What am I not understanding?

[Guest tbaird22]

I do not think God is "making a confusing mess" rather the spirit is doing exactly what it says it does: testify of truth. As to why God would do such a thing, perhaps he knows that while the truth is on the Earth not everyone is willing to accept it (humans do hate being wrong) and so he gives them as much truth as he can. Another idea could be that it is the job of the tribe of Ephraim to gather up all the lost tribes and spread the gospel (not God's by telling every muslim that they need to go join the LDS church). Also perhaps God has a bigger picture in mind and is unifying churches but we can not see this because of our mortal perspective.

I suppose you could do as jospeh smith did: pray to know which church is the right one.

PS: you should read this article

"Believest thou...?": Faith, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Psychology of Religious Experience

[Guest Ivo_G]

My "intuition" or spiritual prompting leads me to think Joseph Smith found golden plates. A billion other people's spiritual prompting leads them to believe that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a flying horse. Mormons think the Mohammed story is ridiculous, while Muslims think the same of Joseph Smith's plates. Yet we both confirm our own beliefs based on these feelings that we just "know" prove our Church true.

I think (as it was already mentioned) it all comes down to desire to believe :) it doesn't matter whether it's Jesus or Mohammed or Buda or whatever - you must have the desire to believe in something/somebody...once you've got that desire -> you start searching for whatever works most for you -> and when you find what works for you -> you CHOOSE to believe!

I've wanted to believe for a long time and I've been searching for something to believe in for some years now - for me the LDS church and doctrine is the most appealing and makes the most sense (although I'm not a member yet).

Some people on here have described their experience of the Holy Ghost confirming the truthfulness of the Church - that's great but not all people have that confirmation (at least not right away) -> I know I don't have it (nothing nearly as powerful as their experience) + you deny the whole experience anyway, right?

And in any case - "faith" by definition is the believe in something you can't see or prove...so I guess we are back to the basics - do you want to believe? If you do - then find what works for you and make the conscious choice to believe in it...I think that's the most important thing and that's why God doesn't completely deny us the Holy Ghost no matter what faith we belong to - to believe is the first step in our journey towards our final goal...

Edited November 7, 2011 by Ivo_G

[Spartan117]

I assume a lot of people come here to ruffle feathers and it probably gets old.

Your friend in the conversation you linked to doesn't seem to have a lot of depth in his understanding of what he believes. He knows enough for him, and that's just fine. In your conversation with him, though, you set him up to lose. He took the bait too. You asked him questions that faith doesn't have answers too. You set standards that can't be met in a debate about religious beliefs. Applying a logic primer to something like spiritual confirmations is like challenging someone to explain the artistic concept of a painting by giving it's dimensions instead of describing what the picture is. You win the challenge and the other guy looks an idiot. And you did that in the conversion over, and over, and over, and by the end you were just being a bully. You certainly won the challenge, though. And he struggled quite a bit. But in the end you didn't prove anything. You played fallacy musical chairs with someone who didn't know any better. Then you came to an LDS forum and showcased it like a trophy. Someone needs attention ...

Another thing that I noticed was you criticized his understanding about Joseph Smith, you imply his view was limited to only what the church teaches. You said that "it makes it seem like he was a really good person. It's just an illusion though." You also tell him that this is not his fault, that he falls "under the very large group who don't know Joseph was a con." This is obviously not an original idea. I have a pretty good idea where you got it from, though.

When I was an investigator I did as much research into Mormonism as I could. I scoured the anti-sites for 6 solid months. I watched the ridiculous mocumentary on the Book of Abraham, read the stuff that the church put out, spent a lot of time on FAIR and FARMS, I watched the god makers, I watched sessions of General Conference, and I watched conferences from the Exmormon Foundation.

In the end, I looked high and low and every place in between trying to find out if there really was a man behind the curtain, or if Mormons really were the real deal. I came to 2 conclusions ...

1: If Christianity is real, then the LDS Church HAS to be the true church just as they claim. No other denomination of Christianity that I studied resembled the Christianity written about in the Bible. Some beliefs taught by mainstream Christianity are down right absurd.

2: Instead of a man behind the curtain, all I found in exmormondom were bitter, hateful, very hurt people who really, really, need a hug. Lots of jaded folks who all identified with each other through their "being offended" stories. When I went riding through exmormondom, I wasn't impressed.

