A few letters
2007 March 20
Mormon Stories Listeners,
A small situation has arisen and I’d love to gather a few letters from folks who feel like Mormon Stories has helped them find a way to remain active in the church when they otherwise might not have.
If you are able to help, please either email me at mormonstories@gmail.com or post your story here.
Thanks so much, and sorry to be a burden.
Many years ago, I was taught by a critic of the Church that anecdotal stories don’t really mean a lot. Most of what I have seen here are anecdotal stories claiming abuse by various Church leaders. Yet, I firmly believe, as a member who was baptized at the age of 8 and am now 61 that there are far, far more stories that are exactly the opposite. I was personally abused by a Church leader, but so what? Does that somehow make the Church untrue? Of course not. Such a notion is silly on the face of it. But what about all of the “doctrines?” I have been an ardent student of LDS History and doctrines my entire adult life. I have a very large library which includes documents that I keep secure. I have read extensively, including a tremendous amount of literature critical of the Church. Only once, in 60 years has there even been the slightest doubt in my mind. And it took me about 10 minutes of research and thinking to resolve it. Oh, no doubt, I am “deluded” and “ignorant” in the minds of many of you. Yet, many of my closest friends tend to think of me exactly opposite from that point of view. The bottom line is that while I suspect I have read virtually everything that the folks here have read, or at least am somewhat familiar with most items (remember, I have a large anti-library as well as LDS library) and I have no qualms with the truth claims of the LDS Church. In fact, I do as the scriptures tell me to, I prayed and have received a very clear confirmation from the Holy Spirit, time and again, that the LDS Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ on the face of the earth. You can argue and whine all you want, you can’t change that. Frankly, I can’t see that John’s site has any benefit whatsoever, inspite of the many stories and claims here. I can cite story after story of people who have visited shields-research.org and have found solace and answers there. And I don’t have to ask them to expose all of the negativity found here.
If John is in trouble, how does obtaining “testimonials” solve what he is in trouble for? If things he has on his blog are critical of the Church, and certainly there have been instances of that, then why shouldn’t he be in trouble. Membership in the LDS Church is not like being in a club. You either accept the truth claims and uphold your promise to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world, blessing the lives of those around you, or you take the “other” path. There really is no fence sitting as many of you would like to do. BUT, rather than just walk away because things are not like you want them to be, perhaps it is time to get on your knees even more and obtain a testimony by the Holy Spirit instead of man’s WEAK understandings.
Ok, I’ve diatribed enough and I’m sure I’ll hear about it. So be it. My testimony is not founded on the works of man, but on the works of God.
If this is taken as a rebuke to you, you can either lump it or humble yourselves before God and Angels. Frankly, I’m so sick of hearing the whining… and by the way, I am more than familiar with cases of abuse by Church leaders. I hope that at least some of you will accept my invitation to go before the Lord in humility and obtain a true testimony and return will your heart fully towards God and his Church.
Stan Barker
Mr. Barker, it is not for you to decide who is and who is not permitted to participate in fellowship among the latter day saints, and what their level of faithfulness “should” be. That decision is mine mine mine mine mine (and my bishop’s, or stake president’s if it should ever come to that).
You don’t like the fence sitters? The whiners? The people who complain about problems? Tough. That’s your problem, not mine. Deal with it. It is not my responsibility to accomodate my beliefs to your comfort level.
I am a member of this church in full fellowship. My butt is in a pew every Sunday, except when I’m leading the music. I don’t believe “all is well in Zion,” and I don’t feel the need to pretend I do. And I’m not going ANYWHERE.
If you don’t like it, then YOU can leave. OK?
Stan,
Your website there is a crackup. Looks like you fancy yourself a disciple of DCP. Thats fine and all, you can worship how you see fit.
Your hope for ‘trouble’ to come to John or anyone else is sickening. Your claim that there is no benefit whatsoever in this site is comical. Especially, as you claim to have a library of information, and yet, you consider there to be no benefit to any information found on here.
Are you Gramps?
Stan,
Many if not most of the people who eventually have problems with the truth claims of the Church, have had the “witness of the Spirit”TM experience many, many times through humble prayer and otherwise. Yet, many come to realize that the “Spirit” is not reliable in identifying what is true.
