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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_mms
_Emeritus
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:10 pm

Post by _mms »

rcrocket wrote: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


I am "disingenuous" but you have not given me the "burden of doubt"??? Does this jibe?
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Gee, I get to do a cut and paste response. I never do that. Well, times change.

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.


I am not an apologist. I lack sufficient expertise to defend the church on any topic. I am no more an apologist than you are an apologist for apostasy. I am not here to defend the tactics of other boards.

If I were you, I would try really really hard to suspend the thought that everyone has an "agenda".


I do not accuse anybody of the trivial charge of having an agenda. (I admit to having done that once before in my writings; an editorial insert; it was wrong.) The reason I don't make such a charge is that everybody has an agenda. I have an agenda. You have agenda. So what? How will such a charge possibly improve an argument?

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.


I disagree with that claim. I don't think you have any evidence except anecodotal to suppor the charge.

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"?


I have a rich library of materials -- both pro and con. (I lack a lot, of course; who can collect it all? I can't.) I have done research in special collections of Utah's major universities, California's UCLA and Bancroft, the National Archives, as well as the Church. Other than the very rare throw-away comments by some, I have never come across an institutional statement from the Church that articles critical of the Church should not be read. In fact, I point out, the Church is mandated by revelation to collect and archive attacks against the Church. They are maintained in the archives, and researchers do not have to identify themselves as members of the Church to gain access to the archives. In other words, the best weapons against the church are held out by the church to researchers. Strange, huh?

No matter how much you attack the anonymous posters, it won't change the substance of their claims.


My point is merely to demonstrate the moral inconsistency of pretending to be an active member, holding a calling on the one hand, and posting anonymous public attacks on the other hand. The substance is not the issue, but I strongly suspect that the substance would not be posted -- except only by the morally superior -- if one used one's name.

I am a jury trial lawyer. The world is full of dishonest, immoral people as well as moral an honest people. In high profile trials where I pick jurors, I am happy that at the end of the day, the potential jurors who lie about their time constraints, their pre-paid vacations, and biases are weeded out in favor of those who don't similarly lie. At the end of the day, I tend to get the very honest.

Internet posting is filled with the dishonest and the cowardly, along with the honest and courageous. For every Tal Bachman, Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalf, and Kevin Graham who are unafraid of using their own names when posting, we have you, Jason Osbourne, MMS, Mr. Scratch and Rollo Tomasi. Like I say, we get the moral and the immoral.

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.


Interesting. What I do is tack my name on my claims, or cite authority.

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"?


I don't know if you know what it means to employ the fallacy of appealing to aurhority. Who have I condemned for lazy research?

I know you would like me to go away.

So would we. Hoser. MODS.
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

Jason Bourne wrote: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.


I certainly think that it's possible to remain a part of the Church despite knowing and disagreeing with the non-faith-promoting stuff, but it requires taking the current leadership of the Church with a biiiiig grain of salt and also being okay with the idea that most of your fellow Mormons (or your bishop, or the prophet, for that matter) will not consider you a faithful member or will simply conclude that you don't have a testimony, were they ever to find out what you really think (and I'm willing to grant, unlike crocket, that they are being sincere in their beliefs and it's not just the emperor's new clothes syndrome).

I thought that kind of defeats the purpose of attending and holding a calling, although I still believe in a lot of LDS teachings and tend to agree with you that the world is not as black and white as the GAs paint it.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney
_mms
_Emeritus
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:10 pm

Post by _mms »

rcrocket wrote:My point is merely to demonstrate the moral inconsistency of pretending to be an active member, holding a calling on the one hand, and posting anonymous public attacks on the other hand.


Nope, he has not given me the "burden of doubt."
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

mms wrote:2) It seems like almost everyone who has been where I am ended up as a non-believer (different degrees of activity based on family situations, but non-belief nonetheless). Those of you who have been where I am and still believe and feel like this was simply a "trial of [your] faith," please chime in -- is anyone out there? (I am starting to wonder if there is some kind of inevitable end once you get to where I am on this stuff.)

Loss of faith is not inevitable. MA&D probably has many who know what you are learning but are still faithful. However, they may not have gone through the trial of faith you are. That may also be why they think you are trolling.

My only other advice is to consult with your wife. She should be in on the struggle. You should decide together what is happening and what to do. The more you delay involving her, the harder it will be when you do. She will feel hurt you would hide the burden from her especially when it's religion--something very dear to one's heart.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_mms
_Emeritus
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:10 pm

Post by _mms »

asbestosman wrote:My only other advice is to consult with your wife. She should be in on the struggle. You should decide together what is happening and what to do. The more you delay involving her, the harder it will be when you do. She will feel hurt you would hide the burden from her especially when it's religion--something very dear to one's heart.


Check out the OP, my wife is 100% in-the-know and knows everything I am thinking on the issues from day to day. Thanks for your thoughts.

mms
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

mms wrote:
rcrocket wrote:My point is merely to demonstrate the moral inconsistency of pretending to be an active member, holding a calling on the one hand, and posting anonymous public attacks on the other hand.


