beastie wrote:I think it's far more likely that Dr. Peterson is known as an LDS scholar, and bishops and stake presidents would never dream of admonishing him the way they may admonish other members.
And, of course, I was born with this reputation.
guy sajer wrote:I assume you disagree.
That's a safe assumption.
Dr. Shades wrote:Forgive me, but this mindset is quite apparent in many FARMS Reviews. No, the reviewers aren't leaders, but the "avoid anti-Mormon literature" sentiment is expressed occasionally and implied often.
I'd be interested in seeing a few such expressions.
guy sajer wrote:You're not going to get much validation from someone who believes there's no justifiable reason to lose one's belief.
I've explained what I meant and what I didn't mean by saying that.
Of course, there's no way I can prevent your misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Honestly, the idea that we weren't told to avoid critical literature puzzles me, as I've heard that all my life. My wife refused to read "A History of Joseph Smith by His Mother" because once she had read a little of it, she said it read like "anti-Mormon" literature and told me we shouldn't have it in the house. Never mind that I had bought it as curriculum material for a religion course at BYU.
There's enough anecdotal evidence and statements from church leaders (I dug up a bunch of them a while back) telling us to avoid unofficial sources and steer clear of critical material that I really cannot fathom Dr. Peterson's and others' statements that they have never encountered such things. If that's been their experience, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I don't relate to it at all.
Runtu wrote:Honestly, the idea that we weren't told to avoid critical literature puzzles me, as I've heard that all my life. My wife refused to read "A History of Joseph Smith by His Mother" because once she had read a little of it, she said it read like "anti-Mormon" literature and told me we shouldn't have it in the house. Never mind that I had bought it as curriculum material for a religion course at BYU.
There's enough anecdotal evidence and statements from church leaders (I dug up a bunch of them a while back) telling us to avoid unofficial sources and steer clear of critical material that I really cannot fathom Dr. Peterson's and others' statements that they have never encountered such things. If that's been their experience, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I don't relate to it at all.
It also puzzles me how they could have such an opposite experience as the rest of us. When I reference Mormon writers like Bushman, or Todd Compton in discussing church history with Chapel Mormons, I have been told "Well, they must be Mormons who are not living the gospel." Most of the LDS women in my book club thought Daniel Petersen and other LDS apologists on the PBS show were anti Mormons.
Whether or not church leaders are aggressively counseling members to avoid "anti" material doesn't matter. The members are doing a fine job all on their own. The leaders don't need to preach it from the pulpit. Look at the missionaries who represent the church all over the world. I have witnessed countless investigators being told that the troubling information given to them by concerned non members was "anti Mormon lies" and that "Satan" was trying to lead them away from the truth. Who is teaching the missionaries to say this?
I was raised to avoid any literature outside of church publications. Every LDS friend, family member, Ward member and several teachers had taught me this. I really can't believe so many apologists did not see this in the church. It was ingrained in me.
Arnold Friend wrote:My sense has been that those who are upset would just like a little validation of their feelings.
I'm fine with that. That said, the need for feelings to be validated strikes me as a bit odd. Why would anyone care what I think?
For myself, it wasn't that I cared so much what other members thought. It was a dividing line for me between who was being honest about the new information I was learning. To have apologists deny what I knew was being taught in chapels ruined their credibility in my eyes.
I would have appreciated an apologist who could have said "Hey, I know what you are going through. I also was shocked to learn this information. Yes, the church edits this stuff out because it could be damaging to our faith, etc.. Here is how I was able to make sense of it..." Just some understanding goes a long way. I was attacked by virtually ever LDS Chapel Mormons as being duped by Satan, and the apologists attacked me as being stupid, lazy, desiring to sin, etc. I was left with nobody except critics to validate the pain I was in.
Seven wrote:It also puzzles me how they could have such an opposite experience as the rest of us. When I reference Mormon writers like Bushman, or Todd Compton in discussing church history with Chapel Mormons, I have been told "Well, they must be Mormons who are not living the gospel." Most of the LDS women in my book club thought Daniel Petersen and other LDS apologists on the PBS show were anti Mormons.
Whether or not church leaders are aggressively counseling members to avoid "anti" material doesn't matter. The members are doing a fine job all on their own. The leaders don't need to preach it from the pulpit. Look at the missionaries who represent the church all over the world. I have witnessed countless investigators being told that the troubling information given to them by concerned non members was "anti Mormon lies" and that "Satan" was trying to lead them away from the truth. Who is teaching the missionaries to say this?
I was raised to avoid any literature outside of church publications. Every LDS friend, family member, Ward member and several teachers had taught me this. I really can't believe so many apologists did not see this in the church. It was ingrained in me.
The reason I dug up the quotes was that some people on another board told me that no church leaders had ever taught any such thing. Just to prove to myself that I wasn't crazy in remembering such counsel, I went through the LDS.org site and found a considerable amount of stuff.
Like I said, I have no reason to believe that these folks really haven't heard such things, but I did. I'm not crazy (well, not in that way. Besides, I'm not allowed to bring up my mental health on MAD). :-)
Runtu wrote:The reason I dug up the quotes was that some people on another board told me that no church leaders had ever taught any such thing. Just to prove to myself that I wasn't crazy in remembering such counsel, I went through the LDS.org site and found a considerable amount of stuff.
Like I said, I have no reason to believe that these folks really haven't heard such things, but I did. I'm not crazy (well, not in that way. Besides, I'm not allowed to bring up my mental health on MAD). :-)
Well I am glad to know that I am not crazy either because I also remember hearing church leaders teach this. You should post the statements here if you get a chance. It's just one more thing that makes apologists lose credibility. How can they deny what you found on the church's website? Looks like they were the ones sleeping in church.
Runtu wrote: The reason I dug up the quotes was that some people on another board told me that no church leaders had ever taught any such thing.
Nor have they ever taught that Native Americans are direct descendants of "Father Lehi" or that the real Hill Cumorah is in Western New York.
by the way, as a former Western New Yorker (grad school at U of Rochester), Palmyra is not Upstate New York, but Western New York.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."