New Essay: Peace And Violence Among 19Th Century Saints

[canard78]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think these issues have not had academic attention or been researched carefully. Do they really think that these essays represent ground breaking research?

I agree that it's probably a bit of an over-claim. It's certainly groundbreaking for the church to publish this. Given most of what has been written in the lds.org essays is sourced from other books and essays then it's probably not reasonable to claim it's new. I'm not aware of any of the essays introducing new news.

Having said that, the statement is about the essays generally (not just this latest one). Perhaps there is original research happening as part of this. Given the essay links to josephsmithpapers they can at least claim that is original research.

Having said all that, I posted the quote mainly to show that the 1stP and Qot12 have approved this and other essays.

[Calm]

I assume the ones (if they exist) that involve new research are going to be showing up later to ensure they are done thoroughly while the earlier ones are likely the more popular in sense of having been discussed extensively already and thus easier to research and write. No major gaps to try and fill.

[Avatar4321]

D&C 123 has a commandment to the Church to collect and respond to the critics of the Church. Perhap, this is just an effort to fulfill that command. Considering we are stll getting the quorum of the seventy in place, still working at not being under condemnation for taking the book of mormon for granted, and stll working on getting to a point to live the law of consecration as a people it shouldn't be terribly shocking that it might take this long to get that specfic commandment the attention it needs.

 

Who really knows. My guess is there was a revelation on it and so they are acting.

[stemelbow]

So the question this makes me think is "why now?"

It is wonderful to see the church publishing articles that are open and honest about topics that were previously either whitewashed or ignored.

So what has changed?

Have we as a Church finally been around long enough that the things that were taught a century ago have moved from being embarrassments to being historical curiosities?  That's an interesting notion to me.  In another 100 years will Blood Atonement be to Mormonism what the Inquisition is to Catholicism?  A historical relic with no real impact on today.  And are other doctrines such as the priesthood ban and polygamy moving down the same path - from embarrassment to historical curiosity?

I think your question is address by Elder Snow as quoted just above your post, no?

Contributor

PipPipPipPipPip

3,953 posts

Posted 15 hours ago

For those who might plan to share this with friends, here's the statement from the church saying the essays are approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve:

Quote

Most who study our history well understand the context of these matters as far as time and place. But some members of the Church — many, really — are surprised by some of the things they learn in our history. And we want them to be able to go to a place where they can read accurate information and be able to seek to understand those historical chapters in the context of time and place. And understand that those answers have been approved by the presiding brethren of the Church. I think that will give many of our members confidence that they can rely on these answers.

We have actually retained outside the Church History Department — we have retained scholars, for the most part outside the Church History Department — known LDS scholars to do some very extensive research. And this has been groundbreaking in a way. These issues have not always had academic attention. They haven’t really been researched carefully. So we are very pleased that these scholars would agree to do this research. They then submitted a draft of their paper to a committee of historians here in the Church History Department as well as General Authorities who have reviewed their work and adjusted some edits. Those edits are made with the permission of the original writer. And that’s then submitted to the presiding Quorums of the Church, the Twelve and the First Presidency for approval. And then it’s published in Gospel Topics under LDS.org.

Much of what’s written now, these arguments and these issues, have been around for decades — 150 years. And it’s the same material repackaged. And we understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. But as the information age is now upon us? We feel with all of this information out there, we owe it — particularly to the rising generation — to provide good, reliable information about these matters.

(Emphasis added)

Elder Steven E. Snow

Church Historian and Recorder and the Executive Director of the Church History Department.

[Palerider]

So the question this makes me think is "why now?"

It is wonderful to see the church publishing articles that are open and honest about topics that were previously either whitewashed or ignored.

So what has changed?

Have we as a Church finally been around long enough that the things that were taught a century ago have moved from being embarrassments to being historical curiosities?  That's an interesting notion to me.  In another 100 years will Blood Atonement be to Mormonism what the Inquisition is to Catholicism?  A historical relic with no real impact on today.  And are other doctrines such as the priesthood ban and polygamy moving down the same path - from embarrassment to historical curiosity?

