I don’t suffer from ['ex']-mormonism, I enjoy every minute of it.

Christ’s words about doing your alms in secret were directed at individuals, not organizations. Honestly, it doesn’t bug me one bit if the Red Cross wants to toot its own horn in an attempt to drum up funding for more extensive aid programs. Neither does it bother me if the Church wishes to show to the world what Christ’s Gospel is all about and how people are applying it in their lives.

Cr@ig’s Reply: See Bro. Anderson, I knew that we could come to some sort of agreement in the end…

Ok totally taken out of context… but I couldn’t resist.

What ever happened to Christ’s charge that you do charity in secret? . . . Why does the Mormon Church have to promote itself each and every time it spends alittle bit of money in a humanitarian efforts with a media blitz?

Perhaps the LDS Church does make too much of its humanitarian efforts. On the other hand, remember that Jesus also said,

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:14–16)

Apparently one must walk the line between doing alms in public to receive the glory of men and doing good works in public for the glory of our Father in heaven. I suppose it is one’s intent that makes the difference.

Yeah I love this quote…as I think it gets to the cruxed of the matter. Mormonism in my opinion is a religion built on a fictional history and fictional scriptures. It makes promises based on this that it can not keep. It literally sells a “snake oil” to its members that can not provide the promised cure.

As well intentioned as Mormonism may claim to be…the mere fact that it is built on a foundation of fiction makes it a false hope.

Oh and one more bone…What ever happened to Christ’s charge that you do charity in secret? Why does the Mormon Church have to promote itself each and every time it spends alittle bit of money in a humanitarian efforts with a media blitz?

Is the self promotion an attempt to shore up it’s core along the Wasatch front? Honest question.

What Elder Packer was saying in his 1988 talk was his own opinion and not official Church Doctrine. He says so in the disclaimer at the begging. So you can’t hang his ideas on the Church. But even at that, Elder Packer was talking about faith and that we should not give up on faith just because some theory or another challenges it. Now I understand the faithless mock and ridicule those of us who have the faith you lack. It goes with the territory. But if you are going to quote someone please do your homework. I wasted a whole thirty seconds reading your post only to discover you got it all wrong.

But I think your Apolstle, Boyde K. Packer, said it even better than you when he said.

“When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above”

In other words…when confronted with verifiable physical evidence that conflicts any Mormon claims, Mormon’s should ignore it, stick their fingers in their ears, and yell naw, naw, naw, naw…I can’t hear you.

Don’t believe in verifiable, observable, testable, discernable, visible, recognizable evidence. Instead ignore conflicting evidence and place your faith in your human emotions and feelings that are subject to being manipulated, managed and controled.

To say that “feelings are reasonable evidence” that you can always rely on your human emotions and feelings as a valid means to confirm truth is just plan scary….yet SOOO Mormon.

I believe that this is the Mormon blind spot. It is what keeps members from examining the claims of the Mormon church and also is the tool by which its leader maintain control.

I understand why the Mormon Church would want its members to place their faith in something so unstable as their own human emotions and feelings becasue the church knows that feeling can be manipulated.

The church has actually trademarked its ability to manipulate human feelings. This is NO joke.

The church through its own subsidiary,Bonneville Communications , boldly flaunts its ability to manipulate the human heart, stating its unique strength is their …”ability to touch the hearts and minds of audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action.

On the Bonniville website they call this uniquely powerful brand of creative advertising HeartSell® — strategic emotional advertising that stimulates a response.”

Anyone who doubts the Mormon churches ability to evoke emotions may ask the question … Why do missionaries hand out tissues to audience members viewing the church produced “Joseph Smith Movie” BEFORE the movie is viewed?

The movie demonstates the churches ability to manipulate tears, feelings and emotions… AKA “The Spirit” through it’s less than honest portrayal of Joseph Smith’s life.

Bonniville proudly proclaims that for over 30 years [their] creative professionals have designed public service and direct response messages for national nonprofit organizations such as the Huntsman Cancer Institute, Boy Scouts of American, National Hospice Foundation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and The Salvation Army.

So to suggest that your human emotions are as reliable as varifiable, observable information is just a scary proposition.

Yup…don’t trust the observable, verifiable or testable…claims…trust your human emotions. Just make sure that the church isn’t using its trademarked special human feelings manipulation technique “HeartSell®” on you.

I apologize. I’m embarrassed by my post concerning your serious question of what, in my opinion, a God-Made church would look like. Sometimes the evil ex-Mormon in me comes out and I take on a satirical flippant persona…so for that I am truly sorry.

