livy111us

It looks like there are some pretty good notes of the conference online. Day 1-http://www.maxwellinstituteblog.org/a-few-notes-from-the-2013-fair-conference/ Day 2-http://www.maxwellinstituteblog.org/liveblogging-the-fair-conference-part-2/

Seth Payne spoke about this very issue at the FAIR conference a few days ago. He had a crisis of faith several years ago and was completely inactive for 18 months. He began to have a desire to return, but because of his new belief system, only attended sacrament meeting before going home. Over time, he felt comfortable attending all of his meetings but still has reservations to this day. He does not bear testimony of things he does not know to be true. His Bishop knows his position and does not ask him to teach on subjects he does not believe and has been working with him quite a bit. Who knows if he'll ever return to the way he was before but the Church accepts him for who he is and I think you will find a similar acceptance in your ward. Nobody is perfect in Gods church. We all have our little hiccups and we are still accepted because the church is a vehicle to help us improve, not a place for the already perfect. I wish you well on your journey. I've been studying this subject recently (doubting member, loss of faith, how/if they return, etc...) and have found that as long as there is hope, there is happiness. There were 5 different lectures at the FAIR conference that addressed these issues, but they won't be posted til next week. 2013 Fair Conference « FAIR

I found this site through the More Good Foundation. I was looking through their site trying to get the word out on a work I produced and found a link here. To be honest, I thought that this was ran by the More Good Foundation until I started reading some of the comments on this thread. You learn something new every day!

FAIR produced a DVD on the book of Abraham and has a few clips online. Here are a few that pertain to some subjects in your article. Missing portions of facsimile 1: Egyptians knowledge of Abraham: Biblical characters associated with Osiris and other gods: An Egyptologist answers some criticisms in another video as well Written by his own hand? Facsimiles: Facsimile 1: Joseph Smith Papyrus:

Here is another item worth mentioning. We will NEVER rise above our Heavenly Father. No matter how far we progress, he will ALWAYS be above us and be our Father. Boyd K. Packer and Brigham Young both taught this principle. “The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.” (Boyd K. Packer, Ensign Nov. 1984 pg. 69) “This [Godhood of man] will not detract anything from the glory and might of our Heavenly Father, for He will still remain our Father, and we shall still be subject to Him, and as we progress in glory and power, the more it enhances the glory and power of our Heavenly Father. This principle holds good in either state, whether mortal or immortal.” -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10:5, September 28

