Should the LDS Church provide membership with full details of its history?

[Pheidippides]

Ok, Ok...I got a little annoying there. (Not saying anything about attorneys... ). I guess what I meant to say is that yes, I can see how one would view what the church does as dishonest.

I didn't think you were being annoying. I was just second-guessing my ability to ask you medical questions.

[tooblue]

Define "Readily available". I was a fairly curious person through high school and the worst I came across was Joseph's gold-digging. I had heard about "The Godmakers" but was sternly advised to avoid it at all costs (which admittedly made me a little more curious to see it but I had no idea how to track down a copy). Now you type "Mormon" into google and everything's right there. The availability is not even close to the same level as it was then.

I grew up in Salt Lake City. I visited Temple Square innumerable times in my childhood, adolescence and adulthood. In so doing I have been accosted innumerable times by people with signs and interesting things to say. It's part of the experience.

I used to walk to Elementary school growing up in Salt Lake City. A group of children in my neighborhood left their house(s) at the same time I did. We would walk together. The girls hag pigtails and wore prairie dresses. The boys were neatly dressed. Some of them had different mothers but they all had the same father. I knew their father was a police man, I saw him leave the driveway in his uniform and police cruiser.

I attended high school in Salt Lake City. I went to Seminary and was accosted several times by persons with signs and things to say as I left school property went onto public property and then entered Church Seminary building property. It's part of the experience.

There are many good libraries in Salt Lake City. I have always spent a lot of time in libraries, in fact I am in one right now working on a research paper. There's lot's of interesting books to be found in libraries. I love libraries.

I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone but my goodness it was all around me!

Again--definitions needed. "The Church" defined as TSM probably isn't dishonest. How things actually play out may not be "dishonest" but could certainly be called "unforthcoming" (if that's a word) or even "deceptive". To not tell a black person about the Priesthood ban before they're baptized is unacceptable (and yes, this has happened and still happens). To not give people a more accurate portrayal of what's going to happen in the temple before they go is not particularly honest either.

I struggle a little bit in determining how much of a problem this is. On the one hand, I see where JIC is coming from in that the Church asks a lot of you without giving you information with the idea of getting you past a "point of no return". On the other hand, I think it has fairly pure motives and sees that people can become paralyzed if they wait for all the information before making any action.

In recent years I have participated in the baptism of many black men woman and children. Every one of them were fully aware of the priesthood ban before they were baptized. I have served as a counselor to a black bishop. He joined the church before the priesthood ban was lifted. He is now serving in a Stake presidency. I have served on councils with other black bishops over many years. I had councilors that are black. I have a sister in-law who is black. They were all aware of the ban prior to joining the church. In my experience the whole notion of deception is hyperbole.

Which brings me to my third point: You've GOT to stop misciting this. The work you keep referring to says nothing about emotion and rational "thinking"--it claims that emotion is essential to decision-making. I don't want to threadjack so we can discuss this in another thread if you want, but those are two very different ideas.

EDIT: By the way, I found your post thought-provoking on the whole--these are just a couple of the sticking points I had.

I am not mis-citing. There is an entire body of work beyond what I have cited as merely a starting point for discovery. In the context of a message board I'm not going to cite journal articles. It's fun to provide links to FORA.tv though:

http://fora.tv/2009/07/04/Antonio_Da...e_With_Feeling

Again I apologize for my tone -- I'm stressed and things aren't going well at the library, at the moment.

[Spicy McHaggis]

So you think the church should be upfront but you aren't upfront with your family?

I wouldn't have to fake it if the church was up front with fact. When a spouse is more devoted to church than they are to their spouse then there will be a lot of fakers out there. There are far too many stories from people who's bishops/families, etc advise a TBM spouse to divorce a doubter.
The expectation for devotion to church above all else is a huge problem.

[Jacob]

I wouldn't have to fake it if the church was up front with fact. When a spouse is more devoted to church than they are to their spouse then there will be a lot of fakers out there. There are far too many stories from people who's bishops/families, etc advise a TBM spouse to divorce a doubter.
The expectation for devotion to church above all else is a huge problem.

