Trust

[Answersplease]

These aren’t my words, the words and the use of bold type are from the website:
exmormon.org/mormon/mormon329.htm

Do church leaders think they have a duty to tell the truth, or to protect church authority at all costs?

Apostle Dallin Oaks:

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church

, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."

• Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon329.htm

Transcript from “The Mormons”, PBS documentary by American Experience & Frontline
(The 13th quote down):

DALLIN H. OAKS, LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.

pbs.org/mormons/etc/script2.html

…
As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, ‘when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ … The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord’s anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."

• Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, “Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders,” quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

exmormon.org/mormon/mormon329.htm

why me, most people I know who have left, or are in the process of leaving mormonism, the struggle is trust. Having been taught that your feelings are the barometer of Truth, and discovering your feelings led you so incredibly far into falsehoods…you no longer trust your own feelings. And, you don’t trust organized religions because you don’t want to fall for such a bag of lies again, not as long as you live. Trust, is the hardest issue. Atheism, universalism, agnosticism, they are attractive at this point. Believe nothing, or believe everything is flatly “maybe true”, it seems like a middle road. Like the most reasonable and rational route. But a happy go lucky guy like yourself already knows this.

I see similar issues from the former Jehovah Witnesses who post here.

You hit the nail on the head of what the real issue is. Trust. Period. It was never about what “why me” suggested.

Still find it curious that he/she would make such comment and it seems pretty apparently that they have never really talked with many who have left or are in the process of leaving.

The lady who was head of the RCIA program when I went thru was very patient with me and my ability to trust. She really just let the Holy Spirit do His job and never pressured me.

Just answered my questions openly honestly. I was never pressured into commitment. Even our pastor was really cool and low key. He just trust that God would lead me to where He wanted me to be.

No. I have never been a Mormon. I don’t have family that is Mormon. I just have a real heart for them. I have a heart for them because of their 60,000 missionaries out there witnessing their lie. Most of these missionaries are born to the lie and they go out to trick people who might have an honest desire to get close to God. Once they are in, either way, it is hard for them to get out without feeling rejected by friends and family. Because of their insistence of being called Christian, a person who leaves the Mormon church also could feel rejected by Christ. That is the trap and another lie. I think there will be die hard Mormons who will always reject Christ’s message of truth because they have lived in the lie for so long, They have started to view the faults in their church, faults in their prophet, faults in their scripture as faith-testing moments. And to be quite honest, it does take faith to believe that JS saw God, when the Bible clearly teaches no man has seen God, except Jesus. So you have to have a tremendous faith to believe even God has rejected his own truth to appear before JS. I’m afraid I have a minuscule faith to simply believe God’s truth is constant.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The 11th commandment:

Thou shalt not commit publicity.

So if you are going to criticize Mormon leaders, please, don’t do it publicly.

Thank you.

 

[Answersplease]

The Mormon Church and Dissent

In the mid-20th century, the church began to forcefully discipline its intellectuals who challenged the orthodox view of Mormon history.

pbs.org/mormons/themes/dissent.html

I was on the faculty of Brigham Young University, and what threw me into the jeopardy of losing my membership in the church were my publications in LDS history.

I was fulfilling what I believed was God’s mission for me: to understand the leadership of the church and the history of the church as well as I could, and to present it as honestly I could with the perspective that my training gave me so that members of the church wouldn’t be disturbed when they learned about these problem areas, because anti-Mormons were using history as a club to beat the faith out of people. I felt this wouldn’t be possible if they already knew about these problems.

Mormonism’s relationship to intellectuals has become difficult because of the interest in Mormon history. The interest in Mormon history has uncovered and revealed complexities, peculiarities, oddities, difficulties inside the history of early Mormonism that has become difficult for contemporary church leaders to accept. Contemporary church leaders find it difficult to accept the idea that Joseph Smith really was a money digger, for example, in his early youth. They find it difficult to accept the varieties of opinion and viewpoints inside Mormonism in the early 1830s and the 1840s, when the church was relatively unformed. They find it difficult to accept variant readings of what we could call orthodox Mormon history, a kind of clean Mormon history that looks nice and pretty in the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Answersplease]

The 11th commandment:

Thou shalt not commit publicity.

So if you are going to criticize Mormon leaders, please, don’t do it publicly.

Thank you.

