DiscussMormonism.com

Since members are instructed not to read information that is critical to the church. I was wondering, how did most of the people who leave the church come into contact with information critical of the church? Did they read 'anti' material anyway?

My journey began strangely enough by reading the LDS Church News. I came across this article about FAIR. I was excited to read about an organization that engaged in responses to critics of the church. So I went to my computer and I entered the url provided in the article http://www.fairlds.org. From there I navigated to the Topical Guide page. I spent some time reading on the various topics. Then I spent years with my head in the sand. I just didn't want to know anymore than I already did.

This is part of why I think any attempts at inoculation will fail. Even though I'd come across this information on a 'friendly' site, the answers just aren't satisfying.

So I'd be interested to know, how did you come across information critical of the church?

Stormy Waters wrote:Since members are instructed not to read information that is critical to the church. I was wondering, how did most of the people who leave the church come into contact with information critical of the church? Did they read 'anti' material anyway?

My journey began strangely enough by reading the LDS Church News. I came across this article about FAIR. I was excited to read about an organization that engaged in a responses to critics of the church. So I went to my computer and I entered the url provided in the article http://www.fairlds.org. From there I navigated to the Topical Guide page. I spent some time reading on the various topics. Then I spent years with my head in the sand. I just didn't want to know anymore than I already did.

This is part of why I think any attempts at inoculation will fail. Even though I'd come across this information on a 'friendly' site, the answers just aren't satisfying.

So I'd be interested to know, how did you come across information critical of the church?

While on my mission, there was an apostate living in one area to which I was assigned. He'd been a missionary there himself, more than 10 years earlier. After his mission, he returned and married one of the member daughters. When his apostasy occurred in relation to those events, I do not know. He coyly tried not to damage the testimonies of my companion and I, meeting with him in our lame attempt to reactivate him. His wife was active. To find out what his concerns were, so we (in our hubris thinking) could allay him of those concerns, clearing the way for his return to Church activity, he began exposing historical facts not in the correlated LDS narrative. He told us, doubters of what he was claiming, not to take his word for it, but that when we were done and each returned to BYU, to look it all up. Before leaving the area, I asked him to provide me a complete listing of what sources he was referring to. I was hell bent on returning to Provo, looking these sources up, and then explaining in a letter to him why he was wrong.

I did return. I checked out his list, mostly in books at the HBL Library on the BYU campus. Some of those referred to references that led to Special Collections, both there and at the U of U's library. So on Saturdays, I headed up to SLC. The more I dug in efforts to show that ex-missionary apostate where he was wrong, the more troubling information I found. Much more. I began engaging roommates and fellow students at BYU, even a couple of religion and Utah history professors I took classes from, in one on one discussions. Not to reveal my own doubts and questions, I took the posture that I wanted to share with them that I had found faith-promoting materials. I put my best faith-promoting spins on explaining what in fact were faith-killing historical facts. Most of the other students placated me, and when I would finish my blowhard explanation, would usually ask, do you want to order a pizza? A few of the professors gave responses that were the equivalent of a pat on a good dog's head and praise, without any substantive comment. There was strangely an aloofness in the response of one of them, which I had not expected with him as he had been one of the more gung-ho, TBM types in class.

One roommate who did not attend church on Sundays took my bait. He had not heard much of the facts that I had discovered and used to pepper my arguments. He'd keep saying that what I'd just said damned the LDS truth claims more than supported them as I was trying to argue--much the way that the lost 116-pages are treated by South Park.

After a couple of months, I retreated to re-examine my notes, to 'take a closer look' as the Mopologists are fond of saying. It became painfully evident that the LDS truth claims depended for their acceptance on the stark omission of large portions of the Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo historical record (and I only had found pieces--but they exposed big gaps in the LDS narrative).

Then Quinn's book in the early '90s pretty much tied it altogether for me, even though that was not his purpose in writing it.

As for your comment about innoculation, if the LDS Church does it, it will purge the member ranks of those that would be troubled when they look anyway. It will leave in sacrament meetings a more Chapel Mormon pure congregation. Indeed, many will leave, tithing will be lost, but the LDS Church will then have a stronger hold on those that remain, being able to claim that its been honest and open. "Nothing to hide" will be their mantra. At least in this way, the effect of the historical truth will not be as insidious and an unseen corrosive on the membership as it is in Europe. How many other TBMs can an apostate take with him or her on the way out, chiding them that the LDS Church does not tell them these things, and BKP admonishes to leave it alone.