I'm not aware of this ever happening. I don't doubt that it has. But I seriously doubt this recommendation is being made so often as to rise to a huge problem. Contrarily, I'm not sure how the church could focus more on the importance of family. What is your recommendation?

[ewth8tr]

I'm not aware of this ever happening. I don't doubt that it has. But I seriously doubt this recommendation is being made so often as to rise to a huge problem. Contrarily, I'm not sure how the church could focus more on the importance of family. What is your recommendation?

While not specifically said, I've been taught repeatedly that a persons loyalties should be God, spouse, children in that order. Put that together with our beliefs that one cannot gain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom without a faithful spouse and it creates cases where many people get divorces because of one person leaving the faith.

[Surfah]

While not specifically said, I've been taught repeatedly that a persons loyalties should be God, spouse, children in that order. Put that together with our beliefs that one cannot gain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom without a faithful spouse and it creates cases where many people get divorces because of one person leaving the faith.

I think that order of loyalties is correct. One can easily reconcile loyalty to God and loyalty to an unbelieving spouse. In fact, the scriptures tell us that the unbeliever is sanctified by the believing spouse. If Gidget were to leave the Church tomorrow, I'd no doubt struggle and be saddened by her decision. But she's my wife. And I love her. And as long she allowed me to continue to practice my faith and worship as I choose, and as long as she didn't make any other lifestyle changes that brought discord and contention into our marriage, I would remain committed to her. And I'd hope that my belief and faithfulness would help sanctify her and somehow we'd get to be together forever. I believe in a merciful God.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I'm not aware of this ever happening. I don't doubt that it has. But I seriously doubt this recommendation is being made so often as to rise to a huge problem. Contrarily, I'm not sure how the church could focus more on the importance of family. What is your recommendation?

<raises hand in the corner> x 2

[beefytee]

While not specifically said, I've been taught repeatedly that a persons loyalties should be God, spouse, children in that order. Put that together with our beliefs that one cannot gain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom without a faithful spouse and it creates cases where many people get divorces because of one person leaving the faith.

I think that order of loyalties is correct. One can easily reconcile loyalty to God and loyalty to an unbelieving spouse. In fact, the scriptures tell us that the unbeliever is sanctified by the believing spouse.

The order I've heard is God, family, Church, which to me would imply that choosing the church isn't more important than marriage.

I think those that think that supposedly choosing God means divorcing your spouse when they are unfaithful (to the Church) are way off base. I don't understand why people would think they are being disloyal to go God when they are upholding their marriage covenants.

Now I'm not saying divorce isn't an option since it can probably cause a lot of strain on the marriage depending on the spouse's new lifestyle, but using it as the sole excuse to get divorce isn't acceptable in my eyes. Hopefully they can both be understanding though and work things out.

[Surfah]

The order I've heard is God, family, Church, which to me would imply that choosing the church isn't more important than marriage.

I think those that think that supposedly choosing God means divorcing your spouse when they are unfaithful (to the Church) are way off base. I don't understand why people would think they are being disloyal to go God when they are upholding their marriage covenants.

Now I'm not saying divorce isn't an option since it can probably cause a lot of strain on the marriage depending on the spouse's new lifestyle, but using it as the sole excuse to get divorce isn't acceptable in my eyes. Hopefully they can both be understanding though and work things out.

I like to think that it wouldn't be in God's eyes either. That some Church members, and worse leaders, believe otherwise is quite sad and tragic IMO.

[Indy Coug]

Maybe if my MIL had divorced my FIL a long time ago when he fell away from the church, their family wouldn't be so effed up now.

[ERCougar]

Matt. 10:37 - He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26 - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

You can't see why some might interpret this to mean God comes before marriage?

[Surfah]

Matt. 10:37 - He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26 - If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

You can't see why some might interpret this to mean God comes before marriage?

Sure. I'd also suggest that the same have poor reading comprehension and a superficial understanding.

[tooblue]

Tooblue these are great thought provoking questions all around. I will try to clarify and expound on some of the points I failed to make in my haste to type.



