Here is an approach from Richard Bushman whom he quoted that for some reason who’s minds aren’t capable of dealing with their new insights

“Due to the process of learning, which they have gone through, these [two-minded] LDS often no longer accept the church as the only true one (with the only true priesthood authority and the only valid sacred ordinances), but they see it as a Christian church, in which good, inspired programs are found as well as failure and error. They no longer consider inspiration, spiritual and physical healing, personal and global revelation limited to the LDS church. In this context, these saints may attend other churches, too, where they might have spiritual experiences as well. They interpret their old spiritual experiences differently, understanding them as testimonies from God for them personally, as a result of their search and efforts, but these testimonies don’t necessarily have to be seen as a confirmation that the LDS church is the only true one.

“Since the social relationships between them and other ward (or stake) members suffer (avoidance, silence, even mobbing) because of their status as heretics, which is usually known via gossip, and since the extent of active involvement and range of possible callings are reduced because of their nonconformity in various areas, there is a risk that they end up leaving the church after all, because they are simply ignored by the majority of the other members.”

I’m also with Hawkgrrrl – really have enjoyed your comments

“Rather than become atheist or agnostic, some of us experience an expansion of the mind and soul, and deepening convictions, and an increased desire to serve.”

3. These newly revived Latter-day Saints also develop a more philosophical attitude toward history. They come to see (like professional historians) that facts can have many interpretations. Negative facts are not necessarily as damning as they appear at first sight. Put in another context along side other facts, they do not necessarily destroy Joseph Smith’s reputation.

Love Kevin C.’s comments. Go, Kevin C.!

One of the other directions that some questions go is to devote themselves to learning, and when converted, to act to strengthen their brethren and sisters in the gospel. Mike Ash’s recent Shaken Faith Syndrome books is a good example of this other response. My essay in RBBM 7:2 is another attempt. Those involved with FARMS and FAIR provide more. Rather than become atheist or agnostic, some of us experience an expansion of the mind and soul, and deepening convictions, and an increased desire to serve.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Haven’t we as private individuals in the church and as a church put money into finding proof or some archaeological evidence? Do you think they had bad intentions or didn’t feel promptings to do this?

That may even be why the Church/Joseph Smith purchased the book of Abraham was so it would unequivocally prove that our prophet was able to translate by the power of god and give us physical evidence of this!

“Spending so much time digging up dodgy second hand info through books here and hearsay there, as well as inexhaustible academic paraphenalia, many seem to miss out on spiritual nurrishment. ”

You should read Richard Bushmans article where it say here on the top here is an excerpt.

Often church leaders, parents, and friends, do not understand the force of this alternate view. Not knowing how to respond, they react defensively. They are inclined to dismiss all the evidence as anti-Mormon or of the devil. Stop reading these things if they upset you so much, the inquirer is told. Or go back to the familiar formula: scriptures, prayer, church attendance.

The troubled person may have been doing all of these things sincerely, perhaps even desperately. He or she feels the world is falling apart. Everything these inquirers put their trust in starts to crumble. They want guidance more than ever in their lives, but they don’t seem to get it. The facts that have been presented to them challenge almost everything they believe. People affected in this way may indeed stop praying; they don’t trust the old methods because they feel betrayed by the old system. Frequently they are furious. On their missions they fervently taught people about Joseph Smith without knowing any of these negative facts. Were they taken advantage of? Was the Church trying to fool them for its own purposes?
These are deeply disturbing questions. They shake up everything. Should I stay in the Church? Should I tell my family? Should I just shut up and try to get along? Who can help me?

At this point, these questioners go off in various directions. Some give up on the Church entirely. They find another religion or, more likely these days, abandon religion altogether. Without their familiar Mormon God, they are not sure there is any God at all. They become atheist or agnostic.

Good points Russell I’m getting the impression that more and more so to speak true believing Mormons are addressing these issues more frequently this last year or so.

1) raise an eyebrow at “too muck knowledge” I’m 100% behind you again on this one!!

2) assume that knowledgeable people who are still active must be indulging in cognitive dissonance do get on my nerves.
I’m afraid I might get on your nerves!! I know a lot of people who are extremely more knowledgeable than I am on the tough issues and I wonder what they think or how they do it and still come out with their faith intact. My guess is maybe they studied 30% harder and have come out the other side- but many don’t!!

That makes a lot more sense. Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, very bright individuals can endure a great deal of pain over these questions, but I do tire of those who suggest that anyone who is capable of addressing these questions must be lukewarm in the faith (these things I have heard in my conversations more than I have on mormonmatters). Individuals who *do* struggle but still fight the fight…well, I support them tremendously. But individuals who either 1) raise an eyebrow at “too muck knowledge” or 2) assume that knowledgeable people who are still active must be indulging in cognitive dissonance do get on my nerves. #25 was intended to address such attempts to delegitimize conservative thought/scholarship.

For instance, James notes that Roberts says this: “View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon claim that the Hebrews “occupied the whole extent of the American continents” and that this idea was “very generally obtained throughout New England.”

The first serious attempt to gather all the geographic statements in the Book of Mormon, and to create a comprehensive internal map based on them was done by the Washburns, and was first published in 1938, which was years after Roberts died. An implication is that the way that the early Mormons read the text was condictioned as much or more by ideas that were generally obtained in New England than by actually reading the text itself. So the history of LDS Book of Mormon interpretation explains the early misinterpretation, just as comprehensive reading of the text provides a viable alternative reading.

