NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[Moliere]

My speculation:

There is a history of BKP and others pointing to the LDS canon as the sole credible source of LDS theology. This allows a response to the priesthood ban, Adam/God doctrine, Quakers on the moon, blood atonement, etc. that incorporates both fallibility of leaders and correctness of canonical revelations/doctrines. I know this doesn't square with the "keep your conference issue of the Ensign with your scriptures" line of thinking, but that's a different discussion.

I agreed/agree with this... http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...l=1#post721226

[SeattleUte]

Especially the last two. There were so many that I figured quoting them all would be unnecessary.

I stand by my comment. I think it's not as elegant and nuanced and personal as you state. As SM said, the LDS Church treats its members like babies, and grown ups react like children when they find out they've been lied to. It's kind of sad, really.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Especially the last two. There were so many that I figured quoting them all would be unnecessary.

There you go! Thanks.

If you interpreted my question about why BY=OK/JS=Not OK in terms of the origin of polygamy as being offensive/judgmental/self-righteous to doubters, then I would say you completely missed the point I was making. Furthermore, if you read those quotes as a self-righteous diatribe against doubters (especially the last two), then count me as shocked regarding your reading comprehension.

[SeattleUte]

Let me add, this happens all the time. Even really intelligent people react like this Swedish guy and people like me and Lebowski say, "WTF have you been thinking? You didn't know this stuff?" Middle aged apostates who were suddenly deconverted and should have known better all along pop up all the time, even really smart ones. Examples that come to mind are Ed Firmage, Steve Benson, Quinn and others of the September Six. A couple of years ago there was a guy from Austrialia, just like this Swedish guy. Why is this in the NYT? It's not really very interesting.

I've said this before. Not to be judgmental, but college is the ideal time for apostasy. Once you've lived a few decades, raised kids in the church, married a devout wife, etc., it gets a lot more complicated, and I respect those progmos who realize this; they are the ones with the truly complicated and nuanced perspective.

[Pheidippides]

There you go! Thanks.

If you interpreted my question about why BY=OK/JS=Not OK in terms of the origin of polygamy as being offensive/judgmental/self-righteous to doubters, then I would say you completely missed the point I was making. Furthermore, if you read those quotes as a self-righteous diatribe against doubters (especially the last two), then count me as shocked regarding your reading comprehension.

Indy has self identified and WYSIWYG anyway. SU is the king of all trolls, as anybody around here knows. MG is just a nice guy, and I don't know who Y84it is or why I should care.

Being unable to take some pushback on a thesis regarding church promulgation of history when we are pushing back on church history to the disdain of many - is this not the definition of irony?

[wuapinmon]

I stand by my comment. I think it's not as elegant and nuanced and personal as you state. As SM said, the LDS Church treats its members like babies, and grown ups react like children when they find out they've been lied to. It's kind of sad, really.

You were never a convert. A convert often throws his/her old life away, leaving behind friends, habits, customs, and relationships all for the newfound truth carefully explained to them. They pray about such things, believing that they are one way, and they find them to be true because they have had such things confirmed by the fruits of the Spirit and so on. They exist in a bubble, one they find pleasant and wonderful, and very different from their own. Their concerns are slapped aside as rumors, falsehoods, anti-Mormon literature, GodMakers, jaded apostate grumblings, lies, hissings, the work of Lucifer against God's Kingdom on the Earth.

So, when the Great Equalizer of Knowledge comes around and provides them with almost instant, substantiated, supported, referenced information that says otherwise, it is often an emotional reaction, not unlike, I would imagine, learning of the intimate betrayal of a spouse. What you thought was one way, was so vital to your life and eternal life, is not as it was presented. Each person reacts differently to that knowledge. One, like me, may keep on with it because of the way his life is better after choosing it originally. Another may feel as if their entire world has crumbled. Another may lie and go on acting like nothing's wrong, a stoic Willa Cather character come to life, and another may just flip out and go through a Mormon version of a coming out liberation, indulging in all the formally verbotten behaviors. The reactions can be legion. To suggest that they are juvenile is insulting and disingenuous.

I don't claim that converts have a monopoly on outrage over lifelong members. I do believe that their sense of betrayal is probably more acute since they are aware of how things were before they believed, a luxury not afforded to members of record.

[Indy Coug]

Indy has self identified and WYSIWYG anyway. SU is the king of all trolls, as anybody around here knows. MG is just a nice guy, and I don't know who Y84it is or why I should care.