In my case the Spirit told me that the Book of Abraham is just what it claims to be, a translation of ancient papyri that Abraham wrote by his own hand. The Book of Abraham is nothing of the sort. The Spirit does not reliably identify what is true.
Well, the responses are pretty much what I expected. It amazes me that people who call themselves intelligent and want to put everyone and everything down about the Church, can’t even read plain English and if they do, they have an extreme propensity to misintrepret what they read… for example, that I “hope for trouble to come on John.” I never said that I hoped for such a thing. I merely suggested that you get what you pay for. The rest of the rants against me are seen as just plain silly. As to Mayan Elephant, making statements such as you did about our web site are just so much nonsense. All you have to do Mayan Elephant, is to show where we have erred on our web site. Like so many others who have written to me and made such statements, I challenge you to demonstrate to comedy in our site. And yes, I think Dr. Peterson is a wonderful man. I have met him, I have talked to him on a number of occasions. That he is seen by the likes of you as someone bad says far more about you than of him. I really feel sorry for the pain that some of you feel, but this isn’t the solution.
As the the Book of Abraham issue, I’d strongly suggest that you read Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham, from cover to cover, and then explain to one and all how Joseph Smith got so many things right that have only in the last few years have come to light. That’s another issue I get very tired of hearing from the critics. They pick on certain things, but ignore the rest of the truth about the issue. Truth that makes it clear that they are in the wrong.
And one more item… to Mayan Elephant again. Calling me “Gramps” accomplishes what? Does it make you feel superior? Are you into name calling? What cheap school-yard behavior. It is nothing more than baby talk.
Have at it. I’ve had my say.
Stan Barker
It’s a shame that people who have nothing but critical misleading things to say about Mormon Stories and the work that it does can’t just leave it be. They find nothing virtuous, lovely or of good report here, yet they just can’t leave it alone.
“There really is no fence sitting as many of you would like to do. ”
Says who? You?
Hey, the Gramps thing was a little light humor. lighten up francis. It was a simple comment to point out that you and Gramps think alike.
Daniel may be a nice guy. Who said he wasnt? Patterning your apologies after his, or using him as a source is fine, go for it.
“If things he has on his blog are critical of the Church, and certainly there have been instances of that, then why shouldn’t he be in trouble. ”
I will not apologize for taking the above to mean, that you approve of any trouble that would come his way.
Stan, it wouldnt matter if everything Joseph did was right. Truly, it wouldnt. Its the current experience that matters most. And sharing the bench with folks that judge others that are different and consider them unfit to be in the benches is one of many things that makes the current church miserable.
I promise to spend more time on your site. I love the sinners list you have. That is pure comedy.
The parallels between the Book of Abraham and the Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham are not that impressive when one reviews what the Bible and Josephus had to say about Abraham. Joseph had access to Josephus. Now not every detail of the Abraham story that Joseph came up with is in Josephus and the Bible, but those details can be reasonable extrapolated from the parts of the stories that are there. Furthermore, Joseph got a lot wrong. The “Traditions” suggest that people were going to try to put Abraham to death by fire, but the BoA has him almost sacrificed by a knife on an altar.
What’s more? There are numerous anachronisms, and the astronomy lesson appears to be plagiarized from Thomas Dick. These problems are much more difficult to explain than a couple of parallels with the Traditions of the Life of Abraham that are not that earth-shattering anyway. Only Osler’s Expansion theory can accommodate these problems, but none of this addresses the real issue.
The Spirit told me and many others that the BoA is the translation of ancient papyrus written by the hand of Abraham. It isn’t; I don’t care how many parallels you point out. The cool thing is that this is replicable. Give me any Bishop in the Church that is not familiar with the BoA problems. I’ll invite them to ask God specifically through fasting and prayer if the Book of Abraham is a translation of ancient papyri that were written by the hand of Abraham. I bet you, they will get that confirmation and will bear passionate testimony of it and swear they know it as surely as they know anything. Ask them if they might be mistaken. Ask them if maybe the Spirit did not really mean what they think it told them. They will say that they are sure that they understand what the Spirit is telling them. Then, I will show them all the mounds of evidence that show the BoA is not what the Spirit told them it was.
