DiscussMormonism.com

Holy smokes! I cannot count the number of times that I have heard the apologists over on the fittingly named MADboard claim that no one is ever told to avoid embarrassing Church history, or anti-Mormon accounts of the Church, but, it turns out that this is all a bunch of spin, all a bunch of baloney. What I find so stunning about this is that the admission is coming from none other than juliann!!!:

juliann wrote:It is refreshing to even see some critics begin to admit some responsibility. I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned. I find it almost incomprehensible that Joseph Smith's polygamy is sitting right in one of the most important pieces of scripture for LDS belief yet some people don't know. I didn't know how many sealings (and we still don't, by the way). I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be taught when no one can come to a conclusion on this board about some pretty fundamental things. It is very clear the purpose of teaching this for the countermos is to paint Joseph Smith as a terrible person because that is what they think polygamy makes a person. The breakdown seems to occur when they can't understand why not everybody thinks it does....and I don't see that being argued in church manuals anytime soon. So what they really want would never be acknowledged anyway and they would find themselves in the same frustrated existence....a burning need to convert us to their way of thinking.

I still find it so bizarre that we get so much tongue clucking over D&C 132 and how awful the flaming sword is ....while another thread is claiming the church hides it. I don't even know how to respond to that.....cognitive dissonance? Compartmentalization? What is going on with the critics when they can take two competing positions and be so completely oblivious while they do it?

(emphasis added)

I vote that we end this silly apologetic effluvium once and for all. Let's all say it together: The Church discourages members from reading the full history!

Edited to add: I cannot help but point out that juliann is one of the most egregiously nasty posters towards those people who appear on MAD in order to express their mixed emotions upon finding out some embarrassing tidbit about the Church. In other words, she, along with her "harpy brigade," tend to deride and victimize these upset posters, and to blame them for not "studying up." How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!

Mister Scratch wrote:I vote that we end this silly apologetic effluvium once and for all. Let's all say it together: The Church discourages members from reading the full history!

Edited to add: I cannot help but point out that juliann is one of the most egregiously nasty posters towards those people who appear on MAD in order to express their mixed emotions upon finding out some embarrassing tidbit about the Church. In other words, she, along with her "harpy brigade," tend to deride and victimize these upset posters, and to blame them for not "studying up." How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!

Of course the church has always taught its people to avoid critical literature. It was quite a surprise to me to hear so many people on FAIR/MAD deny this. I'm happy to see Juliann state the obvious.

And your observation about how struggling and questioning members are received is spot on. I've met more than a few people who went to FAIR for answers and went away disillusioned after being attacked. I think the problem is that it's hard to distinguish the sincere from the trolls.

Mister Scratch wrote:

juliann wrote:I still find it so bizarre that we get so much tongue clucking over D&C 132 and how awful the flaming sword is ....while another thread is claiming the church hides it. I don't even know how to respond to that.....cognitive dissonance? Compartmentalization? What is going on with the critics when they can take two competing positions and be so completely oblivious while they do it?

I think Juliann is misunderstanding these two points. The critics are against polygamy and the Church seems to sense the out-of-sync-with-Western-Civilization nature of polygamy and so they do not mention it in their materials. There is no conflict to experience cognitive dissonance over these two items.

Apologists deny a lot of things that anyone who has spent any time as an active member of an LDS church knows is true. I think the apologists forget that many critics were once members too. We know what we were taught.

I also find it humorous that Juliann defends polygamy. Does she know how much Gordon B. Hinckley despises polygamy?

Well, to be FAIR, she didn't say we should not get the whole story. She said she was told to stay away from anti-Mormonism. She doesn't believe the whole story can be told through anti-Mormonism. Neither side will give the whole story, to be honest.

But did anyone ever really doubt LDS are encouraged to stay away from such materials?

I know some Mormons who think the presence of an anti-Mormon book in their house, literally hinder's the spirit's presence.

dartagnan wrote:Well, to be FAIR, she didn't say we should not get the whole story. She said she was told to stay away from anti-Mormonism. She doesn't believe the whole story can be told through anti-Mormonism. Neither side will give the whole story, to be honest.

No, anti-Mormons are not about to tell the whole story, either. But if you look at both sides, you can find the whole story.

But did anyone ever really doubt LDS are encouraged to stay away from such materials?

I know some Mormons who think the presence of an anti-Mormon book in their house, literally hinder's the spirit's presence.

That's why it was so weird to hear people deny that we were told that.

