LDSanswers.org

[Dravin]

I struggle with this - should we respect our sisters' and brothers' right to believe in nonsense, or do we challenge this kind of thinking when we see it?

Those two positions aren't in conflict. It's possible to both respect their right to believe what they want as well as challenging their beliefs. Unless challenge is some sort of code for rounding them up and sending them to camps (or to be less dramatic: coercion), challenging their beliefs is not an infringement on their right to believe.

Is it more kind to just let them believe what they want to believe if they are happy with it? Or is it more kind to try and help them feel the freedom of leaving all the mental gymnastics and trying to defend the indefensible behind?

This though, this is a different issue. I think the problem with deciding that ignorance is bliss for someone is, how does one know? How does one know that they are happier? I can show you an entire subreddit full of people (not every last one of course, but a large number) who are glad their beliefs where challenged in some way. Of course, I can also show you people who were much happier in their ignorance. I think a blanket policy on this matter is problematic.

[Corsair]

I struggle with this - should we respect our sisters' and brothers' right to believe in nonsense, or do we challenge this kind of thinking when we see it?

Part of the problem is that these are people that are literally our brothers and sisters and parents, and especially our believing spouses. It's one thing if the humorously unhinged guy in the ward occasionally expresses an appreciation for Young Earth Creationism and a desire to excommunicate all those lazy and offended heretics. But when your spouse really does want to spend their retirement years with temples and missions, being an apostate changes from "troubling doctrinal issue" into "eternity threatening heretic".

They usually don't appreciate a challenge to their testimony. This is where the whole idea of "becoming offended arises". It is offensive to a believer when they are asked pointed questions about polygamy, or the priesthood ban, or the efficacy of following the Word of Wisdom. I tried to humbly point out to my mother that the temple ceremony is kind of boring and she soundly countered my position with "you're wrong" and "that is irrelevant" and something about devotion to Jesus.

I have a brother-in-law who loves golf. His kids were raised playing it and it's an important part of his family. I think it would be rude if I told him that I think golf is kind of a boring sport. On the other hand, he does not spend any time evangelizing the golf life style and encouraging me to spend 10% of my income on clubs and green fees. The LDS church steps outside the boundaries of "expensive hobby" and wants to be the central focus of the life of literally everyone. The church conflates itself as indistinguishable from the gospel as evidenced by the "one true church" teaching. My believing family would be insulted if I started openly attending some non-denominational Christian church.

I think the problem with deciding that ignorance is bliss for someone is, how does one know? How does one know that they are happier? I can show you an entire subreddit full of people (not every last one of course, but a large number) who are glad their beliefs where challenged in some way. Of course, I can also show you people who were much happier in their ignorance. I think a blanket policy on this matter is problematic.

The culture of Mormonism is not at all appreciative of challenging a historical or doctrinal point. To be fair, few religious faiths are big fans of relying on confronting religious questions head on during Sunday School. Also, we are only happier after we have processed through a lot of a faith transition. Everyone has to do the usual Stages of Grief before they start to appreciate such a transition. I cannot imagine anyone who would look forward to growing spiritually through an upcoming faith transition.

[RubinHighlander]

I struggle with this - should we respect our sisters' and brothers' right to believe in nonsense, or do we challenge this kind of thinking when we see it? Is it more kind to just let them believe what they want to believe if they are happy with it? Or is it more kind to try and help them feel the freedom of leaving all the mental gymnastics and trying to defend the indefensible behind?

For the most part, I'm fine with anyone believing whatever wacky bulls***t they want if it makes life more meaningful for them. What I have a hard time with is the arrogance that often accompanies those bulls***t beliefs and the insistence that everyone who doesn't believe said bulls***t is either stupid or evil.

Yep.

Yep x 70 x 7

[Hagoth]

I cannot imagine anyone who would look forward to growing spiritually through an upcoming faith transition.

In general, members don't want to know IF the church is true, they only want reassurance THAT the church is true. It's people like us who expect their their faith to be supportable with facts that get into trouble.

[Hagoth]

I thought I'd give this website a little bit more attention, but when I saw articles by people like Wayne May, anti-science diatribes renouncing radiocarbon dating and geological uniformitarianism, and warnings about the evils of caffeine and rock music I decided I had wasted enough of my time.

[MoPag]

I kind of like the guy. Can you believe he has 10 kids?

You can see his entrepreneurial spirit shine through his bio. He even has his own imdb page that says the exact same thing as his bio on LDSanswers.

In a way I think he represents the sentimental nostalgic side of the church I used to long for. The days when Joseph was monogamously married to Emma, chased by mobs because he was righteous, and a presidential mitt Romney like candidate? Joseph was the man! We worshipped the guy! Sang praise to his name!

Now with all the information on the internet floating around, Joseph's sexual escapades and shenanigans, hidden versions of the first vision, and dozens of white washed accounts of history, well, let's be honest and acknowledge it creates a little bit of doubt about the Prophet. Did he just make it all up to bed all of the women?

Unfortunately for Brother Stoddard the 3rd, the world moves forward and organizations can no longer hide their secrets. The internet will bring forth the truth while his little site will struggle to keep any normal person from leaving. Comparisons to Romeo and Juliet just won't work.

As Shakespeare once said, “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”

His bio says that in addition to home education and web development, he has also worked in natural health.

"James spends all his free time working on Highland Cathedral Estate, a planned family retreat and learning facility with perennial gardens and walking trails specializing in experimental farming techniques and four season food production"

I wonder if he has an investment opportunity to discuss with me during the next ward temple night.