Being unable to take some pushback on a thesis regarding church promulgation of history when we are pushing back on church history to the disdain of many - is this not the definition of irony?

Whatever I can do to perpetuate/validate caricatures.

[Harry Tic]

You were never a convert.

Wuap, I would be very hesitant to say this of anyone, even a "get-off-my-lawn-you-durned-kids" guy like SU who does his best to conceal his gentle nature but fools nobody. Propositional beliefs are really not that important in the grand scheme of things and SU is, and always will be, part of the fold, just as much as you or me.

EDIT: I just realized that this was post #666 for me. You will all be happy to know that I will refrain from creating any new posts for a while, although I reserve the privilege of editing and re-editing old posts so that number doesn't change.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Indy has self identified and WYSIWYG anyway. SU is the king of all trolls, as anybody around here knows. MG is just a nice guy, and I don't know who Y84it is or why I should care.

Being unable to take some pushback on a thesis regarding church promulgation of history when we are pushing back on church history to the disdain of many - is this not the definition of irony?

Yep. And by golly, if there is anything we have learned about SU over the years, it's that he has a self-righteous, judgmental attitude towards doubters.

[SeattleUte]

You were never a convert. A convert often throws his/her old life away, leaving behind friends, habits, customs, and relationships all for the newfound truth carefully explained to them. They pray about such things, believing that they are one way, and they find them to be true because they have had such things confirmed by the fruits of the Spirit and so on. They exist in a bubble, one they find pleasant and wonderful, and very different from their own. Their concerns are slapped aside as rumors, falsehoods, anti-Mormon literature, GodMakers, jaded apostate grumblings, lies, hissings, the work of Lucifer against God's Kingdom on the Earth.

So, when the Great Equalizer of Knowledge comes around and provides them with almost instant, substantiated, supported, referenced information that says otherwise, it is often an emotional reaction, not unlike, I would imagine, learning of the intimate betrayal of a spouse. What you thought was one way, was so vital to your life and eternal life, is not as it was presented. Each person reacts differently to that knowledge. One, like me, may keep on with it because of the way his life is better after choosing it originally. Another may feel as if their entire world has crumbled. Another may lie and go on acting like nothing's wrong, a stoic Willa Cather character come to life, and another may just flip out and go through a Mormon version of a coming out liberation, indulging in all the formally verbotten behaviors. The reactions can be legion. To suggest that they are juvenile is insulting and disingenuous.

I don't claim that converts have a monopoly on outrage over lifelong members. I do believe that their sense of betrayal is probably more acute since they are aware of how things were before they believed, a luxury not afforded to members of record.

Thanks for your explanation. I think these initial reactions while immature serve their purpose in that they can lead to a more mature and wholesome and hopefully more peaceful perspective. The immaturity of the initial reactions to the "skeletons," I do think, however, are a reflection that devout LDS existence is pretty intellectually -- or, more braodly, metaphysically -- barren, except for the personal human relationships you describe, which is the source of the positive experiences.

[wuapinmon]

There you go! Thanks.

If you interpreted my question about why BY=OK/JS=Not OK in terms of the origin of polygamy as being offensive/judgmental/self-righteous to doubters, then I would say you completely missed the point I was making. Furthermore, if you read those quotes as a self-righteous diatribe against doubters (especially the last two), then count me as shocked regarding your reading comprehension.

I got your point. Why is one worse than the other if the practice itself is 'wrong' in one's mind? A valid question that helped the discussion to where it got obnoxious. However, I also think that there's a bit of something missing in the phrasing of your question, because I was told, specifically, that JS did not practice polygamy when I was taking the missionary discussions, and in case I've never shared it here, I was taught by an elderly couple, who according to the general opinion of this thread, clearly knew or should've known the truth of the matter. I was also taught (and sadly, taught myself) that the polygamists married widows, ugly women who couldn't get men, or spitfires who liked being alone but wanted children (all things I was taught before the mission). In that context, it makes a huge difference to learn that Joseph Smith was having sex with teenage girls against his wife's wishes and with women married to other men already when I'm told that if I say a cuss word in church, the Spirit's gone and it's my fault that the meeting is thereafter ruined. So, later when I see SU expressing his view with Mark Grace sort of agreeing with him, I'd had enough. The missionary program in the early 90's was full of all kinds of bullshit folk reasoning for questionable and objectionable behaviors, and I was subject to those false teachings, and they comforted me then, only to leave me feeling adrift once the truth became aware.

