Is this possible? How?

[_Who Knows]

Clearly, the fact that familiarity with the items on the list have influenced some members to leave the Church, and have either unaffected or positively influenced the faith of other members, and points inbetween, gives credence to what I am suggesting.

Well, then your original comment was irrelevant. One cannot decide what's relevant and what's not without first examining the issue. Tarski's family had never heard of these items before. They were relevant to him. Thus, bringing them up was certainly relevant to deciding whether they'd be relevant to his family.

You telling us that these issues are irrelevant to you, is, in itself, irrelevant.

[_wenglund]

When it is uncharacteristic (as in Blixa's case) I do. Besides, while I may direct comments to either party, they are meant to apply generically, and so in that sense, what I suggest to one, I suggest to all, including myself.

It doesn't help to make generic remarks about a certain cliché when the main proponents of that cliché aren't around. The time to comment is when the cliché is being repeated in a characteristic way, such as on MAD.

While I appreciate your point (and would hope you would be as vigilant in taking your own advice--though I have yet to see any evidence of it), I am not in denial about the so-called "cliché" applying here. And, since this is where I have been posting of late (and not at MA&D), it makes sense that I comment about it here. But, as always, you are welcome to see things differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I would venture to guess that they are also unfamiliar with Judah's inadvertant sexual relations with his daughter-in=law (who he mistook for a prostitute), or Joseph coming to fist-to-cuff with his brother William during a study group in Nauvoo, or Brigham Young's sentiments about dogs in his bedroom, or a host of other historical issues that are irrelevant to belief in the restored gospel of Christ (at least in the minds of many of us believers).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's how I see it. Yes, there are certain tibits of trivia that are not relevant, as you've mentioned here. But you're trying de-sensationalize relevant issues by stating irrrelevant ones.

If I'm trying to sell my POS car, someone might say, "The transmission doesn't work and the front windshield is busted out." I can down play the importantance by saying, "Ya well it's an old car, the paints faded and the carpet is worn. That's what you get with an older car."

It doesn't work.

Are the things that Tarski listed relevent? Oh, h*ll ya.

I was a faithful, believing member. Knowing these things put me in a position to where I can no longer accept the church as true. If you say that these things aren't relevant, then you're saying I'm not relevant. Please don't dismiss these topics as irrelevant.

You are mistakenly projecting a universal application onto my explicitly qualified statement. Please stop it. I haven't dismissed the relevance of the listed items for people like you. In fact I explicitly acknowledged the relevance multiple times on this thread (by way of correcting the repeated misperceptions). Please understand that not all faithful members think the same way you do or did. I certainly don't. So, while you may view the listed items as relevant and compelling ("h*ll ya") to your way of viewing things, others don't. For me to acknowledge this is not dismissive, but descriptive of a pluralistic reality. It may serve you well to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Gadianton]

My answer to Tarski's question is, "all of the above."

And it is very possible, and actual. It's called Chapel Mormonism.

[_Ten Bear]

You are mistakenly projecting a universal application onto my explicitly qualified statement. Please stop it. I haven't dismissed the relevance of the listed items for people like you. In fact I explicitly acknowledged the relevance multiple times on this thread (by way of correcting the repeated misperceptions). Please understand that not all faithful members think the same way you do or did. I certainly don't. So, while you may view the listed items as relevant and compelling ("h*ll ya") to your way of viewing things, others don't. For me to acknowledge this is not dismissive, but descriptive of a pluralistic reality. It may serve you well to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sometimes, Wade, you just need to admit you goofed and you're wrong. This is one of them.

[Guest]

But I think the principle that is often overlooked is "establishing the character of the witness," or in this case, Joseph. So for many of us exmos, we see the list, and it has an effect on whether we will believe any of Joseph's magical claims (since he has been caught in so many lies), and see a pattern that most of the "challenging" bits of history are either:

1) purposely hidden from the members (or at least the members are discouraged from reading the "anti-Mormon" materials that discuss it; or

2) is ignored or minimized by many members so the positive and faith-promoting aspects of the church only are focused on...ie, we try to avoid the cognitive dissonance that accepting this material may cause us.

I think the OP makes the point that it is common (if in fact the premise is true, which I would think highly possible since my own active, temple working family members would be in line with) for active, intelligent members to not even be aware of these issues...and when the points are pushed, they DO admit that if true, it would be problematic for them. They just don't believe they are true, probably because of one of the two reasons I listed above.

While some may over-look the "character" issue, I certainly don't. I just happen to see that there is a broad range of ways in which members of the Church can and have reacted upon learning about the things on the list, including when admitting they are true (as they interpret them). Some may conclude that the Church is "magical" and Joseph was caught in "so many lies" and can't be trusted, and others may increaase in confidence that the restored gospel of Christ is all the more true, though run by trustworth and fallible humans called by God, while still others may find themselves arrayed on various points inbetween.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree there must be a spectrum of ways a member reacts to learning these things. For example, as I watched the podcast by John Dehlin about "Why they Leave," I, like many other exmos, thought "how could one know about these issues and remain active in the church?! But he apparently is

But the point I bolded above I can't wrap my head around, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. For Joseph to be caught in so many lies, inconsistencies, sexcapades, etc...all behaviors one would think are grossly against principles and morals of Christianity...how can anybody know these things about him and have their testimony strengthened?????? I would guess that most people today lead more honest and integrous lives than Joseph -- whether "religious" or not!"