Everyone who has an ax to grind also has the real story about the church. With no regard for any bias that person might have, their version of things becomes the true story that Mormons don't want you to know. Credibility is of no concern. The website is operated out of peoples basements, who are they going to answer to? Recycle the same few arguments over and over and hope no one notices, label the apologetics as biased and discount everything they say (even if it is work from a tenured professor that is peer reviewed) and you have yourself a house of cards.

I looked over your "Why I Left" letter. It all seems awfully familiar. Maybe there was a little ctrl-v in "your" letter? I had high hopes for you at first too.

The least I can do is answer your question ...

What are you not understanding? That editing and piecing together other peoples ideas does not make them yours. You're a hack who can't think for himself. Your cut and paste style of reasoning may work on Facebook, but those of us that know better are embarrassed for you.

[Dravin]

you CHOOSE to believe!

Amen. In an attempt to be objective I can look at my spiritual experiences as Korihor put it, "the effect of a frenzied mind" or I can look upon it as testimony, witness from the Holy Ghost. There is no empirical, objective qualification whereby I can say something like, "It weighed 23 grams, it was the latter". Ultimately I choose the latter over the former of the two initial options. Even if an angel appeared to you, or you were carried away in a great vision you are left to choose if you will believe it genuine or if you will choose to believe it something else.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Dravin

[Sali]

I believe and have felt the Spirit witness to me that the LDS Church has the fullness of the Gospel. This is my own opinion and belief, but I feel that as we are each progressing, we will reach levels that are where we will benefit the most at certain times in our lives. So for example, a person may be drawn to the Catholic (or insert any other faith religion) faith and feel the Spirit because it is 'right' for them at that moment. It is a place where they will still learn about truths and where they will also be the most comfortable. As I said, only my opinion.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Sali

[JudoMinja]

If the feeling we get as an affirmation of truth is nothing more than a biological/chemical reaction within our bodies, does that mean it isn't real? Does that mean it isn't from God? Finding a scientific answer or solution to explain something does not in any way deny the existance of a higher power. Science simply explains HOW things work, while faith/religion explains the WHY.

Before you can understand what others believe, you need to identify what YOU believe- and from the sound of things you are having a hard time finding belief in anything. You seem to be saying that because "truth" is everywhere, then truth is really nowhere- because there can only be one right answer. However, if there really is only one right answer, if there really is a universal truth, why is it so hard to believe that people everywhere all across the world and through all times in history have picked up on portions of that truth? The fact that religion itself is such a universal concept should tell you something. The details and exact beliefs of those different religions don't really matter as much as the fact that every culture has some form of religion. Does this have biological underpinnings that can be explained scientifically? Probably. In fact, there is growing evidence that even some animal species have some form of religious belief. But again, finding a scientific answer does not prove or refute the existence of a higher power. The real question is WHY do we believe? WHY would we be biologically inclined to form belief systems?

There is a lot of research out there concerning the social and cultural benefits of religion, how it may have been evolutionarily adventageous to form such beliefs- but really what is so advantageous about a fabricated belief? If we are to examine belief systems under the assumption that there is no higher power, or that these affirmations are acutally false, do we really think that we are more advanced or hold an advantage in being able to convince ourselves of the truth of something that doesn't really exist? Personally, I have a hard time agreeing with that... but then that leaves us with the question that if there IS a higher power, if there IS a universal truth why do these feelings of affirmation lead us in so many different directions?

It is because truth comes to us line upon line, precept upon precept- on an individual basis, and on a cultural basis. If you look at the history of faith, you will see that religion has "evolved" from a simple organism into a complex one. In fact, the pattern of the differences in religous beliefs are very similar to the patterns you would see in actual physical evolution. As people and cultures are cut off from one another, their religious beliefs evolve differently- they come up with different understandings and different interpretations. Religous leaders try to steer them on course toward the truth, and sometimes they make advances while other times they take steps backwards. Throughout our history, we can see different points where we've made "evolutionary leaps" forward in religion, but those changes are always initally rejected as strange or "mutated".

