- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What Orson said. That is my take-away from the site – that they want everyone to “share the disillusionment”, if you will. Sharing truth is a noble goal (albeit much harder than most people realize who are convinvced they know the truth), but shattering other people’s working faith is not noble at all.
The purpose of MormonThink as stated on the website:
Quote:The purpose of this site is to generate discussion about little-known topics of church history to those interested in increasing their knowledge about these kinds of interesting, historical Mormon issues. We encourage people to think objectively about issues involving the doctrine, practices and history of the LDS church. Many Latter-day Saints are completely unaware of some or all of the issues discussed here, or have an incomplete, one-sided view of them. We present arguments and responses from both critics of the church and true-believing members and add some opinions of those that helped compile the data.
In our opinion, nothing on this site 100% proves or disproves whether or not the LDS church is God’s one, true church. We merely present some of the strongest critics arguments used against the church and then find the strongest defenses we can find against those arguments.
There are many legitimate issues that many LDS members are concerned about and many Latter-day Saints have left the church over them. Our hope is that the church will start discussing these issues openly so members can know the facts from all sides so everyone can decide for themselves how important they think these issues are. We feel that if the church will start openly discussing these issues and perhaps provide some official responses, less people will leave the church over them and those in the church that already know about these issues, will feel more comfortable remaining in the church if they can openly discuss them.
cwald wrote:The purpose of MormonThink as stated on the website:
Quote:The purpose of this site is to generate
discussion about little-known topicsof church history to those interested in increasing their knowledgeabout these kinds of interesting, historical Mormon issues. We encourage people to think objectivelyabout issues involving the doctrine, practices and history of the LDS church. Many Latter-day Saints are completely unaware of some or all of the issues discussed here, or have an incomplete, one-sided view of them.We present arguments and responses from both critics of the church and true-believing members and add some opinions of those that helped compile the data. In our opinion, nothing on this site 100% proves or disproves whether or not the LDS church is God’s one, true church. We merely present some of the strongest critics arguments used against the church and then find the strongest defenses we can find against those arguments.
There are many legitimate issues that many LDS members are concerned about and many Latter-day Saints have left the church over them. Our hope is that the church will start discussing these issues openly so members
can know the facts from all sides so everyone can decide for themselveshow important they think these issues are. We feel that if the church will start openly discussing these issues and perhaps provide some official responses, less people will leave the church over them and those in the church that already know about these issues, will feel more comfortable remaining in the churchif they can openly discuss them. And yet anyone who reads the site not knowing all of that information is not simply drawn to say ” cool I didn’t know that before, now I am enlightened” instead they say, “ouch, I didn’t know all this, The church may not be true, what do I do?”
This is not a site about informing people of little known facts…. there are many little known facts that members do not know, both positive and negative.
– How many members know that the mob at Carthage charge the stairs twice? having ran back down the first time because Joseph scared them back down the first time?
– How many members know that Mother Smith shared a story about David Whitmer, where it appears the three nephites helped him get his farming finished so he could assist with the plates and translation?
http://thefairestgem.com/2009/09/09/the-three-nephites-help-david-whitmer/ – How many members are unaware that James Talmadge, BH Roberts, and John Widstoe were ok with Evolution while Joseph Fielding Smith was against it?
– How many members know about Chiasmus in the BOM? How many know how complicated the chiasm in Alma 36 is?
– How many know all the statements made by the witnesses beyond just the version in the BOM – there are as many accounts there as there is of the first vision, but we only read here a few that can be seen in a negative light if taken incorrectly. Why not lay out all of their statements and the statements of others who heard them?
– Why not talk about Nahom, which most members don’t know
– Why not talk about William Smith’s statement that the plates were an alloy and not pure gold
[3] William Smith interview, The Saints’ Herald, 4 October 1884, 644.
[4] “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses,” Book of Mormon; and Joseph Smith Jr., “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 March 1842.
– Why not tell members about the mighty miracles that have occured including Lorenzo Snow being brought back to perfect health after being dead for a long time after inspired members treated him
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/perseverance?lang=eng Why don’t we share this info too if it is essentially exposing new info to members? Why did this site only share negative new information? Their agenda is one sided, that is my issue. Occam’s razor works both ways but they imply by their site a agenda to cause difficulty in the testimonies of others by using occam’s razor in only one direction.
