To protect myself and not ruin my source (occasional friend) I am changing some of the specifics but the storyline is accurate.

I had dinner this evening with a very TBM, low level royal this evening (not related to a GA but a level or two below depending on your own perspective). I ordered a beer in his presence because,by hell, I wanted one. He did not order one, but was not bothered by me partaking. But it surprised him. So he asked about my thoughts on some of the problems within the church. I had just read on here about the church disavowing dark skin as a curse. He stated that the early members and leaders were just "guessing" and making stuff up as they went along because they needed some way to explain the genealogy of the Indians being decedents of lamanites. But now the church has a greater understanding of "things" and the opening prologue section of the BoM has been revised (I was unaware of any changes to that opening section of the BoM so I can't opine).

Anyway, we moved on to the various versions of the first vision. He told me that 4 different versions of the first vision are now being taught in seminary. I had no clue. It appears that the inoculation process is in full swing. I commented that there are more than 4 versions but regardless all versions vary materially. The reply I got was that there are 4 gospels so what's the difference? First, 4 different people wrote them...not one man changing the story to fit the audience.

We discussed many more things but I felt the need to share this experience because it showed me that many things that you fine people share on this board are extremely relevant and helpful. The mental gymnastics that my friend had to go through were incredible. For example, he stated that the church can't share it's nasty past because "when you first start dating someone you don't want to show them your bad side." That comment actually pissed me off. I replied that when the now-deceived member finally discovers that the chick he just married really used to be a dude, he's going to be very angry and hurt...and his trust of religion going forward will be shaken. I got no meaningful response because the obvious lack of logical or critical thinking.

So thank you RfM for your help! I rarely post and in the past did so under a different name.

so they admit to being wrong in the past ?

What are they currently wrong about ?

They have a history of lying.

They're still telling the same lies. The only difference is they're trying to smooth the edges. It won't work. There are too many lies for too long, and too little truth too late.

There will always be some die hards, but the glory days are over. The internet just won't shut up, and they can't make it shut up no matter how hard they try.

This is why place like RFM are so important. Just keep telling it like it is, over and over however long it takes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 10:40PM by madalice.

They don't really listen to your reply. They have so many ridiculous canned answers, that have nothing to do with the question.

I experienced something similar recently. Answer to the City Creek mall billions of dollars, "It's a multi-use structure." Okay, are you ever going to shop at Tiffany's? Or buy a condo? They live on the east coast.

(This person paid tithing their entire life, is working two jobs, they have two sons on missions and just lost their home!) This person also has three callings, and has the honor of cleaning gum and church toilets.

The church is true, amen, pass the Jell-O.

Cognitive dissonance. Until you actually see it IRL happening to a smart intelligent person you know well it is hard to appreciate just how incredibly powerful a force it is. How terribly real it is. And that it is a fools errand to go up against it head on. What to do? Try to have compassion for those you know who have been so profoundly harmed by TSCC.

I completely agree. My TBM husband is way more intelligent than me in many ways but we had a discussion about the contradictions in the church and his answers just made me laugh, almost hysterically.

There really is no way through his head. Joseph Smith saw a vision and no-one can disprove that because they weren't there. I pointed out his many lies but again just because he told lies then, doesn't mean he's lying about one of the most fanciful stories ever told.

I felt like asking him if he takes any medication that I'm not aware of.

Such an interesting story and experience. I'd love to have been a fly on that wall.

The explanation of 4 different gospels, written by 4 different people is a lame justification. It only goes to show the inaccuracies and lies being perpetuated. None of the stories line up and ring true. Therefore, they ring false.

The same thing goes for the various "versions" or "imaginations" of the First Vision. It's all a "crock".

Speaking calmly, modulating one's voice, "appearing" to be tolerant of imbibing a beer, is a cover. This would show me that he just "might" be an excellent actor and salesman.

And you said it: mental gymnastics. Gymnastics is an exercise. In this case, a mental exercise. This was a mental exercise, which didn't arrive at any hard - fast conclusions, except for more ambiguity.

