Some Mormons Search the Web and Find Doubt - NYT

[_Quasimodo]

As a former member who was given the resign or be ex'd ultimatum I kind of know where all of these people are coming from. Someday instead of these kinds of ultimatums the church will truly learn to have Christlike patience with people with doubts, questions and criticisms -- they may find that a little more tolerance might go a long way to keeping some people in the fold and having others find their way back. I know a lot of Catholics who became disenchanted with or were critical of Catholicism, eventually found their way back, and were welcomed home with a simple anonymous confession to a priest.

In the case of the LDS church, I don't think a more Christlike patience will help.

The Mormon leaders have an insurmountable problem. History. There will always be a few TBMs that will believe their religion despite logic or reality, but the more educated people in the world become, the less they will be able to believe in Joseph Smith's revelations.

The unique problem the LDS church has is that it claims to be the one true church as per a declaration from God. It's whole foundation rests on a narrative that proclaims a pre-Columbian, Jewish civilization in the Americas (where ever you might think it was located). Regardless of anything else that might make it a consideration, it lives or dies by the truth of it's histories.

There are tens of thousands of researched and excavated American Indian sites in the Southwest alone. A similar number in Central America. No artifact or inscription has ever given any evidence of the Book of Mormon histories. Every few months a new city or temple complex is found in Central America. Each one is another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin.

Apologists scramble for excuses "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". They try very hard to give believers some hope in their beliefs. It works for those looking for an excuse to believe, but fails with everyone who is trying to look objectively or has an affinity for truth.

If the Book of Mormon had said that the Nephites used electric toasters, apologists would say that we just haven't found them yet, or that a hot rock near a campfire is what God really meant to say.

Some doubting Catholics do return to the Catholic Church (not very many). No one who has grown beyond believing in Santa Claus will ever go back.

[_BartBurk]

As a former member who was given the resign or be ex'd ultimatum I kind of know where all of these people are coming from. Someday instead of these kinds of ultimatums the church will truly learn to have Christlike patience with people with doubts, questions and criticisms -- they may find that a little more tolerance might go a long way to keeping some people in the fold and having others find their way back. I know a lot of Catholics who became disenchanted with or were critical of Catholicism, eventually found their way back, and were welcomed home with a simple anonymous confession to a priest.

In the case of the LDS church, I don't think a more Christlike patience will help.

The Mormon leaders have an insurmountable problem. History. There will always be a few TBMs that will believe their religion despite logic or reality, but the more educated people in the world become, the less they will be able to believe in Joseph Smith's revelations.

The unique problem the LDS church has is that it claims to be the one true church as per a declaration from God. It's whole foundation rests on a narrative that proclaims a pre-Columbian, Jewish civilization in the Americas (where ever you might think it was located). Regardless of anything else that might make it a consideration, it lives or dies by the truth of it's histories.

There are tens of thousands of researched and excavated American Indian sites in the Southwest alone. A similar number in Central America. No artifact or inscription has ever given any evidence of the Book of Mormon histories. Every few months a new city or temple complex is found in Central America. Each one is another nail in the Book of Mormon coffin.

Apologists scramble for excuses "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". They try very hard to give believers some hope in their beliefs. It works for those looking for an excuse to believe, but fails with everyone who is trying to look objectively or has an affinity for truth.

If the Book of Mormon had said that the Nephites used electric toasters, apologists would say that we just haven't found them yet, or that a hot rock near a campfire is what God really meant to say.

Some doubting Catholics do return to the Catholic Church (not very many). No one who has grown beyond believing in Santa Claus will ever go back.

I suspect the time will come when an allegiance to LDS moral principles as found in their revealed scriptures along with a belief in the atonement and resurrection of Christ will (and should) suffice for someone to be accepted in the LDS community. The conflict between an inspired versus a historically literal movement will become mute -- the inspired restoration will win out over a literal belief in historical scriptures though many LDS will continue to maintain a belief in a literal understanding of their canon.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Why hasn't Peggy Fletcher Stack written anything about this in the Trib? I can understand why the Des News is silent, but why also the Trib?

[_Quasimodo]

I suspect the time will come when an allegiance to LDS moral principles as found in their revealed scriptures along with a belief in the atonement and resurrection of Christ will (and should) suffice for someone to be accepted in the LDS community. The conflict between an inspired versus a historically literal movement will become mute -- the inspired restoration will win out over a literal belief in historical scriptures though many LDS will continue to maintain a belief in a literal understanding of their canon.

I think that is the point of what we are discussing. Many (hundreds) of religions believe in the atonement and resurrection of Christ. One as good as the next.

