LDS and the bible vs BOM

[jane_doe]

You missed the overall point of my post. When I say history is the enemy of Mormonism, what I mean specifically is LDS history. It is the enemy of Mormonism because it reveals that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Most LDS are ignorant of this, not necessarily of their own fault, but mostly because the foundational stories they have been taught by the church all of their lives are the sanitized, rosy versions of the truth. For decades historians, many of them faithful LDS, have tried to tell the rest of the story and often times found themselves either excommunicated or disfellowshipped for doing so.

Because the Internet has finally made this information so widely available, many LDS are learning the true history for the first time, and they don’t like what they find. The church is bleeding members because of it, and therefore had to do something to counter the problem. They decided to address some of these issues in a series of essays published on the church website. In these essays, the church is finally admitting some of the things the historians have been writing about for decades, although most LDS are quite unaware as the essays are not widely advertised to the membership and are not easy to find on LDS.org.

So you may be bored by history, but you will never know the real Joseph Smith until you read it for yourself. Thousands of LDS are leaving in large numbers over this very issue. They feel like they were lied to–and they were. To ignore history just because it doesn’t inspire you is to be ignorant of the truth.

Wow, that’s a angry pent up rant. Do you even want me to respond, or are you happy now that you’ve said your spiel?

 

[JaminB123]

The church…decided to address some of these issues in a series of essays published on the church website. In these essays, the church is finally admitting some of the things the historians have been writing about for decades…

Yeah, when I shared with a relative a couple years ago all the awful things I’d learned about Joseph Smith (polyandry, marrying young teenagers, the false translation of the BoA, etc), the response I got was that these were all lies of the devil. Now… they aren’t lies anymore. They are readily admitted by the LDS church on their official web site essays. In Mormonism, yesterday’s lies are today’s truth.

It seems like the LDS church is desperate to appear mainstream and Christian… which necessitates distancing themselves from the loathsome teachings of their early prophets, in particular Brigham Young whose extreme racism, blasphemous theologies, and rampant polygamy is well documented. Maybe a decade from now, BYU will get a new name!

 

[iepuras]

Wow, that’s a angry pent up rant. Do you even want me to respond, or are you happy now that you’ve said your spiel?

You think that was an angry rant? Maybe you should go to an ex-Mormon forum to see what an angry rant really looks like.

Instead of actually addressing what Chris-WA had to say and showing where he was wrong (which he isn’t by the way), you called his post an angry rant and a spiel. Attacking the message and the messenger. Is that all you’ve got?

 

[Telstar]

You think that was an angry rant? Maybe you should go to an ex-Mormon forum to see what an angry rant really looks like.

Instead of actually addressing what Chris-WA had to say and showing where he was wrong (which he isn’t by the way), you called his post an angry rant and a spiel. Attacking the message and the messenger. Is that all you’ve got?

Thanks, iepuras. You summed up my thoughts on Jane’s post to a tee. I didn’t see anything angry in Chris-WA’s post at all. It was actually said in more of a matter-of-fact tone, IMHO.

 

[jane_doe]

You think that was an angry rant? Maybe you should go to an ex-Mormon forum to see what an angry rant really looks like.

Instead of actually addressing what Chris-WA had to say and showing where he was wrong (which he isn’t by the way), you called his post an angry rant and a spiel. Attacking the message and the messenger. Is that all you’ve got?

Iepuras, I’m here to talk to people: exchanges back and forth with people listening to each other. I don’t hang out on ex-Mormon, ex-Catholic, or ex-anything-else pages because people there don’t want to talk, they just want to vent.

I did not know if Chris-WA wanted me to reply and to listen to my answer, or if he just wanted to say what he said. Hence why I asked if he wanted me to reply or not.

 

[iepuras]

Iepuras, I’m here to talk to people: exchanges back and forth with people listening to each other. I don’t hang out on ex-Mormon, ex-Catholic, or ex-anything-else pages because people there don’t want to talk, they just want to vent.

I did not know if Chris-WA wanted me to reply and to listen to my answer, or if he just wanted to say what he said. Hence why I asked if he wanted me to reply or not.

Maybe you should lurk on an ex-Mormon forum. You may find it shocking yet enlightening. Granted, they can be pretty rough and tumble. There is some venting, but it is far from all venting all the time. The emotions are raw and real and there are many genuinely caring people who do a lot to help those who have been very damaged by their experiences in the LDS church and figuring out how to transition out. The personal stories shared in this forum tend to be rather tame. Case in point, compared to others, I have had a relatively smooth transition out of Mormonism. And I am estranged from my parents, my siblings are afraid to talk to me and I am taking happy pills to help cope with the emotional abuse and rejection by my family of origin. This was a smooth transition!

