- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Brian Johnston wrote:
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.
Let the church say amen.
MormonThink Founder wrote:[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.
I’m not concerned about the points you raised. I and everybody else here know all about them and have come to terms with them in our own individual way. I think it’s fine that you’ve updated the passage above but you’ve still not answered why you do it. You say that you and other members of your site are church members but just want the Truth out there so people will know what they’re getting themselves in for. Sorry but to me you’re just being not only disingenous but disloyal. At least when I go to Recovery From Mormonism I know where people are coming from.
GBSmith wrote:… but you’ve still not answered why you do it. You say that you and other members of your site are church members but just want the Truth out there so people will know what they’re getting themselves in for. Sorry but to me you’re just being not only disingenous but disloyal. At least when I go to Recovery From Mormonism I know where people are coming from.
I can’t and won’t answer for MT, but, BUT, what I understand and believe of their motives, is that they want a place where Mormons can get a fair and blunt answer to the the tough questions and issues that the church has been hiding and running away from for the last 180 years, so people can better make the choices in regards to their church activity and loyalty?
The church won’t provide us with a site with that information…so MT does. I think he even said so, that if the church would be honest and upfront about the issues, they would go away. Didn’t I hear that?
Once again, if the church would understand that us gen X crowd really do generally see a cover up as being much worse than the crimes themselves, and just address these issues honestly and openly, a lot of these problems would go away for middle-way mormons.
Oh course, that would open flood gates for the devout and traditionals….
cwald wrote:
I can’t and won’t answer for MT, but, BUT, what I understand and believe of their motives, is that they want a place where Mormons can get a fair and blunt answer to the the tough questions and issues that the church has been hiding and running away from for the last 180 years, so people can better make the choices in regards to their church activity and loyalty?The information that I’ve reviewed is no different that on Post mormon, Recovery from Mormonism, etc. so I’m not sure where the claim to fairness and the need to provide it comes from.
Quote:The church won’t provide us with a site with that information…so MT does. I think he even said so, that if the church would be honest and upfront about the issues, they would go away. Didn’t I hear that?
I’m not sure why the church should be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with. The archives are open and there’s never been more access to the historical department than now under Elder Jensen. I’m not sure what more is needed. (this is getting a little weird. I’m starting to sound like one of the flacks at Fair)
Quote:Once again, if the church would understand that us gen X crowd really do generally see a cover up as being much worse than the crimes themselves, and just address these issues honestly and openly, a lot of these problems would go away for middle-way mormons.
Oh course, that would open flood gates for the devout and traditionals….
I’m a pre baby boomer so can’t speak for you young folks. It’s just that the whoe MT thing doesn’t ring true. Sorry, just the way I see it.
MormonThink Founder wrote: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 surely appreciate you taking the time to post here. Your work is very important, and I commend you on it.I’ve journeyed through most major religions including catholicism. I don’t find a material difference between a ‘true believing catholic’ and a ‘true believing mormon’ in terms of accepting the infallibility of their leader. Catholics would believe that the vicar of christ is capable of receiving revelation ex cathedra. This designation formally defines when the pope is speaking for god, and when he does, it is expected to be followed by the church. This is a more mature model than the ambiguous definition of the LDS church which, through the ’14 fundamentals’, does not define a bounds for when the Prophet speaks for god.
Many of the criticisms of practice and narrow-minded dogmatic thinking are in common between the two faiths. As you point out as well, the recent history of the LDS church makes the founders’ warts much more apparent. We really don’t know what kind of pious fraud established the catholic church — although we have evidence of fairly siginificant schisms, the result of which was a systematic annihilation of the other side.
A balanced view of history must take into account that much of scripture is the result of pious fraud. The clever crafting together of creation myths by a multiple people is demonstrated by wellhausen in the Documentary Hypothesis. The deuteronomist was clearly from the time of the exile, and yet LDS and Christians continue to proclaim the bible as ‘god-breathed’. As the temple is rebuilt, the ‘prophet’ proclaims he has ‘discovered’ a scroll – a second telling of the law. It was fraud, piously done to unite the people, much in the same way JS and BY did their numerous cases of pious fraud.
