Latest revision as of 10:57, 23 August 2009

Website review: StayLDS.com

Overview

FAIR's evaluation of the web site StayLDS.com

The website is a study in how to be a lukewarm member of the Church. We agree with the web site's evaluation of how some members are shaken as a result of their fundamentalist views. We do not agree with the formula presented for dealing with it.

The "Brethren's dilemma"

The site discusses what it calls the "the situation of LDS General Authorities," and implies that they are lying. It portrays General Authorities as remaining in the Church for the following reasons:

• The site claims that General Authorities are from multi-generational LDS families.
• The site claims that General Authorities' "social status" is inextricably tied to the "church's exclusive truthfulness."
• The site claims that General Authorities are too busy to study "controversial LDS Church history."
• They state that the Church "once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure" of Church history, and then gave up because of "decreased activity and commitment."
• The site claims that General Authorities do not dispute anything taught by past Church leaders because they do not want to "erode their own basis of power and influence."
• The site casts doubt upon the Brethren's sincerity by stating "Assuming that the brethren are sincere believers in both the truthfulness of the church, and in its goodness," that they play a balancing game of member retention by deliberately avoiding tough questions.

It is significant to note that nothing in the list above credits the Brethren for being committed to the Church because they sincerely have testimonies of Jesus Christ and the work that they are performing. Consider Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf's definition of a testimony. Elder Uchtdorf notes that,

The testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is the most powerful motivating force in our lives. Jesus repeatedly emphasized the power of good thoughts and proper motives: “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not” (DC 6꞉36)....a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ will always include these clear and simple truths

• God lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven, and we are His children.
• Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
• Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
• The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
• President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators in our day.
  

—Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “The Power of a Personal Testimony,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 37–39 (emphasis added)

The "Brethren's dilemma" presented by the web site completely ignores the Brethren's own stated motivations for the work that they do, and therefore implies that they are lying. Elder Uchtdorf's description of his own motivations is quite at odds with that presented by the web site.

The Brethren have "little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history?"

"StayLDS" believes that the General Authorities are "simply not aware" of things that the site's authors are aware of,

In the end, we are quite convinced that a majority of [the General Authorities] are simply not aware of peep stones, polyandry, Adam/God theory, blood atonement, the Danites, etc. Of course they have heard these terms throughout their lives, but they would have no real impetus, and most importantly, no time to study them deeply. They are super-busy men, and in their minds, the church is true -- so why dig much deeper?
—StayLDS.com

Why, then, has a Church magazine taught our children that Joseph translated using a "brown rock" called a "seer stone?"

Why did a Church magazine teach our children that there was a group of Mormons called the "Danites" who attacked non-members?

Why did a Church magazine talk about the use of the "blood atonement" and polygamy in early anti-Mormon fiction?

Why did a Church magazine publish Spencer W. Kimball's repudiation of the Adam-God theory?

In fact, the only one of the items listed that does not come up in a search on lds.org is "polyandry," yet there are plenty of references to polygamy. So why is polyandry or polygamy not a commonly discussed subject in the Church? To answer that question, we once again refer to an official Church publication:

Teachings for Our Day

This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
—Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), pages vii–xiii

Yet, "StayLDS" insists that the General Authorities are "simply not aware of peep stones," the Danites, the Adam-God theory, polyandry/polygamy or "blood atonement." The leaders of the Church have apparently "heard these terms throughout their lives," yet they are assumed to be unaware of their meaning? The approach taken to this subject by the "StayLDS" website is absolutely absurd. So, are we to believe that the Church places these things in the official children's magazine, yet those leading the Church are unaware of its history?

To learn more see: Censorship and revision of LDS history

Emphasizing the church's 'one trueness' is simply "an essential component of survival?"

According to "StayLDS"

No, LDS Church leaders believe that this is the only true and living church of Jesus Christ. Period.

