Nevertheless, one thing in the article really caught my attention.
I came to understand that, much to my shock, many of the foundational claims of the church were not based in reality. I struggled so much with that, and kept trying to un-know what I kept uncovering, that at the end of two years I felt so burdened and so confused and puzzled. I kept going to these church defenders that I'd always trusted and trying to find out what the explanations were for what appeared to be smoking guns. And there weren't any.
Why is it historical accuracy is such a big issue for so many people who left the Church? Why do they put so much weight in the accuracy of events happening exactly as described?
These same people, for example, often have no problem accepting that the creation of the world did not happen in six 24-hour periods. However, when they’re faced with the fact that Joseph Smith allegedly wrote a couple dozen versions of the First Vision, all of a sudden it’s too much and the whole Church is a sham.
Sigh.
In all honesty, who cares? Who cares if the First Vision was with God and Jesus Christ or if it was three angels? The point is that the heavens that were closed for millennia were now open. The point is that the Lord opened the way for a church run by revelation. Who cares if the world was created in six days, six thousand years, or 4.5 billion years? The point is that it was created.
Some naysayers may read this post and say, “Who are you to question his decision? Who are you to be an expert on questioning doctrines when you’ve lived the sheltered life of Mormonism?” To such things, I respond by saying that my life has been far from sheltered. I have had my share of worldly indulgences. I have had my share of questions.
In fact, I came to the point where my faith was seriously shaken as well. You want to know the difference between my experience and others like Tal’s? When my faith wavered, it wasn’t because I read that Joseph Smith was a boozer or that Brigham Young was racist. It wasn’t because I found what appeared to be inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. It wasn’t because my bishop couldn’t answer my questions.
It was because I doubted God’s existence.
That’s right. It wasn’t my faith in a single book. It wasn’t faith in the character of a prophet. It wasn’t faith in the sociability of my home teachers. It was faith in God.
The point is when you question your faith, think about what you’re questioning. If you are offended by someone and decide to never come back to church, think about where your faith must lie. If you come across some abhorrent thing Joseph Smith did and decide to leave the Church, think about where your faith lies.
Think about where your faith lies.
It was a very hard and depressing experience I went through. However, I am very grateful for it. The experience has really solidified my faith and I have become stronger as a result. Because of this, odd events and doctrines that would normally offend or shake someone's faith do not phase me. I am now able to question things freely.
Think about where your faith lies.
8 comments:
Nice post, Kim. No doubt there will be a new rule sent down from Church HQ: "Musicians will no longer be called as Sunday School teachers."
I think people get hung up on history and historicity is because the Church really emphasizes it and FARMS swears by it. So some people become disillusioned when the standard version of Church History is discovered to have gaps and a couple of flat-out misrepresentations. Your personal story is interesting--some people go through a doubting phase or process and end up asking The Big Question, but few self-questioning people start out there. I guess Webmasters think differently. ;-)
Just wanted to comment on a couple of things. As far as I know the church still doesn't have an official stance on the "creation of the world in six 24-hour periods." Most Mormons I know, however, accept this to be not the case.
Historical accuracy is or rather should be "such a big issue" for members and ex-members because the Mormon movement is based upon Joseph Smith's first vision and the restoration of God's authority on Earth. If Joseph's story doesn't add up – (ie. he changed it as he went), then in some people's eyes that would make him an unreliable witness. I think you can grasp the importance of that last statement. So hopefully for the sake of Mormonism he didn't make it up. It's also too bad there are multiple incommensurable first vision stories afloat. It does make it harder to know what to believe.
Hey, Jeff. Glad to see you stopping by. Always nice to have an old classmate comment on my blog.
"Most Mormons I know, however, accept this to be not the case."
Exactly. In fact, the same thing could be said about a whole lot of "doctrines" in the Church. That is where much of the problem lies. Members of the Church assuming this or that about something and when their tradition-held-as-scripture is shattered, they fall away.
"Historical accuracy is or rather should be "such a big issue" for members and ex-members because the Mormon movement is based upon Joseph Smith's first vision and the restoration of God's authority on Earth."