What I take full responsibility for is that I did not do my full diligence in exploring all the aspects of a religion that I was about to make the full plunge into. I lay that blame at my feet. Had I done that beforehand, then still taken the plunge, it would have been with my eyes wide open. As you said, I am responsible for finding the answers and asking the right person the right questions, and that is what I take responsibility for.

The blame I lay at the feet of the church is that many people have no idea about any of the issues at hand, or they have been told that it is all anti's propoganda and lies. They dive in with that premise. They then find out that many of those things actually did happen(or are widely believed to have happened based on the current facts), but the leadership still stonewalls them.



Dishonest is a strong word, but I am sticking to it. During my meeting with a member of the Seventy, when I asked him about polyandry, the felt hat translation, specifically, he said that those things were untrue, they were false, and that I was being deceived. He was either ignorant of the facts or was dishonest. I will let you choose which.

As far as the rug metaphor, I think that many people when it starts to sink in that the church history is not the tidy version taught, they have a feeling that the facade of the religion as they viewed it is crumbing to the ground around them. Many react to this with despair, bewilderment, doubt, depression, etc. I agree that they have created this illusion by not asking the right questions of the right person, but the push to exercise faith in all aspects of religious life has some part in building that facade. They took in full faith what was being taught as the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth. The see that your faith was misplaced or misguided is quite a body blow.



I agree that embracing faith is a great way to inner peace. In fact, I have more peace in my own heart and mind(about religious issues), than I have in 18+ years, due to my faith. You and I just place our faith in different entities(which is perfectly ok)

To clarify I was not suggesting that you have not taken personal responsibility for what is happening -- that was not my intent and I hope I was not unintentionally hurtful. I do however think your insistence in sticking with the term dishonest will only ultimately harm your relationships both with your family and others. In effect, by association when you state the church is dishonest you are stating that your family and others are dishonest. Regardless of how mature or enlightened one is that hurts.

Please also consider one other thought. It strikes me that your hope that the church be more honest (as you might call it) is in part a hope that you might prove to others that you are right. What do you hope to gain by that? If anything this thread has demonstrated that there are a lot of right and wrong things about the many social interactions between members of the church but no where in this thread has it been proven that church has lied or that the church is false and that you and others are right.

At the end of the day, even if the church did validate your position (in some measure, if at all possible) there would still be the issue of faith to deal with. I don't believe you hope to deny anyone their faith. Also, if we were to put the shoe on the other foot perhaps your family feels you were dishonest and that your lack of full disclosure is an act of betrayal? Maybe the only thing you can do is let go of the whole idea of dishonesty and unequivocally state and show them that you are sealed to them for this life and that you are open to the possibilities of what may happen beyond death. I think we can all agree that there are some interesting possibilities.

[Jarid in Cedar]

To clarify I was not suggesting that you have not taken personal responsibility for what is happening -- that was not my intent and I hope I was not unintentionally hurtful. I do however think your insistence in sticking with the term dishonest will only ultimately harm your relationships both with your family and others. In effect, by association when you state the church is dishonest you are stating that your family and others are dishonest. Regardless of how mature or enlightened one is that hurts.

Please also consider one other thought. It strikes me that your hope that the church be more honest (as you might call it) is in part a hope that you might prove to others that you are right. What do you hope to gain by that? If anything this thread has demonstrated that there are a lot of right and wrong things about the many social interactions between members of the church but no where in this thread has it been proven that church has lied or that the church is false and that you and others are right.

At the end of the day, even if the church did validate your position (in some measure, if at all possible) there would still be the issue of faith to deal with. I don't believe you hope to deny anyone their faith. Also, if we were to put the shoe on the other foot perhaps your family feels you were dishonest and that your lack of full disclosure is an act of betrayal? Maybe the only thing you can do is let go of the whole idea of dishonesty and unequivocally state and show them that you are sealed to them for this life and that you are open to the possibilities of what may happen beyond death. I think we can all agree that there are some interesting possibilities.

TooBlue,

So much to address here, but so little time. I will be offline most of the weekend, but I will answer your questions Mon/Tues.