I forgot to add some notes on Eternal Marriage. Also, most of the quotes above are from non-LDS scholars. From the ancient document from the Nag Hammadi, Gospel of Philip 79 adds, “But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. But those who have united in the bridal chamber can no longer be separated… if anyone becomes a son of the bridal chamber, he will receive the light. If anyone does not receive it while he is in this world, he will not receive it in the other place”(Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Robert McLachlan Wilson, transl.), New Testament Apocrypha (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 1:206) Falasha 5 Baruch: [baruch is Jeremiah’s scribe; he is being shown different parts of the heavenly Jerusalem] A great angel named Sutu’el appeared. He exalted Baruch heavenward and let him see all the hidden and manifest things. He brought him into the Heavenly Jerusalem, and let him see established and high thrones, decorated places, shining crowns of various appearances, and white robes of various shapes . . . Then he showed me the aspect of the Heavenly Jerusalem . . . Then he brought me into the middle (where the) column (was) and there I saw high and shiny seats, and robes whiter than milk, the sun, the moon, and the stars. The place was full of fruit. I asked the angel who conducted me and said to him: “Who enters through this gate?” He who guided me answered and said to me: “Blessed are those who enter through this gate. (Here) the husband remains with his wife and the wife remains with her husband.” 1 Peter 3:7--“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” This speaks about being “heirs together” with our husbands and wives. That would have to mean that they will not be separated at death. Isaiah:-65-19-25---It is speaking of conditions on the earth after during paradisiacal glory. “And they shall build house and inhabit them {us} They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble for they {us} are the seed of the blessed of the lord, and "their offspring with them". 1 Cor. 11:11-- “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Mat. 19:4-6-- What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Regarding becoming as our Father in Heaven is, this was a belief that was taught anciently and taught in both the Bible and in early Christian writings (and modern one for that matter). You can read a little of this teaching here: Mormonism and the nature of God/Deification of man - FAIRMormon A more in depth look at it can be found here: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/jones-the-christian-doctrine-of-deification.pdf A Mother in Heaven has been addressed in several places as well. http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/jones-the-christian-doctrine-of-deification.pdf Authored by Michael Coogan, director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum, the book God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says presents a fascinating reading of the famous Genesis 1:27: “So God [elohim] created humans in his image, in the image of elohim he created them, male and female he created them” Concerning this passage, Coogan presents the reading, “in the image of gods, God created them, male and female.” Coogan writes: “The general principle here is that humans are modeled on God, almost genetically—just as later in Genesis, ‘Adam fathered [a son] in his likeness, according to his image.’ But that abstract understanding immediately becomes concrete: humans are modeled on elohim, specifically in their sexual differences… “The traditional translation [of Genesis 1:27] is ‘in the image of God he created them.” This does not entirely make sense, since the last line speaks of ‘male and female,’ and God in the Bible is not androgynous but male. An alternative is to understand elohim in the second line in its plural sense: humans are male and female in the image of the gods—because the gods are male and female, humans are as well. Which male and female deities are the model? Although the entire pantheon is a possibility, the divine couple, Yahweh and his goddess consort, are more likely” (God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says. 175-176) The earliest source comes from the Shabako stone of the British museum. The stone marks the founding of the first dynasty of Egypt, is considered to be one of the oldest known texts in existence, and is not seriously questioned. Remembering that the earliest theology of the Egyptians was an imitation of the doctrine of the patriarchal fathers from Adam down to Abraham (Abraham 1:26), makes the discovery that the ancient Egyptians believed in a “heavenly mother, who bore Atum” (see shabako stone, lines 48-52a in k. Sethe, das ‘denkmal memphitischer theologie’, der schabakostien des british museums [band x:1 of unters. Zur gesch. U. Alterumskunde aegyptens, leipzig: 1928], pg. 1-5, 46-50. Cited in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, [1988], pg. 24-25) In the Jewish Zohar: “It is evident that all the righteous are known by all in those higher regions before their souls descended into this world...we also learn from this that the souls of the righteous emanate from an upper region as we have already stated. But there is also an esoteric lesson connected with it, namely, that the soul has a father and a mother, as the body has a father and a mother in this world. (The Zohar, 3:12a. Cited in Bennett, The Writings of the Rabbis and Other Important Discoveries, [1990] pg. 18) In what appears to be a ritual dialogue that followed an initiation ceremony, Melito, who served as Bishop of Sardis (170 A.D.), speaks to a group of orthodox Christian “brides and bridegrooms” of “the Father” and “your Mother.” Said Melito, “We hymn, we exalt (them) exceedingly, we holy ones.” (Melito of Sardis on Pascha and Fragments, pg. 85) “The texts of Judges emphasize that Israel did not abandon Yahweh to go over and worship Asherah, but that they worshiped Yahweh and Asherah simultaneously, even as consorts. They were henotheistic. The texts also indicate that Asherah worship was by far the popular choice, and that reformers like Gideon were in the minority. In spite of several noteworthy attempts to eliminate Asherah worship from the land, such reform was fervently resisted by popular piety. … Worship of Asherah was not viewed, in the eyes of popular piety, as in conflict with Yahwism. It was seen, rather, as harmonious with the worship of Yahweh.”(Richard J. Pettey, Asherah: Goddess of Israel?, American University Studies, Series VII, vol. 74, 1990, pp 206) “There can be no doubt that the goddess to whom the Hebrews clung with such tenacity down to the days of Josiah, and to whom they returned with such remorse following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, was, whatever the prophets had to say about her, no foreign seductress, but a Hebrew goddess, the best divine mother the people had had to that time.” (Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 1990, pp. 31-32) “The Jerusalem temple was expunged of cultic objects considered unacceptable according to 2 Kings 23. The list includes the asherah, but there is no indication that the asherah was related to the cult of Baal. Rather, as Olyan has argued, the asherah was associated historically with Yahweh and not with Baal.” (Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God, 2002, p.116) One scholar renders Genesis 49:24 – 26 accordingly: “His bow stayed taut, His hands were agile, By the bull of Jacob, By the strength of the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel, By El, your Father, who helps you, By Shadday, who blesses you With the blessings of Heavens, from above, The blessings of the Deep, crouching below, The blessings of Breasts-and-Womb, The blessings of your Father, Hero and Almighty, The blessings of the Eternal Mountains, The delight of the Everlasting Hills, May they be on the head of Joseph, On the crown of the chosen of his brothers.” He continues “The phrase saddayim waraham in verse 25 echoes Ugaritic titles of the goddesses Asherah and Anat.” He concludes by saying “The strongest evidence, however, supports Asherah as the goddess evoked by the female epithets in Genesis 45:25.… El and Asherah were Israelite deities distinguished from Yahweh, who is invoked separately in verse 18. “ Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God, 2002, p.49-50 As David Noel Freedman pointed out, when Elijah goes after the priests of Ba’al, he leaves the worshipers of Asherah alone. Margaret Barker maintains that the reforms of King Josiah (and the dominant priestly class of Deuteronomists) included removal of the Lady of the Temple (Wisdom, the “Living One”) from the holy of holies of the temple of Solomon.[1] Even so, the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran still includes the reading at Isaiah 7:11, “Ask a sign of the Mother of the LORD your God.” A few *possible* allusions to her in the Bible Gen. 2:22-24--You need to read through this slowly to understand it: the rib that was taken out of man, who would man be? It would be Adam. “and the Lord made a woman”, who is the woman? It would be Eve. “and brought her to man” (Adam). Adam said it is his flesh because she (Eve) was taken out of man (Adam), “therefore, shall a man (Adam) leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife.” How could Adam leave his father and mother if there is no heavenly mother?

