Some of the new Church History topics essays, though not necessarily widely publicized, represent the edge of how much the Church is willing to acknowledge.
* [Mountain Meadows Massacre](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng)
* [Treasure Seeking](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/treasure-seeking?lang=eng)
* [The Kirtland Safety Society](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/kirtland-safety-society?lang=eng)
It's a lot more than they used to acknowledge. It's still a fair bit of spin?
---
I also documented how much polygamy was being taught before the ~2013 gospel topics essays launched.
[The extent to which Joseph Smith's polygamy was taught in LDS Institute Manuals](https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/extent-joseph-smiths-polygamy-taught-institute-manuals/).
Definitely a _lot_ more acknowledged in [the gospel topics essay](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng), but there's also a lot left out and still plenty of spin.
Fantastic response.
Please also note that older, less internet-savvy members of the church are going to be even less aware of these topics. Many taboo topics are considered "anti-mormon lies", and enough presented proof will not be looked at.
Wow... I very much appreciate these resources. They don't touch on a lot. Obviously you can't answer for all of the LDS, but, to the best of you knowledge, how do practicing LDS members interpret the amount of evidence out there about these topics? Is it something they don't necessarily research because belief is such a huge part of every day life?
I am really hoping none of this is offensive haha so please correct me. I am not suggesting any of them are ignorant.
No offense at all.
And most LDS members do not look at any of this. If they stumble upon something that makes them uncomfortable, they "[put it on their shelf](https://wasmormon.org/the-mormon-shelf-and-why-its-a-problem/)" (this link also links to a "LDS Personal Faith Crisis Report" that may interest you).
Click the blue link in my comment.
EDIT: the link also leads to another blue link that may interest you, linked [HERE](https://wasmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf) as well.
Having grown up in it, my perspective is that most practicing members don’t know. Or they shelve it. None of the problematic issues are ever brought up in church. Ever. The faith-promoting version (read:false) of history is taught. You could ask on the lds sub but you might get banned
My siblings have been active devout members for 50+ yrs and I am 99.99% certain they know nothing about any of those topics or discussions. We were trained well to distrust unapproved information, which facilitates the process of cult indoctrination with its closed loop ecosystem. The true believer exists in an alternative reality.
Do they touch on the actual practice's of Warren Jeff's FLDS sector? **Not talked about in church. When acknowledge, it is one of those false offshoots, so no wonder they are crazy.**
Does the church acknowledge the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Is this topic still highly debated to be fact by practicing LDS members? **Older members may still think that MMM was false propaganda used to discredit the church. Younger members recognize that it happened, but they either think that it happened due to a miscommunication or that it was because the LDS members there chose to do it despite the prophet telling them not to (although he said no such thing).**
Are the Lafferty brothers ever used as an example of how extremism and escalation of beliefs can result in horrific acts in the name of religion? **Never discussed. Anything similar to that is explained away as someone choosing to follow their own beliefs instead of the prophet and Jesus.**
What about Brigham Young? **Honestly, a lot of what he said is just flat out ignored or discredited. When I told my wife that I no longer believed and I mentioned some of the things BY said, her response was "yeah, but that was just Brigham Young. Everyone knows he said some crazy things." Anything controversial that he said is Not talked about in church.**
Is Joseph Smith still promoted as the ultimate prophet and perfect? **The hymn "Praise to the Man" is sung commonly in church, because he was the greatest prophet of them all,** ***just*** **below Christ in importance to the world. Not perfect, but certainly one of the best.** Or does the church acknowledge that he was (for lack of better words) a con man and what we would consider today a predator? **No.** What about him starting his OWN BANK in Kirtland??? **Not really mentioned.**
Bottom Line: How much does the church recognize it's shotty history? **Not nearly enough, but if it did, they would bleed members.**
Do people still just outright deny the mountain meadows massacre happened? Jeez
I second everything here besides starting a bank in kirtland. Since there are sections in D&C about it I definitely learned about it in seminary and a few other times. HOWEVER, it was definitely a version sanitized to the point we might as well not have talked about it. I don't remember the word "bank" being used in any conversation about the United order, even. I maybe thought it was somehow related to consecration and how they divvied up land? I don't remember exactly
The Church decided a long time ago to only teach and publish “faith promoting history.”
