MAD thread: Daniel Peterson Agrees That Church Presents...

[_asbestosman]

The appropriate follow-up question is: Do those members who were warned against reading anti-Mormon literature have a right to feel upset when they learn that they were really just being warned against learning the unpleasant truth about the Church?

Upset? Sure. But really there's nobody to blame as those giving the warnings are themselves convinced that such advice is not only best, but tend to follow it themselves. In other words I doubt there's a conspiracy.

[_Arnold Friend]

The appropriate follow-up question is: Do those members who were warned against reading anti-Mormon literature have a right to feel upset when they learn that they were really just being warned against learning the unpleasant truth about the Church?

Upset? Sure. But really there's nobody to blame as those giving the warnings are themselves convinced that such advice is not only best, but tend to follow it themselves. In other words I doubt there's a conspiracy.

My sense has been that those who are upset would just like a little validation of their feelings. So often you see people on MA&D berating those who have newly discovered the anti-Mormon truth. However, I know that the Lord wants us to know the truth, and so the admonitions from our leaders on this account have never made much sense to me. For example, while I was on my mission, I would often encounter people who wanted to discuss some of the more unsavory aspects of the Church. What alarmed me was not so much the truths themselves, but the fact that we were advised against looking into them, or knowing about them.

[_Yoda]

The appropriate follow-up question is: Do those members who were warned against reading anti-Mormon literature have a right to feel upset when they learn that they were really just being warned against learning the unpleasant truth about the Church?

Upset? Sure. But really there's nobody to blame as those giving the warnings are themselves convinced that such advice is not only best, but tend to follow it themselves. In other words I doubt there's a conspiracy.

My sense has been that those who are upset would just like a little validation of their feelings. So often you see people on MA&D berating those who have newly discovered the anti-Mormon truth. However, I know that the Lord wants us to know the truth, and so the admonitions from our leaders on this account have never made much sense to me. For example, while I was on my mission, I would often encounter people who wanted to discuss some of the more unsavory aspects of the Church. What alarmed me was not so much the truths themselves, but the fact that we were advised against looking into them, or knowing about them.

I agree with you 1000%.

There was one poster on FAIR who I got to know pretty well. Her poster ID was alanasaunt. I'm not sure if she posts anymore. She was a very faithful LDS sister, but had some real heart-wrenching issues dealing with the plural marriage principle.

Charity, Debra, and a few of the other faithful apologists on the board called her a liar because she stated that she hadn't heard about Joseph Smith's polyandry, etc. until recently. They didn't understand how she could be a member of the Church all her life and not know these things.

She stated that she came from a small town, did not have a large library, and did not really start studying in earnest online until a few months prior.

I don't understand why members of the Church have to go into this "attack dog" mode. I spoke out against it when I was a Mod over there, and I still think it's not only wrong, but unproductive.

The answer I always got was that "we're tired of dealing with trolls".

And my response was, and still is, "What harm can come from giving someone the benefit of the doubt? If they ARE a troll, the truth is going to come to light fairly quickly. Being unkind to someone is only going to drive them away, or make them more bitter. It's not going to convince them that you're right. Is being an attack dog when asked a simple question the Christian way to behave? I think not."

OK...rant off.

;)

[_guy sajer]

She stated that she came from a small town, did not have a large library, and did not really start studying in earnest online until a few months prior.

And what about the thousands of other "Saints" who don't have access to the internet, don't have the education or literacy level to plow through the dense academic-type prose of FARMSistas, who don't read English, and thus couldn't access much of this information even if they wanted to, or who live their lives surrounded by other, simple, faithful Chapel Mormons just like themselves, to whom it never would even occur that there's more to the story than that spoon-fed them by the Correlation Committee.

But then, it's their own lazy faults they don't know all these things. Right Dan?

[_Seven]

My sense has been that those who are upset would just like a little validation of their feelings. So often you see people on MA&D berating those who have newly discovered the anti-Mormon truth. .

