Wednesday, January 25, 2023

[Other] Detailed Response to the "CES Letter" from a believing Latter-day Saint

Other

Jeremy also helpfully linked the response where Bushman clarifies that he isn't saying that the truth-claims of the Church are not true, but that the way we teach it needs to improve.  He was responding to a question regarding how what he learned as a child wasn't quite right, and Richard Bushman is responding to that.

As we have learned our own history better through things like the Joseph Smith Papers Project, we have become better at teaching history correctly.
These concerns are secondary to all of the above. These concerns do not matter if the foundational truth claims (Book of Mormon, First Vision, Prophets, Book of Abraham, Witnesses, Priesthood, Temples, etc.) are not true.
I also think it's fair to say that these concerns are also secondary to the above.  That the concerns don't matter if the foundational claims are true.  But just as Jeremy feels like asking the questions anyway, I feel like questions deserve to be answered anyway.
1. CHURCH’S DISHONESTY, CENSORSHIP, AND WHITEWASHING OVER ITS HISTORY 
Adding to the above deceptions and dishonesty over history (rock in hat translation, polygamy|polyandry, multiple first vision accounts, etc.), the following bother me:
Or rather, adding to Jeremy's claims of deception.  When I reviewed these sections for what he thought was dishonest, I think he is referring to how he never learned these things when young.  I also didn't learn them until I was an adult, and I never felt deceived since I didn't have an expectation that it was the Church's responsibility to teach me these things.

In this segment, Jeremy will touch on topics he has brought up in earlier sections, but what he is emphasizing this time is how the modern Church teaches its history.

2013 OFFICIAL DECLARATION 2
HEADER UPDATE DISHONESTY
(Emphasis Added)
“Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”
In sharp contrast to the above statement:
(Emphasis Added)

August 17, 1949
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

I'll put in my comment in the middle of the paragraph here to point out that in 1949, the First Presidency was operating under the mistaken understanding that the origin of the practice was from the organization of the Church.  However, Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood in 1836, and a few other black men were ordained during this period.  Brigham Young began prohibiting black men from being ordained to the priesthood.  There is no written revelation making the change.  It is not dishonest to understand our own history better than we used to.

The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.’

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency
Along with the above First Presidency statement, there are many other statements and explanations made by prophets and apostles clearly “justifying” the Church’s racism. So, the 2013 edition Official Declaration 2 Header in the scriptures is not only misleading, it’s dishonest. We do have records – including from the First Presidency itself – with very clear insights on the origins of the ban on the blacks.
It's not super helpful to bold so much, which is why I made my comment in the middle where it was relevant.  The First Presidency quote says that it originated with Joseph Smith, however historical records do not support this statement.

Historical records instead say that Joseph Smith and others ordained black men to the Priesthood.  But then in 1852, Brigham Young gave some speeches where recorded for the first time that black Africans could not hold the priesthood.  The historical record only tells us that it changed, it doesn't tell us what caused the change.  That's why it is true that historical records provide no clear insight to the origin of this practice.

The First Presidency statement that Jeremy quoted was nearly 100 years after the practice started, and provides no insight to its origin, only what they thought it was.  Like I said, there is nothing wrong with learning your own history better.
UPDATE: The Church released a Race and the Priesthood essay which contradicts their 2013 Official Declaration 2 Header. In the essay, they point to Brigham Young as the originator of the ban.
Actually, it says that Brigham Young announced the ban.  It does not say whether the ban originated with Brigham Young or the Lord, which is what the debate is about.  Unlike other major changes in the Church, there is no written revelation that the Church should forbid those of black African descent from being ordained to the priesthood.  Brigham Young started teaching it without explanation, and it is not clear why he started doing so.
Further, they effectively throw 10 latter-day “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” under the bus as they “disavow” the “theories” that these ten men taught and justified – for 130 years – as doctrine and revelation for the Church’s institutional and theological racism.
No, the theories were presented as theories, not "doctrine and revelation".  Even in the 1949 statement above, it uses speculative language, "may be understood" and "the details of this principle have not been made known".  This theory that black Africans were denied the priesthood due to their conduct in the premortal life has been disavowed, as well as all other such theories:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
Perhaps Jeremy is confused and thinks they are referring to the priesthood ban itself as a theory, rather than the explanations for the ban.  However, it doesn't make any such claims about the ban itself.  The historical record really doesn't offer any clear insights into the origin of the practice.
Finally, they denounce the idea that God punishes individuals with black skin or that God withholds blessings based on the color of one’s skin while completely ignoring the contradiction of the keystone Book of Mormon teaching exactly this.
As I talked about in the earlier segment on the priesthood ban, being cut off from the presence of the Lord was the curse, not the dark skin.  The Lamanites did not have blessings withheld from them due to the color of their skin.  The essay affirms the Book of Mormon teaching that “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
ZINA DIANTHA HUNTINGTON YOUNG
(The following is a quick biographic snapshot of Zina)
We've talked about Zina Diantha Huntington before, but maybe it was long enough we need a refresher.  According to family tradition as related by a great-granddaughter, Joseph pressed Zina three times in 1840, but she avoided answering him.  However, Zina said she first learned from her brother and never discussed it with Joseph before she was sealed.