But that's the whole point. The Church differentiates itself from other Christian churches by claiming continuing revelation and priesthood authority. That is what is fundamental. How those two thing came about is less relevant.
As I said above regarding the First Vision, the important issue is that Joseph Smith received divine revelation not to join any existing churches. Whether who gave it to him was Jesus Christ or three angels is less important. So long as members of the Church have it the other way around (the means being more important than the end), we're going to continue seeing people falling away.
"If Joseph's story doesn't add up...then in some people's eyes that would make him an unreliable witness."
Right. As I more or less stated above, that is because they focus so much on the trees that they fail to see they are in a forest.
"he changed it as he went"
Or he remembered it differently. Or it was recorded differently. Or the historian who used secondary commentary compiled it differently. The list goes on. Just because there is more than one version does not automatically mean Joseph Smith changed his mind.
"It does make it harder to know what to believe."
Form my point of view, multiple accounts makes it even more clear what I should believe.
I actually heard about Tal Bachman's decision to leave the church from one of his relatives. As a professional musician myself and an active member of the church, I can see how it can become easy to let your faith waver.
Having served a mission for the church as Tal did, you have the first hand opportunity to see this in the mission field. I had two elders in my district that began teaching an investigator who was very informed about the church. As they went to teach him, the tables turned as this investigator befriended them. In his kind way he wanted to present information to the elders about the numerous myth's and errors the church had in it's teachings and historical data. He then encouraged the elders to read his evidence and that they should decide for themselves whether or not the church had brain washed them. In 1 week both elders had called the President of the mission to let him know that they planned to leave the mission as well as the church. When the President asked to see them he assured them that they of course had their agency, but in all fairness he wanted to review what they had been exposed to. The elders agreed to share their story. Once the President had interviewed both elders, he found that the time they could have and should have used to devote to personal study of scriptures, was used in other manners. In fact they were studying less than 30 minutes a week, and their time they devoted to local radio station programs and their own persoanl music had increased. So their spiritual foundations were slipping out from under them. When they found the investigator who shared so much light and knowledge with them about the myths of the church, they had no spiritual roots or foundation, and therefore were ready to be washed away like the sand as it were.
Before our President would let them go home he merely asked for 1 week of their time. He asked them to go back to the same schedule and rules that they had agreed to follow when they first entered the mission. So they had to study, pray, ask for guidance etc. At the end of the week the President said if you can honestly tell me you've done this and you still want to leave, you can.
At the end of the week, the president received a call, both elders realized they had sadly been misled themselves, by an effective missionary with his own mission. They devoted so much time to reading anti-mormon material and nothing else uplifting scriptually speaking, so they became lost. Both elders had spiritual affirmations that they were doing the Lord's work and that this was indeed his church, and they got back to work.
I'm not Tal's judge in any manner, however it would be very easy to plant seeds of doubt based on new data or facts that some stories in the church are incorrect. Let me be the first to say I'm human and fallable. Who isn't. Who hasn't played the group game at a party called Telephone? You can have a simple story retold and just a few people down the line it's altered. Whether new parts are put in or old ones left out etc. I think the bottom line is in spite or clerical errors or whatever they may be, James 1:5 say's it best. I believe if Tal is seeking truth or what he feels is a true church, he follow the same path that Joesph Smith did. By fasting and prayer I have a testimony he'll find what he's looking for.
It always seems (in every case I have found)that someone initially plants the spiritual seed of doubt, whether it's against being LDS, Catholic, Christian, Budhist faiths etc. When the individual nourishes this seed with fear and doubt it will of course grow.
I guess the best thing to do is plant good seeds take good care of them and the rest will fall into place. This doesn't mean a life of bliss, it just means you setting the stage for a good foundation.
Hmm, I've never been a "Blogger" before, so hope this goes over well. Anyhow, I went to Tal Bachman's web site to check it out, and to my surprise, discovered that he had a new album! After looking around a bit, I went to his Bio to check it out. I was quite shocked when I found out that he had decided to leave the Church. I had mixed feelings of dissapointment and surprise.
