An American Fraud — One Lawyer’s Case Against Mormonism

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone is saying that he gets a pass because of his accomplishments. I think the exercise teaches us that most people aren’t all good or all bad, we’re complex. Searching out and finding only the bad in others can lead us to seeing only the bad in ourselves. Finding the good in others despite their flaws might help us discover the good in ourselves despite our flaws. We tend to get good at things we practice.

Rob4Hope wrote:

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’m sure being excommunicated must be hard, I know what feeling ostracized from a community is like but no one has ever taken that additional step of performing a rite around the process to make it official. I can only imagine.

Do you need the church’s forgiveness, do you need someone in the church to view your accomplishments? Or do you need to forgive yourself, to see your own accomplishments? I’m not singling you out, I ask myself those same questions.

I like that we are held to a higher standard today. It shows that we’ve made a little progress during these last 140 or so years.

From my perch in 2016 I can comfortably say that I wouldn’t enjoy BY’s leadership very much. I don’t have a perch on the frontier in the year 1847 so it’s hard for me to know how much I would have enjoyed, disliked, or depended on BY’s leadership.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. When I take that all into consideration, I start to think that maybe I have misunderstood some of the other things he did. I no longer believe that JS was just out for sex with the whole polygamy thing, because it doesn’t make sense to me that such a substantial and significant figure can be reduced to such a simple view. This in no way can excuse polygamy, because it had its own terrible implications, apart from what JS thought about it. But it does help me to be more… understanding… of how we got to here.

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.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

And, these are the men who we revere as prophets of God?

Rob4Hope wrote:

“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.

Just my opinion…

I don’t think the books you are reading are helping your testimony and enlightenment, Rob. They don’t provide an objective historical factual background. They raise questions about events, and the author is trying to lead you to their conclusion, which is negative towards the church. Seems like more research on these events is definitely needed.

I wouldn’t advise you to not read the stuff. Just realize it is one book, and it is one book with a specific agenda. And that should be kept in mind the whole time you’re reading it.

[Admin note again…to start with a recap of where we were on page 1, followed by my sincere question for you to respond to Rob…]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Heber,…I get the feel that this area is starting to skirt the line. I will keep my comments germane to the purpose.

I’m trying to remember again what your purpose is in reviewing a clear Anti-Mormon book and asking questions about prophets committing felonies, and the church covering it up, and the prophets getting preferential treatment no one else in the church would get?

Do you need support for how you feel about your excommunication?

Do you feel it is important to tell other readers who come here that you think there are double standards in the church, especially for prophets?

Do you want to objectively review the book to let others come to their own conclusions about the book and these events?

What is the purpose of this thread, Rob? Please help me and others understand so we can discuss. You do see that your posts are directly attacking the church with conspiracy theories and directly attacking Brigham Young and Joseph Smith as leaders and prophets, right? (which is against our rules and you know it)

For what purpose?

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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:

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

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

Maybe you should have said this in your first post and left it at that…. If you have sincere questions, some perhaps raised by this or another book, you could ask those questions in a thread. Frankly, it appears you’ve made up your mind, and that’s fine. I don’t expect a response to this, it is for your own reflection: What are you trying to do? If you’re looking to dig up dirt on the church or past prophets/presidents, it’s certainly out there by the truckload – but it’s not helping anyone StayLDS.

With your participation here over the past several months, it should be clear to you now that there is a huge spectrum of belief here, and most of that is not based on Articles of Faith or words of prophets, but has come to us as individuals based on our own experiences. Hence your or my definition of what it means to believe/sustain/follow a prophet (for example) does not necessarily equal anyone else’s. OON, for example, stated what he believes about BY (that he doesn’t believe he was a prophet), and he did so respectfully. Your response to him was that he must believe BY is a prophet because that’s what the church teaches. Most of us StayLDS by letting go of what “the church teaches” and embracing our own beliefs. I can be blunt, and here’s one of those times: quit telling other people what they believe or what they should believe.

[Anonymous]

Rob, I see you as someone that has had a LOT of emotional pain inflicted on you – some exacerbated by the church and the social pressures of staying in a dysfunctional marriage longer than you should have. When you finally broke from the pressure (like a normal person will) the processes of the church felt less like any “balm of gilead” and more like alcohol in an open wound.

As like most anybody, you want vindication that you were wronged/hurt. That is what I think you need to reach peace about.

If it helps any, I feel you were screwed over by the church’s teachings and culture. Now what are you going to do about it? The pointing out of all the “bad” things about the church does probably give you a bit of vindication that, “See – that church that hurt me is deeply flawed!” I would suggest you work on YOUR peace and happiness.

I think this group is unique in that it is mainly trying to walk that space between not being TBM’s, but not angry ex-mo’s. It seems that for most people they tend to be pulled one way or the other. Either they retrench and put items that cause them to question on a shelf and try harder to be TBM’s or the other side they give up and become angry at the church. I think you would agree you are very much on the side of the angry. I personally don’t fault you for that. If you want to stay there then there are probably better sites to join up with. If you want to be working to stay in that middle ground, this is good place. Right at this moment it does not feel like you really want to be in this middle place.

Hang in there. I do think you will find that peace that you want, but getting there isn’t going to be easy.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Back to the topic. Let me say that although this book has limited value for people here, I do think this thread is very appropriate. It’s a good reminder of how to StayLDS by seeking middle ground. Here, we often complain about the Church’s white-washing of history; presenting only the faithful view. But this thread has also illuminated that the Church’s opponents also often do the same thing from the other side; presenting only the negative view.

The subtitle of the subject book is informative: “One Lawyer’s Case Against Mormonism”. I will point out that in court, if every jury heard only the prosecution case, and the defense had to remain silent, we’d have to outsource our jail system to a third world country to house all the convicted felons. Conversely, if juries only heard the defense case, we’d have a lot of unemployment among former prison guards. By definition, a “Lawyer’s Case” is a biased presentation of one side of the argument.

I’m grateful for StayLDS. I feel that here I have been able to find a realistic, yet somewhat positive, view of the Church. The Church, its leaders, its history, and its people have made major mistakes and have even acted badly at times (past and present). But, I feel at peace being able to accept that and to still recognize the good. The Church’s substantial capacity for good gives me optimism that the Church will continue to right its wrongs as best it can, as it partially did with the repeal of BY’s Priesthood/Temple Ban, and then later completed with the Essay explaining that the Ban’s provenance traces back to BY’s personal views of race and political agenda to legalize slavery in the Territory of Utah.

[Author]

Posts