For those of you who have experienced major doubts...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Scottie --

I think this thread demonstrates one of my biggest issues with the church that extends beyond problems with the church's historical claims. The problem is that the church paints a binary world where either it's all true or it's all false. I have heard GBH say that in GC on a regular basis. With that binary world view, there isn't much room for doubt and people who express doubt can be quickly broomed out as apostates. In other words, the church can be a hostile place for those who don't profess to "know" that the church is true.

So here we have people like SU and Taq Man who are expressing reasonable doubts about the church's history and we have people like Archea calling them pussies and apostates. The church's tent should be big enough to cover all people, but apparently at times it is not.

Another big issue I have with the church is the constant emphasis on devotion to the institution rather than devotion to deity. Despite the church's recent attempts to emphasize Christ (e.g. the logo change), I find that the emphasis is still on devotion to the church -- the prototypical testimony of "I know this church is true" is an example of what I am talking about. Other examples include the emphasis on temple attendance and temple "worthiness" which have little to do with following Christ, the constant emphasis on church history, the lack of any real service done at local levels that impact the community outside of the ward, and the dogged devotion to norms and standards that promote conformity but not christlike attributes.

I expect many to criticize me and probably call me an apostate pussy or claim that I don't fully understand church teachings, but that will just prove my point no. 1.

I don't agree with much of what you said, but I want to address just one point.

The reason people like Taq Man and SU rub us raw, is because they are not Mormons that are going to church (or not going to church) who are wrestling with these questions.

Their testimony of the church is quite strong and unequivocal. That it is wrong, untrue, full of lies, evil, and despicable.

Can you see why their professions of unfaith rub us raw?

Are they respectable about their unfaith? No. Does that justify us being rude to them? Probably not. But we are imperfect and impatient.

Frankly, if I lacked the ability or desire to discern the power of God through the Holy Spirit, I would have split a long time ago like SU and Taq Man. But that is not me. The Lord has laid out a different path for me, and I stumble along, despite the catcalls and insults.

There but for the Grace of God, go I.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I mean simply that JS's actions were knowning and volitional. He couldn't plead insanity, at least under the Durham rule.

Whether the book is inpsired or not, I would agree that joseph's production of it was volitional. That undermines your rhteoric a bit, however.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Eber Howe a rabid antimormon of Joseph's day went back to Palmyra to interview Joseph's neighbors, friends, townsfolk that knew him and his family. He was digging for dirt and all of them obliged him.

When I read the accounts I was expecting to read some heated commentary about his first vision since Joseph described being persecuted in the PofGP but it never came. Not one person even mentioned the first vision. They spoke of gold digging and lying about the gold plates but not one person who admitted they persecuted him mentioned the first vision as a motivating factor.

He lied.

You base your conclusion that he lied on that, weak, very weak. Perhaps these folks were most upset with the gold digging thing and that is why they emphasized it. How do you know no one even mentioned it.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Scottie --

I think this thread demonstrates one of my biggest issues with the church that extends beyond problems with the church's historical claims. The problem is that the church paints a binary world where either it's all true or it's all false. I have heard GBH say that in GC on a regular basis. With that binary world view, there isn't much room for doubt and people who express doubt can be quickly broomed out as apostates. In other words, the church can be a hostile place for those who don't profess to "know" that the church is true.

So here we have people like SU and Taq Man who are expressing reasonable doubts about the church's history and we have people like Archea calling them pussies and apostates. The church's tent should be big enough to cover all people, but apparently at times it is not.

Another big issue I have with the church is the constant emphasis on devotion to the institution rather than devotion to deity. Despite the church's recent attempts to emphasize Christ (e.g. the logo change), I find that the emphasis is still on devotion to the church -- the prototypical testimony of "I know this church is true" is an example of what I am talking about. Other examples include the emphasis on temple attendance and temple "worthiness" which have little to do with following Christ, the constant emphasis on church history, the lack of any real service done at local levels that impact the community outside of the ward, and the dogged devotion to norms and standards that promote conformity but not christlike attributes.

I expect many to criticize me and probably call me an apostate pussy or claim that I don't fully understand church teachings, but that will just prove my point no. 1.

I have been on this venue a long time and have read the posts of TaqMan and SU in other venues. Their situation is the manifestation of the parable of the sower. They go out of their way to be dickheads and fall trap to the exact binary endstate you describe. If they were balanced and respectfull in their approach others would not call them pussies. While it is unChristlike and demonstrating a lack of class to do such, the poor treatment is as a consequence of their polarizing efforts.

There are many on this site who question the LDS movement. Some of those folks are TBMs and others represent the borderlander faction. In the end this site is operated by believing members and therefore becomes "their house." That is not a phenomenon of the LDS Church but of some imagined rules of the internet message board community. Hence if you are going to come to this site and be a loudmouthed polarizing critic one should expect some harsh treatment.

I agree that the Church paints a binary world. However, that picture starts with all holy writ that doesn't spend a great time with gray areas. Good versus evil seems a pretty consistent theme in all books reported to be scripture by any religious sect. I agree that as a practical application to a large group of people it can be detrimental to inclusivity and maing everyone feel welcome. Certainly we are all not yet finished products.

Finally finishing your post was some type of fallacy. I don't know which one but to make absurd claims and then to say others reacting to my absurd claims like they have to others just proves me right is neither compelling nor productive to your stated goals of more open discussion. In fact I might propose such a method continues to reinforce the binary world you accuse the Church of promulgating upon its membership, perhaps it isn't your fault, brother.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

You base your conclusion that he lied on that, weak, very weak. Perhaps these folks were most upset with the gold digging thing and that is why they emphasized it. How do you know no one even mentioned it.

