The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[CV75]

I respect your beliefs but disagree. If there is anything to this "Rescue" initiative, Pres Monson disagrees as well. I am not talking about living by the sword as spoken of in scripture. I am talking about putting on the armor of God, which has a sword by the way. Truth is a critical element of that armor. A history lesson in truth can do more good than harm, it strengthens our armor. What harm can come from it? If we are going to teach history in our church (which we do), we might as well do it right so as to avoid disillusionment , and the feeling of being lied to, which many say they feel. We should listen to these people and find ways to avoid this problem in the future if we truly mean to perfect the saints.

As I respect yours—I just don’t agree that spiritual armor is strengthened by reliance on temporal supports. When we minister aid for temporal needs (“rescue” is a temporary intervention), the only thing that translates the aid into spiritual aid is the spirit with which it is offered and received. But aid is not support.

I see the Church coming to the rescue with basic aid and temporary support, and even preventing crises of any kind by promoting the principles of self-reliance. The only permanent supports it offers for our spiritual armor are the keys, and even these are indirect: through the keys, people covenant and receive the needed blessing from God directly, even if through other people. God is our support through the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Let’s say someone in a food crisis develops a faith crisis in his extremity (and many do not). The bishop gives him food and the quorums and auxiliaries help him become self-reliant. He is encouraged to keep his covenants and endure in faith to keep his spiritual armor strong.

I think the same principle applies with history. Let’s say someone in a history crisis develops a faith crisis in his extremity (and many do not). A history crisis could reasonably occur when someone has an issue with his own personal history—something akin to an identity crisis. The bishop gives him counsel and the quorums and auxiliaries help him become self-reliant. He is encouraged to keep his covenants and endure in faith to strengthen his spiritual armor and keep it strong.

How much food does the hungry person in faith crisis need the Church to provide? Not much, just the basics, for a relatively brief period, and the rest is up to him. How much history does the Church need to provide the person at the receiving end of bad personal news? None—it can’t; it can only offer perspective through what it does offer (the keys).

I see problems people have with Church History somewhere in the middle, and the Church’s response fits the need. How much history does the person in history crisis and related faith crisis need? In reality, not much--just the basics and the keys that offer a better perspective, and the rest is up to him.

I'm not sure everyone can agree on what the right way to do history might be. An expert in one school of thought will counter another, and neither necessarily have one's spiritual rescue at the forefront of his chosen technique.

[CV75]

The truth is not a weapon against the church and never will be. We don't need to be afraid of it. By avoiding the truth, you simply give fuel to the adversary to twist it and manipulate it against us.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think you understood my post(s).

[cinepro]

This comment from Elder Jensen is really telling:

"My own daughter has come to me and said, 'Dad, why didn't you ever tell me that Joseph was a polygamist?'

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/01/rescue-plan-to-address-difficulties-of.html

I don't know how old his daughter was when she said this, but when you've got the daughter of the Church Historian and Recorder saying this, there might be a problem.

[Danzo]

This comment from Elder Jensen is really telling:

I don't know how old his daughter was when she said this, but when you've got the daughter of the Church Historian and Recorder saying this, there might be a problem.

Interesting observation. I know that we have already mentioned polygamy of joseph smith to our children (oldest is 10).

But I have not made it a practice of talking about it every day, so they could have forgotten. Maybe We should make it a church practice to require talking about polygamy once a month (or at least require it for the 5th sunday lesson)

[cinepro]

Interesting observation. I know that we have already mentioned polygamy of joseph smith to our children (oldest is 10).

But I have not made it a practice of talking about it every day, so they could have forgotten. Maybe We should make it a church practice to require talking about polygamy once a month (or at least require it for the 5th sunday lesson)

Yes, because our only options are to talk about it almost never, or once a month (or twice a year).

Personally, I don't have a problem with the Church being embarrassed by Joseph Smith's polygamy. It's just embarrassing that we can't admit we're embarrassed by it.