This was a point I mentioned to Daniel Petersen on another thread. It actually drove me away further from the church and apologetics when there was nobody except critics of the church who validated what I was going through. I felt completely alienated from those that I thought were there to keep me in the faith.
Most of us who have gone through that initial stage of shock once we began digging into church history were told :"you didn't know this?" "Nobody is to blame but yourself" "you were lazy" "I have known this since I was a child..." "you've been duped by anti Mormon literature" etc...

I don't see why innoculation would be necessary in Mormonism if the apologists won't even admit there is a problem with how the church teaches it's history to begin with. Apparently, this information is so easy to find in the Ensign and other church publications that I was just too lazy and stupid to find it!

[_Seven]

I also don't understand why so many apologists don't support the church incorporating new information into Sunday school or other church publications. Members would WELCOME something new into the lessons. It gets really boring to hear the same lessons you have heard over and over your entire life. Contrary to what apologists claim, there is plenty of history being taught in church, just not the uncomfortable parts. The church starts teaching church history at the primary level. How many of us have heard the story of Joseph refusing alcohol when his leg was to be operated on??? There are all kinds of faith promoting history lessons being taught in church so it's not like there isn't enough time on Sunday to innoculate members with the unsanitized versions. They choose to edit out anything that mentions polygamy when they focus on a polygamist Prophet and use ellipses all over the place in the manuals.

It has been pointed out several times on this board that it wouldn't take more than a few sentences to correct myths on many issues. How is that in any way going to take hours and hours of church history classes? I get really tired of apologists claim that critics want the church to focus all of it's time on every detail surrounding contraversial topics. Heck, I would just be happy to see them acknowledge Joseph Smith's plural wives for a change!

[_asbestosman]

Heck, I would just be happy to see them acknowledge Joseph Smith's plural wives for a change!

Doesn't D&C 132 do that implicitly?

it wouldn't take more than a few sentneces to correct myths on many issues.

Amazingly enough, I often do this in Sunday School. I don't do it for everything--pick your battles and all that.

Members would WELCOME something new into the lessons

I do welcome it. The question is whether other members really welcome my comments. Some do and some probably don't. I, for one, like it when a new interesting tidbit is published in the Ensign. It makes it possible for me to discuss the more controversial parts with other members.

[_asbestosman]

My sense has been that those who are upset would just like a little validation of their feelings.

I'm fine with that. That said, the need for feelings to be validated strikes me as a bit odd. Why would anyone care what I think?

[_Seven]

Perhaps the leaders themselves aren't giving this counsel nearly as often as the members themselves are giving each other.

That is precisely what I was thinking. However, I'm still not sure it answers everything since the leaders in fact come from the members themselves what with our layclergy and all.

Kind of a self-perpetuating counsel. I think I agree, as well. When I first expressed my concerns to my bishop a couple of years ago, I was told to lay aside the "anti-Mormon" stuff (which he described as "corrosive") and instead go to the temple, read my scriptures, and pray. I did that. Didn't change anything.

When I quoted statements to my Bishop from the JoD, he called them anti Mormon and so I referred him to FAIR. Almost every LDS I have discussed undisputed church history with has accused me of reading "anti Mormon" literature. One friend of mine went to FAIR and said she had to leave that website when she began researching articles on polygamy. It was causing her a testimony crisis to read apologetics and she went there to help straighten me out!

[_guy sajer]

My sense has been that those who are upset would just like a little validation of their feelings. So often you see people on MA&D berating those who have newly discovered the anti-Mormon truth. .

This was a point I mentioned to Daniel Petersen on another thread. It actually drove me away further from the church and apologetics when there was nobody except critics of the church who validated what I was going through. I felt completely alienated from those that I thought were there to keep me in the faith.
Most of us who have gone through that initial stage of shock once we began digging into church history were told :"you didn't know this?" "Nobody is to blame but yourself" "you were lazy" "I have known this since I was a child..." "you've been duped by anti Mormon literature" etc...

I don't see why innoculation would be necessary in Mormonism if the apologists won't even admit there is a problem with how the church teaches it's history to begin with. Apparently, this information is so easy to find in the Ensign and other church publications that I was just too lazy and stupid to find it!

You're not going to get much validation from someone who believes there's no justifiable reason to lose one's belief.