New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History

[selek]

A few sincere questions ~

Are all those (100%) who have resigned from the Church Apostates?

Yes and no. Those who left the Church (and have taken the specific actions to resign) may simply be misguided, mistaken, or called to a slightly different path. There are several options. The term "apostate" is used to describe those who've fallen away from the Church in general, but is also used more specifically to describe someone had a genuine witness of the Gospel and turned away from it, and have even begun to contend against it. Generally, I try to avoid using the term except in the most general way, as there are very few whom I feel comfortable condemning in that fashion- it is up to God to judge.

Are they all by definition antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind and therefore left out of the equation and have nothing worthwhile to add to the sharing of information on the fascinating and interesting subject of the history of the Church?

Of course not! 99% of those who leave the Church do so quietly, without any animosity or hostility.

It's the rabid 1/2 of the remaining 1% who prove to be nuisances and stumbling blocks.

Or could there possibly be some exceptions? (those who are not necessarily bitter about their former membership, perhaps even greatfull for it and have no regrets because of it as in a wa,y as it had an important hand in the learning process in making them who they are)

Thanx

Clearly.

[Uncle Dale]

A few sincere questions ~

Are all those (100%) who have resigned from the Church Apostates?

Here's one old "apostate" who looked Brigham in the eye and told him that Utah was not

the right place for the gathering, left the church, and made quite a name for himself:

And, oh yes... he started an interesting newspaper as well:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/misccal1.htm#010147

UD

[selek]

Here's one old "apostate" who looked Brigham in the eye and told him that Utah was not

the right place for the gathering, left the church, and made quite a name for himself:

And, oh yes... he started an interesting newspaper as well:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/misccal1.htm#010147

UD

Samuel Brennan, travelled to America on the Brooklyn and became an early power broker and wealthy man in California.

And if I recall the history correctly, died alone, broke, and broken.

[Uncle Dale]

Samuel Brennan, travelled to America on the Brooklyn and became an early power broker and wealthy man in California.

And if I recall the history correctly, died alone, broke, and broken.

Yup -- that's our boy...

And let that be a lesson to anybody else who might be tempted to tell Brigham he's wrong!

Uncle "wonder if Elder Brannan believed that Adam was our God?" Dale

[selek]

Yup -- that's our boy...

And let that be a lesson to anybody else who might be tempted to tell Brigham he's wrong!

Uncle "wonder if Elder Brannan believed that Adam was our God?" Dale

I've always kinda felt sorry for Brennan. Despite his disagreement with BY and his focus on (ultimately short-lived) worldly accomplishments, I don't beleive he was a truly bad individual.

I really think it was a combination of pride and mammon (not necessarily greed per se) that blinded him and led him astray.

The prophetic (no pun intended) advice given to the Saints about ignoring the gold rush seems (in retrospect) tailor made for Brennan.

I also think if anyone was a candidate for a Danite visit- it was Sam Brennan . He opposed the prophet to his face, was a good thousand miles away, was a man of consequence and had numerous enemies.

It wouldn't have been that difficuly for a Danite to slip over his windowsill one night with a knife and make it look like a robbery. Such a crime would be almost impossible to prosecute and the deniability highly plausible.

[Uncle Dale]

I also think if anyone was a candidate for a Danite visit- it was Sam Brennan...

Maybe so -- but during his heyday he would have had plenty of personal protection, as well as

the ability to retaliate back in Deseret. He seems to have forgotten the Mormons, mostly.

Brannan must have known some interesting early Mormon history though -- he came from

the Saco area of Maine, a little south of Woodruff's relatives. He would have known all the

stories of Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith coming as missionaries to Maine in 1832, as

well as exactly which of their converts there were former followers of the local "Prophet,"

Jacob Cochran.

Brannan's later semi-official polygamy (granted under the hand of Apostle William Smith) was

the cause of a stir within the Nauvoo leadership -- but that got ironed out eventually. If Brannan

himself was a former Cochranite, he may have had multiple female companions in his pre-LDS

days. Same thing for Apostle John F. Boynton -- another Saco area Mormon convert (and the

inventor of the modern torpedo).

UD

.

[Scott Lloyd]

A few sincere questions ~

Are all those (100%) who have resigned from the Church Apostates?

Are they all by definition antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind and therefore left out of the equation and have nothing worthwhile to add to the sharing of information on the fascinating and interesting subject of the history of the Church?