So regarding your question…I really do not know how to honestly answer your question. I’d like to believe that there is a god…but sadly I no longer have any belief that one exists. So any answer I may offer would be tainted through that prism. Leaving Mormonism robbed me of that belief. I had placed so much faith and belief in Mormonism that when I came to the conclusion that it was a religion built on a man-made fraud…I lost all belief in the claims of men unless those claims were supported with reasonable evidence. I discount any conclusion that is based on my emotions. I no longer trust my emotions to be trustworthy since they failed me so much in my Mormon experience. To me, Mormonism (through my eyes) can now be easily seen as the fraud I believe it to be. I believe this is only possible once you remove the emotional connection. I fought for years to maintain faith and belief…overlooking or accommodating difficult problems I saw in the church’s doctrines or the apologetic answers offered to dismiss these difficulties. It was my emotional connection (spirit) that made me overlook, accommodate or discount these difficult issues.

So bottom line, I do not know what a god-made church would look like…I just do not think that it would look like Mormonism.

First your questions assume that there is in fact a God and that this God has a church. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that this premise is correct.

A reasonable place to start. If in fact there is no God, then the rest of our speculation is pointless. Indeed, our very existence is pointless if all is merely atoms and void.

So let’s assume that Cr@ig P@xton has reached the Celestial Kingdom and Godhood and now wishes all of his children dwelling on some distant planet recently created by me to have the opportunity to worship and praise me.

This is an interesting approach. To figure out how God acts, imagine how you would act in his place. The limitations of that approach should be apparent, but perhaps it is the best we can do under the circumstances.

Already, however, I would tend to disagree with the motives you ascribe to God. Yes, he wants us to worship and praise him. But Mormonism teaches that there is more to life than that. We are placed on earth to gain experience, to learn, and to prove ourselves.

What would my “God-made” church look like?
First and foremost…My God-made church would pass the test of time. It wouldn’t succumb to the pressures of mere mortals or change its doctrine to accommodate public pressure. After all I am GOD, all powerful and what I say is law.

I would agree that some things are timeless. Yet God speaks to us in our language, and adapts his commandments and expectations to fit our circumstances.

Second: As to an organization…there would be no need for some manmade organization I would be a direct-god, I would allow all of my children to have direct access to me without any middle men. Again I am God and am all powerful…I wouldn’t need any middle men to confuse the interpretation of my commandments. Direct communication always is superior to a middle management filter.

I think we both agree and disagree here. We agree that direct communication is superior, which is why Mormonism emphasizes personal revelation.

Where we might disagree is on the need for a church organization. Although one may not need an organization to communicate with God, an organization of like-minded people certainly helps one live a godly life. That is why we are called upon to bear one another’s burdens, to mourn with those who mourn, and to comfort those who need comfort—in short, to help each other through the challenges of life.

Third: I’m a huge believer in free agency…so although I would certainly have a few commandments…only because I too would be a selfish god and want the adulation and worship of my children, I would make it somewhat easier than the Mormon God for my children to exercise that free agency…I wouldn’t confuse my children with silly fictions and myth stories of creation and first parents or universal floods.

I too am a huge believer in agency. In fact, I think that the concept of agency is the key to understanding Mormonism.

Agency requires that people have a real choice between real alternatives. And it means that less-than-perfect beings will make less-than-perfect choices. God permits us to make bad choices so that we can learn from them.

As for “silly fictions and myth stories”, two things can be said. First, let’s not be too quick to dismiss them as fictional. (How do you know that Adam and Eve were not real persons, for instance?) Second, even if the stories are not literally true, they may teach important lessons through vivid symbolism.

I would show my hand a little more clearly…by clearly allowing my children to think freely and allow my truth claims to be studied, examined, scrutinized…and anything I established as true…must stand up to this test. After all if I truly want my children to believe in me, I don’t want to confuse them with silly tests of their faith by having conflicting and confusing of my existance out there.

Making things too easy may drain life of its educational value. Learning requires effort, even struggle.

I remember the first time I took Thermodynamics. The subject was mystifying. After considerable toil and anguish, I managed to pass the course with a fairly good grade, but I did not really understand the subject. Only after my third or fourth time working through the material did the light dawn.

Later, as a teacher of thermodynamics, I decided to spare my students the trouble I had experienced. I decided that the existing books on the subject were to blame, so I wrote my own. It was (and is) the very model of clarity. I do not believe any thermodynamics text has ever been so clear. Nevertheless, my students still struggle to understand.

I have concluded that a certain amount of personal struggle is required to master difficult subjects. There is no other way. No one can do it for you.

I think it would also be valuable to give demonstration of my superior god power from time to time…maybe once or twice for each generation.

Just showing off?