What LDS do as a culture is try to make everything neat and clean, so that people can accept the entire package without nuance. This naive part of human nature counts on the idea that people are ignorant to the truth, and won’t find out about the non-faith-promoting details until it’s someone else’s problem down the road. Then, to retain saints, we make it sinful to even consider that there might be a different version of history. When I participated in alt.religion.mormon in the early 90s and tried to help advocate the moderated and now defunct soc.religion.mormon, we knew all these history issues, and tried to seek a more balanced view for those who wanted to stay LDS. I remember distinctly posting in 93 sometime, “What will happen when saints invariably find out about kinderhook and the book of abraham facsimiles? Something needs to be done to help people see the value in mormonism without anchoring it on it’s fantastical and false history.” Personally, i found it to be futile exercise, because no-one listened.
The issue in my impression isn’t the history itself, it’s really the false dualism proclaimed by the church leaders, saying that their account of the history must be true, or else it’s all false. Stupid, stupid thinking. I laud mormonthink’s efforts to bring to light facts of history. I reject apologetics. What I think is needed is a more seasoned approach of understanding the value of some of the more innovative doctrines, the value of the community and life, whilst reducing the dogmatism, the forced dualism, the forced compliance. Again, I think this is a futile exercise, but i keep trying.
In sum, I would hope that you promote the balanced view of truth as a materially different approach from the anti-mormon or ex-mormon sites. For example, to point out the facts of how JS translated the book of mormon is essential. What conclusion we make of this is not a fact-based discussion.
respectfully,
-wayfarer.
I like that response Way. GB – I have no problem with your opinion on this matter.
I must however respectfully disagree on this one point
GBSmith wrote:I’m not sure why the church should be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with.
The archives are open and there’s never been more access to the historical department than now under Elder Jensen.I’m not sure what more is needed. (this is getting a little weird. I’m starting to sound like one of the flacks at Fair) I don’t think so.
I could be wrong, but there is a lot of stuff that has been locked up that Quinn had access to.
And, if the historical department is so open, why don’t we have access to the Council of 50 minutes, and many of the journals that continue to collect dust in the archives? What is in them that the church is so desperate to keep hidden from the membership and historians?
You know —- perhaps nothing —- but that is why I say the cover-up is generally worse than the crime.
Thanks Cwald and Wayfarer. You guys seem to get what we’re trying to accomplish. GBSmith wrote:
The information that I’ve reviewed is no different that on Post mormon, Recovery from Mormonism, etc. so I’m not sure where the claim to fairness and the need to provide it comes from.
Post Mormon & Recovery from Mormonism are primarily message boards so they are a little different. But we are different than most critic’s sites as we list the critic’s arguments and then the church’s view if available and always provide many links to the pro-side of the arguments so people can make up their own minds to the interpretations. We have well over 300 links to favorable viewpoints of the church so people can read them in their own words. Not many sites link so freely to all sides.
GBSmith wrote:I’m not sure why the church should be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with. The archives are open and there’s never been more access to the historical department than now under Elder Jensen. I’m not sure what more is needed. (this is getting a little weird. I’m starting to sound like one of the flacks at Fair)
Joseph married 11 women that were already married – that’s a fact but why don’t members know this? It might make a difference to them? No one is denying that the church should be allowed to give their interpretation of the facts – in fact, most members turn to the Internet to get some interpretations as they can’t get anything at all from the church.
Your philosphy sounds like ‘buyer beware’ and you should know all these things because the church has supposedly opened access to their historical department. How many investigators are going to fly to SLC and start looking up issues that they don’t even know exist? You have to be a church historian to research these things unless someone outside of the church tells you about them. At a minimum, you’d have to go to FAIR to get an inkling that there even were any issues. Did you ever think that the access is reportedly becoming more available because of the work done by John Dehlin, MormonThink and critics like the Tanners? If it wasn’t for them, very few of these issue would have even come to light.
