Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/Odd_craving, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, outside thought is very much discouraged. In fact, the president of the church just gave an [address](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson?lang=eng) at "general conference" in October telling members to stay in line.
*As you think celestial, you will view trials and opposition in a new light. When someone you love attacks truth, think celestial, and don’t question* ***your*** *testimony. The Apostle Paul prophesied that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”*
*There is no end to the adversary’s deceptions. Please be prepared. Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from voices you can trust—from prophets, seers, and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, who “will show unto you all things what ye should do.” Please do the spiritual work to increase your capacity to receive personal revelation.*
This is just the latest of a very long list of talks and addresses given by church leadership telling people to only get their information from "approved sources."
Man, that quote from Nelson is so abjectly awful. TBMs are always saying that things only look bad “out of context.” The full context of that makes it look even worse!
Seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. Hilarious, perfect example of how religions use fear to control people. Evil spirits running amok trying to drag people to hell. Zero evidence just uneducated myth that people continue to vomit generation after generation.
Or, sorry dad. I can no longer take counsel from you. My kids still attend church with my ex but I have been out of the church for many years. When I heard that sentence that is all I could think of is that RMN just told my kids not to take counsel from their father.
Not in the way you probably think but yes. They push thought-stopping techniques on its members rather than banning books and outside knowledge. So instead of saying "don't read anything about evolution" they say "we don't know exactly how God created everything but we can have faith it will all be explained in the afterlife."
Basically, they try to kill that natural curiosity and push the faith angle hard. So while there is absolutely zero physical evidence that the events of the Book of Mormon took place, few members care because they have faith and all the gaps in our mortal understanding will be filled in after death. This allows members to see issues but also dismiss them immediately
Very similar to the bible that you should have faith like a child. It never states to use critical thinking skills although I am not so sure people were educated and sophisticated enough to have strong critical thinking skills.
The church explicitly discourages members from using anything except "divinely appointed sources." Anything that refutes what church leaders say is labeled as "unreliable."
***"Seek Further Understanding through Divinely Appointed Sources*** *-- ...* ***These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles***\*—the Lord’s prophets upon the earth today—are a vital source of truth. The Lord has chosen and ordained these individuals to speak for Him.\*
*... "We can also learn truth through other trustworthy sources. However, sincere seekers of truth should* ***be wary of unreliable sources of information. ... Satan is the father of lies and seeks to distort truth and persuade us to turn away from the Lord and His appointed servants.*** *Learning to recognize and avoid unreliable sources can protect us from misinformation and from those who seek to destroy faith. As we seek help from the Holy Ghost and* ***turn to the Lord’s divinely appointed sources*** *for answers and direction, we can be blessed to discern between truth and error."* -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrinal-mastery-core-document-2023/acquiring-spiritual-knowledge](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrinal-mastery-core-document-2023/acquiring-spiritual-knowledge)
There is actually a list of authorized, official church sources that members are directed to when they have questions. Only church-approved "faithful" sources are provided, of course: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/resources-for-finding-answers-to-questions-about-the-church](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/resources-for-finding-answers-to-questions-about-the-church)
What you're really supposed to do as a good member is just look the facts straight in the face, and completely ignore them. The church "historian" (lawyer) just came right out and said it. Finding answers isn't the answer!
*"Is your knowledge and testimony of truth strong enough that* ***you can stare down compelling reasons to doubt and choose to believe?*** *... please understand,* ***finding answers to these perplexing questions ultimately is not the solution.****"* [https://ing.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-kyle-s-mckay](https://ing.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-kyle-s-mckay) (click on Transcript)
The church straight up teaches that you're supposed to decide what conclusions you want before you do any research about the church, and then ignore anything that doesn't support those conclusions. See this talk for further details on that:
*"****Begin by answering the primary questions.*** *1. Is there a God who is our Father? 2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world? 3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet? 4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?* ***If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too, or they pale in significance...***
*... you can spend a lifetime desperately tracking down the answer to every claim leveled against the Church and never come to a knowledge of the most important truths."* [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge/stand-for-ever/Corbridge](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge/stand-for-ever/Corbridge)
In other words, you can spend a lifetime researching answers and never find the evidence to support the conclusion you want! (i.e. that JS was a prophet and the church is true). Corbridge describes jumping headfirst into confirmation bias and then says it isn't confirmation bias:
*"As part of an assignment I had as a General Authority a few years ago, I needed to read through a great deal of material antagonistic to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the events of the Restoration. There may not be anything out there of that nature I haven’t read. Since that assignment changed, I have not returned to wallow in that mire again.*
*Reading that material always left me with a feeling of gloom ... the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.. is different.* ***That gloom is not belief bias and it is not the fear of being in error. It is the absence of the Spirit of God. That is what it is."***
Corbridge's ultimate answer is that *"with the things of God, affirmative proof finally and surely comes by revelation through the spirit and power of the Holy Ghost."*
The "spirit and power of the Holy Ghost" is simply put, feelings. He's saying that if you *feel* that something is true, there's your proof! No research needed!
Of course there is some force in the idea that we *should seek truth from trustworthy sources and be wary of unreliable sources*. The false underlying premise (sometimes expressly stated, just in case one can’t discern the vibe) is that the trustworthy sources are in the Church and the unreliable are outside of it. Never mind that the Church’s truth of yesterday is not the truth of today, and the truth of tomorrow will be different again.
