The Departed

[Ceteris Paribus]

I was released last November after serving 5+ years as 1st counselor to a wise and inspired bishop. Among our greatest joys were the mission calls, making a difference with fractured families and the well planned (i.e. anything without the word Trek) youth activities. Deepest sorrows came from being unable to convince 4 previously active families not to resign their memberships, and not preventing other strong members from drifting into inactivity. I still stay up nights haunted by what we could have done differently.

The departures happened as a result of a group of educated and intelligent members learning more about church history and having problems with what they claimed to be doctrinal inconsistencies. A partial list includes contradictions with BofM historicity, BofA translation, DNA (big problem, including poly and amerindian findings), polygamy, racism, etc. One brother found what he claimed to be "plagiarism" of the plan of salvation from a book entitled Heaven and Hell written by who to me was an obscure author named Swedenborg. This was new to us and quite honestly we did not have a good response ready.

It was as if we were bombarded with a selective abridgment of Brodie, Bushman, Compton, Palmer, Quinn, Southerton, et al. None of the departed left with bitterness, there was no unresolved sin, mistreatment or public announcement. They simply concluded the foundation was unstable and left. We remain friends and neighbors, but the relationships are forever changed.

When the resignations began, the bishop made very effort to offer spiritual guidance and counter arguments. We had ward fasts, special temple sessions and distributed FARM commentaries. The stake president even funded a self styled DNA expert (and protege of Hartman Rector) by the name of Rod Meldrum (http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org) to come speak at a stake fireside and discuss his scientific and historical evidence that BofM events were centered in the Great Lakes region.

Problem was Brother Meldrum spoke to and audience that included physicians and biologists; he had little in the way of sound empirical science, and apparently his timeline is off by at least 10K years. In the end, Meldrum did more harm than good.

Right or wrong we found that some Church members now demand historical credibility and tangible evidence to support their faith. Blessings of the Internet I surmise.

I suspect there is a growing trend of similar defections concentrated primarily in the U.S., Britain and Europe. I also trust the Church's response will be strong and include improved bishopric training materials.

[MikeWaters]

Very interesting. This is something we have discussed at length. Credit goes to SIEQ for the phrase "lack of innoculation."

Hiding history will not help. Forthrightly tackling it from the beginning is the key.

Also, at the end of the day, people that are convinced of the truthfulness of the BoM based on "how much it makes sense" or its historicity will always be on an unfirm foundation.

This is a church that is based on the gifts of the Spirit. Without them, there is nothing. And that has to be the underpinning of all tempests that will fall upon us.

[Archaea]

Hence the reason for the concept of "inoculation" becomes apparent. Withholding this information for so long can only do harm.

We've discussed these issues ad nauseum here, to the dismay of many.

Van Swedenborg allegation has been around for a long time, and whether Joseph Smith had access to the information is debatable, but one can see why others might make the connection.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Ceteris Paribus

Right or wrong we found that some Church members now demand historical credibility and tangible evidence to support their faith. Blessings of the Internet I surmise.

When I read that quote, all I could think of was

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Truly sad.

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/sho...ght=swedenborg

[Indy Coug]

Innoculation can only go so far. It may remove the element of "unfair surprise" to an extent, but with regards to most of the topics that might require innoculation, there simply aren't enough concrete answers out there. For those that are unwilling to simply accept a personal spiritual witness as sufficient for their needs, there isn't enough historicity or tangible evidence in the world to suffice.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is a church that is based on the gifts of the Spirit. Without them, there is nothing. And that has to be the underpinning of all tempests that will fall upon us.

well said.

[MikeWaters]

There was a time in my life, many years ago, where I was disturbed by many of the accusations leveled by the anti-Mormons. However, there was a mentor in my ward who helped me along, answered my questions, and was honest. He did me a great service, and no he wasn't a stereotypical FARMS-type. He was actually a very original, very different kind of Mormon that probably fit right in here on CG.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Ceteris Paribus

I was released last November after serving 5+ years as 1st counselor to a wise and inspired bishop. Among our greatest joys were the mission calls, making a difference with fractured families and the well planned (i.e. anything without the word Trek) youth activities. Deepest sorrows came from being unable to convince 4 previously active families not to resign their memberships, and not preventing other strong members from drifting into inactivity. I still stay up nights haunted by what we could have done differently.

The departures happened as a result of a group of educated and intelligent members learning more about church history and having problems with what they claimed to be doctrinal inconsistencies. A partial list includes contradictions with BofM historicity, BofA translation, DNA (big problem, including poly and amerindian findings), polygamy, racism, etc. One brother found what he claimed to be "plagiarism" of the plan of salvation from a book entitled Heaven and Hell written by who to me was an obscure author named Swedenborg. This was new to us and quite honestly we did not have a good response ready.

It was as if we were bombarded with a selective abridgment of Brodie, Bushman, Compton, Palmer, Quinn, Southerton, et al. None of the departed left with bitterness, there was no unresolved sin, mistreatment or public announcement. They simply concluded the foundation was unstable and left. We remain friends and neighbors, but the relationships are forever changed.

When the resignations began, the bishop made very effort to offer spiritual guidance and counter arguments. We had ward fasts, special temple sessions and distributed FARM commentaries. The stake president even funded a self styled DNA expert (and protege of Hartman Rector) by the name of Rod Meldrum (http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org) to come speak at a stake fireside and discuss his scientific and historical evidence that BofM events were centered in the Great Lakes region.

Problem was Brother Meldrum spoke to and audience that included physicians and biologists; he had little in the way of sound empirical science, and apparently his timeline is off by at least 10K years. In the end, Meldrum did more harm than good.

Right or wrong we found that some Church members now demand historical credibility and tangible evidence to support their faith. Blessings of the Internet I surmise.

I suspect there is a growing trend of similar defections concentrated primarily in the U.S., Britain and Europe. I also trust the Church's response will be strong and include improved bishopric training materials.

A well written post. Thanks.

A comment and a question:

Comment: LDS assertions, as early as Joseph Smith, but in the 20th century with figures like Ferguson and New World Archaeological foundation or the FARMers, in my opinion, ventured to place Book of Mormon into the rational, scientific, archaeological/historical, etc. fields and are now suffering the consequences of entering a rational debate with an irrational argument.

To date, there exists no substantial evidence of Book of Mormon historicity, but - as a friend of mine recently noted - the apologists have adroitly shifted the discussion to challenging "the world" to "disprove" the book, rather than focusing their attempts on "proving" the book. The LDS fixation on "truth," certainty, and absolute knowledge is fine theology, but translates poorly into academic arenas.

Question: In your opinion, why did these families feel obligated to withdraw their membership? Why not just quit attending? Did they seem to have a psychological need for closure, or what?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

To date, there exists no substantial evidence of Book of Mormon historicity, but - as a friend of mine recently noted - the apologists have adroitly shifted the discussion to challenging "the world" to "disprove" the book, rather than focusing their attempts on "proving" the book. The LDS fixation on "truth," certainty, and absolute knowledge is fine theology, but translates poorly into academic arenas.

Wouldn't academia support the approach of disproving rather than proving a hypothesis? The null hypothesis is never accepted; you either reject it or fail to reject it.

If LDS apologists have taken the stance that the truthfulness needs to be rejected rather than proven, then they are merely being consistent with modern empirical analysis.