The LDS problems in Sweden

[_Megacles]

And that is why it's never going to happen.

The Brethren like the church members exactly as they are... faithful, blind, and paying their tithes.

I disagree.

Out of touch with how information is delivered in today's world, perhaps, but that can be remedied.

Unaware of the power and impact of social media, likely, but that can be remedied, too.

Perhaps I have a greater optimism for the church than your sentiment here suggests, but I think we can become a better people through these types of stories.

[_harmony]

And that is why it's never going to happen.

The Brethren like the church members exactly as they are... faithful, blind, and paying their tithes.

I disagree.

Out of touch with how information is delivered in today's world, perhaps, but that can be remedied.

Unaware of the power and impact of social media, likely, but that can be remedied, too.

Perhaps I have a greater optimism for the church than your sentiment here suggests, but I think we can become a better people through these types of stories.

My only disagreement with you is your conclusion. I don't think the Brethren are going to make any changes, support any concept, or confront any backlash. They'll ignore it, and nothing will change, because THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE. Change would likely mean a decrease in tithing and that would severely cramp their style.

Once you get past the idea that the Brethren actually care about the members, you'll understand. It's all about the bottom line, Megacles. It's never about the members, the poor, the hungry, the widowed, the orphaned. If it was, we'd be building hospitals and food kitchens, not mega malls and empty conference centers. The Brethren would be stewards of money donated to build the kingdom, not wasteful. And we'd have an annual report that shows income and outgo.

[Guest]

And that is why it's never going to happen.

The Brethren like the church members exactly as they are... faithful, blind, and paying their tithes.

I disagree.

Out of touch with how information is delivered in today's world, perhaps, but that can be remedied.

Unaware of the power and impact of social media, likely, but that can be remedied, too.

Perhaps I have a greater optimism for the church than your sentiment here suggests, but I think we can become a better people through these types of stories.

I think harmony looks at the fact the LDS Church is a gerontocracy and is very slow to change as a result. Now, I don't disagree that over time the LDS Church has proven to be adaptable (blacks and the priesthood is an example) and even now we are beginning to see a more tolerant view towards gays. However, for the LDS Church to accept its history, its current leadership is going to have to face some disquieting facts that bring into serious question the divine nature of the LDS Church and its leadership. Though I agree that would be good for the LDS Church overall, it is not something they'll accept quickly and will take a considerable amount of pressure for it to change. In fact, what I see right now in the LDS Church is an impulse towards acting in a more ignorant fashion through correlation towards its history and its claims.

[_sock puppet]

If Latter-day Saints were to take the time to become more interested in their faith's history, the shock of learning about something troubling would be diminished or rendered altogether absent. Sure, the material has always been available, but it has been a challenge to find it (one would have to visit the Harold B. Lee Library, or the "academic" section of Deseret Book). If the material were actually presented to the saints, I think, as a whole, we would be a better church for it.

I don't think the burden falls on the shoulders of the LDS members when it is the COB's correlation committee that has been whitewashing this for decades. The members have merely swallowed what COB has spoon fed them. The moral compunction to correct is upon COB to set the record straight, include an accurate portrayal in its spoon-feeding manuals, etc.

[_Kevin Graham]

If Latter-day Saints were to take the time to become more interested in their faith's history, the shock of learning about something troubling would be diminished or rendered altogether absent. Sure, the material has always been available, but it has been a challenge to find it (one would have to visit the Harold B. Lee Library, or the "academic" section of Deseret Book). If the material were actually presented to the saints, I think, as a whole, we would be a better church for it.

And you would be a much smaller Church for it too, which is why the Church has always tried to keep this information under wraps.

It just doesn't make any sense for people to say, "OK, let's just start telling our members that Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian, that he married children and other men's wives." And then think prospective converts wouldn't have any problems with these things, just as long as they're hearing it from the Church. All this really does is take away the element of deception, but not really by much. Mormons will be able to say, "at least we told them," but this is only because they really have no choice at this point. The internet era has pretty much made sure they're going to find out anyway and the Church cannot regulate the lives of Mormons to such an extent as to make sure they have no internet access. Though I have no doubt that it would, if it could.

