- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have a former LDS buddy who had been reading the 20truths website and left the church entirely. I have a variety of reasons to stay, beginning with the fact that I prayed to find the real truth and then my world started spinning. (Down the rabbit hole we go right?) In regards to the website, is it considered anti-mormon? My initial concern is that the website is selectively taking some history out of context and skewing some items in an anti-LDS fashion, but I lack the resources at the moment to determine the veracity of the claims. However, many of the arguments I have heard time and time again. I have frequented apologist websites including Jeff Lindsay’s and read a little of Hugh Nibley’s stuff. Where is a good place for more unbiased info? Does it even matter? Would I be wrong in my assertion that Joseph Smith and the history of the church as taught is entirely inaccurate? So far the only “reasonable” explanation for the papyrus is that the rock in the hat showed Joe things from a record of Abraham that is lost. All things are possible with God right? Jeff Lindsay thinks we’re missing the “key” to the scrolls. But on the other hand, there is some pretty damning evidence out there to the contrary. At the very least, I still respect Joseph Smith for producing fantastic literary art 
Bottom line, how do people reconcile such issues and where do I go to find quality discussion on the topics? (Other than here of course).
Absentminded wrote:Does it even matter?
No, it doesn’t matter. No one knows for sure. What matters is the truths that ring true in the Church as it has evolved to at this point in history.
Quote:Would I be wrong in my assertion that Joseph Smith and the history of the church as taught is entirely inaccurate?
Yes. It’s not entirely inaccurate. I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the weird and sometimes objectionable stuff has been whitewashed, but it’s not ALL bad.
Quote:So far the only “reasonable” explanation for the papyrus is that the rock in the hat showed Joe things from a record of Abraham that is lost. All things are possible with God right? Jeff Lindsay thinks we’re missing the “key” to the scrolls. But on the other hand, there is some pretty damning evidence out there to the contrary. At the very least, I still respect Joseph Smith for producing fantastic literary art
Personally, I don’t think it’s an “accident” that these things all disappeared — the breastplate, the golden plates, the Urim and the Thummim, and the papyrus. I often wonder if Joseph Smith, at a young age, realized that no one knows for sure about the nature of religious truth. I think he learned that people will put forth great effort when they have a belief in things they can’t see — perhaps spawned or evidenced by his work with Josiah Stowell (don’t mind my spelling) where he showed people where to dig for gold. This may have inspired his ability to forge a Church based on faith, as well as his extensive Lectures on Faith.
This is all my opinion, as a long-time outwardly active member of the Church with only a shallow reading of Church history — but they represent recurring thoughts I’ve had over the years. The bottom line — we know nothing for sure about the parts of Church history that have no existing evidence.
What matters is the Church as it stands today — does it enoble the character? Does it bring happiness? Does it bless your life in some way? Then if so, stay with it and don’t let the negative aspects hurt your life as much as possible.
Quote:Bottom line, how do people reconcile such issues and where do I go to find quality discussion on the topics? (Other than here of course).
I no longer participate in such discussions as a search for truth. Truth is what makes an indelible impression on your soul and motivates you to action, and it can change over time.
Nibley’s work shows a highly intelligent mind, but is intellectually dishonest and selective. I don’t think much of it would convince non-LDS academics, although it can sometimes be impressive. I have learned through experience in my life that people could write in their journals in pure honesty of what they observed, but entirely miss what actually ocurred because they were not privy to that information. Ie, they could write their observations of evidence, see that a punishment was meted, and be thoroughly convinced of the guilt of a certain party…But they would never know that the person was actually innocent unless that person or other parties took the time to show them otherwise. Simply put, the required bit of information was kept secret to protect the guilty party because the accused didn’t see it prudent to share or make it public. In this scenario, the innocent party wrote in their journal that they were innocent, but did not elaborate. 100 years from now, a historian looking at the aforementioned example would be certain of the guilt of the “innocent party” and that they were lying in their own journal. All of the people involved would be gone and only the observations and record of punishment would be available.
That’s why I think history is complete crap.
:thumbdown: So now I sit here trying to think of ways to resolve what I perceive as inadequacies in the whole mormon story. Especially the origins of the BoM and Pearl of Great Price. I can take them at face value for being a work of art able to bring a man closer to God, but I find it difficult to believe that they are ancient records.
I also suffer from issues relating to modern human remains hanging around from 13,000 years ago, assuming decay rates are constant. I just feel like the true story has never been revealed, or if it has been it was lost.
Throw in my disdain for fast and testimony meeting and that’s all I’m up against. haha.
There is an excellent thread in our archives about whether or not we can understand history. I’ll look for it and post a link – ’cause, you know, that’s what I do. “Can We EVER Know the Truth about History?” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2487 As far as the 20 truths website I think the author falls into a very common and unfortunate trap. He writes: “it is my conclusion that the LDS church is not the ‘only true church’. …I’ve decided to no longer be a part of it.” What I see is a man who had a very specific set of expectations about what the church is and what the evidence surrounding it should be. I do understand how that mindset evolves – I used to share very similar views myself. What strikes me as tragic, besides the fact that some of the information he found shattered his personal expectations and turned his worldview upside down — is that he sees it as such an all-or-nothing proposition. Is there NO value in church participation outside of the exclusivist view that “we are the source of all truth and all the others are inadequate”?
