http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=25165
I have said before that apologetics is a complete waste if they don't care or relate to the people that go to MAD or FARMS to save their testimonies. Why do apologists and internet TBMs continue to accuse the "newbie" to internet Mormonism of laziness, incompetence, desire to sin, etc.?
Even worse than the cruel behavior of the posters on MAD that are supposed to be devout LDS, is their complete denial that the church covers up polygamy! They lose all credibility with a "newbie" who has just received the shock of their life when researching LDS history of this practice. Why deny it? What is the purpose in lieing about the church's role in misleading it's members about this doctrine? Wouldn't it give apologetics more credibility if they could just be honest about the church's role in white washing? This would help the member who is feeling betrayed by the church have other LDS that relate with what they are going through, and how they were able to find some peace with it. Like John Deihlin from "Mormonstories" is trying to do. Why is there such a complete divide, indifference, and lack of compassion toward the Chapel Mormon who has just had their world turned upside down from the church's cover up? Are the internet TBMs sincerely this out of touch with Chapel Mormons that they never experienced any of these emotions as they claim?
Anybody who has been an LDS member knows they intentionally edit out any mention of plural marriage and only mention the first wife of the polygamist Prophets. There is no defense or excuse for it, so the apologists need to come clean, be honest and just admit the church does cover up any mention of polygamy in church cirriculum. They discipline or excommunicate people who are found to be teaching from the Prophets statements on the subject of plural marriage.
Richard Bushman gets it and had this to say in a recent interview: http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=148
Dan Harris
DAN HARRIS, ABC NEWS: I have two separate questions. First, there's all this talk about the distrust among evangelicals toward Mormonism. If you were working for the Romney campaign, what would you tell him to say to these people? There's this argument made by political experts that he's going to need them in order to win the primary or the general. How can he bridge the gap?
Also, you talked a lot in your opening remarks about how quickly the religion went from radical to conservative. I wonder how Mormons today look back at their past and reconcile some of the differences. Do they look back and say, wow, there were some excesses? Or is there something they say to themselves about their past that helps them bridge that gap internally?
BUSHMAN: Your first question, I think, applies to Mormon doctrine rather than to the social issues, where he's got this problem. There, I think the answer is emphasis on the positive. I mean, he is a believer in Jesus Christ. He's trying to live a Christian life, and I think going into details about Phil's description of the doctrines and trying to defend them is just going to get him into trouble. I think he's got to emphasize what he truly is, and I think he's actually doing a pretty good job of that, or all he can do. It may not be enough. I'm doubtful it'll be enough. But I don't think there's anything else he can do – he's just going to get in more trouble than not.
On the radical versus conservative question, Mormons actually love their radical roots. It's like all these neo-cons that once were Marxist. (Laughter.) I think there is a feeling that somehow religion was more intense then. We were willing to give all, consecrate all of our property to the church. We were willing to give up respectability by practicing plural marriage. The plural marriage is sort of covered up by the church because it's a public relations disaster, but in terms of Mormons themselves, they're willing to honor those people as having done a lot.
So it's sort of our glorious flaming youth when we did many daring things. And I think for intellectuals, it's a cultural resource that can be drawn on in times of need. That is, there may come a time when we will need to become radical again for some reason to change the social order in some respect, to head back towards equality. I don't think we'll go back to polygamy, but I think we might go back to a kind of a social radicalism in time. That's the way I think of culture, as a mine of possibilities that you can draw upon from time to time. That's why I don't like to repudiate anything, even if it's unpopular or ungainly at a certain moment in time.
Mormons don't have much trouble with that past, believe it or not.
I disagree with Bushman that Mormons embrace their polygamous history (I was embarrassed by it my entire life and wished it hadn't happened) but even he can admit the church covers up polygamy history.
This man is well respected by Mormon apologists and "Rough Stone Rolling" was apologetic spin on Joseph Smith. So if he can admit it, why won't they?
Here are some quotes from the MAD thread:
the OP from "Thinkingoutisidethebun"
After you leave the church, what do you feel is your obligation regarding informing others of the misinformation and cover-ups that the church engages in?
the responses from TBMs are evidence of the dishonesty they are willing to engage in for defense of the church:
from ERMD:
So it is a statement of fact that the Church engages in misinformation and cover-ups?
CFR.
RayA:
What misinformation? What cover-ups? Are you so lazy that you can't do your own research, but must let the Church do it for you?