Your statement “I’m not sure why the church should be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with” is like blaming people that bought Enron stock based on what Enron’s annual reports said instead of what their financial situation really was. Enron was to blame for not being “honest and upfront” about their accounting practices and financial transaction history. Likewise, the LDS church has the responsibility to not mislead it’s members or investigators about the actual plasuibility of their history and explain their practices with the “milk before meat” philosophy which is basically omit what you can to get people to believe until you are caught, and even then only tell the minmum to keep people believing. But the church continues to teach faith-promoting events that make it seem more believable than it is. For example, like the Anthon affair which was taught in my ward not long ago without ever mentioning the inherent problems (the fact that Anthon was not an Egypologist and that he wouldn’t have been able to decipher ‘reformed egyptian’ and that he gave a completely different account of the event, denying publicly in print what the Church claimed, etc.
:A question for you: If you had a friend that was going to join Scientology and wanted your advice, would you just tell him to listen to the Scientologists that tell him to not read ‘anti-scientology’ information and to only listen to them? On the surface Scientology is friendly enough but at the core, it revolves around a belief that aliens blew themselves up on earth 50 million years ago with H-bombs and that their essence is all around us and we need to tap into it. Should your friend know this up front? Should the church of Scientology inform it’s members of this or let them find out on their own from some anti-Scientology site after they’ve invested years into the church and given thousands of $$$ to them? Should the church of Scientology be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with or want it’s members informed of too soon? Are the ‘anti-Scientology’ sites evil or doing a good service by exposing all of Scientology’s lesser-known beliefs?
MormonThink Founder wrote:But we are different than most critic’s sites as we list the critic’s arguments and then the church’s view if available and always provide many links to the pro-side of the arguments so people can make up their own minds to the interpretations. We have well over 300 links to favorable viewpoints of the church so people can read them in their own words. Not many sites link so freely to all sides.
So if I understand you correctly – your site takes more of a middle approach being neither pro-Mormon nor anti-Mormon. You present the opposing arguments and inconsistencies. You recognize that within this middle there is a range of belief and non-belief and maybe your group leans toward the non-belief end of the spectrum but is at least trying to keep the door open for the possibility of the divine. You provide references to other sites when you believe that an individual’s needs will be better served by a different niche provider. Am I representing you fairly?
MormonThink Founder wrote:A question for you: If you had a friend that was going to join Scientology and wanted your advice, would you just tell him to listen to the Scientologists that tell him to not read ‘anti-scientology’ information and to only listen to them? On the surface Scientology is friendly enough but at the core, it revolves around a belief that aliens blew themselves up on earth 50 million years ago with H-bombs and that their essence is all around us and we need to tap into it. Should your friend know this up front? Should the church of Scientology inform it’s members of this or let them find out on their own from some anti-Scientology site after they’ve invested years into the church and given thousands of $$$ to them? Should the church of Scientology be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with or want it’s members informed of too soon? Are the ‘anti-Scientology’ sites evil or doing a good service by exposing all of Scientology’s lesser-known beliefs?
I believe this example you gave is interesting. I would hope that my friend had enough information to make an informed decision (within the limiting realms of possibility) about what might be best for himself and his family. There are external variables that could come into play. Perhaps your girlfriend’s family was heavy into Scientology and out of love and interest for her you “investigate” Scientology in its best light to give your future with this girl a fighting chance. IOW – if I want to believe it, can I? An old friend of mine married an exchange student from Serbia. When she gave her conversion story she said that she called her mom back in Serbia to ask for advice on continuing in this relationship that likely meant a religion change. Her mom told her to Go For It which I interpreted to mean, “Mormonism is no more kookier than many religions out there and may even tend to produce stable family situations, more atterntive husbands and fathers, and an extended ward family support network. Balance that with the potential marriage prospects after returning to a war torn country and Go For It!”
So to read behind the lines of my specific examples, there may be situations where the best course of action for an individual is to give a particular religion a chance to grow and develop in their personal life despite how the religion may fare under a more objective analysis. (Are we really recommending that people pick religions based on how ambiguous and historically distant the religions founding was? At least that would provide more cover for plausible deniability.) The Church may be good and helpful for many people despite any truth claims (and possibly those very truth claims provide many with a sense of certainty that they need in this uncertain life).