Or could there possibly be some exceptions? (those who are not necessarily bitter about their former membership, perhaps even greatfull for it and have no regrets because of it as in a wa,y as it had an important hand in the learning process in making them who they are)

Thanx

My statement was about general trustworthiness.

I think it goes without saying that someone who has set a course of antagonism against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can hardly be trusted to tell a straight story when commenting on Church history and doctrine.

And the fact is, many, many of those who have set such a course have demonstrated repeatedly through non-contextual use of citations, slanted presentation of facts, ellipsized quotations, uncritical acceptance of other anti-Mormon arguments and sources, etc. that they do not merit trust. Such behavior is at least as egregious as what critics of the Church characterize as "sanitizing" history.

[Uncle Dale]

I think it goes without saying that someone who has set a course of antagonism against

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can hardly be trusted to tell a straight story

when commenting on Church history and doctrine....

Would you say that this is true for all seceders, who follow "a course of antagonism against"

the [______ fill in the blank ______] they have left?

We could here cite many examples of people who have left denominations, religions, political parties,

splinter groups, cults, financial institutions, pyramid schemes, behavior modification groups, etc.,

with considerable "antagonism."

Sometimes the only "inside" information we can gain of upper leaders, methods and motives, for

certain organizations and institutions, must be derived from these "come-outers."

Obviously we cannot trust them all in what they have to reveal, upon the face value of their unhappy

disclosures ---- but, I'm sure you will agree with me, that neither can we dismiss all of them ---

There is a story about a British field commander during the Crimean War, who refused to listen to

the intelligence provided by a Russian deserter, who had information of his army's leader's battle

plans. If the story has any credibility, the British were immediately thereafter defeated in battle.

How shall we go about determining which people following "a course of antagonism against" their

former leaders are to be trusted???

Uncle "We might also suspect Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, Sam Adams and Ben Franklin, I suppose" Dale

[Scott Lloyd]

Would you say that this is true for all seceders, who follow "a course of antagonism against"

the [______ fill in the blank ______] they have left?

Not necessarily.

But it has been abundantly and repeatedly demonstrated by antagonists against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their deceptiveness is demonstrable; transparent, in some cases.

And from the standpoint of a believing Latter-day Saint who has found joy in his/her religious faith, I don't see any good reason why he/she should expect to get a credible rendition of truth about the Church from someone bent on destroying or discrediting it. On the other hand, if the Church member's experience with leaders, teachers and other members of the faith is that they can generally be expected to be upright and honest, I see no reason on earth why they should trust the account of a garden-variety anti-Mormon, above that of, say, a Robert Millet or a Rick Turley or a Daniel Peterson.

[Uncle Dale]

I see no reason on earth why they should trust the account of a garden-variety anti-Mormon,

above that of, say, a Robert Millet or a Rick Turley or a Daniel Peterson....

hmmmmm....

I want to know what things were discussed behind closed doors by the C12, so I go ask

ex-ed Apostle Richard R. Lyman --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know what really happened during JS's first trip to Zion, so I go ask Ezra Booth,

but he's an apostate.

I want to know what really went on in the upper story of the Red Brick Store, so I go ask

former 1st Pres. Counsellor, William Law --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know whether the interior of the Nauvoo Temple was ever completed, so I go ask

JSIII --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know if JS really propositioned Nancy Rigdon at Nauvoo, so I go ask her dad,

Elder Sidney Rigdon --- but he's an apostate.

I want to knwo what went on behind closed doors with the Council of Fifty, so I go ask

Alpheus Cutler, Lyman Wight and Amasa Lyman --- but they are apostates.

I want to know exactly when JS began having multiple female companions, so I go ask

David Whitmer --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know whether Warren Parrish really stole all of the gold and silver out of the

Kirtland Safety Society, so I go ask apostles Luke and Lyman Johnson -- who are apostates.

I want to know what Erastus Cowdery had to say about his brother Oliver and Sidney Rigdon,

so I go ask Apostle William M'Lellin -- but he's an apostate.

I want to know the truth about the Far West Danites, so I go ask Q12 Pres. Thomas B. Marsh,

but he's an apostate.

I want to know about Brigham Young's plural affairs at Nauvoo, so I go ask Sis. Martha Brotherton,

but she's an apostate.

Uncle "Oh well, I can ask Robert Millet, Rick Turley & Daniel Peterson -- before they turn apostate" Dale

.

[Scott Lloyd]

hmmmmm....