Actually, I believe that God does demonstrate his superior powers, not just once or twice per generation, but daily. Miracles do happen, although rarely in public view.

Forth and foremost: As in this world, knowing that most humans reject all forms of organized religion…I would not have silly rituals and passwords…my children could experience me out among my creations. In the mountains, a beautiful stream, a cold winter’s day on the slopes or on the face of a new born child.

I would want to see a reliable survey before concluding that most humans reject all forms of organized religion—I suspect it depends on the time, place, culture, etc. Be that as it may, I think that many religious people do experience God just as you so poetically suggested.

So Bro Anderson, I think your assumption that God must have some organized, man lead, religious institution to filter his words…is indicative of your Mormon upbringing. In the real world most humans have rejected this premise.

Undoubtedly my Mormonism colors how I perceive the world. Everyone has a bias or point of view that affects how they see things. (Hence God adapts his message to fit our circumstances, as I indicated before.)

But I must disagree with you that the purpose of a religious institution is to “filter” God’s words. I do not see the LDS Church as standing between me and God—as I have said, we emphasize direct, personal communication with God. But we humans are social beings; we depend on each other. My expectation is that we will continue to be social beings in the eternities. The Church exists to help us prepare for eternal life with God.

And to answer your last question…NO I don’t think God has an “organized” church on the earth today

Is that because you don’t believe there is a God, or because you don’t believe God has organized a church?

Well at least you made me think…

First your questions assume that there is in fact a God and that this God has a church. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that this premise is correct. So let’s assume that Cr@ig P@xton has reached the Celestial Kingdom and Godhood and now wishes all of his children dwelling on some distant planet recently created by me to have the opportunity to worship and praise me. How would my God made church be organized and what would it look like?

What would my “God-made” church look like?
First and foremost…My God-made church would pass the test of time. It wouldn’t succumb to the pressures of mere mortals or change its doctrine to accommodate public pressure. After all I am GOD, all powerful and what I say is law.

Second: As to an organization…there would be no need for some manmade organization I would be a direct-god, I would allow all of my children to have direct access to me without any middle men. Again I am God and am all powerful…I wouldn’t need any middle men to confuse the interpretation of my commandments. Direct communication always is superior to a middle management filter.

Third: I’m a huge believer in free agency…so although I would certainly have a few commandments…only because I too would be a selfish god and want the adulation and worship of my children, I would make it somewhat easier than the Mormon God for my children to exercise that free agency…I wouldn’t confuse my children with silly fictions and myth stories of creation and first parents or universal floods.

I would show my hand a little more clearly…by clearly allowing my children to think freely and allow my truth claims to be studied, examined, scrutinized…and anything I established as true…must stand up to this test. After all if I truly want my children to believe in me, I don’t want to confuse them with silly tests of their faith by having conflicting and confusing of my existance out there.

I think it would also be valuable to give demonstration of my superior god power from time to time…maybe once or twice for each generation.

Forth and foremost: As in this world, knowing that most humans reject all forms of organized religion…I would not have silly rituals and passwords…my children could experience me out among my creations. In the mountains, a beautiful stream, a cold winter’s day on the slopes or on the face of a new born child.

So Bro Anderson, I think your assumption that God must have some organized, man lead, religious institution to filter his words…is indicative of your Mormon upbringing. In the real world most humans have rejected this premise.

And to answer your last question…NO I don’t think God has an “organized” church on the earth today

What’s not to like?

Alas, some people have a low tolerance for ambiguity.

Some years ago, while teaching a university geology course, my wife observed that diamond is an inorganic form of carbon. One of the students disagreed vehemently. He said that he had been taught in his organic chemistry course that carbon compounds are organic. (Whether the chemistry professor actually said that all carbon compounds are organic is debatable; however, that is what the student heard.)

Later that same student explained why had chosen to major in science. In science, he said, every thing is cut and dried. There is always a right answer; everything is definite; there is no ambiguity.

Of course, that student’s view of science was nonsense. Scientific knowledge is always incomplete and tentative. Although some things in science may be settled and unambiguous, others are not. At some level, we find that we really do not know what we are talking about. That forces us to study and learn—and in many cases, unlearn what we thought we knew.

Why should it be any different in religion?

Do we have rules and boundaries? Sure, but they mainly relate to behavior. As far as doctrine, we are always trying to learn. As we learn, we are willing to modify our thinking and improve our approach. We ask very few questions about belief. 1) Belief in God. 2) Belief in Jesus Christ and that he is the savior. 3) Belief that we have prophets today.

But, I think our nuanced approach is one reason that we attract people with higher education levels. The LDS church is one where the higher the education level, the MORE likely they are to be an active member of the church.

