Michelle Glauser, lots of great questions, although I don’t know most of your answers:

-”I know that Mormons have historically also been Democrats and (correct me if I’m wrong) it was because Republicans renounced slavery and polygamy as the two worst evils. Have Mormons changed parties another time?” Don’t know on this one, but you should remember two things: 1) the parties themselves have changed dramatically over the time period you are asking about, and 2) party affilitation of church members would have to be an assumption based on majority of US members declaring an affiliation (which is probably not published). Based on current parties, JS probably fits more of a democratic mold. He was clearly after redistribution of wealth, and he was no elitist. But I still like him anyway.

-”Where can I find a full copy of the text of Boggs’s Missouri Executive Order 44 (Extermination Order)? (I can find the image, but can’t read it.)” Try this from Wikipedia: http://www.quaqua.org/extermination.htm

-”What was the church’s reaction to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925?” Remember that there was much controversy on this topic among GAs and apostles, holding opposing viewpoints. There are several different versions of the church’s stance published at different times. This site has some interesting information on LDS history with regard to evolution: http://www.tungate.com/Evolution.htm#Evol_history

-”I know about the shift from The Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel to Preach My Gospel. Have there been other shifts in preaching methods?” Well, obviously in JS’s day, originally all male members who were baptized were subject to being sent out immediately to preach with zero training and no message control. Most didn’t even mention JS, just the BOM and that the saints were gathering. Then, JS established the school of the prophets to improve the message control and the education of those sent to preach and those called to leadership positions. When my parents converted in the 1950s, the missionaries taught them 52 lessons, one per week for a year. When I was on my mission in the late 80s, we had six discussions which we could teach before, during and after baptism (they could be baptized as soon as they felt ready). Toward the end of my mission, they added six new member discussions for after baptism specifically. Now, the new Preach My Gospel just came out. I’m sure there are more changes I’m not aware of, but those are the ones I know.

-”I need a lot of information about the Civil Rights Movement from the Mormon view. I know that the Church was against the ERA (although I still need Church documentation thereof), but better rights for blacks? Did they feel a need for that?” There is a lot out there about this topic. The infamous letter to Romney’s dad discouraging him from participating in civil rights for one. Someone here must have a link for you. On the upside, there was always full racial integration in LDS worship services.

-”When Jimmy Carter had “National Family Week” in 1979, he upset the evangelists because he also invited alternative families, including gays. Were Mormons also invited? What did Mormons think about it?” From the Deseret News (Oct 26, 2007): “Jimmy Carter had the centerpiece of his National Family Week celebration be his address in the Tabernacle on Temple Square at Mormon headquarters.” I’ll date myself and say I vaguely remember this, although I had never been to UT at that time in my life, so I wasn’t there. I recall people feeling it was positive, and that the country and president were finally doing what Mormons had done forever - focus on spending more time together as families. Same type of reaction when Parker Bros. ran commercials in the 80s about having a family game night.

-”There are a lot of different statistics for levels of education and income for Mormons on the internet, are there statistics somewhere a little more . . . respectable? I know there’s a reference book at the library in Salt Lake, but I don’t recall what it’s called.” The latest Pew Forum survey covered very broad demographics.

http://michelleglauser.blogspot.com/2008/07/help-with-my-mormonism-paper.html

I think my main problem is that I know things I’ve learned from a life as a Mormon, but I don’t know where to quote them from. The secondary problem is that sources from here in Germany are limited. Some things I can find online, most not. So, here are the things I need some help finding sources for:

-I know that Mormons have historically also been Democrats and (correct me if I’m wrong) it was because Republicans renounced slavery and polygamy as the two worst evils. Have Mormons changed parties another time?

-In the 1840s, a lot of Catholic Irish immigrants came to America. How did this affect the Mormons? Do we have any documents about this? Was there as much preaching in Ireland as in England?

-Where can I find a full copy of the text of Boggs’s Missouri Executive Order 44 (Extermination Order)? (I can find the image, but can’t read it.)

-What was the church’s reaction to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925?

-I know about the shift from The Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel to Preach My Gospel. Have there been other shifts in preaching methods?

-What did Mormons think about the dropping of the atomic bomb? (I would look on Desnews, but their archives only go to 1988 online.)

-Did Mormons see a special need to spread the gospel to communists during the Cold War?