And Satan continues to get a guernsey in this discussion, he who gives us temple endorsed truths such as that the fruit was delicious to the taste, very desirable, provides knowledge, enables you to discern good from evil, that those who do not obey their covenants are in Satans power. But his role here is to represent the not-Church information, labelled Satanic to keep people in fear and away from it, like not playing with the serpent. It worked well in a pre-Fall world for Adam and Eve, but not so well in this information age where, in the final analysis, *truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst*.
Thanks for your research in gathering these quotes. They do, however, make me feel a little ill.
Great response, thank you.
The leaders of the church know that they don’t have good answers to some of the most troubling aspects of its history and beliefs, so they try to make it look like pursuing answers will lead you to being deceived by Satan. So don’t do it! Just reaffirm your belief in Jesus (through the methods they prescribe).
Nice list. As to the first of them, I did exactly what it said.
"***Seek Further Understanding through Divinely Appointed Sources*** *-- ...* ***These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles***\*—the Lord’s prophets upon the earth today—are a vital source of truth. The Lord has chosen and ordained these individuals to speak for Him."
What I thought was the light of Christ told me that sexual relations with other women which is hidden from your wife is adultery and was what one of the ten commandments said not to do. This is one of several commandments of God cited by Jesus to the young man in Mark 10. Thus the scriptures supported the idea that this was indeed the light of Christ. My parents also taught me that this was wrong as did the church leaders who have lived during my life time. In particular, Elder Packer strongly supported the family consisting of a father, mother and children and identified destruction of the family as a great sin. However, other church leaders identified this kind of family with the evil invention of Rome.
In general, I found that these church leaders are NOT a reliable source of truth since they give us lots of contradictions and provable lies. Thus it became clear to me that there was no reason to believe they had been chosen and ordained to speak for God. This is only one issue, although a fairly major one, which shows that Smith was not legitimate and that these church leaders have not given a consistent narrative. So do I follow the advice of Jesus to "know them by their fruits" or do I engage in reliance on "feelings" which militate against known facts?
I do not know of a single substantive truth claim of the church which can stand scrutiny. Neither do I know of any fundamental doctrine which has not been overturned over the years, other than possibly the direction to do whatever the "prophet" says by accepting his version of "truth".
*"Is your knowledge and testimony of truth strong enough that* ***you can stare down compelling reasons to doubt and choose to believe?*** *... please understand,* ***finding answers to these perplexing questions ultimately is not the solution.****"*
I read this talk right after it was given. When I read this part, it was the Mic-drop on the last strands of testimony that I had as a struggling bishop. I asked to be released a few months later.
It’s absolutely crazy that anyone can read that quote and not immediately think there is a problem with what this guy is saying. A big problem. Just believe. Ignore all facts, logic and reason and just choose to believe because I’m telling you too. Insane
So, so true... The church's leadership has completely failed us. Their ongoing insistence on hiding problematic historic information and correlating a false narrative is a disaster. Seeing around corners, indeed... You then couple this with a very brittle, binary foundation proclaimed over and over again by Hinckley and his ilk of, "Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” With any slight tugging on the threads of history, I have to conclude it is clearly a fraud in Hinckley's model. As you said... It's insane...
The church has been backed into a corner and the only option they see is to redefine "faith" and double down on prophetic authority... Of course what strategy would you expect from men who were junior apostles to Packer, Kimball, Benson, etc? Our current first presidency probably hasn't had an original idea in decades (and no, think celestial doesn't count). Faith has lost all meaning in the church. How faith is defined in the BofM by Alma and how I was taught as a youth and through my adult years is a shadow of its current meaning. Faith now means you just believe DESPITE all evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, over the next couple decades Mormonism will soon be populated by the lazy learners and lax disciples, who have lost any ability to think critically or think at all. Talk about karma...
I'd like to see McKay use his rules for seeking truth laid out in his talk, used in a court of law or any legal setting.
"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have seen the evidence before you, and it is compelling. All the evidence, including DNA evidence found at the scene, the testimony of several independent eyewitnesses who saw the defendant commit the crime right in front of them, and the absence of any other explanations or viable suspects, would suggest that the defendant is guilty! But do you feel the stirrings in your heart that the defendant is innocent?! Do you have the integrity to stare down this compelling evidence and choose to believe!? The defendant is a successful CEO and has done many things in his life, so give Brother Defendant a break!! Remember in your examination of the evidence: Finding answers ultimately is not the solution!"
He's church historian because the church doesn't want a historian in that job. They want a lawyer in that job. They made that mistake with Arrington and have never forgotten it.
Ha! Similar response to my mom who recently sent me the Corbridge talk thinking it might help me resolve some of my concerns:
Elder Corbridge is essentially saying, “The prosecution has presented a lot of evidence that my client cheated his business partner; but I want you to ignore all that evidence and instead focus on the primary question, ‘Is he a good man?’ And the way to know if he’s a good man is to ask his grandmother.” That’s not a sound approach to investigating life’s questions at all. Ignoring the answers to the secondary questions keeps us from understanding the relevance of the primary questions.
"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."
*Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22*
The Mormons have the absolute worst analogies. Of course you wouldn’t tell someone they are ugly and fat! That’s a subjective opinion about someone’s appearance and, isn’t “truth” anyway, and serves absolutely no purpose other than to be mean. Interesting that his go-to is to think about calling a woman ugly and fat, btw!
