Washington Post Article Thoughts?

[carlimac]

A Mormon church in need of reform - The Washington Post

I have to admit I have a nose for debate and controversy. Not something I'm especially proud of, but this one really irks me. Why is it the church that needs to reform? If she doesn't like it she can lump it. Is she expecting God to mold to society? Too bad her family mistreated her. That is unfortunate but has nothing to do with anything the church teaches.

[RMGuy]

There is a similar article today in the Salt Lake Trib particularly dealing with church history etc. I think it is something that we will see more of as information both pro and con surrounding the church becomes available.

Whether we agree or disagree I think those types of discussions are healthy. We have always been a religion that encourges questioning, seeking after knowledge, agency, and allowing others to challenge us. I beleive that the dialoge (while not what we might like) is a good thing overall.

-RM

[carlimac]

I think if you ask too many questions and search too hard you're bound to find out stuff that will shake your testimony. That stuff might not have any basis in truth. There is one guy that was holding about 15 different discussion at once and kept posting a link to his essay of why the Church isn't true. I read some of that essay (stupid of me- what did I think I would find out?) and so much of it was based on his own ridiculous calculations and subjective evidence.

I guess my biggest beef about this is that it is an opinion, with a negative tone attacking a religion but no objective data or background on the essayist. We don't know what her mental health is or if she has an alterior motive for blatantly attacking the church. Unfortunately some will read it and say, Whoa boy, I'm not going near that religion. Their opportunity to hear the gospel and receive the blessings is being affected by some disgruntled, ex member. That frustrates me!!

[Tyler90AZ]

She makes a lot of good points. I also want to point out somebody who falls out does not automatically have mental health problems. I lost my whole family, life and was accused of metal health problems just because I said I don't believe anymore. Despite my hardest efforts to the opposite, God has pulled me back in the fold and I can not deny this work.

Although the church does not condone this behavior; I have seen nothing to discourage it in the two years I have been a member from the Apostles or Prophet. However, I hope that will change.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[NeuroTypical]

I "questioned and left the church" for 6 years back in the '90's, and all I got was love and support from the LDS folks in my life (plus one goofy misguided attempt at 'fellowshipping' from someone I'd never met).

I was born into a multigenerational Mormon pioneer family too.

My experiences, actions, and opinions are very much different than this lady's.

[PeterVenkman]

I have to admit I have a nose for debate and controversy. Not something I'm especially proud of, but this one really irks me. Why is it the church that needs to reform? If she doesn't like it she can lump it. Is she expecting God to mold to society? Too bad her family mistreated her. That is unfortunate but has nothing to do with anything the church teaches.

I actually read the article and I thought it was a well written expression of the author's personal experiences. It seems that she has many arguments about why the church should reform: (1) not welcoming to outsiders (of course there is a lot of missionary work to convert people, but not particularly welcoming to those that don't assimilate, her Utah government examples), (2) discouraging critical thinking, and (3) the church's claims about anthropology and history that contradict reason and science.

I'm not sure she expects the church to mold to society per se, only that she wants the church to be reflexive to the serious questions being asked by some of its members. I am actually surprised that this article is allowed to be posted on this site because of some of the stuff it mentions. Specifically, there is this paragraph:

"The church I was raised in values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking. This caused trauma and cognitive dissonance when I questioned church doctrine and official history. In online forums and support groups, former and questioning Mormons gather and offer comfort. Some of us are prominent, such as Steve Benson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist, or singer Tal Bachman. Most of us are quiet dissidents who wish to lead conscientious lives."

I've seen this exact logic play out right here on the LDS.net forums. One time I dared to take a different take than the church hivemind on an issue that was really important to me. After being called an apostate and child of satan (literally) by regular posting members of this forum, I was the one that was punished and had my posts deleted, often with the excuse that "this website does not tolerate anything that questions any aspect of the legitimacy of the church or its teachings." So, I repeat that I am surprised that we can even have a conversation about this article here.

Too bad her family mistreated her. That is unfortunate but has nothing to do with anything the church teaches.