But my real question is: What do you do with a friend that has already “invested years into the church and given thousands of $$$” and seems relatively content to do so? Do you rain on his parade and let the chips and collateral damage fall where they may?
To put it another way – what is the ideal audience for MormonThink? Is it primarily for investigators? or for members wanting more forthright answers to history questions? for members having a crisis of faith? or for anyone and everyone? What would be your ideal audience?
We’ve had an even exchange of posts on this so I’ll finish what I have to say and grant you the last word. MormonThink Founder wrote:Thanks Cwald and Wayfarer. You guys seem to get what we’re trying to accomplish.
I think I get it too.
Quote:Your philosphy sounds like ‘buyer beware’ and you should know all these things because the church has supposedly opened access to their historical department. How many investigators are going to fly to SLC and start looking up issues that they don’t even know exist? You have to be a church historian to research these things unless someone outside of the church tells you about them. At a minimum, you’d have to go to FAIR to get an inkling that there even were any issues. Did you ever think that the access is reportedly becoming more available because of the work done by John Dehlin, MormonThink and critics like the Tanners? If it wasn’t for them, very few of these issue would have even come to light.
People become aware of these things for various reasons, interest in church history, surfing the net, concerns about what they’ve been told or heard. It’s all pretty much there in print or online and some of the most informative has been by Bushman, Arrington, Leonard, Bitton, Poll and others in an outside the church that do research and publish. I almost get the sense you want this as an appendix in Preach My Gospel so that the elders or so the primary teacher for the 7-8 year olds can be sure a person can have all the facts. I do think the LDS church would be better off if it didn’t rush baptism. It takes a year of instruction for conversion to Catholicism and two years to become a JW. I don’t see what the hurry is.
Quote:Your statement “I’m not sure why the church should be expected to be “honest and upfront” about “facts” or interpretations it doesn’t agree with” is like blaming people that bought Enron stock based on what Enron’s annual reports said instead of what their financial situation really was. Enron was to blame for not being “honest and upfront” about their accounting practices and financial transaction history. Likewise, the LDS church has the responsibility to not mislead it’s members or investigators about the actual plasuibility of their history and explain their practices with the “milk before meat” philosophy which is basically omit what you can to get people to believe until you are caught, and even then only tell the minmum to keep people believing.
This one I have a problem with since Enron was run by a bunch of liars and thieves and I don’t believe the Church is.
Quote:A question for you: If you had a friend that was going to join Scientology and wanted your advice, would you just tell him to listen to the Scientologists that tell him to not read ‘anti-scientology’ information and to only listen to them?
I suppose I’d do what any Baptist parent would do if one of my kids wanted to join the LDS Church. I’d give them all the negative information I could find and hope they’d come to their senses. And if they went ahead anyway and were happy I’d call it good.
As I said that’s all I have to say. The arguments are starting to get recycled so time to stop and with that I grant you the last word.
Roy wrote:
So if I understand you correctly – your site takes more of a middle approach being neither pro-Mormon nor anti-Mormon. You present the opposing arguments and inconsistencies. You recognize that within this middle there is a range of belief and non-belief and maybe your group leans toward the non-belief end of the spectrum but is at least trying to keep the door open for the possibility of the divine. You provide references to other sites when you believe that an individual’s needs will be better served by a different niche provider. Am I representing you fairly?I couldn’t have said it better myself. I realize we still have a lot of work to do but we’re still plugging away and making it better and more objective as we are able with our limited resources.
Roy wrote:
But my real question is: What do you do with a friend that has already “invested years into the church and given thousands of $$$” and seems relatively content to do so? Do you rain on his parade and let the chips and collateral damage fall where they may?To put it another way – what is the ideal audience for MormonThink? Is it primarily for investigators? or for members wanting more forthright answers to history questions? for members having a crisis of faith? or for anyone and everyone? What would be your ideal audience?
As I said earlier, I have refrained from informing my TBM sister and also my best friend (that I converted) because I think they really do need the church too much and may be suicidal if they started to think it wasn’t true. The church was of great benefit to my friend who was living a wild and reckless life and I got him into the church, he married a nice, very TBM girl and they are doing well.
