Washington Post Article Thoughts?

[Vort]

If it is true (and the sources they are reading are factual) we shouldn't have to worry about faith being destroyed, but please don't take my word for it...

I won't. It is interesting that God himself does not seem to subscribe to this idea that "anything factual cannot be bad." Context and understanding the "big picture" are indispensable elements, and neither of those things is guaranteed -- or even likely, many times -- when we are confronted with historical interpretations.

Hugh B. Brown in a speech to BYU in 1958:

“Only error fears freedom of expression… Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church...…we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant”

The bolded part works against your thesis. We do not become "informed" merely by reading an anti-Mormon's novel.

J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

What was the context of this remark?

Why don't you take your six-year-old to tour a whorehouse and maybe let him sit in on a session or two? After all, it's "real", and it truly happens, so it cannot possibly harm him. Right?

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley

This, too, works against your apparent thesis. If the Church is true -- and it is -- then working against it is working against the truth.

[MarginOfError]

So do you think it's a very good idea for someone who's faith is on the line to read, say... Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History", or Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven" to find out what really happened back then? (tongue in cheek by the way) Or even Mormon blogs and forums or the Journal of Discourses from way back when? Or even Mormon Doctrine (not saying this is all false but it isn't canonized scripture and as we've found out, is somewhat subjective)? Or would it be better to focus on current Conference talks, the scriptures, prayer and fasting, temple attendance (ask to speak to the temple president to have questions answered there)? I'm not saying don't search for answers. I'm saying, search in the places where faith is more likely to be strengthened by the Holy Ghost rather than destroyed. I'm saying, don't get sidetracked by details that aren't faith promoting or distract from gaining a firm testimony of the mission of Jesus Christ on the earth and our goal of returning to our Father in Heaven.

I think what is more important is that the people around the person whose faith is teetering accepts that faith can teeter.

I'm going to use something you said earlier as an example, and I guess you could fairly call what I say about this example to be a criticism, but I don't mean to to call you out or to be mean spirited.

One of your initial reactions to the article was

I guess my biggest beef about this is that it is an opinion, with a negative tone attacking a religion but no objective data or background on the essayist. We don't know what her mental health is or if she has an alterior motive for blatantly attacking the church. Unfortunately some will read it and say, Whoa boy, I'm not going near that religion. Their opportunity to hear the gospel and receive the blessings is being affected by some disgruntled, ex member. That frustrates me!!

It really isn't that uncommon in the Church (in any subculture, really) for those in the subculture to try to discredit the opinions of those that leave the subculture, or violate the norms of the subculture. It's a natural reaction that is usually rooted in the "insider" trying to manage the cognitive dissonance generated by the "outsider."

The problem is that doing so usually further alienates the outsider. It also further insulate the insider. The reaction is a mutual pushing away that further segregates the believers from the questioners.

We would do well if we would modify our response to those whose faith is wavering. There are two very powerful phrases that I highly recommend in such situations. 1) "I'm sorry" and 2) "I don't know."

In the case of the article's author, she had negative experiences with church leaders. As she was telling other members about those experiences, it would go a long way if the response was, "I'm sorry that happened to you." When we say things like, "It was just a rogue member of the church." we effectively dismiss the feelings that were cause by that rogue member of the church. We ought to remember that these offenses, whether justified or not, feel very real to the offended. There is no possible way to help them overcome the offense if they feel like their feelings aren't being taken seriously.

In the case of people whose faith is wavering, for doctrinal or historical issues, saying "I don't know" is a powerful tool. Too often, we try to have the answers to everything. When we try to give answers, we again inadvertently dismiss those very real feelings of discomfort the person has over what they have learned.

A good model of the "I don't know" approach is President Hinckley. When he was asked about the philosophy that we could become gods ourselves--something that is difficult for some inside the faith, let alone outside the faith--he very candidly said, (paraphrasing) "we don't really know what means."

