Rough Stone Rolling right over their faith?

[_Jason Bourne]

What is negative about the truth?

Nothing. What in my post caused you to ask this?

[_Seven]

What is negative about the truth?

I don't think the "truths" contained within RSR are really that negative... The shock of learning new disturbing facts about the founder of your religion is what causes the negative feelings.. and possibly the realization that an organization you have dedicated all of your time, talents ....to -- has squatted on these "truths", evangelizing an altered perception of the very flawed man, Joseph Smith...

Some of the "truths" in that book are very negative but Bushman just puts a positive apologetic spin on it. It will be interesting to see if the typical chapel Mormon will buy into some of his conclusions (some were laughable) but I doubt many Chapel Mormons will even pick up the book. Most are really not that interested in reading lengthy books on church history, especially if there is anything negative on their beloved Joseph Smith. (who is second to Jesus Christ to most TBMs)

The shock of learning things the church has misled us on leaves a feeling of betrayal. The trust has been broken. That is the primary reason I left the Mormon bubble and sought out non faith promoting books. The information in RSR should cause this feeling of broken trust to most members.

The history in RSR is still very negative, even if a person did not go through any shock upon learning it. From the moment I began reading of Joseph Smith's treasure seeking and coersion of girls into polygamy, it was extremely damaging to my faith. Not only because he is almost worshiped in the church, but mainly that his history appeared to be that of a con man. His behavior and rhetoric, along with that of his followers, screamed "cult" to me when I had only begun to study his life. It was impossible to not see the parallels between Joseph Smith and other cult leaders.

[_Droopy]

I don't think the "truths" contained within RSR are really that negative... The shock of learning new disturbing facts about the founder of your religion is what causes the negative feelings.. and possibly the realization that an organization you have dedicated all of your time, talents ....to -- has squatted on these "truths", evangelizing an altered perception of the very flawed man, Joseph Smith...

Some of the "truths" in that book are very negative but Bushman just puts a positive apologetic spin on it. It will be interesting to see if the typical chapel Mormon will buy into some of his conclusions (some were laughable) but I doubt many Chapel Mormons will even pick up the book. Most are really not that interested in reading lengthy books on church history, especially if there is anything negative on their beloved Joseph Smith. (who is second to Jesus Christ to most TBMs)

The shock of learning things the church has misled us on leaves a feeling of betrayal. The trust has been broken. That is the primary reason I left the Mormon bubble and sought out non faith promoting books. The information in RSR should cause this feeling of broken trust to most members.

The history in RSR is still very negative, even if a person did not go through any shock upon learning it. From the moment I began reading of Joseph Smith's treasure seeking and coersion of girls into polygamy, it was extremely damaging to my faith. Not only because he is almost worshiped in the church, but mainly that his history appeared to be that of a con man. His behavior and rhetoric, along with that of his followers, screamed "cult" to me when I had only begun to study his life. It was impossible to not see the parallels between Joseph Smith and other cult leaders.

Clearly you have no living idea what the term "cult" means, or you are using it in a specific sense that has no bearing on the Church.

I think active, committed exmos, indeed, can be thought of as forming a kind of informal cult in the sense of being an offshoot of an established religion that has become hostile, insular, paranoid, conspiratorial, and given to anti-intellectualism and grandiose judgmentalism regarding Church leaders/members etc.

[_Dr. Shades]

I think active, committed exmos, indeed, can be thought of as forming a kind of informal cult in the sense of being an offshoot of an established religion that has become hostile, insular, paranoid, conspiratorial, and given to anti-intellectualism and grandiose judgmentalism regarding Church leaders/members etc.

Are they as bad as the cult of MA&D who have become hostile, insular, paranoid, conspiratorial, and given to anti-intellectualism and grandoise judgmentalism regarding ex-Mormons?

[_harmony]

Most are really not that interested in reading lengthy books on church history, especially if there is anything negative on their beloved Joseph Smith. (who is second to Jesus Christ to most TBMs)

This is my experience. I bought the book, 7 of them... gave them to my sons, my SIL, and my Sweet Pickle for Christmas. One of them actually read it: my oldest son. It was a waste of $35 as far as the rest of them was concerned. If they read it at all, they read trash. I taught them well.

[_cinepro]

Most are really not that interested in reading lengthy books on church history, especially if there is anything negative on their beloved Joseph Smith. (who is second to Jesus Christ to most TBMs)

This is my experience. I bought the book, 7 of them... gave them to my sons, my SIL, and my Sweet Pickle for Christmas. One of them actually read it: my oldest son. It was a waste of $35 as far as the rest of them was concerned. If they read it at all, they read trash. I taught them well.

In the last several years for Christmas, I have given my very TBM parents and in-laws (autographed) copies of "RSR", "DOM and the Rise of Modern Mormonism", and "Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball". They have each read them and told me how they've enjoyed them. So my experience has been a little different.

Coincidentally, I wasn't inspired to give them a book last month. There wasn't anything that I felt was "gift-worthy" last year. My wife vetoed "Massacre at Mountain Meadows", which I felt was the most notable LDS book for 2008.

[_Yoda]

I think active, committed exmos, indeed, can be thought of as forming a kind of informal cult in the sense of being an offshoot of an established religion that has become hostile, insular, paranoid, conspiratorial, and given to anti-intellectualism and grandiose judgmentalism regarding Church leaders/members etc.

Are they as bad as the cult of MA&D who have become hostile, insular, paranoid, conspiratorial, and given to anti-intellectualism and grandoise judgmentalism regarding ex-Mormons?

Amen, Shades!

[_ludwigm]

Clearly you have no living idea what the term "cult" means, or you are using it in a specific sense that has no bearing on the Church.

A.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cult says (and as a non-native-english I can accept) :

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.
1. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]

Which of the above doesn't fit to Your church?
What is Your living idea about the word?

B.
In hungarian, the definition kultusz is the same.
Moreover, it had no negative connotation. Between WW I. and II. we had a certain "Department of Religion and Common Education". It was called informally (by intellectuels, by reporters, even by employees too) as "Cult Department/Ministry".

.

.

Today, the word seems to be confounded by the word sect.
Which is, by the way, fits to CoJCoLDS, too.

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.
[Middle English secte, from Old French, from Latin secta, course, school of thought, from feminine past participle of sequī, to follow.]
Home > Library > Literature & Language > Thesaurus
noun
1. Those who accept and practice a particular religious belief: church, communion, denomination, faith, persuasion. See religion.
2. A system of religious belief: confession, creed, denomination, faith, persuasion, religion. See religion.

Which of the above doesn't fit to Your church?

[_John Larsen]

Clearly you have no living idea what the term "cult" means, or you are using it in a specific sense that has no bearing on the Church.

I think active, committed exmos, indeed, can be thought of as forming a kind of informal cult in the sense of being an offshoot of an established religion that has become hostile, insular, paranoid, conspiratorial, and given to anti-intellectualism and grandiose judgmentalism regarding Church leaders/members etc.

You have got to be kidding.

[_solomarineris]

It confirms that the Church teaches milk toast and only the positive and faith promoting.

What is negative about the truth?

Everything....
The number of converts dwindle next to nothing, people lose faith leave church.
It is impossible to put a positive spin on a "negative".
It is like a "Black Hole", will devour anything comes toward it's path.