Why is my (mms) story, if true, of such concern to some?

[_mms]

The thing is, if I was a TBM, your story is a bit too close to home. You sound like someone I might know. And like. And respect. And trust. And if you can start to doubt the veracity of the church's claims, then where does that leave me? I've literally bet my life on the truthfulness of the church's claims based on the testimonies of people like you; if I'm wrong about you, it's entirely possible I'm wrong about a lot of things, and that's just too painful to contemplate. I have to believe that Joseph was a good and honorable man who never lied and certainly never cheated on his wife, or else I lose more than just my way; I lose my family and my spouse. I have to believe that Joseph saw and talked with angels, translated gold plates into a book, and performed otherwise unheard of acts of charity, or else I become one of the hated, one of the defiled, one of the shunned. I can't believe that Joseph lied and cheated and bilked people out of their farms and inheritances. For me to believe that Joseph was a con man means I have to doubt everything every single thing I've been taught since the day I got baptised. Trusted people have lied to me; people I love have been misled and in turn have misled me.

There's a lot riding on your story, mms. More than just your own life. You and men like you are the backbone of the church. You are the glue that holds the whole thing together. If you start to doubt, the foundation on which I've built my life begins to shift like sand on the beach. And it scares me. And when I'm scared, I get angry. And when I get angry, I say things I wouldn't say normally.

And it's not just you. It's every doubting member...

Welcome to my world.

Wow. I must say that this is the single most difficult post I have had to read thus far in my recent journey, and I have read many, many posts. Talk about hitting close to home. Everyone who has ever come up to me to thank me for a talk I have given, to tell me how I have helped their faith, to thank me for my service on my mission, to thank me for my efforts on behalf of their child and family, just came flashing through my mind.

[_wenglund]

Again, I wasn't necessarily seeing anything with you. That is why I asked an exploritory question, rather than making and assertion.

For what it may be worth, the reason I asked was, I have recently found from my own experience in being perplexed when people have bristled at what I said, that there is great benefit in asking that same kind of introspective question. Before, I had just assumed the problem was solely with those who were bristtling--after all, I had the best of intents, and lots of people found me perfectly amicable to be around. However, when I finally took a breather from being defensive, I started to see that other people weren't envoking the same bristled responses as me, and so I tried to pick up on clues as to why that was. One of the things I discovered was that my comments tended to be somewhat judgemental, accusatory, confrontational, and emphatic (which some interpreted as dogmatic and closed minded). So, since I didn't want to cause anyone to bristle, I attempted to adjust my approach a bit, and as a result I have seen it occur less often--though, if I am correct in what I sense from your reaction to my exploritory question, I still may have room for improvement. ;-)

I also learned from fair and honest introspection that bristling may also have somewhat to do with those who bristle.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I tried to explain this at MA&D. Let's take Selek (from MA&D) and me as examples. Selek is, like you Wade, strong in his testimony of the LDS Church and likely tries hard to live the teachings. Indeed, Selek, like you, knows quite well that whether it is because of ignorance, stupidity or something else, many active members find themselves surprised (and worse) upon reading what cyberspace has to offer re church history. Indeed, Selek, like you, knows that the discovery of such information sometimes leads to anger, frustration, and a feeling of being deceived.

So along I come to MA&D and make my first post in which I explain clearly that I am in a crisis of faith because of recent doubts due to new information. My post indicates that I am somewhat angry (bristling, possibly) and vulnerable due to my spiritual crisis (even though I think my first post was fairly innocuous, as well as my subsequent posts).

Does it make any sense at all for Selek, or you, to then bristle back at me, when you are the ones with the strong testimonies unshaken by the things shaking me? Or should we expect a bit more from those who claim to adhere to the teachings of the church? Should we really have the same expectation of the vulnerable and angry (warranted or not) "faithless" one that we do of the faithful apologist?

If you think about it, from Selek's and your point of view, I am spiritually sick, and you are (relatively) spiritually healthy, and I am exhibiting signs of spiritual illness (bristling in my presentation of my doubts), which you have both seen many times before, so you decide to exhibit the same signs of spiritual illness that I am exhibiting? Huh?

Thus, the "you started it" argument you have presented seems to me to be premised on the fact that we are all of the same spiritual health, which undermines the position that those with strong testimonies are in any better place than those struggling.

