Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[_sunstoned]

Isn't this rather cowardly and hypocritical, to pretend to be supportive of the church in your home stake, but attack it anonymously here? Do you think that you demonstrate admirable character traits with your post?

I, by contrast, started studying anti-Mormon literature with the encouragement of my mission president while a missionary in Illinois. I had the great fortune of having access to the private collections of Kimball Young at Northwestern and Gerald Urban at Trinity College in Deerfield, as well as access to Mr. Urban and NIV translators expert in anti-Mormon theory. The Young collection had the earliest manuscripts of the Tanners' works, and this is where I was first exposed to it.

Since then, no priesthood leader has ever discouraged me from reading or writing anything about Church history. And, I use my own name when I post. And, my feelings and writings are as consistent here as they are in Church on Sunday.

Bob Crockett

Bob,

Not much has changed. I remember you from my mission, and you struggled with being judgmental back then. MMM is not being hypocritical. He spoke with his Bishop and didn’t get the answers he needed. That is why he is here on these boards. What are you trying to accomplish with a post like this? Do you think you can shame someone back into the church?

by the way, I’m surprised you could get Welling to authorize the time for that much personal study.

[_rcrocket]

Consider the optics here, as to MMS' post, and the significance of his anonymity. After all, for all we know he is just a member who has been excommunicated for any possible reason. Or an evangelical.

MMS' writing style is very effective to his mission. One need only compare Keven Graham's style (everybody's a moron; outrage at every turn) to Vogel's or Metcalf's. Who is the more believable? Who is accorded respect and status on the boards? Would you tend to trust Quinn vs. Decker? Urbanity and an even keel is essential to the best attack against the Church.

Or, is MMS' post really an attack against the Church? Who can really tell? The attacks are subtle. He's a high priest. He is "totally active and holding a calling." Yet, "I thought the Church could have and should have done more to ensure I did not end of in this shocked and surprised state" implying nothing less than his subjective state of mind is equivalent to to deception by somebody else -- the "Church."

Or, "it seemed so obvious to me that the church had significant responsibility," implying the Church has abrogated its educational responsibility. (Never mind that David Whitmer's exit speech is easily obtainable in many church publications -- and we can read all about the face in the hat nonsense.)

Or, the fundamental tactic of equating MAD defenders with the Church corporate. The weaknesses, the incivility, the boorishness of the MAD board is now the Church, we read or at least should believe.

And, of course, the connection to the Church itself -- the Bishop who secretly admits the weakness of his position. [Really, how often do we read this theme in exit stories?]

All this combines to a really effective attack against the Church. Impressive. Anonymous.

I certainly do concede that the use of one's real name on these boards exposes one to personal attack. Note Sunstoned's personal attack, referencing claiming knowing me from my mission as one who "struggled with being judgmental back then," and referring to one of my mission presidents. [Twould be easy, of course, to google the mission reunion boards and see my connection to Welling. And it wasn't Welling who authorized the work.] But, the essential thrust of my post is that the very most successful attack against the Church -- one that will influence the very elect as opposed to the moronic World of Warcraft twits who see only DVDs on the bookshelfs in their homes -- are the urbane attacks with just the right modicum of appeal back to one's bishop and activity. All, of course, anonymously.

rcrocket

[_rcrocket]

Bob,

Not much has changed. I remember you from my mission, and you struggled with being judgmental back then. MMM is not being hypocritical. He spoke with his Bishop and didn’t get the answers he needed. That is why he is here on these boards. What are you trying to accomplish with a post like this? Do you think you can shame someone back into the church?

by the way, I’m surprised you could get Welling to authorize the time for that much personal study.[/quote]

I seek only to show the weakness of MMS' post. I have no pretentions of trying to get somebody back into the Church. But, the Spirit convicts me to speak the truth.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi MMS

I saw some of your posting at MAD. Sadly that is not the place to go for help with these things. Many of the TBMs there and so called apoloists are quick to pounce. Some will try to help but others, nope.

And this is not the place to get help either. There are many angry critics here who are very rough and will be. Some here may be encouraging but most won't. In fact many here will actively try to wrench you our of the Church.

Briefly, I will tell you where I am at.

Life time member, mission, served in about every calling you can. Married in temple, etc.

I have been aware of many of the difficulties for quite some time. I defended, did apologetics, etc. But a few years ago, maybe after reading Mormon Enigma as well as having and LDS institute teacher tell me that to delve deep in Church history is dangerous and you better have a strong testimony if you do it, something snapped. What I was defending just became indefensible. It kind of snowballed from there. The more I read in the history the more I realized that the Church promotes only a faithful almost mystical history and that the real history leaved one with a much different view.