Calmoriah loves RayA's brown nosing:
Okay, I know I said I'd leave and I know it's off topic, but I just have to make this a public avowal:
Ray, I love you dearly.
then from "Selek":
QUOTE(thinkoutsidethebun @ Jun 9 2007, 04:03 PM)
Implying that someone is lazy because they don't know the lies and cover-ups of the church does not really contribute to this thread. It rather seems to me that the people who discover the real truth about the church are the ones that actively research the real facts, and not accept what they are told by the establishment. If you can't contribute something helpful, keep it to yourself.
Implying that someone is lazy doesn't contribute to the thread, but unsubstantiated allegations and offensive innuendo don't contribute to the board.
If you want to make offensive and libelous comments against the Church without being called on it, go back to RFM.
You can expect to be called on deliberate and provocative misinformation here, Buns.
And you've already been reported to the mods.
You've been asked to substantiate your allegations. Either put up or shut up. We don't need your kind here.
Not when they can be had for a couple dollars apiece on the street corner every six months.
It was not an honest question. It was a slanderous allegation which you refuse to clarify or substantiate.
You've asserted that the Church engages in disinformation and cover-ups- in short, that the Church lies.
You need to back up that assertion instead of merely trying to provoke.
This is an LDS board. You will be called on unsubtantiated slander. No freebies.
All fluff and no substance. Not one verifiable instance of cover-up or disinformation.
Just unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.
Truly, the cream of anti-Mormon propogandists.
from "Deborah":
I am so tired of this argument. I was a student at BYU 40 years ago and wouldn't you know, the BYU library was full of all kinds of books which revealed the very things you people accuse us of keeping secret. The true history has always been available for those who seek it. But the problem comes in putting the "true" history in context which is something the exes and antis rarely do.
Why is it that there are so many of us who are still strong believers in spite of knowing the "truth" you people like to say is hidden? There has to be something more than just reading the literature. I would say if most Mormons don't know these things it's because they aren't interested in knowing. They know what they believe and they have faith in those things and the rest just isn't important.
"Selek" (how has he not been banned??????)
QUOTE(thinkoutsidethebun @ Jun 9 2007, 06:30 PM)
Read Brigham Young's discourses on race - Africans, black skin - you have access to that information, right? If you don't think that is racist - that's a shame. Read up on Helen Mar Kimball's marriage to J. Smith. You have access to that too, right? No, you are wrong, people in Africa do not have access to the same information you do. There is so much more than just polygamy. It is the details of how it started, all the women Smith married behind Emma's back, how he married women who were already married. To say those people in Africa had full disclosure is ingorant. Guess what, not everyone gets to go to BYU, gets to read English, gets internet access. Get a clue.
Actually, Buns- the racism on display here is yours, since you claim to know so much more than those poor, ignorant Africans.
Perhaps some acquaintance with history- in that many of the African locals read the Book of Mormon, formed their own branches and petitioned for many years to become full members of the Church well before missionaries travelled to the area- would be appropriate to stem your tide of massive and willful ignorance.
You are a bigot. You presume superiority and then come here and lecture us. Thank you, but your criticism is ill-informed, unwarranted, and unwelcome.
You claim to be a former Mormon. Clearly, with your pride, your ignorance, and your hatred- the Church is far better off without you.
Go find some nerfs to herd. We don't need or want you.
there were some great posts by FreeAgent, "Thinking", TChild2, Theophillus and others.
"FreeAgent"
Think Outside the Bun
I totally understand where you are coming from. My husband and I in the last couple of years have been discovering all the things I guess we were asleep for during Sunday School, as folks have insinuated about me in other threads. I just wanted to show my support for you. So many people on these boards get defensive, and downright rude, and like it or not, you make some very valid points that try as they may, the defensive folk here just can't rebut. For me it is all about honesty and I believed this Church was honest to the core. While I continue to strive to live my life as one of honesty and integrity, I can no longer do that and profess the truths that I believed for so long, because, if you dig deep enough, we find out the truth and it hurts.
Deborah, I don't doubt that you knew these things years ago. It's just that you are in the minority and for you to be so condescending to those of us who didn't know this till recently really makes no sense. When I joined the Church as a convert 27 years ago, I did my research, but I certainly didn't have the internet to access, nor did I have the BYU library, but I had wonderful Church sources that members and missionaries provided me with, and from what you are telling us, we should have looked elsewhere???? Is that because the official Church sources can't be trusted to fully disclose? I think ample proof has been provided for that case.