Is it so hard to stand back, start down the path that should lead to greater maturity, and realize that such a claim actually inhibits many areas of personal growth? How can we value the strengths of our fellowmen if we always see them as inferior? How can we gain true humility when we always see ourselves as superior?
What I see now is a new opportunity for growth in our church. I see the gospel as the truth – as in whatever is true is part of the gospel by definition. Not the other way around, we may well hold personal beliefs or share common traditions that in reality are “off the track.” Personally, I see this ‘only true church’ language as something that was useful and more meaningful to early members according to their understanding and as they struggled through their intense trials. As we learn line upon line our understanding can take a broader view. Do we think of our church as COMPLETELY true and perfect? If we did we would have to toss the idea of continuing revelation. Do we think humans can handle or grasp perfect truth?
Of course we are taught that truth is found everywhere, we don’t have exclusive right to it. Would it also be absurd to think that nobody else may know something that we don’t? So if we don’t have a corner on all truth, and we don’t have an absolutely perfect and complete truth, we have a set of truths mixed with the imperfect human condition which will allow for some misconceptions as well. I think it is sad when some of these misconceptions lead to a form of absolutism that compels people to jump ship when they learn that ship was assembled by humans. Show me a ship on the ocean that was not assembled by humans! Imperfections do not preclude inspiration. Yes, we may need to alter some of our understanding – but isn’t that what life is for?
Orson, that was very well put! :thumbup: Thanks for that post!Absentminded wrote:Where is a good place for more unbiased info? Does it even matter?
Truth really is dependent on our point of view…I think there is truth out there, but it is always accessed through imperfect mortal senses and intelligence. So, “Does it matter?” At the very basic level, yes, we are beings that search for meaning and growth and understanding, and finding truth for us matters. But if you ask the concert pianist if stem cell research matters … you’d likely find it may not matter much to them, nor is it appreciated. The scientist, artist, philosopher, or theologian may look at truth very differently, and parts of truth may matter to them greatly, and other truth matter little.
Many smart and devoted church members do not find some of this matters to them. It is not worth their time or interest or growth.
Others find that some of these questions or historical matters do matter in how they process things and develop faith or develop a world-view.
So I don’t know if anyone else can definitively argue for you what matters to you and what doesn’t. You will find arguments on both sides of the fence, and you have to decide what you believe and what you want to spend your time researching.
As I keep that in mind, I choose to hold on to my mormon view of the world, despite the questions I don’t think will ever be answered for me on what exactly happened or what things definitely mean by what happened. I decide what to make of the info I expose myself to. I may be more open to things being not exactly as the church presents it…but I clearly believe things do matter and there are great things in the church that are not entirely false or useless.
If the Lord wanted us to know exactly everything that happened, he would have documented everything and sent DVDs out to us all about the Book of Mormon and what happened. Clearly, He doesn’t think that is necessary for our mission here on earth…so we should not try to develop expectations that we need to find the one and only source of truth about all things. We need to allow ourselves to be comfortable with less than 100% certainty of facts, yet develop our character by experiences and choices, nonetheless.
I appreciate everyone’s responses. I feel strangely empowered knowing that I can believe whatever I want and that I am not “bound” to the mormonism I was raised in. It is somewhat paradoxical how it makes me like the church more. Now I can drink my near beer, think history is a crock, and appreciate the BoM as a tool/art that makes me feel good. I no longer care about popular opinions and beliefs held by some in the congregation..good for them. Makes it easier for me to participate. I’m not done studying the church history subject yet though. “History is a pack of lies agreed upon.” – Napoleon Absentminded wrote:I feel strangely empowered knowing that I can believe whatever I want and that I am not “bound” to the mormonism I was raised in. It is somewhat paradoxical how it makes me like the church more.
“Empowered” is a good word. I think when we can open our minds to this approach, just as you said, the church can be something we like MORE, not less, because now it becomes something personal and more meaningful, and not a chore. I think the Lord’s whole plan is to provide us freedom to choose so that we can learn. Being “bound” by any religion is not part of the plan. Even if one was 100% obedient but doing it out of fear and not love, I’m not sure that helps one gain exaltation. That isn’t to say “Go be disobedient, its good for you” or “Don’t let anyone else tell you what to do…fight the system!” No, not that extreme … but what I’m trying to say is that we should be honest with God on what we believe, and what we don’t. And if something we doubt or don’t believe is something that should be important to us, I would think God would help us to gain a testimony through the Spirit. But that is through the Spirit, not through social pressure from the ward. I think that is the challenge with becoming empowered to determine your personal faith, there can be disapproval by others for breaking the norm.I guess it gets back to the spider man mantra “With great power comes great responsibility”. If you want a more powerful faith, I think you need to take personal responsibility for it, and then there is potential for more power to help you grow. But it isn’t always the easiest path, and there is risk to manage.
For me, it makes the religion more individualistic and personal, while I am also striving to stay connected to the group to benefit from others’ experiences and support, and to serve others too.
I think that the Mormon History Association and John Whitmer Historical Associations are excellent sources. (I write about them quite a bit on my blog.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.