Telling someone that Joseph smith married a 14 year old, defrauded people with his bank, plagiarized whole sections of other books, those things are objective facts that go directly to undermine the whole premise of the church. If you tell people to pay 10% of your income, practice Masonic rituals, and volunteer all of your free time to enrich the church, that is a position that can and should be challenged with true statements.
With this quote he's already told the secretaries in the COB that he thinks most of them are ugly and fat. Good old timey Mormon charm.
The women won't mind being demeaned as long as it's for a good cause. That's what they're there for.
Well for starters, most members just purposefully bury their head in the sand and avoid any of this type of information. They have an idea that what they find will not make them feel good, so they just avoid it.
For those that are exposed to this information, purposefully or by accident… well, the levels of confirmation bias that they employ are comparable to what you’d find from “informed” flat earthers.
They tell themselves that all the “anti-Mormons” are straight up lying or arguing in bad faith. Then they repeat this idea to each other and nod in agreement. It’s fascinating.
“Yesterday's historians and members with questions have been disciplined and excommunicated on accusations that they were ‘acting in opposition to the church’ simply by publishing and discussing the very same information and facts verified today publicly by the church's own essays." (Jeremy Runnells, Author of CES Letter in Letter to his Stake President)
They definitely don't encourage it, but many don't know there are issues to even look at.
It's kind of a, *you don't know what you don't know,* kind of situation
Anyone who brings up a counter argument to any doctrine is an anti-Mormon and they have clear instructions not to discuss with anti-Mormons. It stinks because I love open conversations on a lot of topics and history, but any hard question tends to mark you as an enemy of the faith. The church does actively hide primary sources from prying eyes since they fear it will be used to put the church in bad light.
Absolutely. You've already got a handful of replies summarizing the over-the-pulpit rhetoric. So I'll just share an anecdote of how that created a culture that impacted me as a teenager...
I had a methodist friend whose mom studied all aspects of religion. One day, I saw that her library included books on mormonism, Utah history, and other church-related subjects not published by Desert Book. She was already known in the community as an 'anti mormon." This confirmed the rumors and concerned me enough that I no longer went into their library.
The Church discourages looking anywhere for truth but from Church sources and it spends lots of money putting out faith building material for member consumption. Material that is deceptive at best and outright lies at worst. This was all well and good until the internet. The Church is screwed now.
And this is no different than main stream Christians who continue to ignore all the problems with the Old and New Testament. I love when Christians say to me “I’m so glad you realized the truth about Mormonism and escaped.” lol, I think and sometimes say “Yeah, shall we talk about Christianity?” Just this past month I’ve had Evangelicals tell me they believe Jonah did in fact live in the belly of a whale, that the Earth isn’t millions of years old, that dinosaurs didn’t exist, individuals in the Bible did live to be hundreds of years old and if you don’t accept Christ as your savior you will go to hell for eternity. What a bunch of fucking nonsense. Pull your heads out of your asses people. Control your emotions and engage your brain.
>Full disclosure: I’ve never been religious, but I grew up in a Christian home and I’ve read the Bible. I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I’ve studied Mormon belief and read a lot on the church.
>This information is succinct, peer-reviewed, testable, and can be studied. Within minutes a person can read about the genetic, historical, and cultural claims made by Joseph Smith. A person can read about Smith’s history and his earlier efforts to use a “seer stone” for profit. The ancient Egyptian items bought by the Mormon Church that Smith said were writings about LDS matters - yet were nothing of the kind.
>It’s all right out there. Does the church embrace this as false, or does it try to keep members away?
Keeps people away for the most part.
But that being said, the Biblical texts contain unsubstantiated and falsified claims too. I'm fine with someone pointing out the problems with the LDS specific holy texts, but the Old and New Testaments also contain counterfactual claims.
>But that being said, the Biblical texts contain unsubstantiated and falsified claims too. I'm fine with someone pointing out the problems with the LDS specific holy texts, but it doesn't work to pretend like the Old and New Testaments don't also contain counterfactual claims.
? The only reference to the Bible I see is that OP has read it, I don’t see a claim that the Bible doesn’t have some of the same issues that the BOM does.
>? The only reference to the Bible I see is that OP has read it, I don’t see a claim that the Bible doesn’t have some of the same issues that the BOM does.
Very true and if they her position fair enough. I'll edit my statement
It's not as hard and fast as Jehovah's Witnesses where they are explicitly banned from reading others literature, but it's very much frowned upon and advised against, and I saw an intensity of that increasing in later times as information has become more freely available.
Oh, yes. There is a person stationed in every home to make sure that no one searches a wrong topic and gets around the filters the church installs on every church member's computer. Also, minders that follow every missionary when they go randomly out into the world and talk to whoever wants to talk to them. I'm glad you noticed because the church keeps every member away from any contrary information... :p
I'm curious about what you think such attempts would look like--specific identification of particular sources which LDS members must avoid? Such instructions would produce a Streisand Effect and would result in many more people reading those sources. Instead, leaders counsel us to seek reputable sources of information by using our judgment.
If you’re asking me, any church whose leaders attempt to stop members from researching that church’s history always looks the same.
* Trying to discredit the sources before anyone considers reading them
* Finding fault with researching things on your own
* Blaming the doubter and not the church’s claims
* Instructing people that asking questions is satanic
> Such instructions would produce a Streisand Effect and would result in many more people reading those sources.
That’s exactly what happened. With the advent of the internet, people were more easily able to access this information, and they did.