[cdowis]

Cinepro,

As usual you miss the point. It is not a matter of embarrassment, but of explanation to a world which does not understand angels in a world of airplanes and railroads. Are we "embarrassed" by the visit of Deity seemily violating the law of relativity? Does Kolob embarrass us?

We should be ashamed that he followed the command of the Lord, who commanded him to take on multiple wives? Really??????????????????? Is this another one of your jokes?

It is a matter of spiritual meat in a world that cannot even tolerate diluted milk.

Edited May 1, 2013 by cdowis

[cinepro]

Cinepro,

As usual you miss the point. It is not a matter of embarrassment, but of explanation to a world which does not understand angels in a world of airplanes and railroads. Are we "embarrassed" by the visit of Deity seemily violating the law of relativity?

On my mission, we always talked about angels and the first vision in our First Discussions with people. We have pictures of such visitations all over our Church buildings and web sites. As far as I can tell, whether or not the world "understands" something isn't a factor regarding whether or not we talk about it a lot.

Does Kolob embarrass us?

Yes. Granted, it's also a much smaller doctrinal, cultural and historical point than polygamy.

I think I understand it, and do not find it shameful, and I suspect that is the case for the church. Again, it is a matter of meat in a world that cannot even tolerate diluted milk.

Maybe if we just dilute it a little more the world will tolerate us?

[pogi]

I see problems people have with Church History somewhere in the middle, and the Church’s response fits the need. How much history does the person in history crisis and related faith crisis need? In reality, not much--just the basics and the keys that offer a better perspective, and the rest is up to him.

You are absolutely correct that the underlying problem is of a spiritual nature not a temporal one. Giving more history to disillusioned members will not strengthen their testimony or bring them back to church. They already know the history better than most members. I believe that the brethren are making an effort, in large part, to prevent such feelings of disillusionment from happening in the future.

True story: I remember the first time I found out that I had born false testimony to a family who were investigating the church on my mission in the Philippines. They brought up some "anti-Mormon" bologna about Pres. Young teaching about how some people need to shed their own blood to atone for their sins. I told them it was all lies and bore testimony that a prophet of God would never teach such nonsense, as we believe that Christ's blood atoned for all of our sins. I told them that there are enemies to the church who are actively spreading lies about us to prevent the work of God from moving forward. They didn't buy it, but I did.

It wasn't until many years after my mission that I first learned about the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young. I felt like I had been taken for a fool. I was confused and kind of ashamed for bearing false witness. Why didn't I know about this? I wanted so badly to go back and re-do that whole situation. Brigham Young was almost super-human in my eyes, as taught by the church. I have since learned about many bizarre teachings of Brigham and how prejudice he really was. If I had learned about this history in a moment of weakness, I would not be a member today. If I did not have the burning witness that I have of the gospel. I would not be around today.

The fact is that there are many who are struggling with their spirituality who are not spiritually in a place to withstand such blows. We can do much as a church to prevent such devastating blows in the future. Not to mention, what a blow for that investigating family! They will probably never trust another missionary. I should have known better. I hope all missionaries know better in the future.

It is tough to find out that the Church is not what you were raised to believe it was. When you have devoted two years of your life to a church you believe in, then come home to find out that you are a member of a church that you really knew very little about, who's prophets lived and taught false doctrines, and lived contrary, VERY contrary to your moral and spiritual understanding, it can be devastating. You can feel lied to, and you don't know who to trust if you find it difficult to trust Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The church is starting to recognize this. We need to give all of the temporal support we can before the disillusionment, and bitterness settle in. I am certain that we can save many souls that need not be lost through a little more openness. Obviously, we don't leave the spiritual keys undone. The difference is that we can teach our history in spirit, while others cannot. BIG difference.

Edited May 1, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

This comment from Elder Jensen is really telling:

I don't know how old his daughter was when she said this, but when you've got the daughter of the Church Historian and Recorder saying this, there might be a problem.

(Do you know if he was the Church Historian when she asked him... Let's say that he was just to emphasize how egregious the "problem" is, whatever the problem might be)...