From Runtu’s site Quote:A Message from David Twede
September 20, 2012
I don’t think David will mind my posting this here, as I just want to show my support. What a courageous man to stand firm for truth.
Quote:Hello All.
I believe many of you have heard my name this past few days. Since last Sunday I have both been in contact with the press and have also attempted to reach out to the LDS church to make a compromise. My philosophy on that is written in a blog, which can be found again from the link on the MormonThink site under “What’s New”.
As I have indicated on the Tuesday entry, I tried to work with the church, and my leaders have completely ignored me. Thus, I’m taking my fight to the media, and there, hope to encourage the LDS church to repeal their decision to discipline me over my free speech.
MormonThink will stay put. And if I can help it, I will remain a member of record as managing editor. I hope the LDS church can open the tent bigger. A diverse view of its history, doctrines and foundation will serve it better than a narrowly defined, regimented policy against thinking persons. After all, it itself cannot even decide where it stands officially on why it denied the priesthood to the blacks, whether or not the entire or any single group of Amerindians are Lamanites or just the other race that was here already. If they can change their press releases and Book of Mormon introductions to reflect their own lack of understanding (a.k.a ignorance) then I believe the membership tent can be widened to include members who contribute to sites like MormonThink. We really aren’t any more threat to them than FARMS or Richard Bushman who acknowledge many of the same issues. We just don’t get a royalty or paycheck for doing it.
I have simultaneously posted to MormonDiscussions, RfM, StayLDS, Postmormon and LDS.NET forums, for completeness. Looks like he burned his bridges pretty good.
DBMormon wrote:Except if one loves the church and wants to remain in it, one should find a way to share the truth in a loving kind way. This site seems to have an agenda outside of love. When my wife and I disagree do I lovingly try to share with her my point of view or do I scream at her and call names? IT is not a matter of whether what I say is true, it is the context in which I say it. This site seems to throw everything against the wall without spending as much time telling the positive or apologetic or explaining the way one who remains faithful views the context of these facts. Their agenda is anything but love towards the church. That said the church has a right to sift out those who seek malice towards it and to handle it how they see fit. I would hate it if it’s me, and I sure as heck have had an attitude with the church at times ( I am probably known by the strengthening members committee), but the church reserves the right to set the standard for membership.
All I am saying is that Mormonthink, if their agenda was love and concern, could have approached the facts with a lot nicer kinder context and allowed members to deal with the info as they see fit. I am leaving for the day but I would be happy to give an example late or tomorrow if you would like?
I am not a touchy feely person. I appreciate straight forward discussion. If I am wrong I like to be told in a straight forward yet calm manner. So for me the whole “doing it our of love” is Mormon speak for we have a problem and need to manage the delivery of information to keep us in the best light. I know there is some merit in that approach for many, but the facts are the facts no matter how you dress them up. So for me Mormonthink is exactly how I want to hear it. Just put it out there and let me decide its validity.
Here is an example from the first topic that I picked at MormonThink (Zelph): Quote:since no evidence of these massive battles with 2,200,000 men or their weapons has ever been found in Cumorah, NY, then those stories might be mere fiction. If those two key stories are fiction, then it stands to reason that the entire Book of Mormon may not be real history either.
To me this clearly illustrates a leaning toward disproof. If they were truly neutral and objective they would simply ask the question “will evidence be found indicating battles involving millions of warriors?” Different researchers may have different opinions, the key to real objectivity is you don’t lead the audience to one conclusion over another.
Cadence wrote:
I am not a touchy feely person. I appreciate straight forward discussion. If I am wrong I like to be told in a straight forward yet calm manner. So for me the whole “doing it our of love” is Mormon speak for we have a problem and need to manage the delivery of information to keep us in the best light. I know there is some merit in that approach for many, but the facts are the facts no matter how you dress them up. So for me Mormonthink is exactly how I want to hear it. Just put it out there and let me decide its validity.Let me state it differently
My wife yells at me, she yells at the kids, the house is messy most of the time, she is moody, she is unrelenting at times, she doesn’t eat healthy, she hardly ever admits she is wrong, She is late to work often, ect….