“The 11th commandment”

LOL, good one.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I think trust is a huge issue with some Catholics these days and I know it deeply colors the view of protestants toward the Catholic Church. Events that have come to light in the past decade, how they were handled and continue to be handled in some cases has changed people’s view of the Catholic church but also of all Christian churches and their clergy people.

 

[Answersplease]

I think trust is a huge issue with some Catholics these days and I know it deeply colors the view of protestants toward the Catholic Church. Events that have come to light in the past decade, how they were handled and continue to be handled in some cases has changed people’s view of the Catholic church but also of all Christian churches and their clergy people.

I know that is the thread title, but answer the “original post” and don’t try to make this about something else.

 

[Answersplease]

(color added)

D. Michael Quinn is a Mormon historian who was excommunicated in 1993.

Read the full interview for D. Michael Quinn:
pbs.org/mormons/interviews/quinn.html

…when I published a long article…my local LDS Church president, the stake president, was visited by a General Authority and told that I was to be called in and punished…

Then the leader of this meeting said, “And if this doesn’t keep him from doing this kind of thing, you should take further action as appropriate.”…
And the stake president

said, “Now, wait a minute.” He said: “Michael Quinn gave me a copy of this article on plural marriage after the Manifesto. I and my counselors have read it, and we don’t find anything in it that is contrary to faith. It talks about some difficult experiences the church went through, but we don’t see this as a reason to punish him. … And he hasn’t done this secretly, and we don’t see – we’ve read it.” And they asked, “Have you read it?” And he said, “No, I wouldn’t read anti-Mormon trash.” And they said, “Well, how can you judge that what he’s written is destructive of the faith if you haven’t read it?” And it went around and around, and finally after two and a half hours, the stake president said, “Well, I’ll call Michael Quinn in, and I will explain to him what you have said to us, and then we’ll go from there.”

And this representative said: “Oh, no. You can’t tell him that I told you what I’ve told you. You can’t tell him that this came from church headquarters. This has to be your objection that he is to be informed of, that you have objected to, and that you’re going to punish him for.” And the stake president said: “I’m not going to lie to him, so you decide: Am I going to tell him the truth and call him in, or am I not going to say anything to him? Because I am not going to lie to him.” This stunned this General Authority who had been sent from church headquarters, and he said, “Well, then you do [what] you feel you need to do.”

 

[Answersplease]

( color added )

Read the full interview for Margaret Toscano:

pbs.org/mormons/interviews/toscano.html

Margaret Toscano was excommunicated from the LDS Church in 2000 for disregarding warnings from church leadership and continuing to write and speak critically about the role of women in Mormonism and the theological doctrine of the Heavenly Mother.

And they had resources that I had no idea about. For example, in their stack of evidence against me, they actually have the transcription of a talk that I had given. It had never been published. The only way they could have had this is if somebody were there with a tape recorder and then had transcribed it and sent it to church headquarters

, where they had then given it to the stake president. Of course I knew that they had this extensive system that accumulates knowledge. There’s a whole committee in the church headquarters where they collect evidence against members that they see as dangerous. But the fact that they have spies that were there at places where I was speaking, that I didn’t even know that there was somebody in the audience that’s secretly taping me and then sending it up to church headquarters so they can transcribe it, it was a little frightening in a way. …

 

[Answersplease]

(colors blue and red added to original text)

Molecular biologist Simon Southerton, a former LDS bishop and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church

said, “I was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went to in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the only way I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking… The explanations of the FARMS researchers stretched the bounds of credibility to breaking point on almost every critical issue”.[99]

FARMS supports and sponsors what it considers to be ‘faithful scholarship’, which includes academic study and research in support of Christianity and Mormonism, and in particular, where possible, the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[100]

Critic and ex-Mormon Steve Benson (grandson of Ezra Taft Benson) quoted church apostle Neal A. Maxwell as telling him that “one of the purposes of F.A.R.M.S. was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church’s critics.”[101]

[99] ^ Gruss, Edmond C. (2006). What Every Mormon (and Non-Mormon) Should Know. Xulon Press. p. 119. ISBN 1600341632.
[100] ^ BYU College of Religious Education
[101] ^ Web post by Steve Benson at www.exmormon.org - see subsection “Neal A. Maxwell” - [3]

 

[jake23]

answerpelase,

God bless you for exposing lies. Christs is working in you!

 

[Answersplease]

I forgot to put the link for the quote in my post #8 on this thread, here it is:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#cite_ref-97

answerpelase,

God bless you for exposing lies. Christs is working in you!

Thanks jake23.

God bless you.