But my question was:”…exactly what is the problem…? Or, why should the Church not focus on current doctrine and practices, and not have a spiritual bent?”

We already know some people have faith crises because of their exposure to and interpretation of different versions of Church histories—that is what the thread is about. But what are the root causes --the problem causing the problem--of that (in your own words)? Are they really the Church’s focus on current doctrine and practices, and its spiritual bent?

[USU78]

You are absolutely correct that the underlying problem is of a spiritual nature not a temporal one. Giving more history to disillusioned members will not strengthen their testimony or bring them back to church. They already know the history better than most members. I believe that the brethren are making an effort, in large part, to prevent such feelings of disillusionment from happening in the future.

True story: I remember the first time I found out that I had born false testimony to a family who were investigating the church on my mission in the Philippines. They brought up some "anti-Mormon" bologna about Pres. Young teaching about how some people need to shed their own blood to atone for their sins. I told them it was all lies and bore testimony that a prophet of God would never teach such nonsense, as we believe that Christ's blood atoned for all of our sins. I told them that there are enemies to the church who are actively spreading lies about us to prevent the work of God from moving forward. They didn't buy it, but I did.

It wasn't until many years after my mission that I first learned about the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young. I felt like I had been taken for a fool. I was confused and kind of ashamed for bearing false witness. Why didn't I know about this? I wanted so badly to go back and re-do that whole situation. Brigham Young was almost super-human in my eyes, as taught by the church. I have since learned about many bizarre teachings of Brigham and how prejudice he really was. If I had learned about this history in a moment of weakness, I would not be a member today. If I did not have the burning witness that I have of the gospel. I would not be around today.

The fact is that there are many who are struggling with their spirituality who are not spiritually in a place to withstand such blows. We can do much as a church to prevent such devastating blows in the future. Not to mention, what a blow for that investigating family! They will probably never trust another missionary. I should have known better. I hope all missionaries know better in the future.

It is tough to find out that the Church is not what you were raised to believe it was. When you have devoted two years of your life to a church you believe in, then come home to find out that you are a member of a church that you really knew very little about, who's prophets lived and taught false doctrines, and lived contrary, VERY contrary to your moral and spiritual understanding, it can be devastating. You can feel lied to, and you don't know who to trust if you find it difficult to trust Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The church is starting to recognize this. We need to give all of the temporal support we can before the disillusionment, and bitterness settle in. I am certain that we can save many souls that need not be lost through a little more openness. Obviously, we don't leave the spiritual keys undone. The difference is that we can teach our history in spirit, while others cannot. BIG difference.

You have just republished a slander.

And you don't understand a thing about the interplay between the atonement and capital punishment, and how that plays in what BY said and taught. It's as though you looked at the Phineas reference in a particular BY quote and concluded "Racist Bigot Monster!" instead of trying to understand.

You have bought the slander of the boobirds hook, line and sinker.

And it is a slander. The Blood Atonement Slander. As pernicious and evil a slander as the one out of Russia a hundred and more years ago.

[CV75]

You are absolutely correct that the underlying problem is of a spiritual nature not a temporal one. Giving more history to disillusioned members will not strengthen their testimony or bring them back to church. They already know the history better than most members. I believe that the brethren are making an effort, in large part, to prevent such feelings of disillusionment from happening in the future.

True story: I remember the first time I found out that I had born false testimony to a family who were investigating the church on my mission in the Philippines. They brought up some "anti-Mormon" bologna about Pres. Young teaching about how some people need to shed their own blood to atone for their sins. I told them it was all lies and bore testimony that a prophet of God would never teach such nonsense, as we believe that Christ's blood atoned for all of our sins. I told them that there are enemies to the church who are actively spreading lies about us to prevent the work of God from moving forward. They didn't buy it, but I did.