The Mormon religion requires a belief in the "inspired restoration" of Joseph Smith along with the atonement and resurrection of Christ.

That means a required belief in the pre-Columbian history of the Book of Mormon, a belief in Adam as God, polygamy in the afterlife and a belief that dark skinned people are less than acceptable because of a very confusing tale of wars in Heaven.

Add to this the reliable accounts of Joseph's polygamy and polyandry, manipulation of his friends and followers for personal profit, admitted con games, an ordered attempt on the life of a Governor and destruction of a free press that he was angry with for printing the truths of his indiscretions. Why would a reasonable person choose this avenue of belief over the others?

[_RayAgostini]

Why hasn't Peggy Fletcher Stack written anything about this in the Trib? I can understand why the Des News is silent, but why also the Trib?

She apparently got around to it about half an hour ago:

High-ranking Mormon leader goes from disciple to doubter

This tongue-in-cheek article at Patheos summed up my own feelings (along with providing a good chuckle). Good skeptical writing:

Skeptical about the NYT’s Mormon skeptic piece

[_BartBurk]

I suspect the time will come when an allegiance to LDS moral principles as found in their revealed scriptures along with a belief in the atonement and resurrection of Christ will (and should) suffice for someone to be accepted in the LDS community. The conflict between an inspired versus a historically literal movement will become mute -- the inspired restoration will win out over a literal belief in historical scriptures though many LDS will continue to maintain a belief in a literal understanding of their canon.

I think that is the point of what we are discussing. Many (hundreds) of religions believe in the atonement and resurrection of Christ. One as good as the next.

The Mormon religion requires a belief in the "inspired restoration" of Joseph Smith along with the atonement and resurrection of Christ.

That means a required belief in the pre-Columbian history of the Book of Mormon, a belief in Adam as God, polygamy in the afterlife and a belief that dark skinned people are less than acceptable because of a very confusing tale of wars in Heaven.

Add to this the reliable accounts of Joseph's polygamy and polyandry, manipulation of his friends and followers for personal profit, admitted con games, an ordered attempt on the life of a Governor and destruction of a free press that he was angry with for printing the truths of his indiscretions. Why would a reasonable person choose this avenue of belief over the others?

You can believe in an inspired restoration without accepting Joseph Smith's understanding of that restoration as perfect. I would say it would be possible to accept the Restoration simply because you believe the LDS Church is the vehicle God is using to carry out His plans. If Joseph Smith carried out Doctrine and Covenants 132 incorrectly it doesn't negate the possibility that Doctrine and Covenants 132 is true. If Brigham Young incorrectly denied blacks the priesthood, it doesn't mean the colonizing of the West was uninspired and not directed by God. If one looks at the good accomplished and realizes the bad is simply the failure of imperfect men, the Restoration can still have validity.

[_Sammy Jankins]

This tongue-in-cheek article at Patheos summed up my own feelings (along with providing a good chuckle). Good skeptical writing:

Skeptical about the NYT’s Mormon skeptic piece

I grew up in Mormon areas and have Mormon family members and ex-Mormon family and friends — the way this was worded struck me as slightly weird. Namely, while it’s true that polygamy might be more formally associated with Brigham Young, everyone is taught that Joseph Smith introduced the principle of polygamy. I’m not sure how much people get into how much he practiced his own teaching, but for those of us with some knowledge of LDS teaching on the matter, the idea that it would be foundation-crumbling to learn he practiced what he taught is — weird.

It's the details of the polygamy, such as the proposals to his handmaidens (example: Lucy Walker), or the marriages to already married women that brother people. Not simply that Joseph was a polygamist.
Jesus people, is it really so damn hard to have empathy for doubters that you will strain at anything to dismiss them?

[_SteelHead]

Burt,
Where is the cutoff line? How much of the teachings of the church have to be shown patently false before dis belief is reasonable?

[_BartBurk]

Burt,
Where is the cutoff line? How much of the teachings of the church have to be shown patently false before dis belief is reasonable?

It's not hard for most people to determine the line between good and bad. You accept the good and reject the bad. I would say if you look at the scriptures as a whole it is fairly easy. Begin with the Golden Rule and judge Mormonism by that and you can get a pretty good take on what is true in Mormonism and what is false. Marrying three women is not necessarily a problem. Taking three women from other men and marrying them violates the Golden Rule. There is where I would start.

[_SteelHead]

So Joseph Smith's polyandry was bad. How much bad behavior does he have to exhibit before it is reasonable to conclude he was not a prophet?