When we look at it this way, it is not so hard to believe why there are so many different religions and belief systems. The Holy Spirit testifies of truth in "all things". Some accept pieces of truth and reject others. Some find a level of truth they are comfortable with and settle there- certain that anything contrary to what they believe must be false, because they've had their "confirmation". Some choose not to align themselves with any religion due to falsehoods they find within all of them, or because they agree with many of them and do not want to pick one over the other. But we are all capable of being guided by the Spirit and being led down the path of truth one step at a time, at our own personal pace.

I do not discount anyones solid affirmation that they have received knowledge of the truth from the Spirit, even if that truth has led them down a path different from my own. But I also think that some people get comfortable and stop looking for MORE truth. I think they may accept many lies hidden in with the truths that have been affirmed to them, because once they've received their confirmation they feel they must believe ALL of whatever is in the particular religion where they felt that affirmation.

I believe that the Spirit communicates with our spirits, and that we are all given a certain level of understanding. Within that level of understanding, we "know" what is true and what is false. There is no way to describe it fully and completely, but the closest I can get is in comparing it to a light switch. When something is right, the light turns on and when it is false, the light turns off. I "know" when something is true just as easily as I "know" when the lights are on, and I cannot deny something that I feel in my very soul. Everyone has this ability to feel and know the truth- it is the Light of Christ that is given to every man. Whether you choose to listen to it, believe in it, and trust it is up to you, but it is there. Follow where it guides you, and you will not be led astray.

[Suzie]

Hi everyone,

I want to just start out by stating that I used to be LDS, but I have since willingly decided to leave over doctrinal reasons. I however mean no malice towards anyone who is a member and find my LDS friends to be very intelligent and enjoyable. I am also open minded to the Church still being true if someone is able to come up with good reasons to still believe (after hearing and analyzing my doubts, of course).

Recently I brought up with a friend on Facebook that Joseph Smith had different versions of his First Vision account which I felt had some contradictions. What ensues below is a conversation I had with an LDS member who I have never met; he is just a friend of a friend. I had the hardest time communicating my feelings to him. Everything seemed to go over his head, and I can't figure out why. Now I am wondering if there is anyone LDS who understands my side of the issue, or if there is something I am plainly not understanding.

[]

Let me know what you think, and if there is someway I could help him see my viewpoints properly so we can have a more mutually understandable discussion.

Hi there. :) Interesting discussion with your friend. You know what? I don't think there is anything you can do to make him "understand" your viewpoint. Personally, I think you explained yourself very well (and I do agree with some of the points you make). The thing is...faith relies a lot on feelings (and the LDS Church particularly as well) therefore, trying to establish a conversation with someone who chooses to believe versus someone who may think feelings can be deceiving can actually cause quite a few frictions and the end result is often not positive.

I find myself in a similar position when studying Church history however instead of trying to brush it off or excuse it (as some people may choose to do so) I try my best to continue studying and research. For me personally, Faith involves more than just believing, but I know it isn't the case for everyone.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Seminarysnoozer]

I really feel like I have had identical feelings to what you both have felt. It was a strong feeling of happiness and a burning in the bosom. I felt very peaceful and confident. At the time I felt that I had had undeniable witness from the Holy Ghost that it all was true. My problem now is that I see the world religions and how they are all just as confident as you are in their religion, no doubt through the strong spiritual feelings that they feel. It seems like everyone is using these powerful feelings to verify the truthfulness of their religion. I don't deny how powerful these feelings are. But since they are leading everyone in different directions, isn't that a good reason to think that it might just be a powerful biological reaction within our own bodies? If it was from God, why does it divide people into separate religions?

The "biological reaction" more likely is to deny the spiritual not to create a spiritual experience. The carnal influence over the spirit tends to dampen spiritual influences. When studied, looking at PET scans etc, one would not be able to separate those that have spiritual tendencies have it because there is less of a dampening effect on the spirit versus the thought originating from neuronal circuits. We all have the dampening effect by having a corrupted mortal body. Some may have less dampening than others as we don't all have the same body. And so some are "naturally" more spiritual than others as they don't have to fight off the disruptive effect of the body so strongly. Understanding the test is to determine whether we follow carnal things versus spiritual things, one can appreciate their would have to be influences from both sides. The reason this is hard to appreciate where this is coming from is because both sides of the issue come from you, the carnal you and the spiritual you, we are dual beings. The gospel is there to help one work that out. It takes a lifetime to work that out for most.