It wasn't until many years after my mission that I first learned about the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young. I felt like I had been taken for a fool. I was confused and kind of ashamed for bearing false witness. Why didn't I know about this? I wanted so badly to go back and re-do that whole situation. Brigham Young was almost super-human in my eyes, as taught by the church. I have since learned about many bizarre teachings of Brigham and how prejudice he really was. If I had learned about this history in a moment of weakness, I would not be a member today. If I did not have the burning witness that I have of the gospel. I would not be around today.

The fact is that there are many who are struggling with their spirituality who are not spiritually in a place to withstand such blows. We can do much as a church to prevent such devastating blows in the future. Not to mention, what a blow for that investigating family! They will probably never trust another missionary. I should have known better. I hope all missionaries know better in the future.

It is tough to find out that the Church is not what you were raised to believe it was. When you have devoted two years of your life to a church you believe in, then come home to find out that you are a member of a church that you really knew very little about, who's prophets lived and taught false doctrines, and lived contrary, VERY contrary to your moral and spiritual understanding, it can be devastating. You can feel lied to, and you don't know who to trust if you find it difficult to trust Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The church is starting to recognize this. We need to give all of the temporal support we can before the disillusionment, and bitterness settle in. I am certain that we can save many souls that need not be lost through a little more openness. Obviously, we don't leave the spiritual keys undone. The difference is that we can teach our history in spirit, while others cannot. BIG difference.

Not to minimize your reaction, but I do not equate a lack of not knowing, and then finding out about, Brigham Young’s views on blood atonement with finding out that the Church is not, in a spiritual sense, what you were raised to believe it was (I presume you were raised to believe that it is the Lord’s). The first is a lack of historical knowledge and awareness; the second is a change (for better or worse) in your spiritual knowledge and condition. You made the unnecessary connection, had your personal challenge with it and overcame your challenge.

But I doubt that your feelings about the Church have improved because you now believe in blood atonement or because the Church finally presented you with new information about the history of how blood atonement was treated throughout its history. You identified the real problem mid-post: it is not the knowledge, it is the moment of weakness that affects that application of knowledge.

These moments of spiritual weakness is what the Church can help us prevent and recover from, regardless of the science, history or any other distraction people create for themselves every day.

But the approach that is so often demanded in threads like these is that the Church stop hiding and manipulating historical information, put it all together in a nice, neat, easily assimilated and defensible curriculum (or a mea culpa exposé, whatever fits the accusation), and coddle people from the historical (and other disciplinary) vicissitudes in the world around them when all that is needed is to do what it has always done: use the appropriate techniques and technologies of the day for availing a reliably sound representation of its history.

That said, I think the Church is always doing more and more wherever it reasonably can, and often pushes beyond that on the basis faith.

[pogi]

Most of your links are over a year old. Anything more recent?

I haven't been able to find anything more recent, you might be more successful. I too would be curious to know more about the churches efforts as of late.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You have just republished a slander.

And you don't understand a thing about the interplay between the atonement and capital punishment, and how that plays in what BY said and taught. It's as though you looked at the Phineas reference in a particular BY quote and concluded "Racist Bigot Monster!" instead of trying to understand.

You have bought the slander of the boobirds hook, line and sinker.

And it is a slander. The Blood Atonement Slander. As pernicious and evil a slander as the one out of Russia a hundred and more years ago.

Seems kind of harsh to call that slander. I find it interesting that when discussing the article that started the thread, all of the apologists point out the need to be understanding, and generous. When the author said that Henry "deserted" Zina and her two boys, s/he was just misinformed. It was dumbed down for kids to understand, the church isn't really after an thorough investigation of its history. But when someone makes a conclusion from the evidence that puts the church or its leaders in a less than favorable light, it is slander. The person purporting it has been duped "hook, line and sinker." Where is the patience and the call for understanding?

Personally I agree with everyone on this thread that says history is complex. That we need to be patient and understanding when people make mistakes. I just think it cuts both ways.

Edited May 1, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[pogi]

You have just republished a slander.

