The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[blueadept]

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

Fair question.

IMHO when one studies the history of their faith, in the long run it should still bring them closer to Christ after they have dealt with the skeletons that's in the closet. As a Catholic, there's PLENTY of skeletons to deal with but in the end I'm more of a devout Catholic for the effort in better understanding the skeletons.

It should be the same for LDS. The best LDS testimonies I've heard are of those that have dealt with those skeletons and are stronger for it.

My 2 cents

[pogi]

*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!

I do believe that you think the church is doing what it has always done, but I don't. I see radical transformations in it's approach to history in the last decade. It is not continuing on with the status quo of near silence, but is reacting to the "greatest period of apostasy sense Kirtland." It is listening to and reacting to those who are leaving in "droves" because of they suddenly have easy access to our true history. I do suspect some coddling, with the best of intentions of corse, but I think the church is recognizing that it's approach needs to change.

[pogi]

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.

The evolution of church doctrine and teachings of the prophets would be a fascinating course.

[Calm]

Fair question.

IMHO when one studies the history of their faith, in the long run it should still bring them closer to Christ after they have dealt with the skeletons that's in the closet. As a Catholic, there's PLENTY of skeletons to deal with but in the end I'm more of a devout Catholic for the effort in better understanding the skeletons.

It should be the same for LDS. The best LDS testimonies I've heard are of those that have dealt with those skeletons and are stronger for it.

My 2 cents

Out of points so will have to respond saying I agree totally.

[CV75]

I do believe that you think the church is doing what it has always done, but I don't. I see radical transformations in it's approach to history in the last decade. It is not continuing on with the status quo of near silence, but is reacting to the "greatest period of apostasy sense Kirtland." It is listening to and reacting to those who are leaving in "droves" because of they suddenly have easy access to our true history. I do suspect some coddling, with the best of intentions of corse, but I think the church is recognizing that it's approach needs to change.

The Church’s advancements in many areas have typically been as radical as the newest technology available. The Church has always listened also, again to the extent humanly possible as aided by the Spirit and with the techniques and technologies available.

But you are bringing the argument back to the Church solving a problem it supposedly created, when you have already pointed out that the real problem is something else entirely, and so misinterpret what the Church is doing. This is why and how Elder Jensen’s remarks get spun so freely to support the hyperbole in describing what the Church did/didn't do and is/isn't doing.

You are also bringing the argument back to the Church changing as a reaction or an apology, when the Church is actually being very proactive as tools become available. It’s like someone complaining that they had to wait until 2013 to fulfill his dream of booking a space flight. The Church is also being proactive in meeting a need people are expressing now that haven’t before, and again the reason they are experiencing and expressing such a need has to do with the real problem you already pointed out (the consequence of a weak moment). That is nothing new.

The Church’s advancements are not accomplished to correct its wrongs, and they are not the solutions to wrongs it did not commit.

[CV75]

It should be the same for LDS. The best LDS testimonies I've heard are of those that have dealt with those skeletons and are stronger for it.

I agree. It is how they dealt with whatever bothered them that matters, and I suspect that except in rare instances, their approach had nothing to do with reliance on the Church Historical Department.

[ERayR]

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.

[ERayR]

Seems kind of harsh to call that slander.

But when it is what else can you do?

Edited May 2, 2013 by ERayR

[Nevo]

But when it is [slander] what else can you do?

Are you just trying to provoke, or are you really that ignorant of the facts?

[noel00]

In the real world many women are attracted to and marry powerful rich men, even those not so physically attractive. For example an asian lady, Wendy is married to Rupert Murdoch, a man considerably older than her (i think 38 years diff).He is able to provide her with a really good life. I think she came from poor circumstances in China and was an ambitious woman.

In ape communities the strongest ape gets the females. In the 1800s the church leaders wanted access to marry the most attractive lady converts. I read somewhere that in the late 1800s there was a surplus of single males in Utah. So perhaps Zina might have thought she would have a better life with BY than with the father of her children. But then she had to share him with a number of other women.

[canard78]

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.