The primary audience is members of the church that simply are not aware of these issues. I think they have a right to know about them. And I really don’t care if they stay in the church or if they leave it. To me it is really the same thing as the church missionary program – when you know something is true, you want to share it – but instead of sharing the LDS gospel, we’re sharing details of the church that they don’t know about – and could very well be disturbed by it.
Given that it could have negative consequences (my own wife has said she wished she’d never found out about this stuff), I recommend that we use a philosphy I first heard from Tal Bachman – ask the person, “if the church wasn’t true, would you want to know?” Some people like my sister would say no and then the conversation is over. Most probably say yes and then the discussions can begin on how some of the things we have been taught in church weren’t really the way it likely happened.
Quote:Likewise, the LDS church has the responsibility to not mislead it’s members or investigators about the actual plasuibility of their history and explain their practices with the “milk before meat” philosophy which is basically omit what you can to get people to believe until you are caught, and even then only tell the minmum to keep people believing.
I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree strongly with many of your conclusions (particularly in your characterizations of leaders and motives) and practices – especially if they are targeted in any way at current members who are not experiencing a crisis of faith of some kind, but also when they are targeted twoard members who are in the initial stages of a faith crisis. If those people are being targeted, your approach is “hardcore anti-Mormon”, imo. If your mission is to discourage people of any kind in any situation from joining the LDS Church, it is at least “softcore anti-Mormon”. If your motive truly is neutral – just
an impartial and balanced compilation of objective information from multiple sources provided in the best light possible for all sources(or as close as it’s possible to get in that regard) – it is in no way anti-Mormon. However, there is no way around the fact that it will be perceived by individuals according to those individuals’ experiences and perspectives – and I think it is beyond naive to say that it is invalid to categorize what I’ve seen at the site and what I’ve read in your comments here as anti-Mormon. There is a strong vibe of distrust, bitterness, anger, resentment, etc. AND a very obvious bias in the presentation of “facts” (a very tipped scale, if you will) that can’t be explained in any way other than a product of the emotions and perspectives I just listed.
Again, I’m NOT condemning the site, saying it shouldnt’ exist or calling it evil – or anything “like unto it”.I’m just saying I think you are objecting too strenuously to being called on an obvious anti-LDS Church bias. I really do appreciate your referrals to our site, but I also conclude you aren’t referring everyone here – but rather only those who want to stay actively involved in the LDS Church despite any issues they encounter. Those who don’t want to stay, you welcome with open arms and then actually arm them with ammunition (justifications) to leave. Iow, it appears that one of your central missions is to help people leave the LDS Church and stop others from joining– and labeling that effort “anti-Mormon” is totally fair and accurate, imo – again, mostly because I don’t see an effort to present reasons to stay involved. In conclusion, I see our two sites as kind of polar opposites when it comes to struggling members. We try to help them stay; you try to help them leave – and perhaps land as softly as possible when they leave. When it comes to investigators or other non-members, we try to provide both a place to interact with those who are struggling (to know they’re not unique if they do join) AND a place to affirm their ability to join with open eyes and their own faith-orientation – to be members on their own terms; you try to convince them not to join – pretty much with no exceptions, as far as I can tell.
I might be wrong in that view, but it’s how I interpret the totality of what I’ve read thus far.
Quote:The primary audience is members of the church that simply are not aware of these issues. I think they have a right to know about them.
We disagree totally on that. People have a right to know what they want to know.
Quote:“If the church wasn’t true, would you want to know?”
The very asking of that question in that way, with the site you founded, presupposes that it isn’t true. Surely, you understand that – and that
you are trying to convince people who aren’t looking to be convinced. Your approach is offensive (as opposed to defensive), not neutral and impartial. I will end with the following links. Please read them, since I hope they will help you see why I disagree so strongly with the purpose you described in your last comment:
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2010/12/charity-endureth-all-things-even-others.html http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/08/pursuing-joy.html GBSmith wrote:We’ve had an even exchange of posts on this so I’ll finish what I have to say and grant you the last word.