 

To address this issue and some others that have been raised on this thread, let me say that I share the enthusiasm generated by the publishing of these essays, just as I did the talk given by Elder Uchtdorf regarding  past behaviors of church leadership. I'm glad they are finally dealing with some of these issues even in a superficial way.

 

I'm really sorry however that it has taken them so long. These issues have been around for a long time and the church in the past has chosen to "brush them off", I believe because they weren't having a deleterious effect on membership and activity, which directly effects tithing donations and church expansion.

 

To quote Elder Snow:  "And we understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ."  This seems just a little disingenuous.

 

My observation with the church has been that they tend to be reactive rather than proactive and if something isn't really hurting them, as with something like the priesthood ban for instance, they have a tendency to ignore it and stay with the current mantra. But when it begins to adversely effect their public image or their current response becomes untenable or ridiculous in the light of new and more accurate information, then they pivot and attempt to play catch up as they are doing now. 

 

Yes, what a great question. "Why now?"

 

Shouldn't an organization that loves and promotes the truth, be way out in front on these issues?  I suppose better late than never, but look at all they have had to throw under the bus to get the job even started. Past leaders and their writings, who were once pillars of the restoration are falling like the monolithic Moai of Easter island. "Doctrine" is being turned on it's ear to make it less offensive. It's no wonder that there is a clash between generations as BDMormon mentioned in another thread. We in the over 60 crowd remember the way things were interpreted and how the stories were told from the earlier days of the church and it doesn't jibe with what many here want us to swallow. It feels a lot like someone trying to push a camel down our throats.......... 

Edited May 15, 2014 by Palerider

[Pahoran]

To address this issue and some others that have been raised on this thread, let me say that I share the enthusiasm generated by the publishing of these essays, just as I did the talk given by Elder Uchtdorf regarding  past behaviors of church leadership. I'm glad they are finally dealing with some of these issues even in a superficial way.

 

I'm really sorry however that it has taken them so long. These issues have been around for a long time and the church in the past has chosen to "brush them off", I believe because they weren't having a deleterious effect on membership and activity, which directly effects tithing donations and church expansion.

 

To quote Elder Snow:  "And we understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ."  This seems just a little disingenuous.

 

My observation with the church has been that they tend to be reactive rather than proactive and if something isn't really hurting them, as with something like the priesthood ban for instance, they have a tendency to ignore it and stay with the current mantra. But when it begins to adversely effect their public image or their current response becomes untenable or ridiculous in the light of new and more accurate information, then they pivot and attempt to play catch up as they are doing now. 

 

Yes, what a great question. "Why now?"

 

Shouldn't an organization that loves and promotes the truth, be way out in front on these issues?  I suppose better late than never, but look at all they have had to throw under the bus to get the job even started. Past leaders and their writings, who were once pillars of the restoration are falling like the monolithic Moai of Easter island. "Doctrine" is being turned on it's ear to make it less offensive. It's no wonder that there is a clash between generations as BDMormon mentioned in another thread. We in the over 60 crowd remember the way things were interpreted and how the stories were told from the earlier days of the church and it doesn't jibe with what many here want us to swallow. It feels a lot like someone trying to push a camel down our throats.......... 

 

So if you can't find anything to criticise in the content of the essay, you'll just find another angle of attack.

 

You couldn't resist throwing in that meaningless jab about "tithing donations," could you?  There's not a shred of evidence supporting that asinumption, but you just had to make it anyway.

 

And your mind-reading is supplemented by fond daydreams that start to look mushroom-enhanced.  Sorry to disappoint you, but no doctrine "is being turned on it's ear to make it less offensive."  Nobody has been thrown under any bus.

 

Methinks your frustration is showing.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

My observation with the church has been that they tend to be reactive rather than proactive and if something isn't really hurting them, as with something like the priesthood ban for instance, they have a tendency to ignore it and stay with the current mantra. But when it begins to adversely effect their public image or their current response becomes untenable or ridiculous in the light of new and more accurate information, then they pivot and attempt to play catch up as they are doing now.