Part of the article related to instruction she received from the BYU Dean of Religious Instruction and other "high ranking mormon leaders" to actively ignore scientific and historical texts in favor of official church curriculum. According to our doctrine that counts as official church teachings. I will agree that part of her analysis is about LDS culture and another part is about LDS doctrine and history, but I don't think it is fair to say she wrote this article because she has some sort of mental defect or ulterior motive to get back at her family.

Does she feel deeply affected by her questioning faith? Absolutely. Many "quiet mormon dissenters" feel very passionately about their ideas and really wish there was a forum to talk about it with other people, but no such forum exists...it's either completely in or completely out, which is why her arguments about the centralized nature of the church and the lack of a moderated/reformed community resonate with me.

Edited January 31, 2012 by PeterVenkman

[annewandering]

The article was strictly her own opinion and the opinion of disgruntled exmembers has to be taken with a grain of salt. This woman's family pretty much disowned her for 5 years? How about if we hear their side of that? Angry children often ignore everything their parents are saying and decide 'they dont understand me' or 'they just dont listen'. What they generally mean is that they dont agree with me.

I have never seen the church tell people to not investigate and search. In fact I have often seen the exact opposite. If a lot of LDS people agree with what we are told by the church does that make them mindless? Unable, or unwilling, to think for themselves? Lets take that idea out of religion and see how silly the idea actually is. A scientist tells us that a one pound weight falls as fast as a 10 pound weight. Well that just sounds wrong. So we investigate that claim, perhaps with our own experiments, and discover it is actually true. Most everyone who does this discovers it is true as well. So does that make them all mindless, hivebound people? Or does it just mean they have all found the statement to be true? Why isnt the same thing possible in religion?

My opinion is that some people will always look for proof that the church is wrong, corrupt and even evil. Why they do this I dont know except it probably depends on that person. Maybe they are just angry people. Maybe they want to do something that is not accepted as ok. Maybe they are just mad at their parents. Maybe someone hurt their feelings in church. Maybe they just dont get it.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. Brigham Young was not a perfect man. What they were was prophets and the leaders God chose to lead the church, despite their humanness or maybe because of it.

People like this writer do themselves nor the people reading it any good unless we treat her civilly. She is welcome to her opinion. One day she will know she was wrong and can deal with that then. I am reminding myself of this so I am not angry, ^^, and that anger is a waste of energy and time.

[NadiaStar]

The article seemed to rage at Mormon culture rather than doctrines. There is this misguided idea that everything your average Mormon believes is doctrine. No prophet or scripture ever warned us not to research to my knowledge.

In that regard I can sympathize with her. It could be great if Mormon culture were more open to different ideas and those questioning their faith. But for all the Mormons who were nasty to this woman, I bet you there is AT LEAST one Mormon who would have handled it different.

We'r all just people.

[Blocky]

I'd be bitter too if I felt like my families love depended on my faith of the church. This article really seems to focus on all the hurtful things the author has had happen to her and not on actual practices of the church. If she was surrounded by people who encouraged her to 'avoid books and marry' and a family who wouldn't let them in their home for years only because she lost her faith, then yes, there needs to be a change. That's not the church though, that's misguided flawed people.

Though I wonder, were they encouraging her to not educate herself, or to avoid twisted anti-Mormon literature? Did her family not let her in their home because she lost her faith or because she couldn't be there without questioning theirs? The answers don't really matter though because this article is just about her personal hurts, not about church practices.

[Backroads]

I saw the article this morning on Facebook and I'm pretty much disgusted with it. I don't understand the Washington Post--it's like every blogger out there can get in an article. The article was definitely of the opinion sort and while I am trying to see it in a sympathetic light I hate how generalizing it was. I do see it was about her personal pains and how she views the Church, but her opinions and views were stated as facts and that's what bothered me.

If her family and friends truly did treat her horribly, shame on them! Love should not be dependent on religion. But on the same token she might have been attacking her family. I know a woman who almost hates to have her ex-Mormon granddaughter over because she knows the girl will just start an anti-Mormon tirade.