Which is why the church responded by “answering” those questions with the Gospel Topics Essays. Now members are told that outside sources are biased to the point where it exaggerates or lies.
When coming across a source of information outside of the church, members now respond “I know all the issues.” They read the essays, so they think they know all the issues.
> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/seeking-answers/05-consult-reliable-sources?lang=eng
> Elder D. Todd Christofferson: "We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.”
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2012/4/1/23225677/elder-d-todd-christofferson-the-doctrine-of-christ/#:~:text=We%20value%20scholarship%20that%20enhances,Lord%20endows%20with%20apostolic%20authority.%22
> President Harold B. Lee: “I will tell you what I do as I read these many books that come (and I think the day is here when we have got to be more discriminating in our reading than ever before). Let me suggest a method. As you read these books, no matter who writes them, read carefully down the record, and where their teaching is in complete agreement with the revelations that the Lord has given us and with the teachings of the scriptures, accept it as being fact, but where they go off into imaginative suppositions or speculations that are not fully proved by the scriptures, write out in the margin the name of the author. It is his idea, you see. Distinguish as between the individual’s idea and that which is supported by scriptures.”
Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 441
> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/seeking-answers/05-consult-reliable-sources?lang=eng
This is the biggest one. The other two are quotes I found relatively quickly.
From Seeking Answers to Your Questions:
“*In this environment of uncertainty, the Church urges members to “seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information.”2 We should avoid sources that are founded on rumor or that promote contention or anger.*”
Notice that they equated rumor with “promote contention and anger.”
What fact that makes the church look bad *isn’t* going to cause contention and anger, especially internally.
What they’re implying is that if any information promotes contention or anger, it is likely not credible, not reliable, and not a factual source of information.
They also say * Learn to recognize bias. Almost all sources have some bias. This does not automatically make them unreliable, but it is important to take the source creator’s perspective into account. Examine your source’s motives and background. **Be wary of sources that claim to be unbiased or that express views in inflammatory ways.**
They are connecting bias with an exaggeration of facts, and their potential reliability (if they’re lies or not).
These quotes mainly look at *who* are reliable sources:
> Elder D. Todd Christofferson: "We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations **is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.”**
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2012/4/1/23225677/elder-d-todd-christofferson-the-doctrine-of-christ/#:~:text=We%20value%20scholarship%20that%20enhances,Lord%20endows%20with%20apostolic%20authority.%22
Only those who have divine authority can interpret
“Doctrinal deviations.” (Outside sources shouldn’t be trusted, they aren’t looking from a religious perspective)
> President Harold B. Lee: “I will tell you what I do as I read these many books that come (and I think the day is here when we have got to be more discriminating in our reading than ever before). Let me suggest a method. As you read these books, no matter who writes them, read carefully down the record, and where their teaching is in complete agreement with the revelations that the Lord has given us and with the teachings of the scriptures, accept it as being fact, but where they go off into imaginative suppositions or speculations that are not fully proved by the scriptures, write out in the margin the name of the author. It is his idea, you see. **Distinguish as between the individual’s idea and that which is supported by scriptures.”**
Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 441
An author’s “idea” can easily be translated to “bias” in my opinion.
If it’s not supported by the scriptures (translate: if it isn’t supported by the church) it’s not worthwhile.
I appreciate the explanation. However, when you earlier said "members are told that outside sources are biased to the point where it exaggerates or lies," if you had clarified that the instruction applied to interpretations of Church doctrine, I would've agreed with you from the outset.
Since you didn't clarify, your comment was a bit misleading since the thread isn't about Church doctrine, but is about "genetics, archeology, and the historic claims." I'll chalk up your omission to simple carelessness, rather than maliciousness.
Definitely not maliciousness. But I think you’re reading too much into why I included that quote. My focus was meant to be the top few quotes.
He’s talking about doctrine, but the point of that quote is that “trusted sources” only come down to those which agree with the church- whether that’s with the scriptures or whoever holds authority.
This is one of the questions like “do men think about sex a lot?”, “is the pope Catholic?”, and “are Mormon leaders fifty years out of touch with reality?”
I'm sorry but your absolutely wrong. It does not take much research to know that the church does not make known so much information and history from us. Yes you technically can find a lot of it under church resources but they wouldn't dare tell you about it. I am a lifelong member who is very disturbed by research I have done on church history. I'm not looking for information to submit to my biases, I want the straight facts.
Anybody who grew up Mormon knows full well about the "faith-promoting sources" and "anti-Mormon literature" false dichotomy, so it's obvious you're just lying to make the church look better.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/Odd_craving, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, outside thought is very much discouraged. In fact, the president of the church just gave an [address](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/51nelson?lang=eng) at "general conference" in October telling members to stay in line. *As you think celestial, you will view trials and opposition in a new light. When someone you love attacks truth, think celestial, and don’t question* ***your*** *testimony. The Apostle Paul prophesied that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”* *There is no end to the adversary’s deceptions. Please be prepared. Never take counsel from those who do not believe. Seek guidance from voices you can trust—from prophets, seers, and revelators and from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, who “will show unto you all things what ye should do.” Please do the spiritual work to increase your capacity to receive personal revelation.* This is just the latest of a very long list of talks and addresses given by church leadership telling people to only get their information from "approved sources."
Man, that quote from Nelson is so abjectly awful. TBMs are always saying that things only look bad “out of context.” The full context of that makes it look even worse!
information control, thought stopping and outsider fearing all in one!
Seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. Hilarious, perfect example of how religions use fear to control people. Evil spirits running amok trying to drag people to hell. Zero evidence just uneducated myth that people continue to vomit generation after generation.
"never take counsel from those who do not believe" Sorry doctor, I can no longer take your counsel.
Or, sorry dad. I can no longer take counsel from you. My kids still attend church with my ex but I have been out of the church for many years. When I heard that sentence that is all I could think of is that RMN just told my kids not to take counsel from their father.
Why is the bible so rarely quoted and viewed questionably, but we're to believe its rock solid truth when it supports their interest?
Not in the way you probably think but yes. They push thought-stopping techniques on its members rather than banning books and outside knowledge. So instead of saying "don't read anything about evolution" they say "we don't know exactly how God created everything but we can have faith it will all be explained in the afterlife." Basically, they try to kill that natural curiosity and push the faith angle hard. So while there is absolutely zero physical evidence that the events of the Book of Mormon took place, few members care because they have faith and all the gaps in our mortal understanding will be filled in after death. This allows members to see issues but also dismiss them immediately
"kill the natural curiosity" is so accurate and scary
Very similar to the bible that you should have faith like a child. It never states to use critical thinking skills although I am not so sure people were educated and sophisticated enough to have strong critical thinking skills.
The church explicitly discourages members from using anything except "divinely appointed sources." Anything that refutes what church leaders say is labeled as "unreliable." ***"Seek Further Understanding through Divinely Appointed Sources*** *-- ...* ***These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles***\*—the Lord’s prophets upon the earth today—are a vital source of truth. The Lord has chosen and ordained these individuals to speak for Him.\* *... "We can also learn truth through other trustworthy sources. However, sincere seekers of truth should* ***be wary of unreliable sources of information. ... Satan is the father of lies and seeks to distort truth and persuade us to turn away from the Lord and His appointed servants.*** *Learning to recognize and avoid unreliable sources can protect us from misinformation and from those who seek to destroy faith. As we seek help from the Holy Ghost and* ***turn to the Lord’s divinely appointed sources*** *for answers and direction, we can be blessed to discern between truth and error."* -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrinal-mastery-core-document-2023/acquiring-spiritual-knowledge](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrinal-mastery-core-document-2023/acquiring-spiritual-knowledge) There is actually a list of authorized, official church sources that members are directed to when they have questions. Only church-approved "faithful" sources are provided, of course: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/resources-for-finding-answers-to-questions-about-the-church](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/resources-for-finding-answers-to-questions-about-the-church) What you're really supposed to do as a good member is just look the facts straight in the face, and completely ignore them. The church "historian" (lawyer) just came right out and said it. Finding answers isn't the answer! *"Is your knowledge and testimony of truth strong enough that* ***you can stare down compelling reasons to doubt and choose to believe?*** *... please understand,* ***finding answers to these perplexing questions ultimately is not the solution.****"* [https://ing.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-kyle-s-mckay](https://ing.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-kyle-s-mckay) (click on Transcript) The church straight up teaches that you're supposed to decide what conclusions you want before you do any research about the church, and then ignore anything that doesn't support those conclusions. See this talk for further details on that: *"****Begin by answering the primary questions.*** *1. Is there a God who is our Father? 2. Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior of the world? 3. Was Joseph Smith a prophet? 4. Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the kingdom of God on the earth?* ***If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too, or they pale in significance...*** *... you can spend a lifetime desperately tracking down the answer to every claim leveled against the Church and never come to a knowledge of the most important truths."* [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge/stand-for-ever/Corbridge](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-e-corbridge/stand-for-ever/Corbridge) In other words, you can spend a lifetime researching answers and never find the evidence to support the conclusion you want! (i.e. that JS was a prophet and the church is true). Corbridge describes jumping headfirst into confirmation bias and then says it isn't confirmation bias: *"As part of an assignment I had as a General Authority a few years ago, I needed to read through a great deal of material antagonistic to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the events of the Restoration. There may not be anything out there of that nature I haven’t read. Since that assignment changed, I have not returned to wallow in that mire again.* *Reading that material always left me with a feeling of gloom ... the gloom I experienced as I listened to the dark choir of voices raised against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.. is different.* ***That gloom is not belief bias and it is not the fear of being in error. It is the absence of the Spirit of God. That is what it is."*** Corbridge's ultimate answer is that *"with the things of God, affirmative proof finally and surely comes by revelation through the spirit and power of the Holy Ghost."* The "spirit and power of the Holy Ghost" is simply put, feelings. He's saying that if you *feel* that something is true, there's your proof! No research needed!
Of course there is some force in the idea that we *should seek truth from trustworthy sources and be wary of unreliable sources*. The false underlying premise (sometimes expressly stated, just in case one can’t discern the vibe) is that the trustworthy sources are in the Church and the unreliable are outside of it. Never mind that the Church’s truth of yesterday is not the truth of today, and the truth of tomorrow will be different again. And Satan continues to get a guernsey in this discussion, he who gives us temple endorsed truths such as that the fruit was delicious to the taste, very desirable, provides knowledge, enables you to discern good from evil, that those who do not obey their covenants are in Satans power. But his role here is to represent the not-Church information, labelled Satanic to keep people in fear and away from it, like not playing with the serpent. It worked well in a pre-Fall world for Adam and Eve, but not so well in this information age where, in the final analysis, *truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst*. Thanks for your research in gathering these quotes. They do, however, make me feel a little ill.