[SeattleUte]

The missionary program in the early 90's was full of all kinds of bullshit folk reasoning for questionable and objectionable behaviors....

I can bear witness to this! But I'd broaden your time frame. How do you know it's changed?

[Paperback Writer]

Maybe they can publish them as a fun Friend article and have kids point out all the errors in them...

I know that was TIC, but at what point will the church stop publishing them? Or at least have a disclaimer on them? If there wasn't an impetus for them to do it with the most recent edition, will they ever do it?
It's insulting to my intelligence and previous faith in them that they are still in the scriptures. In effect, the church is telling members, 'who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?'

My speculation:

There is a history of BKP and others pointing to the LDS canon as the sole credible source of LDS theology. This allows a response to the priesthood ban, Adam/God doctrine, Quakers on the moon, blood atonement, etc. that incorporates both fallibility of leaders and correctness of canonical revelations/doctrines. I know this doesn't square with the "keep your conference issue of the Ensign with your scriptures" line of thinking, but that's a different discussion.

Because of that, I can see current top leadership being hesitant to start changing the canon as well in a substantive way. This is much different than claiming to correct some typographical/printing errors. If the current canon is also shown to be incorrect/erroneous, then the canon-as-doctrinal-standard response is significantly weakened.

That being said, there is obviously a history of removing parts of the LDS canon (e.g. Lectures on Faith). If it were removed, I think a lot of church members would be fine with a vote to remove it from official canon due to the precedent and the willingness to accept whatever explanation is given at face value.

Adding to JP's speculation.
It's worth mentioning that the PoGP was not cannonized until 1880 - that's somewhat "late in the game". However, the problem with removing the facsimilies from the BofA is that some of the explanations or teachings are part of the BofA. And the problem with removing the entire BofA from cannon is that some of those teachings are part of temple worship.

But I do agree with removing the facsimilies from the BofA. I wonder if the First Presidency would go so far as to produce a forward/introduction that states the BofA as revelation and distance the BofA from direct translation. That could prove troublesome but could justify the removal of the facsimilies.

[wuapinmon]

Wuap, I would be very hesitant to say this of anyone, even a "get-off-my-lawn-you-durned-kids" guy like SU who does his best to conceal his gentle nature but fools nobody. Propositional beliefs are really not that important in the grand scheme of things and SU is, and always will be, part of the fold, just as much as you or me.

EDIT: I just realized that this was post #666 for me. You will all be happy to know that I will refrain from creating any new posts for a while, although I reserve the privilege of editing and re-editing old posts so that number doesn't change.

I wouldn't. I had no religious upbringing whatsoever. None. I knew of Mormons as my weird cousins who wouldn't swim at Papa's house on Sundays, but would sit around the pool in their church clothes watching us have fun, barely hiding their sneers as my uncles drank beer. A convert to Mormonism is a different creature than one who is raised in the faith. SU isn't a Mormon, but he'll always be Mormon. My point is that calling reactions to matters spiritual immature completely ignores the uniqueness of religious belief in the modern experience. If anything it is the one vestige of ancientness in us, beyond immaterial things that Gaiman named The Endless, that ties us to an emotional place, a place beyond the provable, the seen, the experienced. We get still small voices, promptings, and the testimonies of others as the only clues, so when we're given HARD EVIDENCE to the contrary of the narrative we've embraced, the human reaction, to me, is a pathetic one.

[SoCalCoug]

Adding to JP's speculation.
It's worth mentioning that the PoGP was not cannonized until 1880 - that's somewhat "late in the game". However, the problem with removing the facsimilies from the BofA is that some of the explanations or teachings are part of the BofA. And the problem with removing the entire BofA from cannon is that some of those teachings are part of temple worship.

But I do agree with removing the facsimilies from the BofA. I wonder if the First Presidency would go so far as to produce a forward/introduction that states the BofA as revelation and distance the BofA from direct translation. That could prove troublesome but could justify the removal of the facsimilies.

The problem is the can of worms that opens, because we have always been informed that the BOA was translated via the Urim and Thummim from actual papyrus JS found. It's hard to back off of that, because if it wasn't a direct translation of the papyrus, why did he claim it was?

I suppose they could say he may have thought he was directly translating it, but he was actually inspired to records something entirely different. Of course, you still have the problems of the facsimiles. I suppose those were just not inspired interpretations in the first place. Anyone know if anyone ever claimed the facsimiles were interpreted by inspiration/revelation?