Too TBM

[_Lucinda]

There is a contradiction between the leadership of the church, which encourages faith promoting study, and the apologists, whose dismissive attitudes say you just haven't investigated the issue fully.

So how do you think TBMs (like those that post here) reconcile the two?

[_Themis]

Inoculation may slow the bleeding long term, but they would probably have a large exodus first. I think in the end you would still see people like myself recognize that certain claims are not true even though we heard about the problematic parts of church history at a young age, and I think many members would move towards being NOMness which could have dramatic changes to the church(I think this would be very positive for the church)

[_Fence Sitter]

So how do you think TBMs (like those that post here) reconcile the two?

Faith is the short answer.

It is hard to categorize all TBMs into one answer to that question. I see a variety of different approaches.

I think the most common approach by the general TBM membership is a subconscious effort or, even a conscious one, to avoid anything that disagrees with each individual's view of what it means to be a TBM. In other words if you are unaware of the number of wives Joseph Smith had, any reference to a larger number is rejected out of hand as an anti attack. Even evidence presented from Mormon sources must somehow be wrong or misunderstood. If new information is presented that is perceived as an attack on faith it must be rejected. These are the members that stick religiously to faith promoting study. This approach is going to be more and more difficult to sustain with the wide spread access to the internet.

There are quite a few members that will actually take the time to study an issue. Most of these members will rely on sites such as FARMS or MADB that attempt to present a LDS defense to difficult questions. I would say that these members are going beyond what the church leadership wants them to do. The danger here is when one does not accept the appologist view and or when one encounters more troubling information. I think the apologist sites are their own worst enemy, if only for the fact that the have to bring up the material in question, of which the inquisitive TBM may not be aware.


I think the church realizes they cannot control as much of church related information that reaches the general membership as they did in the past. There is just too much available on the internet. Denial was a tatic that worked fifty years ago, but no longer.

[_Inconceivable]

Thanks, Inc. I was reminded again when reading your post, that it really was all about honesty for me. I was surprised to find, however, an article in the Ensign about Joseph and his seer stone in the hat. I wondered if that is somehow part of a slow trickle. That and approving books like "Rough Stone Rolling" to be sold at Deseret Book that give readers a different insight than what we learned from the manuals.

The difference is that stuffing ones face and rock in a hat is not immoral, it's just ridiculous.

see, Mormons do ridiculous (peculiar) all day long. No problem here.

However, I honestly don't understand how RSR ends up in the Deseret Books store. Perhaps the suits are under the delusion that it does the best job of making evil appear to be loving, chaste and benevolent (I'm gagging now, my SP actually gave me that book when he referred me to the moral reprobates at FARMS).

[_Fence Sitter]

However, I honestly don't understand how RSR ends up in the Deseret Books store. Perhaps the suits are under the delusion that it does the best job of making evil appear to be loving, chaste and benevolent (I'm gagging now, my SP actually gave me that book when he referred me to the moral reprobates at FARMS).

Because taking a public stance against it in any way (such as banning it from DB) would only serve to attract more attention to it. They may also see it as baby steps toward a more open view of church history.

[_honorentheos]

So how do you think TBMs (like those that post here) reconcile the two?

Hi Lucinda,

I think that it comes down to one's spiritual conviction of the truthfulness of the church. For me, the witnesses that formed the basis of my testimony kept me in the church for longer than I care to admit after I had first begun to question. I easily spent a year or more wrestling with that issue alone, even after I had removed all doubt that there was a reasonable explanation known to man for what Joseph Smith had done.

The integrity issues were a big one for me, too. What's interesting to me was that, though I never sought to defend Joseph Smith's behaviors once I learned of them, I felt the church could still be true - if only it wasn't culpable of hiding them. It would have left judgment to God, where my witness at that time came from. I think most TBM's who know and remain do believe that the limited amount of material available fills this gap. For me, it didn't and the fact they had varying levels of "truth" was a flag raising issue.

[_Jonah]

Like what about the song "Book of Mormon stories"? Are they still singing it with little hands beating on scriptures like American Indians beating on drums? And the hand actions making feathers on the backs of their heads?

I think they have progressed to the "true order" of the tomahawk chop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uZXZ8PYr-U

[Guest]

and I think many members would move towards being NOMness which could have dramatic changes to the church(I think this would be very positive for the church)

Personally, I also think this would be the most positive evolutionary path for the LDS church to take. Mormonism fosters strong communal bonds that society both needs and wants. The rigid doctrines and the literal teachings tend to drive people away and to severely curtail attracting new members.

The church needs to find a way to change the literal into metaphorical or allegorical and to soften its black or white mentality. For the next 50 years, new order Mormons will probably be the glue that keeps Mormonism cohesive as the older generation dies off along with its 19th centurty literal worldview and the new 21st century believer takes the reins.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

1. "You took it too seriously" Too hot.
2. "You were lazy and did not take it seriously enough." Too cold.

Apparently, the key is to be as lukewarm as possible. I mean, it's not like God is going to spew you out of his mouth. I think I remember reading that in the Ensign.

[Rikiti]

.