These are truths. What picture does that paint? What do you picture when I say these facts? Is this someone you are going to be open minded about or have you already formed judgements? Have I made it harder for you to like her?
While these are truths I could and should also list the 100’s of positive things my wife does and is. I could also frame these truths in context to share that these things are small minority of the responses I get from her. She is the most awesome person in the world but because I got to pick and choose which facts I told you I painted an entirely different picture of what I wanted you to think by solely using truth. Truth can when used for a malicious purpose cause one to see a picture from only one side, and that side can be very far from real truth. Facts are useless and can make any conclusion if used innapropriately
Was I honest…. yep
Did I share truth…. yep
was it fair to only share the facts I did… nope
Does listing only some facts give a true visual of a person, concept, faith … nope
Can sharing truth be anything other then a search for truth? yes
He posted the same message here. We deleted it, since he is looking to engage the support of people in “his fight” against the Church. We have no interest in that at all. None. Nada. Zip.
I think his statement says as much about his motivation as anything else possibly could do, and I agree completely with DB about how “facts” can be presented in such a way as to totally hide “the (full) truth” and lead someone to a partial view. That’s what I believe Mormon Think does, which is why I stopped reading there after my first couple of visits.
For the record… I found mormonthink before staylds. THEY sent me here and encouraged me to seek out john dehlin groups to find strategies to remain in the church.
Doesn’t sound like a group that is trying to get me to leave the church.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
And for the record…I do not think David’s thread should have been deleted. He states that he his trying to remain in the church for family reasons…and he is being accused of apostasy and heresy, and belonging to an apostate group. His leaders wanted him to name the other editors of the site….and accused them of being wolves in sheep clothing.
That sounds familiar.
That is what MY leaders think of staylds!
I don’t think we need to agree with mormonthink to have the conversation.
And I still think that yes, the church can make rules and excommunicate anyone they want. BUT…THEY CANNOT DO SO IN SECRET AND IN THE BACKROOM ANYMORE. They must answer and be accountable for their decisions and actions.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
StayLDS should not be used in any way in this struggle. That is my opinion only, of course, but should the members of this board try to take an active stance, then I believe the Church Leadership will attempt to get our identities or shut down the board.
If a similar struggle ever lies on my horizon in the future, I will fight it on a bigger stage – but alone. I will not include any members of any board.
JK
cwald, we would have welcomed any sort of discussion about issues relative to that situation – but there is no way we are supporting and siding with someone in an effort that is framed as a fight against the LDS Church. It simply isn’t our mission here, and that is precisely what his post was asking. He wasn’t asking to discuss issues; he was asking for backing in a fight with the Church. It was explicit, and it is something we can’t support. I am very happy that you found us through them. I appreciate referrals to our site from theirs. I mean that sincerely. This, however, is something totally different – and we simply aren’t interested in organized, online battles with the Church. It just isn’t what we do.
Okay. MormonThink was a big relief for me. A great amount of tension had been building up in me, the tension that comes from believing that the world is one way and observing and experiencing that it is another. I think that MormonThink’s agenda is pretty obvious after spending a few minutes on the site and I think that any claims they make about being fair and impartial are transparently wrong. But MormonThink taught me that it’s OK not to believe things that don’t make sense. If I hadn’t found that site and others, I might still be living the nightmare of trying to figure out why God wouldn’t answer my prayers and why God loves other people more than me. I’m glad that that insane nightmare is over, but now I have a new set of problems with hard decisions to make. Jaykay wrote:StayLDS should not be used in any way in this struggle.
I agree JK, but not because I fear they come after us, but because that is not the intent of the site, I’m not sure how productive it would be.
Thanks for your comments.
I also like the point DBMormon makes about telling truth. Even Bushman acknowledged it is difficult to resell the story without putting your own slant on it.
InquiringMind wrote:But MormonThink taught me that it’s OK not to believe things that don’t make sense.
good point IM. You have to give yourself permission to think and even to question. It is an individual thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.