Why should information about Mormonism, when supplied by ex-Mormons, be fully disbelieved? The difference between that and asking a man what it’s like to be a woman is that an ex-Mormon has been a mormon; presumably the ex-Mormon has memories of that experience. I’ve never been a woman (or a bat) so there’s a good reason I can’t tell you about being those things.
I admit that someone who parts ways with an organization could have done so acrimoniously, and might hold a grudge. But it beggars belief to state that only active members of a group should be trusted with respect to information about that group. Of course ex-Mormons will have a more negative than positive opinion about Mormonism; otherwise they wouldn’t have left the church. But of course current Mormons will have a more positive than negative opinion about Mormonism, too; otherwise they’d be ex-Mormons themselves.
That doesn’t mean we should put our fingers in our ears when either side talks. If apostates can never be trusted, then current members shouldn’t be trusted for the same reasons — that’s the route of a troubling epistemic nihilism.
It is a reference to either small beer, which was a beer similar to O’Douls with 1% alcohol or less, basically just enough to kill any bacteria or other things in the water used for the making of the drink or something very similar to Mugicha, which is basically barley tea.
Modern Mormons do not drink any alcohol if they wish to be able to enter our most scared places, the temples. You can still go to Church all you want if you break the Word of Wisdom, but until you can stick to it, you just aren’t doing all you can. Just like I have had things I have had to overcome in the past to be the best person I could be. I don’t begrudge the Church or try to justify my actions, I either decide I admit to my wrong and do all I can to fix it or I don’t. That is up to me and me alone.
And, yes, we as Mormons believe in modern revelation and see no issue with Doctrine evolving as God’s children and society evolve. And it is true that don’t need to be constantly policed by our leadership and that many of the things our prophets and seers have said are guidance and not flat out commandments. As Jesus said the Law Of Moses was the lesser law, or a law which was designed as very strict in order to prepare his people for the time they would no longer need such a strict law and would be ready to make wise decisions without such a rigid code. Much like a child should be set very specific and clear rules when in their parents’ home, but when they grow up and mature they are no longer policed by their parents and have to make decisions based on the foundations they received in the home. Then Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and introduce new and evolved doctrine.
It is interesting to me that what people criticize Christianity or religion in general for, rigid unchanging narrow minded doctrine (which is not absolutely true in many cases), they criticize the Church for just the opposite. They seem confused that we readily accept that doctrine evolves and is adapted as the the members of God’s Church evolve and become more worthy of less strict yet more sacred doctrine.
God reveals His word as we become more worthy to understand and receive it. You don’t throw complex math at a child all at once, you work them up gradually to understanding it. Some children may be ready and be geniuses at a young age, but most aren’t. Some may never get it no matter how hard you try to teach them. All God asks is that we try to understand and after all we can do He will get us the rest of the way there.
Then why ask for info from either side? What is this thread trying to accomplish? Maybe if the original intent of staring this thread was honestly reveled then maybe the discussion would be more productive.
You don’t know me, and just because I am a convert you can’t assume what I am and am not able to do or have done. I am a compulsive researcher and yes I have done extensive historical research into the Church. I even personally disagree with many stances the Church has taken historically and in recent times (gasp…how could I not be a blind follower..I bet you would have never guessed).
There are some awful things that happened to and by the LDS pioneers. We all know that. But I also believe in the power of prayer and personal revelation and I know what the Spirit has whispered to me in my darkest hours of doubt and unbelief and what I have felt has been there to comfort and reassure me. I don’t let others, members or non, influence my personal relationship with the Savior and God.
I have spoken to many ex-members, especially when I went inactive for a year, and many of them left the Church because of something someone did to them or said to them that if you delve deeply into it had little to do with God or Jesus. The horrible things that happened to them may have been justified by someone hiding behind their twisting of church doctrine or whatever, but it was not of God. Only good things come from God, and if people make mistakes and are members of the church, that in no way reflects how God and Jesus love us or feel about us. The person made the mistake not the Church.