And you don't understand a thing about the interplay between the atonement and capital punishment, and how that plays in what BY said and taught. It's as though you looked at the Phineas reference in a particular BY quote and concluded "Racist Bigot Monster!" instead of trying to understand.

You have bought the slander of the boobirds hook, line and sinker.

And it is a slander. The Blood Atonement Slander. As pernicious and evil a slander as the one out of Russia a hundred and more years ago.

Calm down there brother. I am not your enemy. Nor am I an enemy to President Young whom I admire greatly in almost every respect and hold to be a true prophet of God.

My intention is not to slander, simply to acknowledge that even prophets have the propensity to give into their cultural upbringing. This idea that they never made mistakes in their teaching, some of serious magnitude is damaging to the church as a whole.

I don't know what the blood atonement slander is you are talking about. I am only repeating what the church has already acknowledged: http://www.deseretne...ent.html?pg=all

Edited May 1, 2013 by pogi

[USU78]

Seems kind of harsh to call that slander. I find it interesting that when discussing the article that started the thread, all of the apologists point out the need to be understanding, and generous. When the auther said that Henry "deserted" deserted Zina and her two boys, s/he was just misinformed. It was dumbed down for kids to understand, the church isn't really after an thorough investigation of its history. But when someone makes a conclusion from the evidence against the church, it is slander. The person purporting it has been doped "hook, line and sinker." Where is the patience and the call for understanding?

Personally I agree with everyone on this thread that says history is complex. That we need to be patient and understanding when people make mistakes. I just think it cuts both ways.

Just like the so-called "Mormon War" of Missouri "cuts both ways." You have a bunch on one side that has numbers and governmental support on its side, and another that is outmanned, outgunned, and refused permission to vote in local or other elections. It "cuts both ways," yet when push came to shove, it was Mormon men in jail or gunned down, Mormon women and children marching across Missouri in Winter, and Mormon farms and chattels confiscated. When the boobirds use BY's very odd (by our lights) statements on capital punishment and the atonement to justify claims of endemic Mormon violence and murder, and ignorant Evie padres inculcate the notion/slander in their even more ignorant parishioners, it ain't "cutting both ways." It is a deliberate slander, employed maliciously, for not particular laudable purposes.

The scales just don't balance.

[pogi]

Not to minimize your reaction, but I do not equate a lack of not knowing, and then finding out about, Brigham Young’s views on blood atonement with finding out that the Church is not, in a spiritual sense, what you were raised to believe it was (I presume you were raised to believe that it is the Lord’s). The first is a lack of historical knowledge and awareness; the second is a change (for better or worse) in your spiritual knowledge and condition. You made the unnecessary connection, had your personal challenge with it and overcame your challenge.

But I doubt that your feelings about the Church have improved because you now believe in blood atonement or because the Church finally presented you with new information about the history of how blood atonement was treated throughout its history. You identified the real problem mid-post: it is not the knowledge, it is the moment of weakness that affects that application of knowledge.

These moments of spiritual weakness is what the Church can help us prevent and recover from, regardless of the science, history or any other distraction people create for themselves every day.

But the approach that is so often demanded in threads like these is that the Church stop hiding and manipulating historical information, put it all together in a nice, neat, easily assimilated and defensible curriculum (or a mea culpa exposé, whatever fits the accusation), and coddle people from the historical (and other disciplinary) vicissitudes in the world around them when all that is needed is to do what it has always done: use the appropriate techniques and technologies of the day for availing a reliably sound representation of its history.

That said, I think the Church is always doing more and more wherever it reasonably can, and often pushes beyond that on the basis faith.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the church is doing the opposite of what you say it should do. The status quo in how the church presents it's history is changing. It's best that we not hinder it's progress.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just like the so-called "Mormon War" of Missouri "cuts both ways." You have a bunch on one side that has numbers and governmental support on its side, and another that is outmanned, outgunned, and refused permission to vote in local or other elections. It "cuts both ways," yet when push came to shove, it was Mormon men in jail or gunned down, Mormon women and children marching across Missouri in Winter, and Mormon farms and chattels confiscated. When the boobirds use BY's very odd (by our lights) statements on capital punishment and the atonement to justify claims of endemic Mormon violence and murder, and ignorant Evie padres inculcate the notion/slander in their even more ignorant parishioners, it ain't "cutting both ways." It is a deliberate slander, employed maliciously, for not particular laudable purposes.