The bios are hilarious!

" Brother Meldrum served as senior scientific researcher for 7 years on a natural sciences book, was President and CEO of High Country Gourmet, Inc., and was Director of Business Development for Interact Medical."

What book was it? I tried to Google it and found a link for Rob Meldrum Fraud. So I had to click it. A bunch of stuff comes up, but I really like this from The Book of Mormon Archeological forum. http://www.bmaf.org/node/359 Wow. So other apologists don't even like him. Poor Brother Meldrum.
Also according to bizapedia the filing statuses for both High Country Gourmet and Interact Medical have expired. https://www.bizapedia.com/ut/high-country-gourmet.html https://www.bizapedia.com/ut/interact-medical.html I hope LDSanswers pays well.

[Hagoth]

Yeah, Rod Meldrum is the leading proponent of the Heartland BoM geography theory and he holds those seminar/pep rallies at the South Town Expo Center every year, where you can buy his videos, book a seat on at Book of Mormon tour in Ohio, and listen to some testimonies and inspirational music by Osmond second cousins. The Mesoamerican apologists and sacred tour vendors don't care much for him and his kind.

The more I consider the Heartland Model the more I side with the Hearlanders. Not that the Book of Mormon actually happened there, but that some of the things in the Book of Mormon were inspired by the works of the native peoples in Joseph's back yard. Of course the actual details of the Adena and Hopewell cultures don't fit the story at all, but nobody knew that when the BoM was written.

[well wandered]

That's a really interesting link. Not because of the article, but It's an eye-opening look at how those who believe in the church and those who don't approach a golden opportunity to openly communicate differences in perspective. The author is trying to create an estuary for faithful and questioning members to mix and discuss complicated topics.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but it's an interesting meta-look at communication breakdowns.

The topic that members and non-members are invited to discuss is on the correlation of church history.

The first comment has no clear point. The second comment systematically criticizes the 10 commandments and ends with it "all" being "crap" (exclamation point). The third comment tries to persuade readers that the church isn't led by inspiration. The fourth comment is general opinions about truth with no clear point. The fifth comment talks about the pre-mortal and post-mortal importance of Joseph Smith. Then a comment about Elder Ballard's talk "Where Shall We Go?" and how doubting isn't a viable option. Then a testimony about how someone feels the Spirit is telling them the Church is true, then a comment about increasing resignations and poor retention in foreign countries.

The comments are as good an invitation and forum as any to have a detailed discussion on a complex topic, but it doesn't look like anyone's interested. It actually almost looks like no one read the article. Or at least it doesn't look like as Mormons don't have the tools to know how to discuss differences productively.

Whatever the solutions are for improving communication between both sides, it's easy on that page to see the problems.

[Mormorrisey]

I can't believe I went back on that site. In my defence, I was sitting in the hospital for hours while my grandchild was being born. But I simply could not believe the level of historical research that went into this lovely article.

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-sm ... he-occult/

The article's contention? There was no way that Joseph could have been involved with magic as contended by Quinn, Bushman et al, BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS MAGIC AND WITCHCRAFT IS OF THE DEVIL. So as a prophet, he just wouldn't be involved in such things. And their supporting material? Because President Hinckley said so: "Similarly, the fact that there were superstitions among the people in the days of Joseph Smith is no evidence whatever that the Church came of such superstition." Ok then. Question answered! And then, if you STILL have questions, you doubter you, here's what you need to do to solve your dilemma, instead of reading nasty books like Rough Stone Rolling:

"When you encounter material claiming Joseph Smith, or his family, dabbled in magical practices, the answers can generally be found in the following two categories. Dishonest, questionable or even nonexistent sources – It is often the case that claims made by progressive historians, anti-Mormon literature and other material are not based in credible, primary sources. Do your own research, and investigate their claims!" Because of course, as a trained historian, Bushman just made this crap up and he can't possibly be right, never used primary sources, never went into the archives to do research, he just pulled it out of his butt. Meanwhile, the only "primary" sources they quote are the Bible and GBH? Are you kidding me? Unfreakingbelievable. This website is like crack, I just can't stop. Dang you to heck, RubinHighlander!

This, along with the thread on "do we believe in magic now?" started by Hagoth, is just gold, Jerry, gold!

[MoPag]

Congrats on your grandbaby!!!

Meanwhile, the only "primary" sources they quote are the Bible and GBH? Are you kidding me? Unfreakingbelievable.

You've got to admit though, GBH is smooth!!!!

. . . the fact that there were superstitions among the people in the days of
Joseph Smith is no evidence whatever that the Church came of such superstition.
– President Gordon B. Hinckley

Does he say actually say JS never practiced magic or "superstitions?" Nope.
Does he say that the church didn't come "of such superstition?" Nope.
He says that the fact that there were superstitions isn't evidence. And he's right. There is plenty of other evidence. But TMBs will read his quote and think "All is well in Zion."

Well played GBH. Well played.

[Korihor]

I'm not actually going to do anything, but after reading through this website - ldsanswers - I just wanna go kick those guys in the huevos.

[RubinHighlander]

I can't believe I went back on that site... This website is like crack, I just can't stop. Dang you to heck, RubinHighlander

Follow the white rabbit they said. Take the Red Pill they said. It will be fun!

It's either that or doubt your doubts, you doubting doubter!

[Zadok]

I am really torn. I only have room for one more bookmark, and I can't decide if it should be LDSanswers.org, or truthsofptbarnum.bus. Any suggestions?