[_wenglund]

Clearly, the fact that familiarity with the items on the list have influenced some members to leave the Church, and have either unaffected or positively influenced the faith of other members, and points inbetween, gives credence to what I am suggesting.

Well, then your original comment was irrelevant. One cannot decide what's relevant and what's not without first examining the issue. Tarski's family had never heard of these items before.

Actually, until the items (or anything else for that matter) are known, they then, in a way, will have no bearing upon the matters at hand--i.e. they are not, in this sense, relevant or pertinent, though when learned, they may then have relevance in the minds of some.

Besides, my original comment didn't presuppose irrelevance prior learning the items. It inductively presupposed irrelevancy for some upon learning them (as well as upon learning the items I listed), and for some, such as myself, who had learned them.

So, you misunderstood my point in two key ways.

They were relevant to him. Thus, bringing them up was certainly relevant to deciding whether they'd be relevant to his family.

Were my comments about irrelevancy specific to whether Tarski should bring the items up to his family or not, then your point may make some sense. However, they weren't, and so you don't. Rather, my comments were specific to the irrelevancy of the items to the verity of the restored gospel of Christ in the minds of some.

So, again, you misunderstood my point in this key way.

You telling us that these issues are irrelevant to you, is, in itself, irrelevant.

Actually, my original comments about irrelevancy were generic, and weren't specific to me (so you got that wrong as well). But, given that you misundertood my point in a number of key ways, I am not sure you were in a position to accurately determine whether my comments were relevant or not.

Now that you have been corrected, perhaps you will reasonably see the clear relevance of what I said. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

I agree there must be a spectrum of ways a member reacts to learning these things. For example, as I watched the podcast by John Dehlin about "Why they Leave," I, like many other exmos, thought "how could one know about these issues and remain active in the church?! But he apparently is

But the point I bolded above I can't wrap my head around, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. For Joseph to be caught in so many lies, inconsistencies, sexcapades, etc...all behaviors one would think are grossly against principles and morals of Christianity...how can anybody know these things about him and have their testimony strengthened?????? I would guess that most people today lead more honest and integrous lives than Joseph -- whether "religious" or not!"

I don't know if it increases my faith in the Gospel but it increases faith in my ability to succeed in it. When in my late teens I stopped trying to divide the world into good and bad guys the scriptures started coming alive.

Nephi could be a bully, Captain Moroni had a temper, both Almas were naïve, Mormon was rash, Jacob favored one wife over the other, Moses could be impatient, Elijah liked to jeer, Jeremiah tried to quit, Hezekiah feared death too much, Joseph Smith was easily offended and overly confident in his plans, Brigham Young was overly authoritarian, and down the line till today.

Knowing this helps me to forgive myself.

[_BishopRic]

I agree there must be a spectrum of ways a member reacts to learning these things. For example, as I watched the podcast by John Dehlin about "Why they Leave," I, like many other exmos, thought "how could one know about these issues and remain active in the church?! But he apparently is

But the point I bolded above I can't wrap my head around, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. For Joseph to be caught in so many lies, inconsistencies, sexcapades, etc...all behaviors one would think are grossly against principles and morals of Christianity...how can anybody know these things about him and have their testimony strengthened?????? I would guess that most people today lead more honest and integrous lives than Joseph -- whether "religious" or not!"

I don't know if it increases my faith in the Gospel but it increases faith in my ability to succeed in it. When in my late teens I stopped trying to divide the world into good and bad guys the scriptures started coming alive.

Nephi could be a bully, Captain Moroni had a temper, both Almas were naïve, Mormon was rash, Jacob favored one wife over the other, Moses could be impatient, Elijah liked to jeer, Jeremiah tried to quit, Hezekiah feared death too much, Joseph Smith was easily offended and overly confident in his plans, Brigham Young was overly authoritarian, and down the line till today.

Knowing this helps me to forgive myself.

I like this, and I think I can understand it (maybe not...).

For me, learning that Joseph did all of what he did helped me to understand that (most likely) ALL churches are built on fabrications, or at least exaggerations of some small truth, and it led me out of the stratified social community where a few people are almost deified by the members as having a more direct line to God than I do. I believe we all have equal access and authority to whatever "source" there is, without the need for man-made ordinances or "priesthood."

Knowing this helps me to understand I don't have anything that needs to be forgiven.

[_Who Knows]

So, you misunderstood my point in two key ways.
...
So, again, you misunderstood my point in this key way.
...
so you got that wrong as well...you misundertood my point in a number of key ways
...

I'm curiuos. In your opinion, does anyone EVER understand you? It seems to me that the majority of your posts sound like the above. Perhaps it's time you look at how you say things, to make them more understandable to everyone here. (ie., if everyone is always misunderstanding you, does that say something about everyone else, or YOU?).