There is no interplay between capital punishment and the atonement. Absolutely none. The ability for capital punishment to have any efficacy whatsoever on the atoning process is non-existent. More misinformation.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

I agree with much of what you say, though I come to different conclusions. I hold modern day church authorities to a high standard of moral behavior. I expect them to lead and live exemplary lives. I would have as little tolerance of their breaking of laws or principles of the church as I would have of immorality or breaking of laws by the Pope or any TV evangelist. Any person who claims to get guidance from God and then leads an immoral life, is not worthy of respect nor devotion. Mormon leaders do not get a free "get out of jail card" just because their doctrines are closer to mine. If a church authority was found guilty of fraud, or guilty of adultery, plural marriage, or any of a number of criminal activities, a simple "Oops" on their part, would not buy any leverage with me.

Looking at church history, I can find no reasons to judge past leaders by a different standard.

Edited May 2, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[Glenn101]

Looking at church history, I can find no reasons to judge past leaders by a different standard.

Before making any judgement, don't you think that you need to have all of the facts? Especially the facts from God? That is the criteria we need to use, God's opinion of Joseph Smith and his viewpoint on the events of those days. And, if accounts of Joseph being seen by some, including Brigham Young, are to be trusted, Joseph is in pretty high esteem with God in the next life.

Glenn

Edited May 2, 2013 by Glenn101

[cdowis]

Looking at church history, I can find no reasons to judge past leaders by a different standard.

Are Abraham and Issac under condemnation for immorality at your bar of judgement?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But when it is what else can you do?

This is exactly what I am talking about. How do you know when someone is being intentionally slanderous and should be called out for condemnation or not? How do you know when someone just needs to be understood, and we shouldn't rush to judgement? Can you point me to the post on this thread where you called the church libelous for defaming Henry Jacobs on its website and publications?

Thanks,

John

[pogi]

The Church’s advancements in many areas have typically been as radical as the newest technology available. The Church has always listened also, again to the extent humanly possible as aided by the Spirit and with the techniques and technologies available.

But you are bringing the argument back to the Church solving a problem it supposedly created, when you have already pointed out that the real problem is something else entirely, and so misinterpret what the Church is doing. This is why and how Elder Jensen’s remarks get spun so freely to support the hyperbole in describing what the Church did/didn't do and is/isn't doing.

You are also bringing the argument back to the Church changing as a reaction or an apology, when the Church is actually being very proactive as tools become available. It’s like someone complaining that they had to wait until 2013 to fulfill his dream of booking a space flight. The Church is also being proactive in meeting a need people are expressing now that haven’t before, and again the reason they are experiencing and expressing such a need has to do with the real problem you already pointed out (the consequence of a weak moment). That is nothing new.

The Church’s advancements are not accomplished to correct its wrongs, and they are not the solutions to wrongs it did not commit.

What else could "The Rescue" (a plan to address the difficulties of Mormon history) be other than a reaction to many young people falling away? Did you read Elder Jensen said at USU? I don't know how you could view it as anything other than a reaction. You seem to think that reacting is a bad thing. It shows that these are very loving men leading the church who want to prevent further fallout.

What new techniques and technology have made a more complete church history possible? Church manuals are not new technology by any means, neither is the internet. The fact that they are even discussing talking about polyandry etc. in church manuals is a big change in discourse, not technology.

Edited May 2, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

"greatest period of apostasy sense Kirtland."

<snip>

those who are leaving in "droves" because of they suddenly have easy access to our true history.

I wanted to find where you got the phrases in quotes, so I found a transcript of Elder Jensen’s November 2011 fireside at Utah State University. According to the transcript,

1. “droves” was a term used by the questioner, not by Elder Jensen.. In reply to the full question, Elder Jensen affirmed that Church leadership is aware that people (no adjective to convey how many) leave the Church as one negative outcome of “the effects of Google on membership,” which I take to mean difficulty in processing all kinds of misinformation, conflicting information and in this case, controversial history and commentary on Church history (not just "easy access to our true history" as you put it) that are accessed through Google and other internet searches.

2. "greatest period of apostasy sense [sic] Kirtland" was part of the subsequent exchange, and is qualified by “maybe” and “I’ll call it,” as in “maybe, since Kirtland we’ve never had a period of—I’ll call it apostasy—like we’re having right now, largely over these issues [“the effects of Google on membership” as described above].”

