass the test of time. It wouldn’t succumb to the pressures of mere mortals or change its doctrine to accommodate public pressure. After all I am GOD, all powerful and what I say is law.
Second: As to an organization…there would be no need for some manmade organization I would be a direct-god, I would allow all of my children to have direct access to me without any middle men. Again I am God and am all powerful…I wouldn’t need any middle men to confuse the interpretation of my commandments. Direct communication always is superior to a middle management filter.
Third: I’m a huge believer in free agency…so although I would certainly have a few commandments…only because I too would be a selfish god and want the adulation and worship of my children, I would make it somewhat easier than the Mormon God for my children to exercise that free agency…I wouldn’t confuse my children with silly fictions and myth stories of creation and first parents or universal floods.
I would show my hand a little more clearly…by clearly allowing my children to think freely and allow my truth claims to be studied, examined, scrutinized…and anything I established as true…must stand up to this test. After all if I truly want my children to believe in me, I don’t want to confuse them with silly tests of their faith by having conflicting and confusing of my existance out there.
I think it would also be valuable to give demonstration of my superior god power from time to time…maybe once or twice for each generation.
Forth and foremost: As in this world, knowing that most humans reject all forms of organized religion…I would not have silly rituals and passwords…my children could experience me out among my creations. In the mountains, a beautiful stream, a cold winter’s day on the slopes or on the face of a new born child.
So Bro Anderson, I think your assumption that God must have some organized, man lead, religious institution to filter his words…is indicative of your Mormon upbringing. In the real world most humans have rejected this premise.
And to answer your last question…NO I don’t think God has an “organized” church on the earth today
Sounds more like a guilty dad with parental visitation rights on weekends than a God Craig.
A reasonable place to start. If in fact there is no God, then the rest of our speculation is pointless. Indeed, our very existence is pointless if all is merely atoms and void.
This is an interesting approach. To figure out how God acts, imagine how you would act in his place. The limitations of that approach should be apparent, but perhaps it is the best we can do under the circumstances.
Already, however, I would tend to disagree with the motives you ascribe to God. Yes, he wants us to worship and praise him. But Mormonism teaches that there is more to life than that. We are placed on earth to gain experience, to learn, and to prove ourselves.
I would agree that some things are timeless. Yet God speaks to us in our language, and adapts his commandments and expectations to fit our circumstances.
I think we both agree and disagree here. We agree that direct communication is superior, which is why Mormonism emphasizes personal revelation.
Where we might disagree is on the need for a church organization. Although one may not need an organization to communicate with God, an organization of like-minded people certainly helps one live a godly life. That is why we are called upon to bear one another’s burdens, to mourn with those who mourn, and to comfort those who need comfort—in short, to help each other through the challenges of life.
I too am a huge believer in agency. In fact, I think that the concept of agency is the key to understanding Mormonism.
Agency requires that people have a real choice between real alternatives. And it means that less-than-perfect beings will make less-than-perfect choices. God permits us to make bad choices so that we can learn from them.
As for “silly fictions and myth stories”, two things can be said. First, let’s not be too quick to dismiss them as fictional. (How do you know that Adam and Eve were not real persons, for instance?) Second, even if the stories are not literally true, they may teach important lessons through vivid symbolism.
Making things too easy may drain life of its educational value. Learning requires effort, even struggle.
I remember the first time I took Thermodynamics. The subject was mystifying. After considerable toil and anguish, I managed to pass the course with a fairly good grade, but I did not really understand the subject. Only after my third or fourth time working through the material did the light dawn.
Later, as a teacher of thermodynamics, I decided to spare my students the trouble I had experienced. I decided that the existing books on the subject were to blame, so I wrote my own. It was (and is) the very model of clarity. I do not believe any thermodynamics text has ever been so clear. Nevertheless, my students still struggle to understand.
I have concluded that a certain amount of personal struggle is required to master difficult subjects. There is no other way. No one can do it for you.
Just showing off?
Actually, I believe that God does demonstrate his superior powers, not just once or twice per generation, but daily. Miracles do happen, although rarely in public view.
I would want to see a reliable survey before concluding that most humans reject all forms of organized religion—I suspect it depends on the time, place, culture, etc. Be that as it may, I think that many religious people do experience God just as you so poetically suggested.
Undoubtedly my Mormonism colors how I perceive the world. Everyone has a bias or point of view that affects how they see things. (Hence God adapts his message to fit our circumstances, as I indicated before.)
But I must disagree with you that the purpose of a religious institution is to “filter” God’s words. I do not see the LDS Church as standing between me and God—as I have said, we emphasize direct, personal communication with God. But we humans are social beings; we depend on each other. My expectation is that we will continue to be social beings in the eternities. The Church exists to help us prepare for eternal life with God.
Is that because you don’t believe there is a God, or because you don’t believe God has organized a church?
Dear Bro Anderson,
I apologize. I’m embarrassed by my post concerning your serious question of what, in my opinion, a God-Made church would look like. Sometimes the evil ex-Mormon in me comes out and I take on a satirical flippant persona…so for that I am truly sorry.