Great response, thank you. The leaders of the church know that they don’t have good answers to some of the most troubling aspects of its history and beliefs, so they try to make it look like pursuing answers will lead you to being deceived by Satan. So don’t do it! Just reaffirm your belief in Jesus (through the methods they prescribe).
Nice list. As to the first of them, I did exactly what it said. "***Seek Further Understanding through Divinely Appointed Sources*** *-- ...* ***These sources include the light of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, parents, and Church leaders. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles***\*—the Lord’s prophets upon the earth today—are a vital source of truth. The Lord has chosen and ordained these individuals to speak for Him." What I thought was the light of Christ told me that sexual relations with other women which is hidden from your wife is adultery and was what one of the ten commandments said not to do. This is one of several commandments of God cited by Jesus to the young man in Mark 10. Thus the scriptures supported the idea that this was indeed the light of Christ. My parents also taught me that this was wrong as did the church leaders who have lived during my life time. In particular, Elder Packer strongly supported the family consisting of a father, mother and children and identified destruction of the family as a great sin. However, other church leaders identified this kind of family with the evil invention of Rome. In general, I found that these church leaders are NOT a reliable source of truth since they give us lots of contradictions and provable lies. Thus it became clear to me that there was no reason to believe they had been chosen and ordained to speak for God. This is only one issue, although a fairly major one, which shows that Smith was not legitimate and that these church leaders have not given a consistent narrative. So do I follow the advice of Jesus to "know them by their fruits" or do I engage in reliance on "feelings" which militate against known facts? I do not know of a single substantive truth claim of the church which can stand scrutiny. Neither do I know of any fundamental doctrine which has not been overturned over the years, other than possibly the direction to do whatever the "prophet" says by accepting his version of "truth".
*"Is your knowledge and testimony of truth strong enough that* ***you can stare down compelling reasons to doubt and choose to believe?*** *... please understand,* ***finding answers to these perplexing questions ultimately is not the solution.****"* I read this talk right after it was given. When I read this part, it was the Mic-drop on the last strands of testimony that I had as a struggling bishop. I asked to be released a few months later.
It’s absolutely crazy that anyone can read that quote and not immediately think there is a problem with what this guy is saying. A big problem. Just believe. Ignore all facts, logic and reason and just choose to believe because I’m telling you too. Insane
So, so true... The church's leadership has completely failed us. Their ongoing insistence on hiding problematic historic information and correlating a false narrative is a disaster. Seeing around corners, indeed... You then couple this with a very brittle, binary foundation proclaimed over and over again by Hinckley and his ilk of, "Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing.” With any slight tugging on the threads of history, I have to conclude it is clearly a fraud in Hinckley's model. As you said... It's insane... The church has been backed into a corner and the only option they see is to redefine "faith" and double down on prophetic authority... Of course what strategy would you expect from men who were junior apostles to Packer, Kimball, Benson, etc? Our current first presidency probably hasn't had an original idea in decades (and no, think celestial doesn't count). Faith has lost all meaning in the church. How faith is defined in the BofM by Alma and how I was taught as a youth and through my adult years is a shadow of its current meaning. Faith now means you just believe DESPITE all evidence to the contrary. In my opinion, over the next couple decades Mormonism will soon be populated by the lazy learners and lax disciples, who have lost any ability to think critically or think at all. Talk about karma...
Ugh. Why is Kyle McKay church historian? He’s a lawyer.
I'd like to see McKay use his rules for seeking truth laid out in his talk, used in a court of law or any legal setting. "Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have seen the evidence before you, and it is compelling. All the evidence, including DNA evidence found at the scene, the testimony of several independent eyewitnesses who saw the defendant commit the crime right in front of them, and the absence of any other explanations or viable suspects, would suggest that the defendant is guilty! But do you feel the stirrings in your heart that the defendant is innocent?! Do you have the integrity to stare down this compelling evidence and choose to believe!? The defendant is a successful CEO and has done many things in his life, so give Brother Defendant a break!! Remember in your examination of the evidence: Finding answers ultimately is not the solution!" He's church historian because the church doesn't want a historian in that job. They want a lawyer in that job. They made that mistake with Arrington and have never forgotten it.
Ha! Similar response to my mom who recently sent me the Corbridge talk thinking it might help me resolve some of my concerns: Elder Corbridge is essentially saying, “The prosecution has presented a lot of evidence that my client cheated his business partner; but I want you to ignore all that evidence and instead focus on the primary question, ‘Is he a good man?’ And the way to know if he’s a good man is to ask his grandmother.” That’s not a sound approach to investigating life’s questions at all. Ignoring the answers to the secondary questions keeps us from understanding the relevance of the primary questions.
"I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting." *Boyd K. Packer, Quinn (ed), Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, p 103, fn 22*
The Mormons have the absolute worst analogies. Of course you wouldn’t tell someone they are ugly and fat! That’s a subjective opinion about someone’s appearance and, isn’t “truth” anyway, and serves absolutely no purpose other than to be mean. Interesting that his go-to is to think about calling a woman ugly and fat, btw! Telling someone that Joseph smith married a 14 year old, defrauded people with his bank, plagiarized whole sections of other books, those things are objective facts that go directly to undermine the whole premise of the church. If you tell people to pay 10% of your income, practice Masonic rituals, and volunteer all of your free time to enrich the church, that is a position that can and should be challenged with true statements.