Let him know that FAIR has their own videos to counter most anti-Mormon attacks. Here is their Youtube page fairldsorg - YouTube and all their videos: fairldsorg - YouTube They have over 800 videos that should be able to help him out.

Lol! I'm having a hard time tonight! I have been in the hospital all day with my wife who is about to deliver a baby after being up last night, so the synapses apparently are not firing right :) (BTW, we still have SEVERAL hours before delivery so I don't want people to think she's pushing a baby out while I'm on the internet :) )

My post was not a disagreement to yours, but to the contrary, I thought you did a great job on explaining the issue. I just thought I'd add my two cents on the issue as well.

In context, this verse says something very different. This is an epistle possibly written by Paul (and was according to Joseph Smith) to converts from Judaism. You must remember the background of these people. They grew up without Prophets and only going by what uninspired rabbis said and also the Old Testament which the last book was written about 450 years prior. So their entire life was taught this was the only way to know truth. So of course they would have a tough time adjusting to the change and say that even though He spoke to man in the past through Prophets has in these days spoke through His Son. He stressed the importance of modern revelation than that of old time (we have the same problems today). He’s not saying that there is no need for them because this same author says just the opposite in Eph. 3:5-6 he says that He speaks through Prophets in those days after Christ. Eph. 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Also in Acts 21:10 which was written after the letter to the Hebrews speaks of a Prophet named Agabus. So if Prophets were no longer needed, then there would be no need to speak about their need in Ephesians as well as having Agabus as an active Prophet.

No, he was incorrect. He most likely just assumed that Joseph Smith taught it because that was the common belief in that day. He was not perfect and susceptible to making mistakes just like the rest of us. He was wrong on several other items in these books because he only had access to a limited amount of material that we do today. This issue was brought up because some were using the 1990 letter to prove a point. William Hamblin then asked for clarification on the letter and probably provided a copy of it to them for reference. Either way, the second letter was an answer to the first.

My mistake There are actually plenty of people who do, but they must face scrutiny that is difficult to reconcile with the evidence (as you note). To my knowledge, Joseph Smith never claimed that the last battle was fought on the New York Cumorah. One scholar wrote: "At what point in modern times this New York hill was first called Cumorah is difficult to determine. In his account in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith refers to the hill where the plates were buried, but never calls it by any name. In the Doctrine and Covenants the name “Cumorah” only appears one time, in an 1842 epistle written by Joseph Smith: “And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah!” (D&C 128:20 ). No other uses of “Cumorah” have been found in any other of Joseph Smith’s personal writings. When this name does appear it has been added by later editors or is being quoted from another individual." Reeve, Rex C., Jr., and Richard O. Cowan. “The Hill Called Cumorah.” In Regional Studies in LDS History: New York and Pennsylvania. Edited by Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman Jr., and Susan Easton Black. Provo, Utah: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992, 73–74. Thanks, I actually meant to cut and paste what you wrote without the "1990." The 1993 letter was a follow up letter meant for clarification on the earlier letter.

Again, you are mistaking assumption for doctrine. Because someone assumes a certain idea does not make it revelation or doctrine. There has been past past leaders who have made that assumption, and there are others who have not. If it was as black and white as you assume, then there wouldn't be a discrepancy. So either you, as an outsider, are correct by only quoting that which supports your case and ignoring the rest, or, you can take all of the evidence into consideration and realize there is no revealed doctrine on the issue. The Church published the Encyclopedia of Mormonism a few years back and under the entry of Cumorah, it states "“Because the New York site does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Book of Mormon geography, some Latter-day Saints have looked for other possible explanations and locations, including Mesoamerica. Although some have identified possible sites that may seem to fit better (Palmer), there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site that has been suggested.” This is almost word for word what was written in "1990 an official letter from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency" which reads: “The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site” Office of the First Presidency, 23 April 1993

