DiscussMormonism.com

Whether or not the internet, with its easy accessibility to previously hard-to-obtain information, is having an impact on the LDS faith has frequently been debated between believer and critic. Believers often scoff at the idea that the internet is having a noticeable, and painful, impact on the LDS church, and dismiss shocked members as lazy ne'er-do-wells yearning for spoon feeding who should have known this information long ago.

Critics have long maintained that the LDS church would have to begin a process of "inoculations" in order to begin to deal with this wound, and it appears that influential people within the LDS faith agree, including Richard Bushman, whose book could appear to be the first step, as well as the latest MMM book.

Bushman Inoculates

Increasingly teachers and church leaders at all levels are approached by Latter-day Saints who have lost confidence in Joseph Smith and the basic miraculous events of church history. They doubt the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, many of Joseph’s revelations, and much besides. They fall into doubt after going on the Internet and finding shocking information about Joseph Smith based on documents and facts they had never heard before. A surprising number had not known about Joseph Smith’s plural wives. They are set back by differences in the various accounts of the First Vision. They find that Egyptologists do not translate the Abraham manuscripts the way Joseph Smith did, making it appear that the Book of Abraham was a fabrication. When they come across this information in a critical book or read it on one of the innumerable critical Internet sites, they feel as if they had been introduced to a Joseph Smith and a Church history they had never known before. They undergo an experience like viewing the famous picture of a beautiful woman who in a blink of an eye turns into an old hag. Everything changes. What are they to believe?

Often church leaders, parents, and friends, do not understand the force of this alternate view. Not knowing how to respond, they react defensively. They are inclined to dismiss all the evidence as anti-Mormon or of the devil. Stop reading these things if they upset you so much, the inquirer is told. Or go back to the familiar formula: scriptures, prayer, church attendance.

The troubled person may have been doing all of these things sincerely, perhaps even desperately. He or she feels the world is falling apart. Everything these inquirers put their trust in starts to crumble. They want guidance more than ever in their lives, but they don’t seem to get it. The facts that have been presented to them challenge almost everything they believe. People affected in this way may indeed stop praying; they don’t trust the old methods because they feel betrayed by the old system. Frequently they are furious. On their missions they fervently taught people about Joseph Smith without knowing any of these negative facts. Were they taken advantage of? Was the Church trying to fool them for its own purposes?

These are deeply disturbing questions. They shake up everything. Should I stay in the Church? Should I tell my family? Should I just shut up and try to get along? Who can help me?

The members of the seminar on “Joseph Smith and His Critics,” a group of Religious Education and CES faculty who met at BYU for six weeks in the summer of 2008, are among those who have known Latter-day Saints in this state of confusion and doubt. We have had many opportunities to talk to questioners about their problems and admit that we have often fallen short in our answers. We came together in hopes of learning to do better. Besides gathering information on a series of specific issues, we have discussed how best to deal with questioning Saints. What way of speaking is most likely to win their trust and convince them we have their best interests at heart?

We began by agreeing that criticisms of Joseph Smith should not be dismissed as foolish or purely evil. The negative attacks that disturb first-time readers are usually based on facts, not merely prejudiced fabrications. To play down the force of the criticism, we believe, only convinces the seekers that we do not understand. We appear to be sweeping trouble under the rug. They may have been devastated by a criticism; we must show that we understand why. Consequently, the seminar took as its first principle to state the negative argument as fully and accurately as we can. We try not to minimize the difficulty or prejudice the case against the critic. In no other way can we persuade the doubters that we understand the problem.

Hmm, I wonder if this approach will eventually influence internet apologia, as manifested on MAD. I'm not sure some of those folks could make the change required, I think they enjoy their current combative and aggressive stance too much, and feel too justified in embracing it.

If this new movement has the sanction of the GAs, it may predict a future, inevitable "liberalization" of the LDS faith, perhaps similar to what the RLDS went through. If GAs are even considering such a liberalization that would indicate the depth of the problem. I don't know how close Bushman is to GAs, but it would seem that the Joseph Smith Seminar had to have their blessing. Perhaps the internet is having more of an impact than we have even imagined.