Part of the shock that comes from this is the fact that I had, about 4 years ago, met him when he came to my ward (North Bend, WA) for a fireside. Unfortunately I don't remember all of what he said. However, I do remember that for the most part he talked about what it's like to be a "celebrity" and a member of the Church at the same time, and some of the experiences that had come with that. He seemed firm in his beliefs. I met him and his wife. I shook their hands. Many of my friends and youth leaders still have their autographed fireside programs and CD's.
For a large part, I can see how it would be difficult for any LDS celebrity to shelter himself from worldly influences. Satan has his ways of finding our weaknesses. He found Tal's. I once took an anthropology class, and was exposed to a lot of physical and historical evidence against the ideas of creation. I think that I can associate to a lot of the thoughts that Tal has had. If these kinds of thoughts are entertained, it's very easy to doubt.
I have a friend who recently decided to dissasociate himself from much of his family and the Church. having thought and observed a lot about his situation, I've come to the conclusion that many small and or big mistakes in life steadily become harder to fix, and thus it simply becomes easier to give up the fight, even when you know something is true. I know that he'd felt the Spirit testify to him the truth of the church and that he couldn't doubt it. When I talk to him, I can feel that he wants to be back, but is afraid and unwilling because the path is uneasy.
I think that Tal has gone in a similar direction as my friend. The small and many struggles make it so much easier to give up than to keep fighting. I think, regardless of what he says, he still knows the church is true.
We know that people will deny their knowledge of the truth regardless of their knowledge because of the story of Korihor. He was an Anti-Christ who contended against Alma. He asked Alma to show him a sign to prove the existence of God, and was thus struck dumb. After having recieved his sign, he "Put forth his and and wrote,... I always knew that there was a God." (Alma 30:52).
We also know that we can have an influence in (re)bringing these people to the truth. Through prayer, fasting, and faith, we can bring others to the knowledge they may not have or that they may not remember, (Mosiah 27:14).
I can understand what happened. During my investigation in to the church, I had more questions than I got answers. There were too many things that just didn't make sense and the missionaries and my friends in the church could just not explain. Going to the meetings just didn't feel right. As another friend who attanded a baptism said, he observed a high "misfit factor". Everyone who gave their testimony talked about how bad their life was previous to joining. My life is fine. I just didn't fit in. If you need a place to belong, great. After I decided to stop going, I found out that one of the "missionaries" was given an immediate transfer for carrying on an "inappropriate" relationship with a female investigator. The church tried to cover it up and deny it ever happened. Thus sealing my descision to never go back.
"The church tried to cover it up and deny it ever happened."
What does that mean exactly? Did you expect them to take an ad out in the paper to publicise what happened?
I came across this site quite haphazardly looking for something else on Tal Bachman and after reading the postings decided I should add my two cents. My big brother Tal has been a fantastic example of spotless living my entire life. He has been the family authority on words of prophets and church historians for years. He is a near perfect example of fatherhood to his eight children, and a person who is genuine and sincere in everything he does. He is also and intellectual and as such had questions arise during his teaching assignment as Gospel doctrine teacher, he couldn't answer. He studied and prayed over the course of two years with his wife and finally prepared a list of his concerns and took them to his stake president. Imagine their devastation when the stake president candidly said to them "None of us really believe those church history stories exactly, but the church is just the best way to live, it's that simple". I understand that to some people the end justifies the means. If the truth came forth again, that is the point and the details are insignificant. To others, the details are of great importance because they need to understand and rectify the entire story.
All religions require us to put a certain amount of concerns "on the shelf". That is what faith is about. But what if your shelf was so full, it crumbled? What if you honestly prayed and could not get the answers? Instead of assuming this decision had anything to do with being a musician ( and it is ignorant to assume such a thing) give him the benefit of the doubt instead of making wisecracks about someone you do not know. Instead of rallying around my brother and his family, he was ostracized by members in the branch where he was serving in the bishopric. He was accused of having affairs and looking for reasons to leave to justify his lifestyle. WHat lifestyle? A hobby farms with 8 kids and a great wife?
My brother's family still prays, teaches their children Christ's teachings and follows the word of wisdom. Our family aches for this chain of events but also sees the harm in dogmaticism and judgement. His search is the truth. That's all.
Post a Comment