According to a granddaughter, while Zina and her brothers were living with the Smiths, she met and became engaged to Henry Jacobs.  They asked the prophet to perform their marriage at the County Clerk’s office.  However, on 7 March 1841, he did not show up, so the Clerk, John C. Bennett, performed it instead.  When the couple later met the prophet, Zina asked him why he hadn’t come, and he said it had been made known to him that she was to be his Celestial Wife and could not give to another one who had been given to him.

Zina said Joseph taught her about plural marriage through her brother Dimick.  She wrote,
When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriag that we would have the privilige of associating in family relationship in <the> worlds to come I searched the scripture & buy [by] humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for himself [sic] that God had required that order to be established in his church. I mad[e] a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated a gain to be look uppon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved [How] could I compremise conscience [and] lay aside the sure testimony of the spiret of God for the Glory of this world[?]
Regarding the angel with a drawn sword, she is reported to have said, "I wish to bear my testimony to the principle of celestial marriage that it is true … I think what a lesson it should be to us, that we know that he did not do this of his own accord.  He sent word to me by my brother, saying, 'Tell Zina I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth, I would lose my position and my life.'"  She viewed it as an description of his reluctance, not as a threat.

She and Joseph were sealed for eternity on 27 October 1841 by her brother Dimick.
  • After Joseph’s death, Zina married Brigham Young and had a child with him while still legally married to Henry Jacobs. Brigham sent Henry on missions while being married to Zina.
Henry B. Jacobs stood as witness in the Nauvoo Temple as Heber C. Kimball sealed Zina to Joseph Smith for eternity with Brigham Young as proxy.  This was immediately followed by a sealing to Brigham Young for time on 2 Febraury 1846.  She was 7 months pregnant with her second child.

In an interview, Zina explained that their marriage was unhappy, and they parted.

According to Zina’s autobiography, reported by granddaughter, Henry believed that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man.”

In a 25 June 1846 letter to Zina from his mission, Henry said about Brigham Young, “tell him I have no feelings against him nor never had.”  Within two weeks of returning from his mission, he had proposed to two different women.  He went on to marry three different women, each ending in divorce.
  • Zina would eventually become the third General Relief Society President of the Church.
Yes, she served as Relief Society president from 1888 to 1901, having previously served as counselor to Eliza R. Snow.
ZINA’S WHITEWASHED BIOGRAPHICAL PAGE ON LDS.ORG
  • In the “Marriage and Family” section, it does not list Joseph Smith as a husband or concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs.
  • In the “Marriage and Family” section, it does not list Brigham Young as a concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs.
  • There is nothing in there about the polyandry.
  • It is deceptive in stating that Henry and Zina “did not remain together” while omitting that Henry separated only after Brigham Young took his wife and told Henry that Zina was now only his (Brigham) wife.
It probably didn't mention Joseph Smith, since as an eternity-only sealing, it had little real impact on her life.  Jeremy didn't mention anything about her in his biographic snapshot obtaining a testimony of plural marriage through study and prayer, so isn't Jeremy also guilty of whitewashing?  But I suppose I'm leaving stuff out too.  As it happens, most people only talk about the things that are relevant to their point.

But Jeremy's complaint is mostly moot, because the Church website does have a different biographical sketch, published in 2012, that talks about Joseph Smith as a husband, and about their polyandry, and that they separated after she was married to Brigham Young.  Since the time the CES Letter was written, there is a Church History topic on her, published in 2020, which talks about all these things.
ZINA’S INDEX FILE ON LDS-OWNED FAMILYSEARCH.ORG
  • It clearly shows all of Zina’s husbands, including her marriage to Joseph Smith.
Why is Joseph Smith not listed as one of Zina’s husbands in the “Marriage and Family” section or anywhere else on her biographical page on lds.org? Why is there not a single mention or hint of polyandry on her page or in that marriage section when she was married to two latter-day prophets and having children with Brigham Young while still being married to her first husband, Henry?
It is difficult to argue that the Church is whitewashing history, while also linking to a Church site revealing that information.  It appears that Jeremy's argument isn't about whitewashing history at all, but about one specific article that didn't mention something he wanted it to.  Everyone necessarily leaves things out when talking about history in order to convey their message.
BRIGHAM YOUNG SUNDAY SCHOOL MANUAL
The square brackets mark that there was a change, so there is no deception.  The reason why it is changed is because this is a lesson manual, the lesson is on marriage, and we practice monogamy.  (Also, this was a manual for Priesthood and Relief Society classes, not Sunday School.)