• "My testimony that this is the true Church began in my childhood. But I received a powerful, certain witness before I was eight, even before I was baptized, that I was hearing a servant of God in the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Henry B. Eyring, “The True Church,” Friend, Mar 2009, 2–3)
• "You will be given opportunities, such as through the inspired messages of this conference, to find the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ, and you will recognize that Church." (Richard G. Scott, “Happiness Now and Forever,” Ensign, Nov 1979, 70)
• "The position that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church upon the face of the earth is fundamental." (Boyd K. Packer, “The Only True and Living Church,” Ensign, Dec 1971, 40)
• "My intent is to assert with testimony and persuasion of scripture the reasons there can be only one Lord, one acceptable faith, one baptism, and one true church." (Delbert L. Stapley, “What Constitutes the True Church,” Ensign, May 1977, 21)
• "I testify to you that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, and that he thereafter received revelations, powers, and keys, and was commanded to organize again on earth the Lord’s one true church." (Joseph Fielding Smith, “A Call to Serve,” New Era, Nov 1971, 5)
• "And so we have to be sure and prepare ourselves and know that we have found that one and only true church that Paul spoke about." (LeGrand Richards, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” Ensign, May 1975, 95)

There is simply no ambiguity here. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints most firmly believe and teach that it is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. We teach this. We believe this. It does not mean that we ought to disrespect others' beliefs, but we believe in the uniqueness of the Church nonetheless. This will not evolve or change in the future—it is a fundamental concept upon which the Church is built.

The "buffet Mormon"

The web site encourages members to choose which Church teachings they wish to accept and reject the rest. Take, for example, the way the site redefines the law of tithing,

So, essentially, we are told that a full and honest tithe—what we are asked if we are paying during the temple recommend interview—is apparently so undefined that we don't really need to pay all 10% to the Church! Instead, just about anything goes, including, oddly enough, diverting tithing to the Church's own Humanitarian Fund! Finally, we are told that the Church will "warmly" accept our money regardless of how much we actually decide to contribute. As far as "StayLDS" is concerned, any spiritual element to tithing has been removed—it is simply a matter of paying money to an organization.

The General Authorities have a more direct approach:

• "Tithing is so simple and straightforward a thing. Tithing is paid by faith more than it is by money." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Sacred Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Dec 1989, 2)
• "If you are one who has doubted the blessings of tithing, I encourage you to accept the Lord’s invitation to “prove [Him] now herewith.” Pay your tithing." (Robert D. Hales, “Tithing: A Test of Faith with Eternal Blessings,” Liahona, Nov 2002, 26–29)
• "If I did not pay my tithing, I should expect the Lord to withhold His blessings from me. I pay my tithing, not only because it is a law of God, but because I expect a blessing by doing it." (Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Like a Watered Garden’,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 37–39)

So once again, where "StayLDS" advocates ambiguity, the Brethren show no ambiguity whatsoever.

"Shelving" or "tossing" the "bad doctrine"

The purpose of having a living prophet is to direct the Church for our time. In some cases, such as the Adam-God theory, Church leaders already "shelved" or "tossed" what the web site refers to as "bad doctrine." Do we reject the teachings of Christ because He ended and fulfilled the Law of Moses? We address the specific points mentioned in separate articles:

• Polygamy as a requirement for salvation?
• Blacks portrayed as "less valiant" in the pre-mortal existence?
• Dynastic sealings to young women
• Multiple baptisms or rebaptism during the "Mormon reformation"
• Adam-God theory
• Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites

Teaching your children that you go to Church simply because you "like it"

If you plan to teach your children that you are a Latter-day Saint because it is "as good a place as any" to have a good social environment, then expect your children to go their separate ways when they are adults.

Looking elsewhere?

No, the scriptures and LDS General Authorities do not encourage you to "supplement" your spiritual needs by attending other churches, or by becoming a Buddist!

Conclusion

• We object to the site's characterization of the Brethren as being primarily motivated to remain in the Church due to social status, without acknowledgment or regard for their frequently expressed testimonies of the Savior and the work that they are doing.
• We reject the idea that Church leaders are unaware of elements of Church history, while Church magazines include such items.
• We reject the idea that Church leaders only claim that this is the "one true Church" as a means to encourage growth.
• We reject the idea that law of tithing is something that can be arbitrarily redefined as a matter of convenience and comfort.
• We reject the blatantly false statement that the Brethren encourage members to "supplement" their spiritual needs by looking at other religions.

There is one thing that we do agree with:

Indeed, we might go so far as to say that the "Middle Way of Mormonism"" will never be sanctioned by Church leaders. Christ did not teach the "middle way" to salvation or exaltation. This does not mean that we reject those who are challenged in their faith. These matters must be resolved through study and prayer. Unfortunately, the "StayLDS" web site encourages those who harbor doubts or encounter difficult issues to remain silent. This solves nothing. It does not help resolve these issues, and they will only become worse. It is implied that asking "difficult questions" will result in one being ostracized from the Church. However, we believe that questions ought to be asked and answered, and that they can be answered while strengthening the foundation of faith.