I know this squishy approach doesn’t sit well with everyone. But, I think it enables us to continue to learn, adapt and change.

What’s not to like?

Ok…but when do you KNOW when he is speaking as a man and not as a prophet. . . . So by what standard are God’s words God’s words and thoughts when uttered by your so-called prophets?

There’s a simple answer:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D & C 68:4)

The listener has the responsibility to discern when something is spoken by the Holy Ghost.

I have answered your questions. I am still curious as to how you would answer my questions about your criteria for recognizing a “God-made” church.

You see naive Craig…God’s Prophets words have to be vetted, processed and aged in order for them to be worthy of our consideration…only after they have under gone years of review by FARMS/FAIR can we LDS members even begin to accept them as having come from God. How silly it is of you to think that God’s Prophets should be taken literally at their word when they deliver a General Conference address…after all they may only be speaking as a man when they give their address. We won’t know for certain for years. Who knows some future generation may discover some ridiculous comment hidden in those comments. So after they have undergone years of vetting and review…then and only then can our dear prophets words be taken as having come from God and not the mere ramblings of his human mind.
So what good is a Mormon Prophet if his pronouncements can’t be taken to the bank, when uttered?

“Who says he was deranged, misguided, or uninformed? I may not agree with everything Joseph Fielding Smith said or wrote, but I would not dismiss his work as “mere ramblings.” Undoubtedly he was right about some things and wrong about others.”

Ok…but when do you KNOW when he is speaking as a man and not as a prophet. I’ve pointed out several situations when BY used the term “Thus sayeth the Lord”…that FAIR has discounted as BY merely speaking as a man…because the doctrines he was espousing had been repudiated by the modern LDS church…so surely the use of “thus sayeth the Lord” can’t be the qualifier. And we know that Conference talks aren’t a qualifier either since much of BY most controversial subjects were delivered in General Conference.

So by what standard are God’s words God’s words and thoughts when uttered by your so-called prophets? Under what circumstances can a Mormon Prophet be held accountable for his words?

Case in point: The inspired words of God’s Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith;(back door escape clause, he was an apostle when he wrote these words) …”There is no question but what many of the so-called geological changes in the earth’s surface, which according to geological theories took place over ages of time, in reality occurred in a matter of a few short weeks incident to the universal flood “(Man: His Origins and Destiny, pp414-436)

Who says those words of Joseph Fielding Smith were inspired? Did he present them as a revelation to the Church? (No escape clause needed: He could have presented such a revelation to the Church when he was president.) Was his opinion on this matter ever considered binding on the Church as a whole? Must one share his views about geology to be saved?

We “Mormons” do not believe our prophets to be infallible; we do not live by every word that proceeds from their mouths; we (and they) are allowed personal opinions on a wide range of matters.

Although we accept some revelations as binding on the Church (such as those contained in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), even these are not considered inerrant or complete. We believe that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (Article of Faith 9)

Personally, I look forward to receiving more light and knowledge from God. I fully expect to discover that much of what I think I know is not quite so, and that God has in store even greater things than I have ever imagined.

Thank goodness Joseph Fielding Smith is dead…so we can totally dismiss his pronouncements as the mere ramblings of a deranged misguided uninformed mind. Ummm but isn’t this exactly what one would expect to find in a man-made church?

Who says he was deranged, misguided, or uninformed? I may not agree with everything Joseph Fielding Smith said or wrote, but I would not dismiss his work as “mere ramblings.” Undoubtedly he was right about some things and wrong about others.

For instance, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died for our sins, arose from the tomb on the third day, and ascended into heaven. He taught that faith in Jesus Christ is essential for salvation. I wholeheartedly concur.

Your comment about a “man-made church,” raises some questions: How do you imagine a “God-made” church would look? How would it be organized and governed? What kinds of people would belong to it? Does such a church exist today?

Since the flood story is common for Christianity, that really isn’t something that would predict prophetic ability. Likewise, it really isn’t something that most anti Mormons bring up.

But, since you do, I can say I am a member in good standing who does not believe in the universal flood. I don’t believe that, and I am not an outsider in any way, shape or form. How do I reconcile that? I have some understanding of ancient cultures and writing and know that things written had to do with what they were familiar with. Noah didn’t have satellites in place to see exactly how much of the earth was covered. As far as he was concerned, it was the whole earth.

We have to be careful about presentism and how it affects our frame of reference.

As for gymnastics–I like to think of it as an understanding of the world, and of cultures. It is not imposing my culture on my readings. It is also understanding that not everything said by general authorities comes directly from prophecy. Their job is to preach Christ and to try to help us become more like him. Their job is not to be a historian, a keeper of documents, or even an anthropologist. Prophecies come few and far between. Most of what they teach comes from scriptural understanding–and even they learn line upon line.

