[Rob4Hope]

DJ and everyone,…

Its pretty clear I waffle between wanting to “stayLDS” and being totally out. I feel myself shift, trying to reframe things in my own mind to make it work, and I discover something else I didn’t know which blows it apart.

I can’t honestly say I have the desire to keep trying. I enjoy this site, because it has been a place to at least attempt to process, but my processing is not in keeping with the purpose. Its clear to me I am working to progress through the grief cycle from what I’ve lost–a belief system that permeated everything in my life since I have memory. That system is gone completely, and I see no way back or even forward through the “nuanced” approach–which I’ve struggled to achieve, almost at any cost.

I need to withdraw from the site for a while–this is not the right place for me at the moment.

For those of you i’ve offended, I appologize. For those of you i haven’t offended yet…lucky you. If I stick around, I’m sure it will come to that.

In a non-anonymous environment, I actually think most of us would be friends, despite disagreements. I count you friends regardless.

Adieu…

[Rob4Hope]

On Own Now wrote:

Rob,

I suppose that my view of events in the deep past is that I don’t feel compelled to assign either Good or Evil adjectives to BY. He did a lot of bad things and he did a lot of good things. The imprint he left on history is a combination of the two.

I agree. Its a mixed situation.

[Rob4Hope]

I’m not gunna post any more on this thread. I’ve killed it enough…

Finished the book 2 days ago. Onto the next.

I’m gunna throw in a motivational book in there somewhere as well….for some positive stuff.

If you have aversion to harsh and extremely critical tone and commentary, this is not the book. Move on.

[Rob4Hope]

On Own Now wrote:

Rob,

I find it helpful to compartmentalize a bit. I think you are making a lot of generalities and assumptions and trying to group us all together.

Rob4Hope wrote:

we accept Brigham Young as a prophet of God…And, these are the men who we revere as prophets of God?

So, who are you including in “we”? I don’t accept BY as a prophet of God and I don’t revere any of these men as prophets of God. My guess is that that is the case with most of the people here. It’s fine with me if you do. But recognize that whether someone ELSE does or doesn’t, that is their business and their prerogative.

OON,…this is rhetorical. Its difficult to speak about these things when I’m misunderstood. We believe article of faith #9…right? And BY wrote some revelations,…right? (This is ALSO rhetorical). Is it not acceptable to generalize without stepping on someones prerogative?

I guess I need to be more specific and focus on the “facts” only–we can dispute those.

On Own Now wrote:

Rob4Hope wrote:

From the posts above, I have a question: Does a bunch of good deeds negate and cancel out evil deeds?

No one here has suggested that.

You mentioned in a post above that BY did a lot of good things. You’ve also mentioned that compartmentalizing things might be good. I understood you. My question doesn’t say anything was suggested above. I said: “from the posts above, I have a question:”….as in, Hey, while I was looking at the posts above, this question came to my mind.

So, what are you referring to by someone suggesting something? I didn’t say you suggested anything…but something written above DID cause me to have a question.

On Own Now wrote:

I would say though, that the world and the people in it are not black & white. We’ve all been raised to think that way, but at some point I think it’s worthwhile to move beyond.

I agree,…it is worthwhile to move on. Too bad the church teaches that the LDS faith is either “true” of “false”…and there is no middle ground. And, a part of my perspective in writing what I write is to use the standards of the church to evaluate what the church sais (or doesn’t say). I don’t know if that is right or wrong and don’t care for a judgement call…it just is.

On Own Now wrote:

A person’s good works, in spite of everything else, helps us to understand the motivations of that person, and that can, in turn, soften our interpretation of what else they have done.

I disagree with this. There are some things that are horrific actions, and can’t be forgiven or softened, regardless of their “good works”. And, I think it all comes down to your perspective an how much you may or may not have been affected by that person’s choice.

Here is an example: If a man is a wonderful man, does wonderful things and gives inspiration and hope to thousands, perhaps millions, but abuses his children over extended periods of time, do we judge him less severely because of his good works? Probably….unless you are his child.

So goes the tail of Bing Crosby.

On Own Now wrote:

This is exactly why I have come to a position where I think of JS as less of a tyrant than others might think. He did so many amazing things and he eventually gave his life for the cause.

Unless you are Fanny Alger, or Emma. They might not have the same perspective. It all comes down to your perspective.

On Own Now wrote:

This is precisely why a book like the one you have reviewed here holds no interest for me, any more than a book about how awful Thomas Jefferson was would hold my interest. It’s one perspective skewed wholly to one side without regard for any other perspective. I already got a lifetime of black & white thinking when I was a faithful member of the Church. I don’t need to replace one extreme with the other.