.....

I hear ya, Brother, but isn't this the case with EVERY one of us? We tend to put off dealing with things until the pain of ignoring them exceeds the pain of dealing with them. And I'm not even sure that it shouldn't be this way.

For example, I ignore about 99% of the minor aches and pains I feel when waking up each morning. Otherwise, I'd spent each morning in the doctor's office. "No, Mr. Newb, you don't have cancer of the eyelids!"

That being said, there is a danger in not dealing with these little pains. In fact, as I understand it, pancreatic cancer is so deadly because, by the time it becomes too troublesome to ignore, it is too malignant to be stopped.

That's why I think that it's important for FAITHFUL members of the Church to "let it out" -- to speak up when there is pain in the pews. The priesthood ban is a great example of the Church ignoring the pain until it became a malignant cancer that we still haven't been able to recover from.

Had we dealt with the priesthood ban in the 60s, we would have been seen as no more racist than most Protestant denominations. However, we didn't deal with it until the pain became too great to ignore (i.e. the nightmare of trying to sort out who was of "African-descent" in Brazil). And that delay is a cancer that will likely prevent MILLIONS of black Americans from even considering the Gospel on this side of the veil.

That's why I think that we so desperately need AGITATORS -- people who make the leaders say, "Ouch! That hurts!" Because without "belly achers," our beloved leaders might not seek a check- up from the ultimate physician.

[Tiki]

I hear ya, Brother, but isn't this the case with EVERY one of us? We tend to put off dealing with things until the pain of ignoring them exceeds the pain of dealing with them. And I'm not even sure that it shouldn't be this way.

For example, I ignore about 99% of the minor aches and pains I feel when waking up each morning. Otherwise, I'd spent each morning in the doctor's office. "No, Mr. Newb, you don't have cancer of the eyelids!"

That being said, there is a danger in not dealing with these little pains. In fact, as I understand it, pancreatic cancer is so deadly because, by the time it becomes too troublesome to ignore, it is too malignant to be stopped.

That's why I think that it's important for FAITHFUL members of the Church to "let it out" -- to speak up when there is pain in the pews. The priesthood ban is a great example of the Church ignoring the pain until it became a malignant cancer that we still haven't been able to recover from.

Had we dealt with the priesthood ban in the 60s, we would have been seen as no more racist than most Protestant denominations. However, we didn't deal with it until the pain became too great to ignore (i.e. the nightmare of trying to sort out who was of "African-descent" in Brazil). And that delay is a cancer that will likely prevent MILLIONS of black Americans from even considering the Gospel on this side of the veil.

That's why I think that we so desperately need AGITATORS -- people who make the leaders say, "Ouch! That hurts!" Because without "belly achers," our beloved leaders might not seek a check- up from the ultimate physician.

You had best be careful. Faithful members are not agitators.

And I suggest you quit worrying when the inhabitants of the great and spacious building give you the finger. Ignore them or you may fall:

D&C 85

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

9 And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.

10 These things I say not of myself; therefore, as the Lord speaketh, he will also fulfil.

11 And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High;

12 Therefore, it shall be done unto them as unto the children of the priest, as will be found recorded in the second chapter and sixty-first and second verses of Ezra.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Tiki

[canard78]

You had best be careful. Faithful members are not agitators.

And I suggest you quit worrying when the inhabitants of the great and spacious building give you the finger. Ignore them or you may fall:

D&C 85

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

9 And all they who are not found written in the book of remembrance shall find none inheritance in that day, but they shall be cut asunder, and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers, where are wailing and gnashing of teeth.

10 These things I say not of myself; therefore, as the Lord speaketh, he will also fulfil.

11 And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High;

12 Therefore, it shall be done unto them as unto the children of the priest, as will be found recorded in the second chapter and sixty-first and second verses of Ezra.

So was Emma being an unfaithful member when she expressed concern to Joseph about the tobacco spitting?