I believe that God only gives us prophecy when we are ready to work with it. No sense in teaching your 3 year old how to use a nuclear particle accelerator. And no, I don’t think that is lying by omission.

You might want to take a look at these two articles related to the Book of Mormon production culture. Maybe they might help.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Case_for_Historicity.html

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008_Mormons_Editorial_Method_and_Meta-Message.html

If it’s longer than it’s wide, then it’s phallic
[clap, clap]
If it’s longer than it’s wide, then it’s phallic
[clap, clap]
If it’s not longer than it’s wide
Then you turn it on its side
Now it’s longer than it’s wide, so it’s phallic
[clap, clap]

Take the doctrine of a Universal Flood. So much of Mormon dogma stands on this belief.
01. Credibility of so called prophetic pronouncements
02. Earthly baptism preparatory to earths burning
03. Credibility of the Bible as something you can actually base your religion on
04. Credibility of the Book of Mormon scriptures that speaks to the historicity of the flood
05. Scriptures that set the actual number of human survivors (again a credibility issue)

If Mormon prophets and scriptures can’t even be relied upon as credible…what can one hold onto?

Yet the universal flood doctrine (yeah I know FAIR and FARMS do not support the Universal flood as doctrine…part of the massaging of former Mormon doctrine) has so many problems in light of scientific realities as to relegate it to nothing more than biblical fiction.

01. Universal flood conflicts with reality of Amerindians being in the America’s for 20,000 years
02. No scientific support of catastrophic universal flood
03. World animal diversity negates reality of universal flood.
04. Human DNA migration negates reality of universal flood.

But the good folks at FAIR are good at discounting dead Mormon Prophets and Apostles. After all these were just men (mind you they were men who supposedly talked to the creator of everything) and the realities facing a living prophet trump the dead ones every time… that is until he too is dead…after which his words will be relegated to the mere ramblings of a dead once mortal man.

Case in point: The inspired words of God’s Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith;(back door escape clause, he was an apostle when he wrote these words) …”There is no question but what many of the so-called geological changes in the earth’s surface, which according to geological theories took place over ages of time, in reality occurred in a matter of a few short weeks incident to the universal flood “(Man: His Origins and Destiny, pp414-436)

Thank goodness Joseph Fielding Smith is dead…so we can totally dismiss his pronouncements as the mere ramblings of a deranged misguided uninformed mind. Ummm but isn’t this exactly what one would expect to find in a man-made church?

You seem to be under this odd little assumption that scientific evidence, that we all can duplicate and reach the same results, is the only evidence that ANYONE should EVER consider or take seriously. Your above posts show a relentless demand that everything about the Church be something you can logically validate and replicate.

But this just isn’t the way the world works. For instance. This morning, I didn’t want to get up and my stomach really hurt. I know this happened. But it’s not like I can prove it to you. It’s not like you can replicate it or anything.

Now, I suppose you might tell me this never happened, and it’s all just the effects of a “deranged mind.” After all, you have no way to prove it, right? So I’m obviously just making it up. Likewise you dismiss the faith experiences of Mormons, and probably even your own. It was all just silly daydream right? But now you’ve seen the light and exposed Mormonism to the harsh glare of your indomitable LOGIC!

How impressive. If I ask nicely, do you think you’d let me touch your slide rule?

This is the thing about the “intellectual” style of ex-Mormons. They have this bleak and sterile view of how the world works. All emotion must be suppressed as dangerous and unreliable. Intuition must be reviled and mocked for the false messenger that it is. Only cold, hard, facts are allowed any play in this imaginary world they’ve constructed for themselves. Even genuinely happy religious experiences they once had in the Church are shoved under the rug, because they don’t square with the series of logic games they’ve been playing for the last few years.

You know Craig, if you want to pretend to be Mr. Spock, and raise your eyebrow at us in a superior fashion, I guess that’s your right. You can even get some pointy ears for effect.

But I’ll thank you to point that phaser in the other direction.

I find your claim about anti Mormons being the truth tellers to be implausible. Most of the responses from FAIR go back to the early documents and show the anti Mormon claims are typically taken out of context, or out of cultural context.

Anti Mormons often are in the position of never meet a source they don’t like–so long as it is negative about Mormonism. Having worked with newspapers I have some understanding of sources and quotes.

While there are some legitimate differences, and while some LDS apologists have been incorrect in their positions as well, much of anti Mormonism is pure propaganda. Even the ADL has made comments about it. They can recognize it for what it is.