I’ve mentioned the book had a lot of venoum. What it also had was a lot of historical events that were carefully documents. Now,…OON, because I’ve been able to compartmentalize much of the tone of the book (gong into it I already knew it would be harsh), and because I know the value of good documented facts when presented, this has changed my opinion of the book and “softened [my] interpretation” of how it was received.

Make sense?….I can use the same idea you presented above. This book is not a bad book,…it just is. To say it is a bad book because it has harsh ‘anti’ tones is black and white thinking.

[Rob4Hope]

Heber13 wrote:

I can see OON, nibbler, and DJ have responded with how they view it. What is your strategy forward to stayLDS while reading this book?

I’m not LDS Heber. My name is not on the role,…and working toward “stayLDS” is becoming tricky.

What is interesting is about 30 years ago in Australia I knew people who were on the church membership list, didn’t know they were, didn’t want to be, and were considered members of the church. Some were baptized after playing softball with some elders. They didn’t know anything about the church,..but were members.

From the LDS perspective, those people are more LDS than I am. Perhaps its for the best–at least they make the membership numbers more impressive… :crazy:

[Rob4Hope]

Hi Heber,….

I read historical things that I can’t find in any “pro” lds books. I’ve read a few dozens or more “pro” books. When I read those lds books, I’ve gotten a good sense of moral values the church espouses. One is honesty, and a talk years ago from Elder Ashton sets specific criteria for honesty. One of the things Ashton condemned is telling “half truths”, or omitting relevant material.

In the rest of this post, I’m going to suspend judgement. I’m willing to do that. I want to ask questions.

1) Will I be able to find ALL of the facts from “pro” — as in correlated — books the church produces? For example, it is a historical fact that elders in Missouri attacked Gallatin and lit fires. I’ve read books from the church library, including stories from priesthood manual, D&C classes, even church history courses. I never heard that Mormons attacked Gallatin.

Or, another items is will I be able to read in “pro” books the facts surrounding the excommunication of Oliver Cowdry, including the accusation of adultry between JS and Fanny Alger?

NOTE: I’ve made no judgement call here…I’ve not said this is evil or good or anything. I’ve just asked a question……

2) And a follow up question is, using criteria from Elder Ashton: if the facts are not present and the material is being promoted as history, is this honest according to his criteria as stipulated?

AGAIN!!!!….please re-read what I’m writing here folks. I’ve made no judgement calls at all. I’ve asked 2 questions.

---

Now,..i’m not suspending judgement.

PS. To more directly answer your question, I would advise those who want to “stayLDS” to not read this book. It has some venum in it–and I already said that.

I confess I’ve experienced a visceral reaction to the historical things quoted and documented because they are presented as “fact” (and the references seem pretty good–which means there is source material that appears credible) and if they are factual as presented, there has been a coverup.

Its that coverup that triggers emotion in me–not the tone of her interpretation and other words. At this point, I am grappling with the magnitude of what feels like a massive coverup.

[Rob4Hope]

DarkJedi wrote:

I was about to write a response much like Nibbler’s. I agree that OON was just saying that along with the bad, BY accomplished a lot of good things. I agree that the kind of hero worship of GAs and especially church presidents is bad, and it’s obvious that Young’s history is just as whitewashed as anyone else’s – perhaps even more than Joseph Smith’s. As Nibbler points out, we’re all good and we’re all bad.

While I don’t know for sure, I am willing to place a heavy wager on the idea that those who were part of your disciplinary council don’t think you are evil incarnate, Rob. Nevertheless, I am also sure you hurt in ways I cannot fully imagine. I have found a great deal of liberation and peace in being able to work at forgiving myself. You actually don’t need their forgiveness (or the current SP/HC’s), but you do need to forgive yourself and you do need God’s forgiveness. I think your own forgiveness and God’s go hand-in-hand. What you will need to demonstrate to the SP is that you have repented, and only you really know when that is accomplished.

And almost an afterthought: All of these things that JS and BY (and others) did that were wrong actually bring me hope. If they can be forgiven and be allowed high station, then I, who have done much less egregious things, can also be forgiven.

It seemed like I had rancor regarding my disciplinary council (and in the past I did)…but the example I used above was only as an example. I don’t feel harsh feelings at this point–in fact, I don’t even think about it: I feel neither good nor bad about the whole thing, it just is.

