DiscussMormonism.com

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

As I prepared for a fireside presentation last month, I came across
several pictures drawn so that they appear as one picture to some
people and an entirely different picture to others. One of the more
common of these has both an old woman and a young woman contained in
the same picture.

http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/woman.html

If you show it to a group of people, some members of the group see
only the old woman but others will see a young woman. When shown one
of these kinds of pictures, it is sometimes very difficult to find the
second picture, but if someone points out a distinguishing
characteristic, suddenly the second picture seems obvious and you
wonder how you could have missed it.

This led me to think about our relationship with the Church. As I read
some of the exit stories of people who have left the Church, I am
often left scratching my head and wondering if I attend the same
church they did. I am left wondering why the picture I am looking at
is so different than theirs.

There was a recent article in Arizona where a brother was
excommunicated from the church for apostasy. He told the newspapers
about losing his belief when he discovered that Joseph Smith had more
than one wife. Again, I am puzzled. His misunderstanding is that it is
ok to know that Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff had
more than one wife and to believe they were prophets, but it means
Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet if he did.

Recently on a former-Mormons' website, a poll was taken asking the
question "Why did you leave?"

67 percent said, "I found out about Mormon history."
10 percent said, "I never thought it was true."
10 percent said, "Mormon culture made me uncomfortable."
8 percent said they "disagreed with leaders' ethics."

I don't know how scientific the poll was or if it represented 10
people or 100 people. But it did puzzle me that many claimed they left
the church when they "found out about Mormon history." This is odd,
since there are many good, solid, believing historians within the LDS
church who probably know a lot more about Mormon history than those
responding to this poll. The LDS historians know about Mormon
history--warts and all--and don't leave.

I don't mean to say that we should only be reading whitewashed
histories that leave out the mistakes and faults of men. But it makes
me ask what history these people are reading.

Does the history they read include the lives, histories, and
testimonies of the witnesses who said over and over again that they
had seen the plates and they had seen an angel?

Does it include the story of Martin Harris complaining how heavy the
plates were as he held them on his lap for an hour and a half?

Does it include Martin Harris saying, "Well as sure as you see my hand
so sure did I see the angel and the plates"?

Does it include Oliver Cowdery speaking of the Book of Mormon
translation from his deathbed and saying, "I know that whereof I
testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the
mind--it was real"?

Does it include the story of Katharine, Joseph Smith's sister hiding
the plates in her bed under her legs?

Does it include the quote from John Whitmer as he says, "I handled
those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides"?

Does the history include the many reports from others who also saw
angels?

Does the history include the 121 independent eyewitness accounts of
the mantel of Joseph Smith being passed on to Brigham Young on August
8, 1844, such as the one from nine-year-old William Van Orden who
suddenly said, "The Prophet [is] not dead, for I [see] him on the
stand"?

I suspect that the histories they are reading aren't complete. I
suspect this incompleteness because I have read many of those
histories. In reading them I find there are things often left out,
there are things included that aren't relevant, and there are things
included of suspect authenticity. To be fair, all histories leave
things out and get some things wrong. There simply isn't enough room
for all of history in any one book, and research is always expanding
and subject to human error. But it is interesting to observe what is
strategically left in or taken out. Some histories use facts and
quotes to paint a picture that shows Joseph Smith as a flawed man and
therefore not a prophet; however, they leave out facts and quotes that
show that he was a prophet. Yet, when you see all of the facts and
quotes and their textual and historical contexts, you see both
pictures and come to understand that Joseph Smith was flawed man who
was also a prophet of God.

It is sometimes argued that Church history books and lesson manuals
leave out pertinent facts. They tend to leave out the flaws of early
Church leaders. But, these facts aren't pertinent to the question of
whether these men were called of God because the Church teaches that
all men have flaws including prophets. And yet, God uses those flawed
men to bring about His work.

If one is going to make a life changing decision such as leaving a
church, it should be based on more than one disturbing fact, or on
reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet
web site. More research is always necessary to understand the
historical and textual context of the history you have read.

The following are four books that can help to clarify the historical
context of Church History.

1) "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" by Richard Lloyd
Anderson

2) "By the Hand of Mormon" by Terryl Givens
http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p0195168887.html

3) "Opening the Heavens" edited by John Welch and Erick Carlson
http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p0842526072.html

4) "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon" edited by Donald
Parry, Daniel Peterson and John Welch
http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p0934893721.html

If you are struggling and seeing only the negative picture of the
Church and Church history, these books might help you see the other
picture and understand that both pictures can peacefully coexist,
providing a richness to our history. Good and bad often coexist as
humans make both good and bad decisions. Additionally, sometimes what
we call bad is simply our misunderstanding of God and how He works.
The true miracle is that God uses us as flawed human beings to carry
out His flawless work.

--Scott Gordon
President

Yes, it seems clear to me that the only LDS history he is willing to discuss here is the one that is favorable to his point of view. Big surprise. Sure, it looks unreasonable that anyone should want to leave until you step outside of the range of what he is willing to quote here. So much depends on how you frame it all.