3. Elder Jensen refers to two of a number of initiatives, “Answers to Gospel Questions” and “search engine optimization,” to improve the search results and to counter the large amount of misinformation available. He explains that the Church is focused on taking this technological approach (including the tactical aspects of channels and format) “for the public at large, for Church leaders,” not to imbue filtering, analytical or coping skills on someone that is unaccustomed to processing new information.

4. Elder Jensen again bookends his remarks at the end of the transcript with “We know it’s there,” again referring to “the effects of Google on membership.”

The transcript (emphasis mine):

Q: Has the Church seen the effects of Google on membership? Have there been…is the Church leadership aware of—and, I don’t know, maybe I’m overstating what’s going on, but it seems like the people I talk to about Church history are people who find out and leave, quickly—

A: Yes.

Q: Is the Church aware of that problem? Is there anything…I mean, the new manuals would help, I guess, “inoculation” within terms of youth would help. What about people who are already leaving in droves?

A: We are aware. Maybe I’ll just say this: You know what, I often get this question, “Do the brethren really know?” They do.

Q: [obscured by cross-talk]

A: And I’m not speaking of me; I’m speaking of the fifteen men that are above me in the hierarchy of the Church. They really do know. And they really care. And they realize that, maybe, since Kirtland we’ve never had a period of—I’ll call it apostasy—like we’re having right now, largely over these issues.

So we do have another initiative that we’ve called “Answers to Gospel Questions.” We’re trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver it in and exactly what format to put it in, but we want to have a place where people can go.

We’ve hired someone that’s in charge of “search engine optimization.” The Church is very tuned in to the world that we’re living in, and we realize that people basically get their information through Googling. They don’t come to LDS.org; if they get there, it’s through Google.

Q: Yes. [?]

A: So we are trying to create an offering that will address these issues and be available for the public at large, for Church leaders, because many of them don’t have answers either, which can be very disappointing to Church members, and to people who are losing their faith or have lost it and we hope to regain to the Church.

So we’re right in tune with you. We know it’s there. It just takes awhile.

Q: Right.

A: It’s one thing of a number that we’re working on, but you’re very much in point with what we’re talking about.

Edited May 2, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

What else could "The Rescue" (a plan to address the difficulties of Mormon history) be other than a reaction to many young people falling away? Did you read Elder Jensen said at USU? I don't know how you could view it as anything other than a reaction. You seem to think that reacting is a bad thing. It shows that these are very loving men leading the church who want to prevent further fallout.

What new techniques and technology have made a more complete church history possible? Church manuals are not new technology by any means, neither is the internet. The fact that they are even discussing talking about polyandry etc. in church manuals is a big change in discourse, not technology.

See above post. Technology has facilitated discourse.

The Rescue is not the limited scope that some blogger says it is:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-rescue-for-real-growth?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/to-the-rescue?lang=eng

A well thought out and inspired strategy is not a reaction.

[ERayR]

This is exactly what I am talking about. How do you know when someone is being intentionally slanderous and should be called out for condemnation or not? How do you know when someone just needs to be understood, and we shouldn't rush to judgement? Can you point me to the post on this thread where you called the church libelous for defaming Henry Jacobs on its website and publications?

Thanks,

John

John,

I don't know that 'the Church' has slandered Henry Jacobs on its website, in its publications or anywhere else. Please feel free to post the references so that I can review them. However, As I have pointed out before this is all irrelevant to the truth claims of the Church and the spiritual manifestations and affirmations of those truth claims that millions receive.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

John,

I don't know that 'the Church' has slandered Henry Jacobs on its website, in its publications or anywhere else. Please feel free to post the references so that I can review them. However, As I have pointed out before this is all irrelevant to the truth claims of the Church and the spiritual manifestations and affirmations of those truth claims that millions receive.

As noted in the OP, the church published an article that says that Henry Jacob's "deserted" his wife and two children. There is no factual support for this statement. This is not an issue for me. I don't care what some writer in an article in the friend thinks. I'm sure s/he thought they were doing a good thing. The church is made up of imperfect people (like me) who make mistakes. I don't expect perfection and agree that it is irrelevant to the truth claims of the Church.

I also extend the same courtesy to people who are not defending the church.

Pogi's "slanderous" post said in part:

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.

Can you explain to me how you view this post as slanderous (so slanderous that you said "what else can you do" but call it slanderous) when you see no libel in the church's published statement on Henry Jacobs?