Nope, he has not given me the "burden of doubt."


So, you see nothing wrong at all with holding yourself out as an active member, holding a calling, a temple recommend, on the one hand, and on the other hand, making the anonymous post that started this thread? Just say "No I don't" and we'll move on; I'll just know the extent of your moral character.

Edit: I admire those people who have doubts and then act consistently therewith in public.

rcrocket
_mentalgymnast

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

Post by _mentalgymnast »

mms wrote:MMS, here. Some of you may know my story from MA&D. I am a thirty-something HP who has served in various ward and stake leadership positions. RM, married in temple (still happily married). I was taught on my mission to run from "anti" materials like they were a naked woman (for those who don't know, missionaries are not supposed to spend time with naked women). It was clear that if something might cause doubt, I was encouraged not to read it. Not all that long ago, a respected leader suggested that Rough Stone Rolling was a good book by a faithful patriarch and would provide far more insight into Joseph Smith. I picked it up. I started reading. My jaw dropped a number of times. I started looking on the internet, still afraid of "anti" materials, so I ended up at FAIR. I read many, many articles, fair wiki, etc. These were supposed to be "faith-promoting" materials, but they were "faith-damaging" in that I had trouble, sincerely, with the arguments--many of them seemed like such a stretch. I kept this stuff to myself, with an occasional discussion with my wife (now she is fully aware of my concerns and is very supportive of me, is not panicking, and, quite frankly is awesome because she is so loyal).

So, not getting much help from the fair and farms articles, and feeling angry (admittedly) because I thought the Church could have and should have done far more to ensure I did not end up in this shocked and surprised state. I lurked briefly at the MA&D board and jumped in too quickly--not knowing exactly what went on there. I thought that these were the people who could help me get to where I needed to get. I explained my situation, how I did not feel like I would intellectually overcome my doubts because the case seemed lopsided against the church in various ways, and that I knew I needed to turn to the Spirit. But I was questioning that (the Spirit) because of a confusion about the distinction between the "warm fuzzies" and the feeling sof the Spirit. I had recently discovered the "Heartsell" method of Bonneville Communications and used it as an exampleof why I was confused about identifying the Spirit.

Well, as you might imagine, I was immediately attcked by the very people I thought would be interested in reaching out to me. They said I was a fraud, a troll (didn't know what that was at the time), an anti posign as a concerned HP, etc. They went nuts on me. Some people were helpful, but they were drowned out by the loud angry voices of Pahoran, Selek, etc. I got defensive quickly and was suspended pretty quickly. I was naïve as it regarded the mesage boards and still am to some extent. They made me pay for that naïvété. I decided not to go back, but then thought I should try to make another go of discussing matters rationally with these folks. My major issue was the apparent belief by many over there that the average active member of the church should actually know about matters that have been intentionally avoided by the church in an effort to portray an "adoring history." It seemed so obvious to me that the church had significant responsibility and these people would be so hard on people for not knowing about polyandry and Joseph Smith's plural marriage issues, etc. So I stayed in the discussion and thought I made some pretty good arguments on the matter, even though I was suspended several times. But I was attacked continually and my "story" was constantly questioned. Selek continues to think that I am some kind of troll who, according to his latest rant, will spend an eternity in hell.

So, oddly, although I did not expect it, I was agreeing more often with the critics than the "defenders" although a review of my posts will, I think, bear out that I made no critical remarks about the church of any significance except that I think the church was indeed responsible--to some degree--for my current state of surprise, doubt and confusion. it is almost as if the defenders decided right from the start that I was a lost cause (with some exceptions--there are indeed a few over there who seem really disciplined and almost never, or never, go on the offensive--they seem the most secure with their faith as a result).

So here I sit considering how to proceed. I talked to my Bishop (with whom I am pretty close). He knew nothing about any of the issues I am concerned with and basically said that he has never looked at the issues, because he does not think he could "handle it." That was helpful :) He is a great guy, though, and his heart is clearly in the right place.

So, sorry for the long story, but for those who have been here--if you have--what happened? Where did you end up and why?

(A little more information about me (I am being quite careful, because I think anonymity is important in my situation), but I am a fairly well-established professional with the respect of many in my ward and stake for my service in the ward and in the stake. Of the five members of my family who joined the church, the others have had nothing to do with the church for at least twenty years (but none have resigned simply because they are too lazy and don't care, so they are part of the 13 million.)

by the way -still totally active and holding a calling.


Hi mms. First of all, I would have to agree with rcrocket in questioning whether you are simply and antagonist masquerading as a sincere seeker for truth. If a young kid can come in here and have the literary sense/ability to "become" a GA and wax great with the supposed ramblings of incompetent and somewhat senile GA's, I wouldn't put it past someone's ability to simply put on an act as a "questioner" with the ultimate goal of creating a thread in which all the skeptics and doubters have their say and then the thread ends.

I will make a leap of faith and assume that you are a sincere seeker for truth rather than a troll or rebel rouser.