So, long story short is this. I concluded that the Church is not the Only True and Living Church and that Joseph and his successors. s not a prophets at least in the way I understood a prophet to be. I do not think there is One true Church. I believe in God, and want to believe Jesus was his son. But Christianity is rife with many problems as well.

So I believe there is a God of some sort and that religion is given to us in many flavors to help us understand life and the challenges of the world. Some faith traditions will work better for some then others.

I believe God may have worked through Joseph especially in the beginning to work a sort of restoration movement on the earth. They were quite popular at his time. But I think he got carried away and by Nauvoo had pretty much way out of where maybe God wanted him to be. I think the LDS Church works for many people. I am ok with that. I think there is little black and white in the world. Others disagree. The rabid critic and staunch LDS both call me hyposritcal here. And I understand why they do and they may be right. But ultimately I do not answer to any of them and the God I believe tells me I am quite ok where I am at right now. And in fact the world is quitre brighter and more lovely to me these days.

So this works for me. I like religion, I want it in my life and the LDS Church has much to offer in that realm. And for me it still remains the best choice.

Ultimately you will have to work through this and decide what works for you and your family. And frankly anyone else can just go pound salt.

Best wishes.

[Guest]

Hmmmm. Crock has commented on the "weakness" of my post? I am not sure I had any thought of whether I was making a "strong" or "weak" post.

Let me tell you what is interesting to me, though. It seems that Crock believes that if my story is true (which it is), that it is very effective and damaging to the church. So, considering that I know it is true, is Crock suggesting that I, in fact, should be questioning, doubting and confused as I am?

And consider this, Crock. What is the damage in either ignoring those you think are anti trolls masquerading as sincere quesioners or responding with assistance while giving them the benefit of the doubt? Why must you go on the offensive? My post was absolutely clear that it is my opinion that the church should have been more forthright (and I assume you are aware of Dallin Oaks statement that the church has presented an "adoring history" and is moving toward a "warts and all history" and may have "lagged behind the times" and will be "more and more forthright" int he future). How is my opinion, which is supported at least in part by Elder Oaks' statement, so harmful. If my opinion is as ridiculous as you deem it, certainly no thinking person would give it any credence, no? So why go to the effort of attacking me? Why not ignore or respond as if I am sincere? What is the harm?

Crock, I do believe you probably think you are doing good, although I am not sure what the net effect of your efforts has been or will be. But I understand your intent and take no permanent offense to what you have said (possibly temporary offense, although not much). Best, mms.

[_mms]

So this works for me. I like religion, I want it in my life and the LDS Church has much to offer in that realm. And for me it still remains the best choice.

JB,

So what is your participation level and to whom have you revealed your position on these matters, if I may ask. (Thank you for your vey helpful input.)

mms

[_asbestosman]

maybe you should peer at my avatar through a rock, though, to get my exact GPS coordinates.

I'm thinking approximately 40.763625 degrees N by 111.837881 degrees W.

I think my rock is made of silicon.

[_Zoidberg]

Consider the optics here, as to MMS' post, and the significance of his anonymity. After all, for all we know he is just a member who has been excommunicated for any possible reason. Or an evangelical.

MMS' writing style is very effective to his mission. One need only compare Keven Graham's style (everybody's a moron; outrage at every turn) to Vogel's or Metcalf's. Who is the more believable? Who is accorded respect and status on the boards? Would you tend to trust Quinn vs. Decker? Urbanity and an even keel is essential to the best attack against the Church.

Or, is MMS' post really an attack against the Church? Who can really tell? The attacks are subtle. He's a high priest. He is "totally active and holding a calling." Yet, "I thought the Church could have and should have done more to ensure I did not end of in this shocked and surprised state" implying nothing less than his subjective state of mind is equivalent to to deception by somebody else -- the "Church."

Or, "it seemed so obvious to me that the church had significant responsibility," implying the Church has abrogated its educational responsibility. (Never mind that David Whitmer's exit speech is easily obtainable in many church publications -- and we can read all about the face in the hat nonsense.)

Or, the fundamental tactic of equating MAD defenders with the Church corporate. The weaknesses, the incivility, the boorishness of the MAD board is now the Church, we read or at least should believe.

And, of course, the connection to the Church itself -- the Bishop who secretly admits the weakness of his position. [Really, how often do we read this theme in exit stories?]

All this combines to a really effective attack against the Church. Impressive. Anonymous.

