Perhaps because this thread seems to have come to a conclusion you won’t get a chance to read this. However, I read your posts with interest and felt a deep sadness. I have no idea of what you have been through nor do I think I could fully understand without having walked in your shoes.

I hope in your life you never do feel the need to become a machine. I hope you will find a loving relationship with your Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. And I hope you will forgive me and other church members for anything we may have done overtly or covertly to cause you such pain and anger.

I just wanted you to know that my heart goes out to you. I wish I could get to know you better I think I could use a friend like you.

Take care.

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.