-I need a lot of information about the Civil Rights Movement from the Mormon view. I know that the Church was against the ERA (although I still need Church documentation thereof), but better rights for blacks? Did they feel a need for that?

-When Jimmy Carter had “National Family Week” in 1979, he upset the evangelists because he also invited alternative families, including gays. Were Mormons also invited? What did Mormons think about it?

-There are a lot of different statistics for levels of education and income for Mormons on the internet, are there statistics somewhere a little more . . . respectable? I know there’s a reference book at the library in Salt Lake, but I don’t recall what it’s called.

-Where can I find all the proclamations and letters that the Church has sent out? Is there actually a place?

-In what years did the Church adopt a website, email, satellite technology, etc.?

Anyone who helps me out will get a free copy of my paper sent to them when I’m done. If they want it. Ha ha.

“Honesty Is a Principle of Salvation

“Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. An Apostle of the Lord has said: ‘Honesty is a principle of salvation in the kingdom of God. . . . Just as no man or woman can be saved without baptism, so no one can be saved without honesty’ (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 63; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 72).”

“God is honest and just in all things (see Alma 7:20). We too must be honest in all things to become like him. The brother of Jared testified, ‘Yea, Lord, I know that thou . . . art a God of truth, and canst not lie’ (Ether 3:12). In contrast, the devil is a liar. In fact, he is the father of lies (see 2 Nephi 9:9). ‘Those who choose to cheat and lie and deceive and misrepresent become his slaves’ (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 65; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 73).”

Much more on the 13th Article of Faith here http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-40,00.html on the church’s website.

Seems like a good guideline for God’s own annointed, no?

Why wouldn’t following an article of faith be as applicable to God’s annointed as for you and me who are only aspiring to that level of perfection.

Here is but a couple lines from the church’s web page on honesty:

“Complete honesty is necessary for our salvation. An Apostle of the Lord has said: ‘Honesty is a principle of salvation in the kingdom of God. . . . Just as no man or woman can be saved without baptism, so no one can be saved without honesty’ (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 63; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 72).”

“God is honest and just in all things (see Alma 7:20). We too must be honest in all things to become like him. The brother of Jared testified, ‘Yea, Lord, I know that thou . . . art a God of truth, and canst not lie’ (Ether 3:12). In contrast, the devil is a liar. In fact, he is the father of lies (see 2 Nephi 9:9). ‘Those who choose to cheat and lie and deceive and misrepresent become his slaves’ (Mark E. Petersen, in Conference Report, Oct. 1971, p. 65; or Ensign, Dec. 1971, p. 73).”

The page goes on at some length and I think about all of it applies to this question. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-40,00.html I urge everyone to see what the church has to say is the standard on this question and consider how it applies to this discussion.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfSRC/31.2HoneyPeterson.pdf

Our church is unique in its emphasis on recent history. Ask a Baptist is he can name 3-4 prominent thinkers or leaders in the last 150 years.

Alice - I applaud your honesty, and I would also not lie if pressed although I might demur. However, I am still not sure it’s a valid parallel for church leaders. The BKP quote sounds off in principle, but it’s not clear when and if it has ever been applied. The parent example was more where someone was hiding their own sins, not doing PR for the church.

Well said, JfQ. Well said.

The reason I think that Jesus told so many parables is that one parable couldn’t embody what he taught let alone even one facet of what he taught. Therefore the parable, the allegory, metaphor and analogy all should serve as a launching point of the question, not the answer I agree with Ray that “the train story” like we were discussing could be beneficial to the right group — perhaps young adults as he suggested. Where we do them a disservice is that we unwittingly and frequently tell stories as a way to answer the inquiry, which, in this case, is how could God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son. My point is that it could be used as a launching point for illumination instead.

I imagine a teacher telling this story, and of course it is delivered for its heart-rending quandary of a young, innocent, unaware, beloved child sacrificed for a car full of unknown passengers. It almost seems shocking for the listener to imagine how a parent could weigh and commit to such a decision to sacrifice his child. Where the teacher could help in this instance is to follow it up. Say something like, “The father in this story allowed his child to die to save a car of passengers he didn’t know. Imagine how powerful a choice it would be if he knew and loved each of those people intimately like his son. Now some new info: Not only did the father allow something to happen, he created the opportunity for his son to willingly die. Does that affect how you feel? Now imagine that the son and father know the passengers in the train will be killed, and each knows that together they must work to save those passengers. Therefore the child is not an innocent victim at all, but one who is giving himself to save those passengers. Do you think that changes the emotions that the father would be feeling? How?”