I am truly sorry that some of you felt you needed to leave the Church, and I hope someday you will find your way back to Heavenly Father and forgive those who hurt you. It is not easy, I know from personal experience, but God will always love you and will be there for you when you are ready to come back home.
That isn’t a bad summary at all, and I think the thread probably should have ended here. It answers the original question without much bias.
Here is a similar summary from a manual for teaching to children:
But anyway, I think you’ll find that most former Mormons weren’t “offended” as is popularly preached in the church. Rather we discovered enough unsettling and disturbing information about Joseph Smith and the founding of the Mormon Church as to render belief in it literally impossible.
So no, I don’t need to forgive anyone who offended me (in fact, most Mormons are quite nice and friendly). Rather, I would need to have a traumatic brain injury and have the memory portion of my brain destroyed, specifically the parts that remember that Joseph Smith slept around, made stuff up, and founded an authoritarian religion based on little more than his libido and a fantastic (if historically inaccurate) imagination. But thank you for the invitation.
Do you have reliable cites for this information? An unbiased historian’s researched work or you have perhaps seen and personally sourced primary documents? Because anything I have found that purports to discredit the Church, and especially Joseph Smith was so blatantly slanted as to render it all but creative fiction at best.
Just like I wouldn’t go to Fox News for accurate information about Obama, or Westboro Baptist Church for accurate information about homosexuality.
Also, can anyone provide a cite that suggests farmers in the mid-1800s were drinking O’Dhouls alcohol level small beer? All the stuff I see online suggests small beer is 2-3% alcohol. I don’t know why Mormons try to argue absurdities like this or, ahem, barley tea. Isn’t it enough that God (read: Mormon apostles) changed his mind around 1900 to prohibit all alcohol? Why the bizarre historical revisionism?
What part don’t you believe? That Joseph Smith engaged in sexual relations with his servant Fanny Alger? Or that he slept with his many, many (often clandestine and already married) wives?
I’m serious. Do you accept that Joseph Smith slept with his polygamous wives?
I accept that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. This isn’t a secret, nor is it practiced in the Church anymore. Also, historically polygamy isn’t anything new or intrinsically wrong.
As for you first two claims, where are your sources for these?
You absolutely cannot make this argument without ceding that current members of a group (especially a religious group) will present with a strong positive bias to said group.
The best you can hope for pursuing this angle is to damn everything you say on the subject equally.
Sorry, I took much to long to edit my last post so here is what I wanted it to look like:
I accept that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. His wives weren’t polygamous, lol. I might have been on board for multiple husbands, haha. And who doesn’t sleep with their wife (well, I know some people don’t but that is a completely different issue!)? This isn’t a secret, nor is it practiced in the Church anymore. Also, historically polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry aren’t anything new or intrinsically wrong.
As for you first two claims, where are your sources for these?
I am not trying to convince you to see the error of your ways and come joyfully running back to Church. I am not so naive as to think it is ever that easy or that someone would even want to do that. But I also admit to being bias in my devotion to the Church because it is what is right and feels right for me. I just don’t understand when ex-members or non members or even current members of the Church are so reluctant to admit their own bias and that they also may be slanted in what they chose to believe and what resources they choose to cite to support their beliefs. My faith would be pretty weak if I crumbled every time someone presented me with something negative about the Church. I use my own brain and do my own research before I believe something I have heard or been taught whether from the Church or outside of it. I do this with my husband, who is a life-long member, I did this with the missionaries, I have done this with Bishops and Relief Society Presidents and when I have heard something from the prophets and apostles, and I do this with anyone else I discuss my beliefs with. I am not a blind sheep waiting to be lead to my salvation, I am an active participant in my growth as a daughter of God and I wouldn’t do it any other way. It probably makes it harder on myself, but I am always more satisfied with my choices when they are made with a full knowledge of what I am doing and not just taking the word of others.