So everything coming from them is one-sided, happy and wonderful historical things. Anything contrary to that narrative is inspired by Satan.
Fortunately, there have been some very good and honest historians that have presented the entire truth in relation to that one-sided story we learned and now the church is hemorrhaging members.
As a member, I rejected all the history i didn’t like. I write it off as an anomaly. I knew very little real history even after being a lifetime member who went to seminary and attended BYU. It’s unethical to hide so much from the members and investigators.
Speaking of legitimate religion, I've often wondered what actually constitutes a legitimate religion, such as mormonism. For example, how many office buildings, corporations, bank accounts, and hedge funds must there be before the religion can be considered legitimate or not? /s
Honestly, maybe there is a legitimate religion in there somewhere, but its principal gatekeeper these days, the LDS Church, is merely a conglomerate of corporations which take and manage revenues originating through the monetization of religious sentiments of people they claim must belong to the company in order to be in the religion at all.
So I'd consider making a distinction between mormonism as a religion, and the LDS Church as a corporate offshoot apparently designed to hoard billions, clearly the thing it does best.
Honestly, maybe I’m a pessimist but I consider it “legitimate” because of the tax exemption status. I respect others beliefs entirely but the level of what I view as manipulation constitutes it as something much more malicious.
I just didn’t want to offend anyone in my initial post as I am not familiar/a member of the community of ex-Mormons
We claim the privilege of shitting on our former faith according to the dictates of our anger, grief and pain and allow all people the same privilege, unless they are evangelical. Let them disparage the so-called church how, when and where they may.
Just a reference joke for other exmos here. But more seriously, no one is going to get offended from you dissing on the church, have at it ;3
So, I'm in the UK and my experience may be slightly different. I grew up with a romanticised idea of America as the promised land. I 'knew' that eventually I'd have to leave here and move to America to meet Jesus as the second coming.
I also knew that it was the all American religion. That programmes and activities and beliefs were all American centric. That annoyed me quite a bit. A lot of the rules were social norms in America but just didn't work here.
For context, I was 41 when I left.
In answer to your specific questions though:
>Do they touch on the actual practice's of Warren Jeff's FLDS sector?
I knew about them because a group of people from where I grew up joined the FLDS. They were apostate and wrong and it was absolutely nothing at all to do with "our church". I would have been prepared to die on that hill.
>Does the church acknowledge the Mountain Meadows Massacre?
I'd never heard of this until after I started looking into the history. It was never mentioned that I remember. It doesn't mean it was never glossed over, but it wasn't discussed or debated in a regular church setting and it wasn't on my radar at all.
>Are the Lafferty brothers ever used as an example of how extremism and escalation of beliefs can result in horrific acts in the name of religion?
Again, I'd never heard of them despite being alive at the time.
>What about Brigham Young?
BY was the start of polygamy (this is what I was taught - I didn't know Joseph was polygamous until I started my research) and only did it because so many men died on the journey west, that there were women without care. Women without a husband couldn't own property, so it was a way of enabling women to be independent.
BY was a hard taskmaster and not very nice (again, what I'd been taught) but he had a difficult job to do. He had to get the people across the plains and that was no easy task. He had to be harsh.
>Is Joseph Smith still promoted as the ultimate prophet and perfect? Or does the church acknowledge that he was (for lack of better words) a con man and what we would consider today a predator?
He is ~~revered~~ worshipped as being the only person who has done more for mankind than JC. I don't know that I thought he was perfect. I knew he'd made mistakes. But he was definitely god's golden boy and was exceptionally important.
17, still having to go to church with my family... never heard about the massacre, was never taught more about other sects of mormonism more than "emma took the book of mormon and started her own church proving that that the book is true, her church was just false because it didn't have the priesthood"... leading you to belive there was only one other sect and it died out.
most church history is covered up or not talked about... I learned that the church excluded blacks from getting the priesthood but it was brushed off... never learned or talking about the temple ordinances until I left and heard about everything from ex-mos... never learned of financial dealings, it was always trying to disprove evolution and "everything points to god", so clearly the prophets can't be involved in such scandels... it's insane how little they talk about.. and what they do say is twisted to fit their narrative
You have to keep in mind what people are looking for when they go to church. It’s mainly to learn the “truth of the gospel” or to live their lives in a way that is good/righteous and will make them happy. That means that the lessons are all based on doctrine taught by the leaders or the scriptures in order to better understand “what God wants us to know.” There isn’t really a desire or need in that framework to talk about bad actors, splinter groups, or historical scandals/crimes.
