Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, Then why strangle her and only use a knife when that didn’t work? Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm
Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 9 hours ago, Tacenda said: Certainty is an egoic kind of small-minded stance that is evidently incredibly dangerous. Men will use it to justify doing abhorrent, destructive acts." You mean the certainty that allow individuals to overcome insurmountable odds to prevail, like Ukrainians struggling to survive the mass of Russia, slaves rebelling against their taskmasters, minorities and women achieving the right to vote and other civil rights? The certainty that drives innovation and lifts mankind ever higher at least technology wise? That kind of ‘small-minded stance’? 1
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, webbles said: I would doubt that either of them have ever read that. We talk about how the church "hides" its history. The 1980s was even more "hidden" so I have a hard time that they would have come across it. They knew of blood atonement, I'm not doubting that, but not that specific speech. Also, I don't think the murder had anything to do with blood atonement. The removal revelation was not talking about blood atonement or anything about sins that the 4 named had committed (how does an infant even commit a sin under any "Mormon" theology?). The 4 were "hindering" the work and that's why they were to be removed. It was more like how Laban had to be killed to allow Nephi to get the plates. Dan and the book reference that story multiple times. Dan does reference "The Peacemaker". He was fascinated with it and wrote about it multiple times in his journal. He taught his brothers, including Allen, about it. He believed that Joseph Smith wrote it and that it gave instructions on how to correctly treat a wife. The wife is not supposed to leave the house, handle money, etc. Brenda was not accepting of that idea and fought back against it. She also counseled her sister-in-laws about it. So instead of having a "true wife" (per The Peacemaker), Allen had a rebelious wife who was "hindering" things. Including helping Ron's wife get out of a bad situation. I think the ideas behind "The Peacemaker" and the story of Nephi and Laban were the strongest reasons behind why the murders took place. I'm in the Sunstone Under the Banner of Heaven Watch Group on facebook and that's where I saw the quote. They thought that it might be something the Lafferty's had read. Edited May 4, 2022 by Tacenda
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 44 minutes ago, Calm said: You mean the certainty that allow individuals to overcome insurmountable odds to prevail, like Ukrainians struggling to survive the mass of Russia, slaves rebelling against their taskmasters, minorities and women achieving the right to vote and other civil rights? The certainty that drives innovation and lifts mankind ever higher at least technology wise? That kind of ‘small-minded stance’? Out of context really.
webbles Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 48 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I'm in the Sunstone Under the Banner of Heaven Watch Group on facebook and that's where I saw the quote. They thought that it might be something the Lafferty's had read. That's one of the common blood atonement speeches. So it is easy to see someone bring it up. But I'd like to know if the Lafferty's would have even know of it. They became big followers of the Prophet Onias for a few months and probably read his revelations. Looking at the http://www.2bc.info/pdf/2BC-P100.pdf, in the index you can see "Shedding own blood for some forgiveness-- 255:4". That might be more like what they read. Also, don't know if you've actually read the "removal prophecy", it says: Quote Thus sayeth the Lord unto my servants the prophets. It is my will and commandment that ye remove the following individuals in order that my work might go forward, for they have truly become obstacles in my path and I will not allow my work to be stopped. First thy brother's wife Brenda and her bady, then Chloe Low, and then Richard Stowe. And it is my will that they be removed in rapid succession and that an example be mad of them in order that others might see the fate of those who fight against the true saints of God. And it is my will that this matter be taken care of as soon as possible and I will prepare a way for my instrument to be delivered and instruction be given unto my servant Todd. And it is my will that he show great care in his duties for I have raised him up and prepared him for this important work