So regarding your question…I really do not know how to honestly answer your question. I’d like to believe that there is a god…but sadly I no longer have any belief that one exists. So any answer I may offer would be tainted through that prism. Leaving Mormonism robbed me of that belief. I had placed so much faith and belief in Mormonism that when I came to the conclusion that it was a religion built on a man-made fraud…I lost all belief in the claims of men unless those claims were supported with reasonable evidence. I discount any conclusion that is based on my emotions. I no longer trust my emotions to be trustworthy since they failed me so much in my Mormon experience. To me, Mormonism (through my eyes) can now be easily seen as the fraud I believe it to be. I believe this is only possible once you remove the emotional connection. I fought for years to maintain faith and belief…overlooking or accommodating difficult problems I saw in the church’s doctrines or the apologetic answers offered to dismiss these difficulties. It was my emotional connection (spirit) that made me overlook, accommodate or discount these difficult issues.
So bottom line, I do not know what a god-made church would look like…I just do not think that it would look like Mormonism.
Feelings are reasonable evidence Craig. So are thoughts, intuitions, and emotional experiences.
Feelings are Reasonable evidence? What???
But I think your Apolstle, Boyde K. Packer, said it even better than you when he said.
“When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above”
In other words…when confronted with verifiable physical evidence that conflicts any Mormon claims, Mormon’s should ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears, and yell naw, naw, naw, naw…I can’t hear you.
Don’t believe in verifiable, observable, testable, discernable, visible, recognizable evidence. Instead ignore conflicting evidence and place your faith in your human emotions and feelings that are subject to being manipulated, managed and controled.
To say that “feelings are reasonable evidence” that you can always rely on your human emotions and feelings as a valid means to confirm truth is just plan scary….yet SOOO Mormon.
I believe that this is the Mormon blind spot. It is what keeps members from examining the claims of the Mormon church and also is the tool by which its leader maintain control.
I understand why the Mormon Church would want its members to place their faith in something so unstable as their own human emotions and feelings becasue the church knows that feeling can be manipulated.
The church has actually trademarked its ability to manipulate human feelings. This is NO joke.
The church through its own subsidiary,Bonneville Communications , boldly flaunts its ability to manipulate the human heart, stating its unique strength is their …”ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action.
On the Bonniville website they call this uniquely powerful brand of creative advertising HeartSell® — strategic emotional advertising that stimulates a response.”
Anyone who doubts the Mormon churches ability to evoke emotions may ask the question … Why do missionaries hand out tissues to audience members viewing the church produced “Joseph Smith Movie” BEFORE the movie is viewed?
The movie demonstates the churches ability to manipulate tears, feelings and emotions… AKA “The Spirit” through it’s less than honest portrayal of Joseph Smith’s life.
Bonniville proudly proclaims that for over 30 years [their] creative professionals have designed public service and direct response messages for national nonprofit organizations such as the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Boy Scouts of American, National Hospice Foundation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and The Salvation Army.
So to suggest that your human emotions are as reliable as varifiable, observable information is just a scary proposition.
Yup…don’t trust the observable, verifiable or testable…claims…trust your human emotions. Just make sure that the church isn’t using its trademarked special human feelings manipulation technique “HeartSell®” on you.
I don’t know anything about String Theory other than it originated about 20 years or so ago and was met with derision and scorn by the eminent researchers of the time. Today, String Theory is highly regarded and taught by the leading researchers at the elite universities of the world. In fact the Large Hadron Collider was designed to investigate String Theory as well as other things. So to say that today’s scientific ideas and theories – also known as proofs – are the be-all-to-end all is just sophistry.
What Elder Packer was saying in his 1988 talk was his own opinion and not official Church Doctrine. He says so in the disclaimer at the begging. So you can’t hang his ideas on the Church. But even at that, Elder Packer was talking about faith and that we should not give up on faith just because some theory or another challenges it. Now I understand the faithless mock and ridicule those of us who have the faith you lack. It goes with the territory. But if you are going to quote someone please do your homework. I wasted a whole thirty seconds reading your post only to discover you got it all wrong.
My post was direcrted at Cr@ig P@xton post. Sorry if it isn’t clear.
…”For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” – Thomas Edison
Yeah I love this quote…as I think it gets to the cruxed of the matter. Mormonism in my opinion is a religion built on a fictional history and fictional scriptures. It makes promises based on this that it can not keep. It literally sells a “snake oil” to its members that can not provide the promised cure.
As well intentioned as Mormonism may claim to be…the mere fact that it is built on a foundation of fiction makes it a false hope.
Oh and one more bone…What ever happened to Christ’s charge that you do charity in secret? Why does the Mormon Church have to promote itself each and every time it spends alittle bit of money in a humanitarian efforts with a media blitz?
Is the self promotion an attempt to shore up it’s core along the Wasatch front? Honest question.
Perhaps the LDS Church does make too much of its humanitarian efforts. On the other hand, remember that Jesus also said,
Apparently one must walk the line between doing alms in public to receive the glory of men and doing good works in public for the glory of our Father in heaven. I suppose it is one’s intent that makes the difference.
P.K. Anderson Said: “Perhaps the LDS Church does make too much of its humanitarian efforts”
Cr@ig’s Reply: See Bro. Anderson, I knew that we could come to some sort of agreement in the end…
Ok totally taken out of context… but I couldn’t resist.
Craig, I’m sure our critics would love it if we just meekly turned the other cheek and allowed them to have an uncontested monopoly on telling the world what Mormonism is about.
Christ’s words about doing your alms in secret were directed at individuals, not organizations. Honestly, it doesn’t bug me one bit if the Red Cross wants to toot its own horn in an attempt to drum up funding for more extensive aid programs. Neither does it bother me if the Church wishes to show to the world what Christ’s Gospel is all about and how people are applying it in their lives.
sorry, didn’t read the article, but i can’t help posting:
I don’t suffer from [‘ex’]-mormonism, I enjoy every minute of it.