The scales just don't balance.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance. Who are the "boobirds": we are talking about? Who are the Evie (Evil) padres? And what exactly is the slander? Are you saying that Brigham didn't teach blood atonement? That he taught some "odd" stuff that latter-day saints interpret as the doctrine of blood atonement? Something else entirely?

An elderly, very conservative, very faithful member of my ward recently stood up in Sunday school and mentioned that he just learned the doctrine of Blood atonement was incorrect (when he read the press release in the DN article linked to above). Blood atonement seems to have been understood by many as what Brigham Young was teaching.

Just for grins I'll play your game though. In Henry's case who is the small guy and who is the big institution that is picking on him? Let me see if I understand. If I'm Henry and I gave up my wife and two kids to an apostle / prophet because I was trying to follow the Lord the best I knew how and then the church institution published (and does not retract) a statement that I deserted my wife and two sons, I'd be pretty upset.

Again, for me, I'd encourage understanding all around.

Edited May 1, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Nevo]

Just like the so-called "Mormon War" of Missouri "cuts both ways." You have a bunch on one side that has numbers and governmental support on its side, and another that is outmanned, outgunned, and refused permission to vote in local or other elections. It "cuts both ways," yet when push came to shove, it was Mormon men in jail or gunned down, Mormon women and children marching across Missouri in Winter, and Mormon farms and chattels confiscated. When the boobirds use BY's very odd (by our lights) statements on capital punishment and the atonement to justify claims of endemic Mormon violence and murder, and ignorant Evie padres inculcate the notion/slander in their even more ignorant parishioners, it ain't "cutting both ways." It is a deliberate slander, employed maliciously, for not particular laudable purposes.

This is incoherent. What has Brigham Young's blood atonement doctrine to do with the 1838 "Mormon War" in Missouri? What "cuts both ways"?

Anyway, it's not slander to say that Brigham Young taught a doctrine of blood atonement. He did. But nobody here has suggested that blood atonement was actually practiced, so why all the histrionics? There was plenty of extrajudicial violence in pioneer Utah, some of it sanctioned by Church authorities, but as far as I can tell none of it really falls under the category of blood atonement.

[pogi]

Just like the so-called "Mormon War" of Missouri "cuts both ways." You have a bunch on one side that has numbers and governmental support on its side, and another that is outmanned, outgunned, and refused permission to vote in local or other elections. It "cuts both ways," yet when push came to shove, it was Mormon men in jail or gunned down, Mormon women and children marching across Missouri in Winter, and Mormon farms and chattels confiscated. When the boobirds use BY's very odd (by our lights) statements on capital punishment and the atonement to justify claims of endemic Mormon violence and murder, and ignorant Evie padres inculcate the notion/slander in their even more ignorant parishioners, it ain't "cutting both ways." It is a deliberate slander, employed maliciously, for not particular laudable purposes.

The scales just don't balance.

As with others that have posted, I have no clue what any of this has to do with blood atonement. You don't really know what he taught about it do you? Because if you did, you would know that you are not making sense. The reaches of blood atonement in BY's teachings (not practices as far as we know) goes far beyond capital punishment.

[Calm]

Where is the patience and the call for understanding?

I think people are more prone in general to call for understanding for someone who cannot defend themselves than if someone is present and can speak for themselves, especially if they are unsure of the person's position and are waiting for him to provide clarification. However, in this case, you posted just 45 minutes after the first accusation of slander and that is not much time to allow others to read and respond....even I, who am probably the closest thing to a poster who lives on the board, just read it.

