- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
Some people think of anything not on LDS.org as anti-mormon.
:thumbdown:
I hope you weren’t thinking of me! I definitely don’t feel that way. I think the thing that bothered me most about MormonThink was the idea that the writers seemed to be trying to pass themselves off as credible because they were endowed, had been bishops, etc. To me, a clearly anti-Mormon site is preferable to a site that pretends to be objective and neutral because of who’s doing the talking, but really is anything but. Almost an ad hominem in reverse.I can assure you, Katzpur, that Heber wasn’t thinking of you when he said that. As an aside, I also read what you just said and understand why some people question this site and our purpose. If they don’t understand what we’re trying to do (
and especially if they see things in black and white and don’t need this type of approach themselves – or might even be damaged by this type of approach), it’s really easy to characterize us in oppositional terms. I get it, really – which is why I can’t condemn them or get too upset. Thanks Ray. Katzpur…my apologies I wasn’t more clear…but just to clear the air…it was in no way directed towards you…and I agree with your last post.
:thumbup: In my experience, when someone bangs on about “thinking” or “free thinking”, it often means that they want you to think like them! Sorry, that sounds Orwellian, but it is my experience! Yeah, it’s really hard to take seriously a charge of being brain-washed by those who only parrot back block-quoted material they’ve gotten from someone else and can’t converse intelligently about nuances and differing opinions. (That’s not a description of the site in question – just a basic statement of what I’ve seen FAR too often in my life.)
Yeah, and talking about Fundamentalists and Literalists, some of the worst offenders are Skeptics. Dawkins and Randi are certainly both. They don’t understand metaphor, symbolism etc. I think StayLDS is a great site and we have linked to it since it’s beginnings on the MormonThink links page as a good resource for those struggling with the faith. I know many that speak highly of it. I don’t come here very often but did the other day and saw a thread devoted to MormonThink. I thought I would chime in a clear up a few things.
My story can basically be found in a Sunstone article I did for the Borderlands here:
http://www.mormonthink.com/files/sunstone.pdf But I’d like to address some of the comments from the previous thread if you guys don’t mind. First off my disclaimer: these are mostly my views and not necessarily the views of every person that has contributed to MT but I know the others pretty well and most of us have the similar goals and motivation.
Is MT an anti-Mormon site?
I basically agree with Brian’s view of ‘anti-Mormon’. I think an anti-Mormon is someone that waves garments outside the conference center shouting ‘pay lay ale’ trying to incite the crowd. Ed Decker would probably be fair to say is anti-Mormon but not critics like Richard Packham and certainly not MT. Many sites provide information that most LDS don’t know about. That’s not being anti-Mormon in my view. I believe that apologists (and often Church members) throw that word out to immediately label someone as some sort of agent of Satan and therefore nothing they say can possible be true. That’s wrong in my opinion.
People leave the church because of MT.
No, the cause of people leaving the church after visiting MT is because of the disturbing FACTS the members learn that the church kept hidden from them. The church elected to teach members and investigators in such a way that makes the Joseph Smith story sound more believable than it really is based on how they teach it by omitting certain details and facts. We present those details and facts that they should have known before they even joined the church. Don’t blame the messenger. Blame those that white-washed the history, obscured the truth and labeled every valid critical argument an ‘anti-Mormon’ lie so no one would desire to look at anything at all even remotely critical of the church’s claims.
Does MT have bias?
Sure, as Hawkgrrrl said every site is biased. MT is no exception. Many people contributed to the site writing various sections and such from different viewpoints. As time goes by, I’ve been editing some of the more biased comments and making it more objective and we’re constantly punching up the arguments for and against to be more inclusive. As stated in the Sunstone article, we originally did not have an ‘Our Thoughts’ section. – it was mostly just issues taken from critics’ sites that had good arguments and from faithful defender sites that had good arguments as well as issues that troubled us personally.
But people kept writing and asking ‘so what do you believe’ so we just decided to include some of our common thoughts at the end of each section. We usually try to leave the door open to some different interpretations and conclusions but frankly the critics’ arguments usually made a lot more sense. Also I think it’s only fair that the reader know our bias. To not put it might be considered deceptive by some.
