Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_desert_vulture]

This exchange between Ray and Tal is pretty sad. I don't think there is any "one true way" from Mormonism. Everybody has their own life, and their own set of circumstances. Some find out the foundational issues and continue in the faith, and others leave. Some feel a great deal of depression and anger, others don't. Why should we argue about the "one correct path" away from Mormonism. Aren't there as many different ways, as there are people?

I happen to believe that when people make decisions based on the concept of informed consent, they are acting in their own best interest in view of all the facts. Where the picture gets hazy is when people are not given all the facts, and make decisions based upon half-truths or outright lies. The church seems to feel no obligation to its membership, or any type of duty whatsoever, to expose all of the facts in its history. This will create a great deal of angst in some, when they learn the truth. That is a given. People will deal with it differently based on their personality. Some will call it a "test of faith" while others call it an "epiphany" of sorts. It all depends on our personal perspective and how willing we are to accept the truth. Anger, depression, pain, suffering, stress, sadness, fear, confusion, contentment, resolve, acceptance, and happiness are emotions that we all may feel at one time or another on our pursuit of truth, and we all deal with these things differently. Hopefully we can realize that discovering the church is not what it claims has a different impact on each and every person.

[_Runtu]

DV,

I don't think Tal is arguing that there is only one way to deal with the realities of Mormonism. What I see him arguing for is pretty much the same thing you suggest: full disclosure. Once people have all the information, they are free to make informed decisions about Mormonism.

The other point Tal has made is that it's difficult to rationalize being a "dissenter" within Mormonism in its current state. I'd have to agree.

If being a NOM works for you, go for it. I tried, but I couldn't do it.

[_Dr. Shades]

I said the whitewashing is wrong. Perk up your ears - the white washing is wrong. But it is to be expected, because that's the "nature of the beast". If you swallowed Mormonism hook, line and sinker, whose fault is that? Have you ever heard of "skeptical inquiry"? If you get duped, whose fault is that? If I tell you I have some land I want to sell you at low tide, and you believe me, whose fault is that?

Those are some pretty amazing admissions, Ray.

It's akin to saying that it's O.K. for politicians to lie, because after all, they're politicians. It's up to us to figure it out.

Let me ask you: Is it okay for politicians to lie?

[_Gazelam]

I don't understand this crazed notion that the church "hides" information. There are plenty of church history books available at Deseret book that have all the salacious stuff so many of you cry and whine about. Also anyone who sifts around at BYU has access to all of this as well. Was any of this knowledge you have gained through some secret Mormon black market book source?

Gaz

[_Ray A]

I said the whitewashing is wrong. Perk up your ears - the white washing is wrong. But it is to be expected, because that's the "nature of the beast". If you swallowed Mormonism hook, line and sinker, whose fault is that? Have you ever heard of "skeptical inquiry"? If you get duped, whose fault is that? If I tell you I have some land I want to sell you at low tide, and you believe me, whose fault is that?

Those are some pretty amazing admissions, Ray.

It's akin to saying that it's O.K. for politicians to lie, because after all, they're politicians. It's up to us to figure it out.

Let me ask you: Is it okay for politicians to lie?

Shades, it's not okay for politicians to lie, but you know the old joke? When does a politician lie? When his lips move. Frankly, anyone who thinks politicians are always honest is naïve. I go "behind the news", and I could give you numerous examples but all too long for a post. But politicians do eventually pay for their lies at elections, if people find out, and IF they agree that the lying was unjustifiable. These are not simple issues, but very complex. On this subject Sissela Bok's book LYING: MORAL CHOICE IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LIFE (1978), outlines some of the difficulties in regard to public lying and merely making simplistic black and white judgements. Quinn often quoted Bok when dealing with matters of Mormon history and the subject of lying. The media in particular is filled with propaganda, depending on their bias. But that's not the point. In the 1980s there were many articles in Dialogue about historiography, specifically church history, because it has long been known that every ecclesiastical history is "bent" to belief, ie, faith promoting, to some extent. Here is a link to a summary of some of the debates, and one book that covers the debates that took place:

http://www.signaturebooks.com/faithful.htm

Perhaps you'd like to ask Geroge D. Smith what inspired him to go "behind the news" of Mormon history. Signature Books was created in the late '70s, and I started buying their books around 1983-85, and I found these books far more credible than what was coming out of Deseret or Bookcraft, (especially the whitewashing hagiographies put out by Francis Gibbons) so naturally I invested huge sums of money in buying them. Their availibility was well known by the mid '80s. My larger point is this: People get shocked all the time at what they did not know, but why do they not know it? Do you really think the church is going to bleed itself to death by killing faith? That's unrealistic and even naïve. Packer mentioned all of this in 1981, when he said that historians and teachers should largely promote faith, and we didn't have to know everything about church leaders. This is what Quinn objected to, and also the "New Mormon Historians".

The new traditionalists contend that objectivity is, in fact, impossible and that history should therefore be written with certain pre-understandings, including that God exists and that Joseph Smith was his prophet. New Mormon historians believe that it is the limits of objectivity itself which precludes such dogmatic faith assertions, that the historian's role is to report examples of faith, not to impose it.

This debate is no where near as simple as blaming "the church", as if "the church" is one unanimous brain in one body, it is an age old debate about historiography itself. It is also, I believe, books like Mormon Doctrine which have fueled an enduring mythology, and when those mythologies are dashed to pieces, some try to blame "the church". But it is these individuals like McConkie and others who perpetuate the mythologies, and in turn they influence the church manual writing committees to a large extent. If you doubt me, go back over some of the old seminary and institute manuals.

The bottom line for me is that it is an individual responsibility to get educated, and to blame the church for your own lack of education, when so much alternative information is available, is like blaming the police for booking you for a law you "didn't know about". All of this blame put on the church I consider to be a fob off of individual responsibility, and a misunderstanding of the very nature of religion and faith itself.