Fair enough – thanks
GBSmith wrote:
People become aware of these things for various reasons, interest in church history, surfing the net, concerns about what they’ve been told or heard. It’s all pretty much there in print or online and some of the most informative has been by Bushman, Arrington, Leonard, Bitton, Poll and others in an outside the church that do research and publish. I almost get the sense you want this as an appendix in Preach My Gospel so that the elders or so the primary teacher for the 7-8 year olds can be sure a person can have all the facts. I do think the LDS church would be better off if it didn’t rush baptism. It takes a year of instruction for conversion to Catholicism and two years to become a JW. I don’t see what the hurry is.I do really like that about Catholicism. I have had some people say that it’s almost like they were trying to talk you out of it – they really want you to understand what you are getting in to. Bushman especially is a great resource and he tells it like it is but in a nice, non-faith destroying way. Of course I know some TBMs that think his books are ‘anti-Mormon’. Yeah, I don’t think there should be a rush to baptism either. Obviously an 8 year-old pretty much believes what his parents tell him to believe. The Appendix – ha, not a bad idea.
GBSmith wrote:
This one I have a problem with since Enron was run by a bunch of liars and thieves and I don’t believe the Church is.I don’t believe the church is either. I think the big 15 are good men. I do not think most know very much about the disturbing issues of church history but they do know that historians have issues and I imagine that has to trouble them somewhat. It’s a difficult position to be in – topic for another thread perhaps.
GBSmith wrote:
I suppose I’d do what any Baptist parent would do if one of my kids wanted to join the LDS Church. I’d give them all the negative information I could find and hope they’d come to their senses. And if they went ahead anyway and were happy I’d call it good.HA! Yeah, that’s what happened to my girlfriend of long ago. Her parents brought up all this stuff to the girl I was engaged to marry. But truly their arguments were stupid. They had us listen to a tape made by their church about Mormonism. It had very weak arguments like Joseph wasn’t martyred, he shot back with a gun and killed 1-2 people – well so what, I’d shoot back too. They brought up the word ‘adieu’ in the BofM – not a big deal. Jesus and Satan were brothers – so what. Basics of polygamy – big deal, every member knows they practiced polygamy. That’s one reason I don’t use any of those arguments on MT (polygamy details yes, but not merely stating they practiced it). The only one that disturbed me a bit was the Adam God theory but my TBM sister explained it away as Brigham never said that – good enough for me at the time. Anyway, in case you’re wondering, her parents and pastor eventually won and convinced her it was some kind of cult. And by the way that did not make me bitter against the church. I fought that much harder then and became an apologist for the LDS church after that, wanting to dismiss those anti-Mormon lies and try to prove the church true. In the end I found out so much damaging stuff that I eventually stopped believing it myself.
GBSmith wrote:
As I said that’s all I have to say. The arguments are starting to get recycled so time to stop and with that I grant you the last word.Agreed. Thank you for the courtesy.
Ray, GB – I think you have valid points, even if we see it differently. Something though, that stood out to me was this…
Old-Timer wrote:…
However, there is no way around the fact that it will be perceived by individuals according to those individuals’ experiences and perspectives– and I think it is beyond naive to say that it is invalid to categorize what I’ve seen at the site and what I’ve read in your comments here as anti-Mormon. There is a strong vibe of distrust, bitterness, anger, resentment, etc. AND a very obvious bias in the presentation of “facts” (a very tipped scale, if you will) that can’t be explained in any way other than a product of the emotions and perspectives I just listed. Again, I’m NOT condemning the site, saying it shouldn’t’ exist or calling it evil – or anything “like unto it”.I’m just saying I think you are objecting too strenuously to being called on an obvious anti-LDS Church bias. I really do appreciate your referrals to our site, but I also conclude you aren’t referring everyone here – but rather only those who want to stay actively involved in the LDS Church despite any issues they encounter. Those who don’t want to stay, you welcome with open arms and then actually arm them with ammunition (justifications) to leave. Iow, it appears that one of your central missions is to help people leave the LDS Church and stop others from joining– and labeling that effort “anti-Mormon” is totally fair and accurate, im o – again, mostly because I don’t see an effort to present reasons to stay involved. …. This is a good point, and I kind of agree with you about the difference in focus of staying verses leaving, but I think it should be noted that many many people, I know from personal experience, would also consider StayLDS an anti mormon website….because we discuss the tough issues and the core principle is that folks are free, and even encouraged to navigate a midddle way. The middle way philosophy in itself is consider apostasy by many.