In my own experience, when I tell people who are struggling over an issue that I too don't know the answer and that there are things in the Church's history that make me uncomfortable, I'm usually met with relief. Their defenses come down almost immediately. We rarely come to resolutions about those things, but we at least feel that there is someone with whom we can share our discomfort without ostracism, and that's important.

[MarginOfError]

Just so you all know where I stand - I have never met a "Mormon" devout or hardly active that I do no believe needs to seriously consider repenting and making a major change in their life. The biggest problem and most needing repentance is a particular proud critical "Mormon" in my ward - Sometimes I try to avoid him but every time I look in a mirror there he is with his disgusting smirk.

Yes he talks big about being compassionate and loving - but given a good opportunity the curmudgeon is the more likely to shine through.

Why must you describe me so well?

[Vort]

We would do well if we would modify our response to those whose faith is wavering. There are two very powerful phrases that I highly recommend in such situations. 1) "I'm sorry" and 2) "I don't know."

In the case of the article's author, she had negative experiences with church leaders. As she was telling other members about those experiences, it would go a long way if the response was, "I'm sorry that happened to you."

I have had direct experience with some people criticizing the Church and its leaders. They were passionate in asserting the many wrongs they suffered. However, I happened to know something else: They were wrong. Their assertions were either wildly out-of-context misinterpretations of what really happened or, it seemed to me, fabrications out of whole cloth.

So, then, were these people just plain liars? Not that simple. In fact, they deeply believed the gist of what they were claiming -- though they did privately admit to exaggeration, apparently thinking that since it was an honest reflection of how they were feeling, that therefore made it acceptable to claim as actually having happened. When I brought up evidence that their claims were baseless, they simply dismissed them with a wave of the hand. When I insisted, they got angry and defensive and said how I "didn't understand". I agreed, telling them that I didn't understand how they could claim X when I had just shown them proof that Not X was the case.

You think this dissuaded them? Hah. They simply stopped talking to me.

It is very easy for a disaffected individual to level complaints. In most cases, there is at least a germ of truth to what they are saying. But their interpretation is typically skewed, and they demand a level of perfection from the Church and its leaders that they would never live up to themselves nor expect of almost anyone else. The hypocritical double standard is breathtaking.

I do think "I'm sorry" and "I don't know" are useful and honest responses in many cases, but they do not address the underlying issues of dishonesty that lie at the root of so much of this sort of antiMormon activity.

[MarginOfError]

I do think "I'm sorry" and "I don't know" are useful and honest responses in many cases, but they do not address the underlying issues of dishonesty that lie at the root of so much of this sort of antiMormon activity.

I'll agree with you that "I'm sorry" and "I don't know" are not very useful to people who have committed themselves to anti-Mormon activity. I merely mean to suggest that if we would invoke "I'm sorry" and "I don't know" earlier in the process, we might not have so much anti-Mormon activity (at least not coming from the former members).

At least this is true if my assumption that the vast majority of former-member-anti-Mormons were at some point open to the idea reembracing their faith is true.

[Traveler]

I'll agree with you that "I'm sorry" and "I don't know" are not very useful to people who have committed themselves to anti-Mormon activity. I merely mean to suggest that if we would invoke "I'm sorry" and "I don't know" earlier in the process, we might not have so much anti-Mormon activity (at least not coming from the former members).

At least this is true if my assumption that the vast majority of former-member-anti-Mormons were at some point open to the idea reembracing their faith is true.

I am personally conflicted in discussions with anti-Mormons. I happen to hold my LDS covenants with some regards and at the same time I realize that me and just about everybody else so involved in covenants is not above criticism - but then I also believe that part of my covenant is to stand as an example - to stand for something despite all mine and other's flaws in living our covenants.

So I liken my loved and held sacred covenants to my love and concern for my 13 year old grand daughter. I love her dearly but I realize that she is not the best example of a perfect 13 year old angel. If someone made it known to me that they intended to rape and abuse my 13 year old grand daughter - I do not think I would just stand there and say "I'm sorry" or "I do not know what to do".

Now maybe they really did not intend to rape and abuse my 13 year old grand daughter - maybe the fault is mine in assuming their intensions has anything to do with what they are saying and doing. Perhaps I tend to overreact and deserve criticism. But to not make my position very clear - even to my other grand children, close friends and other family just is not going to happen - even if they feel rejected. Part of my flaw.

And if it is a communication problem? - Then I hope that some day to resolve the issue. But in the heat of the moment - I am not about to take that chance with my grand daughter.

The Traveler

[RMGuy]

It's not the truth that I'm worried about. It's the conjecture and assumptions and rumors that get put out there as facts.

So long as we don't label everything which which we don't agree as assumption and rumor then you and I are in complete agreement.

-RM

[RMGuy]

Vort,

it is interesting that God didn't choose to shield us from Satan's plan.

You mentioned that "We do not become "informed" merely by reading an anti-Mormon's novel." I agree wholeheartedly. We also do not become "informed" merely by reading one side of an issue either.

I think we may disagree on some fundamental concepts, and that is ok. From our interactions in the past I understand that loyalty to you is a very big issue. It is a bright star in your firmament and that is a wonderful thing. I can see that from that perspective everything that is not intricately aligned with the plan as laid out by the brethren is seen as disloyal and therefore bad, wrong, or "anti".

I tend to subscribe the concept that all truth is valuable (yes Elder Packer and I disagree, and from your perspective that may make me disloyal). I don't consider Rough Stone Rolling, In Sacred Loneliness, Mormon Enigma, Origins of Power, etc. as Novels. In fact, while they are in many cases NOT what you have read as part of your Gospel Doctrine lessons, they are not what I would consider to be anti. In fact, in most of those instances they are relatively neutral, and in all of the above instances are VERY well documented....in fact, better documented than any of the manuals that I have read.

Just because we don't like something, don't agree with it, or it causes us to rethink our preconceptions does not make it "anti" nor does it make it a novel. This article to which the OP refers, I believe, is a perfect example of what Elder Brown meant by "informed". Are we going to dismiss what the author wrote because we don't like it, or it isn't our experience? Or are we going to embrace it for THE TRUTH WE CAN LEARN FROM IT, and realize that some individuals (not all, not a majority, perhaps not many at all), but some experience similar things, and instead of casting aspersions at the individual, perhaps look inward and ask what we can do differently as Saints to forestall that happening from someone else.

-RM

[carlimac]

So long as we don't label everything which which we don't agree as assumption and rumor then you and I are in complete agreement.

-RM

It's not just stuff we disagree with. It's blatant mistruths. For example, there is some guy (the one with 15 different discussions going at once) who put up a link to some webpage showing that Emma Smith was actually Joseph Smith's 7th wife rather than his first. He was using that to back up his claim that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Well, we know that internet page is either something falsified or he interpreted it wrong (that's my guess from looking at it). But someone who doesn't know much about the history of the church, who hears that info might think Joseph Smith was not only a polygamist but a bigamist or adulterer or sex fiend or just plain liar, too. I mean, what does that conjure up in one's mind. (How did he manage to marry 6 wives before Emma? C,mon that's ridiculous. WE know that but maybe not an investigator or someone who's testimony is on really shaky ground to begin with. ) And then the rumor goes on and grows and mutates. So very much of what has been said by past prophets is taken out of context and then used to blast away at the Church. Edited February 2, 2012 by carlimac

[Vort]

Vort,

it is interesting that God didn't choose to shield us from Satan's plan.

If you mean the "plan of destruction" Satan has attempted to lay for us, then my reply is that God most certainly HAS shielded us from it. Satan would destroy us if he could. Note the last three words: "if he could". Why can't he? Because the Lord placed enmity between Satan and Eve, and between Satan's seed and Eve's seed. We most certainly are shielded from "Satan's plan".

You mentioned that "We do not become "informed" merely by reading an anti-Mormon's novel." I agree wholeheartedly. We also do not become "informed" merely by reading one side of an issue either.

Your use of "side" presupposes that neither "side" gives a true account ("true" in the sense of "straight", "constant", as in "this gun shoots true"). Since each side is biased and unreliable, we must hear both (or all) viewpoints and then try to judge the actuality.

This model works fine for many things in our lives, but not all. For example, I normally would not accept the testimony of a three-year-old child, even one I trusted, over that of an adult I believe to be honest. Similarly, this model does not apply to divine truth. When God reveals a thing, that revelation may be taken to define the truth. All other viewpoints must then be rectified against the known true standard.

If you have received revelation that the LDS Church is the kingdom of God on earth, with the Lord at its head, then arguing against the Church's leadership is insanity.

I think we may disagree on some fundamental concepts, and that is ok. From our interactions in the past I understand that loyalty to you is a very big issue. It is a bright star in your firmament and that is a wonderful thing. I can see that from that perspective everything that is not intricately aligned with the plan as laid out by the brethren is seen as disloyal and therefore bad, wrong, or "anti".

Thanks for the condescension, but you are mistaken. Your last sentence above is an incorrect rendering of my views.

I tend to subscribe the concept that all truth is valuable (yes Elder Packer and I disagree, and from your perspective that may make me disloyal).

I disagree. Truth in and of itself has little intrinsic value. It is valuable exactly and only because it allows us to interact meaningfully with our surroundings; that is, knowledge of the truth sets us free.

The problem with your viewpoint is easily illustrated. Consider a situation where you must communicate with a man from a very foreign and primitive culture, and you are unable to use any words or ideas or concepts except those familiar to the man. Let us also suppose the man is in a room with a door that is booby-trapped to explode when he opens it. Which of the following is more honest?

A: Do not open the door under any circumstances! There is a dragon behind that door who will destroy and consume you! If you open that door, you will perish in the wrath of the dragon that lurks behind it! Don't even TOUCH the doorknob!

B: Ignore A. There is no dragon behind the door, because there is no such thing as dragons. The door is just a door, and it hides nothing special. However, if you open the door, you will be introduced to a wonder of modern technology, the likes of which you can't imagine. It will most certainly change your life.

Note that A's statements are demonstrably incorrect, while B's statements are all correct.

I maintain that A is telling the truth and B is lying. This is the case, not merely because A has the man's best interests at heart, or even because following A's advice leads to a better outcome. It is true because, within the man's frame of understanding, A's teachings are more literally correct.

Just because we don't like something, don't agree with it, or it causes us to rethink our preconceptions does not make it "anti" nor does it make it a novel.

Are you suggesting that I said some such thing?

Are we going to dismiss what the author wrote because we don't like it, or it isn't our experience? Or are we going to embrace it for THE TRUTH WE CAN LEARN FROM IT, and realize that some individuals (not all, not a majority, perhaps not many at all), but some experience similar things, and instead of casting aspersions at the individual, perhaps look inward and ask what we can do differently as Saints to forestall that happening from someone else.

I do not disagree with this idea, but it is beside the point. Carrie Sheffield's article is not honest. It describes things about my religion in a twisted, funhouse-mirror way. The dishonesty of her characterization of my religion leads me to disbelieve her own accounts; if she's so willing to distort things I do know about, why would I doubt her willingness to distort or fabricate instances that I cannot know about?

Edited February 2, 2012 by Vort
typo

[RMGuy]

Vort, we disagree.

The floor is yours.

-RM

[Vort]

Vort, we disagree.

Isn't that a bit, um...obvious?

The floor is yours.

Thanks, but I'm more of a wall guy myself.

If you have no desire to discuss the issue but instead only point out the obvious ("we disagree"), then I suppose the conversation is over.

[MarginOfError]

Thanks, but I'm more of a wall guy myself.

Vort the wallflower!?

[Dravin]

Vort the wallflower!?

He always seemed more of a Twoflower to me.

[annewandering]

Twoflower Vort's luggage is filled with a large amount of knowledge. Very handy I am sure.

RMGuy, since when does Pres. Packer say truth is not a good thing. I flat out do not believe he said any such thing.

[Vort]

President Packer didn't say that truth was not a good thing, but he did say that not all truth is of the same value; some truths are more important than others. To me, this is self-evident. To RMGuy, I guess it is not.

[bytor2112]

People leave the church for various reasons. I think, often, the product being offered isn't quite as beautiful once they have opened the pretty package and discover that church people are flawed and not perfect like they once believed.

Fellowshipping and love are a challenge for many faiths, but, I think we could do a better job of actually loving people and having patience. Certainly Heavenly Father is long suffering and patient, how much more so should we?

We need a lot more of this :

As I have loved you,

Love one another.

This new commandment:

Love one another.

By this shall men know

Ye are my disciples,

If ye have love

One to another.

And a lot less of this:

I have no patience for such rank disloyalty. If you're going to leave, then leave, but quit whining.

Or this:

Why don't you take your six-year-old to tour a whorehouse and maybe let him sit in on a session or two? After all, it's "real", and it truly happens, so it cannot possibly harm him. Right?

Words of Disciple of Jesus Christ?

Edited February 3, 2012 by pam

[annewandering]

Fellowshipping and love are a challenge for many faiths, but, I think we could do a better job of actually loving people and having patience. Certainly Heavenly Father is long suffering and patient, how much more so should we?

Arrogance and barbed comments from ANYONE does a substantial amount of damage as well.

This is a huge problem and not just here by any means. Every LDS site I have gone to has an element of this hurtful behavior. I have often thought that if I were questioning and less stubborn and had a tender skin I would have left the church long ago just from seeing the unkindness of some LDS posters.

It really doesnt seem to be that hard to have empathy for other posters. That poster isnt the only person who reads posts. Many, many lurkers see them and who knows how many have said to themselves, "if that is how they treat each other than I want nothing to do with them!"

[Guest]

This is not an LDS problem. This is not even a religious problem. This is a culture problem. It is fact that people who identify themselves as members of a specific group would have a hard time separating themselves from that group when they desire to.

Just in my own life I have been through the following:

1.) Extreme pressure from family for wanting to enter a predominantly male field of study.

2.) Ostracization from my family and friends for marrying a non-Filipino.

3.) Ostracization from my family and friends for marrying a non-Catholic.

4.) Ostracization from my family and friends for marrying somebody of a perceived lower class (I was a highly paid professional engineer from a renowned family, my husband was a GED-carrying runway model from "the other side of the tracks" family).

5.) Ostracization from my family and friends for leaving the Catholic faith.

6.) Extreme pressure from friends for choosing Football over Soccer.

I can write a Washington Post article for each and every one of those items bemoaning the "ills" of the group I just left - I can write a 5-page article lambasting soccer if I feel so inclined mentioning some half-truths and misleading facts to make my point (I know soccer pretty well, so I don't have ignorance as an excuse like the author of the anti-Mormon article).

And it is also fact that people usually elect people they have something in common with, especially when it comes to positions that require trust, because it is easier to trust somebody you can "identify" with. For example, when I applied for my very first home loan, I opted to use a specific bank because their mortgage lender was Filipino - I trusted that because she is Filipino she wouldn't hoodwink me because Filipino culture usually identifies with their fellow countrymen. There is nothing wrong with that.

Edited February 3, 2012 by anatess

[Maureen]

So do you think it's a very good idea for someone who's faith is on the line to read, say... Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History", or Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven" to find out what really happened back then? (tongue in cheek by the way) Or even Mormon blogs and forums or the Journal of Discourses from way back when? Or even Mormon Doctrine (not saying this is all false but it isn't canonized scripture and as we've found out, is somewhat subjective)?

Yes! Likely their faith has been shaken in the first place because they have an idealized image of their church and first prophet and when they become informed with less favourable, yet highly realistic information about their church or first prophet it can be shocking. Even church apologist Dr. Daniel Peterson and author Richard Bushman believe the church should make better efforts to improve on how it presents its true history to its members. From Daniel Peterson himself:

Inoculation

Writing in his journal about Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman remarks that "part of my purpose in writing is to introduce the troublesome material into the standard account to prevent horrible shocks later."69

The real question is, Should we hide troublesome things from the Saints and hope they will never find out? The problem then is what happens when they do. They are disillusioned and in danger of mistrusting everything they have been told. . . . Amazingly, many LDS don't know Joseph married thirty women. We have to get these facts out to be dealt with; otherwise we are in a vulnerable position. It may be my job to bring the whole of Joseph's story into the open.70

I keep hearing of young people who are shocked to discover the ideal Joseph Smith they learned about in Church is not the Joseph Smith most scholars perceive. Taken aback, the young Mormons not only wonder about the Prophet but about their teachers. Everything comes tumbling down.71

I worry about the young Latter-day Saints who learn only about the saintly Joseph and are shocked to discover his failings. The problem is that they may lose faith in the entire teaching system that brought them along. If their teachers covered up Joseph Smith's flaws, what else are they hiding?72

I share Bushman's concerns and have reflected on this issue for a long time. I've repeatedly used the metaphor of inoculation to express what I have in mind. A friendly and well-intentioned healthcare professional injects a patient with a benign form of a disease under favorable circumstances so that, later on, when the patient encounters a more threatening form of the disease in more hostile environs, he or she will be immune to its ravages. It seems to me far preferable that Latter-day Saints hear about potentially difficult issues from fellow believers who have accommodated the facts into their faith than that they be confronted by such issues at the hands of people who seek to use new information to surprise them, undermine their confidence in the church and its leaders, and destroy their religious beliefs....

Editor's Introduction: Reflections on the Reactions to Rough Stone Rolling and Related Matters - Daniel C. Peterson - FARMS Review - Volume 19 - Issue 1

M.

[RMGuy]

Twoflower Vort's luggage is filled with a large amount of knowledge. Very handy I am sure.

RMGuy, since when does Pres. Packer say truth is not a good thing. I flat out do not believe he said any such thing.

Anne,

I didn't say President Packer said that truth wasn't a good thing. My original statment if you look back was, "I tend to subscribe the concept that all truth is valuable (yes Elder Packer and I disagree..."

President Packer's exact quote was, "There is a temptation of the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy of faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

You can find a link to his entire remarks here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/21.3PackerMantle-3fec8723-6fb5-4f0a-9257-1bccc325bfe6.pdf

-RM

[Backroads]

My question is if these people are upset about the cold horrible truths or that they didn't learn of them earlier?

[RMGuy]

My question is if these people are upset about the cold horrible truths or that they didn't learn of them earlier?

Backroads,

It is always difficult to lump people into one bucket. I would guess that the answer to your question in a very general sense is, YES.

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that anyone who has been a member for any length of time wasn't aware of polygamy for example, but I guess it is possible. However, an individual learning about Joseph and polyandry for the first time may become upset on the basis of the facts, and others on the basis that they were never told this, or it was never presented to them. I can understand the point of view.

-RM

[Maureen]

My question is if these people are upset about the cold horrible truths or that they didn't learn of them earlier?

I would suspect both.

M.

[Guest fadedleaf3]

Why don't you take your six-year-old to tour a whorehouse and maybe let him sit in on a session or two?

I think for you, Vort, this would be a good idea. At least your children would have the opportunity to meet their mother, or grandmother--or as I'm sure in your case--Both.