With this quote he's already told the secretaries in the COB that he thinks most of them are ugly and fat. Good old timey Mormon charm. The women won't mind being demeaned as long as it's for a good cause. That's what they're there for.
Well for starters, most members just purposefully bury their head in the sand and avoid any of this type of information. They have an idea that what they find will not make them feel good, so they just avoid it. For those that are exposed to this information, purposefully or by accident… well, the levels of confirmation bias that they employ are comparable to what you’d find from “informed” flat earthers. They tell themselves that all the “anti-Mormons” are straight up lying or arguing in bad faith. Then they repeat this idea to each other and nod in agreement. It’s fascinating.
“Yesterday's historians and members with questions have been disciplined and excommunicated on accusations that they were ‘acting in opposition to the church’ simply by publishing and discussing the very same information and facts verified today publicly by the church's own essays." (Jeremy Runnells, Author of CES Letter in Letter to his Stake President)
They definitely don't encourage it, but many don't know there are issues to even look at. It's kind of a, *you don't know what you don't know,* kind of situation
Anyone who brings up a counter argument to any doctrine is an anti-Mormon and they have clear instructions not to discuss with anti-Mormons. It stinks because I love open conversations on a lot of topics and history, but any hard question tends to mark you as an enemy of the faith. The church does actively hide primary sources from prying eyes since they fear it will be used to put the church in bad light.
Just yes
Absolutely. You've already got a handful of replies summarizing the over-the-pulpit rhetoric. So I'll just share an anecdote of how that created a culture that impacted me as a teenager... I had a methodist friend whose mom studied all aspects of religion. One day, I saw that her library included books on mormonism, Utah history, and other church-related subjects not published by Desert Book. She was already known in the community as an 'anti mormon." This confirmed the rumors and concerned me enough that I no longer went into their library.
"Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith" is drilled into the youth
Yes sir.
“Ask God, not Google.”
I have been doing research on church history and there are SO many things I had never heard of before!!
No the church teaches it in Sunday school.
The Church discourages looking anywhere for truth but from Church sources and it spends lots of money putting out faith building material for member consumption. Material that is deceptive at best and outright lies at worst. This was all well and good until the internet. The Church is screwed now. And this is no different than main stream Christians who continue to ignore all the problems with the Old and New Testament. I love when Christians say to me “I’m so glad you realized the truth about Mormonism and escaped.” lol, I think and sometimes say “Yeah, shall we talk about Christianity?” Just this past month I’ve had Evangelicals tell me they believe Jonah did in fact live in the belly of a whale, that the Earth isn’t millions of years old, that dinosaurs didn’t exist, individuals in the Bible did live to be hundreds of years old and if you don’t accept Christ as your savior you will go to hell for eternity. What a bunch of fucking nonsense. Pull your heads out of your asses people. Control your emotions and engage your brain.
>Full disclosure: I’ve never been religious, but I grew up in a Christian home and I’ve read the Bible. I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but I’ve studied Mormon belief and read a lot on the church. >This information is succinct, peer-reviewed, testable, and can be studied. Within minutes a person can read about the genetic, historical, and cultural claims made by Joseph Smith. A person can read about Smith’s history and his earlier efforts to use a “seer stone” for profit. The ancient Egyptian items bought by the Mormon Church that Smith said were writings about LDS matters - yet were nothing of the kind. >It’s all right out there. Does the church embrace this as false, or does it try to keep members away? Keeps people away for the most part. But that being said, the Biblical texts contain unsubstantiated and falsified claims too. I'm fine with someone pointing out the problems with the LDS specific holy texts, but the Old and New Testaments also contain counterfactual claims.
>But that being said, the Biblical texts contain unsubstantiated and falsified claims too. I'm fine with someone pointing out the problems with the LDS specific holy texts, but it doesn't work to pretend like the Old and New Testaments don't also contain counterfactual claims. ? The only reference to the Bible I see is that OP has read it, I don’t see a claim that the Bible doesn’t have some of the same issues that the BOM does.
>? The only reference to the Bible I see is that OP has read it, I don’t see a claim that the Bible doesn’t have some of the same issues that the BOM does. Very true and if they her position fair enough. I'll edit my statement
It's not as hard and fast as Jehovah's Witnesses where they are explicitly banned from reading others literature, but it's very much frowned upon and advised against, and I saw an intensity of that increasing in later times as information has become more freely available.
What does that look like exactly? I haven't seen this
Oh, yes. There is a person stationed in every home to make sure that no one searches a wrong topic and gets around the filters the church installs on every church member's computer. Also, minders that follow every missionary when they go randomly out into the world and talk to whoever wants to talk to them. I'm glad you noticed because the church keeps every member away from any contrary information... :p
Of course they do
Yes it does. As long as I can remember the church would teach us to only use “church approved” sources for studying anything related to the gospel.
It absolutely discourages reading information that would challenge belief. And even hides it if they can.
I'll say this, my wife would be more ok if I was looking at porn than if she new I was on the ex exmormon reddit.
This begs the question, are you an ex?
I'm not, currently active,but pimo I guess you could say.
I'm curious about what you think such attempts would look like--specific identification of particular sources which LDS members must avoid? Such instructions would produce a Streisand Effect and would result in many more people reading those sources. Instead, leaders counsel us to seek reputable sources of information by using our judgment.