The second quote is coming from the apostate Zoramites, therefore, cannot be used as evidence of LDS or Nephite belief. The first quote is Aaron finding common ground. I would have said the EXACT same thing if I was in this same situation. Lamoni's father knew God as the Great spirit, and Aaron was teaching him in language he would understand. If I was teaching a Muslim, I would explain God in terms they would understand. In times past, I have taught them and used the term Allah when speaking about God. That does not mean I accept all Muslim beliefs because I used that term, only that it was a term they understood Interesting about this quote is how accurate it is in relation to ancient thought. Here are a few interesting articles on the subject: 2004 The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs « FAIR http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Independence_temple_to_be_built_%22in_this_generation%22 Christ defines a generation in Mat. 24:34 as about 2,000 years. Also in Jonah 3:1,2,5,10 God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that it would be destroyed in 40 days. It never happened. Would that make Jonah a false Prophet or God a liar? No, it wouldn’t. They weren’t destroyed because they repented (vs. 5-8) From the wiki "So, the nineteenth-century understanding of KJV Biblical/religious usage of "generation" includes such variations as: all the descendants of history contemporaries succession or series of people from same stock race, posterity one hundred years thirty-eight years people Contemporary with Joseph Smith, Webster's 1828 dictionary defined "generation" as: ...2. A single succession in natural descent, as the children of the same parents; hence, an age. Thus we say, the third, the fourth, or the tenth generation. Gen.15.16. 3. The people of the same period, or living at the same time. O faithless and perverse generation. Luke 9. 4. Genealogy; a series of children or descendants from the same stock. This is the book of the generations of Adam. Gen.5. 5. A family; a race. 6. Progeny; offspring.[2] This does a great job of answering this criticism: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Second_Coming_to_be_in_1890 The above quotes are a matter of timing. I'm not sure if you are a Christian or Atheist, but there are still numerous prophecies in the Bible which are technically unfulfilled. This does not make John, Christ, or other Biblical figures false prophets, only that these prophecies will be fulfilled at a future date. This is like calling Moses and Isaiah false prophets in 400 BC because they prophesied of Christ, yet he had not come yet. Just because prophecies have not happened yet does not mean that they won't. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Government_to_be_overthrown_and_wasted

You continue to quote Joseph Fielding Smith about what Joseph Smith believed, but quoting a book that is not canonized does nothing for your argument, particularly since Joseph Fielding Smith admitted it was only his "opinion" that it was the place of the final battle (see my previous post). You have provided quotes which support your reasoning and I have provided quotes which say the opposite. This only goes to show my point. There is no doctrine on the issue, only conjecture. I stand by my argument. You are trying to force a belief of the final battles being in New York so you can refute it. But since there is no doctrine on it's location then the argument is pointless. If it was a doctrine, then several past prophets have been teaching the opposite of what the Lord revealed, which is not the case. Daniel C Peterson once said "“we have books published by the Church's wholly owned publishing company arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have articles published in the Church's official magazine arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have scholars at the Church's wholly-owned and closely-managed university arguing that those battles took place elsewhere. We have an Institute at that university that is publicly and openly associated with the view that those battles took place elsewhere. And, for what it's worth, I've spoken directly with General Authorities of the Church who believe that those battles took place elsewhere. If a New York location for the final battles were truly a binding and official doctrine of the Church, it's unthinkable that the leaders of the Church would permit vocal and public dissent from that view in the Church's own magazines, in books published by its publishing company, and in its own university.” Even the Book of Mormon insinuates 2 Cumorahs Mormon 6:6 “And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I give unto my son Moroni.” So the plates were buried in a hill called Cumorah, except for the gold plates. This was the same hill called Ramah by the Jaredites. Moroni then traveled many years avoiding any danger. “I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life" Moroni 1:3 Why would Moroni wander for so many years only to come back to the same area they were trying to kill him? You can read more about it here: Were There Two Cumorahs? - Sidney B. Sperry - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 4 - Issue 1 The Book of Mormon also describes the geographical area of Cumorah, and the New York Cumorah does not fit that geography. Take for example the narrow neck of land. It is located south of Cumorah, but if the NY Cumorah was the location of the final battles, the only narrow neck is directly west of Cumorah. The geography just doesn't fit. Again, quoting Harold B. Lee "Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think?" Odd thing to say if the Lord DID reveal it's location.