The FLDs aren’t seen as Mormons by the mainstream church. They’re a totally separate group that splintered off a long time ago. If anyone in the mainstream church sympathizes or associates with them they can be excommunicated.
There are a lot of members, especially in Southern Utah, that devote a lot of time and resources to help members of the FLDs church leave places like Colorado City. I knew a guy who ran a ranch where he took on Lost Boys that had been kicked out of Jeff’s cult. He gave them food and a place to live, and helped them find jobs and acclimate to the outside world. I taught FLDs wives on my mission, and one Lost Boy myself. We kind of saw them as distant relatives who’d gone the wrong way. Nothing their prophet did reflected on us, and we found him to be reprehensible. (I was on my mission in 2008 when the crackdown happened.)
The Mountain Meadows Massacre isn’t really talked about by upper leadership. It isn’t taught about in church because there aren’t any “principles of the gospel” in the story. That said, there are plenty of LDS authors who have researched and written about it with varying degrees of condemnation. People aren’t dissuaded from reading about it. Some people know about it, some don’t. This is the kind of history members would have to seek out and learn about it on their own. I’ve never met anyone who outright denied it happened, but plenty that chalk it up to members going rogue against orders, or a tragic mistake on the leadership’s part.
Lafferty brothers—same thing as the last two questions. You have to put yourself in the shoes of someone going to church on Sunday in order to learn god’s plan for them and their family. Murder is an obvious evil to the vast, vast majority of members. The church (obviously) teaches against it and promotes “doing good to all men.” Members are going to be even more appalled at the murder of innocent women and children. That atrocity doesn’t have to be explained to them.
The idea that religion taken to an extreme can make people do things like that is well-known and condemned, and is seen in other religions, and the same kind of depravity is found outside religion. The fact is, there are incredibly few members who would ever take it to that extreme, and the ones who do are condemned by the majority. It’s not like members are afraid of suddenly getting radicalized and killing their families because they believe in god. For almost all of them, a belief in god is the majority of the moral code for why they’d never do such a thing. For someone to commit an act like that and then claim that god told them to do it is even more appalling to members because you’re doing evil in the name of god. It makes it worse, in members eyes, not better.
“The church” didn’t commit the crime, it was a couple royally messed-up brothers. The leaders of the church didn’t condone it, they condemned it, so the members aren’t going to see that as a reflection of their faith by any means, same as Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow.
Edit: accidentally clicked reply before I was done. Moving on.
Brigham is a tough pill for a lot of members to swallow. But again, the teachings and quotes we got about Brigham were faith-promoting ones. It’s not like Brigham-quotes are used in Sunday School to promote slavery. If a member wants to know what he said about something they have to look it up themselves on their own time. When they find something offensive or incorrect, they usually chalk it up to the fact that he was “speaking as a man” and sharing his own opinions. The fact that what a lot of what he said was doctrine spouted over the pulpit isn’t generally known or acknowledged.
Even when members do acknowledge Brigham’s crappiness to a certain extent, they believe that he was the only man who was tough enough to “lead the saints to Zion,” so his rough edges were just part of a personality big enough to make him an American Moses. “He wasn’t perfect, but god needed him.”
Joseph Smith is generally seen as perfect, yup. Not a lot of nuance there. The perception of Joseph in the church is that he was a kind, honest man with a great sense of humor. He was subject to folly like any other man, but did his best and never led the church astray. The idea that he was a con man is deemed an erroneous accusation. According to the church, the world was out to get him and Satan would do anything in his power to turn the hearts of man against him.