The divisions come from people relying on their own interpretations and not being directed from God. The "truth" would have to have a mechanism of continued direction to avoid being pulled away from any given truth that is corrupted by our thought process and carnal interpretation. I am sure you have heard the phrase, the natural man is an enemy to God. The wiring of the brain, i.e. - the natural man, pulls away from spiritual things if not managed properly. To manage it properly is to go to church, feel the spirit, pray, ponder, have faith and water constantly the seed of faith, then you will know. The seed of faith once had that does not get watered and cared for soon dies. ...then you would have to start the process over again.

[wildonrio]

Let me preface this by saying that I didn't come here to have a theological argument with anyone. I consider this post self-defense mostly.

Your friend in the conversation you linked to doesn't seem to have a lot of depth in his understanding of what he believes. He knows enough for him, and that's just fine. In your conversation with him, though, you set him up to lose. He took the bait too. You asked him questions that faith doesn't have answers too. You set standards that can't be met in a debate about religious beliefs. Applying a logic primer to something like spiritual confirmations is like challenging someone to explain the artistic concept of a painting by giving it's dimensions instead of describing what the picture is. You win the challenge and the other guy looks an idiot. And you did that in the conversion over, and over, and over, and by the end you were just being a bully. You certainly won the challenge, though. And he struggled quite a bit. But in the end you didn't prove anything. You played fallacy musical chairs with someone who didn't know any better. Then you came to an LDS forum and showcased it like a trophy. Someone needs attention ...

Like I said in my original post, I came here because I was confused why he wasn't seeing things the same way I do, and I wanted to see if LDS members could help me see why. Thank you for helping me.

You say that I can't apply a logic primer to spiritual confirmations. Why is the Spirit immune to logic? You say that it's "like challenging someone to explain the artistic concept of a painting by giving it's dimensions instead of describing what the picture is". I see what you're getting at I think, but you may be forgetting one VERY important difference between religion and a painting: if you feel good about a dreamscape painting, it doesn't lead you to believe that the dreamscape is real. Religious feelings DO make the feeler think that it's a reality. As I've said before, I don't see how feelings have any connection with proving truth, no matter how good it feels.

Another thing that I noticed was you criticized his understanding about Joseph Smith, you imply his view was limited to only what the church teaches. You said that "it makes it seem like he was a really good person. It's just an illusion though." You also tell him that this is not his fault, that he falls "under the very large group who don't know Joseph was a con." This is obviously not an original idea. I have a pretty good idea where you got it from, though.

Do you mean by doing research into what Mormons would call anti-Mormon literature (what the rest of the world calls History)? If so, then yes. Did you mean something else?

When I was an investigator I did as much research into Mormonism as I could. I scoured the anti-sites for 6 solid months. I watched the ridiculous mocumentary on the Book of Abraham, read the stuff that the church put out, spent a lot of time on FAIR and FARMS, I watched the god makers, I watched sessions of General Conference, and I watched conferences from the Exmormon Foundation.

In the end, I looked high and low and every place in between trying to find out if there really was a man behind the curtain, or if Mormons really were the real deal. I came to 2 conclusions ...

1: If Christianity is real, then the LDS Church HAS to be the true church just as they claim. No other denomination of Christianity that I studied resembled the Christianity written about in the Bible. Some beliefs taught by mainstream Christianity are down right absurd.

You say that if Christianity is real, then Mormonism HAS to be the true Church because no other Christian denomination resembles what is written in the Bible. I can come up with at least two other possibilities.

1. Christianity was real, but fell into apostasy and was never restored. Joseph Smith read the Bible carefully and tried to create a new organization that mirrored the early Christian Church as closely as possible. He made it up, but it does in fact resemble what is written in the Bible more closely than any other current Christian sect.

2. Christianity itself is made up. To your credit, you DID say "IF Christianity is real" but that's quite a big if. Might I ask you how you have come to the conclusion that Christianity is real?

2: Instead of a man behind the curtain, all I found in exmormondom were bitter, hateful, very hurt people who really, really, need a hug. Lots of jaded folks who all identified with each other through their "being offended" stories. When I went riding through exmormondom, I wasn't impressed.