Therefore when storied lessons like this become used as a way to color a facet of a quandary, inviting the listener to search further, it honors the way we humans have come to treasure, tackle and transmit sacred mystery. When the lesson is used to answer the quandary like it is a puzzle or formula that can be solved, then I think it cheapens the human experience that can result as we grapple with the divine.

To get back on track with the original question it makes me reflect on the angst I experienced with grappling with my faith in light of LDS history, for example, because it seemed like something one should be able to “solve” with empirical tools of reason. Is there a way that “white-washing” can be confronted that honors any divine experience that peeked through the historical Mormon experience and also honors the way we humans grapple with faith without reducing it to a simple binary problem that either one thinks adds up (just pray about it and you’ll have a good feeling) or doesn’t (no it’s all a made up pile of hogwash)? I don’t have the answer. But I grapple a bit with wondering how the LDS church could encourage a more mature, albeit risky, approach and environment that honors the “solution” that each grappler must find on their own.

Yeah, I agree. Never a big fan of this movie. I only saw it as an adult. I probably would have liked it in seminary.

JfQ - Maybe for you and I and other mature adults, but the basic construct can teach a powerful lesson for younger teenagers who have no personal frame of reference for the concept of a parent who would watch a child die willingly and not intervene to provide help when He seems to have that power. The Atonement rarely gets addressed from the perspective of the Father who did not intervene. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son.” Most kids really don’t get that, and many adults don’t get it until they have kids. Some don’t even get it then - **and many of the common constructs of the Trinity essentially deny the need to get how one separate Being (the Father) interacted with another (the Son).** Without the foundational aspect of separate beings comprising one Godhead, the film makes no sense whatsoever.

Are there flaws in the analogy? Of course, there are flaws in all analogies. Can it make a very simple point in a powerful, visual way - something to help somewhat immature and inexperienced hearts and minds begin to grasp it? Yes. God, the Father, really did love all of us enough to allow His Son to die for us - enough to not intervene and save that Son while we all die. There really are two separate Beings in this narrative, and the Father literally was an active participant - first, of course, in strengthening Jesus in the Garden, but also in stepping back and “forsaking” Jesus as He died.

The film does a pretty good job capturing that aspect in a way that resonates in our current world, which is what analogies are all about - imperfect though they are.

But if someone asks they will get as much of the complete truth as I understand it and as much as they continue to probe for. Sometimes that’s tough stuff to tell and sometimes it’s tough stuff to hear. But I think the only star we can steer our lives by is the truth. Any deviation at the source produces far more distortion as you continue out along the vector.

I will not stop any discussion my family wants until we explore what I learned from an episode and what it cost me to make an error and what I gained by making whatever correction I was able to. People I love deserve no less than everything I’m about. They should not be disillusioned or mislead by my warts. They should never be confused that I’m a fallible human and that they and I know that they are too. We are not perfect — any of us — we are just *trying* to be.

Now I’m not saying that I attempt to tell them how to build a watch if they’re asking what time it is. But I do not gloss over embarrassing or unattractive things because that’s where the pitfalls that eventually trip us up are. And it think that’s as true for the human men who administer the church (note I am not referring to their inspired ecclesiastical roles here) as for anyone else.

The dichotomy is separating the weaknesses of men from the perfection of God.

The problem is once you start learning about the New Mormon History their is way way too much dichotomy /issues to separate not unless it becomes your hobby for the next three years.

This ain’t any old church this is suppose to be Gods only true church on the face of the earth.

Most people believe that God won’t whitewash or give you milk before meat. He at least in my innocent psyche is into “Do what is right let the consequences follow”
Don’t tell half-truths or omit truth, or feel you or others are wise enough or can judge when its time others hear the rest of the story.

Members now hearing the rest of the story 30 years later on has caused a lot of anger.

It appears the church know this and has really made fast efforts to show more of an honest candid face.