[Calm]

So was Emma being an unfaithful member when she expressed concern to Joseph about the tobacco spitting?

Did Emma go to the local press to publicise her displeasure?

I am not sure "agitator" really applies to someone asking his or her spouse to alter their behaviour, including what they do with their associates in a house that spouse has to clean up.

[thesometimesaint]

The Church Correlation Committee was first established in 1907.

[canard78]

Did Emma go to the local press to publicise her displeasure?

I am not sure "agitator" really applies to someone asking his or her spouse to alter their behaviour, including what they do with their associates in a house that spouse has to clean up.

 

I guess not. I wonder whether it was mentioned once or a few times? Given the relationship and the structure of the church was very different, how might one take a concern or suggested change to a prophet in the way Emma was able to in our day? I'm not even sure a written letter gets through any more.

 

Emma would have been able to get Joseph's undivided attention when expressing concern. How might we get the attention of the brethren to share our views and concerns? Or should we all just stay silent?

[Calm]

How might we get the attention of the brethren to share our views and concerns? Or should we all just stay silent?

My answer would depend on whether or not you require guaranteed attention, are willing to operate completely on faith in the Lord by putting it in his lap or somewhere in between.

[Tacenda]

I must have had really rebellious seminary teachers. While I was in High School over 50 years ago, I was taught about The MMM and blood atonement. No one whitewashed anything. I knew that church leaders in the area were at fault and were deceptive and violent. Of course this was all before correlation .I did live in the wild west so we were used to some " questionable " practices in the area.

Someone has a blog out coinciding with the essay that lists several quotes from leaders at that time.  They are so scary, to think that this mentality existed in the church at one time.  It was evil.  They were saying people needed to atone for their own sins, even if they committed adultery, or a variety of different things, that would require someone to die.  What happened to Christ atoning for their sins?  I understand in the wild west you were hung for murder, but adultery?  And the way they said it should be done is through slitting throats etc.  Or spilling blood somehow.  

[thesometimesaint]

Someone has a blog out coinciding with the essay that lists several quotes from leaders at that time.  They are so scary, to think that this mentality existed in the church at one time.  It was evil.  They were saying people needed to atone for their own sins, even if they committed adultery, or a variety of different things, that would require someone to die.  What happened to Christ atoning for their sins?  I understand in the wild west you were hung for murder, but adultery?  And the way they said it should be done is through slitting throats etc.  Or spilling blood somehow.  

 

The Saints of yesterday aren't really any different than the ones of today. The Church in America has been remarkedly free of outright violence. The most we do is try someone for their membership in the Church. The Danites, and Avenging Angels are more myth than substance.

[Calm]

Someone has a blog out coinciding with the essay that lists several quotes from leaders at that time.  They are so scary, to think that this mentality existed in the church at one time.  It was evil.  They were saying people needed to atone for their own sins, even if they committed adultery, or a variety of different things, that would require someone to die.  What happened to Christ atoning for their sins?  I understand in the wild west you were hung for murder, but adultery?  And the way they said it should be done is through slitting throats etc.  Or spilling blood somehow.

And this actually happened how many times? All that preaching...must have been a pretty common experience, one would think.

[JLHPROF]

Someone has a blog out coinciding with the essay that lists several quotes from leaders at that time.  They are so scary, to think that this mentality existed in the church at one time.  It was evil.

 

I think that's a bit of an overstatement.  The idea of blood being shed to atone for sin is an eternal principle born out throughout scripture.  It's not exactly an evil thing.

 

 

They were saying people needed to atone for their own sins, even if they committed adultery, or a variety of different things, that would require someone to die.  What happened to Christ atoning for their sins?  I understand in the wild west you were hung for murder, but adultery?  And the way they said it should be done is through slitting throats etc.  Or spilling blood somehow

 

Spiling of blood is scripturally required as an atonement for sin.  No other death will suffice.  Christ shed his innocent blood to cover our sins.  But it always had to be blood.