Jeez, I'm sorry to hear that. Yes, there are plenty of that type, but I have found the vast majority to be very open-minded and level-headed, and absolutely not having left because of being offended. Have you been to [moderator removed website reference], for example?

Recycle the same few arguments over and over and hope no one notices, label the apologetics as biased and discount everything they say (even if it is work from a tenured professor that is peer reviewed) and you have yourself a house of cards.

The biggest problem I found with apologetics is that their peer reviews were almost always done by other Mormons. The best kind of peer review is done by someone with similar expertise but a different motivation. You might say "Well of course they won't agree with an LDS apologetic, or else they'd be LDS themselves!" That is quite a problem, I agree. It doesn't help their credibility, though, if only people from their same religion peer review their work. (If you know of an exception, by all means let me know.)

I looked over your "Why I Left" letter. It all seems awfully familiar. Maybe there was a little ctrl-v in "your" letter? I had high hopes for you at first too.

The least I can do is answer your question ...

What are you not understanding? That editing and piecing together other peoples ideas does not make them yours. You're a hack who can't think for himself. Your cut and paste style of reasoning may work on Facebook, but those of us that know better are embarrassed for you.

Please avoid the name calling. It really is the worst way to argue with someone. As for being a "hack who can't think for [my]self", I left the Church while in the middle of Provo, UT completely surrounded by true believing Mormons. I absolutely had to think for myself to get out of the Church in such a situation. I had no choice. Everyone around me was thinking completely differently.

As for being accused of being a plagiarist, why do you think I am copying and pasting? I spent months on that essay. Of the 120 pages, I will admit that about 5 pages were copied with permission. There is a Truth section at the top where I get a lot of the wording from a friend, and I credit him at the beginning. The Great Accommodations section I copied from an Exmormon iPhone app, once again with explicit permission. In the rest of the essay, besides direct quotes, it was all written by me. I promise. Yes, you'll see lots of points made by other research in the same subject. The point of the essay was to find as many sources as possible, put them all in one place, and write in my own words how I interpret the sources.

Once again, please avoid the name calling. It just creates needless contention.

Edited November 10, 2011 by skippy740
removed website reference as violation of rule #1

[Guest tbaird22]

I suppose what you aren't getting is how people can believe in a church that you've clearly found to be wrong and based entirely on feelings.

[jayanna]

My faith is not based entirely on feelings.

I have evidence. Evidence and measurable results of having the gospel of Jesus Christ in my life. I started with a feeling, sure. I began an experiment. I cannot deny the results of the experiment. The results are exactly as promised.

I went beyond, "I wonder if it is true," to , "I'll do these things and see if they are right." They are right, I am happier, my children are happier, my husband and I love and care for each other more, against our natural desire to only care for our own needs.

The Spirit does not speak to me with just feelings, but with words and sometimes pictures. He has never been wrong, even when I have seriously doubted Him, and acted in the opposite manner from which He directed me. When I have listened to Him and followed His direction, I have never regretted it.

I have many instances of this...once my coworker lost the key to something very important (I worked at a bank). He had dropped it, and since I was the person who had handed him this key, he decided that I must have not given it to him in the first place. Even though he had to have had the key to open what he had opened and now couldn't lock closed! My job was on the line. We had driven all over town looking for this key. We checked vehicles. Guess what, I said a little prayer to myself, and the Holy Spirit showed me exactly where it was. I stopped and told my coworker where it was, he didn't believe me. We drove across town one more time, and sure enough about three inches away from the curb, even facing the direction described, were those keys. Even though there was no way that I could have seen those keys being dropped there as he alone had been in that place, I knew exactly where they were. That type of help has been given to me a plethora of times.

Another type of help I've received is when I was driving into a busy intersection with a carload of kids singing as loud as they could...a line of cars behind me...a green light that was just about to turn yellow...and the Spirit told me one word, "Stop". He said it very calmly and quietly. I stopped in the center of that intersection, not knowing why. Then a speeding semi truck blew through his stoplight just as I lifted my eyes to look around me. We would have been killed had I not heeded that voice.

One time I heard a testimony given by someone who had been a very devout member of another religion before becoming a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He said that others wondered why he had shown such great faith as a member of the church he had previously attended, only to go to another church. He said that the church he grew up in, and his family raised him by had prepared him for the true church of Jesus Christ. It is all baby steps, small baby steps, and if the path the Lord leads others to first leads them through other churches, who am I, what kind of arrogant beast have I become to presume that they should not follow that path because it does not resemble my own?