My point, which I want to make more clear, is this: we accept Brigham Young as a prophet of God. He himself wielded tremendous power. In the LDS faith, we have the attitude that “God allowed it”. Because (as the logic goes), if God didn’t approve of what BY did, HE would have removed BY from his post.

And that’s the struggle.

I believe God is less involved than we think, and because the belief in many TBM circles is that God would remove a prophet from office if he did something wrong, we are, as instructed to not speak evil of the Lord’s anointed, even if its true, easy prey–easy prey for abuse, for cultish leadership, easy prey for anything.

In the early days of the church, JS asked men for their wives. William Law was one such man who claimed this happened, and his wife is on record as well about this. There is other evidence/testimony it happened.

Men,…ask yourself this question: If a prophet or apostle of God approached you and told you that God had given your wife to them, and that you could have her every now and then, but she was his–how would you feel about that? How would your wife feel, especially if she was told that if she didn’t comply, she would bring damnation onto herself and her whole family?

Historically, there is too much evidence to deny this happened. And, these are the men who we revere as prophets of God?

---

OK…I concede BY was a really great man. He did bring the saints here to this valley. He did hold it together and laid the foundation of this state. That is all good.

The double standards has me a bit perplexed. When a man does bad things, “….amen to the priesthood of that man”. — except if its BY, because after all, he has a different set of rules it appears. That’s my concern over this….

From the posts above, I have a question: Does a bunch of good deeds negate and cancel out evil deeds? If it does, we are earning our way to heaven. I’ve been taught my whole life that ONLY repentance can be a way to deal with evil deeds.

So, my question then is: “Did BY repent?….or was his use of power to protect felons (which is itself a felony, even by standards back then) excused because it was, after all BY?”

I say its the latter. And I think its evil.

[Rob4Hope]

On Own Now wrote:

R4H,

I do agree that BY was a less-than-optimal leader. He’d be my least favorite President to meet, I’m sure. There is much to lay at his feet: the Ban, institutionalization of polygamy, theocracy at a much greater level than JS, the cover up of the MMM, etc.

But, as Ray said, I also believe he was very complicated. For all the accusations that can be hurled against him, I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that he also did a lot of good. He personally was responsible for the three largest Mormon migrations: From Missouri to Illinois, from Nauvoo to Winter Quarters, and from everywhere to SLC. IMO, he saved the Church from extinction. He was the perfect person for the job; he was able to plan, but also was very good at adaptation, unlike a lot of leaders. For example, when the Church left Nauvoo, they planned a huge migration of the whole body of saints direct from Nauvoo to the Rocky Mountains. But, it became apparent that the undertaking was too difficult. BY adjusted the plan, set up WQ, and the following year embarked on a much more focused effort in which “The Pioneer Company”, a small and rugged vanguard group, would lead the way to the Salt Lake Valley, followed a month later by “The Big Company”, and then smaller companies over the succeeding seasons until all were safely in Zion. It was hugely successful.

BY was beloved by the saints in GB, where he had presided over the Church during his apostolic days. When he arrived there for the first time, he was so poor and destitute that the British sisters immediately took it upon themselves to get him some new trousers.

I think it is also worth noting that in the post-JS Nauvoo era, as hostilities grew between the still-thriving Mormons and the impatient-for-their-demise neighbors, BY had every right to stand his ground against the escalating violence. Yet he chose instead to abandon Nauvoo and did so ahead of an agreed-upon schedule. He chose not to stand and fight, but rather to take on massive hardship and poverty; seeing a bigger picture.

So, yeah, if we examine only the darker side of a complex individual, we can miss their accomplishments. Albert Einstein was a womanizer who abandoned his wife and children. Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner who fathered slave-children by his 30-years-younger-slave-girl. Steve Jobs was known to be an absolute jerk at times; as chronicled by biographer Walter Isaacson, who noted the “Good Steve” and “Bad Steve” sides of him. It’s pretty easy to find examples of selective examination. In politics, for example, it’s a universal tactic to extol the virtues of one’s own candidate without mentioning their faults, and to do the opposite with the opposition candidate.

Since I’ve done some good things in my life, why can’t I be summarily forgiven for my mistakes? Why did the church look at my “darker side of [being] a complex individual, [and] miss my accomplishments”, only to excommunicate me?

I disagree with the trend in Mormonism to leader worship, at the exclusion of double standards, even excusing egregious behaviors. If someone elses beharior can be simply winked at and disregarded, why not mine?