 

[Answersplease]

(color and bolding emphasis and underlining added as highlights to the original text)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici…_pp.3D418_79-0

The Ostlings claim that the LDS church retaliates against members that publish information that undermines church policies

,[76] citing excommunications of scientist Simon Southerton[77] and biographer Fawn M. Brodie.[78] They further claim that the church suppresses intellectual freedom, citing the 1993 excommunication of “The September Six”, including gay LDS historian D. Michael Quinn, and author Lavina Fielding Anderson.[76] The Ostlings write that Anderson was the first to reveal the LDS church keeps files on LDS scholars, documenting questionable activities, and the Ostlings claim that "No other sizable religion in America monitors its followers in this way.[76]

The American Association of University Professors, since 1998, has put LDS-owned Brigham Young University on its list of universities that do not allow tenured professors sufficient freedom in teaching and research.[79]

Richard Abanes lists the following as church members excommunicated or censured for views unnaccepable to the church hierarchy:[80]

Journalist Deborah Laake, for her book Secret Ceremonies : A Mormon Woman’s Intimate Diary of Marriage and Beyond
BYU English teacher Cecilia Konchar-Farr, for her views on abortion laws
Writer Janice Merrill Allred
English Professor Gail Houston
Anthropologist David Knowlton

[76] ^ a b c Ostling, Richard and Joan. Mormon America. pp. 351–370.
[77] ^ “Critical website discusses excommunication of Southerton”. affirmation.org/news/2005_35.shtml. Retrieved 2007-12-07.
[78] ^ Wolverton, Susan (2004). Having Visions: The Book of Mormon : Translated and Exposed in Plain English. Algora. p. 321. ISBN 0875863108.
[79] ^ “AAUP report” (PDF). aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/27E…/0/Brigham.pdf.
[80] ^ a b Abanes 2003, pp. 418

Richard Abanes and the Ostlings criticize the LDS church for maintaining a group called the Strengthening Church Members Committee, led by two church apostles.

[80] According to the Ostlings, the purpose of this committee is to collect and file “letters to the editor, other writings, quotes in the media, and public activities” of church members that may be publishing views contrary to those of the church leadership.[81]

[80] ^ a b Abanes 2003, pp. 418
[81] ^ Sunstone, 16:2, no.88 (August 1992), p. 63. As quoted in Ostling and Ostling, p. 354.

 

[Xavierlives]

Next should be the Book of Abraham and the Mormon Egyptologist who basically said, “errr… We don’t really use the Book of Abraham so we can basically ignore that it is false.”

 

[TheosisM]

Next should be the Book of Abraham and the Mormon Egyptologist who basically said, “errr… We don’t really use the Book of Abraham so we can basically ignore that it is false.”

where did he say that?

(I believe I already know who you’re talking about, and what he said didn’t come down to “basically” the above in your quote. And it would be very odd if a Mormon said that they don’t really use the Book of Abraham, since a lot of their unique beliefs come from it)

 

[Xavierlives]

where did he say that?

(I believe I already know who you’re talking about, and what he said didn’t come down to “basically” the above in your quote. And it would be very odd if a Mormon said that they don’t really use the Book of Abraham, since a lot of their unique beliefs come from it)

Mine is a paraphrase, not a quote. I’ve heard his interview and read his article and he discounts the use of BoA and says it doesn’t really matter to the faith anyway.

I’ll look for it next week if Answersplease doesn’t beat me to it.

 

[TheosisM]

Mine is a paraphrase, not a quote. I’ve heard his interview and read his article and he discounts the use of BoA and says it doesn’t really matter to the faith anyway.

I’ll look for it next week if Answersplease doesn’t beat me to it.

I’m pretty sure you’re referring to this:

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

 

[Xavierlives]

I’m pretty sure you’re referring to this:

ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

Thanks. So where he acknowledged my first point:

So Gee said: “Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

“To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.”

and to the falsity:

First, it is not necessary to refute every statement by a critic. “The critic may be wrong about a point, but if it is not central to the argument, one can often let it slide.”

Second, not every argument or point is worth defending. “Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken,” he said.

Third, truth is not well-served by a bad argument. "We apologists make no claims to perfection, either in ourselves or our arguments, so it is simply better to let go of bad arguments."

Fourth, though God knows everything, “we do not and cannot,” he said.

(another list)

“Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

Thanks. You saved Answersplease (or me) a lot of time.