Chris-WA is a straight, honest, matter of fact poster. If you really are not sure if he is expecting a response, why not simply ask rather than dismissing his post as an angry rant?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe you should lurk on an ex-Mormon forum. You may find it shocking yet enlightening. Granted, they can be pretty rough and tumble. There is some venting, but it is far from all venting all the time. The emotions are raw and real and there are many genuinely caring people who do a lot to help those who have been very damaged by their experiences in the LDS church and figuring out how to transition out. The personal stories shared in this forum tend to be rather tame. Case in point, compared to others, I have had a relatively smooth transition out of Mormonism. And I am estranged from my parents, my siblings are afraid to talk to me and I am taking happy pills to help cope with the emotional abuse and rejection by my family of origin. This was a smooth transition!

Chris-WA is a straight, honest, matter of fact poster. If you really are not sure if he is expecting a response, why not simply ask rather than dismissing his post as an angry rant?

I hung out at exmormon.org for a while, many years ago. I stopped reading there because of the endless tales of abuse. I just couldn’t take it any more. But the place did help me work through some of my own questions, and ultimately was a factor in questioning my atheism. I learned from there, that you just have to let it go. The Mormon church is what it is, and could give a flying, you know, about people. All it cares about, is itself. So I acknowledged that, and moved on.

 

[PaulDupre1]

In Mormonism, yesterday’s lies are today’s truth.

And today’s truth is tomorrow’s mere opinion.

 

[Chris-WA]

Wow, that’s a angry pent up rant. Do you even want me to respond, or are you happy now that you’ve said your spiel?

There was no anger in my post. There was no rant. But sometimes when one encounters the truth and that truth challenges deeply held beliefs, that can trigger some strong negative feelings inside. Perhaps it is you experiencing anger. I don’t know your heart because I don’t know you, but I’m guessing you believe deeply in the LDS gospel and hold Joseph Smith in high esteem. All I would ask is that you make the effort to learn the whole story. The history of Joseph Smith is now easily accessible. The challenge to you is whether you will take a deeper dive to learn the truth or not. With so many members asking tough questions and getting no answers from the leadership, this is all starting to come to a head. FARMS and FAIR have failed to make the case, so now the church is starting to address some of these problems by publishing the essays.

 

[jane_doe]

There was no anger in my post. There was no rant. But sometimes when one encounters the truth and that truth challenges deeply held beliefs, that can trigger some strong negative feelings inside. Perhaps it is you experiencing anger. I don’t know your heart because I don’t know you, but I’m guessing you believe deeply in the LDS gospel and hold Joseph Smith in high esteem. All I would ask is that you make the effort to learn the whole story. The history of Joseph Smith is now easily accessible. The challenge to you is whether you will take a deeper dive to learn the truth or not. With so many members asking tough questions and getting no answers from the leadership, this is all starting to come to a head. FARMS and FAIR have failed to make the case, so now the church is starting to address some of these problems by publishing the essays.

Ok, it seems you do want me to answer you. Ok, first things first, I’ll summarize your previous statements so that we can agree what the starting point of this conversation is. Sound good?

Your previous statements seem to be based around the assertion: “If an an LDS person knew the history of the LDS church, then their faith would inevitably crumble”.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

 

[Jerusha]

You missed the overall point of my post. When I say history is the enemy of Mormonism, what I mean specifically is LDS history. It is the enemy of Mormonism because it reveals that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Most LDS are ignorant of this, not necessarily of their own fault, but mostly because the foundational stories they have been taught by the church all of their lives are the sanitized, rosy versions of the truth. For decades historians, many of them faithful LDS, have tried to tell the rest of the story and often times found themselves either excommunicated or disfellowshipped for doing so… To ignore history just because it doesn’t inspire you is to be ignorant of the truth.

This is a relatively recent biography of Joseph Smith, written by a faithful historian of the LDS church. amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532 Richard Bushman is still a highly respected member in good standing. It may challenge your faith, but it is not intended to.

In it, he quotes from amazon.com/gp/product/0679730540/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687762&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1400077532&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0XS2XBXQCSA3TVVPS4C4 She published it in 1945, and was excommunicated for her effort. However, although it is outdated, it is still widely recognized as an authoritative source, especially with some corrections in the 1971 edition.