(thanks to John Dehlin who posted this link on RFM)

We came together in hopes of learning to do better. Besides gathering information on a series of specific issues, we have discussed how best to deal with questioning Saints. What way of speaking is most likely to win their trust and convince them we have their best interests at heart?

Wow. That last little bit is pretty disturbing. What exactly is in their best interest? They're disturbed precisely because they discovered the deceit involved with and fraudulent nature of Mormonism, and you're going talk to them in a way that what... Lulls them back to sleep? "Shhhh... Hush now... Don' you worry yo'self no how... Hush now... Momma gonna make it all bettah... Go on now... Go back t'sleep l'il chitlins... Ev'thing gon' be ok... Hush now... Don' worry... Ev'thing gon' be ok... "

I mean really. Really?

"Yeah, no one actually saw the plates. And indeed, Joseph Smith "translated" them when they weren't even in the room. And by "translate" I mean had his face stuffed in a hat looking at a rock, but mostly he and his scribe just sat down and wrote it out. So, really, he didn't need the plates in the first place because they weren't even really used. At all. Ever. Really. And in fact, he did plagiarize a few books. BUT, all of this was necessary to produce the revelation that is the Book of Mormon, and all those other distractions were actually tools to help him get into the right frame of mind to produce the work, which he mostly didn't write. I think we're headed toward a more progressive view of the Book of Mormon, anyway. I would say inspired fiction is something the Lord has used quite often in order to preserve essential Gospel truths throughout the ages. This is definitely something you may want to consider when assessing the Book of Mormon and its place along side another piece of inspired fiction, the Bible. Oh, and the Book of Abraham."

*cough* *crickets chirping*

"Wanna get a decaf coffee mochaccino, and talk about BYU football? I hear they're going to have a great season this year. They're ranked #36 in the nation right now, and have a shot at making a BCS bowl if they win their conference.................................................................. "

Bushman is right on.

Hopefully the GAs will follow his lead and stop promoting the ridiculous notion that people leave the church because they sinned or were offended. (sigh).

And, hopefully MB apologists will follow his lead and begin to realize that their nastiness is not helping their cause.

In other words, Bushman seems to realize there are problems. Good for him.

While pre-internet it was easy to deny any problems with Joseph Smith, or call all the negative information just "anti-mormon lies", seems to me this is no longer the case.

What I find rather uncomfortable however is the idea that the church has to justify Joseph Smith's actions, or present the problems in a way that will encourage people to dismiss them.

Something odd about that.

Would the church feel good about doing this with say, Warren Jeffs?

I'm wondering how Bushman suggests the church deal with the troubling issues.

Admitting they are there is a good start. Acknowledging the hurt and anger members feel when they discover the truth is another good step.

But then what?

Expand the paradigm? (roll eyes smilie here)

Obviously the "inoculation" technique is a good one given our human brains to keep members in the church, but still... I don't think it helps investigators or the general public.

Hmmm...

td

Wow. That last little bit is pretty disturbing. What exactly is in their best interest? They're disturbed precisely because they discovered the deceit involved with and fraudulent nature of Mormonism, and you're going talk to them in a way that what... Lulls them back to sleep? "Shhhh... Hush now... Don' you worry yo'self no how... Hush now... Momma gonna make it all bettah... Go on now... Go back t'sleep l'il chitlins... Ev'thing gon' be ok... Hush now... Don' worry... Ev'thing gon' be ok... "

I mean really. Really?

Yeah, obviously, but what choice do they have? They can't just admit that game's over, let's fold up the tents and go home, can they? This is what they have left.

In the past, it usually worked just to tell members that it was all a pack of lies being told by evil anti-mormons. That doesn't work anymore, because the internet has made it easy to verify the accuracy of most of these charges. Apologists have to admit the charges *are* based in truth.