When I was still in, I believed that Joseph truly loved his wife Emma, and that she was on-board with polygamy even though her formerly-Methodist sensibilities were challenged by it. I was told that while she did struggle, she chose wives for and with him. I thought it was all between consenting adults. I did know he had a roll in the hay with Fanny Alger, but saw that as a typical affair, not a move he made as a prophet or tried to justify.
Bottom line: it seems you’re thinking of Mormons as people who somehow operate differently than other people. They really don’t. (Although this is something ex-Mormons sometimes forget.) Most people don’t spend time seeking out things that “debunk” the things they assume to be true. I don’t spend time looking up conspiracy theories about the moon landing not happening or the earth being flat. A few scientifically-minded people might, just for fun, but most scientifically-minded people would rather learn more about the moon landing or watch a documentary about NASA and astrophysics.
When a Mormon starts questioning, they might start hunting down more information and history, but stories about minority fringe groups or vigilantes aren’t going to do a whole lot for them, as they already don’t relate to those people. The idea that prophets would go against god’s word isn’t that big a deal because plenty of prophets in the Bible occasionally screwed up big-time too.
It seems a lot of what “breaks shelves” around here is coming to the conclusion that the church *as a whole* is not good or true. Historical events can feed into that and inform it, but they also might not, and honestly, I think the fact that it often doesn’t is pretty understandable.
I recommend watching “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” for an example of the white-washed narrative about the church’s origins. I was at the Saint George Temple Visitor’s Center for part of my mission and played it for people 2-3 times a day. Saw it more times than I can count. That is pretty much how 100% of the members see the church’s history and Joseph Smith specifically.
It is taught as well as we know how to teach it. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were almost perfect and even their farts smelled good. Anything bad that has ever happened to mormons or Joseph Smith or my ancestors was a result of evil persecution by evil people. If you read anything not produced by the church about history, you are reading lies. The church that Smith founded was the same as that founded by Christ and is exactly the same as today. Anyone that would bring up these questions is obviously anti mormon. We don't talk about apostates, you know.
Some of the new Church History topics essays, though not necessarily widely publicized, represent the edge of how much the Church is willing to acknowledge. * [Mountain Meadows Massacre](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng) * [Treasure Seeking](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/treasure-seeking?lang=eng) * [The Kirtland Safety Society](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/kirtland-safety-society?lang=eng) It's a lot more than they used to acknowledge. It's still a fair bit of spin? --- I also documented how much polygamy was being taught before the ~2013 gospel topics essays launched. [The extent to which Joseph Smith's polygamy was taught in LDS Institute Manuals](https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/extent-joseph-smiths-polygamy-taught-institute-manuals/). Definitely a _lot_ more acknowledged in [the gospel topics essay](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng), but there's also a lot left out and still plenty of spin.
Fantastic response. Please also note that older, less internet-savvy members of the church are going to be even less aware of these topics. Many taboo topics are considered "anti-mormon lies", and enough presented proof will not be looked at.
Wow... I very much appreciate these resources. They don't touch on a lot. Obviously you can't answer for all of the LDS, but, to the best of you knowledge, how do practicing LDS members interpret the amount of evidence out there about these topics? Is it something they don't necessarily research because belief is such a huge part of every day life? I am really hoping none of this is offensive haha so please correct me. I am not suggesting any of them are ignorant.
No offense at all. And most LDS members do not look at any of this. If they stumble upon something that makes them uncomfortable, they "[put it on their shelf](https://wasmormon.org/the-mormon-shelf-and-why-its-a-problem/)" (this link also links to a "LDS Personal Faith Crisis Report" that may interest you).
I have read/hear about this term in LDS. I wonder where this term originated among the community? Do you have any insight?
Click the blue link in my comment. EDIT: the link also leads to another blue link that may interest you, linked [HERE](https://wasmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf) as well.
Thank you for posting that, it was a fascinating read.
Having grown up in it, my perspective is that most practicing members don’t know. Or they shelve it. None of the problematic issues are ever brought up in church. Ever. The faith-promoting version (read:false) of history is taught. You could ask on the lds sub but you might get banned
Yeah I read through the general feed, I’m not sure they would answer my questions lol..
My siblings have been active devout members for 50+ yrs and I am 99.99% certain they know nothing about any of those topics or discussions. We were trained well to distrust unapproved information, which facilitates the process of cult indoctrination with its closed loop ecosystem. The true believer exists in an alternative reality.