and is he not like unto my servant Porter Rockwell? And blessings await him if he will do my will, for I am the Lord thy God and have control over all things. Be still and know that I am with thee. Even so, amen. https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=29293432 The Todd that is referenced is a guy that had been picked up by one of the brothers earlier and he was staying with them. He left months before the murders so wasn't involved. And the "consecration prophecy" says: Quote And it is my will that the instrument that I have delivered unto thee be consecrated, dedicated, and set apart in the school for my purposes. And it is my will that it be delivered unto he whom I have raised up, even my son, ․ and that he be instructed by the school. And I will prepare a way by which my work in these matters may be accomplished. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1270132.html
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, webbles said: That's one of the common blood atonement speeches. So it is easy to see someone bring it up. But I'd like to know if the Lafferty's would have even know of it. They became big followers of the Prophet Onias for a few months and probably read his revelations. Looking at the http://www.2bc.info/pdf/2BC-P100.pdf, in the index you can see "Shedding own blood for some forgiveness-- 255:4". That might be more like what they read. Also, don't know if you've actually read the "removal prophecy", it says: https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=29293432 The Todd that is referenced is a guy that had been picked up by one of the brothers earlier and he was staying with them. He left months before the murders so wasn't involved. And the "consecration prophecy" says: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1270132.html Thanks for the link. It's amazing to me how these men just focused on their revelations and forgot all about their families it seemed. And also in the article it mentions how they needed to remove Brenda and Erica. Surely Allen knew they were saying these things wouldn't he have? And if so he really should have served some time or something. Also, the talk of Diana being the wife of the devil in a previous world sure sounds similar to Chad Daybell's sayings. ¶ 7 The brothers continued to meet together and opened their religious and political discussions to others with similar viewpoints. Through this process, they met Robert Crossfield, a man from Canada claiming to be a prophet. Crossfield asserted that he had directions from God to teach the Lafferty brothers how to receive revelation and organize themselves into what he called the “School of the Prophets.” 3 The brothers claimed they began to receive communications from God and would meet as a group to discuss these “revelations.” ¶ 8 It was during this time that defendant first told his brothers that he had received a revelation that his ex-wife Diana had been the wife of the devil in a previous world. Defendant believed their union angered the devil, who in turn caused him trouble in this world out of jealousy. In the spring of 1984, defendant claimed to have received another revelation from God (the “removal revelation”) ordering that four people were to be “removed.” Among those to be “removed” were his brother Allen's wife Brenda, their fifteen-month-old daughter Erica, Richard Stowe, and Chloe Low.4 ¶ 9 Prior to this time, defendant had expressed negative feelings to other family members and friends about the four persons named in the removal revelation. Defendant believed that all four in some way had either helped his wife obtain a divorce or played a part in his excommunication from the LDS Church. Defendant thought Brenda had encouraged Diana to leave and divorce him. On several occasions before the removal revelation, defendant called Brenda a “****” and told Allen that Brenda “had better stop talking to Diana” and that “he didn't want her meddling in their affairs.” After the removal revelation, defendant stated that Erica needed to be removed as well because “she would grow up to be a **** just like her mother.” 5 Chloe Low was also a friend of Diana's who helped and encouraged Diana to leave defendant. Richard Stowe was defendant's and Diana's ecclesiastical leader in the LDS Church and was a member of the church council that decided to excommunicate defendant. He also counseled Diana during the divorce proceedings as her ecclesiastical leader and helped her obtain financial aid from the LDS Church. Edited May 4, 2022 by Tacenda
Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Out of context really. What kind of certainty then?
Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Surely Allen knew they were saying these things wouldn't he have? And if so he really should have served some time or something. He, he apparently had been told about them for two months before, but didn’t tell her possibly because he didn’t want to worry her. Why should he serve time? By what law? Did he support them? Did he discuss how the best way for the revelation might be carried out? Was he certain his brothers would do it? Since Todd left maybe he thought the danger was gone. As far as I recall there was no mandatory report for child abuse. Was there any current involvement/interaction between Brenda and the brothers that could be called abusive? People who stand by and watch a crime happen…do you believe they should serve time? Not saying it wasn’t stupidity and likely selfishness (didn’t want to fight about it) and maybe he even feared for himself so kept his mouth shut (but I am not getting that sense yet from real life Allen). I think he was very wrong not to tell her or report his brothers to police, I might even call him immoral if I find out more that makes it appear he was protecting himself first and foremost. Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Calm said: You mean the certainty that allow individuals to overcome insurmountable odds to prevail, like Ukrainians struggling to survive the mass of Russia, slaves rebelling against their taskmasters, minorities and women achieving the right to vote and other civil rights? The certainty that drives innovation and lifts mankind ever higher at least technology wise? That kind of ‘small-minded stance’? When you used it about the Ukrainians, certainty isn't evil. And certainty isn't evil in many instances. I guess Andrew's stance is faith vs certainty. And some certainty when benefiting someone selfishly and harming others is when it could be evil? c/p: Question to Andrew Garfield. "How does your Under the Banner of Heaven character, a Mormon detective investigating fundamentalists, differ from other religious people you've played?" A: "It was very different because it's actually a study of ego more than anything else. [the fundamentalists] are using the idea of God and something greater to justify egotistic, small-minded, narrow, selfish acts. Fundamentalism involves certainty, which has nothing to do with faith. Certainty is an egoic kind of small-minded stance that is evidently incredibly dangerous. Men will us it to justify doing abhorrent, destructive acts."
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 11 minutes ago, Calm said: He, he apparently had been told about them for two months before, but didn’t tell her possibly because he didn’t want to worry her. Why should he serve time? By what law? Did he support them? Did he discuss how the best way for the revelation might be carried out? Was he certain his brothers would do it? Since Todd left maybe he thought the danger was gone. As far as I recall there was no mandatory report for child abuse. Was there any current involvement/interaction between Brenda and the brothers that could be called abusive? People who stand by and watch a crime happen…do you believe they should serve time? Not saying it wasn’t stupidity and likely selfishness (didn’t want to fight about it) and maybe he even feared for himself so kept his mouth shut (but I am not getting that sense yet from real life Allen). I think he was very wrong not to tell her or report his brothers to police, I might even call him immoral if I find out more that makes it appear he was protecting himself first and foremost. You're right, serving time is a little much. Maybe knowing what he could have done to save her is punishment enough.
Tacenda Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 2 hours ago, Calm said: Then why strangle her and only use a knife when that didn’t work? See the c/p below. I wonder what instrument they're talking about. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1270132.html ¶ 10 In conjunction with the removal revelation, defendant claimed to have received another revelation on March 13, 1984, commanding that he and the School of the Prophets “consecrate” an “instrument” to be used in the removal of the four named individuals.6
Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 Quote Defendant began to meet regularly with Dan, as well as with brothers Tim, Mark, and Watson, to discuss politics and religion… Prior to this time, defendant had expressed negative feelings to other family members and friends about the four persons named in the removal revelation. Defendant believed that all four in some way had either helped his wife obtain a divorce or played a part in his excommunication from the LDS Church. Defendant thought Brenda had encouraged Diana to leave and divorce him. On several occasions before the removal revelation, defendant called Brenda a “****” and told Allen that Brenda “had better stop talking to Diana” and that “he didn't want her meddling in their affairs.” After the removal revelation, defendant stated that Erica needed to be removed as well because “she would grow up to be a **** just like her mother.” 5 Chloe Low was also a friend of Diana's who helped and encouraged Diana to leave defendant. Richard Stowe was defendant's and Diana's ecclesiastical leader in the LDS Church and was a member of the church council that decided to excommunicate defendant. He also counseled Diana during the divorce proceedings as her ecclesiastical leader and helped her obtain financial aid from the LDS Church…. When he discussed this new revelation, only Dan and Watson agreed to such an action; the others involved with the School of the Prophets felt that this and the removal revelation were not of God and disassociated themselves from the revelations. The School of the Prophets disbanded because of disagreement over this issue, but Dan and defendant continued in their belief that the revelations needed to be fulfilled. There is nothing in this that indicates Allen had knowledge they were likely going to carry it through. They weren’t even that committed to it…they were going to SLC that day to start off with. Then later the four went to Allen’s first to get a second rifle. Dan and Ron on the way there discussed the possibility the removal revelation was supposed to occur that day. Hadn’t made their minds up yet. They drove away once when no one answered. only then does it seem t me the idea to do it solidified in Dan’s mind. She answered this time unfortunately. Dan went in and was fighting with Brenda. Ron joined him, they both freaked out and killed them. They didn’t kill Low because she wasn’t home and they gave up easy, they missed this the turn off for Stowe’s house and then just completely gave up and drove off. Seriously lacking of commitment there to the revelation. Seems like the only thing that really matter was they were angry in that moment with Brenda and use the revelation as it was meant to be used, as a justification to excuse murder. It doesn’t seem so clear cut to me, I can see Allen easily thinking his brothers were just losers ranting meaninglessness…because outside the two killings they acted like it was all talk. He should have still said something, but I think it easy to understand looking at the prelude and what happened afterwards why he might not have been as concerned as we with hindsight think he should have been.
Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 28 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Maybe knowing what he could have done to save her is punishment enough. What a hell to live through.
Calm Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Tacenda said: See the c/p below. I wonder what instrument they're talking about. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme-court/1270132.html ¶ 10 In conjunction with the removal revelation, defendant claimed to have received another revelation on March 13, 1984, commanding that he and the School of the Prophets “consecrate” an “instrument” to be used in the removal of the four named individuals.6 I believe it was a knife they consecrated. But it was left behind as there appears to have been no intent originally when starting out for SLC to kill them that day. The knife used to kill them was one Dan carried around, finishing off Brenda when Ron’s strangling of her with the handy vacuum cord didn’t work. Doesn’t sound the least bit ritualized. Neither was Dan’s description of killing Erica. Edited May 4, 2022 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 6 hours ago, ksfisher said: I'm not certain I understand what you're saying here. It's sounding almost like live life now and repent later kind of thing. Almost. How does Alma 34:31-31 play into this? 31 Yea, I would that ye would come forth and aharden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the bday of your csalvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and dharden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you. 32 For behold, this alife is the time for men to bprepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of cthis life is the day for men to perform their dlabors. When you say we'll see THE TRUTH for the first time what are you meaning? It seems to me that the only TRUTH that will really matter to me is what kind of a person I am. Will I be a different person after I see THE TRUTH? I'll certainly have more knowledge, but isn't faith more important than knowledge? OK I can see how you got that impression and I am glad you called me on it, because if YOU felt it was saying that, there must be a ton of others who got confused as well. We are usually pretty much in tune! I am talking about "Mormon Theory" or the construction of the Paradigm that Mormonism is. We are talking about people who are earnestly seeking Truth and are confused by all the ..... s..tuff out there confusing people on spiritual matters. I was really thinking of actual people on this very board when I was writing that, like someone who was brought up in a very fundamentalist LDS home with strict rules that were in no way kind or loving, just a kind of "Do this or yore gonna get a whuppin', or God's gonna send you to hell and yore gonna burn in the fire forever" And so they rebel. They believe it is ridiculous to even try to be perfect, all this Jesus stuff is a bunch of hooey, and besides there is no scientific evidence for God and you have to be a superstitous yahoo to buy into it. Church is about power and making money, and that's all. Then they do all they can to save the planet, help the homeless and do the best they can for humanity. They never "get saved" because who could possibly believe in that stuff? So what is the typical "Christian" view of what happens to this guy? It's going to vary considerably. Some say he burns in hell for not being saved. Some say maybe heaven, but he was a non-believer. But we are the ONLY CHURCH that I have heard of that says - he did earnestly what he thought was right, and will meet with the missionaries on the other side when he is seeing spiritual activity all around him- he knows life after death is "real" and now he is wide open to learning, whereas before he was brought up in a way that precluded that. He was prevented by the philosophies of men to experience true spirituality What is "true spirituality"? The ability to directly personally have spiritual experiences independent of the interpretations of men. It is feeling the spirit and knowing it is the spirit, and not coming from oneself. It is knowing spiritual matters through direct experience as opposed to philosophy or the alleged experience of others. You know for yourself. And faith vs knowledge? I don't get into semantics- one has to have faith it is said which is hope for things unseen. So I suppose it does preceed knowledge but I don't know it is more important. Gotta have both- it's a progression. It's like asking if 27 is more important than 14, to me, or which ladder step is more important. Dunno how to answer that one. And so, in justice and love, he gets a "second chance" to learn the gospel, and follow the covenant path. AND his progression wil not be retarded by negative experiences early in his life that may prejudice him against religion. "That's not fair"! And YES I think that one can term that being a "new person" and notice that one receives a new name in the temple. I thik that is well known Alma 34? I think that whatever day you have a true opportunity- this side or the other side of the veil- IS THE "DAY" of salvation IF and only IF you do not harden your heart and are open to it. So in the earlier example, the individual had hardened his heart due to his upbringing and the "philosophies of men". HIS personal "day of salvation" had to wait until his heart was open which meant he had to die first! So one needs a "contrite heart and broken spirit" often before the "day of salvation" can heppen, and "waking up dead" has to be quite surprising to an atheist!! Maybe that's what it takes to hit that day of humility where one realizes, "Uh, well I guess there IS a God" and so to have a readiness for the plan of salvation. THAT may be the day of salvation for that individual- and a vast, VAST change of heart. Make sense? Ask away if you like.
