? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[_guy sajer]

Again, if you're demanding that I acknowledge that disbelief in Mormonism is ultimately justifiable, you will be disappointed. To do so, from my point of view, would be to acknowledge that Mormonism is false. But I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't see that the one follows from the other. To accept that disbelief, or loss in belief, in Mormonism is justifiable is not the same as acknowledging it be be false.

One might, for example, be totally embedded in a particular culture with a particular set of beliefs that strongly predispose him/her from accepting alternative/competing beliefs. This person is quite likely to reject the message of Mormon missionaries, but, I think, for quite justifiable reasons. (Including fear of ostracism by family members and larger society--a fear I believe to be completely justifiable.)

I guess it comes down to parsing over the meaning of "justifiable," but from where I sit, I do not see the conflict as you describe it.

I also find interesting, if I've interpreted you correctly, that one could not accept another's moral aversion to adultery, lying, abusing authority over minors, etc. as justifiable reasons to discount one's claim to special divine dispensation.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Again, if you're demanding that I acknowledge that disbelief in Mormonism is ultimately justifiable, you will be disappointed. To do so, from my point of view, would be to acknowledge that Mormonism is false. But I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't see that the one follows from the other. To accept that disbelief, or loss in belief, in Mormonism is justifiable is not the same as acknowledging it be be false.

One might, for example, be totally embedded in a particular culture with a particular set of beliefs that strongly predispose him/her from accepting alternative/competing beliefs. This person is quite likely to reject the message of Mormon missionaries, but, I think, for quite justifiable reasons. (Including fear of ostracism by family members and larger society--a fear I believe to be completely justifiable.)

I guess it comes down to parsing over the meaning of "justifiable," but from where I sit, I do not see the conflict as you describe it.

I also find interesting, if I've interpreted you correctly, that one could not accept another's moral aversion to adultery, lying, abusing authority over minors, etc. as justifiable reasons to discount one's claim to special divine dispensation.

Of course there's justifiable reason to disbelieve Mormonism! Didn't Joseph Smith state that he wouldn't have believed his own story if he hadn't lived it, or something to that effect? It seems to me most Mormons should be able to concede there's plenty of reasons to disbelieve Mormonism, but that they choose to believe anyway or go by faith or whatever they do to justify their belief in something so patently unbelievable.

KA

[_guy sajer]

Again, if you're demanding that I acknowledge that disbelief in Mormonism is ultimately justifiable, you will be disappointed. To do so, from my point of view, would be to acknowledge that Mormonism is false. But I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't see that the one follows from the other. To accept that disbelief, or loss in belief, in Mormonism is justifiable is not the same as acknowledging it be be false.

One might, for example, be totally embedded in a particular culture with a particular set of beliefs that strongly predispose him/her from accepting alternative/competing beliefs. This person is quite likely to reject the message of Mormon missionaries, but, I think, for quite justifiable reasons. (Including fear of ostracism by family members and larger society--a fear I believe to be completely justifiable.)

I guess it comes down to parsing over the meaning of "justifiable," but from where I sit, I do not see the conflict as you describe it.

I also find interesting, if I've interpreted you correctly, that one could not accept another's moral aversion to adultery, lying, abusing authority over minors, etc. as justifiable reasons to discount one's claim to special divine dispensation.

Of course there's justifiable reason to disbelieve Mormonism! Didn't Joseph Smith state that he wouldn't have believed his own story if he hadn't lived it, or something to that effect? It seems to me most Mormons should be able to concede there's plenty of reasons to disbelieve Mormonism, but that they choose to believe anyway or go by faith or whatever they do to justify their belief in something so patently unbelievable.

KA

Perhaps the believer's perspective also depends on the degree he/she believes that the non-believer's interpretation of events is reasonable. All else equal, to take one example, what is the most likely explanation: (1) An angel with a flaming sword really did threaten Joseph Smith with destruction should he not take other women to wife (and to bed), or (2) Joseph Smith used his power over his flock to manipulate women into bed with him? (There are other possibilities, these are for demonstration only). Given the choice between the two, my guess is that somewhere on the order of 99% of un-biased persons would select the second alternative.

I think, therefore, that our interpretation of this event is eminently reasonable and justifiable, as is our conclusion that this type of behavior is inconsistent with someone claiming to be "Second only to Jesus."

The argument that disbelief in Mormonism not justifiable strikes me a an incredible assertion; I have a hard time fathoming the thought process that produces it, even though I once believed similarly.