I certainly do concede that the use of one's real name on these boards exposes one to personal attack. Note Sunstoned's personal attack, referencing claiming knowing me from my mission as one who "struggled with being judgmental back then," and referring to one of my mission presidents. [Twould be easy, of course, to google the mission reunion boards and see my connection to Welling. And it wasn't Welling who authorized the work.] But, the essential thrust of my post is that the very most successful attack against the Church -- one that will influence the very elect as opposed to the moronic World of Warcraft twits who see only DVDs on the bookshelfs in their homes -- are the urbane attacks with just the right modicum of appeal back to one's bishop and activity. All, of course, anonymously.

rcrocket

I think the fundamental error here is the distrust that apologists have consistently shown of anyone questioning. I was banned from a number of boards and accused of trolling when I was being sincere, which seems to have happened to a number of people here, so it sure seems to be a trend.

If I were you, I would try really really hard to suspend the thought that everyone has an "agenda". Some people are just plain confused and want feedback. I, for one, have no clear idea why I'm posting here. I had no clear idea why I was posting on MAD when I started (I mistakenly thought they would prove to be open-minded); near the end, when I realized what it was all about, I was posting there just to piss them off, but that's not what I had hoped for at the beginning.

And, as dartagnan said, most people that go to MAD for answers have tried to obtain them from their bishops with little to no results. If your MP was giving you "anti" literature, it was an exception from the general rule. Have you done a church-wide survey about encouragement to familiarize oneself with the more detailed history of the Church? Have you looked at the manuals that make it clear that outside materials are "unnecessary"?

No matter how much you attack the anonymous posters, it won't change the substance of their claims. Perhaps you can dismiss their personal experiences, but I can just as easily dismiss yours and say you pulled the story about your mission president encouraging you to study anti-mormon literature out of your butt. Are you going to provide a notarized statement from your mission president that he did, in fact, encourage you to study anti-mormon literature? For some reason I think that even if it were true, you would have quite a bit of difficulty obtaining such a statement.

So why don't you stop appealing to authority yourself and examine the substance of people's claims instead? Why don't you address the issues that bother people instead of reprimanding them for "lazy research"?

Furthermore, why don't you let us know why you are posting here and what you are hoping to accomplish by it, since you seem to entertain the thought mms has a clearly formulated agenda? Have you documented the results of your endeavors? Are you receiving numerous emails from people who saw the light thanks to your apologetic ad homs? If not, how do you know you're not doing more harm than good?

Or maybe you will admit that the only reason you're posting is for your own pleasure/entertainment/education? In this case, why the outrage?

[_rcrocket]

Hmmmm. Crock has commented on the "weakness" of my post? I am not sure I had any thought of whether I was making a "strong" or "weak" post.

Let me tell you what is interesting to me, though. It seems that Crock believes that if my story is true (which it is), that it is very effective and damaging to the church. So, considering that I know it is true, is Crock suggesting that I, in fact, should be questioning, doubting and confused as I am?

And consider this, Crock. What is the damage in either ignoring those you think are anti trolls masquerading as sincere quesioners or responding with assistance while giving them the benefit of the doubt? Why must you go on the offensive? My post was absolutely clear that it is my opinion that the church should have been more forthright (and I assume you are aware of Dallin Oaks statement that the church has presented an "adoring history" and is moving toward a "warts and all history" and may have "lagged behind the times" and will be "more and more forthright" int he future). How is my opinion, which is supported at least in part by Elder Oaks' statement, so harmful. If my opinion is as ridiculous as you deem it, certainly no thinking person would give it any credence, no? So why go to the effort of attacking me? Why not ignore or respond as if I am sincere? What is the harm?

Crock, I do believe you probably think you are doing good, although I am not sure what the net effect of your efforts has been or will be. But I understand your intent and take no permanent offense to what you have said (possibly temporary offense, although not much). Best, mms.

I did not say your post was ridiculous, nor did I say that "no thinking person would give it any credence." In fact, my post makes the point that thinking persons are the most likely to give it credence.

Your approach is well structured to do the most damage. I would summarize it as not ridiculous, but disingenuous. But, that does not disentitle you or those like you from answers.

I am not here to defend MAD. I am on record saying that MAD is the devil's neighborhood.

I don't give you or anybody else who posts here the benefit or burden of doubt. Your posts stand for what they are.

I don't accuse you of being a troll. I merely point out that anonymity certainly helps hide a lot of vices. Surely you must concede such.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

MMS

Check out Mormon Stories. John Dehlin is pretty good at what he does. A member that went through a crisis of faith over a lot of this stuff he is still part of the Church and explores all sides of it.