I want to know what things were discussed behind closed doors by the C12, so I go ask

ex-ed Apostle Richard R. Lyman --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know what really happened during JS's first trip to Zion, so I go ask Ezra Booth,

but he's an apostate.

I want to know what really went on in the upper story of the Red Brick Store, so I go ask

former 1st Pres. Counsellor, William Law --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know whether the interior of the Nauvoo Temple was ever completed, so I go ask

JSIII --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know if JS really propositioned Nancy Rigdon at Nauvoo, so I go ask her dad,

Elder Sidney Rigdon --- but he's an apostate.

I want to knwo what went on behind closed doors with the Council of Fifty, so I go ask

Alpheus Cutler, Lyman Wight and Amasa Lyman --- but they are apostates.

I want to know exactly when JS began having multiple female companions, so I go ask

David Whitmer --- but he's an apostate.

I want to know whether Warren Parrish really stole all of the gold and silver out of the

Kirtland Safety Society, so I go ask apostles Luke and Lyman Johnson -- who are apostates.

I want to know what Erastus Cowdery had to say about his brother Oliver and Sidney Rigdon,

so I go ask Apostle William M'Lellin -- but he's an apostate.

I want to know the truth about the Far West Danites, so I go ask Q12 Pres. Thomas B. Marsh,

but he's an apostate.

I want to know about Brigham Young's plural affairs at Nauvoo, so I go ask Sis. Martha Brotherton,

but she's an apostate.

Uncle "Oh well, I can ask Robert Millet, Rick Turley & Daniel Peterson -- before they turn apostate" Dale

.

Is it unreasonable to be skeptical over an account about the Church from an avowed enemy of the Church? In any event, primary sources as compared to 150-years-after-the-fact polemicists is kind of apples-to-oranges, don't you think?

By the way, you should be more careful in compiling these laundry lists. At least two individuals on this one were rebaptized: Richard R. Lyman and Thomas B. Marsh. And I'm not certain Lyman could really be considered an apostate.

[Uncle Dale]

By the way, you should be more careful in compiling these laundry lists. At least two individuals

on this one were rebaptized: Richard R. Lyman and Thomas B. Marsh. And I'm not certain Lyman

could really be considered an apostate.

My Godfrey ancestors were in North Ogden when Marsh came to visit (I think it was in the 1870s).

My impression was that he was only re-baptized by proxy after his death. But, I may be wrong.

I figured Lyman must have been brought back in at some point -- he's not much talked about, so I

really never heard one way or the other. Was he re-instated as an apostle?

Ezra Booth reported that the Kirtland saints were still into treasure-seeking. I once asked about

that in RLDS Sunday School. The Elder in charge would not discuss the report, even though we

were then studying about Kirtland. When I told him it was from Ezra Booth, he was clueless --

when I said Booth was reprinted in Eber D. Howe, the teacher about had a heart attack.

Oh well -- let's just draw a line through all that stuff before 1978 and cross it all off the books.

That way, we can just forget what the apostates had to say.

Uncle "heh, heh -- my own reporting only began in 1979, of course..." Dale

[Severian]

Uncle "Oh well, I can ask Robert Millet, Rick Turley & Daniel Peterson -- before they turn apostate" Dale

.

So apostate means someone whose version of the truth differs from our own story?

[Scott Lloyd]

My Godfrey ancestors were in North Ogden when Marsh came to visit (I think it was in the 1870s).

My impression was that he was only re-baptized by proxy after his death. But, I may be wrong.

His address before the body of the Church in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, in which he confessed his pride and wrongdoing and sought reinstatement in the Church, is in Journal of Discourses. (I really don't want to take the time, but if you need me to look it up, I will.) I am assuming he was thereafter rebaptized. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would be amazed if he wasn't, as Brigham Young appeared favorably disposed in that meeting to welcoming him back.

I figured Lyman must have been brought back in at some point -- he's not much talked about, so I

really never heard one way or the other. Was he re-instated as an apostle?

In the biography of Spencer W. Kimball by his son Edward (the one that was published in the '80s), there is mention of Lyman's rebaptism prior to his death. He never sought to regain his priesthood blessings, however, according to the book. I've never had the impression he apostatized, just that he was excommunicated for violation of the law of chastity.

Ezra Booth reported that the Kirtland saints were still into treasure-seeking. I once asked about

that in RLDS Sunday School. The Elder in charge would not discuss the report, even though we

were then studying about Kirtland. When I told him it was from Ezra Booth, he was clueless --

when I said Booth was reprinted in Eber D. Howe, the teacher about had a heart attack.

