Posted online, March 3, 2006:
Members of the church are reading controversial history items and holes in LDS theology or origins via the internet. Some are choosing to leave after they conclude that they have been lied to.
I am one of them.
There is animosity on some anti mormon message boards towards the leading minds who defend the LDS history, theology and origin. There is also animosity over here at FAIR that I have detected over the last few weeks browsing this board. Neither side holds a lily white untarnished record. Neither has taken the higher ground. In fact, some here at FAIR have displayed downright unchristian behavior. No one is perfect.
So what is my point.
I think that leading FARMS authors or apologists become irritated with simpletons like myself who choose to read and depart. The minds at FARMS have read pretty much everything I have read and probably more. However, they choose to find faith in the holes where I call the bluff. Big deal.
I know that many FARMS minds have read some of the lengthy essays done by post mormons. I also become irritated, like those at FARMS, when I see that they acknowledge reading essays such as McCue and yet cast what someone like Bob has to say completely under the bus as if it has no worth... as if it is so wacky and off base that only a moron would digest it and call it reasonable.
Can't we be fair here at FAIR?
Is there anyone who reads the leading minds on "The Other Side" of the arguments and who will admit that the arguments are compelling and substantial?
I think it was Blake Ostler who commented in Sunstone a few months back about how irritated he was with "this new generation of apostates". He expressed his disdain for the hasty retreat from Mormonism by those who think they are informed. They read a few months (some only a few weeks!) of arguments and just hang their testimony up. The message was clear. Mr. Ostler appeared to insinuate that those who leave the church are the culls. Those who leave are nothing but dross... they could not withstand the crucible fires. They will never be pure or purified or blessed with faith like he is. After all, Ostler et al read everything too and they haven't abandoned the faith.
So, it is possible to read it all and stay in. In a way, I applaud those who do read it all and stay involved and strong. He is the man that truly has a testimony, IMO. He knows the problems and yet remains true. His is true faith. BLIND faith is repugnant to me. But that is another topic.
I did it almost 8 years ago. I employed this brand of true faith. I admit that it eventually failed me (or I failed it). I read, I left, then I compartmentalized and I went back for 5 years with high volume callings, home teaching, temple attendance everything. 18 months ago I could not quiet the nagging doubts about church historicity and I chose to renounce my faith.
Lastly, another reason I wanted to stop by and air out what has been bothering me is simply to gripe about how so many here who defend the faith do it so stubbornly. The case against the church is valid and compelling. If more of you would acknowledge this instead of denying that it is not, wouldn't your credibility shoot through the roof? At least it would allow for some healing between the fences.
The shoring up mentality creates an impenetrable shield that puts many of you in a light of denial. What I am saying is simple: It is not going to kill off your testimony to concede that the history has been rewritten, or that the Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham, or that the anachonisms (and DNA case studies) in the Book of Mormon really are problematic, or that the archeologically unsubstantiated Hill Cumorah in New York really was not the scene for the last battle...
And then I could concede that there really is no proof against god. My atheism is just as dogmatic as your theism. I could concede that, yes, there is a chance that despite all in the above paragraph, Joseph Smith could really have seen God. It is not going to kill off my unbelief to do that.
Just conceding where it is obvious and even not so obvious would go miles. We could sit down together! We could laugh at our opinions, share a brotherly handshake... me with my coffee and you with your hot chocolate. Why the animosity between us? Would it have to turn into a arm wrestling of opinions? There is so much more to this life than that!
After all is said and done, we are humans first and spiritual beings second. I find it sad that so many of us cast off a portion of our humanity in defensive posturing. No one really knows who or even if someone is behind the curtain pulling the levers and switches that fabricate this mortality. After all is said and done, testimony is still feelings based and that creates an opinion as to how it might be unfurling.
I am okay with opinions, if you are okay with mine. Is there a middle ground?
Noggin
This thread is located at FAIRLDS.org and generated 303 posts and over 4000 views, which is rather a lot. Eventually the thread was locked down due to the moderators opinion that it became inflammatory by other posters
I intend to post the more meaty observations as to the levels of denial many Mormons are encased in.
--out of time for now though--