Yep, I just admitted that and have no problem acknowledging my own bias. I think that adds more credibility to what I have to say because I readily admit my bias and address it. This is actually a basic component to quality research, when research is able to identify and address their bias and how it may color their interpretation of the results and do what they can to reduce that bias. As I have said, I do my own research without taking the word of others and employ the method of prayer to gain personal revelation. Now, you may agree or disagree with my methods, but I do all I can to address my bias and make the best decision possible about my faith and beliefs. http://www.ncddr.org/kt/products/focus/focus9/
I’m confused. Have you or haven’t you “done your own research” on Fanny Alger? If you simply peruse her Wikipedia page, you can see that her relationship with Joseph Smith was documented by contemporary sources and furthermore is accepted by Mormon apologists, though they obviously have their own spin on the nature of the relationship.
I’m perfectly willing to have a wide-ranging conversation about Mormonism and my problems with it, but I doubt either of us is interested in me coming up with Bad Things About Mormonism and you defending them.
And frankly, I do find the implication that I, as a former Mormon, can’t be trusted as a source of information on a church that I spent thousands of hours attending, promoting, and supporting to be a little insulting. Yes, sometimes we need a check from believing Mormons, but I do try to be as fair as possible when discussing the factual aspects of my religious experience.
April R, can’t speak for anyone other than myself as to why some non-religious people have trouble with “evolving” religious belief. For me, it’s the apparent willingness to accept changes that fit the convenience of the practitioners while at the same time clinging to strict, unwavering convictions which exclude and condemn others. In other words, if revelations about Mormon origins prove embarrassing or inconsistent with scientific or historic fact, they revised or denied. That leaves me wondering why Mormons find it acceptable to cling rigidly to anti-gay sentiment as a for-instance. Why not revise that stance, too?
I am not anti-gay myself. I am anti-sexual impropriety outside the bonds of marriage. So I don’t care if it is hetero or homosexual sex. I have nothing personal against people who are attracted to the same sex. God loves them no matter what. I wasn’t a virgin when I got married, I had to go through the repentance process before I could marry in the temple and I did. I cannot speak for other members of my Church, but it just makes sense to me that God does not reject you if you are doing all you can to follow His teachings and part of that, I sincerely believe, is to do all you can to have a temple marriage. If you are unable to have temple marriage, either because of same sex attraction which prevents you from entering in to a heterosexual union or other things which keep you out of the temple, God still loves you and wants the best for you. God isn’t anti-gay, so I am not either.
She seems like a fascinating woman. It looks like they were married, but why the marriage didn’t last isn’t at all clear. A direct quote from Fanny herself I got from the wiki article you referred to : "After Smith’s death, Alger’s brother asked her about her relationship with the Prophet. She replied, “That is all a matter of my own. And I have nothing to communicate.”
Only she and JS know what happened, and why would that be something to upset your faith? Joseph Smith himself has admitted to not being perfect and being sinful and making mistakes, and when he did make mistakes he suffered greatly for it for the Lord withdrew his favor and JS was not able to receive revelation until he had endured repentance and full confession of his sins, just like anyone else. JS never claimed to be Jesus. He, like many prophets, lived a life of trial by fire and were never perfect. I don’t know why God chooses who He does to lead or be Prophets, but He has His reasons which I will someday understand.
Personally I find Brigham Young’s life more objectionable than JS. I don’t think I would have gotten along with him very well, I do love J. Golden Kimball though, dude was hilarious.
haha, they are sitting next to me on the couch (I am on my laptop) while we are watching Fresh Beats Band. Sundays are pretty lazy after Church, and during the week I work form home and post or study for school between downtimes and while they are in preschool or in bed. It’s a pretty great life considering. Now when they were infants I was a basketcase, but it is much easier now. I dread when they are teenagers though…but I won’t think about that right now,
I do love J. Golden Kimball though, dude was hilarious.