 

As for sins that don't fall under the atonement - that is an interesting subject, and would likely raise a lot of debate.  But as a starting point it has been taught that those who sin to the point of perdition are no longer covered by the atonement.

[mormonnewb]

The Saints of yesterday aren't really any different than the ones of today. The Church in America has been remarkedly free of outright violence. The most we do is try someone for their membership in the Church. The Danites, and Avenging Angels are more myth than substance.

 

What is it with this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members?  I have never once heard one of my Catholic brothers try to defend or downplay, say, the Spanish Inquisition.  "Inquisition, schmission!  We asked a few questions. The reports of torture and compulsion were more myth than substance."

 

They actually own up to it, just as our Church leaders are trying to do.  Yet, as members, we can't just accept that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”  Pres. Uchtdorf, October 2013 GC

 

And while we think this approach is faith-affirming, it often does just the opposite.  I've met many lapsed Catholics in my day and not ONE has ever told me that they left their church because of the Spanish Inquisition or because the Catholic Church failed to speak out sufficiently against the Nazis.  They seem to understand that "God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, but human beings — including church leaders — are not."  Yet, in my short-tenure in the Church, I've met lapsed saints who had "faith crises" precipitated by discovering that the saints were not "innocent" in the MMM affair.

 

In the words of the young folks (and for the sake of their testimonies), "Let's keep it real, yo!"

[JLHPROF]

What is it with this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members?  I have never once heard one of my Catholic brothers try to defend or downplay, say, the Spanish Inquisition.  "Inquisition, schmission!  We asked a few questions. The reports of torture and compulsion were more myth than substance."

 

They actually own up to it, just as our Church leaders are trying to do.  Yet, as members, we can't just accept that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”  Pres. Uchtdorf, October 2013 GC

 

And while we think this approach is faith-affirming, it often does just the opposite.  I've met many lapsed Catholics in my day and not ONE has ever told me that they left their church because of the Spanish Inquisition or because the Catholic Church failed to speak out sufficiently against the Nazis.  They seem to understand that "God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, but human beings — including church leaders — are not."  Yet, in my short-tenure in the Church, I've met lapsed saints who had "faith crises" precipitated by discovering that the saints were not "innocent" in the MMM affair.

 

In the words of the young folks (and for the sake of their testimonies), "Let's keep it real, yo!"

 

Owning up to mistakes is one thing.  Stating that a doctrine that was revealed through a prophet by revelation was "wrong" is another.  There is no benefit to our faith in stating that doctrine given by revelation was wrong.  But you are correct that man makes mistakes.

 

Blood atonement is based in scripture.  The inqusition was not.

It's the same kind of mentality that allows some members to say "polygamy was a mistake".  How offensive to call a revelation from God "a mistake".  Now, you could argue that some actions taken by men trying to live polygamy were mistakes, but that's not the same thing.

[halconero]

Someone has a blog out coinciding with the essay that lists several quotes from leaders at that time. They are so scary, to think that this mentality existed in the church at one time. It was evil. They were saying people needed to atone for their own sins, even if they committed adultery, or a variety of different things, that would require someone to die. What happened to Christ atoning for their sins? I understand in the wild west you were hung for murder, but adultery? And the way they said it should be done is through slitting throats etc. Or spilling blood somehow.

The Apostle Paul said he hoped that Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who started keeping Torah would be castrated while performing circumcisions.

I'm not excusing him, but he and many modern apostles have been violently fallible in many ways.

[halconero]

What is it with this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members? I have never once heard one of my Catholic brothers try to defend or downplay, say, the Spanish Inquisition. "Inquisition, schmission! We asked a few questions. The reports of torture and compulsion were more myth than substance."

They actually own up to it, just as our Church leaders are trying to do. Yet, as members, we can't just accept that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.” Pres. Uchtdorf, October 2013 GC

And while we think this approach is faith-affirming, it often does just the opposite. I've met many lapsed Catholics in my day and not ONE has ever told me that they left their church because of the Spanish Inquisition or because the Catholic Church failed to speak out sufficiently against the Nazis. They seem to understand that "God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, but human beings — including church leaders — are not." Yet, in my short-tenure in the Church, I've met lapsed saints who had "faith crises" precipitated by discovering that the saints were not "innocent" in the MMM affair.