The hurt works both ways, and I don't think the evil non-accepting Mormon family is a strict rule.

But what really disgusted me were the comments to the article. So many things attacking doctrine--and yes, I'm aware that usually happens with Mormon-themed articles.

I guess what happens in such cases is the battle between viewpoints.

[carlimac]

She makes a lot of good points. I also want to point out somebody who falls out does not automatically have mental health problems. I lost my whole family, life and was accused of metal health problems just because I said I don't believe anymore. Despite my hardest efforts to the opposite, God has pulled me back in the fold and I can not deny this work.

Although the church does not condone this behavior; I have seen nothing to discourage it in the two years I have been a member from the Apostles or Prophet. However, I hope that will change.

I didn't say she has mental health problems. i said we don't know what her mental health status is. Someone who rants like this could possibly have anger issues that color the way she sees everything, or could be an unpleasant person - disliked in a general way by many so is lashing out at a scapegoat, or she could just be passionate about everything. Who knows? The problem is the fallout from her rant and how potentially damaging it could be for individuals who are in a precarious spot in their spiritual journey. While it has brought naysayers of her article out of the woodwork, it also has emboldened others who have left the Church for whatever reason to speak up and bond and give each other attaboys. It would just be nice if she and others could be a little less vocal about their disenchantment with the church. Just quietly go on their merry way rather than revisiting to complain and whine and kvetch.

[Vort]

A Mormon church in need of reform - The Washington Post

I have to admit I have a nose for debate and controversy. Not something I'm especially proud of, but this one really irks me. Why is it the church that needs to reform? If she doesn't like it she can lump it. Is she expecting God to mold to society? Too bad her family mistreated her. That is unfortunate but has nothing to do with anything the church teaches.

They leave the Church, but they cannot leave the Church alone.

I have no patience for such rank disloyalty. If you're going to leave, then leave, but quit whining.

[carlimac]

I actually read the article and I thought it was a well written expression of the author's personal experiences. It seems that she has many arguments about why the church should reform: (1) not welcoming to outsiders (of course there is a lot of missionary work to convert people, but not particularly welcoming to those that don't assimilate, her Utah government examples), (2) discouraging critical thinking, and (3) the church's claims about anthropology and history that contradict reason and science.

I'm not sure she expects the church to mold to society per se, only that she wants the church to be reflexive to the serious questions being asked by some of its members. I am actually surprised that this article is allowed to be posted on this site because of some of the stuff it mentions. Specifically, there is this paragraph:

"The church I was raised in values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking. This caused trauma and cognitive dissonance when I questioned church doctrine and official history. In online forums and support groups, former and questioning Mormons gather and offer comfort. Some of us are prominent, such as Steve Benson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist, or singer Tal Bachman. Most of us are quiet dissidents who wish to lead conscientious lives."

I've seen this exact logic play out right here on the LDS.net forums. One time I dared to take a different take than the church hivemind on an issue that was really important to me. After being called an apostate and child of satan (literally) by regular posting members of this forum, I was the one that was punished and had my posts deleted, often with the excuse that "this website does not tolerate anything that questions any aspect of the legitimacy of the church or its teachings." So, I repeat that I am surprised that we can even have a conversation about this article here.

Part of the article related to instruction she received from the BYU Dean of Religious Instruction and other "high ranking mormon leaders" to actively ignore scientific and historical texts in favor of official church curriculum. According to our doctrine that counts as official church teachings. I will agree that part of her analysis is about LDS culture and another part is about LDS doctrine and history, but I don't think it is fair to say she wrote this article because she has some sort of mental defect or ulterior motive to get back at her family.

Does she feel deeply affected by her questioning faith? Absolutely. Many "quiet mormon dissenters" feel very passionately about their ideas and really wish there was a forum to talk about it with other people, but no such forum exists...it's either completely in or completely out, which is why her arguments about the centralized nature of the church and the lack of a moderated/reformed community resonate with me.