Teancum Posted May 4, 2022 Posted May 4, 2022 15 hours ago, Nofear said: Like I said, I acknowledge that you are simply stating "Yea [mfbukowski] live[s] in a total different universe than almost all LDS true believers" and making no comment one way or the other about the capability of other LDS believers to think rationally. After all, taking the stance that LDS true believers are wholly irrational weirdos could come across as demeaning, ignorant, and bigoted and clearly no one is accusing you of that. Nuance...on the other hand, well obviously to think almost all others "as nuanced" as he is to live in a "different universe". But, I even agree with that. I am quite confident in asserting that his rational nuance is very much above average. See, we are all agreed now, yes? Sure...😏
webbles Posted May 5, 2022 Posted May 5, 2022 19 hours ago, Tacenda said: Thanks for the link. It's amazing to me how these men just focused on their revelations and forgot all about their families it seemed. And also in the article it mentions how they needed to remove Brenda and Erica. Surely Allen knew they were saying these things wouldn't he have? And if so he really should have served some time or something. Also, the talk of Diana being the wife of the devil in a previous world sure sounds similar to Chad Daybell's sayings It sounds like Dan discovered the Peacemaker and it really appeals to him. I think it partly could because of how their father treated their mother. He was abusive to her and the kids. Dan probably wanted to emulate him and so saw the Peacemaker as a true way to run a household. He taught his other brothers and they all started to enforce it on their wives. Allen did try and he was abusive to Brenda (like his brothers) but Brenda was firm in her beliefs and fought back and even counseled her sister in laws to not take the abuse. Ron appears to really take the book to heart and his wife was not happy. They had been fairly successful but after he started to listen to Dan, he went downhill. Lost job, house, and church membership. It wasn't until they met Onias that they started to try and have revelations. Ron was first. Dan never got one till after the murders. But by that time, they were already messed up. Allen heard of the revelation but several of his brothers read it and agreed with it. Dan and Ron spoke about it in front of one of Dan's wives. All of them had multiple opportunities to warn her. None did. I think Brenda expected something to happen, though. She discussed fleeing her husband a few times but never went through with it. One of her sisters regrets in not urging Brenda more. 1
Nofear Posted May 5, 2022 Posted May 5, 2022 Crossfield went through some lengths to distance himself from the Lafferty's. He's fairly crazy too, just doesn't appear murderous crazy. http://www.2bc.info/pdf/Laffertys.pdf 1
Tacenda Posted May 5, 2022 Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) On 5/3/2022 at 11:01 PM, Calm said: I believe it was a knife they consecrated. But it was left behind as there appears to have been no intent originally when starting out for SLC to kill them that day. The knife used to kill them was one Dan carried around, finishing off Brenda when Ron’s strangling of her with the handy vacuum cord didn’t work. Doesn’t sound the least bit ritualized. Neither was Dan’s description of killing Erica. Per Nofear's recent post, it was a razor blade of some sort that was consecrated. Also in my readings, I thought that the weapon was taken out of the home and they got rid of it. So maybe it could have been a razor, and the brothers made it out to be a knife because they didn't want any of their secret revelations revealed. ETA: Or maybe they did use a knife, according to this excerpt from the police report: ¶ 15 After accidentally missing the turnoff to the Stowe residence, Dan and defendant decided to abandon trying to fulfill the rest of the revelation. They stopped at a service station and then headed toward Wendover. Chip testified that on the way, defendant pulled a knife out of his boot, started to bang it on his knee, and said, “I killed her. I killed her. I killed the ****. I can't believe I killed her.” He then handed the knife to Dan, and said, “Thank you, Brother, for doing the baby because I don't think I had it in me.” Dan replied, “It was no problem.” 