You can’t say I haven’t read it, because you know that I have. But, I have gone back and read other sources, other sides of the issue, and examined the sources for credibility. In so doing, I have gained a stronger testimony of the gospel.

One thing church apologist don’t seem to understand is that those that are questioning…often go to the FAIR and FARMS sights for help…and end up only having their worst fears confirmed. (That was my case anyhow) Church apologists attempts to shore up faith often only ends up doing the exact opposite.

Speaking only of myself, All my life I had been told that many of the difficult issues were lies made up by the evil anti Mormons…FAIR and FARMS sights merely set the record straight for me…that the evil anti Mormon’s had been the truth* tellers all along…while it was the church that had been involved in the whitewashing and cover-up of the “REAL” history and foundational claims. This reality literally broke my heart. It crushed me.

* I use the term truth loosely as there is often exaggeration in both camps…

I think Joseph translated the word “adieu”, because I think Jacob wrote the word “adieu”.

The question is how Jacob got to Paris for the weekend.

“If I see three horses in a pasture, I would count them as ox-tul-tzimin (ox, ‘three’; -tul, classifier for animate things; tzimin, ‘horse’ or ‘tapir’).”

I think the Joseph translated the word “horse,” because I think that Nephi wrote the word “horse.” The question is what Nephi saw that caused him to write the word “horse.”

In other words…after spending a lifetime of pounding their heads against the “brick wall” of the gospel…trying to make its claims real and believable…reality sets in…and YES these formerly active members give up trying to make the church what it claims to be. Or in other words, these people who leave the church face up to reality by accepting the fact that the church is “not” what it claims to be.

No matter how much someone may want the sun to rise in the west….no matter how much faith one exercises in this pursuit…it’s just not going to happen. Those who struggle to make the church something that it is not…are just the ones who “give up” trying to bend their brains into pretzels to accommodate all of the wacky inconsistencies and unanswerable questions Mormonism requires its active members to believe. Questions that should be answerable with believable answers. I mean come on…why can’t a horse be a horse…when the BoM says a horse. why can’t a chariot be a chariot? Why can’t a translation process be honestly taught, why can’t the pronouncements of a so-called prophets be counted on irrregardless of whether they are alive or dead…if they are what they claim to be…sholdn’t their pronouncements be credible to their own generations and those that follow…if they are in fact human beings that really do have the ability to talk with the creator of all things.

But no! Mormonism has to have unbelievable conditions, qualifiers and props to support its outlandish claims. Joseph…married other men’s wives after he sent some of them on mission’s…ah because the Lord commanded him to…ah yeah that’s the ticket or what’s your problem with Joseph using a rock he dug up in a well to translate the golden plates… a rock he also used in other fraudulent activities. Oh and did I mention that he didn’t even have the plates with him during the translation process?…but hey whats the problem IF it was done by the gift and power of God…I mean come on…

“The gospel” as taught and practiced within the Mormon Church is a beautiful concept. The notion of Eternal Families, Godhood, a Loving Father who answers prayers etc…I mean come on who wouldn’t want this in their lives? So it begs the question….WHY would anyone who understands these concepts walk away from them?

It’s an easy question to answer… people only leave the church who have first given up on the gospel internally many months or years earlier…that have struggled for YEARS to make the jig saw pieces of Mormonism fit into a logical meaningful picture. Some of the pieces do fit…some seem to be from a mish mash of other puzzles… and some will never fit…no matter how much we want them to. It is only when one tries to fit all of the pieces of the mormon jig saw puzzel together…that Mormonism falls apart.

In the end…to borrow from Thomas Edison…”For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” and I might add “Mormonism, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction – faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.”

I can’t speak for other former members, but personally of all the low, cheap shots taken at me while I was struggling this was the worst. It was the worst because I was doing everything I was told to do and yet my questions still were not answered.

When I began to seriously questioning Mormonism, I had a current temple recommend, was branch clerk and taught Gospel Doctrine class. I was really digging into the scriptures and trying to deal with all the new information I had about the LDS Church. I shared this with my branch president only to find out from him that I was “lazy”. I don’t know what rumors began to float around about me, but people whom I thought were my friends began to back away from me. I guess the figured that I must be some sort of really wicked sinner.

Believe it or not there are many people out there who do leave for intellectual reasons. Many more leave for the simple reason that Mormonism is a high control group like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, The Unification Church and many branches of Fundamentalist Christianity. You will find these groups using the same ad hominem tactic that you are using here. Does it say something about the persons that leave these groups or about the groups themselves?