BY protected a bishop who castrated a young man because the bishop wanted the girl engaged to the young man, but he wouldn’t give her up. IN fact, BY used his influence to protect the man from prosecution, and even allowed the man to remain a bishop. These are, IMHO, felony abuses of power.

If this single event is true–just this single one–I have a problem with BY. He should have been jailed. But, no worries–because what he did right was so important, we can forgive him for felony crime.

This is dangerous hero worship.

This is something that has bothered me for a long time.

[Rob4Hope]

I will be done with this book today. I’ve learned several new things.

The tone of the 2nd half of this book is QUITE hostile–if you have an ax to grind and want to fan flames,…this book will do it. The authors personal angst spills into the pages.

That being said, I found some things written about Brigham Young (and they were referenced) shocking. For example, misogynistic sentiment and feeling were astonishingly prevalent, wrecking havoc back then. There appears to have been a divorce with Wife #19 from BY, and an argument over alimony. She was denied, despite suing for support. The final out for BY was the marriage was declared improper or something–a legal loop hole that was given to protect BY from paying.

This is interesting considering BY told all of women in a grandiose speech to either quit complaining or he would use his keys to release them all from their marriages. But in reality, in a misogynistic environment that controlled the entire economy, such a release would result in penury and next to death I’m sure for the children (if the wife wanted to take them with her)….or possible ostracism if the children were abandoned and left with BY, if he would even take them. He did, according to history, play favorites with some of his wives.

Its my opinion from what I have read that the entire environment back in BY days trapped the women: they had little if any financial recourse unless they had family somewhere who would take them in, and the offer by BY to release them and send them on their way was LESS then disingenuous. His own example showed he would NOT offer financial support if a wife left, and his threats of them “going to hell” seem more geared at keeping them inline than being a kind benevolent leader.

I’m not a history buff with regards to BY….but this whole area of the book was fascinating. The author documented these sections well.

[Rob4Hope]

This book is on hold for the moment…I”m almost done with the other one (it seemed like an easier read and was a spur of the moment thing)….and when I am done will turn back to this one.

[Rob4Hope]

Lots of anger in this book. It is not for the faint in heart. It is, however, interesting in some of the quotes and things brought out.

Did JS drink, to the possibility of excess?

Did he really seek Sarah Pratt as his wife, the then wife of Orson? From what Bushman said, Orson and his wife were excommunicated for a time, and then re-jointed the church and Orson was placed back into his position….but there was an agreement to not bring the matter up as part of that re-instatement.

And, some of the things attributed to Sarah are pretty interesting about things going on in Navoo…..

[Rob4Hope]

DarkJedi wrote:

Rob4Hope wrote:

And, from all of the things I’ve read, I think BY and I would have been enemies–his personality really rubs me the wrong way.

Just saying…… :crazy:

Some of those people in Young’s time volunteered to colonize hundreds of miles from SLC. I think you might see why.

LOL. I would have been one of them….

[Rob4Hope]

Heber13 wrote:

in reply to: An American Fraud — One Lawyer’s Case Against Mormonism #213375

[Rob4Hope]

This lady left some holes in here own personal narrative (the first 1/3 of the book is her story ‘OUT’ of Mormonism).

Some of the things she did write coincide pretty well with Bushman.

And, from all of the things I’ve read, I think BY and I would have been enemies–his personality really rubs me the wrong way.

Just saying…… :crazy:

[Rob4Hope]

Its interesting so far. I feel like I need to read everything I can,…I’ve spent 20 years reading the “pro” stuff (Jesus the Christ, MIracle of Forgiveness, all the standard works through, Marvelous Work and Wonder, Truth Restored, Doctrines of Salvation, Mormon Doctrine, countless books from Maxwell, Bednar, members of the 70, and so forth, countless Ensigns, countless GC Reports,…etc)….and now spending time on the other side.

When I was writing my own thesis, a wise adviser told me: “You know when you can rest assured you are getting to the end of your research: you will begin to encounter the same topics over and over in the papers you read.”

I’ve now read Greg Prince’s biography of David O. McKay, the book by Grant Palmer, the book by Richard Bushman, have read some of D. Michael Quinn, and about 50% through this new one. Read a big chunk of “Emma Smith: Mormon Enigma”…etc. These books are starting to duplicate each other with what they are saying.

The thing that I appreciate about these ‘other side’ books is they frame the questions in different ways; it makes it clear that from ethical, theological, and even legal perspectives, there are some concerns that have been omitted from the narrative.

There is a pretty big hole between what the church teaches, and some of the questions brought up by these ‘other side’ authors.

[Author]

Posts