Wolf in Sheep’s clothing – MT just has the uncomfortable facts of Mormonism.
John Dehlin gets accused of this all the time. The site is made for members, and members already know about the good things of Mormonism – teachings of Jesus, feeling of community, etc. MT presents things that the vast majority of Saints don’t know about but we feel they should.
MT wants everyone to leave the church.
Absolutely untrue. We only want to get everything out on the table. We think that every member has a right to know what we know. It is only then that they can make an informed decision. I personally would love it if everyone in the church knew what we knew and decided to stay in the church. I for one would feel much more comfortable in church than I do now. I think the people in the church are great and I like to attend church with them but have a hard time biting my tongue while the gospel doctrine teacher misleads the flock by saying things that simply aren’t true. My ultimate wish is that we would discuss Church History completely open and honestly. No more pictures of Joseph translating the BofM by touching the plates and pondering it in front of Oliver Cowdery but instead show the accurate process of him putting his face in a hat with a stone he found while digging a well (and not the urim & thummim preserved in the stone box) and also show that no plates were even in the room. I personally would support a model more like the RLDS (Community of Christ) where believing in the historicity of the BofM is optional.
Honestly, we only want all the members to know what we know. They can do whatever they want with the information. I think that for some people, it’s better for them to stay in the church which is why I have never mentioned this stuff to my sister or one of my best friends. I think they need the church too much and would be devastated to find out it may not be what it claims to be. But for many others, I think they are better off without it. It’s totally up to them and I have never tried to get anyone to leave the church. I’m still a member but attend less frequently now than I use to.
In the Conclusions Page of MT, we ask people to consider staying in the church and even list StayLDS.com as a good resource to consult before leaving. We also steer people towards FAIR and FARMS if they aren’t sure what to believe. We really do want people to view all the arguments from all sides before making any life-changing decisions and MT has well over 300 links to pro-church sources. Certainly FAIR, FARMS or the Church isn’t nearly as open as MT is. Read the conclusions page and on the whole, is it pretty fair and reasonable? Do you see anything at all on FAIR’s website like that or on the church’s site?
http://www.mormonthink.com/endpage.htm Disingenuous?
Katzpur said “The thing that bugged me was that on their “Who are we?” page, they say, “About 25 Latter-day Saints have contributed substantially to the MormonThink website. The majority of those people are active, church-going members of the LDS Church. We have held positions ranging from Gospel Doctrine teachers, YW Presidents to Bishop. Some of us have written faith-promoting articles that have been published in the Ensign and other church publications. Most of us have served missions and almost all of us have been married in the temple. We’re just average everyday members that have a real interest in learning about accurate church history without all the sugarcoating that we often receive in Gospel Doctrine classes.” To me, that is off-the-charts disingenuous. The intent is to make people think that if these folks are telling you something, then it’s obviously true. The fact that they may still be showing up at Sacrament Meeting for whatever reason doesn’t prove anything. I just wish they’d be more honest and cut the crap.”
None of us expects members to believe us because of positions we’ve held and service we’ve performed in the church. Likewise we wouldn’t want members to immediately support the apologists because they have similar or better credentials. Who we are and why some of us stay in and why others have moved on is not really that relevant to the facts or deciding which interpretation of the information is most valid.
Open sites are needed to get the Church to prompt them to be more honest.
Katzpur also said “Now that’s what we need. I’m incredibly frustrated with the whitewashed version since I know it’s not entirely honest. I just want the honest version, as objectively analyzed as possible. I know that’s more easily said than done, but for those of us who are in the position I’m in — wanting to believe and needing help from time to time — it would be so great if the Church could present a little more accurate picture of our history.”
Couldn’t agree more. If the church would do that, then we could stop paying for this site and spending so much time on it and do something else but if the church won’t do it, we and others will. Perhaps it is sites like ours that is prompting the church to contemplate being more open with its history (as is rumored from time to time).
A lot of the stuff on MormonThink was stuff I’ve never even heard anti-Mormons dredge up.
