Does a chapel Mormon really know church history?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I dislike when this story is used to teach the Word of Wisdom, I don't think his refusal of alcohol had anything to do with that...

Uh, yeah. Nevermind the fact that the WoW wasn't 'revealed' yet. Nevermind the fact that Joseph Smith drank as an adult. Nevermind the fact that Joseph Smith's dad was an alcoholic.

lol.

You've clearly never read my blog.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

wer

[_Coggins7]

While there may be certain wards that have more educated (in terms of church history) members than others (particularly in university wards), in my experience, overall most members only know the whitewashed church history presented to them in church material or meetings.

MADdites would proclaim these members "lazy" and declare that if they become panicked and stressed when finally learning about the history, they have only themselves to blame. It's not the church's job to teach these things, they have nothing to do with the "plan of salvation".

Sure, they're lazy. They're only donating many hours of service every week, on top of trying to manage an often larger than normal family, on top of trying to meet all the private commandments (scripture reading, FHE, etc) that are time consuming. Really, how much time do most people have to thoroughly study church history?

And, more importantly, if you believe that church leaders will not mislead you, why would you even suspect that a "different" church history exists in the first place?

When I was losing faith, I tried to talk to many different members about it. Most had no idea what I was talking about. There were a few who were familiar with some of the issues.

All TBMs bend over, grab ankles. This is the standard Dialog/Signature/secular liberal intellectual superiority drill. We all know it. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming bulk of the revisionist history promulgated as an antidote to the alleged (but never compellingly demonstrated) "whitewashed" church version is, in very point of fact, a glorious and sophisticated whitewash. Quinn and Metcalf excel in it, as do lesser lights such as Beastie.

There isn't a single question regarding Church history or doctrine that hasn't been dealt with by LDS scholars or GAs and which isn't available in any LDS bookstore in the nation. Its all there for the taking. These problems have been wrestled with and answered in various ways on the Internet now for many years, and they will continue to be.

Beasties' main problem, as he unwittingly admits, is that he "lost his faith". What he's not telling you is that he "lost his faith" because he never had a testimony, and without that, historical and doctrinal problems very well may destroy the intellectual or psychological attachment one has to the Church.
He cannot tell you what it is, what it does, or how it affects the organism. He deals only with "educated" people who, it is assumed, are therefore intellectually superior to those who do not have specialized academic niche knowledge.

We cannot, however, live on borrowed light.

The problem is, however, that even very advanced education does not in any necessary way bring either wisdom or even real intellectual depth. History is clear on this wise. Using Mesoamerican archeology, with its vast uncertainties, black boxes, and speculative theoretical constructions against the Book of Mormon is fruitless because Beastie really doesn't know any more about what could have possibly happened thousands of years ago in remote parts of Central or South America then I do as a believer in the Book of Mormon. This is true because modern Archeology is still in its infancy in many ways and the vast bulk of known Mesoamerican archaeological sites have never as yet so much as had a shovel put to them.

A sure sign of ignorance and ax grinding is the claim of cock sure certainty in areas that are, in reality, heavily shrouded in uncertainly and heavily depended on deeply speculative reconstructions of what we do not as yet have enough data to really understand at any length. Indeed, it seems to me that very much of the critic's position of the Church relative to Archeology is, in essence an argument from ignorance.

And the beat goes on...

[_beastie]

coggins,

You are utterly clueless. I know you haven't ever paid a whit of attention to my story, and you have it wrong on every point. I guess when you're chanting the mantra "apostates never believed to begin with", it keeps from you having to hear what other people actually say.

I joined the church at age 19, after praying and receiving what I believed to be a powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon. I will never deny the strength of that experience, and have never denied it. I simply interpret it differently today, and realize that people from all sorts of religious persuasions have similiar experiences, and tend to attach it to dogma, when, in reality, it seems to be unrelated to specific beliefs.

I was an active believer for the next 15 years of my life, helping to convert the rest of my family, graduating from BYU, serving a mission in France, marrying in the temple, serving in many callings. I struggled for years before losing my faith, and pled with God over and over to help me preserve my faith. He didn't.

But perhaps if I had just been willing to close my eyes and continue believing no matter what, I could have preserved my faith like you and others. But I just do not have it in me to be a True Believer.

[_moksha]

All TBMs bend over, grab ankles....

Some new form of polydomy?

[_moksha]

All TBMs bend over, grab ankles....

Some new form of polydomy?

Moksha, shame on you! Not even the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence would practice such a concept based on a twisted word combination.
Go wash your brain out with soap.

[_Inconceivable]

Get thee behind me Coggins.