Maybe this is just not a black and white issue… Anti-mormonism isn’t either?
PS….Wow, this is a long thread. 🙂 Old-Timer wrote:Again, I’m NOT condemning the site, saying it shouldnt’ exist or calling it evil – or anything “like unto it”. I’m just saying I think you are objecting too strenuously to being called on an obvious anti-LDS Church bias. I really do appreciate your referrals to our site, but I also conclude you aren’t referring everyone here – but rather only those who want to stay actively involved in the LDS Church despite any issues they encounter. Those who don’t want to stay, you welcome with open arms and then actually arm them with ammunition (justifications) to leave. Iow, it appears that one of your central missions is to help people leave the LDS Church and stop others from joining – and labeling that effort “anti-Mormon” is totally fair and accurate, imo – again, mostly because I don’t see an effort to present reasons to stay involved.
In conclusion, I see our two sites as kind of polar opposites when it comes to struggling members. We try to help them stay; you try to help them leave – and perhaps land as softly as possible when they leave. When it comes to investigators or other non-members, we try to provide both a place to interact with those who are struggling (to know they’re not unique if they do join) AND a place to affirm their ability to join with open eyes and their own faith-orientation – to be members on their own terms; you try to convince them not to join – pretty much with no exceptions, as far as I can tell.
Well, since MT doesn’t have a chat area like StayLDS, there isn’t really any ongoing effort by me or anyone else from MT to convince people to leave or to stay in the church. The site is relatively static. They read, then they usually go to the links and see other viewpoints and go to some of the message boards. I list them all including FAIR’s board. I also state a couple times that people should go to the ‘ask the apologist’ feature of FAIR to get their viewpoint. Can you imagine FAIR doing an ‘Ask the critic’ recommendation to get another viewpoint?
We do get a fair amount of emails and many people are crying for help. I often refer them to John Dehlin as we talk often about how to help people struggling. I suggest going to the various mesage boards listed on the MT links page. I have also told people that there is no hurry and to take their time making a decision. I have recommending to some people that they should stay in the church – like people that risk losing their family – not worth it in my opinion. But I can’t and won’t attempt to force people to believe anything. They will believe what they want to believe. I do realize that MT’s site is very damaging to the traditional LDS belief but I think it’s becasue the critic’s arguments (some of them anyway) are very strong.
I might add that I have had maybe 2 dozen people email me and say that they are staying in the church because of MormonThink. They found out damaging stuff from other critics sites but have been inspired enough by finding out other people on MT that know this stuff and have elected to stay in. Yeah that’s a pretty small % I know but just to let you know it happens and I certainly don’t try to persuade them to leave the church if they are happy with it.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:The primary audience is members of the church that simply are not aware of these issues. I think they have a right to know about them.
Old-Timer wrote:
We disagree totally on that. People have a right to know what they want to know.I will agree to totally disagree on that issue.
Quote:“If the church wasn’t true, would you want to know?”
Old-Timer wrote:The very asking of that question in that way, with the site you founded, presupposes that it isn’t true. Surely, you understand that – and that
you are trying to convince people who aren’t looking to be convinced. Your approach is offensive (as opposed to defensive), not neutral and impartial. I understand that but I don’t know of a better way to ‘feel someone out’ to see if they want to know about these things. It really isn’t much different than a missionary trying to get a non-member to abandon their belief system, that they may be totally happy with, and join the LDS church.
Old-Timer wrote:
I will end with the following links. Please read them, since I hope they will help you see why I disagree so strongly with the purpose you described in your last comment:http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2010/12/charity-endureth-all-things-even-others.html http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/08/pursuing-joy.html Thanks for the links – I read them – I understand your viewpoint and respect it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.