My interest in Church history started long after I became inactive. In the early 2000's I did a internet search for information on how many wives Joseph Smith had and for Mormon discussion forums. My investigations into Joseph Smith polygamy and my encounters with defenders on MAD led me to a more serious investigation of Church history. The arrogance of some of the posters at MAD was motivation for me to become better informed.

I found an anti-mormon pamphlet at another missionary's apartment. It was full of doctrinal criticisms that I had already heard from evangelicals, like Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers (yeah, so what). But there was one new thing that I just couldn't quit thinking about: the pamphlet said the LDS temple ceremony was based on Masonic rituals and the angle and compass marks on the garments were based on Masonic symbols. That really bothered me because it sounded so plausible. Not necessarily wrong, but if it was true then why hadn't the church ever taught me about it? Why did I learn about it from an anti-mormon pamphlet? I asked my mission president about it and he said it was true because the Masons and the Mormons both traced their origins back to ancient times. He said he had a book about Solomon's temple and he would let me read it sometime. He never did and I never brought it up again, but the feeling that something wasn't right haunted me for years.

Growing up Mormon, I was cursed, it seemed, with logical thinking and critical analysis.

Finally in 2004, I realized all the unanswered questions, as well as those I dared not ask, could be answered.

Very first encounter: Ed Decker tracts pre-mission. Didn't bother me at all, empowered me because I went on mission fully armed. I didn't stop there, became very interested in the stuff FARMS published, mainly Hugh Nibley. I really felt empowered then, a scholar's scholar no one dared engage (see intro to the Myth Makers). During this time, no outside criticisms weighed on me, but issues with the business manner of the church -- which having Hugh there for me helped with -- grew on me along with the logical inconsistencies or silliness of doctrine. Later, Bible bash on mission with non-reborns; I head to a university library to glean the relevant facts just as Hugh Nibley would have and -- it was all over. It wasn't just that "scholars" disagreed with church interpretations of the Bible, but it was quite obvious that regardless of this or that specific point, I don't have the right words for it really, but it seemed quite obvious that scholarship could never support the Church and that Nibley's stuff was essentially garbage. I never read another FARMS book after that and a few years later I was out. I actually discussed my concerns with a professor at BYU who has been seen mingling with apologists now and then as we had a good relationship, and he just leveled with me that he didn't have the explanations I wanted, that what I was looking for was going to be difficult to get good answers for, but he referred me to someone who he thought stood a chance -- a hardcore member of FARMS. At this point, I knew absolutely nothing about the critics vs. apologists, I wouldn't have even known what the word apologist meant. I never set up the meeting though, because based on that encounter I could pretty much do the math.

Since members are instructed not to read information that is critical to the church. I was wondering, how did most of the people who leave the church come into contact with information critical of the church? Did they read 'anti' material anyway?

I read all kinds of information critical to the Church as evidenced by my presence here. Have done so for 30 or so years now. Am still active TBM and never had any downtime.

bcspace wrote:

Since members are instructed not to read information that is critical to the church. I was wondering, how did most of the people who leave the church come into contact with information critical of the church? Did they read 'anti' material anyway?

I read all kinds of information critical to the Church as evidenced by my presence here. Have done so for 30 or so years now. Am still active TBM and never had any downtime.

Good for you.

You get moved to the front of the line in the CK to pick out your extra wives!

The Dude wrote:here was one new thing that I just couldn't quit thinking about: the pamphlet said the LDS temple ceremony was based on Masonic rituals

This is a big one. In the fateful visit that led me to the library, I was with the ward mission leader, my partner in crime who loved to research doctrine and debate. He had a high education. He also had a non-member GF who liked to give him lame anti-lit in hopes of swaying him to her church, and he enjoyed refuting that stuff. The guy was solid and I never would have predicted what would happen later. I heard a couple years after mission that his GF eventually got him anti-lit that detailed the whole masonic thing. Apparently, he in short order left the church, dumped her, and then left the country. I tried to get in touch with him without success. Man, I would seriously like to catch up with that guy.

I admit that I sinned shortly after getting a tip from a guy in EQ meeting. I went straight home and sinned: www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

I admit I did just what our leaders hope we don't do. I broke protocol. If I had not, there is a chance I would still be safe in Richard G Scott's loving arms today.