Yet even our leaders are not unanimous on the location of Cumorah. They readily admit that there is still uncertainty of its location and we just do not know exactly where it is at. Harold B. Lee said “Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?” Harold B. Lee, “Loyalty,” address to religious educators, 8 July 1966; in Charge to Religious Educators, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Church Educational System and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982), 65; cited in Dennis B. Horne (ed.), Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluation Doctrinal Truth (Roy, Utah: Eborn Books, 2005), 172–173 “the hill from which the Book of Mormon plates were obtained by Joseph Smith is definitely known. In the days of the Prophet this hill was known among the people as Cumorah. This is a fixed point in Book of Mormon later history. There is a controversy, however, about the Hill Cumorah—not about the location where the Book of Mormon plates were found, but whether it is the hill under that name near which Nephite events took place. A name says one, may be applied to more than one hill; and plates containing the records of a people, sacred things, could be moved from place to place by divine help.” John A. Widtsoe, “Is Book of Mormon Geography Known?,” 547; reprinted in John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 3:94. Sidney B. Sperry, after whom an annual Brigham Young University symposium is named, was also one who initially supported the New York Cumorah view (that is, an area of New York as the final battlefield of the Nephites and Jaredites). During the 1960s, as he began to explore the issue, he came to a different conclusion... Reversing his earlier position, he wrote: "It is now my very carefully studied and considered opinion that the Hill Cumorah to which Mormon and his people gathered was somewhere in Middle America. The Book of Mormon evidence to this effect is irresistible and conclusive to one who will approach it with an open mind. This evidence has been reviewed by a few generations of bright students in graduate classes who have been given the challenge to break it down if they can. To date none has ever been able to do so."  Sperry, who was very familiar with what Joseph Fielding Smith had previously written, told him that he did not feel comfortable publishing something that contradicted what the apostle had written, but that he and other sincere students of the Book of Mormon had come to that conclusion only after serious and careful study of the text. Sperry said that Elder Smith then lovingly put his arm around his shoulder and said, "Sidney, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. You go ahead and publish it."  This excerpt comes from: Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography - Matthew Roper - FARMS Review - Volume 22 - Issue 2 Chris Heimerdinger - Searching for Cumorah-All Over Again | Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum http://www.bmaf.org/node/277 Point is, it is hard for you to pin lack of archaeological evidence at a BOM site, when we don't know where this same BOM site is. You are only setting up a straw man to knock down.

There is a certain group that promotes a North American BOM geography that has a similar fundamentalist attitude and looks down on "so-called" intellectuals and scholars that disagree with them. Perhaps he took this fundamentalism a bit too far which took him out of the Church. Wouldn't be the first with this group.

I think it's great to speak about these issues, don't get me wrong, but we should do it on our turf and not give this guy the time of day.

I think it may be best to move this conversation to a new thread and mods to delete this one. The more we post on it and make it relevant, the more we are accomplishing the goal of this critic in this hit and run attack.

Skippy, I do not think he is correct in at least a portion of his position (treating her meanly) and should realize how wrong that is. You *are* correct pointing out the error in his position. But my concern was using mockery to do so. I do not think that is what the Lord had in mind when He said to "reprove...with sharpness." You can present your same position without sounding condescending. We all are going to disagree with each other on at least some issues, but we can also do it with respect, IMO. Again, I think you had a great post, but you could have done without a few comments.

Why is it that whenever someone comes to this board feeling bad about their spouses past that members feel it necessary to mock this person ("poor, poor baby")? Obviously it is causing him some distress and he is going through a difficult time. He is coming asking for advice and help, not to be put down. If you disagree how he is feeling or acting, there are much better ways to express your feeling than to be mean. We are better than that.

From the FAIR wiki. This reading is perhaps supported by the fact that a Times and Seasons account of a discourse by Hyrum Smith said: Again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly. There are many who wonder what this can mean, whether it refers to tea or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea and coffee.[11] If there was confusion about the meaning of "hot drinks," it may be that at least some members understood the caution against hot drinks to extend to other beverages prepared hot, such as the infusions or teas of the heroics or Thompsonians. On the other hand, Thompson himself sometimes referred to tea and coffee as "hot drinks," so the choice of wording may simply reflect common "medical" terminology in Joseph Smith's environment Word of Wisdom/Hot drinks - FAIRMormon

If that is the only experience they have had with the Church, the same feelings they get while watching a movie, no wonder they have left the Church. The Holy Ghost was absent in their lives. Perhaps if they spent their time looking inwardly and figuring out how to improve themselves, the Spirit would have entered their lives and they would have joy. Instead, they placed the blame on the institution and distanced themselves from any blame, causing darkness and hatred. It's sad.

Mat 9:16-17 16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. 17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.