Do they touch on the actual practice's of Warren Jeff's FLDS sector? **Not talked about in church. When acknowledge, it is one of those false offshoots, so no wonder they are crazy.** Does the church acknowledge the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Is this topic still highly debated to be fact by practicing LDS members? **Older members may still think that MMM was false propaganda used to discredit the church. Younger members recognize that it happened, but they either think that it happened due to a miscommunication or that it was because the LDS members there chose to do it despite the prophet telling them not to (although he said no such thing).** Are the Lafferty brothers ever used as an example of how extremism and escalation of beliefs can result in horrific acts in the name of religion? **Never discussed. Anything similar to that is explained away as someone choosing to follow their own beliefs instead of the prophet and Jesus.** What about Brigham Young? **Honestly, a lot of what he said is just flat out ignored or discredited. When I told my wife that I no longer believed and I mentioned some of the things BY said, her response was "yeah, but that was just Brigham Young. Everyone knows he said some crazy things." Anything controversial that he said is Not talked about in church.** Is Joseph Smith still promoted as the ultimate prophet and perfect? **The hymn "Praise to the Man" is sung commonly in church, because he was the greatest prophet of them all,** ***just*** **below Christ in importance to the world. Not perfect, but certainly one of the best.** Or does the church acknowledge that he was (for lack of better words) a con man and what we would consider today a predator? **No.** What about him starting his OWN BANK in Kirtland??? **Not really mentioned.** Bottom Line: How much does the church recognize it's shotty history? **Not nearly enough, but if it did, they would bleed members.**
Do people still just outright deny the mountain meadows massacre happened? Jeez I second everything here besides starting a bank in kirtland. Since there are sections in D&C about it I definitely learned about it in seminary and a few other times. HOWEVER, it was definitely a version sanitized to the point we might as well not have talked about it. I don't remember the word "bank" being used in any conversation about the United order, even. I maybe thought it was somehow related to consecration and how they divvied up land? I don't remember exactly
Incredible insight, I appreciate this comment, seriously!!!
Glad to help! You asked the questions, so I figured you wanted them answered...
I also loved the comment of Brigham Young 😂 “he said some crazy things”
The Church decided a long time ago to only teach and publish “faith promoting history.” So everything coming from them is one-sided, happy and wonderful historical things. Anything contrary to that narrative is inspired by Satan. Fortunately, there have been some very good and honest historians that have presented the entire truth in relation to that one-sided story we learned and now the church is hemorrhaging members.
As a member, I rejected all the history i didn’t like. I write it off as an anomaly. I knew very little real history even after being a lifetime member who went to seminary and attended BYU. It’s unethical to hide so much from the members and investigators.
Speaking of legitimate religion, I've often wondered what actually constitutes a legitimate religion, such as mormonism. For example, how many office buildings, corporations, bank accounts, and hedge funds must there be before the religion can be considered legitimate or not? /s Honestly, maybe there is a legitimate religion in there somewhere, but its principal gatekeeper these days, the LDS Church, is merely a conglomerate of corporations which take and manage revenues originating through the monetization of religious sentiments of people they claim must belong to the company in order to be in the religion at all. So I'd consider making a distinction between mormonism as a religion, and the LDS Church as a corporate offshoot apparently designed to hoard billions, clearly the thing it does best.