Stan,
I’m just curious. Where do you feel as though I’ve been critical of the church? Can you point me to a few places? I’ve actually tried to avoid this.
Thanks for commenting. We may see things differently, but I appreciate your willingness to engage, and the balance you bring to the comments.
John
Stan, you said:
“I have read extensively, including a tremendous amount of literature critical of the Church. Only once, in 60 years has there even been the slightest doubt in my mind. And it took me about 10 minutes of research and thinking to resolve it.”
Isn’t the gospel of mankind’s eternal salvation worth more time and energy than 10 minutes? Don’t you think a devout Buddhist or Muslim or Evangelical Christian feels just as strongly about what they believe in? Many people believing things quite contrary to LDS doctrine claim with similar conviction and sincerity to have the same kinds of powerful spiritual confirmation that they are correct. At the very least, this introduces the natural human response to wonder if your own experience is as absolute and as condemning of others as you think. At the very least it should make the deliberation and pondering of what is true and what is right a little more important than 10 minutes.
If you are angered by other people progressing through life on different paths, feeling genuine trial and pain trying to find truth and right and thus perhaps venting their frustration on what you consider sacred… perhaps you could treat it a little more sacred yourself. If you have the right to be offended by someone like me finding that all is not well in Zion, I have the right to be offended by you making light of the seriousness of deciding what is true on an individual basis.
Also, do you really think you are doing missionary work, leading souls to Christ, when you come out and say “repent or get out” to people who are struggling but are not gone? Seriously?
I agree wholeheartedly with Ann. The gospel is mine, for me. No one has the right to decide anything for me. Even a bishop or stake pres. cannot change my relationship directly with God.
I wasn’t going to respond any further simply due to lack of time and interest in engaging this further. No matter how one says something, there will always be someone to come along and totally misinterpret what you have said. So, I’m only going to comment on a couple of things (sorry John, I’m not going to go back through mountains of stuff to find examples of what I was talking about — let’s just say that I have seen material that I wasn’t at all pleased with.
1. The Book of Abraham stuff mentioned by Hueffenhardt: I find it incredible that you so easily dismiss the parallels in Traditions. I really have to wonder if you have even read the book. I have, cover to cover. Where is your proof that JS read Josephus? He may have had access, whatever that means, by that doesn’t mean he read it. And the parallels go way beyond “a couple of parallels.” Moreover, your suggestions of plagarism is a typical cheap attempt to try to disuade people from critical thinking. You can neither prove it allegation, nor can you demonstrate access. This is one of those cards that critics love to play: plagerism. If one is to follow all of the suggested things JS is to have plagerized, he must have been one of the most well read men in the world. It is cheap and stupid.
2. 10 minutes of research: Oh my, what an incredible misreading of facts. Ok, so let’s clarify what I said and meant. I said, “I have read extensively, including a tremendous amount of literature critical of the Church.” Does this come across as only spending 10 minutes of reseearch? I strongly suggest you drop your prejudices and go back and reread what I said and do your very best to try to understand what I meant. It really isn’t that hard. I even pointed out that I resolved it. Ok, let’s be clearer. I found very quickly that the thing I was concered about was something presented by Jerald and Sandra Tanner and I quickly discovered that they had presented it deceptively. When I considered the original source (which I had) and reread it from the original source, the problem evaporated. It’s that simple.
3. You said, “If you are angered by other people progressing through life on different paths….” Where did I say that I was angered by such a thing. You are reading something into my comments that simply isn’t there. I actually was quite clear on what upset me. Based on your prior misreading, I hardly see the need to comment on this further. Your last paragraph is self-serving and doesn’t really demonstrate anything that any thinking person doesn’t already know. And I certainly never suggested such a thing. So, certainly you had the right to pontificate on how you felt, but it had nothing to do with what I said.
BTW, the last time I even looked at this blog was April 15 (prior to tonight). I really don’t see the point in responding to anything else and likely won’t be replying to anything else, since I rarely now even look at the blog.
I wish all of you the best and hope you find what you are looking for. I hope you are looking for truth and not for excuses.
In reply to #64, Stan says he isn’t going to read this thread again, but lest anyone think that I cannot back up my words, I have composed a response on my blog here: http://tinyurl.com/yuwjqw . I am not putting the text of my response here because it is off topic.