Bushman emphasized in RSR how commonplace it was for people to claim angelic visions and so forth. It wasn't news in 1820. It would be news in 2008.

[BYU71]

I find those who want to destroy JS's reputation to be much like those who want it to be completely sanitized. It seems to be an all or none proposition for them.

Instead of saying, "here is why I have a problem accepting the first vision", some cut to the chase and proclaim basically, YOU (emphasis) are an idiot and believe a liar.

Of course the zealot proclaims anyone who may have issues with the "church" to be well on their way to apostacy and thwart the workings of the Lord.

It is my understanding that while Christ reigns during the 1,000 years all people won't be mormons. How can that be, I would ask my zealot friends. Is there room in God's Kingdom for the doubter?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I find those who want to destroy JS's reputation to be much like those who want it to be completely sanitized. It seems to be an all or none proposition for them.

Instead of saying, "here is why I have a problem accepting the first vision", some cut to the chase and proclaim basically, YOU (emphasis) are an idiot and believe a liar.

Of course the zealot proclaims anyone who may have issues with the "church" to be well on their way to apostacy and thwart the workings of the Lord.

It is my understanding that while Christ reigns during the 1,000 years all people won't be mormons. How can that be, I would ask my zealot friends. Is there room in God's Kingdom for the doubter?

It was good to see that one of Joseph Smith's flaws was being intolerant of fools that tried to spread lies about him or his family. That's not much of a flaw, IMO.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Scottie --

I think this thread demonstrates one of my biggest issues with the church that extends beyond problems with the church's historical claims. The problem is that the church paints a binary world where either it's all true or it's all false. I have heard GBH say that in GC on a regular basis. With that binary world view, there isn't much room for doubt and people who express doubt can be quickly broomed out as apostates. In other words, the church can be a hostile place for those who don't profess to "know" that the church is true.

So here we have people like SU and Taq Man who are expressing reasonable doubts about the church's history and we have people like Archea calling them pussies and apostates. The church's tent should be big enough to cover all people, but apparently at times it is not.

Another big issue I have with the church is the constant emphasis on devotion to the institution rather than devotion to deity. Despite the church's recent attempts to emphasize Christ (e.g. the logo change), I find that the emphasis is still on devotion to the church -- the prototypical testimony of "I know this church is true" is an example of what I am talking about. Other examples include the emphasis on temple attendance and temple "worthiness" which have little to do with following Christ, the constant emphasis on church history, the lack of any real service done at local levels that impact the community outside of the ward, and the dogged devotion to norms and standards that promote conformity but not christlike attributes.

I expect many to criticize me and probably call me an apostate pussy or claim that I don't fully understand church teachings, but that will just prove my point no. 1.

You're not familiar with Taqman, so you can't understand why we detest his kind.

He's like a mini Sandra Tanner, ignoring any favorable evidence and pointing out evidence he knows to be inaccurate and then he cries about being lied to.

Instead of manning up like Seattle and just being glib, he cries about his horrible psychological harm suffered at the hands of those mean, prevaricating Mormons. We beat him with little whips across his little back.

[El Paso Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My list would go on and on. But I'm curious. Nobody has a problem with the Book of Mormon? That would be in my top 3, probably nosing out the Pearl of Great Price because of the latter's lesser prominence.

If anyone does a serious study of the origins of the Pearl of Great Price and the alleged "translation" in light of the papyri that were discovered in the late 1960s, the most logical explanation is that Joseph Smith's "translation" is a fraud. The only response LDS scholars can give (and Hugh Nibley has admitted as much) is that Joseph Smith's translation was inspired, but not meant to be a literal translation of the papyri. When you look at all of the circumstances and read numerous quotes from Joseph Smith about the translation of the Pearl of Great Price, this inspired translation theory is very hard to believe.

When you take all of the Book of Mormon problems into account as well, it makes it extremely hard to believe the restoration story. I graduated from BYU, served as AP in my mission, married in the temple, etc. etc. I continue to be involved in LDS activities and worship, but I don't believe the Church is true. My wife and Bishop know my position as well. Just my two cents.

[El Paso Coug]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Scottie --

I think this thread demonstrates one of my biggest issues with the church that extends beyond problems with the church's historical claims. The problem is that the church paints a binary world where either it's all true or it's all false. I have heard GBH say that in GC on a regular basis. With that binary world view, there isn't much room for doubt and people who express doubt can be quickly broomed out as apostates. In other words, the church can be a hostile place for those who don't profess to "know" that the church is true.

So here we have people like SU and Taq Man who are expressing reasonable doubts about the church's history and we have people like Archea calling them pussies and apostates. The church's tent should be big enough to cover all people, but apparently at times it is not.

Another big issue I have with the church is the constant emphasis on devotion to the institution rather than devotion to deity. Despite the church's recent attempts to emphasize Christ (e.g. the logo change), I find that the emphasis is still on devotion to the church -- the prototypical testimony of "I know this church is true" is an example of what I am talking about. Other examples include the emphasis on temple attendance and temple "worthiness" which have little to do with following Christ, the constant emphasis on church history, the lack of any real service done at local levels that impact the community outside of the ward, and the dogged devotion to norms and standards that promote conformity but not christlike attributes.

I expect many to criticize me and probably call me an apostate pussy or claim that I don't fully understand church teachings, but that will just prove my point no. 1.

I especially agree with your observation of the binary world concept. If everyone has to decide if it's either true or not, my doubts are large enough that I have to fall into the "not" camp. There are a ton of great things about the Church and many wonderful teachings, but it's either the only true Church or it isn't. If I think that it isn't, the Church is structured such that it is extremely difficult to continue to have any meaningful involvement with the Church.