OK, I'm not a mod so I don't know what inspires them to remove or leave posts, but I'm obviously not condoning the sentiments in this article. Rather I'm saying, this is NOT how the church really is. It is ONE person's experience and seen through her own perspective.

Again, I think it's unfortunate that people are so dogged about digging into the past and the mysteries. What we have of the Gospel of Jesus Christ today is all we really need in this life to prepare us for eternity. The atonement, the covenants we make, the commandments, loving our neighbor, loving the Lord, a broken heart and a contrite spirit...it's really very simple. People who question unceasingly and demand answers to irrelevant questions seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. I just don't believe that the Holy Ghost is going to testify to anyone about where the golden plates disappeared to along with the Nephite DNA. Frankly, it has no bearing on our eternal salvation so why fret over it?

I do believe we as a Church body could be a little more accepting and a little less afraid of people who have different beliefs or who may have drifted away. We've kind of psyched ourselves out over that a bit. Perhaps there is too much guilt over the idea that we couldn't prevent it or we can't convert someone, or rescue them if they've fallen away We internalize it thinking their lack of interest in the church is our fault due to our lack of faith or something. But I don't see the general angst over dissidents as the great evil that this woman seems to see it as. It's almost an endearing characteristic that we want so badly for everyone to believe. If they don't we may even be questioning our own testimony a little. We might be subconsciously thinking, "If it's not good enough for them, why is it good enough for me? Am I the idiot in this scenario?" I'm not saying it's this way for everyone but it may be a possibility. Our intensely sincere desires to have the whole fam together forever could be resulting in some awkward encounters that turn unpleasant when the stubborn black sheep just doesn't want to join or re-join the flock.

As for no forums to discuss questions?? Seriously? They are all over the internet.

Edited February 1, 2012 by carlimac

[PeterVenkman]

I think many of the concerns raised in this thread are due to a number of issues that are all interrelated. First, there is the concern about people who have left the church and become very vocal about their negative experiences (which some people think may spread misinformation about the church). Second, there is the concern regarding the distinction between the LDS culture and the LDS doctrine/teachings. Bad people within the culture may cause hardship for others but that is not connected to church doctrine/teachings. Third, there is the concern that this article is just this lady's opinion and not an informed factual analysis of the faith.

This is merely my opinion, but I think all of those issues connect to each other in important ways. No other faith seems to have the problem of ex members that are very vocal critics of their prior church as much as the LDS. Could there be a reason (or several) that create the conditions for this to happen? Maybe. I'm thinking of a few intervening variables:

1. Fast and Testimony Meetings - From a very young age, mormon youth are encouraged to express their beliefs, not only to heavenly father, but to others both inside and outside the church. We thank members for sharing their thoughts and speaking about their faith. We even dedicate an entire session per month to open the floor for members to speak out and rejoice in their faith. Missionary work is another example of how this plays out regarding people outside the church. This is nice, but there is also social conditioning at work that deeply influences human behavior through repetition. If people later leave the church, or if their beliefs change for whatever reason, they still have this social need to express their understanding of truth to the world. If they've had bad experiences that they associate with what they used to believe, then that compounds the need to speak out.

2. LDS Culture vs. LDS Doctrine/Teachings - I believe that the mormon culture and the doctrine are inextricably linked, and it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to separate the two in their minds. The church is a social support structure as well as a system of beliefs. BUT, the beliefs inform the support structure and vice versa. There are all sorts of doctrines related to how we should behave, and the church leadership is very open about the fact that full participation in the social support structure makes it easier to live by the doctrine. For example, it's much easier to live the word of wisdom if you are always surrounded by members doing church activities than if you are "steeped in the ways of the world". Now, this works well and fine for a lot of people that find fulfillment in the social support structure (culture), but like any culture, there are people who are outliers, exceptions and outcasts. There are many reasons why people can become dissatisfied with the culture, but the fact that it is so tied to their beliefs about the TRUTH is what really shakes them up. Since I believe the two are commingled, eliminating one will often destroy the foundation for the other. It goes both ways. People who question their mormon faith tend to distance themselves from the culture, and people who have terrible experiences with the culture tend to distance themselves from the faith.