Blacks and the LDS Priesthood Mormon stories # 83
Brigham Young University invited Darius Gray–entitled, “Blacks and the LDS Priesthood.” Pretty much full disclosure of the policy change.

Latter day saints and Freemasons
FAIR_Conferences/2005_Latter-day_Saints_and_Freemasonry.html
Let me get to the crux of my issue here. Everybody wants to know, ‘Okay Greg, did the temple ritual come from Freemasonry?’ And I’m going to answer that with a qualified yes

Mountain Meadow Massacre Ensign September 2007

Polygamy Sacred lonliness Fair

I can’t see God would be into doublethink or cognitive dissonance – which has caused the big problem and has sprung a whole industry of people who are learning to accept two contradictory ideas or beliefs at the same time.

I find it hard to walk and chew gum at the same time let along get my head around which of the following camps is for me.

Former members and questioning members
EXMORMON.ORG
POSTMORMON.ORG

New Order Mormons (active LDS that don’t necessary believe everything the church teaches)

NEW ORDER MORMON.OGR
THE FOYER.ORG
Totally faithful member sites
MORMON.OR
FAIRLDS

Neutral
MORMONSTORIES.ORG
MORMON DISCUSSIONS.COM

But in this case, it’s not even that those leaders committed a grievous sin. Just that they are selectively sharing what is uplifting. I’ve already said I don’t prefer that approach, but it hardly makes them the recalcitrant children or vilest of reprobates some are painting them to be. But it sure is easy to dismiss the council of someone we prove to ourselves is flawed. I’m just glad my own errors and personality flaws aren’t this closely examined. I have plenty.

No. We don’t. We try to teach them that they cannot be the best people they can be, they cannot completely trust & respect *themselves*, they cannot really believe in the honesty of others and then cannot please HF unless they are honest about the fullness, the reality, of what has transpired. We want them to understand where the error of their behavior was, to learn something from it, to strengthen their character and to become a better and a more completely honest person.

We want that from ourselves. HF wants that from all of us. Why are we willing to be little lawyers or PR agents looking for the way to sell the sizzle or pull a rug over the stain of anything? ANYTHING. Flaws, errors and frailty do not stay hidden but the attempt to gloss over or deny them always discloses the fear or belief in their power that we really have. And it keeps us from discovering what we need to understand more fully to appreciate the complete truth and reality.

Honesty and integrity are tough masters. But anything else is far worse. And rationalizations just make us complicit in deceiving ourselves.

Jared, your comment did not wound me like it would others, but I understand Pseudolus’ reaction. I cringed when I read it, and it wasn’t pointed at me. There is an element of “ramiumptum-ism” (too lazy to look it up for proper spelling) in the implication that someone wouldn’t struggle if they just were converted as deeply as you are. That might not be what you meant to say, but it is how it sounded.

I tend to agree with N8Ma’s thoughts above. Topics not fully disclosed don’t sway the faithful in and of themselves. But by the same token I can only respect where people are at a given point. Everyone has their life to live. I would not want to add to anyone’s burden.

I also agree with the comment that the church does far more right than wrong. I don’t mind full disclosure because I have that balance in my bank account. I only aspire to be as good as the church has been. Leader flaws don’t excuse my own flaws. I’ve been down that road before, and it’s not a winner.

I remember asking my mom about whether she would let the train run over me if I was ever in that circumstance. She very lovingly explained to me that the same story was difficult for her and she didn’t know if she would be able to make that sacrifice for the train. But I also remember stories from my primary teachers to this day that still inspire me and make me love those teachers for their love for me.

I am very sorry to hear about the rape. I don’t think resources for adequately treating rape victims are deep enough–church OR community. I cannot imagine 9 of my last 12 Bishops counseling a rape survivor in a way that they would make her feel like crap, Spencer W comment or not. I totally believe your wife’s experience, and of the 9 other Bishops, not all of them would have the depth to counsel a rape survivor in the way that I would think it should be done. But I have my own leadership weaknesses and try as I might in doing things the way I think they should be done, I’m sure someone would see through me and discover my weaknesses.

That was quite the insult–that I wasn’t really a member or had a weak testimony. Once again, you make a bad guy out of the person who bought this used LDS car without full disclosure. I think part of the problem is I REALLY BELIEVED IT, AND I COULD NEVER BECOME “THE MACHINE” I WAS TOLD I HAD TO BE.