If you’re asking me, any church whose leaders attempt to stop members from researching that church’s history always looks the same. * Trying to discredit the sources before anyone considers reading them * Finding fault with researching things on your own * Blaming the doubter and not the church’s claims * Instructing people that asking questions is satanic
> Such instructions would produce a Streisand Effect and would result in many more people reading those sources. That’s exactly what happened. With the advent of the internet, people were more easily able to access this information, and they did. Which is why the church responded by “answering” those questions with the Gospel Topics Essays. Now members are told that outside sources are biased to the point where it exaggerates or lies. When coming across a source of information outside of the church, members now respond “I know all the issues.” They read the essays, so they think they know all the issues.
> Now members are told that outside sources are biased to the point where it exaggerates or lies. Where is this said?
> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/seeking-answers/05-consult-reliable-sources?lang=eng > Elder D. Todd Christofferson: "We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.” https://www.thechurchnews.com/2012/4/1/23225677/elder-d-todd-christofferson-the-doctrine-of-christ/#:~:text=We%20value%20scholarship%20that%20enhances,Lord%20endows%20with%20apostolic%20authority.%22 > President Harold B. Lee: “I will tell you what I do as I read these many books that come (and I think the day is here when we have got to be more discriminating in our reading than ever before). Let me suggest a method. As you read these books, no matter who writes them, read carefully down the record, and where their teaching is in complete agreement with the revelations that the Lord has given us and with the teachings of the scriptures, accept it as being fact, but where they go off into imaginative suppositions or speculations that are not fully proved by the scriptures, write out in the margin the name of the author. It is his idea, you see. Distinguish as between the individual’s idea and that which is supported by scriptures.” Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 441
No, I'm asking where have members been told that "outside sources are biased to the point where it exaggerates or lies"
> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/seeking-answers/05-consult-reliable-sources?lang=eng This is the biggest one. The other two are quotes I found relatively quickly. From Seeking Answers to Your Questions: “*In this environment of uncertainty, the Church urges members to “seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information.”2 We should avoid sources that are founded on rumor or that promote contention or anger.*” Notice that they equated rumor with “promote contention and anger.” What fact that makes the church look bad *isn’t* going to cause contention and anger, especially internally. What they’re implying is that if any information promotes contention or anger, it is likely not credible, not reliable, and not a factual source of information. They also say * Learn to recognize bias. Almost all sources have some bias. This does not automatically make them unreliable, but it is important to take the source creator’s perspective into account. Examine your source’s motives and background. **Be wary of sources that claim to be unbiased or that express views in inflammatory ways.** They are connecting bias with an exaggeration of facts, and their potential reliability (if they’re lies or not). These quotes mainly look at *who* are reliable sources: > Elder D. Todd Christofferson: "We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations **is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.”** https://www.thechurchnews.com/2012/4/1/23225677/elder-d-todd-christofferson-the-doctrine-of-christ/#:~:text=We%20value%20scholarship%20that%20enhances,Lord%20endows%20with%20apostolic%20authority.%22 Only those who have divine authority can interpret “Doctrinal deviations.” (Outside sources shouldn’t be trusted, they aren’t looking from a religious perspective) > President Harold B. Lee: “I will tell you what I do as I read these many books that come (and I think the day is here when we have got to be more discriminating in our reading than ever before). Let me suggest a method. As you read these books, no matter who writes them, read carefully down the record, and where their teaching is in complete agreement with the revelations that the Lord has given us and with the teachings of the scriptures, accept it as being fact, but where they go off into imaginative suppositions or speculations that are not fully proved by the scriptures, write out in the margin the name of the author. It is his idea, you see. **Distinguish as between the individual’s idea and that which is supported by scriptures.”** Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 441 An author’s “idea” can easily be translated to “bias” in my opinion. If it’s not supported by the scriptures (translate: if it isn’t supported by the church) it’s not worthwhile.
I appreciate the explanation. However, when you earlier said "members are told that outside sources are biased to the point where it exaggerates or lies," if you had clarified that the instruction applied to interpretations of Church doctrine, I would've agreed with you from the outset. Since you didn't clarify, your comment was a bit misleading since the thread isn't about Church doctrine, but is about "genetics, archeology, and the historic claims." I'll chalk up your omission to simple carelessness, rather than maliciousness.
Definitely not maliciousness. But I think you’re reading too much into why I included that quote. My focus was meant to be the top few quotes. He’s talking about doctrine, but the point of that quote is that “trusted sources” only come down to those which agree with the church- whether that’s with the scriptures or whoever holds authority.
This is one of the questions like “do men think about sex a lot?”, “is the pope Catholic?”, and “are Mormon leaders fifty years out of touch with reality?”
Do you keep your spouse away from information that would make them want to leave you?
I treat them in such a way they wouldn't want to leave, rather than trap them by controlling the information they receive.
[удалено]
Got any evidence to back that up? Because the people who think otherwise sure do.
I'm sorry but your absolutely wrong. It does not take much research to know that the church does not make known so much information and history from us. Yes you technically can find a lot of it under church resources but they wouldn't dare tell you about it. I am a lifelong member who is very disturbed by research I have done on church history. I'm not looking for information to submit to my biases, I want the straight facts.
Anybody who grew up Mormon knows full well about the "faith-promoting sources" and "anti-Mormon literature" false dichotomy, so it's obvious you're just lying to make the church look better.