Not to appear close-minded, but I too would doubt the reliability of anything from E.D. Howe. And thank you for illustrating the qualitative difference between a primary source (Booth) and a downstream polemicist (Howe).

Oh well -- let's just draw a line through all that stuff before 1978 and cross it all off the books.

That way, we can just forget what the apostates had to say.

That's not what I said. Is this the kind of distortion that passes for scholarship these days?

[mnn727]

"New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History" Thats compared to the old survey that said we wanted to be lied to.

[Scott Lloyd]

"New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History" Thats compared to the old survey that said we wanted to be lied to.

I think people are misunderstanding the nature and intent of this survey. My understanding from having attended the Mormon History Association session where the findings were presented is that the Family and Church History Department was seeking to define its role and formulate a mission statement. As part of that endeavor, it surveyed Church members as to their desires and expectations regarding the department and its work. The questions relating to Church history were posed within that framework.

[Uncle Dale]

...Is this the kind of distortion that passes for scholarship these days?

We report.

You decide.

UD

[soren]

I would be interested to see the results of a survey that asked "Would you be personally willing to not sanitize history when you teach it?" That would be a tough one, and not just for Mormons, I admit.

[YEDIYD]

Yes, it was a rather far reaching generalization- but is it any more or less so than the one to which I responded, or are so common on these boards?

Jonestown. If my recollection is correct, the adherents at Jonestown were not aware of what was actually in the Kool-aid. That particular mass murder was orchestrated by the leadership w/o the knowledge of the adherents.

Closer to home, there was the ex-LDS/RLDS fanatic group that wanted to retake the Kirtland temple and usher in the millenium (I cannot recall the names right now, but the ringleader was recently executed, IIRC). Despite being relatively faithful members, the family of five they murdered were clearly not given the whole truth, as they were murdered one or two at time out in the barn while the pending victims were fellowshipped in the nearby farmhouse.

Your question points to the absurdity of the original Strib hit-piece. What group of believers does not want the truth? If not the truth, why else then be believers?

The Strib article touts the fact that Mormons do want the truth as some sort of sea change- and is absurd on its face.

Peggy Fletcher Stack is editorializing, not reporting. Again.

Off topic, and I'm sorry...but actually...the people at Jonestown knew exactly what was in the koolaid, that is why some tried to run and were shot down by the leaders of that cult. Many DID NOT want to drink the koolaid or give it to their children...they were FORCED to comply.

[e=mc2]

Soren:

I would be interested to see the results of a survey that asked "Would you be personally willing to not sanitize history when you teach it?" That would be a tough one, and not just for Mormons, I admit.

Oh, I slip in little zingers as often as I can for our Elder's Quorum. Sorta fun really.......

[YEDIYD]

Put me down as being for the unsanitized history.

As soon as someone finds the unabridged biography of Saul let me know.

AWSOME POINT!!!!! If we look at the life of Saul before he was a prophet....You ROCK, dude!!!!

[Uncle Dale]

AWSOME POINT!!!!! If we look at the life of Saul before he was a prophet....You ROCK, dude!!!!

If we give even a small amount of credit for reliability to the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions,

then we need to revise your sentence slightly:

"AWSOME POINT!!!!! If we look at the life of Saul before [and after he clamed to be an apostle]

....You ROCK, dude!!!!"

Uncle "does anybody take the trouble to really read the sources from that period of ancient history?" Dale

[YEDIYD]

If we give even a small amount of credit for reliability to the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions,

then we need to revise your sentence slightly:

"AWSOME POINT!!!!! If we look at the life of Saul before [and after he clamed to be an apostle]

....You ROCK, dude!!!!"

Uncle "does anybody take the trouble to really read the sources from that period of ancient history?" Dale

Duly noted.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would be interested to see the results of a survey that asked "Would you be personally willing to not sanitize history when you teach it?" That would be a tough one, and not just for Mormons, I admit.

I would decline to answer such a question until I understood clearly what the interviewer meant by "sanitize." I think it's a matter of semantics.

If by that one means being selective about what one chooses to present depending upon the setting and audience and the purpose for which the information is being presented, I would respond that everybody does this, including those who claim to be objective and especially including the Church's virulent critics. On the other hand, if what is meant is an active effort to hide or cover-up certain facts of history or doctrine, I don't see a lot of that going on in the Church, notwithstanding frequent accusations from its critics.

[Scott Lloyd]

We report.

You decide.

UD

More like "We misreport and you decide."