[_KimberlyAnn]

All else equal, to take one example, what is the most likely explanation: (1) An angel with a flaming sword really did threaten Joseph Smith with destruction should he not take other women to wife (and to bed), or (2) Joseph Smith used his power over his flock to manipulate women into bed with him? (There are other possibilities, these are for demonstration only). Given the choice between the two, my guess is that somewhere on the order of 99% of un-biased persons would select the second alternative.

I think, therefore, that our interpretation of this event is eminently reasonable and justifiable, as is our conclusion that this type of behavior is inconsistent with someone claiming to be "Second only to Jesus."

The argument that disbelief in Mormonism not justifiable strikes me a an incredible assertion; I have a hard time fathoming the thought process that produces it, even though I once believed similarly.

Now I would chose the second alternative, but I believed the first option for so long, it's embarrassing! I can't tell you how often I look at myself and think how crazy I once was to have believed such nonsense. It makes me wonder what nonsense I now believe that I shouldn't, and imagine what my life would have been like if I hadn't, for the majority of my life, believed Mormonism to be true. I'm certain I would have made drastically different choices and my life would be not be the way it is now, not by a long shot.

KA

[_Seven]

guy - good point. What really bothered me after my brief phone discussion with the GD teacher/author of LDS historical book/ about whether or not he had ever learned anything in church history that troubled him, and he simply said "NO" - was that he apparently knew this stuff and it DIDN'T bother him.

I think that is one of the major problems with apologetics and internet TBMs. When they claim that there is nothing in church history that bothers them, why would a person with sincere questions and doubts trust them or take them seriously? It appears to the newly informed member that the person is either being dishonest with them to protect the church, or that the person has no moral compass. The more disturbing option is the latter. It would be wiser for the church and apologists to confront the issues by admitting that this is troublesome history but there are reasons to keep the faith despite it. The attempts to make evil behavior appear righteous are not very effective. Admitting mistakes the church has made would go a long way in healing the person who feels betrayed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that is one of the major problems with apologetics and internet TBMs. When they claim that there is nothing in church history that bothers them, why would a person with sincere questions and doubts trust them or take them seriously? It appears to the newly informed member that the person is either being dishonest with them to protect the church, or that the person has no moral compass. The more disturbing option is the latter. It would be wiser for the church and apologists to confront the issues by admitting that this is troublesome history but there are reasons to keep the faith despite it.

This is precisely what I've said. Many times. In many places.

The attempts to make evil behavior appear righteous are not very effective. Admitting mistakes the church has made would go a long way in healing the person who feels betrayed.

But now you've shifted your ground a bit. You expect us to accept your particular reading of a given situation, or, barring that, to acknowledge that we're either dishonest or lack a moral compass.

"Surrender or die," Mopologist scum!

[Anonymous]

I am aware that you are very popular in internet Mormonism but I am not familiar with your posting history (I was never on the Z board and was on FAIR for a short time when you were not) I am getting to know your beliefs for the first time here so please keep that in mind in my response to you. :)

But now you've shifted your ground a bit. You expect us to accept your particular reading of a given situation, or, barring that, to acknowledge that we're either dishonest or lack a moral compass.

"Surrender or die," Mopologist scum!

I don't believe every issue critics bring to the table has been proven with certainty so this has never been my attitude toward apologetics. I have tried to keep an open mind and look at both sides. (I have too much to lose if I didn't do that)
But....there are issues that have been presented by critics that apologists & TBMs mock and state that they shouldn't bother us.

Take for example the white washing of history. This is time and again denied by almost every internet TBM I have come across but I KNOW what was taught in church and what the culture instilled in us about reading material that wasn't published by the church. It appears dishonest to argue that point when you are talking to someone who was an active faithful member of the church. I wasn't lazy, stupid, desiring to sin, or any of the other cruel accusations that are thrown at me. What is gained by denying what almost every Chapel Mormon experienced? Most of us did not grow up with parents who were scholars. Most did not have parents who even knew these issues existed. How can we know to research something outside of the safety net the church has given us, if we don't know it even exists???? My SIL told me it was my fault that I didn't know polygamy was required for exaltation before I went to the temple. I was scolded for making covenants without knowing this, yet I had fully prepared for the temple by reading all the books recommended, temple preparation class, tons of prayer and scripture study.....I did everything that I was counseled to, but plural marriage was never once mentioned.