Here is an example for you:

I can give many people directions to my house. Each set of directions would be different, according from which place their travels originate. Each set of directions would be accurate, while distinct. It does not mean that my house does not exist. I would hope that each person would follow their directions regardless of how they might differ from the others, because I, like the Savior, wish that all those people I have invited to dinner would be able to come and be welcomed into my home.

Much like traveling to my home are the different, special, and unique experiences others have in their path back home to their Father in Heaven. We may start out in different areas. Some very different from others in almost every way, but as we continue on our path we eventually end up on the same streets, our paths converge sometimes well before we get to our destination. Some souls will not get to that convergence until after they have passed through the veil by physical death, but they are wanted just the same. How very precious those are that have travelled for so long and from so far away that it took their whole lives to reach their Father's Heavenly home. How great must be their relief when they realize it is thier home as well. You are not helping them by telling them it doesn't exist. You are not helping yourself by deciding there is no reason to continue. You are merely delaying your arrival.

Edited November 8, 2011 by jayanna

[volgadon]

Do you mean by doing research into what Mormons would call anti-Mormon literature (what the rest of the world calls History)?

There is history and there is cheap polemic. THe bulk of anti-Mormon literature falls in the second camp.

[annewandering]

There is history and there is cheap polemic. THe bulk of anti-Mormon literature falls in the second camp.

I have yet to see most of that antimormon stuff in any history book. Wonder why that would be? Maybe because is has no resemblance to anything but bigotry.

[wildonrio]

There is history and there is cheap polemic. THe bulk of anti-Mormon literature falls in the second camp.

I had this same perspective as a member. While some anti-Mormon might be made up, a lot of history in pro-Mormon literature has been whitewashed. They are only showing you the things that make you feel good and leaving out anything that isn't faith-promoting, regardless if it's true. One of thousands of examples of this: Your "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" makes it look like he was only married to one woman at a time. The Church chose one of his 50+ wives and acted like that was his only wife. When she dies in the story, they switch to another one of his wives and act like it's his second one. Most Mormons know that this is misleading since Young was definitely not a monogamist. I think the Church thinks it isn't lying when you skip over important details, as long as the details that you DO share are true. I find it deceptive, however. (Not to say there isn't deceptive anti-Mormon stuff out there too. You gotta be careful either way.)

Going back to your original comment, that is a good representation of the general feel among Mormons towards anti-Mormon literature. A non- or ex-Mormon would probably say it more like "There is full history and there is history about an organization that has been whitewashed by that organization. The bulk of pro-Mormon literature falls into the second camp."

[jayanna]

Anybody who has ever been to the Lion house knows better than to think the church is trying to convince people that President Young only had one wife at a time. It's put on display for visitors to tour.

[volgadon]

Here is what a friend wrote on the subject of feelings.

A common claim is that the Mormon "burning in the bosom" is nothing more than emotionalism. We are often accused of relying on emotion instead of cold, objective logic (this comes most often from fundamentalists who believe in a 6,000-10,000 year old earth, that evolution is wrong and of the devil, etc.). For one reason or another, many of our critics assume too much. For one, they assume that LDS spiritual experiences are based solely on emotion. Second, they give themselves way too much credit by presenting themselves as the equivalent of Mr. Spock or Data...

They apparently are unaware that emotion is necessary for rationality and decision making according to the research of neurologist Antonio Damasio:

[E]motion probably assists reasoning, especially when it comes to personal and social matters involving risk and conflict. I suggested that certain levels of emotion processing probably point us to the sector of decision-making space where our reason can operate most efficiently. I did not suggest, however, that emotions are a substitute for reason or that emotions decide for us...The neurological evidence simply suggests that selective absence of emotion is a problem. Well-targeted and well-deployed emotion seems to be a support system without which the edifice of reason cannot operate properly...

As conscious beings, we should not ignore our feelings in such situations, but instead seek the cause of the emotional state.