Why would I want the insanity I grew up with for my kids? When we were still going I was CONSTANTLY trying to defuse some brain damaging ideas my 6 year old would come home with. He wasn’t afraid of ghosts before, but since a lesson that included the demonic possesion of people and pigs, he’s now scared of becoming possessed. Another week he came back and said he needed to pay his tithing so he wouldn’t be burned. He can’t even calculate 10% at this point and the church already has the fear of God coursing in his veins.

I got my first exposure to hellish LDS doctrine when I was 5. It was a vivid discription of hell fire and damnation. I obsessed on it for weeks. I HAD TO AVOID THAT HELL AT ALL COSTS. Yes, it is too bad I didn’t have a scriptural lawyer with me. Well those lessons and scriptures were written by and approved by the prophets. Unfortunately, my parents told me to believe my leaders and that the prophet would not lead us astray. I had to believe it. I did.

My wife has suffered with guilt because she survived a rape. She was taught that it is better to die fighting for your virtue than to lose it. (thank you Spencer W and others) She was drugged and raped. Then the church made her feel like crap because she was still alive.

I am glad I have never had drugs/alcohol/tobacco. I have only “had” one woman– my wife. I don’t see that changing. We still have FHE. (in fact we do it twice/week -once on Sunday and then again on a Monday or Tuesday, depending on kids sports.)

We are both 5th gen, BIC, but we have had enough of the brain damage. By their fruits…

Thanks for your thoughts. I’m here to learn and share.

In my opinion, and experience, there are various levels of conversion. The greater our level of conversion the stronger our testimony and the greater our access to the things of the spirit, but there is always the risk of falling while we’re in mortality. Those with the greater conversion would also suffer the greater condemnation should they fall (2 Nephi 31:14).

I think this fits well with each of your remarks. I’d like to know your thoughts.

I will be gone for a few hours but would like to know what each of you think about this.

I could use the same logic to believe in astrology or any number of other beliefs.

I don’t agree with the last paragraph, either. At least not in a many, or even most, cases. There is some danger in thinking because you’ve had certain spiritual experiences you’ve become immune to further expereinces that will dim them, or call them into question. The trick is keeping one’s eyes on Christ NOW, not on relying on a past spiritual state.

Also - because of the many years I spent outside the church, I feel inclined to say that leaving the church isn’t the end, and can be a neccesary thing, even if it is tough to call it a good thing at the time. While I was outside the church I held ideas, met people, had experiences, saw first hand many things, none of which would have happened had I remained an active memeber. (Including meeting my wife - with her ancestors born at Kirtland, born at Far West, pulling for her?) Now these same things may have proved my destruction - but since I did ultimately return (not to the church half as much as to God, as Jeff wisely points out), many of those things I look back on as invaluable lessons, as well as happy experiences. It may be so for many of those who currently have genuine questions that keep them from full acitvity. At least I hope that, even if it annoys them. God works in mysterious ways, and all that.
~

If Jesus based the future of the Church on the way the Apostles acted, He might have given up. but He knew more….

The following quote says it all in my opinion. Those who know the history of the church best, historians, have credibility we all can respect. Here is what one prominent LDS historian, Davis Bitton said:

Let’s get one thing clear. There is nothing in church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote… Competent historians who have devoted many years of study to the issues have not felt compelled to abandon their faith in the restored gospel…

To read the entire paper go here:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_I_Dont_Have_a_Testimony_of_the_History_of_the_Church.html

One last thought, take your time before you leave the church. Think of your children, and others who will be impacted by your decision. I suggest a decision like this should be done very carefully because of the huge impact it will have on others.

In my person opinion, most members who get hung up on issues like church history, white washing, have never really been members, they may have been active in the church, but maybe not in the gospel. This makes for weak testimonies.

Ray, it’s holding the church and it’s leaders to their OWN standards and written expectations. As I said before, people get excommed for what leaders get a pass on. The hypocrisy reeks.

The fact that we are talking about whitewash shows that we have a sepulchre of bones we are painting over.