[_Brackite]

Is one of the LDS Problems in Sweden is that there are not enough LDS men getting married??
Apostle Dallin H. Oaks has stated:

I close with a final example of a desire that should be paramount for all men and women—those who are currently married and those who are single. All should desire and seriously work to secure a marriage for eternity. Those who already have a temple marriage should do all they can to preserve it. Those who are single should desire a temple marriage and exert priority efforts to obtain it. Youth and young singles should resist the politically correct but eternally false concept that discredits the importance of marrying and having children. 7

Single men, please consider the challenge in this letter written by a single sister. She pleaded for “the righteous daughters of God that are sincerely searching for a worthy helpmeet, yet the men seem to be blinded and confused as to whether or not it is their responsibility to seek out these wonderful, choice daughters of our Heavenly Father and court them and be willing to make and keep sacred covenants in the Lord’s house.” She concluded, “There are many single LDS men here that are happy to go out and have fun, and date and hang out, but have absolutely no desire to ever make any kind of commitment to a woman.” 8

I am sure that some anxiously seeking young men would want me to add that there are some young women whose desires for a worthy marriage and children rank far below their desires for a career or other mortal distinctions. Both men and women need righteous desires that will lead them to eternal life.

(Ensign, May 2011.)

[_Megacles]

And you would be a much smaller Church for it too, which is why the Church has always tried to keep this information under wraps.

It just doesn't make any sense for people to say, "OK, let's just start telling our members that Joseph Smith couldn't translate Egyptian, that he married children and other men's wives." And then think prospective converts wouldn't have any problems with these things, just as long as they're hearing it from the Church. All this really does is take away the element of deception, but not really by much. Mormons will be able to say, "at least we told them," but this is only because they really have no choice at this point. The internet era has pretty much made sure they're going to find out anyway and the Church cannot regulate the lives of Mormons to such an extent as to make sure they have no internet access. Though I have no doubt that it would, if it could.

In my opinion, Kevin, a careful reading of history paints a much richer, much more complex picture than the simplistic one you have described above. This picture needs to be painted for the common membership, and it should be understood within its historical, sociological, and religious context.

Yes, I take issue with some aspects of some of the organizational constructs of the church, like the Correlation Committee. But, as a faithful member, I believe the church will learn from its mistakes as it has in the past, and I believe it will become better by correcting them.

[_honorentheos]

Well, I have read the Turley_Jensen_Stockholm transcript and frankly I could have answered the questions better than they did

If that were the case, one would think that you would have done so somewhere in your 14,672 posts at this forum.

Shhhhh...don't wake him.

He still thinks he's refuted every argument he's engaged in on the board. It makes it all the more funny when he stops responding to a thread once it's obvious he can't do so. It's part of his charm.

[_honorentheos]

If Latter-day Saints were to take the time to become more interested in their faith's history, the shock of learning about something troubling would be diminished or rendered altogether absent. Sure, the material has always been available, but it has been a challenge to find it (one would have to visit the Harold B. Lee Library, or the "academic" section of Deseret Book). If the material were actually presented to the saints, I think, as a whole, we would be a better church for it.

I don't think the burden falls on the shoulders of the LDS members when it is the COB's correlation committee that has been whitewashing this for decades. The members have merely swallowed what COB has spoon fed them. The moral compunction to correct is upon COB to set the record straight, include an accurate portrayal in its spoon-feeding manuals, etc.

Exactly, sock.

The argument that members should know these things is part of why the current problem exists. Daniel Peterson said the same thing to me a decade ago. My comment to him was basically the one you made above along with the question why the church couldn't put some time into presenting the information honestly? I don't know why apologists tend to dismiss that idea with so little regard.

But it does sound like the church itself is beginning to get it. In that sense, I agree with Megacles' last statement. The church likely will be better in the long run when it begins to present the material to the body of saints as a whole. They can't prevent people from finding it, and they have to accept that some people will leave because of it. But ignoring it, and looking like they are hiding it, is something your average believing member must find at least as problematic or more so than the issues themselves. I know it had an impact on my transition away from the church.

[_annie]

I find the transcript of the Q&A session in Sweden fascinating. The Swedish members don't let Jensen or Turley off the hook on anything and they repeatedly counter answers with new questions. I think the exchange on DNA is particularly interesting.

RT: Quickly. Archeology and the Book of Mormon. Why isn’t there all this specific evidence of Nephites and Lamanites. You know, I’m going to combine it with Indian DNA because the answers are really quite similar. You may be able to find some evidence of Viking culture on the coast, but if Vikings went to the new world many, many times, you probably wouldn’t be able to find evidence of all the people who went there.