When did I "bristle" from you? Where did I present a "you started it" argument? And, in what way did I allegedly exhibit signs of spiritual illness, let alone have the point of view that you were spiritually unhealthy? (I am not asking these questions to be accusatory, but to calmly and dispassionately learn and understand) Please, I would really like to know. I think you may be conflating me with other people at MA&D, though I could be mistaken, and it would help me to find out for sure.

But, I think you should know that to my knowledge I wasn't participating or even lurking on the MA&D board when you first posted, or at least I was entirely unaware of your initial posts, and first became acquainted with you on the thread I started about full disclosure. So, for the life of me, I can't imagine where you are coming up with all this about me. Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_mms]

Have you had much experience with online discussion boards?

No, I am admittedly a bit clumsy in my board posting efforts and ask for patience in that regard.

mms

[_mms]

When did I "bristle" from you? Where did I present a "you started it" argument? And, in what way did I allegedly exhibit signs of spiritual illness, let alone have the point of view that you were spiritually unhealthy? (I am not asking these questions to be accusatory, but to calmly and dispassionately learn and understand) Please, I would really like to know. I think you may be conflating me with other people at MA&D, though I could be mistaken, and it would help me to find out for sure.

But, I think you should know that to my knowledge I wasn't participating or even lurking on the MA&D board when you first posted, or at least I was entirely unaware of your initial posts, and first became acquainted with you on the thread I started about full disclosure. So, for the life of me, I can't imagine where you are coming up with all this about me. Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade, I should say for the record that you did not "bristle" at me at MA&D. I was a little misleading there by mixing a hypotehtical (you bristling at me) with a reality, Selek bristling. I presented it in the way of questions for the reason that you did not actually engage me in that manner. Again, you have not, except maybe a little over here at MDB ;-)

However, I think your comment about bristling and introspection above is pretty much a "you started argument," as it seems you are saying that I should look to see what I did to cause others to react to me as harshly as they did--in other words-- look to see if "you started it", no?

[_mms]

Be back in a few hours. Thanks again to those taking the time to post, especially as thoughtfully and honestly as you are. I do appreciate it.

[_wenglund]

Don't get me wrong--I only had so much room in the subject line and did not mean to make that sound as self-absorbed as it does. What I meant was, why does my story generally as opposed to specifically, which I believe now is the story of many, considered so potentially damaging, if true?

It seems that some TBM's (certainly not all), both here and at MA&D, see my story to be a serious problem and go to great effort to try to persuade others that it is fraudulent. I simply do not understand why. Seriously, I do not get it. It is a simple story, really. And I imagine (and see now on the other thread) that there are, have been, and will be, many like me, who are active contributing members who come across historical aspects that cause significant concern, doubt, etc.

In short, why does it get such a strong reaction from the likes of Crock, Pahoran, Selek, Juliann, etc., etc. It has baffled me from day one. I mean, so what if I am some ignorant HP who should have known about polyandry and the papyrus issues, but didn't, and then learned and am concerned? What is the big deal to these folks? Why call me (and the others in my situation) frauds, trolls . . . why go to such effort to try to persuade people that the story is not authentic. What about its potential authenticity is of such significant concern?

The thing is, if I was a TBM, your story is a bit too close to home. You sound like someone I might know. And like. And respect. And trust. And if you can start to doubt the veracity of the church's claims, then where does that leave me? I've literally bet my life on the truthfulness of the church's claims based on the testimonies of people like you; if I'm wrong about you, it's entirely possible I'm wrong about a lot of things, and that's just too painful to contemplate. I have to believe that Joseph was a good and honorable man who never lied and certainly never cheated on his wife, or else I lose more than just my way; I lose my family and my spouse. I have to believe that Joseph saw and talked with angels, translated gold plates into a book, and performed otherwise unheard of acts of charity, or else I become one of the hated, one of the defiled, one of the shunned. I can't believe that Joseph lied and cheated and bilked people out of their farms and inheritances. For me to believe that Joseph was a con man means I have to doubt everything every single thing I've been taught since the day I got baptised. Trusted people have lied to me; people I love have been misled and in turn have misled me.