3. Animosity - It can be profoundly frustrating when a member has legitimate concerns about the faith and those concerns are ignored, censored or even redirected. This may be partially due to the fact that the mormon faith is not really administered by religiously trained professionals (as it is a lay church). No one is perfect and everyone sins, but it would be a lie to say there is no application of guilt present in the faith. A quick glance through a few other sections of these forums will show plenty of people feeling absolutely sick with guilt, and we all know that is not a pleasant experience. Some people that leave the church are angry about some of those negative feelings. Others may be aggravated by the rhetoric of "their submission to the modern world of temptation" or "liberal education misinforming the college generation" as condescending.

Testimony meetings and missionary work that encourage people to express their beliefs, a social life and culture that is inextricably linked to the doctrine/teachings and animosity from any number of sources. Take these 3 variables, stir them all together and you have a recipe for very vocal critics of the church that really does seem to be a mormon phenomenon.

Yes, it may be merely the author's opinion, but that opinion informs her subjective understanding of truth. Her experiences shape the way she thinks about what is true and what is not true. Her experiences reveal something to her about the content of the teachings. This is no different from church members whose faith cannot be shaken precisely because they have had a personal experience where they felt the spirit and that personal opinion/experience confirmed their understanding of truth. In other words, the sword has two sides.

Again, I think it's unfortunate that people are so dogged about digging into the past and the mysteries. What we have of the Gospel of Jesus Christ today is all we really need in this life to prepare us for eternity. The atonement, the covenants we make, the commandments, loving our neighbor, loving the Lord, a broken heart and a contrite spirit...it's really very simple. People who question unceasingly and demand answers to irrelevant questions seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. I just don't believe that the Holy Ghost is going to testify to anyone about where the golden plates disappeared to along with the Nephite DNA. Frankly, it has no bearing on our eternal salvation so why fret over it?

But I thought we were encouraged to question things? Learning about the past helps us avoid mistakes in the future. Asking about life's mysteries is one of the things that gives human existence its meaning. The gospel is a nice guidepost and may seem simple on its face, but the critical mind is an indispensable tool for understanding HOW to love our neighbors. The minute we stop unceasingly asking questions is the minute we lose the beautiful human characteristic of wonder.

Edited February 1, 2012 by PeterVenkman

[Tyler90AZ]

I didn't say she has mental health problems. i said we don't know what her mental health status is. Someone who rants like this could possibly have anger issues that color the way she sees everything, or could be an unpleasant person - disliked in a general way by many so is lashing out at a scapegoat, or she could just be passionate about everything. Who knows? The problem is the fallout from her rant and how potentially damaging it could be for individuals who are in a precarious spot in their spiritual journey. While it has brought naysayers of her article out of the woodwork, it also has emboldened others who have left the Church for whatever reason to speak up and bond and give each other attaboys. It would just be nice if she and others could be a little less vocal about their disenchantment with the church. Just quietly go on their merry way rather than revisiting to complain and whine and kvetch.

Don't take this the wrong way Carli, you make a lot of great points and I agree with you about 85% of what your saying. Your ranting right now, do you have anger problems?

[carlimac]

She is absolutely entitled to her opinion and feelings and what all. I guess I'm more disappointed with the Washington Post for allowing this opinion without an official piece from someone who sees the whole picture differently. Peter- you should write it and submit it to the WP. I'm serious. Your post made more sense than anything I've read in the last few days. There is a reason for the hard feelings. The reason is NOT that we are taught to ostracize and ignore and hurt those who believe differently. It's human nature mixed with intense faith and culture all thrown into the same stew. If this Carrie gal and all the others who are slamming and crying foul could take a step back, look at the situation with objectivity and a little patience and forgiveness, I think this angry stew would cool off and everyone might be a little happier.