Scott Gordon wrote:The LDS historians know about Mormon history--warts and all--and don't leave.

Sort of like how Scientologist historians know their religion inside and out but don't leave?

If one is going to make a life changing decision such as leaving a church, it should be based on more than one disturbing fact, or on reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet web site.

. . . and should it also be based on more than hearing the missionary discussions?

More research is always necessary to understand the historical and textual context of the history you have read.

Just as long as it's strictly pro-Mormon history, right?

dartagnan wrote:MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

As I prepared for a fireside presentation last month...
*snip*

I also read this with interest. That FAIR is beginning to attempt to address the fact that learning about LDS history is prompting more exits than other issues is significant in and of itself.

It is also interesting that the solution to historical questions and doubts, per Gordon, is to read faith-affirming LDS publications. Outside sources seem to be implicitly condemned.

If one is going to make a life changing decision such as leaving a
church, it should be based on more than one disturbing fact, or on
reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet
web site. More research is always necessary to understand the
historical and textual context of the history you have read.

A few articles from an [a single?] Internet web site?

The always-necessary "more research" is equated here with faith-affirming publications. What about "more research" from ex-Mormons, from never-Mo's, from doubting members?

Does anyone leave the LDS Church because of "one disturbing fact, or on reading one disturbing book, or worse, a few articles from an Internet web site?"

It's interesting that FAIR is acknowledging the difficulty for doubting members of learning LDS history but also suggesting that the problems are isolatable, miniscule, and a result of a failure to do "more research."

CKS

I agree inasmuch as I would hope that they would do enough research to come to the conclusion that all religion is vulnerable in the same way, although Mormonism, being much better documented and more recent, is perhaps more susceptible to being falsified than the Jesus myth.

I found his use of the "old/young woman" analogy striking. Scotty-dog recognizes the fact that it is valid to see either the old or the young woman, and yet this isn't what he's advocating. Instead, he is demanding that people see one side, and that's it.

I find it interesting that the apologists are finally beginning to take an interest in why people leave. But the irony here is that they don’t ask us. Scott and Bokovoy have never bothered to ask me, but they have written to their audiences as to why they think I turned critic. Bokovoy has started threads “explaining” why he thinks people leave and now Gordon is writing up his “message” that totally mischaracterizes the typical exit narrative.

I know from experience that that bunch over at FAIR doesn’t give a flying flip about you or me or anyone else considering leaving the Church. When they sensed I was leaning critical, they were anxious to be rid of me as soon as possible; so they could start discrediting me as an ex-Mormon critic with an axe to grind. Pacman and Schryver led the way in that endeavor and the FAIR leaders were grateful for them.

All this mumbo jumbo about appearing concerned is really just a way to explain and make sense of the fact that testimony-bearing Mormons do actually leave for intellectually based reasons. Gordon acts genuinely “confused,” in scratching his head, but I don’t for a second believe that he is really confused. He has been around on the forums long enough to know there are legitimate concerns, such as the Book of Abraham fiasco, that logically point to the fact that Joseph Smith was a fraud. But he’d rather raise a rather minor and frivolous issue like polygamy, to make the exit story sound as ridiculous as possible. Of course, polygamy doesn’t prove Joseph Smith wasn’t what he claimed, but the Book of Abraham certainly does. He knows LDS apologetics is up against the ropes on that topic.

It is the same song with a different tune. Whereas traditional LDS belief holds that ex-Mormons were just sinners who didn’t want to repent, now we get something equally insulting. Now we’re just too stupid to realize we’re pissing away a wonderful life over a minor, which of course, Gordon naïvely assumes is adequately resolved in the few books he recommended. Some of us have rid ourselves of the apologetic thought process whereby anything and everything published by the usual suspects at FARMS should be taken for granted as impressive refutations.

dartagnan wrote:I find it interesting that the apologists are finally beginning to take an interest in why people leave. But the irony here is that they don’t ask us.

Didn't you tell me in another thread that you are still an active member, whose bishop wants you to take other Church assignments?

So which is it? Did you leave or not? Was this your acknowledgment that you have left the Church?

charity wrote:Didn't you tell me in another thread that you are still an active member, whose bishop wants you to take other Church assignments?

So which is it? Did you leave or not? Was this your acknowledgment that you have left the Church?

If I were you, D, I would tell this lady to mind her own damn business.

Trevor wrote:

charity wrote:Didn't you tell me in another thread that you are still an active member, whose bishop wants you to take other Church assignments?

So which is it? Did you leave or not? Was this your acknowledgment that you have left the Church?

If I were you, D, I would tell this lady to mind her own damn business.

He was the one who said it. It wasn't like I sicced Dog the Bounty Hunter on him to follow him around and count how many times he went in and out of a church building. He said he was active. Now he says he is one of those who left.

Don't we have any expectations that posters are telling the truth, at least as they know it?