[_beastie]

Moksha, shame on you! Not even the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence would practice such a concept based on a twisted word combination.
Go wash your brain out with soap.

quiet snicker

[_Jason Bourne]

There isn't a single question regarding Church history or doctrine that hasn't been dealt with by LDS scholars or GAs and which isn't available in any LDS bookstore in the nation. Its all there for the taking. These problems have been wrestled with and answered in various ways on the Internet now for many years, and they will continue to be.

I am sure that most of the sticky issues have been dealt with in one form or another by apologists or scholars. Certainly FARMS has attempted to deal with many of the difficult issues as well as many criticisms.

The question is have they been adequately dealt with? I guess that is a matter of opinion. Also, the other point is that the Church just does not, in its official organs, really deal much with the difficult issues. A member must go searching on their own and many do because they want to learn. Then when the stumble on to difficult issues and are disillusioned they naturally feel betrayed to some extent. Right or wrong it is a real issue and intelligent people, even active believing members such as Bushman or Blake Ostler or even Dan Peterson seem to understand this.

Beasties' main problem, as he unwittingly admits, is that he "lost his faith". What he's not telling you is that he "lost his faith" because he never had a testimony, and without that, historical and doctrinal problems very well may destroy the intellectual or psychological attachment one has to the Church.
He cannot tell you what it is, what it does, or how it affects the organism. He deals only with "educated" people who, it is assumed, are therefore intellectually superior to those who do not have specialized academic niche knowledge.

Beastie is a she. And are you really stupid enough to state that someone you do not know never had a testimony? You sound like fundie EVs that say the same thing about a fallen Christian. The person may be faithful and appeared "saved" for 20 year, but when they go astray they probably were never saved or never had saving faith. Their years of faithful fruits must have been a lie.

[_Coggins7]

c

oggins,

You are utterly clueless. I know you haven't ever paid a whit of attention to my story, and you have it wrong on every point. I guess when you're chanting the mantra "apostates never believed to begin with", it keeps from you having to hear what other people actually say.

No Beastie, I'm not clueless, I'm just aware of that which many at FAIR and the MAD boards are aware of, which is that you have all the marks of an intellectual poseur who is not all he pretends he is cracked up to be.

I joined the church at age 19, after praying and receiving what I believed to be a powerful testimony of the Book of Mormon. I will never deny the strength of that experience, and have never denied it. I simply interpret it differently today, and realize that people from all sorts of religious persuasions have similiar experiences, and tend to attach it to dogma, when, in reality, it seems to be unrelated to specific beliefs.

I thank you for your assistance here in corroborating and proving my point. Latter Day Saints who have experienced revelation and received the testimony of the Holy Spirit do not believe they have received it. Wittingly or no, you have here simply substantiated the dominant patters of apostasy with which the Church, its members, and its leaders are conversant. Yes, others outside the Church have similar experiences, but they do not and cannot have the same experiences without approaching and complying with the requirements of the Gospel.

You have either left the Church because you have denied something you believed, or something you knew to be true, and if the latter, my deepest sympathies because this implies a character bereft of even a glimmer of intellectual integrity, and I don't think that of you regardless of my strong opposition to your teachings and views. Your semantic play with the concept of testimony, however, I've encountered before; and it presents as a rationalization process that seeks distance between the experience of testimony and the other human agendas and desires that have pushed it aside.

Anyone who "believes" he or she has a testimony would probably be well advised to continue the quest to obtain it, if that is their desire, because that's not the definition of testimony nor is it a term faithful LDS use to describe it, at least never in my experience.

I was an active believer for the next 15 years of my life, helping to convert the rest of my family, graduating from BYU, serving a mission in France, marrying in the temple, serving in many callings. I struggled for years before losing my faith, and pled with God over and over to help me preserve my faith. He didn't.

I cannot possibly comment on a subject personal anecdote regarding your onw inner psychological states and your perception of your relationship with God. However, I can unequivocally state that I've struggled just as hard as you or any other LDS with some doctrinal and historical issues and prayed to God to sustain my testimony and help me find answers, and he has. What your situation is, I have no idea.

But perhaps if I had just been willing to close my eyes and continue believing no matter what, I could have preserved my faith like you and others. But I just do not have it in me to be a True Believer.

Now your doing exactly what you accuse me of doing: assuming things about your "story" without direct knowledge or experience. I haven't preserved my faith through some serious theological questioning, problems of LDS history, and 25 years of alcoholism by closing my eyes to anything. What's really going to irk you here, Beastie, is that my program of testimony sustenance has been deep study and reflection, endless reading and research, the questioning of others more knowledgeable than I in various areas, and, most importantly, prayer, scripture study, and trying to live the Gospel as best I can under very trying conditions.

Why we arrived at different points after all this is a question you will have to answer for yourself, I suppose.