True. One thing that inspired us to begin the site in the first place is that some good arguments aren’t on any critic’s sites but they were things that bothered us like Moroni appearing in Joseph’s room without waking up his brothers. Also, we wanted to be a little unique so in every section we tried to find something new for readers to consider – not necessarily negative just something relating to the topic that isn’t on other sites – not always possible but sometimes people would send us interesting tidbits from Sunday School lessons or whatever that we’ve never heard before.
Anyway, thanks for listening.
Hi, Thanks for coming on to our forums to explain more about your motivations, and how you view the MormonThink site.
MormonThink Founder wrote:Couldn’t agree more. If the church would do that, then we could stop paying for this site and spending so much time on it and do something else but if the church won’t do it, we and others will. Perhaps it is sites like ours that is prompting the church to contemplate being more open with its history (as is rumored from time to time).
Personally, I feel the same way about this site. I’ve said it more than once: I’d be happy if the Church put us out of business by taking care of disaffected members, and having a solid support system for the faith transition process some members are destined to experience. If there was a mentoring and support system in the Church that did this, I would go volunteer there and help.
But I *CAN NOT* stand by idle and watch my brothers and sisters go through this, to suffer while being left hanging in the wind.
So at a minimum, on that level, I think our motivations are very similar.
MTF – thanks for sharing your perspectives. It’s helpful to hear from someone who is an insider, and we appreciate the linking. I have noticed too that the site is eclectic and has changed some with time (editing no doubt as you say). Thanks for chiming in MT. I’m going to quote myself from this thread, because I think it just hit’s the nail on the head
cwald wrote:I think it is fair.
If that makes it “anti-mormon” than so be it. i just think there comes a time when one needs to call a spade a spade. I think it is “fair.” That is just my opinion.
Also, I should mention to those who may question the motives of Mormonthink, I sent them an email, and someone from that site referred me to StayLDS after I explained my frustration and yet my desire to remain in the church. Don’t know who it was, but thanks.
Keep up the good work over there.
Quote:That is a lot to ask of people and we simply feel that the people have a right to know everything about the organization before they make such life-long commitments. If people knew that the church really wasn’t what it claimed to be then maybe they would not make those kinds of sacrifices.
I’ve been trying to figure out why you have your site and why you put up all this information. The answer for me seems to be in the second sentence of the quote above. It doesn’t say “if the church might not be what it claimed to be” it says “if people knew that the church really wasn’t what it claimed to be…”. You, collectively, have decided that it’s truth claims are false and want to be sure everyone else knows that it’s false. It may be out of anger or embarrassment that you were fooled or whatever but it’s not to present in a fair and balanced (thank you Fox News) picture of the LDS Church. As I’ve said before, I’m as disaffected as the next person but I think Katzpuhr was right when she said that you’re being disingenuous if claiming you’re doing this just for the sake of Truth. It kind of reminds me of when one of my kids would tell on the other to get him or her in trouble. Just a thought.
Honestly, I’m torn. I appreciate the extra explanation from the founder of the site, and I appreciate the referrals to StayLDS, but I also had a visceral reaction against the same statement GB quoted. That part read exactly like classic anti-Mormon pamphlets and books I read when I lived in the Deep South. (“They look nice, warm, loving, well-adjusted and Christian, but once you see beneath the facade . . .” – which is almost a verbatim quote from the inside jacket introduction to one book I saw.) It’s the implication (to be charitable) that nobody would join the LDS Church if only they really knew the truth that rubs me the wrong way.
If everyone knew everything about any religion, and if everything was presented in a particular way, everyone would join or run away screaming – depending almost entirely on the specific presentation method. Also, MANY people desperately need what the LDS Church teaches – and trying to shake their faith in the name of giving them facts runs counter to much of what I hold dear as bedrock principle. Things just aren’t as simple and black-and-white as the quoted statement makes it seem.
In the end, all I can say is that some sites work for some people, and I’m glad we have this site and the discussions we have here.
GBSmith wrote:Quote:That is a lot to ask of people and we simply feel that the people have a right to know everything about the organization before they make such life-long commitments. If people knew that the church really wasn’t what it claimed to be then maybe they would not make those kinds of sacrifices.
