Close Topic Options

Anti-Mormon Sources - Page 2

I guess it really depends on what you may call anti material? Are you talking about the old Baptist pamphlets that you get from time to time, or the Ed Deckers of the world? Or are you referring to the Michael Quinn's of the world who do scholarly work and have been disciplined by the church for it?

It is a messy question but a good one that we need to discuss. It has been my experience that the church is very very careful in sanitizing its history. Especially in its church lesson manuals, and publications. listen to Pres. Packer's last conference talk from last week and you can see how sanitized that he makes Mormon history. The church has been very, very cautious about its history for some time. It use to not be that way. When Lowell Bennion and others were around in the 60's it was the golden age of letting this stuff out and writing about it. Then around the time of Packer's influence the church took a different policy and began to not be so open about its history. That caused a lot of problems with many scholars of Mormonism. Now however the church seems to be going back to a more open policy. I think that this is due to the Internet and how readily available to sources have become.

The challenge is for members is when they find out all of this information about polygamy, and (women having multiple husbands as well.) and all of the other stuff, then what is a member to think when he/she finds out that the church may have not told them everything. I have seen members leave the church not because of what they found, but because they felt that the church was hiding it and not being truthful about it. The fact that they have to go to anti websites to find it, makes them feel betrayed and wonder what else is the church hiding from them, and it opens the doors to a lot of other stuff.

I understand why the church does not focus on the bad spots of LDS history. They are to build testimonies, not document history per say, but at the same time not discussing it makes members unprepared when they find it out on their own. I personally feel that it would be good to hear it from church rather then a anti-site. But that is the way it is. I personally do not talk about it with members, but if they bring it up I will let them know that it is true, or not, and talk to them about what that means to them.

As for looking at anti-websites, I personally do not. But I read a lot of Mormon history, and I try to not get an LDS perspective most of the time. So I am pretty much aware of most of it. I have read the temple ceremonies, I have seen every endowment change made, I have old journals in my library and I have a friend who have over 33,000 books and sources on LDS history and the actual journals. So I pretty much have sources to my disposal.

But LDS_Forever you are right. it is a delimma, as to how much you read and look at. Perhaps may I suggest John Delynn's Mormon stories on the internet. I will not give the website per board rules, but google the above and you will find it. He had a lot of the same issues that you are talking about, and almost left the church over them, because he felt betrayed by the church for not being forthcoming. Anyway he interviews LDS scholars Mormon and non Mormon alike about the issues to get to the truth of the tough historical questions. He interview Bushman and his wife on the issues of Joseph Smith and also about how such things have affected his testimony. I recommend it to anyone looking for good reliable sources. You can get them on itunes as well.

I think that the key is once you find something, it is good to discuss it, with others of like minds that you trust. They can help you sort it out. however be careful because some members get upset for talking about such things and want to dismiss it or even attack you for bringing it up, so find someone who you can talk with he may be more knowledgeable then yourself on such matters. because the reality is Church history can get ugly and weird, just like any other church's history.

Sources Anti-Mormon

Well it seems to be an easy definition. Anti material is anything against the church and her doctrine no matter how it is presented.

Anti-Mormon Sources Studies Doctrine Mormon

I dont even look at them cause they just want to make you think that what you believe is all crap and I normally dont be around anyone or anything trying to make me feel like crap.

Page 2 Sources Anti-Mormon

I wish it was that easy. For example Waneta Brooks' work on the meadowland massacre was always seen by many as anti-work, but in the past 5 years or so she has been vindicated per say and he work is now seen as solid work on the subject by LDS scholars, and leaders. Might I also add that Fawn Brody's work of Joseph Smith which for years many said was anti is now getting a different look by LDS scholars. Her work is quoted in Bushman's new Book on Joseph Smith. She is now seen in a different light.
How about Adam-God theory,or Blood atonement? This is used by many Anti sites, but it was the taught by Brigham Young and others pretty regularly. Is this anti material now that we do not necessary believe in these things today?

The problem with this idea is what is"anything that is against the church?" Is objective work on history that the church does not like to talk about considered anti? Or is it just trying to tell History? History is not a pleasant walk in the park. There may be somethings that we perceive as attacking the church but in reality it is just the way things are. So this definition becomes very weak and insufficient, and dangerous in my opinion. So I guess the question is do you fight against facts, historical situations and old Mormon concepts and call them anti, because they put a bad light on the church, or do we accept them and try to make meaning of them?

Sources Anti-Mormon

Recently I had been thinking about the Church and how I have heard about members of the Church who have learned the truth about the Church thereby facilitating that member leaving the Church.

I began to read material on the internet in that vein of thought. Then one thing lead to another which brought me to some anti-mormon information. However my approach was to read what they said and to stop and think about what I know about that topic and how I understood that particular subject and then compare my understanding to what the ex-mormon or anti-mormon was saying, but I did so with prayer as a constant companion while I read this material.

I remember reading years ago that someone said he has a testimony about the truthfulness of the Church, not a testimony about the history of the Church. There is a distinct difference. Most churches do have a history they don't want being brought up and slapped in their faces at every turn.

So for me, material by ex-mormons and anti-mormons is quite similar, but decidedly different. However the approach one takes to read it is a personal decision and should only be undertaken with a very big grain of salt and with prayer and hoping to have the spirit guide you in whether or not to read it.

If you decide to read it, to keep yourself grounded on what you do know, and not worry about what someone is trying to make you believe is "the truth" or "right" about the history of the Church, rather just remember your testimony about the gospel truths and doctrines are still true despite the history of the Church.

I don't know if I am making myself understood here. I hope so.
seekintruth

Anti-Mormon Sources

I understand what you're saying but the way I see it I could never read all that I'm supposed to in the church so why would I go to somewhere that's fishy to read more about the church?

Anti-Mormon Sources - Page 2

I'm sorry. I must not have made myself clear. I didn't go to these other websites to read about the Church. I went to read why ex-Mormons say they "found the truth" about the Church which led them to leave the Church. What I have found for the most part is they think they found out some deep dark secret about the history of the Church and so now they say that they know the Church can't possibly be true.

What I learned from their information is what I compared to what I know to be true and to what the spirit tells me is right. Like I mentioned before, sure there are some things in the history of the Church and the imperfect people who led the Church in the past which some people think makes the Church wrong.

I don't think so.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is still true. The Book of Mormon is still true and I continue to receive witnesses on a weekly basis on what I am currently reading that portion of what I just read is indeed true. I then record these witnesses so that I do not forget them.

As long as I keep my focus on Christ and keep myself grounded on what I know to be true, then reading these other websites does not sway me from the truth and the testimony I have. I certainly wouldn't suggest that just anyone go and read from those other websites.

I was curious and I know only because I kept a prayer in my heart and by reminding myself what I do know to be true has protected me. Will I go back and read those websites again? probably not.

seekintruth

Anti-Mormon Sources Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

Ever heard the one about the curious cat that went up a 100 foot tree because it was curious about how things look from the very top? Once it got up there and saw it he couldnt come back down.