There's a lot riding on your story, mms. More than just your own life. You and men like you are the backbone of the church. You are the glue that holds the whole thing together. If you start to doubt, the foundation on which I've built my life begins to shift like sand on the beach. And it scares me. And when I'm scared, I get angry. And when I get angry, I say things I wouldn't say normally.

And it's not just you. It's every doubting member...

Welcome to my world.

I don't doubt that this may be the thought process of some faithful members of the Church. However, I would caution against stereotyping the Church in this way (not that you have), because there are not a few members like myself whose faith and sense of security does not rest so tenuously on what others may believe or disbelieve--whether close to us or not. Not everyone is so easily ruled by fear and anger, and certainly not always for that reason.

I have also found it worth while to avoid mind-reading people's motives from relatively brief encounters (again, not that you have)--particularly on a medium, such as the internet, that is quite vulnerable to misunderstandings.

In fact, if one were to ask those in the Church who may be fearful and angry (as I have), one may learn that, at least in terms of the Church, it isn't so much a matter of vulnerability and insecurity regarding their own faith, but what they view as the implication of the loss of faith of their loved ones, as well as a sensativity to having their faith too frequently subjected to ridicule and harsh criticism, when they, like those who may loose their faith, would just as soon they be respected and loved as is.

This is why I think it best to not speculate about why others may do what they do, but actually attempt to sit down with them and genuinely try to have them enlighten our understanding--whether we come to an agreement or not. This, I believe applies to all parties concerned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keene]

Are you sure it is your "story", and not your approach and reactions, that may be causing concern?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Funny. I just returned from the other thread where I was contributing praise I thought was due to Wade. Regardless, I maintain what I said about you, Wade, even if I think you are seeing only what you want to see with me. mms

Again, I wasn't necessarily seeing anything with you. That is why I asked an exploritory question, rather than making and assertion.

<snip>

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Speaking of style and approach...

Wade, I find that most of your exploratory questions come across as being sarcastic in tone. A lot of the time it seems as if you are fishing for a specific answer, and so you word your questions in a way that assumes such.

Just thought I'd let you know, since we were on the subject.

edit: Fixed spelling

[_Jersey Girl]

"exploratory"

Sorry, I can't help myself.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

Wow!

I am one of the cursed for I did indeed trust some men. No question.

I went with the scriptures that talk about faith, about not leaning unto thy own understanding, about following our leaders.

I trusted Joseph Smith, various prophets, various scriptures written by men. I trusted church leaders, men who claimed to know, men who told me they were inspired and received inspiration. Men I thought were honest and honorable.

I trusted them when they told me God was at the helm of the church. I trusted them when they told me they were special witnesses of Christ. I trusted them when I believed the prophets received truth from Jesus Christ himself.

And, I was cursed for it.

When I finally decided to trust and follow my own inspiration... my own heart and mind, the curse was removed right along with my trust of these men and my belief in the LDS church.



~dancer~

[_wenglund]

When did I "bristle" from you? Where did I present a "you started it" argument? And, in what way did I allegedly exhibit signs of spiritual illness, let alone have the point of view that you were spiritually unhealthy? (I am not asking these questions to be accusatory, but to calmly and dispassionately learn and understand) Please, I would really like to know. I think you may be conflating me with other people at MA&D, though I could be mistaken, and it would help me to find out for sure.

But, I think you should know that to my knowledge I wasn't participating or even lurking on the MA&D board when you first posted, or at least I was entirely unaware of your initial posts, and first became acquainted with you on the thread I started about full disclosure. So, for the life of me, I can't imagine where you are coming up with all this about me. Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade, I should say for the record that you did not "bristle" at me at MA&D. I was a little misleading there by mixing a hypotehtical (you bristling at me) with a reality, Selek bristling. I presented it in the way of questions for the reason that you did not actually engage me in that manner. Again, you have not, except maybe a little over here at MDB ;-)

I appreciate the clarification.

However, I think your comment about bristling and introspection above is pretty much a "you started argument," as it seems you are saying that I should look to see what I did to cause others to react to me as harshly as they did--in other words-- look to see if "you started it", no?

I can understand how you may see it that way. The way I intended it, though, was not as a "you started it" argument (which to me focuses on placing blame), but rather as one of many helpful and introspective options to explore for improvement (which to me focuses on finding solutions). Do you see the difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-