I’ve been trying to figure out why you have your site and why you put up all this information. The answer for me seems to be in the second sentence of the quote above. It doesn’t say “if the church might not be what it claimed to be” it says “if people knew that the church really wasn’t what it claimed to be…”. You, collectively, have decided that it’s truth claims are false and want to be sure everyone else knows that it’s false. It may be out of anger or embarrassment that you were fooled or whatever but it’s not to present in a fair and balanced (thank you Fox News) picture of the LDS Church. As I’ve said before, I’m as disaffected as the next person but I think Katzpuhr was right when she said that you’re being disingenuous if claiming you’re doing this just for the sake of Truth. It kind of reminds me of when one of my kids would tell on the other to get him or her in trouble. Just a thought.
I appreciate your comments. Just to let you know, I just updated that line in the conclusions page of MT and inserted the word ‘perhaps’ so it reads ‘perhaps the church isn’t what it claims to be’. I don’t expect that to change your mind at all but when those at MT recognize that some things were stated as an absolute when it is subjective, then we try to change it out of fairness.
BUT I will say that certainly there are some absolutes about the church that if these things were known when people joined, perhaps they would not have joined as the Joseph Smith Story would not seem as believable as the missionaries and the church portrays it. For example take the translation of the BofM. The images shown to members and investigators with Joseph in deep concentration as he physically had the plates on the table is far more believable than what is now accepted by church historians as the actual method with Joseph using a stone in a hat without the plates present – and not the fabled Urim & Thummim from the Bible but an apparently ordinary stone found while digging a well on Mr. Chase’s property years before. I don’t think you could argue that if missionaries taught the actual method that it would not make any difference to them.
Or a second example; if the church showed what Egyptologists say the facsimiles mean compared to Joseph’s translations, that would cast serious doubt to anyone not fully indoctrinated. I have personally witnessed Gospel Doctrine classes where this was brought up and the instructor blatantly said they were very close or simply dismissed any criticism as not valid. Perhaps he got that from “The Encyclopedia of Mormonism” where it states:
“Moreover, the Prophet’s explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices.”
That is extremely misleading. If these things, and many, many, many more were known ahead of time, it would drastically reduce the number of converts the church gets.
One last example, if investigators were allowed to witness the temple ceremony (especially before 1990), how many do you think would rush out to join the LDS church?
Someone said something to the affect that if all religions shared all their warts to their investigators then maybe no one would join any church. There is some truth to that especially with other less mainstream and modern religions like Scientology or Jehovah’s Witnesses. But I think that Mormonism is very different than most other mainstream religions with issues as the LDS church is so new. There is much documentation and things to analyze like the papyri & facsimiles, diaries, court records, etc. The origins of say the Catholic Church are almost 2,000 years old before events could be reliably recorded, same with Christianity in general. Regarding the Catholic Church, I’m not catholic but I know about the crusades, Galileo and other problems so certainly most catholics must know about these things too – it’s not very secret like for example the LDS temple cermony that few outsiders know much about at all. Also, none of the big, mainstream religions claim to have a prophet that receives actual revelation. That also puts the LDS church in an entirely different class – not merely men running it, but reportedly Jesus at the head.
I think the LDS Church needs to shift its proselyting and indoctrination focus to a new perspective: from a foundation built on the sand of audacious historical claims, to a focus on the rock of value and power in Mormon theology. Preach the ideas for the sake of the inspiring nature of the ideas! Let them stand or fall on their own merit. Historical claims are a rapidly sinking ship. All religions are losing that ground.
To be quite blunt, I don’t really care much anymore if the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of Egyptian. I just plain love the idea of eternal progression without limits, that I am a divine being on an adventure of discovery, and that *WE* (as a species) will make the universe into a paradise “by the sweat of our brow.” That’s a project I could spend a few thousand years, or a few hundred lifetimes, working on and not get bored.
Brian Johnston wrote:Historical claims are a rapidly sinking ship. All religions are losing that ground.
To be quite blunt, I don’t really care much anymore if the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of Egyptian. I just plain love the idea of eternal progression without limits, that I am a divine being on an adventure of discovery, and that *WE* (as a species) will make the universe into a paradise “by the sweat of our brow.” That’s a project I could spend a few thousand years, or a few hundred lifetimes, working on and not get bored..
Yep. I just look forward to the time when the membership in general accepts this kind of attitude.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.