Didn't Major in Journalism...So I Took Up Blogging: TRUSTING FEELINGS

[volgadon]

I had this same perspective as a member. While some anti-Mormon might be made up, a lot of history in pro-Mormon literature has been whitewashed. They are only showing you the things that make you feel good and leaving out anything that isn't faith-promoting, regardless if it's true. One of thousands of examples of this: Your "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" makes it look like he was only married to one woman at a time. The Church chose one of his 50+ wives and acted like that was his only wife. When she dies in the story, they switch to another one of his wives and act like it's his second one. Most Mormons know that this is misleading since Young was definitely not a monogamist. I think the Church thinks it isn't lying when you skip over important details, as long as the details that you DO share are true. I find it deceptive, however. (Not to say there isn't deceptive anti-Mormon stuff out there too. You gotta be careful either way.)

Going back to your original comment, that is a good representation of the general feel among Mormons towards anti-Mormon literature. A non- or ex-Mormon would probably say it more like "There is full history and there is history about an organization that has been whitewashed by that organization. The bulk of pro-Mormon literature falls into the second camp."

There is a difference between history written by Dan Vogel or Michael Quinn (even if I disagree with most of their cocnclusions) and the sort of polemics undertaken by Bob Betts, Ed Decker and Rocky Hulse. The majority of anti-Mormon literature is built around shocking one-liners, suitably punched in bold. Ironically, entirely emotive an appeal. Rarely is analysis or contextualisation of any sort attempted.

Take a look at the Joseph Smith Papers project. Primary source material being made freely available by the church.

As part of the general curiculum of the church, of course the faith-promoting aspects will be focused on.

BTW, even in Russia, where church materials are limited, members (almost entirely converts) still know about Brigham Young's multiple wives.

[Mamas_Girl]

Your "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young" makes it look like he was only married to one woman at a time. The Church chose one of his 50+ wives and acted like that was his only wife. When she dies in the story, they switch to another one of his wives and act like it's his second one. Most Mormons know that this is misleading since Young was definitely not a monogamist"

Just for the record, I'm assuming you're talking about the front where it has a Historical Summary? That summary lists two wives, his first one, and his second one, there were other wives after the second one, but as I understand it, only around 20-30, with about 57 children.

These books are not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by the various presidents that have application to our day. The thing is, polygamy is not something that affects the Saints today as it is no longer practiced. However, that doesn't mean that the Church is covering up polygamy. The volume of Joseph Smith's teachings states: "The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage."

The book on John Taylor has a whole section on "Times of Trial" where they discuss plural marriage / polygamy. And I believe you will find like things in the rest of the books about the presidents during the era of plural marriage. And again, what's in the books is usually discussed in more detail during class time, too.

Now if you get into books like the Doctrine and Covenants it's got it's own section 132, and it's own "Official Declaration." These are covered in the year that we do the D&C and Church History. There are also Institute of Religion and Seminary classes where polygamy is discussed in greater detail when studying Church history.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Mamas_Girl
emphasis

[Justice]

wildonrio, what do you think of the Book of Mormon?

[JudoMinja]

Like I said in my original post, I came here because I was confused why he wasn't seeing things the same way I do, and I wanted to see if LDS members could help me see why. Thank you for helping me.

Okay, so your whole purpose in posting here is to understand why LDS members do not "see things the same way you do"? Perhaps, if you actually explained how you see things, that would be helpful. For instance:

What do you believe?

How do you think one should come to conclusions on what to believe- logic, feelings, a combination of both, something else entirely?

Since all you've done so far is refute the things we believe and how we've come to our conclusions, it's kind of hard to understand "where you're coming from".

[wildonrio]

wildonrio, what do you think of the Book of Mormon?

I think that it's complete fiction. I'd love if it were true, though.

[wildonrio]

Okay, so your whole purpose in posting here is to understand why LDS members do not "see things the same way you do"? Perhaps, if you actually explained how you see things, that would be helpful. For instance:

What do you believe?

How do you think one should come to conclusions on what to believe- logic, feelings, a combination of both, something else entirely?

Since all you've done so far is refute the things we believe and how we've come to our conclusions, it's kind of hard to understand "where you're coming from".

Once again, I didn't come here to try and tear down everyone's beliefs. I really didn't, I promise. This has quickly turned into a theological debate, with people wanting to know what I think. If it's okay with everyone, I am happy to share.