ChrisWA only scratched the surface.

Please look into it. If the LDS church is true, then your faith should hold up to inquiring about its history.

 

[jane_doe]

This is a relatively recent biography of Joseph Smith, written by a faithful historian of the LDS church. amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400077532 Richard Bushman is still a highly respected member in good standing. It may challenge your faith, but it is not intended to. In it, he quotes from amazon.com/gp/product/0679730540/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687762&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1400077532&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0XS2XBXQCSA3TVVPS4C4 She published it in 1945, and was excommunicated for her effort. However, although it is outdated, it is still widely recognized as an authoritative source, especially with some corrections in the 1971 edition.

ChrisWA only scratched the surface.

Look into it. If the LDS church is true, then your faith should hold up to inquiring about its history.

I’ve actually read sections from both. Rough Stone Rolling comes standardly recommended and No Man Knows My History is also popular. I’ve even heard both of them discussed in church circles during lessons and random chit-chat conversations.

 

[Chris-WA]

Ok, it seems you do want me to answer you. Ok, first things first, I’ll summarize your previous statements so that we can agree what the starting point of this conversation is. Sound good?

Your previous statements seem to be based around the assertion: “If an an LDS person knew the history of the LDS church, then their faith would inevitably crumble”.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

There is no guarantee of course, but for those LDS that take a deeper dive into church history, leaving is much more likely. They feel duped. They feel lied to. Many leave. Some stay for a variety of reasons–family pressures, job pressures, etc. They have to make certain accommodations or just put things on the shelf. And It is very hard to leave the Mormon church. When you’re entire life is devoted to it, leaving is a difficult choice indeed. People are afraid of losing all their friends, status, even their livelihoods in some cases. Furthermore, since they have been told all their lives that the LDS church is the only true church, to contemplate that it isn’t can almost be unimaginable. Because in their minds, what’s left? Nothing. So not everyone who learns the real history will leave, but many will because what they find is so utterly disturbing they can no longer believe that Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be.

 

[Jerusha]

I’ve actually read sections from both. Rough Stone Rolling comes standardly recommended and No Man Knows My History is also popular. I’ve even heard both of them discussed in church circles during lessons and random chit-chat conversations.

Perhaps you need to read them in their entirety. Or are you scared to?

 

[Horton]

There is no guarantee of course, but for those LDS that take a deeper dive into church history, leaving is much more likely. They feel duped. They feel lied to. Many leave. Some stay for a variety of reasons–family pressures, job pressures, etc. They have to make certain accommodations or just put things on the shelf. And It is very hard to leave the Mormon church. When you’re entire life is devoted to it, leaving is a difficult choice indeed. People are afraid of losing all their friends, status, even their livelihoods in some cases. Furthermore, since they have been told all their lives that the LDS church is the only true church, to contemplate that it isn’t can almost be unimaginable. Because in their minds, what’s left? Nothing. So not everyone who learns the real history will leave, but many will because what they find is so utterly disturbing they can no longer believe that Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be.

A former co-worker is one of these. He knows the LDS church to be false but yet he convinced his wife to convert and participates in the various activities. Why? Because he lives in a predominate LDS community and know his children will not have the same opportunities in school & sports if they were not LDS.

Jane - I’ve read several books on the LDS and went to college in UT (not BYU). I have also read many, really too many to count, books on Catholicism and Christianity. On my checklist of reasons I came home to the Catholic Church was that it’s history proves it is true. Not all of its history is pleasant, some is horrible, but it is TRUE. The LDS cannot say the same.

 

[TOmNossor]

A former co-worker is one of these. He knows the LDS church to be false but yet he convinced his wife to convert and participates in the various activities. Why? Because he lives in a predominate LDS community and know his children will not have the same opportunities in school & sports if they were not LDS.

Jane - I’ve read several books on the LDS and went to college in UT (not BYU). I have also read many, really too many to count, books on Catholicism and Christianity. On my checklist of reasons I came home to the Catholic Church was that it’s history proves it is true. Not all of its history is pleasant, some is horrible, but it is TRUE. The LDS cannot say the same.

I have read RSR and many books about the CoJCoLDS including those by Vogel (atheist - made a stop at Christianity on his way out of the CoJCoLDS, but his method of weighing evidence lead him along - still claims Joseph Smith is a prophet just like Moses and others), Quinn (still a BOM believer if I remember correctly, but not a member of the CoJCoLDS or any other BOM-believing community), and Compton (a member of the CoJCoLDS, but before Hales and Bradley published was probably the top authority on LDS polygamy).
I have also been reading and posting here for over 10 years and I started on Patrick Madrid’s board and some others.
Have read a number of Catholic books on theology, history, and apologetics too.

