While I was on vacation in the first week of August, I was on a kayaking tour with a young medical doctor from my childhood home town in California. As we swapped some life stories, I admitted that while Utah is a beautiful state, I find it difficult to live and work here since resigning from the Mormon church.

When he asked me about it (my leaving TSCC), I learned that he reads the NYT every day so he already had a basic framework about Mormon historical problems.

I think the impact of this article is hard to quantify. According to Wikipedia, the NYT website has more than 30 million unique visitors per month.

In any case, it was a great opportunity to open up Mormon problems to NYT readers in the U.S.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2013 02:12PM by tgif.

I was surprised that an uncle, who left TSCC in the 80s, hadn't heard about the NYT article until we talked the other day. He and my aunt left before there was much of a protocol in resigning. Back then, they wrote a letter to their stake president asking to have their names removed.

I think new posters increased here a little bit. Just a subjective sense, can't confirm.

I am just now getting around to listening to the fireside. What is most interesting is that this is rising to a level, where the LDS Church is forced to respond.

There seems to be a disconnect between the History Department and the people at CES, and writing the Sunday School curriculum. The historians seem to think that because everything is in an archive somewhere the Church is being transparent. Sure, the information is available--I lost my the bulk of my testimony in the BYU Library, but before I did that I had no basis to ask those kinds of questions. That came only after encountering an "anti-Mormon" website. The LDS Church education system never built the capacity in me to ask these questions in the first place.

They don't seem to understand the link between these historical claims, and the decisions we make in everyday life. Would I have decided to go on a mission, if I had the capacity to understand and ask these kinds of questions? I doubt it.

It was also interesting listening to Marlin Jensen solemnly declare that the church has never hid its history. Hans Mattson called them on that and asked about the excommunications of people like Fawn Brodie. Answer from Mr. Turley: Attempt to answer the other question, and then "let's move on".

Turley was really stuck in the mud on DNA. The Book of Mormon does not give any indication of any non-Israelite civilization co-existing alongside the Nephites and Lamanites. Besides, our inspired leaders were telling us that these people were the principal ancestors of the native Americans.

I also found that they could be condescending. Turley's testimony was basically saying look little people, I am looking at the forest and you are looking at the trees. I am standing on the top of the mountain, and you are not. But there was nothing in what he said that could lead me to believe that he's seeing something that anyone in that room is not.

If Mr. Jensen understands how others may have different views that are sincere and honest, how can he then bear his testimony of the Plan of Salvation? Would he really believe that someone is damned for looking at the scope of the evidence and making another decision to become an apostate? That's what the fantastic plan of salvation has to say on the subject. Why does that make that person less worthy than the person who never examines these issues, and just accepts everything ladled into their mind by their leaders?

The bottom line seems to bind people to their emotions and feelings; and telling them to try harder. Got trouble with the temple ceremony, just keep going. If this doesn't make sense just pray harder, study "the right" sources, and maybe you'll get it. And they assume that life as a Mormon is better--even though they have not tried life without Mormonism.

There is no room to ask questions in church. Unless it supports the narrative it's discouraged.

Mormons that have questions have no place but exmormons to get any kind of honest answer that makes any kind of sense.

FAIR is extremely condescending, confusing, and if you can make it through their explanation you either realize they didn't answer the question, their answer doesn't make sense, or it doesn't fit with their answers to other questions.

200 years is just a long time for the meglomaniacal spoutings of a 19th century, superstitious, semi-literate, and his tyrannical protege to last. As Ms Brodie pointed out, the foundations of many religions are dodgey, but most religions didn't start so recently and with so much available documentation.

I listened to the audio of that meeting yesterday.

When members are given directives like this, they are being told to keep brainwashing themselves.

My favorite statement from one the church leaders there (a rough quote from memory): "I don't know why Joseph Smith practiced polandry; but all the good he did adds up more."

Hilarious. Most people thinks it is the so called anti-mormon literature that turns people to the truth. for me it was reading the historical records of the early church