I am reminded of my occasionally reported parable of the Ethiopian maid (this really happened, surely more than once). A few years ago a girl in Ethiopia was recruited to work as a maid in England. Before she left her home, the recruiting agency put a curse on her lest she quit. When she got to England, she found out that "maid" meant "prostitute". But she was afraid to leave because of the curse.

She clearly saw that they had lied about the job description- but she was unable to grasp that maybe they had also lied about their ability to put curses on people.

Do we see a pattern here?

I no longer believe in anything the church teaches, heaven, God, the whole bit.

But I still feel a little anxiety when a mirror breaks, I accidentally walk under a ladder or a black cat crosses my path. It always amazes me how old superstitions hang on in some primitive part of your brain. Of course I don't believe them, but it still triggers something.

The problem with the "show the bad stuff" approach is that they
USED to have a nice, simple, clear story. That story was
powerful. Introducing all the warts into the story makes it
convoluted and contradictory. So they now have this convoluted,
contradictory story that they want to lead to the same end--"the
Church is true and beautiful."

slcabbie posted his online, comment-board exchange with a TBM, and it was very enlightening concerning how an overall worldview trumps individual fact. It's not until the worldview itself is challenged that the truth or falsity of fact makes any difference. Mormonism has been allowed to ferment in the dark. Holding it up to the light will make the difference.

The person slcabbie was arguing with used the example of Matthew in the sermon on the mount where Jesus said, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The person said that Nephi--as translated by the prophet JS--said, "Be perfect, as I and your heavenly Father are perfect." And this is supposed to be a clarification, an explanation of Mormon future-godhood. God is perfect, Jesus is perfect, and you too will become perfect in the same sense, as gods.

But this very reasoning introduces the convoluted part. First, why believe JS is a prophet who can "correct" Matthew. But even beyond that, the supposed correction obscures Matthew even more. The context of the entire paragraph of Matthew, in which the sentence in question is the last line, explains that "perfection" means to love one's enemies in the same way that God causes rain to fall down impartially upon both the righteous and unrighteous together. The righteous are not entitled to better rain. To love and care only for one's own family doesn't entitled one to be a Christian. Don't even the tax collectors and the pagans do exactly that? A disciple of Christ must do more.

"Perfection" could also be alternatively translated as "complete" or "mature." But making the passage all about conventional perfection and achieving a made-up godhood, and making Jesus say, I am perfect, meaning divine, trashes Matthew. It doesn't clarify it, it alters it to be crap. Matthew has Jesus saying, "I love my enemies, therefore, I am perfect in the same way my heavenly Father is perfect; and you could to be perfect in this way too by a simple act of will." Being obedient to authority or being anxious about one's worthiness and success in marching down a predetermined path to "godhood" has got nothing to do with whether you can love your enemies.

Theologically, these two ideas--perfection as godhood or perfection as maturity or love--are as different as night and day. There is no benefit from adopting JS' view. It's a Santa Claus view of morality. Rather than humbling yourself now, pretend that you're Napoleon in exile, and it's just a matter of time when you'll be handed back your throne!

Nothing sounds far-fetched if you want to believe it; if your whole world view depends on it being true.

I once had a writing class where we were given a long list of words that were extremely disparate and the assignment was to make them work together in a short story. The exercise ignited creativity and forced us to think outside the box.

With Mormon apologetics they have a list of disparate historical events and doctrines, but this time the goal is to squelch creativity and force everything back in the box. They are attempting to make the whole less than the sum of its parts.

They are going to need a lot of duct tape to keep the lid on at the rate they are going.

This doesn't make sense to me.

"I had just read on here about the church disavowing dark skin as a curse. He stated that the early members and leaders were just "guessing" and making stuff up as they went along because they needed some way to explain the genealogy of the Indians being decedents of lamanites."

What does he by the early members and leaders? It's in the BOM that it's a curse brought on by God so the Nephites wouldn't have sex with them.