Q: I´m sorry, ??- I mean there were millions of people building cities and creating wagons with wheels, and horses, and had so many things, weapons destroying things [01:48:18], so I guess there should be some traces, somewhere, in the whole of Americas if they ever existed.

RT: As you know, there are cultural ruins all over the Americas. The question is, were these Book of Mormon peoples or not? Some people have tried to answer that using the DNA to say maybe these were Book of Mormon people, maybe they were not. Are there any DNA experts here? I’m gonna give you my best short answer on DNA.

Q: Is it the same as FAIR and FARMS?

RT: Um. It may be. Let me just—if you have a family tree that goes back like this, and so on, you get the idea, it’s way out here. DNA cannot tell us about all of our ancestors. I was the president of the genealogical society of Utah, which oversees the [01:49:22] collection of family history records , the Church’s family history records. We were very interested in DNA for genealogical purposes to find out what it could tell us. What we learned is that DNA can tell you about this line here. OK? The Y chromosome. And DNA can tell you about this line here, which is mitochondrial DNA. So through DNA, you can learn about the line that is all males down through here. If there’s a female in this line, it’s stuck and it can’t go any further. Now, here you can tell about the line that is female all the way down. OK? But what’s in the middle here you can’t discover through DNA with today’s technology. OK? Now, if you think this out further, like this, what basically happens is let’s say you’ve got one person here down to maybe 10 million or whatever. How many of those 10 million people have DNA that we can discover this way? If the lines don’t intertwine, the answer is just these two. The first one and this one. What actually happens is that as people intermarry and you shift from male to female here or from female to male there you lose the opportunity to trace their strand. So what happens over time is that you lose—you lose DNA identity as you work your way down through time. It’s not always possible to be able to identify peoples who were there. But there’s a bigger problem. The bigger problem is this: in order to capture DNA, in order to make a comparison, you need two things. One, you need to know, what was the DNA of Lehi’s family? And then two, what is the DNA of ancient American peoples? We know some but not all the answers here. We’re continuing to learn over time. The body of types of DNA for these people is growing. With this one, we have no way of knowing the answer. We do not know what Lehi’s DNA was. The place where they were living at the time was a place that had immigration in and out. The kind of DNA they had is impossible to determine. So that’s the basic answer. You can’t tell because you don’t know both the DNA of Lehi’s family history.

Q: So there are people in the Americas now might have DNA from Lehi? You don’t know the original.

RT: They might be—they could easily be descendants of Lehi for the reason I explained at first with that chart. They might have the DNA of Lehi, we just don’t know what DNA Lehi’s family had.

Q: You don’t think that he was from the house of Israel?

RT: Yes, but so is most of the world today.

Q: [01:53:07-01:53:22]

RT: No but if, but if his area is a crossroad, we have immigration coming in, it doesn’t take very many generations before that DNA is, as I was showing you here earlier, it only takes one marriage for that to stop.

Q: [01:53:39-01:53:46] I actually don’t think that’s correct according to scientific evidence today. I think you actually can trace back to with DNA and tell for instance where the Swedish people are coming from or where the Asian people are coming from. I think you can do that quite well according to reports I have seen. I’m very, very surprised that you’re [playing] that there is no evidence at all.

RT: You can follow this.

RT: All I said was if, if these people don’t intermarry, it’s one. But if they intermarry what happens is this line—let’s pose that this person has a child and that child marries here. OK? Then this DNA gets connected here and goes in along the male line all the way through. They have a daughter and that daughter marries and they have a line of daughters that could come in like this. But the original DNA batch from here? They don’t replicate down.

Q: I’m not an expert but that’s your opinion and you know much more about this than I do. If you look at the tests they’ve done now with the DNA they’ve found with your mind it’s, you know, statistically, do you see that it’s very probable, the outcome compared to, you know? It would be easier if they found maybe some indication that would be stronger there would be some trace. What’s your opinion on it? Do you feel, would I lie to you? It’s statistically probable the way we see it?

RT: I grew up with a PhD father who was a scientist, OK, he was a nuclear engineer and I was taught scientific method and statistics and the importance of recognizing the limitations of the science. What I’m saying about DNA is its an extremely important tool for finding our where peoples come from. Its limitation is, it can’t tell us about all the people who used to exist, it can only tell us about some. Now, maybe someday, the technology will improve. But today, it can’t. So, because of these limitations, for anybody who claims one position or another on Lehi’s families is inconsistent with the science. That’s all I’m saying.