The idea that it is the member who at some point is disturbed at finding something that they feel the Church has not been forthright about is at fault is utter nonsense. The church does not encourage heavy historical research. Before the internet many members did not have access to it. And it is in and of itself contradictory.

Look at it this way:

Disturbed member or ExMo: "I am really angry that I was reading XYZ book and found out the Joseph Smith practiced polyandry. This was quite a shock to me and seems to be out of character with how I was taught about Joseph Smith."

Apologist: "Well you know a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."

Disturbed member or ExMo: "Well ok, but I though that he was acting as a prophet when it came to plural marriage."

Apologist: "Yes he was. Commanded of God."

Disturbed member or ExMo: "Well I feel like the Church hid this from me. I went to seminary, Institute, all my SS classes and read all the related church manuals. I knew about plural marriage of course, it is in the D&C. But marrying other men's wives? The story of Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs Young just breaks my heart. I am really upset I had to find this out in XYZ book."

Apologist: Well it is your own fault you know. It was not hidden. You could have found out in a number of different books. Why did you now do your homework.

Disturbed member or ExMo: "Uhhh.... well that is exactly what I did! I did my homework and found this out in a book published by Signature as well as an obscure BYU studies article. So I did my homework and now I am mad that the Church does not at least teach something about it rather then the more faith promoting version. None of the official sources from the LDS Church told me this. I had to do the homework on my own and now I am upset. I guess I did not just do it soon enough"

Apologist: "Well, it is still your fault that you did not do it sooner. "



You see, most of us who are disillusioned to how we were taught about the history found out the more real history when we decided to do our own leg work. But why should only the bright and happy positive side be presented by the Church itself?

Mr. Scratch,

I don't see how you can logically proceed from Juliann's statement....

I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned.

...to 'full history'. Anti-Mormonism isn't full history. It doesn't follow.

How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!

Counsel against reading what? Full history? Where does she say that? I too have seen the counsel on anti-Mormonism, but I have never been counseled not to read the full history. by the way, I takes my chances and I do indeed read anti-mormon stuff too....;)

bcspace wrote:Mr. Scratch,

I don't see how you can logically proceed from Juliann's statement....

I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned.

...to 'full history'. Anti-Mormonism isn't full history. It doesn't follow.

How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!

Counsel against reading what? Full history? Where does she say that? I too have seen the counsel on anti-Mormonism, but I have never been counseled not to read the full history. by the way, I takes my chances and I do indeed read anti-mormon stuff too....;)

Well it depends on the definition of "anti-mormon stuff". Some people consider anything written about the church which is not praiseworthy to be anti-mormon, no matter how accurate it is. Boyd K. Packer once said that churh historians should only write faith promoting history and edit out non-faith promiting truths. Fawn Brodie's book is considered by some to be anti-mormon garbage written by revelation through satan. Others consider it a fairly accurate portrayal of Joseph Smith. Most LDS I know consider anything that casts the LDS church in a negative light is anti-mormon, no matter how well researched and accurate.

SatanWasSetUp wrote:

bcspace wrote:Mr. Scratch,

I don't see how you can logically proceed from Juliann's statement....

I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned.

...to 'full history'. Anti-Mormonism isn't full history. It doesn't follow.

How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!

Counsel against reading what? Full history? Where does she say that? I too have seen the counsel on anti-Mormonism, but I have never been counseled not to read the full history. by the way, I takes my chances and I do indeed read anti-mormon stuff too....;)

Well it depends on the definition of "anti-mormon stuff". Some people consider anything written about the church which is not praiseworthy to be anti-mormon, no matter how accurate it is. Boyd K. Packer once said that churh historians should only write faith promoting history and edit out non-faith promiting truths. Fawn Brodie's book is considered by some to be anti-mormon garbage written by revelation through satan. Others consider it a fairly accurate portrayal of Joseph Smith. Most LDS I know consider anything that casts the LDS church in a negative light is anti-mormon, no matter how well researched and accurate.

You are exactly right, SWSU. My critique of juliann does indeed depend upon the way one defines "anti-Mormon," and if one is to rely upon statements issued by the Brethren---including BKP's infamous talk---then you more or less have to concede that anything "not faith promoting" is "anti-Mormon."

As for you, BC---well, you *are* getting the full history then, aren't you! ; ) I think it is important to look at a given topic from all sides, even if that includes material which is supposedly "anti". Anything which omits the critical, or "anti", perspective cannot legitimately be called "a full history," in my opinion.