[_beastie]

The bottom line for me is that it is an individual responsibility to get educated, and to blame the church for your own lack of education, when so much alternative information is available, is like blaming the police for booking you for a law you "didn't know about". All of this blame put on the church I consider to be a fob off of individual responsibility, and a misunderstanding of the very nature of religion and faith itself.

Ray,

One thing you need to factor into this assessment is that church leaders have, in the past (and I suspect still do, but perhaps I am wrong) actively discouraged members from reading "anti Mormon" material. Much of the information you view as easily accessible was really only accessible to historians or from anti Mormon books like Brodie. That may be changing now, with works like Rough Stone, but that is still pretty rare.

I refused to read anything that even smacked of anti Mormonism as a believer. The only reason I checked out Mormon Enigma is because the authors were LDS. I read Mormon Polygamy for the same reason. After those two, I could no longer justify refusing to read "anti" material because of my growing suspicion that there was another "church history" that I knew nothing about, and I needed to know more.

So the church leaders cannot be totally absolved of this lack of education in members, in my opinion. At times, they seem to scare members away from seeking out that sort of information.

[_Ray A]

So the church leaders cannot be totally absolved of this lack of education in members, in my opinion. At times, they seem to scare members away from seeking out that sort of information.

beastie, I never totally absolved them, any more than I would totally absolve politicians from lying. But we know they are going to do it. And we know church history is going to be biased. I think I even said on this thread there should be more openness and honesty about the past, but I'm a realist, and I know we will never get fully disclosure. I could go to the church's website now and pluck out misleading information, but it's called "faith promoting". I also don't accept that people can learn everything about a religion by going to that religion alone. Personally, I'd check out what (informed) critics are saying as well, not church bashers.

by the way, I never followed the counsel to not read anti literature. I never had the desire until 1983, but when I got the desire the first thing I did was subscribe to Dialogue, and believe it or not, my leaders who knew of Dialogue considered it "anti". Most of them didn't even know what it was. The Walter Martin trash never appealed to me.

[_kerfuffle]

politicians and church leaders. People expect politicians to lie, but, how many people do you think expect a man of GOD to lie? Shouldn't a man of GOD be more trustworthy than a politician? Politicians lie because they have their own agenda, shouldn't a man of GOD( and yes I am emphasizing GOD!) be more interested in spiritual well being, humanity, and the members than keeping up good face for the church? And you keep forgetting that there are many people BORN in the church, how many eight year olds are going to inquire anywhere but the authority figures in their lives for information about the church before they get baptized? Is it the responcibility of a small child to do heavy research about church doctrine and history? By the time they are old enough to do this research they have already been lied to and betrayed by those they loved and trusted most! I see a good reason to be upset and angry about that! Also I see good reason to rant about it, which is healthy and good for some people. Like Tal said earlier, if Mormons are going to get upset, they don't need to get on rfm.

[_Dr. Shades]

Kerfluffle said a mouthful.

The only thing I can add is this: If it's no sin for the LDS church to spin-doctor and withhold facts, is it also no sin to around brainwashing their members to never look at "anti" material?

And as Kerfluffle hinted at, if the brainwashing worked, does that make the brainwasher any less culpable?

[_Ray A]

politicians and church leaders. People expect politicians to lie, but, how many people do you think expect a man of GOD to lie? Shouldn't a man of GOD be more trustworthy than a politician? Politicians lie because they have their own agenda, shouldn't a man of GOD( and yes I am emphasizing GOD!) be more interested in spiritual well being, humanity, and the members than keeping up good face for the church? And you keep forgetting that there are many people BORN in the church, how many eight year olds are going to inquire anywhere but the authority figures in their lives for information about the church before they get baptized? Is it the responcibility of a small child to do heavy research about church doctrine and history? By the time they are old enough to do this research they have already been lied to and betrayed by those they loved and trusted most! I see a good reason to be upset and angry about that! Also I see good reason to rant about it, which is healthy and good for some people. Like Tal said earlier, if Mormons are going to get upset, they don't need to get on rfm.

It's late (for me), and I'll address this tomorrow in more detail, but for now I have only one question: Did Tal (as an example) lie to his children when he taught them Mormon doctrine? (Before he made his discoveries)

You may recall, if you've been following this thread, I refused at one point to read the Book of Mormon to my children until they were old enough to make their own decision. And, as a sidenote, in later years only one was interested.

You know, there is whitewashing of history, and sometimes people teach, and even believe, things they are not sure about, or have their "interpretations" which they teach as fact. What annoys me are all these gross charges of "LIES" and deception to people who were only doing what they thought was best at the time. I could charge the missionaries who baptised me as "liars", but were they? Are mission presidents who lead missionaries liars? You mean, "deep down" they really don't believe any of this, and foist lies on people? I've heard that argument refuted before, in another context.

Let me put it another way. It is this culture of blame, blame, blame to OTHERS, and the refusal to accept individual responsibility, ever, which I find weak.

As for RFM, to me it is nothing but a culture of self-righteous blame to others, and total refusal to accept personal responsibility. "I believed this crap because my parents and the authorities taught me." "It's all their fault." by the way, RFM is a hate site, no doubt about it. I am so far not in the least convinced that this has anything to do with "recovery". An imbecile who reads that site can see that this has nothing to do "healing", only church bashing. It's all about denigrating, debasing, slandering, and hating Mormonism. It is, in a word, an unhealthy place with no balance. Someone, a scholar, once told Walter Martin, "do you know you radiate hate?" Ditto for RFM. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Does RFM really help people to "recover from Mormonism?" If it does, please give me some practical examples.
When you recover from something, you no longer feel anger towards it, right? Or wrong?