GBSmith –in one sense, you are right… for you, you have a positive emotional bank account with the church. I suffered from it’s careless teachings on hell fire damnation, sons of perdition, threats and SWKimball’s reckless and irresponsible teachings on masturbation and it’s being a sexual sin next to murder in seriousness. Yes, there were the good times– feeling that rush while singing in 12 sessions of Gen Conf (Mormon Youth Chorus and Symphony). I reconsidered those feelings in light of also feeling them during Paul H Dunn talks. I liked the teachings on patience, forgiveness (I am trying to do A LOT OF THIS WITH THE CHURCH AND ITS PROPONENTS)

All in all, the church had a severe NEGATIVE bank account with me. It maintained that account with a fraud. It maintained my obedience and attendance through the threat of the alternative. It abused belief/imagination through promises of future rewards/punishments. That is how it kept me going to church. I have felt higher levels of sanity than I have EVER felt before since I started doubting. I now feel free to help my neighbor, rather than being threatened with the blood and sins of 3 generations if I fail to do my hometeaching.

I haven’t been to church in 3 months. I am spending more time with my kids. My wife and I have never been closer. I am SOOO much happier now. I can only imagine how much better life would have been had my life not developed around the INSANITY of the LDS church.

My belief that it contributes directly to my goal of becoming the best person I can become - and the experiences I simply can’t deny or explain away. That’s the ultimate objective, imo, so those who feel like it is doing that for them stay; those who don’t feel like it is helping them become the best person they can become need to assess their participation one way or the other. That’s my take, anyway.

For me, it really is that simple. I like the fruits, even amid the pruning, and I REALLY like the over-arching theology. It resonates with me, even as we mortals constantly screw up the implementation.

Fwiw, I believe - in general - we do a LOUSY job of being charitable of others’ shortcomings. We tend to hold others to a standard we can’t reach. We tend to want others to be transgression-less - so we are constantly disappointed in their obvious inability to measure up to our unrealistic expectations. That’s a shame, and it clouds so many of these discussions.

Sure there is Ray. Just use whitewash.

Do the words/deeds of church leadership not matter to you people? Doesn’t the character of the messenger affect the validity of the message? Ray…I am just stunned. I can see wisdom when people say don’t do business with Mormons. I saw my parents get taken for over 70 grand during the 80’s by Mormons. Seeing the twisted pretzel thought here sickens me. In your minds, you are able to justify anything. Were concentration camp guards any different? Is there no line in the sand for you people? Are there no doings so black and sayings so disturbing that you wont justify? Not everyone has the dark thoughts/deeds that the “prophets” recorded in church history.

You twist and turn “God” to reflect our convoluted history.

Does God lie? (JS lying about polygamy and calling his accusers perjurers and liars) Does God tear down people’s reputations for telling the truth? Brigham married Zina twice (Sept 1844 and Feb 1846– eventually cutting Henry off from his own wife and taking kids away from their daddy) How can this NOT BE SEEN AS THE PREMEDITATED TAKING OF SOMEONE ELSE’S WIFE? How is this NOT an abuse of authority, propriety and boundaries? Is this how our God operates? At least JS was willing to share other mens wives. You tiptoe around the darkness that is being whitewashed. The “LIGHT” doesn’t need whitewash. DARKNESS NEEDS WHITEWASH.

People get excommunicated for doing what the “prophets” were doing. It’s all so capricious. So much for internal consistency to standards.

You demonstrate fanatical concern for finding the church true at all costs. Which is more important… to know the truth, or to know the church is true? I/we asked potential members in the mission field to open our minds to the possibility that the church is true. Most posters here don’t have that type of humility. Ask the wrong questions and you get labelled. So much for DECADES of dedication, work, service, and tithing. So much for DECADES of deep emotional investment. Ask the wrong questions and you get tossed aside like so much GARBAGE. Do I feel used/abused by the church? You bet!!

If you posted on this thread and didn’t decry whitewashing, then SHAME ON YOU. You are used car salesmen doing everything you can to keep people from looking under the hood. When the “sale” goes bad, you blame the purchaser. (Just keep trying the key you say) Your “dealership” isn’t the perfection it claims to be and so you need to LIE to cover it up. Our church leaders HAVE LED US ASTRAY and HAVE CAUSED TREMENDOUS DAMAGE IN MY LIFE.