I'm not against questioning. I've done my fair share. It's the digging and endless research on the internet of dubious authors and writings that don't have good intentions that I object to. If you look in the garbage, what are you going to find? If you ingest what you find, how is that going to affect you? It's probably going to make you sick.

Edited February 1, 2012 by carlimac

[Maureen]

...People who question unceasingly and demand answers to irrelevant questions seem to be shooting themselves in the foot...

They may seem like irrelevant questions to you but for the person who's faith is being shaken, they are very important questions.

M.

[Jenamarie]

They may seem like irrelevant questions to you but for the person who's faith is being shaken, they are very important questions.

M.

Yup! Probably the most frustrating thing I faced during my own questioning period was hearing "Is it really important to understand that?"

Yes, yes it was. For me, at that time, in that place that I was at spiritually, it WAS important to have *some* sort of explanation, or at least the admission that "We don't know."

To tell someone who's questioning that their questions are, essentially, dumb, is shooting YOURself in the foot, because if you're intent was to help them in regaining their testimony you've just done the opposite.

[RMGuy]

Yup! Probably the most frustrating thing I faced during my own questioning period was hearing "Is it really important to understand that?"

Yes, yes it was. For me, at that time, in that place that I was at spiritually, it WAS important to have *some* sort of explanation, or at least the admission that "We don't know."

To tell someone who's questioning that their questions are, essentially, dumb, is shooting YOURself in the foot, because if you're intent was to help them in regaining their testimony you've just done the opposite.

Yes,

I think that being willing to say "we don't know" rather than just sweep the question under the rug is important. So is telling the truth. If you don't know, say "I don't know", don't make something up, or just repeat what you have heard. Then if the questioner finds out that they were told or lead to believe something that was not correct (especially if they have heard the same things multiple times that isn't true) they begin to believe that it is a whitewash attempt. Even if it wasn't.

-RM

[mnn727]

. No other faith seems to have the problem of ex members that are very vocal critics of their prior church as much as the LDS.

Haven't been around very much have you? -- Most faiths with a central authority have their disgruntled members that are very vocal, with multiple websites devoted to each one (try googling ex-Catholics for example).

For those faiths without a central authority (most Protestant Churches) you hear of people 'shopping for a Church' when they get fed up with their old one, or a new Pastor comes in that they don't like, there's just no central authority for them to 'rail against'

This is not unique to Mormons at all.

Edited February 1, 2012 by mnn727

[Traveler]

Just so you all know where I stand - I have never met a "Mormon" devout or hardly active that I do no believe needs to seriously consider repenting and making a major change in their life. The biggest problem and most needing repentance is a particular proud critical "Mormon" in my ward - Sometimes I try to avoid him but every time I look in a mirror there he is with his disgusting smirk.

Yes he talks big about being compassionate and loving - but given a good opportunity the curmudgeon is the more likely to shine through.

I kind of feel about the "Mormons" what Churchill seem to think about democracies. It seems to be the worse plague to ever befall mankind - that is excepting everything else.

The Traveler

[Backroads]

Yet when I have struggled with my faith, the odd thing is that after wondering and fretting over how important <insert maybe/maybenot doctrine, history, cultural norm, etc> I eventually did come to the conclusion it wasn't a big deal.

Perhaps that period of wondering and fretting was just what I needed for my spiritual journey.

In the end, though, my other conclusion was that a spiritual connection with God was more important than a religion.

[carlimac]

They may seem like irrelevant questions to you but for the person who's faith is being shaken, they are very important questions.

M.

So do you think it's a very good idea for someone who's faith is on the line to read, say... Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History", or Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven" to find out what really happened back then? (tongue in cheek by the way) Or even Mormon blogs and forums or the Journal of Discourses from way back when? Or even Mormon Doctrine (not saying this is all false but it isn't canonized scripture and as we've found out, is somewhat subjective)? Or would it be better to focus on current Conference talks, the scriptures, prayer and fasting, temple attendance (ask to speak to the temple president to have questions answered there)? I'm not saying don't search for answers. I'm saying, search in the places where faith is more likely to be strengthened by the Holy Ghost rather than destroyed. I'm saying, don't get sidetracked by details that aren't faith promoting or distract from gaining a firm testimony of the mission of Jesus Christ on the earth and our goal of returning to our Father in Heaven.