Sorenson points out that the longest journey in the Book of Mormon, from Nephi to Zarahemla takes a mixed group of familes and flocks takes 21-22 days, and that most of the Book happens in that relatively small area. More recently Larry Poulson took all of the textual reference to the Sidon in the book, to come up with a comprehensive description of the Sidon. Then he fed that description into a program that could search a Satellite based 3D map of the entire western hemisphere. He found that only one river in fit the as the Sidon, and that is the Grijalva.

Brant Gardner has recently shown what happens when, instead of looking for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, we start looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. He found that changes everything. That is the kind of approach being taken by the last two generations of LDS Mesoamericanists, from Sorenson and Clark, to Gardner, Wirth, Christenson, and Wright.

Palmer, I noticed, thinks that to be an insider, all he needed to do was to offer a few choice quotes from Roberts. No mention whatsoever of Welch’s or any other response. I found that Palmer’s neglect of important sources and scholarship was typical of his approach. Every page annoys me.

As an example contrast, Welch, as part of his detailed, point for point response to Roberts questions, looked closely at the important differences between Sherem (a religious conservative, spouting doctrines that turn out to correspond to the efforts of contemporary Deuteronomist reformers), Nehor and Korihor (an atheist). Roberts blurrs them together. Welch looks closely at the legal contexts that bring out the differences. The detailed reading exposes meaningful nuances that Roberts failed to see.

Even in my own reading, I find the shallow picture of civilized Nephites versus un-civilized Lamanites breaks down when I read. When Alma brings in the only insider look at Lamanites we immediately find ourselves in a civilized culture.

Regarding the two books describing the destruction of Jerusalem: ’View of the Hebrews’’ describes the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. … The Book of Mormon, Lehi prophesies of the destruction of Jerusalem prior to his departure circa 600 B.C.E.”

These are two different destructions. The difference makes a huge difference. Indeed, Views proposes a different set of Hebrews (the lost 10 tribes) from a different era, coming in a different direction, and preserving, it turns out, an entirely different Judaism. Welch points out that none of the “proofs” of Hebrew origin from Views appear in the Book of Mormon. Alexander Campbell, immediately ridiculed the Book of Mormon picture as far too Christian before Christ. Yet, if you peruse the essays at http://www.margaretbarker.com on Barker’s reconstruction of Temple Theology, you should soon see very easily why even she is impressed with the fit between her reconstruction of religious practice in Jerusalem 600 BCE and the Book of Mormon.

I personally think Roberts would have joyfully feasted on Nibley’s Lehi and the Desert and Gardner’s recent Second Witness commentary, and everything in between.

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park PA

Do you really mean that? Some would challenge you as being intellectually inferior because you choose to follow the Church inspite of its history. I know that isn’t true, but when you bring the discussion to the level you did, that is reality. What about those that have applied “interpretative rigor” and still come to the conclusion that the Church’s history makes its claims too tough to swallow? Saying that they just don’t “get it” seems to take the discussion from a intellectual conversation to an ad hominim.

I suppose have no sympathy for those who have gone through the gauntlet of Mormon history and then choose to leave.

Russell did you word 25 the way you intended? Some members are deeply depressed over these issues it breaks up marriages and families people loose jobs over it some take anti depressants and much worse!! Are you saying they are some how intellectually inferior because they don’t get it!!!

For example, the year difference in the Joseph Smith accounts. I’ve seen scans of the page at issue, and it is obvious that the accounts are the same and the only way you get the year to change is by willfully misreading a pen stroke from the line above.

In that case, people are mislead by false data, willfully repeated. What inoculation is appropriate for that example?

The list goes on. The Black Swan post, later at Mormon Matters, is a nice introduction for teaching people how to approach things.

(The rest of the differences in the Joseph Smith accounts are less than the differences in the gospels in the Bible, and routinely end up being discussed in harmonies in our local Sunday School class or at seminars taught by our instructor for education week. The classes usually find them inspiring).

I strongly believe that the only stability in this whole situation is the core message of the gospel as explicitly defined in the scriptures. Sadly, I also believe that the scriptures predict the apostasy of the LDS church because the leadership has supplanted the gospel with the works of men as the measure of the condition of the church.

That said, “inspired help” is such a woefully vague use of words that I would quite easily see how the “devil’s advocate” approach fits as being inspired, as “studying it out in your mind.”

Again, there’s no compelling reason to believe that B.H. Roberts saw these questions as deal-breakers and there’s all kinds of evidence to suggest his strong testimony of the BOM throughout his life.

Hope that helps.

Surely one person’s perspective has value. Given billions of people, each with valid perceptions, how do we choose what to look at, and who to take in isolation rather than in historical context and with reference to what has come after?

I don’t see anything in B. H. Roberts that calls for taking him in isolation, without attention to later developments. Kimura is the only person I have heard it said, none before him, none after him.

Everyone else, take them in context. Would you read the Gospel of Matthew and not take it in context with Acts? Of course not.

Most if the information from critics is found in small section of books on Mormonism. I tried to search the web to find snippets but the only snippets I could find are on apologist websites so they may be bias.

Some books are -

Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism by Richard Abanes
An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins by the infamous Grant Palmer
The Changing World of Mormonism by the Tanners

I wouldn’t suggest buying these books just to study the BH Roberts criticism because there is not a lot of information in the material specifically on that. I would just glean what you can from the apologists.

NOTE: I say infamous Grant Palmer tongue in cheek, not being critical. I guess it would have been a lot easier just to delete “infamous” as opposed to writing this explanation. But now it would be more work to delete it all so nevermind.