When the boobirds use BY's very odd (by our lights) statements on capital punishment and the atonement to justify claims of endemic Mormon violence and murder

But pogi did not refer to the claims of violence, he was strictly (as far as I could tell) referring to the doctrine, which like BY's Adam-God comments, have probably been understood in multiple ways...some of which have been reputed by the Church I believe, so it is probably best to identify one's own interpretation when speaking or ask for clarification before applying the word "slander" to what someone says about it. I do agree with you that one needs to challenge slander when slander is actually spoken, as when it happened in another thread by savedbygrace who repeated what "some" had said, but I think one should be as careful before making that accusation as one should be when reading BY and claims about him before attacking him as whatever or making claims about his influence on others' behaviour.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think people are more prone in general to call for understanding for someone who cannot defend themselves than if someone is present and can speak for themselves, especially if they are unsure of the person's position and are waiting for him to provide clarification. However, in this case, you posted just 45 minutes after the first accusation of slander and that is not much time to allow others to read and respond....even I, who am probably the closest thing to a poster who lives on the board, just read it.

Sorry. I communicate poorly. I was speaking specifically about USU78's post. He did not take time to defend Henry Jacob against the statement that he deserted his family, but s/he was quick to pounce and condemn when someone stated that Brigham Young taught blood atonement.

I did expand and refer to apologists in general. I regret that and should have chosen more precise language, as many(probably most) who defend do so in a consistent understanding manner.

Edited May 1, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the church is doing the opposite of what you say it should do. The status quo in how the church presents it's history is changing. It's best that we not hinder it's progress.

*ahem...* The Church was not hiding and manipulating historical information, is not putting it all together in a nice, neat, easily assimilated and defensible curriculum (or a mea culpa exposé, whatever fits the accusation), and it is not coddling people from the historical (and other disciplinary) vicissitudes in the world around them…

I maintain that the Church is doing “what it has always done: using the appropriate techniques and technologies of the day for availing a reliably sound representation of its history.” But if you want to believe I am not saying that, fine!

[Danzo]

True story: I remember the first time I found out that I had born false testimony to a family who were investigating the church on my mission in the Philippines. They brought up some "anti-Mormon" bologna about Pres. Young teaching about how some people need to shed their own blood to atone for their sins. I told them it was all lies and bore testimony that a prophet of God would never teach such nonsense, as we believe that Christ's blood atoned for all of our sins. I told them that there are enemies to the church who are actively spreading lies about us to prevent the work of God from moving forward. They didn't buy it, but I did.

You were correct in teaching what the church taught

You were just incorrect in that you did not know what everything Brigham Young said or didn't say.

I'll bet you still don't know everything that Brigham Young said.

It would be impossible to testify that Brigham Young didn't ever say something unless you were aware of everything he said.

As a missionary, your job was to teach what the church teaches, not defend everything Brigham Young (Or Joseph Smith, Or John Taylor) said.

[Danzo]

It wasn't until many years after my mission that I first learned about the doctrine of blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young. I felt like I had been taken for a fool. I was confused and kind of ashamed for bearing false witness. Why didn't I know about this? I wanted so badly to go back and re-do that whole situation. Brigham Young was almost super-human in my eyes, as taught by the church. I have since learned about many bizarre teachings of Brigham and how prejudice he really was. If I had learned about this history in a moment of weakness, I would not be a member today. If I did not have the burning witness that I have of the gospel. I would not be around today.

Why are you surprised that you weren't taught something that the church does not teach?

Maybe you would like an institute class titled "things that past members and leaders have said that are not current doctrine".

Or maybe instead of "teachings of the presidents of the church", you want a class called "Mistakes of the presidents of the church"

Then we can spend our time picking apart and tearing down other people.

[Danzo]

It is tough to find out that the Church is not what you were raised to believe it was.

What changed about how the church is when you found out what prophets in the past said?

All you did was find out that Jesus was the only perfect man. A living prophet leads this church and that past mistakes of past leaders are corrected by current leaders, that the 9th Article of faith is real and that living prophets are more important than dead ones.