Phrases such as “decline of their moral character”, “[real] reason they quit”, “member in name only” are designed to put the focus on the individual and off the legitimacy of questions they may have had. You can wave goodbye to the wicked sinners who dare to question Mormonism and say “good riddance”. If it makes you feel stronger or more superior then that’s fine. But you can’t wave goodbye to the tough questions they pose.

Those questions ain’t going anywhere!

Recently, members of an Internet forum where Mormons, antis, etc. post were asked whether they were happier as Mormons or not. Almost without exception, everyone was happiest with their current status, whether that was active Mormon, inactive Mormon, exmormon, or one person that was an exmormon but rejoined.

So saying that you are happier now as an exMormon isn’t really saying much.

Take for example the following quotes:

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” (President Marion Romney quoting Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78)

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.” (Elder Boyd Packer, General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” (President Wilford Woodruff, Manifesto in the D&C)

Using your example, if my child comes to me and asks me if I could ever make a mistake in my parenting of them, would it sound strange if I said “Always keep your eye on me, and if I ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let me as your father lead you and your sisters astray. Oh yeah…your job is to figure out when I’m speaking as just a man and when I’m speaking as your father.”

Would I be justified in getting frustrated with my children if they ended up confused by my council?

God restored many of the ancient truths. He guides us and helps us. But, he doesn’t control us. He doesn’t turn us into puppets. He wants us to learn and grow. That is the whole point of the plan of salvation. Think along the lines of Father and child. Do you do everything for your children?? If you do, I can guarantee they will be spoiled brats.

This idea that every church leader or church member is perfect, or has a perfect understanding goes against the fundamental beliefs of the church. Line upon line….

“Yet, we often treat the Church as God’s hand on earth. Perhaps, just perhaps, could it be better described as an expression of the Lord’s will burdened by a multitude of human failings? That God has to communicate through imperfect vessels using less than perfect organizations reflecting his believes with often imperfect focus. That more nuanced view is closer to the reality most individuals experience.”

That could be a perfect description of 2,000 years of Catholicism or of the Protestant movement with it’s many factions.

That’s the thing about Mormonism. It’s described in one instance as unique…a restoration of Christianity. Other times it’s described as just another human organization.

Will the real LDS Church please stand up!

That is a hard concept to put your arms around.

But, I think, it is helpful to look at previous prophetic instances. And, they are also filled with imperfection:

* Today we think of Moses as the one who split the Red Sea. Yet, much of his time was spend dealing with squabbling and factions. Much of his life was like that of a small town mayor: Filled with lots of complaining, backstabbing and factionalism.

* Jacob manipulated his father to gain his blessing. His sons were rebellious, even selling one son into slavery.

* Paul spent much of his ministry handling apostasy.

* Joseph Smith presided over a bank disaster, had many followers turn on him and created polygamy in a form that no one today quite understands.

It is little surprise that today’s church suffers from a tendency towards bureaucracy. Correlation creates materials that are often written for pre-teens. And, many members are often far too judgmental and unchristian.

Yet, we often treat the Church as God’s hand on earth. Perhaps, just perhaps, could it be better described as an expression of the Lord’s will burdened by a multitude of human failings? That God has to communicate through imperfect vessels using less than perfect organizations reflecting his believes with often imperfect focus. That more nuanced view is closer to the reality most individuals experience.

I wonder if such an approach might be a bit healthier.

I don’t presume to tell God how things should be done.

The “salamander letter”, the JS III blessing, the “Anthon Transcript”, and the Lucy Mack Smith letter were all published by the church. However, all these items had been “leaked” to the public beforehand and so the church published them, not as an act of good faith, but to cover their “backside”.

How do you know the motives of those who published the documents?

‘The JS “money-digging” letter, on the other hand, was purchased by Gordon B. Hinckley for $10,000 and hidden away in the First Presidency’s Vault for nearly two years until a typescript of it surfaced (Hofmann, without telling Hinckley, had given a copy to scholar/friends of his). An LDS spokesman was then asked if the Church had the letter and denied it. About a week later he had to reverse himself on this point. It was only then that the Church made public what they thought was the earliest known letter written in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting.’

This apparently is a quotation. Can you supply the reference?

(Also, please explain to me the difference between “hidden away in the First Presidency’s Vault” and “stored in the First Presidency’s Vault.”)

How many other Hofmann forgeries were acquired with “sacred” church funds and privately stored in the First Presidency vault?

I give up. How many?

Ask a General Authority and see if he will tell you the truth!

Have you asked one? Did he tell you the truth? And how did you know whether he was telling you the truth or not?

To say that a person is a prophet but just at certain times….well I just can’t see how that would not lead to confusion among not only Mormons but non-Mormons as well.