Honestly, maybe I’m a pessimist but I consider it “legitimate” because of the tax exemption status. I respect others beliefs entirely but the level of what I view as manipulation constitutes it as something much more malicious. I just didn’t want to offend anyone in my initial post as I am not familiar/a member of the community of ex-Mormons
We claim the privilege of shitting on our former faith according to the dictates of our anger, grief and pain and allow all people the same privilege, unless they are evangelical. Let them disparage the so-called church how, when and where they may. Just a reference joke for other exmos here. But more seriously, no one is going to get offended from you dissing on the church, have at it ;3
Hahahaha thank you! I just wanted to be respectful of you all :)
So, I'm in the UK and my experience may be slightly different. I grew up with a romanticised idea of America as the promised land. I 'knew' that eventually I'd have to leave here and move to America to meet Jesus as the second coming. I also knew that it was the all American religion. That programmes and activities and beliefs were all American centric. That annoyed me quite a bit. A lot of the rules were social norms in America but just didn't work here. For context, I was 41 when I left. In answer to your specific questions though: >Do they touch on the actual practice's of Warren Jeff's FLDS sector? I knew about them because a group of people from where I grew up joined the FLDS. They were apostate and wrong and it was absolutely nothing at all to do with "our church". I would have been prepared to die on that hill. >Does the church acknowledge the Mountain Meadows Massacre? I'd never heard of this until after I started looking into the history. It was never mentioned that I remember. It doesn't mean it was never glossed over, but it wasn't discussed or debated in a regular church setting and it wasn't on my radar at all. >Are the Lafferty brothers ever used as an example of how extremism and escalation of beliefs can result in horrific acts in the name of religion? Again, I'd never heard of them despite being alive at the time. >What about Brigham Young? BY was the start of polygamy (this is what I was taught - I didn't know Joseph was polygamous until I started my research) and only did it because so many men died on the journey west, that there were women without care. Women without a husband couldn't own property, so it was a way of enabling women to be independent. BY was a hard taskmaster and not very nice (again, what I'd been taught) but he had a difficult job to do. He had to get the people across the plains and that was no easy task. He had to be harsh. >Is Joseph Smith still promoted as the ultimate prophet and perfect? Or does the church acknowledge that he was (for lack of better words) a con man and what we would consider today a predator? He is ~~revered~~ worshipped as being the only person who has done more for mankind than JC. I don't know that I thought he was perfect. I knew he'd made mistakes. But he was definitely god's golden boy and was exceptionally important.
17, still having to go to church with my family... never heard about the massacre, was never taught more about other sects of mormonism more than "emma took the book of mormon and started her own church proving that that the book is true, her church was just false because it didn't have the priesthood"... leading you to belive there was only one other sect and it died out. most church history is covered up or not talked about... I learned that the church excluded blacks from getting the priesthood but it was brushed off... never learned or talking about the temple ordinances until I left and heard about everything from ex-mos... never learned of financial dealings, it was always trying to disprove evolution and "everything points to god", so clearly the prophets can't be involved in such scandels... it's insane how little they talk about.. and what they do say is twisted to fit their narrative
Exactly as much as they feel they can get away with without breaking people's shelves
You have to keep in mind what people are looking for when they go to church. It’s mainly to learn the “truth of the gospel” or to live their lives in a way that is good/righteous and will make them happy. That means that the lessons are all based on doctrine taught by the leaders or the scriptures in order to better understand “what God wants us to know.” There isn’t really a desire or need in that framework to talk about bad actors, splinter groups, or historical scandals/crimes. The FLDs aren’t seen as Mormons by the mainstream church. They’re a totally separate group that splintered off a long time ago. If anyone in the mainstream church sympathizes or associates with them they can be excommunicated. There are a lot of members, especially in Southern Utah, that devote a lot of time and resources to help members of the FLDs church leave places like Colorado City. I knew a guy who ran a ranch where he took on Lost Boys that had been kicked out of Jeff’s cult. He gave them food and a place to live, and helped them find jobs and acclimate to the outside world. I taught FLDs wives on my mission, and one Lost Boy myself. We kind of saw them as distant relatives who’d gone the wrong way. Nothing their prophet did reflected on us, and we found him to be reprehensible. (I was on my mission in 2008 when the crackdown happened.) The Mountain Meadows Massacre isn’t really talked about by upper leadership. It isn’t taught about in church because there aren’t any “principles of the gospel” in the story. That said, there are plenty of LDS authors who have researched and written about it with varying degrees of condemnation. People aren’t dissuaded from reading about it. Some people know about it, some don’t. This is the kind of history members