 

[TheosisM]

Thanks. So where he acknowledged my first point:

So Gee said: “Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

“To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.”

and to the falsity:

So you interpret the quotes below as referring to the implied falsity of the BoA, and not just rules for an apologist in general (since it would be odd for him to call the BoA “opinion”)?

First, it is not necessary to refute every statement by a critic. “The critic may be wrong about a point, but if it is not central to the argument, one can often let it slide.”

Second, not every argument or point is worth defending. “Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken,” he said.

Third, truth is not well-served by a bad argument. "We apologists make no claims to perfection, either in ourselves or our arguments, so it is simply better to let go of bad arguments."

Fourth, though God knows everything, “we do not and cannot,” he said.

(another list)

“Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

Thanks. You saves Answersplease a lot of time.

Haha, he isn’t the only one that can research

I guess I just interpret his statements differently. It’s quite true that the Book of Abraham isn’t central to Mormonism, and he states that he believes that the book is true, can be defended, and should be defended. Some of the points you excerpted would be agreed upon by apologists of any faith (“we apologists make no claims to perfection”, “though God knows everything, we do not and cannot”, etc). I don’t see him as saying or implying that the Book of Abraham is false,

So, I don’t see him stating or implying that since they don’t really use the book of abraham that it can be discarded. And it would be odd if he did so, since important beliefs such as the pre-mortal existence, plurality of gods, exaltation, etc. come from it (or are found there in addition to other places).

 

[Xavierlives]

Thanks. So where he acknowledged my first point:

So Gee said: “Now where is the Book of Abraham in this?" he asked. "It isn’t. The Book of Abraham is not central to the restored gospel of Christ.”

“To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.”

and to the falsity:

First, it is not necessary to refute every statement by a critic. “The critic may be wrong about a point, but if it is not central to the argument, one can often let it slide.”

Second, not every argument or point is worth defending. “Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken,” he said.

Third, truth is not well-served by a bad argument. "We apologists make no claims to perfection, either in ourselves or our arguments, so it is simply better to let go of bad arguments."

Fourth, though God knows everything, “we do not and cannot,” he said.

(another list)

“Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.”

Thanks. You saved Answersplease (or me) a lot of time.

So you interpret the quotes below as referring to the implied falsity of the BoA, and not just rules for an apologist in general (since it would be odd for him to call the BoA “opinion”)?

Haha, he isn’t the only one that can research

I guess I just interpret his statements differently. It’s quite true that the Book of Abraham isn’t central to Mormonism, and he states that he believes that the book is true, can be defended, and should be defended. Some of the points you excerpted would be agreed upon by apologists of any faith (“we apologists make no claims to perfection”, “though God knows everything, we do not and cannot”, etc). I don’t see him as saying or implying that the Book of Abraham is false,

So, I don’t see him stating or implying that since they don’t really use the book of abraham that it can be discarded. And it would be odd if he did so, since important beliefs such as the pre-mortal existence, plurality of gods, exaltation, etc. come from it (or are found there in addition to other places).

Sorry. I’ll try to be more clear. I am a bit frazzled right now. I was using the statements:
"To illustrate, he said that of all the scriptural citations in general conference since 1942, “the Book of Abraham has been cited less than 1 percent of the time. Most of those citations are the seven verses in Abraham 3:22-29, which tell of the pre-mortal existence.” Then for good measure I included "“Third, how the Book of Abraham was translated is unimportant. The Church does not stand or fall on the Book of Abraham.” So when a Mr. Gee says less than 1% of the book is used and the translation of it is unimportant, I’d tend to believe that the Mormon Church does not rely on the Book of Abraham in the practice of the faith.

As for his statements about apologetics, I recognize he is talking about the act of defending one’s faith. My point was in the defense of his faith is he is the one saying that we can’t know the truth or defend it. **[Since the Book of Abraham is used only 1% of the time and] not central to the [the defense of Mormonism], one can often let it slide. Second, not every argument [about the Book of Abraham] is worth defending. Even widely held opinions do not need to be defended if they are mistaken," he said. Third, truth is not well-served by a bad argument. "We apologists make no claims to perfection, either in ourselves or our arguments, so it is simply better to let go of bad arguments. Fourth, though God knows everything, “we do not and cannot,” he said. **We can know the truth and knowledge that God gives us in the Word. It is very simple. Defending God’s word is defense of the truth and a defense of Christ.

 

[Answersplease]

Shouldn’t Mormon apologists “know the truth of all things”?

Moroni 10:5

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.