In the words of the young folks (and for the sake of their testimonies), "Let's keep it real, yo!"

Catholic doctrine is that the Church leadership is infallible, but nobody believes it. Latter-day Saint doctrine is that the Church leadership is fallible, but nobody believes it.

[bluebell]

What is it with this constant need for the Church to be ALWAYS right (or at least, not very wrong) in the eyes of members?  I have never once heard one of my Catholic brothers try to defend or downplay, say, the Spanish Inquisition.  "Inquisition, schmission!  We asked a few questions. The reports of torture and compulsion were more myth than substance."

 

They actually own up to it, just as our Church leaders are trying to do.  Yet, as members, we can't just accept that "there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”  Pres. Uchtdorf, October 2013 GC

 

And while we think this approach is faith-affirming, it often does just the opposite.  I've met many lapsed Catholics in my day and not ONE has ever told me that they left their church because of the Spanish Inquisition or because the Catholic Church failed to speak out sufficiently against the Nazis.  They seem to understand that "God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, but human beings — including church leaders — are not."  Yet, in my short-tenure in the Church, I've met lapsed saints who had "faith crises" precipitated by discovering that the saints were not "innocent" in the MMM affair.

 

In the words of the young folks (and for the sake of their testimonies), "Let's keep it real, yo!"

 

You obviously haven't looked into the conflicting histories of the spanish inquisition and the many different answers that are available from Catholic sources.  "It was more myth than fact" is not an uncommon answer (and not completely inaccurate either).  

[mormonnewb]

You obviously haven't looked into the conflicting histories of the spanish inquisition and the many different answers that are available from Catholic sources.  "It was more myth than fact" is not an uncommon answer (and not completely inaccurate either).  

Good point! As Mormons, we didn't start the field of apologetics and so yes, there are many scholars who argue over the extent of the horror of the Spanish Inquisition. However, my PERCEPTION is that this apologetic bent is particularly strong amongst the saints. Now, I will grant that my view is probably skewed by participation on this board, but I would bet that most Catholics are more willing to accept that their church has "messed up big-time" in the past. But it's just my guess and therefore, only about 90 percent likely to be spot on accurate

[Calm]

"that most Catholics are more willing to accept that their church has "messed up big-time" in the past."

There is a good chance that much of this distancing is due to distance, both in time and location. Have you been around Spanish Catholics much? NonAmerican Saints don't see to be as involved in LDS church history in my experience (Albertan Saints have their own niche due to colonisation and the current presence of LDS dominated towns by Lethbridge, including Cardston where the best temple in the world is). Closer to home mess ups seem to me to bother Catholics as much as they do LDS, I have been told by Catholic friends they cringe when reading of criminals identified as of their faith, especially if leaders in their community. There were reports of large numbers of Catholics going inactive (sorry, don't know what the proper term is, but leaving the faith may not work because in my understanding once baptised one is always a Catholic in the eyes of the Church even if not in communion....please someone correct me if wrong) during the reports of the priest child abuse scandal. I cannot imagine those who are devout Catholics not feeling personally wounded by such events.

I do believe that knowing their faith has been around so long as well as being the largest single Christian denomination (and second largest religious denomination after Sunnis though Sunnis do not have formal clergy so I think one might say Catholicism is the largest organised faith in the world ) has given Catholics a sense of security when dealing with others that LDS often don't have. There is a whole dimension of minority justification missing and news reports don't generally connect reports of miracles with the central organization but rather present those involved as more on the fringes while LDS have to deal with the First Vision and the plates as core events.

Edited May 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Btw, there is a very significant portion of LDS who want nothing to do with apologetics, including some that even condemn other LDS who participate in it (often based on a misunderstanding that apologetics means saying one is sorry rather than defending)...reference is personal experience including some letters sent to FairMormon telling us we have a lot of nerve and should shut down.