Another example is polygamy. Almost every internet TBM I have come across has told me nothing bothers them about the church's history of plural marriage. (I am pleased that you are not one of them) They are almost giddy about the future return of it and defend all of it as righteous and sacred. Again, in my opinion they are either being dishonest, or there is something morally off. Polygamy SHOULD bother any faithful LDS because it violates a sacred bond and covenants between husband and wife and it's condemned by God in the Book of Mormon. The lies and cover ups surrounding the polygamy are always defended, even the slander of good people who refused to enter plural marriage. But there is something wrong with me for being sickened by it.

So my point is...if TBMs tell a newbie there is something wrong with them for being upset by polygamy, it will drive them away from apologetic material and they will find their place among the critics. Just like telling them that the church doesn't whitewash it's history and it's their fault for not knowing these things. There are basic mistakes that could be admitted and it would help the betrayed/shocked member feel understood and a part of the believing crowd. It doesn't mean that the apologetic explanations will make more sense or that I would have come to the same conclusions as Bushman, but at least I could feel that other LDS also find these issues very bothersome and found a way to keep the faith.

Back to the OP, innoculation needs to happen soon or the church will continue to lose devout members. The church has to change it's manuals at some point and it wouldn't take much to correct all the false history members have been fed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Take for example the white washing of history. This is time and again denied by almost every internet TBM I have come across but I KNOW what was taught in church and what the culture instilled in us about reading material that wasn't published by the church. It appears dishonest to argue that point when you are talking to someone who was an active faithful member of the church.

But, you see, my experience was completely different. If I'm forced to agree with you on this point, I'll be lying.

I never felt the slightest pressure to restrict my reading to things published by the Church. Not even on Church subjects. If you could see the room in which I'm typing, that would be visibly obvious to you. My home office is lined with ceiling-to-floor bookshelves on three walls. It's adjoined by another room with ceiling-to-floor bookshelves on three walls. And there are multiple bookshelves in virtually every other room of the house, filled with books by Ed Decker, B. H. Roberts, Christopher Hitchens, Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Marx, Homer, Hugh Nibley, Sigmund Freud, Dante, Leonard Arrington, Charles Darwin, James Talmage, Lucretius, the Tanners, Richard Dawkins, and hundreds of other authors. And then there's my office on campus . . .

Most of us did not grow up with parents who were scholars. Most did not have parents who even knew these issues existed. How can we know to research something outside of the safety net the church has given us, if we don't know it even exists????

My mother was semi-active during most of my youth, and she had only graduated from high school. My father got in roughly two years of forestry school, and ran a construction business. I baptized him when I was nineteen.

Again, in my opinion they are either being dishonest, or there is something morally off.

That strikes me as quite unfair, and I'm surprised that you can't see the irony of saying such a thing right after lamenting how judgmental others, as you say, have been of you.

A little charitable recognition that different people see things differently would go a long way. On both sides.

Polygamy SHOULD bother any faithful LDS because it violates a sacred bond and covenants between husband and wife and it's condemned by God in the Book of Mormon. But there is something wrong with me for being sickened by it.

But, you see, I disagree with your first sentence in the quote immediately above, and you've already informed me that there is something wrong with me -- I'm either dishonest or immoral -- because I'm not sickened as you are.

Just like telling them that the church doesn't whitewash it's history and it's their fault for not knowing these things.

That's not quite my position, but it's more right than wrong.

There are basic mistakes that could be admitted and it would help the betrayed/shocked member feel understood and a part of the believing crowd. It doesn't mean that the apologetic explanations will make more sense or that I would have come to the same conclusions as Bushman, but at least I could feel that other LDS also find these issues very bothersome and found a way to keep the faith.

Have you read Bushman?

Back to the OP, innoculation needs to happen soon or the church will continue to lose devout members. The church has to change it's manuals at some point and it wouldn't take much to correct all the false history members have been fed.

I don't agree that members have been taught "false history."

They haven't been taught all of the history -- which would, in any case, be impossible to do even if we put every member through a Ph.D. program in Mormon history -- but what they have been taught is true.

[_Jersey Girl]

beastie

Jersey Girl -

I'm sorry, I got confused by your repeated challenge to show you the children. I missed your earlier statement that you do believe they had sex. Why do you want to see the children

Because it would justify the women involved and their stories.

[_beastie]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Jersey Girl - justify them to whom?