My apologies in advance if I am misreading you. I really would like to understand why it is so wrong to say that Brigham Young is prejudiced and taught blood atonement, while it is perfectly okay to say that Henry Jacob's deserted his kids.

Please note that while I personally view many of Brigham's views as very very flawed, I also hold him in high esteem and truly worthy of the title prophet.

[USU78]

There is no interplay between capital punishment and the atonement. Absolutely none. The ability for capital punishment to have any efficacy whatsoever on the atoning process is non-existent. More misinformation.

I happily admit that this is my opinion, and that we're going off on a tangent that may not be of interest . . . it's just that I didn't want certain assertions to be made (which were inapposite asides to begin with) and left hanging, creating an impression that it's perfectly okay to take a slap at BY on a wholly unrelated matter, especially when that slap is so grossly unfair.

[Calm]

In the 1800s the church leaders wanted access to marry the most attractive lady converts.

And you know this how? By mindreading their intentions?

Church manuals are not new technology by any means, neither is the internet.

You must have been born since 1975 if you consider the internet old tech.

[pogi]

See above post. Technology has facilitated discourse.

The Rescue is not the limited scope that some blogger says it is:

https://www.lds.org/...growth?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/...rescue?lang=eng

A well thought out and inspired strategy is not a reaction.

The discourse is not just changing on-line, it will also be in church manuals. Obviously technology facilitates discourse. Technology is not the reason for the discourse however, it is the means. The reason the discourse is changing is because people are leaving the church, it is as simple as that.

You missed a part:

"Where has the prophet laid his emphasis right now? It's on something called 'The Rescue'. And with good reason, because we are suffering a loss; both in terms of our new converts that come in that don't get really established in the church, as well as very faithful members who because of things we're talking about, as well as others, are losing their faith in the process. It is one of our biggest concerns right now."

What is so wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with creating "a well thought out and inspired strategy" in reaction to people leaving the church over reasons the church may not have anticipated previously. I am having a hard time understanding why you are getting hung-up over the the word reaction.

Does the word "rescue" not imply "reaction" to someone in need of help?

Edited May 2, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

You must have been born since 1975 if you consider the internet old tech.

Lol! Yep, 1979. These days, any technology older than a few years is considered old tech.

[CV75]

The discourse is not just changing on-line, it will also be in church manuals. Obviously technology facilitates discourse. Technology is not the reason for the discourse however, it is the means. The reason the discourse is changing is because people are leaving the church, it is as simple as that.

You missed a part:

"Where has the prophet laid his emphasis right now? It's on something called 'The Rescue'. And with good reason, because we are suffering a loss; both in terms of our new converts that come in that don't get really established in the church, as well as very faithful members who because of things we're talking about, as well as others, are losing their faith in the process. It is one of our biggest concerns right now."

What is so wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with creating "a well thought out and inspired strategy" in reaction to people leaving the church over reasons the church may not have anticipated previously. I am having a hard time understanding why you are getting hung-up over the the word reaction.

Does the word "rescue" not imply "reaction" to someone in need of help?

Church manuals are a form of technology, their production and dissemination a function of technology, which has been improving constantly—it is always new..

So technology is also the reason for the discourse—people wouldn’t so easily find / stumble upon what they find so objectionable without access to manuals or internet search engines, and without developing these objections, there would be no discourse of the “things we’re talking about.”

Your citation from the fireside rightly references The Rescue, and Elder Jensen kept it relevant to the discussion by applying it to the topic at hand (the “things we're talking about [“the effects of Google on membership” as I described earlier])” which “is one of our biggest concerns right now.” The Rescue is not exclusively about history as you portrayed it to be in post #192.

And isn’t it interesting that those who demand better historical product from the Church are treating a clumsily cobbled transcript as a historical document!

“Rescue” can mean both “a well thought out and inspired strategy” and a "reaction" to someone in need of immediate delivery or relief from immediate distress. There is nothing wrong with either, and the Church has always done both with the means it has had at its disposal, which naturally progresses over time. These include the consistent progress at the “History Department” in all its organizational forms and titles over the years.

So our point of disagreement seems to be that I see the Church response to members' history-triggered faith crisis as part of what it has always done (and how), while you see it as a momentous jump into action to stabilize an extraordinary crisis in the Church. I don't think Elder Jensen was coming from or trying to convey that latter point of view.