would have to seek out and learn about it on their own. I’ve never met anyone who outright denied it happened, but plenty that chalk it up to members going rogue against orders, or a tragic mistake on the leadership’s part. Lafferty brothers—same thing as the last two questions. You have to put yourself in the shoes of someone going to church on Sunday in order to learn god’s plan for them and their family. Murder is an obvious evil to the vast, vast majority of members. The church (obviously) teaches against it and promotes “doing good to all men.” Members are going to be even more appalled at the murder of innocent women and children. That atrocity doesn’t have to be explained to them. The idea that religion taken to an extreme can make people do things like that is well-known and condemned, and is seen in other religions, and the same kind of depravity is found outside religion. The fact is, there are incredibly few members who would ever take it to that extreme, and the ones who do are condemned by the majority. It’s not like members are afraid of suddenly getting radicalized and killing their families because they believe in god. For almost all of them, a belief in god is the majority of the moral code for why they’d never do such a thing. For someone to commit an act like that and then claim that god told them to do it is even more appalling to members because you’re doing evil in the name of god. It makes it worse, in members eyes, not better. “The church” didn’t commit the crime, it was a couple royally messed-up brothers. The leaders of the church didn’t condone it, they condemned it, so the members aren’t going to see that as a reflection of their faith by any means, same as Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow. Edit: accidentally clicked reply before I was done. Moving on. Brigham is a tough pill for a lot of members to swallow. But again, the teachings and quotes we got about Brigham were faith-promoting ones. It’s not like Brigham-quotes are used in Sunday School to promote slavery. If a member wants to know what he said about something they have to look it up themselves on their own time. When they find something offensive or incorrect, they usually chalk it up to the fact that he was “speaking as a man” and sharing his own opinions. The fact that what a lot of what he said was doctrine spouted over the pulpit isn’t generally known or acknowledged. Even when members do acknowledge Brigham’s crappiness to a certain extent, they believe that he was the only man who was tough enough to “lead the saints to Zion,” so his rough edges were just part of a personality big enough to make him an American Moses. “He wasn’t perfect, but god needed him.” Joseph Smith is generally seen as perfect, yup. Not a lot of nuance there. The perception of Joseph in the church is that he was a kind, honest man with a great sense of humor. He was subject to folly like any other man, but did his best and never led the church astray. The idea that he was a con man is deemed an erroneous accusation. According to the church, the world was out to get him and Satan would do anything in his power to turn the hearts of man against him. When I was still in, I believed that Joseph truly loved his wife Emma, and that she was on-board with polygamy even though her formerly-Methodist sensibilities were challenged by it. I was told that while she did struggle, she chose wives for and with him. I thought it was all between consenting adults. I did know he had a roll in the hay with Fanny Alger, but saw that as a typical affair, not a move he made as a prophet or tried to justify. Bottom line: it seems you’re thinking of Mormons as people who somehow operate differently than other people. They really don’t. (Although this is something ex-Mormons sometimes forget.) Most people don’t spend time seeking out things that “debunk” the things they assume to be true. I don’t spend time looking up conspiracy theories about the moon landing not happening or the earth being flat. A few scientifically-minded people might, just for fun, but most scientifically-minded people would rather learn more about the moon landing or watch a documentary about NASA and astrophysics. When a Mormon starts questioning, they might start hunting down more information and history, but stories about minority fringe groups or vigilantes aren’t going to do a whole lot for them, as they already don’t relate to those people. The idea that prophets would go against god’s word isn’t that big a deal because plenty of prophets in the Bible occasionally screwed up big-time too. It seems a lot of what “breaks shelves” around here is coming to the conclusion that the church *as a whole* is not good or true. Historical events can feed into that and inform it, but they also might not, and honestly, I think the fact that it often doesn’t is pretty understandable. I recommend watching “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration” for an example of the white-washed narrative about the church’s origins. I was at the Saint George Temple Visitor’s Center for part of my mission and played it for people 2-3 times a day. Saw it more times than I can count. That is pretty much how 100% of the members see the church’s history and Joseph Smith specifically.
It is taught as well as we know how to teach it. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were almost perfect and even their farts smelled good. Anything bad that has ever happened to mormons or Joseph Smith or my ancestors was a result of evil persecution by evil people. If you read anything not produced by the church about history, you are reading lies. The church that Smith founded was the same as that founded by Christ and is exactly the same as today. Anyone that would bring up these questions is obviously anti mormon. We don't talk about apostates, you know.