Free Agent
TChild2 responding to RayA:
QUOTE(Ray A @ Jun 10 2007, 11:34 PM)
Sorry, but I still don't buy your line. Maybe I'm speaking from my own experience. It is your responsibility to become informed, whether you're buying a car, a house, a GPS tracking system, or investing. Do I have to reiterate the obvious? The "you didn't inform me" line does not wash with me. In 1983 I did actually say to myself "I better delve into this further". It was not a pretty picture, but I think my own wavering on other fundamentals (mainly Church-related) contributed to my angst. This line of yours sounds a bit like the serpent blaming Eve, Eve blaming Adam, and Adam blaming Eve. No one was at fault. It was the other person who beguiled me! You know about the WW2 flame throwers? Well the modern version of this is the exmo "blame throwers".
And if it was, would that make a difference to you now? Let's say, hypothetically, it was told upfront. You'd be a TBM now?
Ray - by "informed" do you mean going out and picking up literature of some sort, that by merely seeking out, already challenges the cultural taboos created within Mormonism about "anti" writings and their avoidance? You and other members don't seem to realize that the members are taught to avoid "anti" literature at all costs. To a member, the distinction of what is or what is not "anti" works is not all that easily defined. For myself as a member once, I ONLY read church authors as I felt that they would be the only ones to factually present the "truest" truth of Mormonism and reality. Now isn't that comical and naïve? In my world, at the time, it was neither.
You have to remember that the internet was not in effect prior to 95' and in Salt Lake the only place to read the many charges critics have against Mormonism was at the Lighthouse Ministry in Salt Lake City. Even as new non-member (non-practicing) of two years I felt queasy and sick walking in there for the first time, that was how powerful my cultural conditioning had been.
I had never even heard of polyandry as a member. When I first read its practice, in "anti" literature (which I avoided like the plague as a member) I had to go look it up in the dictionary. You might think that if the greatest prophet of the latter day dispensation was practing polyandry, that the church might have taught and shared its eternal truths to its members. Wouldn't you?
This post has been edited by Tchild2: Yesterday, 09:30 AM
from Gitxsanartist:
heard alot of arguments about how the church doesn't cover up or whitewash its history. At first I was willing to believe that even though I had already been exposed to quite a bit of our "not so pretty" history. Lately, I've begun to realize that the church really does try to cover up certain aspects and even in not so subtle ways.
What really stands out with regards to this is the Teachings of the Prophets manuals, in particular Brigham Young's. No where in the entire manual does it list polygamy, plural wives or given any information whatsoever about these events in his life. However, it does mention his first wife and their marriage. Reading this manual one would be led to believe that BY never practiced polgamy at all, I find this quite deceptive, do others?
Its funny that in the 2000's we are almost denying the existence of plural marriage by BY, but in the early 1980's I remember distinctly touring the Beehive house with my parents and hearing all the guides explaining where each wife had her quarters and the logistics of such a large house hold etc... it was actually quite interesting. Do we really need to sanitize our history so much that we try to change it?
I deplore these tactics. I think the public relations branch of the church is largely misguided. Whomever is in charge should be fired and replaced by someone who can take a more honest, open even truthful position. I think most of the membership would be willing to accept the truth even with a few of its warts than to be spoon fed sugar coated parcels of nothingness.
As for my informing other LDS about the reasons why I have lost my belief in alot of our religion I have largely stayed away from this. I am willing to explain about things when asked but I don't find it necessary to jump on a soapbox. Some people want to live in a bubble, if that's what they want I'm not going to be the one to take it away from them. As they say ignorance is bliss. You also have to realize that many people like to have the guidance of a prophet or church, it makes life simple. Less to have to worry about, let the prophet do the thinking for you, I for one think this is a cop out. The whole purpose of our lives is to make decision for ourselves and thereby enjoy personal growth. Blindly following the cousel of your eccleseictial authority often stymies this growth and creates a reliance that is unhealthy.
My thoughts:
Viewing this debate brings back the emotions of finding out this information for the first time and being told I was lazy, stupid/incompetent, should have gone to the library/bookstore, didn't have a strong enough testimony, etc.
Is it any wonder that MAD has been a catalyst for members to leave the church? They end up alienating the "newbie" instead of helping them find their way through the disturbing history.
Telling a fellow LDS member "How could you not know this?" "It's your fault you didn't know..."
"I always knew it..." is ignorant at best, and grossly dishonest at worst. While there may be a few TBMS on that board who were raised on the unsanitized history, they know better. They know that Chapel Mormons are well educated on "faithful history" and most will never go near anything not published by the church. They must know that the church is to blame for misleading members, especially on polygamy.
If internet TBMs are as out of touch with the mainstream church members as they claim, they are wasting their time in apologetics. They have somehow convinced themselves that antis just make up the "shock" stories they experienced. It's a missed opportunity to help a fellow devout LDS member struggling with what is probably the most painful time of their life.