I can confidently state that “history proves it is true” is an overstatement at best concerning Catholicism. I would not personally say that “history PROVES it is true” concerning the CoJCoLDS, but my opinion is that history makes the CoJCoLDS the more likely successor of Christ’s church we both agree Peter presided over.
It is also IMO not a strength for the Catholic Church that so many folks suggest that history is the path to the Catholic Church and/or that the LDS emphasis upon asking God is to be avoided.
On the LDS board, I would find many folks who agree that history is the friend of the CoJCoLDS, but I do not expect to find many here who agree.
Charity, TOm

 

[jane_doe]

There is no guarantee of course, but for those LDS that take a deeper dive into church history, leaving is much more likely. They feel duped. They feel lied to. Many leave. Some stay for a variety of reasons–family pressures, job pressures, etc. They have to make certain accommodations or just put things on the shelf. And It is very hard to leave the Mormon church. When you’re entire life is devoted to it, leaving is a difficult choice indeed. People are afraid of losing all their friends, status, even their livelihoods in some cases. Furthermore, since they have been told all their lives that the LDS church is the only true church, to contemplate that it isn’t can almost be unimaginable. Because in their minds, what’s left? Nothing. So not everyone who learns the real history will leave, but many will because what they find is so utterly disturbing they can no longer believe that Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be.

Ok, and what of this would you like to discuss? We could talk about “some people do this” and “some people do this”, but that strikes me as kind of a vague topic. I’d like to stick to something more specific/concrete.

 

[jane_doe]

Perhaps you need to read them in their entirety. Or are you scared to?

Who said anything about being scared? I see no reason to fear history. I just didn’t read the whole book because I don’t have infinite time.

I don’t really find history to be faith inspiring or damaging to read it for my faith-study time (I’d rather just go to the scriptures and read them). Nor do I find history (particularly American history) to be interesting enough to read for random-interest (many more things captivate my interest).

Obviously I’m not speaking for all Mormons here, as TOm has stated his intense interest in the subject.

In the past I have spent several hundred hours researching the crusades period, which of course involved a lot of reading Catholic histories and what not. I also did not find these to be particularly faith inspiring or destructive. They are just more examples of people trying to do what they think is right and not always hitting the mark.

 

[Stephen168]

I have read RSR and many books about the CoJCoLDS including those by Vogel (atheist - made a stop at Christianity on his way out of the CoJCoLDS, but his method of weighing evidence lead him along - still claims Joseph Smith is a prophet just like Moses and others),…

By, “I have read Rough stone Rolling” you mean “I have heard it before™“ Not an unusually Mormon apologetic response. It seems to be a way to not defend Mormonism and assure other Mormons who might be out there to “move along nothing to see here.”

An atheist by claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet like Moses would mean the same thing by claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet like Carnac the Magnificent. An atheist would believe the whole prophet thing to be a bunch of silliness. You do have an art for saying something true but with the opposite meaning intended by the author.

 

[Stephen168]

So not everyone who learns the real history will leave, but many will because what they find is so utterly disturbing they can no longer believe that Joseph Smith was what he claimed to be.

I like the precision of you statement.

Not all of its history is pleasant, some is horrible, but it is TRUE. The LDS cannot say the same.

I can confidently state that “history proves it is true” is an overstatement at best concerning Catholicism. I would not personally say that “history PROVES it is true” concerning the CoJCoLDS, but my opinion is that history makes the CoJCoLDS the more likely successor of Christ’s church we both agree Peter presided over.

To just claim something or someone is true means nothing without defining what true is.

The Catholic Church is what it claims to be as a theological and historical fact.

Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Mormon Church are not what they claim to be.

40 years ago the Mormon Church agreed with Joseph Smith and Mormon scripture that the Book of Mormon was a factual history of ALL the American Indians. When I was in high school, if a Mormon said the Holy Ghost told them the Book of Mormon was ‘true,’ they would mean it was true as defined by Joseph Smith, Mormon scripture and the Mormon Church. By the end of the 1970’s science was proving this to NOT be true, so the Mormon Church has been redefining what it means to say the Book of Mormon is true.

I predict that before all the Mormons living today have died, the Mormon Church will have defined the Book of Mormon as an allegory and not historically factual.