8 Always wanted to be a detective! Also, in reading the article from Nofear's post, I noticed the italicized word spelled wrong. "May the Creator soon brake through with more and more truth, that it may shine forth and dispel all the darkness from the earth." http://www.2bc.info/pdf/Laffertys.pdf (me): I wish so bad the Creator did brake through...and stopped the evil these stupid egotistical loser men wielded. Edited May 5, 2022 by Tacenda
Nofear Posted May 5, 2022 Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) Also for whatever it's worth, Dan thinks the book was part of God's plan to help spread his message. With an endorsement like that from a sociopath and murderer, how could one not believe that the show is good and worthy?! Additionally, this is the Church's (lengthy) response to the publication of the book: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-response-to-jon-krakauers-under-the-banner-of-heaven Edit to add source for Dan's review of the book https://www.deseret.com/2003/7/16/19735370/dan-lafferty-gives-raves-to-banner Edited May 5, 2022 by Nofear 1
webbles Posted May 5, 2022 Posted May 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Per Nofear's recent post, it was a razor blade of some sort that was consecrated. Also in my readings, I thought that the weapon was taken out of the home and they got rid of it. So maybe it could have been a razor, and the brothers made it out to be a knife because they didn't want any of their secret revelations revealed. No, the police found the actual weapon. It isn't the same as what was consecrated. Also Dan testified which weapon he used. He had no qualms talking about the revelation at the trial. He was even proud of it and what he did. And the revelations weren't really secret. They told others about it in the School of the Prophets group. They also told people not in the group, such as the other two men with them. The months between the removal revelation and the murders, Dan and Ron traveled across the western US and met other groups and spoke with them. I think I read that they heard about it but didn't have specifics. 2
Nofear Posted May 5, 2022 Posted May 5, 2022 Some Dan Lafferty interview goodness, “I understand very well that my philosophy makes me sound crazy, but I try to make it as logical as I can,” Dan says. “But I don’t mind if people think I’m crazy, and I don’t know that I’m not ... but I don’t think that I am. I think there is some good **** coming. God’s a good mother****, and when he comes back, he’s gonna be smoking a doobie, saying, ‘Tired of this world? Well, it’s time to party.’ I really believe it.” --Dan Lafferty Ron, the upstanding person he was, tried to kill his brother in 1984, while they were both in prison so they were separated. He then tried to commit suicide. He later died of natural causes before his death sentence was executed. Anyway, all kinds of lesser known information in this interview. https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/blood-brothers/Content?oid=2469422&showFullText=true 2
Tacenda Posted May 6, 2022 Posted May 6, 2022 Don't know if this has been shared yet, but I thought some on here thought it was only ex LDS that helped on the set of UTBOH. I had no idea. Shame on Des News, if true.
Tacenda Posted May 7, 2022 Posted May 7, 2022 The 3rd episode shows Pyre speaking with his bishop privately right after his daughters had their baptism interview and expressed things he'd learned recently about blood atonement from a quote from Joseph Smith and the bishop went from friendly to something stern, and said to put it on a shelf. This reminded me back to when having a temple recommend interview with a member of the stake presidency when I brought up my testimony struggle after learning about JS's polygamy I hadn't known about and he told me it's okay to wonder about it but not question.
Recommended Posts