EightyEight

To say that these issues themselves are troubling me is a bit misleading. I am not struggling with my faith. That struggle was long ago, without ever glancing at any document you would categorize as anti-Mormon.I have stated that I consider FAIR to be a valuable resource I use frequently. I think your analysis of critics is a caricature. It's easy to think of those who do not support your view as anti- and carry a pitchfork to scratch their horns, but I don't think it reflects reality, here. I think anti-Mormons certainly do exist, just as certainly as those who will defend the Church in any instance exist. I think if the Church were more open, the "Anti-mormons" would be far less prominent.

There are lots, but the things I found most troubling were:- The events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith - Joseph's past prior to the restoration - Issues regarding translation (BoA, Kinderhook) - Different accounts of the First Vision - Many things Brigham Young said - Mark Hofmann (though this would be totally out of place in any Church meeting)

I was baptized when I was 8, so I didn't have the research ability to uncover a balanced history of the Church.I think, ideally, every member should get this at minimum before serving a mission or getting married in the temple. I guess we disagree as to what responsibility the Church has in guiding them there.

How would you define an antiMormon? I think its a net too widely cast, in many cases.

I'm not after sympathy. I can't imagine why someone would feel sympathy for me.Its seems like you agree with my point though. Do you agree that CES currently falls short in this regard?

I didn't expect so many replies so quickly. Thanks everyone! I would suggest that this is an instance of people simply not paying attention to what is being taught (or alternatively, teachers avoiding more controversial teachings). When I was in seminary, polygamy was in the manual. There are many subjects on which I feel could the manuals should follow suit. I always like to view both sides of the page. Whenever I read some controversial information (which was common in what I call my "Shock and Awe" stage) my next step was always to read what FairMormon had to say about the subject. FairMormon often gets a bad reputation, however, I value the work they do even if I in most cases I disagree with the conclusion they come to. Like a jury in a court of law, I found the best course of action for me was to view both sides making their case using the facts, and I decide which makes the most sense for me. In many cases, I have found the critics arguments to be ambitious and/o inflammatory.

I am currently reading Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" and I find it to be a great read. It presents the facts within a believer's perspective, which is great! I think such literature should be actively promoted to the Church's youth. In my experience, that was not the case.I think that seminary and Sunday school lessons could follow suit, presenting the facts, but framed accordingly.

I understand that, but it's not as if church resources were not used to teach me the history of the Church. But I now find the material that was presented to be at best selective and at worst in opposition of history.The counsel against antimormon literature, as it was framed to me, limited my willingness to do independent research. Though I can see how that one is on me.

Thanks for the reply.I am, of course, aware of the existence of books. But the subject of Google and blogs is more towards my point. Since member in this time will inevitably wander upon some of these sources, isn't it in the best interest of the Church to control their first experience with this information?

Hi everyone. Open disclosure: I am an inactive member. I haven't been a believer since my teen years, but I consider myself a friend to the Church. Recently, about seven years after I ceased active membership, I became intensively interested in the history of the Church. I was floored by some of items which I did not hear in seminary and Sunday school. I don't want too sound dramatic, but the best way to describe by feelings is betrayed. Why was I not allowed to to learn of these events, I wondered. Which brings me to my question: does the Church need to do a better job of presenting this information so that others don't experience the shock that I did? I can see how it could develop some enemies of the Church.