Adding another thought. Many folks who become disenchanted after reading in depth about church history complain that the wool was pulled over their eyes, that they were never taught that stuff and that the brethren are hiding the truth. OK, so why aren't we taught in Sunday School about all the juicy details about the Danites and Orrin Porter Rockwell's colorful story or even the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Heck I had a great grandfather who may or may not have been there. It was talked about in whispers at family gatherings and I never knew the truth. In fact I just read about a month ago ONLINE that some believe he was there. Rocked my world for about 10 min. (By the way it was an innocent search I was doing for a picture of him for my daughter's primary talk. And because no one knows for sure if he was a trigger man or for sure if he was even there, what's the point of speculation?) So why aren't we taught all this in Sunday School? Well I prefer to conclude that it's because the brethren, who have a clearer perspective than I do, don't think it's useful information for our eternal good. Learning about it all won't lead us to a good place where the Spirit can testify. I DON'T believe they are intentionally hiding anything out embarrassment or fear that the church will fall apart if we knew. They just see it as part of the imperfect past of a new church being formed by imperfect people and there is no need to dwell on past missteps.

Edited February 1, 2012 by carlimac

[RMGuy]

So do you think it's a very good idea for someone who's faith is on the line to read, say... Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History", or Jon Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven" to find out what really happened back then? (tongue in cheek by the way) Or even Mormon blogs and forums or the Journal of Discourses from way back when? Or even Mormon Doctrine (not saying this is all false but it isn't canonized scripture and as we've found out, is somewhat subjective)? Or would it be better to focus on current Conference talks, the scriptures, prayer and fasting, temple attendance (ask to speak to the temple president to have questions answered there)? I'm not saying don't search for answers. I'm saying, search in the places where faith is more likely to be strengthened by the Holy Ghost rather than destroyed. I'm saying, don't get sidetracked by details that aren't faith promoting or distract from gaining a firm testimony of the mission of Jesus Christ on the earth and our goal of returning to our Father in Heaven.

Adding another thought. Many folks who become disenchanted after reading in depth about church history complain that the wool was pulled over their eyes, that they were never taught that stuff and that the brethren are hiding the truth. OK, so why aren't we taught in Sunday School about all the juicy details about the Danites and Orrin Porter Rockwell's colorful story or even the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Heck I had a great grandfather who may or may not have been there. It was talked about in whispers at family gatherings and I never knew the truth. In fact I just read about a month ago ONLINE that some believe he was there. Rocked my world for about 10 min. (By the way it was an innocent search I was doing for a picture of him for my daughter's primary talk. And because no one knows for sure if he was a trigger man or for sure if he was even there, what's the point of speculation?) So why aren't we taught all this in Sunday School? Well I prefer to conclude that it's because the brethren, who have a clearer perspective than I do, don't think it's useful information for our eternal good. Learning about it all won't lead us to a good place where the Spirit can testify. I DON'T believe they are intentionally hiding anything out embarrassment or fear that the church will fall apart if we knew. They just see it as part of the imperfect past of a new church being formed by imperfect people and there is no need to dwell on past missteps.

If it is true (and the sources they are reading are factual) we shouldn't have to worry about faith being destroyed, but please don't take my word for it...

Hugh B. Brown in a speech to BYU in 1958:

“Only error fears freedom of expression… Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church...…we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant”

J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley

-RM

[carlimac]

If it is true (and the sources they are reading are factual) we shouldn't have to worry about faith being destroyed, but please don't take my word for it...

Hugh B. Brown in a speech to BYU in 1958:

“Only error fears freedom of expression… Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church...…we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant”

J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley

-RM

It's not the truth that I'm worried about. It's the conjecture and assumptions and rumors that get put out there as facts.