I am an active member of the church, albeit I am no longer on the fast track to ward and stake leadership since I asked to be released from the HC a few years ago during a turbulent time of questioning and doubt. I have been in those dark places where many on this board reside. Dark places in regards to testimony/faith in the "Mormon story", that is. I had read everything I could get my hands on from No Man Knows My History to Sidney Rigdon : A Portrait of Religious Excess. There were a lot of books in between. A lot of time spent online in newsgroups at Google Groups, mormon-l, ZLMB, NOM, and others. The future looked pretty bleak. I had been an EQP and was currently on the HC when things reached their head.

I am active now because I gave everything time and patience with further study and thought. It is about that simple. I'm now down the road about fifteen years from the time that I first became involved with mormon-l and "finding things out". I am somewhat comfortable with the position that I am in at this time. A plausible believer with more questions than answers. Some of the answers make enough sense that I am able to put some of questions on the shelf for what I would guess to be the rest of my life. Others I periodically bring down, dust off, and find that there is a bit more understanding/light that has come along in my life so that I am better able to understand the why's and wherefore's of some issues/concerns.

My number one assumption is that there is a God. The God of Genesis Chapter 1:26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

If God exists, I choose to believe that we are created in his likeness. I choose to believe that God is love. I also choose to believe that there would have to be some sort of God driven plan that can bring all his creations happiness throughout an eternal span of eternity. An infinite and eternal atonement of a perfect being could fit within that picture. Jesus Christ. There would indeed have to be something to enable everything to be made right, if not here, then somewhere else. There is more to life than life in the here and now.

Within the scope of these assumptions I am able to fit almost all the other "stuff" that has come along.

One thing that I continually see jettisoned so easily by the so-called "know it alls" that have figured it all out, is where Jesus Christ fits in to the whole picture. Joseph Smith is looked over with a fine toothed comb. His credentials are scrutinized without end to the ultimate conclusion/end that Joseph Smith is not worthy to act in God's name. Not worthy to wear the mantle of a prophet. A case can be made for these fiery darts thrown against the the Mormon prophet.

The question to be asked when all is said and done, at least as far as I can see, is:

Did the God that we would call our Father restore lost truths, authority, scripture, knowledge, etc. through Joseph Smith? In other words"s, was this particular restoration movement and the later Utah church the fruit of God's love for mankind, and a desire that he may have for his creations/children to become like him? To me, the fruits of the church bear witness of a possible/probable affirmative answer to this question.

So I stay.

Many people after looking at all the evidence still consider Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon to be somewhat of enigmas/puzzles. In my mind, that is as it should be. Why? because one is then left high and dry... or to dig deeper and come to a conclusion/resolution...or not...as to whether or not Jesus Christ is in this church. Not only in name, but in very reality. Uncertainties with Joseph Smith's prophetic "worthiness" or the Book of Mormon's historicity, etc. literally forces one to look deeper.

Or not.

Time and patience are required to look deeper. From personal experience I can say that it is worth the effort.

It's an individual path that each person must make on their own.

This place is definitely not the best place to find those that would encourage you to dig deeper into the things of God/faith/Jesus Christ.

Most of those here have given up the quest, at least within the LDS paradigm, and would just as well have others follow their lead so that they are not alone.

Good luck and Godspeed in your search.

Regards,
MG
Last edited by _mentalgymnast on Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

MMS,

I have rejected Joseph Smith. He was a duplicitous man. I will not be tutored by men that haven't the capacity to percieve his true nature (once they have been made privy to his true history). I have little respect for apologists. I have little trust in their corrupted mindsets.

I belong to a phenomenon confusing to those that are TBMs: Though disaffected, I still maintain my principles of integrity, honor, honesty, fidelity.. and that is why my desire is to disassociate myself with the church.

Righteous principles are not privy to the church. It is not all or nothing as we have been taught to think. When we leave we may take the good. It is not their intelletual property.

I have been finding threads of peace by studying the accounts of those that have had Near Death Experiences (NDEs). There are literally thousands of them that share common themes. If anyone is privy to what the purpose of life may be, the afterlife or even the nature of God etc. it would most likely be those that have crossed over and returned. My beliefs tend to resonate with theirs.

Because of years of indoctrination, I have been led to think that I need the church or a true church - as if it is the Holy Grail of a faithful foundation. something is wrong with this philosophy.

I will most likely tender my resignation shortly. I was uber, MIT, TBM, TBM wife & children, TR, forever a full tithe payer, fast offerings, Mormon community all that. I don't want my wife and chidren to suffer for what I would consider a righteous and principled choice, but the madness must stop somewhere.

If I come up with anything, I would be happy to share it with you. This journey has been the greatest challenge of my life and something I never would have conceived of happening to myself - one of the very elect.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

mms wrote:Check out the OP, my wife is 100% in-the-know and knows everything I am thinking on the issues from day to day.


Ah, so you did.

Anyhow, this may not help you, but I find Christianity (indeed the Old Testament too) riddled with similar difficulties as is found in the LDS church. One way of looking at this is that the quirkiness is evidence of a simlar source. I just happen to think that source is God. I think that a member who can believe that the Bible is the word of God should be able to retain his testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the church.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply