Recent press release from the LDS church.

[_why me]

Of couse this is one man's opinion and he is entitled to share his opinion and we are all entitled to agree or disagree. I think that church history is a two edged sword. I am a firm believer in putting all skeletons on the table for dissection not to have people leave the church but rather to make LDS members stronger in the church and in its history. There is strength in knowledge.

Now we do have countermos who constantly bring up church history as a sign that the LDS church is not true. I think that this is a false deduction. However, it is done in order to conquer the unknowledgeable. And such countermo strategies seem to succeed at times. For LDS members, the knowing of church history would be very important in countering such countemo strategies. And because of this the GA was just a tad wrong. However the original poster has also made some good points in his or her posts and I can see just where he or she is coming from.

[_Sethbag]

So, he wants to have more history as long as it doesn't help create doubts in people who already believe? Well, the obvious problem with that is what if the church is not really true?

Your point is well taken. But if the church is true the organizational structure shouldn't be involved in creating disillusionment or doubt. It all comes down either/or. The critics are persuaded by things as they are that the church is false. Those that believe are persuaded by things as they are that the church may be true.

Close, but I disagree here. The critics are persuaded by things as they are that the church is false. The membership is convinced by the fantasy that whitewashes the way things are that the church is true. This is a given in this conversation, and is admitted by Oaks. The church's take on history necessarily can only include some subset of history without helping create doubt, which means by definition that it's not the view of how things really happened in the early days of the church that has people persuaded that it's true, but in fact only an altered, doctored, whitewashed view.

The history of a church that doesn't look like it's true.

Yes and no. It depends on where the evidence leads you.

No. The evidence is of a church that does not appear to be true. This is why the evidence is routinely left out by the church. That's what we're talking about. This is why Oaks is only willing to support more forthright history to the extent he can do so and not promote doubt in the believers. This extent clearly does not include anything like full disclosure, does it? If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The fact that there are people so committed to the church's being "true", who experience the truth only after reaching a certain level of indoctrination over a period of years, that they can invent stupid bullsh!t theories like the catalyst theory to justify continued belief in the Book of Abraham despite hard evidence that Joseph Smith made it up, who justify a man brow-beating dozens of young girls and women to marry him behind his real wife's back by asserting that hey, God commanded it, so it must be fine, even though it's behavior unprecedented in scripture either before, or since, all of this apologetic nonsense isn't even proof to contradict my claims, because as you can plainly see by the ranks of the unbelievers here on this board, it only works on some subset of the people exposed to the real history!

Confronted with the real history, you have people like The Dude, Tarski, Sethbag, Beastie, Dr. Shades, Mister Scratch, Dan Vogel, Don Bradley, Guy Sajer, Tal Bachman, Runtu, Who Knows, Polygamy Porter, Mercury, James Bond, Rollo Tomasi, Stan Fan, KimberlyAnn, Blixa, Seven, GIMR, Truth Dancer, and many more who I apologize for not including off the top of my head, who demonstrate that the apologetic answers are not the natural and predictable response. All of these apostates/unbelievers clearly demonstrate and support the very notion that we're arguing about here, that the real history of the church promotes doubt by being the history of a church that doesn't look like it's true. Yeah, there are the Ed Deckers of this world who make stuff up and are not presenting a good accounting of the true history of the LDS church, but all these doubters and apostates I just mentioned were turned away from the church not be Decker's lies, but in fact by the real, unvarnished truth about the LDS church's founding. The LDS apologists are the ones having to make and stand by ridiculous and nonsensical claims to try to change the conclusion almost everyone else in the world reaches when confronted with the true history.

He's saying he wants to be "more and more forthright", but only to the extent that they can do this and avoid the things that would tend to create doubt.

If Elder Oaks is speaking as a representative of the true church then this is what you would expect him to say isn't it? It becomes a matter of perspective from the observer. A believer vs. a doubter.

Elder Oaks has much invested in the church remaining "true" to people. He's committed himself to the notion that it's true, and he's worked hard and trained himself well to see the truth of the church with mental blinders fully intact, blocking out the unpleasant bits from serious consideration.

And there's the rub. None of these items that you've listed provide solid enough evidence/proof and reason to trash the church's truth claims. It isn't necessary from the church's perspective to even make the attempt to touch anything controversial unless it comes head long into the public forum. They're in the business of saving souls and at times saving face, when it becomes necessary from their vantage point.

They are in the business of growing the empire and increasing revenues, like every other business out there. A church like this one is like an organism, programmed by evolution to survive and propagate itself from generation to generation. It is, as Dawkins would say, a prime example of a virus, but it's a virus of the mind. Sadly, unlike viruses of the body, this kind of virus can in fact be beaten just by thinking about it, but it takes a willingness to stop believing the church is true no matter what, and seriously consider the evidence on the merits, letting the chips fall where they may.

The church is between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, they have people claiming they bury their history and avoid the touchy topics. On the other hand, if they actually do discuss this stuff, it just makes it obvious that the church is in fact a man-made institution started by a charismatic, opportunistic conman.

But there are those that discuss this stuff and have provided reason(s) to believe that the church is of God.

No, they have provided reasons to stop thinking about it. The prime function of FARMS and the apologists, I'm convinced, isn't even to really answer anything at all, but just to be there. The very fact that Hugh Nibley existed, and was a smart guy, who claimed that the claims of the anti-mormons were bunk, was enough reason for many LDS to just not even pay attention, and not have any interest in learning the true history and evidence.

Most LDS, I'm convinced, have no interest whatsoever in learning anything that contradicts their testimonkey. For those in the minority who do have enough interest, there's FARMS and other apologists to try to keep some of them from leaving. And yet the apologists can't keep everyone from leaving, because they are defending the indefensible, and there are some people in the world, no matter what level of indoctrination they have received, who eventually will stop being satisfied with nonsense defenses of the indefensible, and who will come to realize the untruth of the church.

We are the ones that are between a rock and a hard place. Do we believe...or not?

We are the ones who are the victims of a mind virus which seeks to dominate our thinking and propagate itself to other people and future generations. Do we cure ourselves of the virus by taking a serious look at the facts and being willing to exercise a little critical thinking, or do we blind ourselves and submit our minds to the virus and accept whatever stupid, bullcrap, nonsense that the apologists have to offer to try to reduce the dissonance and keep on believing? That's the real question.

The apologists are not exercising critical thinking. They are approaching any and all arguments from the point of view that the church is true, that Joseph Smith was truly called of God to do all of these things, etc., and therefor all of their reasoning, and all of their "answers", are crafted and focused to support these notions. They are not focused on actually perceiving truth.

[_mentalgymnast]

Confronted with the real history, you have people like The Dude, Tarski, Sethbag, Beastie, Dr. Shades, Mister Scratch, Dan Vogel, Don Bradley, Guy Sajer, Tal Bachman, Runtu, Who Knows, Polygamy Porter, Mercury, James Bond, Rollo Tomasi, Stan Fan, KimberlyAnn, Blixa, Seven, GIMR, Truth Dancer, and many more who I apologize for not including off the top of my head, who demonstrate that the apologetic answers are not the natural and predictable response. All of these apostates/unbelievers clearly demonstrate and support the very notion that we're arguing about here, that the real history of the church promotes doubt by being the history of a church that doesn't look like it's true.

Pulling out the big guns here, huh?! There are a few of these individuals that I respect for their views/insights. I think I can see why they are where they are after having read their contributions to things Mormon over time.

But then again, I can rattle off many of the folks that John Dehlin has had his conversations with over time and I come away seeing the "other side". Just the other day I was listening to the most recent "Mormon Matters" podcast and listened to Blake Ostler who was one of the panelists. Blake is "in the know" and has as much or more background in Mormon studies as anyone in your list, and yet he believes. Richard Bushman is another. There are many active members of the church who are in the know as to the warts who have a testimony that the church is true, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt. Just in my little microcosm of the universe I've personally associated with and become friends with a number of these individuals who are willing to believe as a result of the things that they do know.

Most LDS, I'm convinced, have no interest whatsoever in learning anything that contradicts their testimonkey.

I think that we can agree on that.

For those in the minority who do have enough interest, there's FARMS and other apologists to try to keep some of them from leaving. And yet the apologists can't keep everyone from leaving, because they are defending the indefensible...

That the beliefs of the church are indefensible is true...from your perspective. That doesn't make it reality. I don't know that Bushman, Ostler, and the like would agree with your assessment that they are defending the indefensible. Again, you rattle off a list of those on this board or others like it who have been through the ringer and have come out the other end disbelieving. I can take a similar list of individuals from any one of a number of Mormon blogs: Times and Seasons, Beyond Common Consent, New Cool Thang, etc. who are believers to some extent or another, and are aware of and have been through alot of the same stuff/experience that you, and me for that matter, have been through. So to trot out a list of names as proof one way or the other simply creates a stalemate.

We are the ones who are the victims of a mind virus which seeks to dominate our thinking and propagate itself to other people and future generations. Do we cure ourselves of the virus by taking a serious look at the facts and being willing to exercise a little critical thinking, or do we blind ourselves and submit our minds to the virus and accept whatever stupid, bullcrap, nonsense that the apologists have to offer to try to reduce the dissonance and keep on believing? That's the real question.

I think that your logic is flawed here. You make it appear as though it is an either/or thing going on. Your premise that by taking a serious look at the facts will then entail no other choice but to disengage oneself from a "mind virus" is bullcrap. There are other reasonable positions to take. To place all things Mormon into a box and label it as a "mind virus" is a cheap shot at a belief system that cannot simply be reduced to such a state. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there...and leave others ignored.

The apologists are not exercising critical thinking.

Or so you say.

They are approaching any and all arguments from the point of view that the church is true, that Joseph Smith was truly called of God to do all of these things, etc., and therefor all of their reasoning, and all of their "answers", are crafted and focused to support these notions. They are not focused on actually perceiving truth.

You really believe this don't you?

To place all those that have been able to resolve issues or at least continue to deal with them from a faith/faithful perspective into a camp of conspiricists is ludicrous. I would place a bet that DCP would be be willing to join your ranks, in a heartbeat, if he came to the conclusion that the church isn't true. To say that these guys are spending their time in careful craftiness based upon ulterior motives is simply a cop out on your part, in my opinion.

by the way, back to my original post. There are thirteen interviews linked to at the PBS "The Mormons" site. Why were the Oak's and Packer interviews not linked to? Any thoughts?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Clearly, few who do know the issues still believe in what they once did.

You are saying there are only a few members of the church left throughout the world who know the issues and yet still believe that the church, more likely than not, is true? That's a stretch, isn't it TD?

I believe it is honest, decent, and healthy, to not present a knowingly false story...

TD, you and I both know that the church hasn't presented a false story. They've presented a whitewashed story.

And the whole, "milk before meat" nonsense is an attempt at hiding its condescention! (IMHO)!

What does condescension really have to do with it? Could there be other reasons?

Regards,
MG

[_Who Knows]

TD, you and I both know that the church hasn't presented a false story. They've presented a whitewashed story.

That's probably true for the most part from BY's time through now. I would disagree with you about the story Joseph Smith presented though.

Though I think there have been prophets since BY's who have presented a particular false story at times (like seeing Jesus in the temple, etc.).

[_mentalgymnast]

I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation.

Well, that may not be useful information to him, but it is to me. It gives me a better understanding of how Washington was...If I want to read about George Washington, I don't want the glorified pseudo-history of him chopping down a cherry tree and not lying about it. I want to learn about the REAL George Washington, warts and all. If I want to learn about Joseph Smith, I don't want to hear exaggerated stories from his fans of him receving surgery without drinking alcohol because he wanted to obey the Word of Wisdom, or how he talked to Jesus and God, or how he can do one-handed pushups, etc. I want to know the REAL Joseph Smith, warts and all, and unfortunately members have to go to "shady" sources to learn about him.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you. You left out the property of context though. I recently finished reading 1776 written by historian David McCullough. Washington is presented as a less than perfect individual. Yet, he is also presented as "the man of the hour". Without Washington it is highly unlikely things would have turned out the way they did during the Revolutionary War. In context Washington, even though a flawed individual who also had many strengths, played a very important part in the history of our nation and commanded the respect of his troops. Now to have Washington's faults pointed to...out of context...would not present a complete and thorough picture of the man, would it?

I think one could make a comparison/parallel to Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

[_Who Knows]

by the way, back to my original post. There are thirteen interviews linked to at the PBS "The Mormons" site. Why were the Oak's and Packer interviews not linked to? Any thoughts?

Well, they didn't post the entire interviews for everyone that appeared on the show. From looking at the list of people they provided interviews for, it looks like they did so for people who had the biggest 'parts' in the show. If I recall correctly, oaks and packer only had a few lines included in the show - in other words, they didn't play a big part in the show.

They did include interviews with hinckley and holland - who had larger roles in the documentary.

I have no reason to suspect there was any sinister motive behind this (like many tbm/apolosists have implied).

[_Sethbag]

Confronted with the real history, you have people like The Dude, Tarski, Sethbag, Beastie, Dr. Shades, Mister Scratch, Dan Vogel, Don Bradley, Guy Sajer, Tal Bachman, Runtu, Who Knows, Polygamy Porter, Mercury, James Bond, Rollo Tomasi, Stan Fan, KimberlyAnn, Blixa, Seven, GIMR, Truth Dancer, and many more who I apologize for not including off the top of my head, who demonstrate that the apologetic answers are not the natural and predictable response. All of these apostates/unbelievers clearly demonstrate and support the very notion that we're arguing about here, that the real history of the church promotes doubt by being the history of a church that doesn't look like it's true.

Pulling out the big guns here, huh?! There are a few of these individuals that I respect for their views/insights. I think I can see why they are where they are after having read their contributions to things Mormon over time.

But then again, I can rattle off many of the folks that John Dehlin has had his conversations with over time and I come away seeing the "other side". Just the other day I was listening to the most recent "Mormon Matters" podcast and listened to Blake Ostler who was one of the panelists. Blake is "in the know" and has as much or more background in Mormon studies as anyone in your list, and yet he believes. Richard Bushman is another. There are many active members of the church who are in the know as to the warts who have a testimony that the church is true, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt. Just in my little microcosm of the universe I've personally associated with and become friends with a number of these individuals who are willing to believe as a result of the things that they do know.

I think you missed my point. I am talking about the fact that the unvarnished history of the church promotes doubt, and that's why the church has never willingly taught or acknowledged it. When I say it promotes doubt, that doesn't mean that everyone who hears these facts will stop believing. It just means that a lot of people who were previously strong believers, when confronted with the unvarnished history, did doubt, and stopped believing. The unvarnished history can promote doubt without 100% of those who hear it starting to doubt. I was pointing out that a lot of people do turn to doubt.

For those in the minority who do have enough interest, there's FARMS and other apologists to try to keep some of them from leaving. And yet the apologists can't keep everyone from leaving, because they are defending the indefensible...

That the beliefs of the church are indefensible is true...from your perspective. That doesn't make it reality. I don't know that Bushman, Ostler, and the like would agree with your assessment that they are defending the indefensible. Again, you rattle off a list of those on this board or others like it who have been through the ringer and have come out the other end disbelieving. I can take a similar list of individuals from any one of a number of Mormon blogs: Times and Seasons, Beyond Common Consent, New Cool Thang, etc. who are believers to some extent or another, and are aware of and have been through alot of the same stuff/experience that you, and me for that matter, have been through. So to trot out a list of names as proof one way or the other simply creates a stalemate.

Not really. The unvarnished history promotes doubt, period. That some people resist it and cling to their belief anyhow does not contradict this.

I should really change how I said this. Things like the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith's mass seduction of young women and girls, married or not, etc. ought to be indefensible, but that doesn't stop someone who really wants to belief the church is true from trying. But the defenses are lame. You can argue this is just my opinion, and that is true, but in the end, I'm right about this.

I think that your logic is flawed here. You make it appear as though it is an either/or thing going on. Your premise that by taking a serious look at the facts will then entail no other choice but to disengage oneself from a "mind virus" is bullcrap. There are other reasonable positions to take. To place all things Mormon into a box and label it as a "mind virus" is a cheap shot at a belief system that cannot simply be reduced to such a state. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there...and leave others ignored.

People can choose to disengage, or people can choose not to disengage, but the fact that the church is essentially a mind virus remains unchanged. What's most important to me is that a person realize the nature of the beast, and that the church isn't actually true - what they choose to do with that information is up to them, and everyone has his or her own reasons for doing whatever they do. As for me, I'm still a member of record, and usually attend sacrament meeting (only) because my wife wants me to. I also don't talk about the church very much with her family and with local members in the ward, because my wife doesn't wish to get ostracised because of me. So far, this is how I've chosen to deal with the viral affliction, sort of like accepting it as a chronic disease rather than pushing for an outright cure. But I fully recognize the nature of the beast.

The apologists are not exercising critical thinking.

Or so you say.

And I do say it. And I'll say it over and over again, whenever time and place permit, on this site, in hopes that it finally gets through someone's mind who may be struggling with the concept. There is a "big picture" view here, and it's not all that difficult for most people who become familiar with the unvarnished history, who aren't already indoctrinated in the church, to see it and recognize it for what it is. The only people who seem to have trouble seeing the big picture view are totally indoctrinated, committed Mormons.

Let's see. Joseph Smith claims to have some golden plates. With the plates buried in a hollow log or whatever out in the woods (or so it's claimed), Joseph Smith can still "translate" the words recorded on the plates, by pressing his face down into a hat, at the bottom of which he has placed a stone he found while digging a well for some guy. This stone shows Joseph Smith the translation of the plates, and he has it recorded as the Book of Mormon. Now, someone who doesn't require for this to be true, will look at something like this and think wow, that's pretty crazy.

Father Abraham writes a record. Eventually, an Egyptian priest who is familiar with this record decides, for whatever reason, to write his own version of record, but rather than actually include the words of the record, instead he writes about other things which nevertheless he intends to bring to mind to someone the words of the original story. It just so happens that this other thing that the priest uses to tell (or remind us of) the story of Abraham is in fact a set of magical statements intended, in the Egyptian belief system, to enable a dead person to resume the functions of a living soul in the afterlife. Not only this, but in fact the priests then take this story (the story of Abraham, remember, which happens to also look just like an Egyptian religious afterlife-enablement spellbook) and bury it with a mummy as if it were merely the run of the mill Egyptian funerary spellbook. But then when Joseph Smith gets it, he "translates" this all back to the original words of Father Abraham. It's a miracle I tell ya!

MG, it's stuff like this that demonstrates precisely the claim I'm making, ie: that the apologists simply aren't willing to exercise critical thinking about these things. The Book of Abraham fiasco, for instance, just happens to look exactly like one might expect it to look if Joseph Smith really did make it all up, and looks next to nothing like one would expect if the writings of Father Abraham really had been preserved for us to have in the latter days. Critical thinking, especially as more and more situations just like this stack up, ought to eventually lead someone to realize that, hmm, this big picture looks remarkably like you would expect it to look if Joseph Smith really was making this stuff up as he went along.

They are approaching any and all arguments from the point of view that the church is true, that Joseph Smith was truly called of God to do all of these things, etc., and therefor all of their reasoning, and all of their "answers", are crafted and focused to support these notions. They are not focused on actually perceiving truth.

You really believe this don't you?[/quote]
Yes I absolutely do. The apologists' prime directive is to defend the church. It is not to perceive and identify the truth. Faced with an uncomfortable fact of history which ought to be clear evidence of its non-truth, the apologists will always, automatically, search for an explanation which avoids that conclusion.

To place all those that have been able to resolve issues or at least continue to deal with them from a faith/faithful perspective into a camp of conspiricists is ludicrous. I would place a bet that DCP would be be willing to join your ranks, in a heartbeat, if he came to the conclusion that the church isn't true. To say that these guys are spending their time in careful craftiness based upon ulterior motives is simply a cop out on your part, in my opinion.

It is my personal belief that DCP assumes the church is true, and will not, cannot, or has chosen not to, consider seriously that the church might not be true. So long as a person "knows" that the church is true, it is logical to that person that nothing can actually stand as evidence that the church isn't true, because, after all, it is true. So any evidence that might at first appear to demonstrate the untruth of it will be examined, thought about, etc. until a way to explain it is found that doesn't include the church not being true.

I don't call it a conspiracy, as that carries too much baggage.

But ask yourself this. Have you ever seen anything, in print, by DCP, Midgely, Welch, Hugh Nibley, or any other of the apologetic luminaries, entertaining the notion that the church might not be true? Have you ever seen any of these apologists discuss evidence like the Book of Abraham stuff and seriously entertain the idea that Joseph Smith just made it up, even if in the end they conclude that he probably didn't? Have you ever seen any of the apologetic luminaries ever seriously consider the idea that God didn't "command" Joseph Smith to seduce these several dozen other women, mostly behind his real wife's back, and Joseph just did on his own because he wanted to?

[_Dr. Shades]

The critics are persuaded by things as they are that the church is false. The membership is convinced by the fantasy that whitewashes the way things are that the church is true.

Wow, Sethbag. That entire post was a work of art. Bravo!

That was one of those rare posts that I wish I could memorize word-for-word.

[_Sethbag]

Ah shucks. :-)

I guess my main point is that it's not really arguable whether or not the unvarnished history promotes doubt. You have agreement between the critics, who say it does, and Elder Oaks and others, who admit that it does. Only the apologists seem willing to deny that the unvarnished truth promotes doubt, and their attempts to say hey, this isn't promoting doubt, all those people who stopped believing all left for other reasons, like that they wanted to sin, they couldn't obey the rules, or whatever, just sounds like sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LA LA LA I'm not listening!"