I was an extremely strong believer in Mormonism for 28 years, but have recently left. I wasn't offended, I didn't have a desire to sin, or anything of the like. I simply really looked into the religion and found that it was not what it claimed to be.

My reasons for leaving don't just include "anti-Mormon literature". The basis of my doubts are that I don't trust spiritual experiences to provide any sort of truth. The mere fact that Muslims, Jews, and Christians (including Mormons here) all pray to the same Abrahamic god but each group receives different "truths" shows me that such spiritual experiences shouldn't be trusted. If they're praying to the same god, than why is He giving so many contradictory "correct" answers? The question is not of the validity or realness of the experience itself, but rather whether it provides any verifiable evidence to support truth claims. That is, I don't doubt that all of you who have prayed to know the truth of the Book of Mormon had a real experience. It definitely was very powerful and real. What Mormons fail to see (and I was no exception) is that EVERYONE in EVERY Church has these powerful experiences to confirm conflicting "truths".

A Muslim has a powerful spiritual experience about his beliefs, so he believes them with 100% certainty. Then the Hindu has a powerful spiritual experience, so he believes them with 100% certainty. Then a Mormon prays about the Book of Mormon and has a powerful spiritual experience, so he believes the Book of Mormon 100%. Here's the problem: these spiritual experiences are confirming conflicting doctrines. This, to me, shows that these feelings might feel special, but they are not to be trusted when it comes to confirming truths. In fact, it's incredibly dangerous to trust them.

Yes, I know your experience was "undeniable" and you say that these other religions have some truth so that's why they feel the Spirit. Well, guess what? Their experience in their religion was also undeniable and they have their own particular belief as to why you think you're right. Everyone is 100% sure that they're right and everyone else is wrong. Isn't this just completely...silly?

Learning a truth is very difficult, and there is really no way to be 100% sure about anything. The closest we can ever come to learning a truth is by the evidence available to support it. That is:

tons of evidence=likely true

little to no evidence=likely untrue

That is how we learn truths. Not through feelings, but through evidence. If the Book of Mormon were true, and millions of people spoke Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian in ancient America, we would easily find tons of artifacts with Hebrew and Reformed Egyptian written on them. Instead we find none. Since feelings don't prove truths, and the Book of Mormon has no known evidence, it is likely untrue. (Many will argue with me about this. That's okay, I understand the reasoning to do that.)

I wrote a paper on why I left the Church and it can be found here: [MODERATOR REMOVED LINK]. I wasn't planning on showcasing this in this forum, but if people are really interested in why I left, there gives the best summary.

Edited November 10, 2011 by skippy740
No links allowed to anti-LDS sites or documents as a violation of Rule #1

[volgadon]

The basis of my doubts are that I don't trust spiritual experiences to provide any sort of truth.

What do you trust?

The mere fact that Muslims, Jews, and Christians (including Mormons here) all pray to the same Abrahamic god but each group receives different "truths" shows me that such spiritual experiences shouldn't be trusted. If they're praying to the same god, than why is He giving so many contradictory "correct" answers? The question is not of the validity or realness of the experience itself, but rather whether it provides any verifiable evidence to support truth claims. That is, I don't doubt that all of you who have prayed to know the truth of the Book of Mormon had a real experience. It definitely was very powerful and real. What Mormons fail to see (and I was no exception) is that EVERYONE in EVERY Church has these powerful experiences to confirm conflicting "truths".

I grew up in a town that was almost entirely Jewish. Jews don't teach the same principle that we do with Moroni 10.

[Guest tbaird22]

I'm sorry but you are never going to find the evidence you are looking for. It doesn't exist. If it did there would be no such thing as faith.

Alma 29:8 is the best answer i can give to you as far as why other religions have spiritual experiences.

[Justice]

Learning a truth is very difficult, and there is really no way to be 100% sure about anything. The closest we can ever come to learning a truth is by the evidence available to support it.

Evidence? I strongly disagree. Seeing is not believing; Believing is seeing.

At one time people used "evidence" to believe the world was flat. While, in the scripture, prophets taught otherwise.

The steps to learning truth are easy. The pattern is set in the Book of Mormon. What is difficult is trusting or believing it can work. It requires faith. When you exercise faith in a principle or commandment, the result is evidence, not what men leave in the earth.