Frankly, I always thought that was what was the most potentially "threatening" (in terms of keeping the faith) about places like FAIR/MAD. It's not that some apologists act like arrogant buffoons, or some believers act like attack dogs, although that is annoying. The real problem is that, in the end, they have to admit the factual nature of these claims. When someone who first learns that Joseph Smith married other men's wives and very young girls, what they WANT to hear is "these are lies, and here is the solid proof showing they are lies". They *don't* want to hear "yeah, this stuff is true, but here's a different way of viewing it". That "different way" will work for those who are determined to find a way to keep believing, but it doesn't work on those who are truly evaluating the reasonableness of their beliefs.

But, as I said, what other choice do they have, given the impact of the internet? The best they can do is inoculate members with their "yeah, this stuff is true but here is a way to think about it that lets you keep believing in some way" routine. I have long thought the church was at a crossroads, in terms of deciding how to deal with this. They could go even more conservative and closed (which was completely possible, in my opinion - yeah, it would make them look ridiculous to the outside world and they would lose many members, but the members they retain would be ignorant and completely devoted to the faith and keep paying that ten percent), or they could gradually liberalize, and start tolerating liberal viewpoints (like the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction). That has the risk of resulting in a membership that is a little less fanatical in their devotion, and may keep that ten percent at times, but maybe there will be less membership loss in the end.

Neither solution is a good one for the LDS church, but there is no really good solution for them, because what they teach isn't true in the first place (aside from common moral platitudes). It's all damage control after that fact.

I think that as more people like Runtu, with his...what was it...calm, measured tone, can do more damage to the church than the raving street preachers.

I've noticed that when I don't say anything anti-Mormon around people that know I'm an apostate, they will come to me and ask why. Of course, at first they assume that I was seduced by anti-Mormon lies like they have been taught. But if they continue to talk to me, eventually they will learn that the apologists distort the truth 10x worse than the critics.

beastie wrote: They could go even more conservative and closed (which was completely possible, in my opinion - yeah, it would make them look ridiculous to the outside world and they would lose many members, but the members they retain would be ignorant and completely devoted to the faith and keep paying that ten percent), or they could gradually liberalize, and start tolerating liberal viewpoints (like the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction). That has the risk of resulting in a membership that is a little less fanatical in their devotion, and may keep that ten percent at times, but maybe there will be less membership loss in the end.

Neither solution is a good one for the LDS church, but there is no really good solution for them, because what they teach isn't true in the first place (aside from common moral platitudes). It's all damage control after that fact.

It will be interesting to see if they go the inspired fiction route if they relegate Hinckley's "It all hinges on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon" quote as opinion.

beastie wrote:
In the past, it usually worked just to tell members that it was all a pack of lies being told by evil anti-mormons. That doesn't work anymore, because the internet has made it easy to verify the accuracy of most of these charges. Apologists have to admit the charges *are* based in truth.

Hey, beastie, you know that I was greatly alarmed to discover that someone I loved thought anti-Mormons were the liars and he knew the truth. I was so very concerned for this young man. My sincere hope, for him, is that he hears about some of the more sensitive issues from those that love him or from those in the Church that can soften the blow. This is why when some on here troll with the missionaries on line that I get so upset. How horrid to hear about some of these issues from someone that doesn't really know you or care for you?

I really become incensed when there are allegations of lazy members. If you don't even know that you don't know something why is there a need to go search it out? The fact of the matter is that with the increased ability to find out about some of these issues that members may come across them. I know a while back consig, on MAD, said there might be firesides to broach some sensitive topics and then that apparently never occurred. I wish it would.

Moniker wrote:I know a while back consig, on MAD, said there might be firesides to broach some sensitive topics and then that apparently never occurred. I wish it would.

If I recall correctly, the fireside did occur, but he wasn't part of it.

You know, another approach that the brethren could take is to take action on reading anti-Mormon material.

If you read anything that isn't faith promoting, you could be subject to disciplanary action and possibly disfellowship!

That would certainly control the flow of information.

This was the last I recall seeing anything about it.

Stake Youth Fireside Going Down In Flames?, Originally meant to address "tough" Mormon issues

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... =firesides