I keep thinking about that scripture that states that God is not the author of confusion.

I taught a Sunday School class of 15 and 16 year-olds and not one of them (about 10 students) knew that blacks could not hold the priesthood until 1978. They know now though!

The typical argument goes–if they really have the Spirit of revelations, then why wouldn’t they be able to discern the forgeries. This is, of course, contrasted with the “Why didn’t they use science” argument.

Will–I agree. But God is the one who decides what they can and cannot do. It doesn’t seem to be a skill or power that one can hang onto. Just look at Joseph Smith’s experience translating. It seemed to be much more of a gift given or taken away than an innate power.

I thought the LDS leaders had super human powers. Being able to translate ancient documents without any training and talking face to face with Jesus are nothing to sneer at.

My argument was that they don’t tell the whole truth about Mormon Church history and deliberately give the members a water-down, “faith-promoting only”, version of it. If they would admit that that is what they were doing then I wouldn’t fault them. But when confronted with actual facts they, and you apologists, twist and turn the truth to suit your needs and desires. As “men of God”, I do fault them for not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Joseph Smith and many early church leaders lied to the members and non-members about polygamy. Joseph F Smith lied to the federal government about polygamous marriages ending. These are just a couple of examples taken from many such incidents. The current General Authorities continue this pattern with major omissions in official manuals, distortions in general conference talks, and lack of cooperation with federal and state authorities in such matters as the Hofmann investigation. They didn’t “come clean” until confronted with facts that even they couldn’t refute.

Ryan,

I think that you don’t have your timeline correct. I could care less about the church or Hofmann. I investigated the facts. Unlike most Mormons I know, I want to know what really went on. I will stand by what I wrote.

I have not idea what emotional turmoil Hinckley went through and neither do you. I am not judging him for being fooled by Hofmann. I am saying that he was less than completely truthful to investigators and church members. The only facts that we know from the church are things that the public found out through other sources and which the church then had to own up to in order to save face.

Scott,

I don’t care at all if the church wanted to buy up everything Hofmann owned including his shoes and underwear. That is not my argument at all and I don’t understand why you would bring it up. My point was that Hinckley and company were buying up the documents to hide them in the infamous First Presidency vault so that the contents wouldn’t prove embarrassing to the memory of Joseph Smith

I don’t understand your last two sentences at all, in or out of context: “Are you now trying to give super human powers to the LDS leaders? We could next ask why they aren’t able to walk on water.” Are you sure you weren’t breaking the Word of Wisdom, perhaps sharing a glass of sherry with the Prophet Joseph, when you wrote this post?

And why wouldn’t the church try to acquire all of the documents? Are you now trying to give super human powers to the LDS leaders?

We could next ask why they aren’t able to walk on water.

What – no commentary about how it is indefensible that a “prophet” could be duped like that? It’s standard operating protocol when bringing up this subject. Tsk tsk.

I don’t know about your claims that the material was leaked beforehand, but I suspect that it simply another case of critics fudging timelines and making assumptions in order to dress the incident up as “convenient” and a “cover-up”.

What I DO know is that the Hoffmann saga was painfully embarrassing for the church. We may never know the stress and emotional turmoil Gordon B. Hinckley underwent during that time when he had to make public addresses and “own” what had happened. You’ve likely never been in a similar situation, nor will you ever. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge, yet you do, anyway.

Lest anyone forget, Hoffmann fooled many people with his forgeries, including agents of the federal government. These weren’t cheap parlor tricks. Pity he had to go and blow his stupid a$$ up with some of his own explosives. He could have been the anti-Mormon hero for many more productive years.

The “salamander letter”, the JS III blessing, the “Anthon Transcript”, and the Lucy Mack Smith letter were all published by the church. However, all these items had been “leaked” to the public beforehand and so the church published them, not as an act of good faith, but to cover their “backside”.

‘The JS “money-digging” letter, on the other hand, was purchased by Gordon B. Hinckley for $10,000 and hidden away in the First Presidency’s Vault for nearly two years until a typescript of it surfaced (Hofmann, without telling Hinckley, had given a copy to scholar/friends of his). An LDS spokesman was then asked if the Church had the letter and denied it. About a week later he had to reverse himself on this point. It was only then that the Church made public what they thought was the earliest known letter written in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting.’

How many other Hofmann forgeries were acquired with “sacred” church funds and privately stored in the First Presidency vault? Ask a General Authority and see if he will tell you the truth! If you have studied the details of the Hofmann incident you cannot, in truthfulness, tell me that the highest church leaders of the Mormon faith were honest and forthright in this sordid affair.

Tradeoffs…