In the least, THEY OWE US FULL DISCLOSURE BEFORE WE BUY THEIR USED BUCKET OF BOLTS. The internet is forcing more disclosure. I want the church to be true. There are so many big questions on “Life”. The church says it has the answers to SOME of those questions. I want those answers to be true. I want the whole fairy tale to be true. Given what I now know of it’s history and the lengths it’s leaders/proponents will go to WHITEWASH that history, I don’t see how it could be true anymore.

Whitewash = whited sepulchre

I can’t find anything in that quote that I find distasteful or unbecoming. Every champion of an ideology tries to limit the influence of his opponents.

Unfortunately efforts in the case of “Mormon Enigma” were to ban the authors from speaking in any sacrament meeting, fireside or other church sponsored event for several years. I guess I find that a little distasteful and unbecoming. My only other comment would be a personal aside that it would help if you were little nicer in your post re: Andrew C.

Andrew C. told me he is going to take some time off for a while, so please do not respond further to anything he has said in these threads. It would not be fair, since he wont’ be responding - and it would look like he is ignoring or avoiding more discussion when, in fact, he simply will not be around to respond.

Please respect his choice.

If you have a testimony, your tendency will be to find a way to justify or explain something that initially startles or jars you. Anyone who hangs out at these websites who also has a strong testimony is going to take that approach. For those who don’t have a testimony, or for those so burned out by their Church experience they actually have an anti-testimony (yes these things exist), the tendency is to be cautious/cynical (in the case of the former) or to fish for the bottom and always assume a wicked/deceitful motive (in the case of the latter).

There’s nothing wrong with asking questions, with being inquisitive, with seeking answers. I think, in the case of wading through the Church’s past, your perspective will be determined by how you go about finding answers. “This will all be sorted out in the next life” or “Joseph Smith repeatedly said if he told us all he knew none would remain with the church” sound lazy, pithy even, to those without a testimony. I guess it all depends on where you’re standing…perspective.

For instance, look at the account of Jesus casting devils into swine that’s found in Mark chapter 5. There’s many angles to examine this event, but one to consider in the context of perspective and perceptions. There are 2,000 swine–someone’s livelihood, a whole village’s livelihood, in fact–and all of a sudden Jesus causes them to run violently into the sea. If you were the owner of that herd of pigs, would you see Jesus as the Savior of mankind, or would you see him as they guy who ruined your livelihood? See for yourself:
14 And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
16 And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.
17 And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.

Those with agendas to discredit Jesus could easily label him a disturber of the peace, a destroyer of the livelihoods of decent hardworking Gadarenes. And the faithful? How would they have to explain this event to those in the village?

Does having a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel require a Church member to explain or justify every sentence in the Journal of Discourses?

Those are not disclosures. Those are selling points. The product is religion, remember. This is what people are looking for in a religion.

Also # 50 - “All religions have goofy elements and unsavory elements to their histories. That’s the nature of religion.”

Funny how I never hear that sentiment voiced at church very often. There’s another phrase I do hear quite a bit, though–maybe you’ve heard it too. It goes, “The members aren’t perfect, but the church is.”

By and large, Mormons believe that their church is unique among all other churches. Many even believe that it’s perfect. That’s why they are Mormons. God told JS that all the other churches were wrong. His church would be different.

In fact, I distinctly remember being taught as a youth that every other church had scandals in its history, but not Mormonism. Surely, it was an irresponsible thing to teach and was certainly not from any correlated lesson material, so we can’t hold the church accountable for it, but the result was that I believed it. And I wasn’t the only one.

At the end of the day, there is only one question that matters when it comes to whitewashing. Are people leaving the church upon discovery of information that the church has obscured or neglected to disclose? I think it’s clear that this is a regular occurrence. And if so, that means that whitewashing has caused people to become or remain members under false pretenses, and that is harmful.

If you’re bent out of shape about this, be honest and ask yourself: “When I last applied for a job, did I list all of the negative things about myself on my resume? When I was in the job interview, did I tell them all of the ways I’d fallen short in previous jobs? Did I volunteer every reason why they should NOT hire me?”

Even though we fall way short of the ideal.Shouldn’t we expect the church a vehicle that were all basing our salvation on, that gets direct inspiration not to omit the truth!

For example in church movies instead of showing just showing Emma, show Joseph with his other wifes and the prophet shooting some of his attackers.

Small steps but it would start to appease many of the growing members that are getting to grips with the New Mormon History