Perhaps because it apparently wasn't obvious, the Joseph Smith manual published later on explained how the purpose of the manual is for teachings for our times:
This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. Over the next several decades, under the direction of the Church Presidents who succeeded Joseph Smith, a significant number of Church members entered into plural marriages. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which discontinued plural marriage in the Church (see Official Declaration 1). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints no longer practices plural marriage.
I don't think it is a secret that Latter-day Saints once practiced plural marriage.  But if you want to learn about it, you need a history book.
  • Not only is the manual deceptive in disclosing whether or not Brigham Young was a polygamist

When the manual changed the word "wives" to "[wife]" it was Brigham Young speaking to the Saints, it was not referring to Brigham Young himself.  Perhaps Jeremy just means the manual itself, but Brigham Young being a polygamist is not a secret.  Again, it is a manual for today's monogamist Latter-day Saints, so of course it isn't going to teach plural marriage.

but it’s deceptive in hiding Brigham Young’s real teaching on marriage:

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”
We talked about the quote itself in an earlier section.  Here, Jeremy is talking more about the Church being deceptive by not mentioning it in the manual.

If not mentioning something is deceptive, then perhaps the CES Letter is also being deceptive in concealing that Brigham Young also said "at least in your faith" (or more accurately, "if you have the privilege") not long before in the same speech?

The purpose of the Church manual is to teach lessons that apply to members in our day.  Likewise, according to Jeremy, the purpose of the CES Letter is to ask questions he couldn't find answers for that concerned him.  But things like this make me wonder if it ever were about getting answers.
CENSORSHIP 
In November 2013, Church Historian Elder Steven E. Snow acknowledged the Church’s censorship and pointed to the advent of the internet as the contributing factor to the Church’s inability to continue its pattern of hiding information and records from members and investigators:

“I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open.”
The full interview is here.  He is responding to a question about whether Church leaders distrust historians, and his answer is that the Church is more open now than ever.

Leonard J. Arrington was the first Church Historian that was trained as a historian.  This was in the 1970s, and he had an open policy, permitting both members and non-members access to historical information.  Not everything published was favorable and under later Church Historians during the 80s, access was more restricted.  But under Marlin K. Jensen, information has not only been made more available, but has been scanned and posted online.

One big project is the Joseph Smith Papers project, which stems from work that Dean Jessee began in the 1950s, and expanded in the 70s when Arrington assigned him to locate, collect, and transcribe Joseph Smith's writings.  Many other documents have been placed online, and it seems there are more to come.  For this reason, I find that it is far easier to research stuff from the Church because of how open and accessible it is.

But Jeremy's complaint isn't about actions today, but about the actions in the past.  Personally, while I also prefer how open the Church is with its records, I can understand why a minority religion that is used to being criticized would be hesitant to give them more things to criticize.  But I agree with Elder Snow, who said that his view "is that being open about our history solves a whole lot more problems than it creates."
2. CHURCH FINANCES 
There is zero transparency to members of the Church. Why is the one and only true Church keeping its books in the dark?
The Church used to give detailed financial reports between 1915-1959.  In discussing the history of Church finances, D. Michael Quinn makes an argument that the reason we stopped was to conceal the embarrassing amount of deficit spending the Church was using for its building program.  However, this also had a side-effect that it concealed the victorious recovery beginning in 1963 when "the Church's modern financial wizard" N. Eldon Tanner joined the First Presidency.

Quinn said, "Once Church finances were comfortably in the black again, there was no incentive to resume the detailed annual reports to general conference," implying that the reason for the reports was to encourage members to pay tithing.
Why would God’s one true Church choose to “keep them in darkness” over such a stewardship?
I answered the question with the previous sentences, but I separated off this sentence to talk about the link Jeremy makes to Ether 8:16 where Akish forms a secret combination, using oaths handed down from Cain.  The verse explains that the devil administered the oaths to the people to keep them in darkness.

Jeremy is using "keep them in darkness" to refer to concealed information.  However when the scriptures speak of being "in darkness" they mean in a state of wickedness.  Here, the wickedness is identified as "to help such as sought power to gain power, and to murder, and to plunder, and to lie, and to commit all manner of wickedness and whoredoms."

Making a comparison between concealing Church finances and entering into a secret combination doesn't even work at a surface-level.
History has shown time and time again that secret religious wealth is breeding ground for corruption.
At the local level, there are audits to verify that the amount of money donated matches the amount received. On an individual level, we have annual tithing settlement, part of which is to verify that the amount the Church has recorded matches what what the donation was.

At the Church-wide level, there is a Church auditing department that ensures that money is spent according to approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices.

So yes, we ensure that this kind of corruption does not happen, but it isn't by transparency, but by a lot of audits. I know that for those that criticize the Church, that isn't sufficient.  But as will be mentioned later on, members may have an expectation that their donations should be private.  In any case, it would be very difficult to rob the Church and not get caught.
The Church used to be transparent with its finances but ceased disclosures in 1959.
The Church gave detailed annual reports in general conference from 1915-1959.  This means these reports have been the exception, rather than the rule, in Church history.  But it is possible that they will be more open again.  I feel like the Church is trending that way, and they have made other changes I didn't expect.  I think there are pros and cons with making detailed reports, and perhaps one day the pros will outweigh the cons.
ESTIMATED $1.5 BILLION LUXURY
Keep in mind that humanitarian aid is just a small part of the charity work that the Church does, and is funded largely by contributions to the Church's humanitarian aid fund.

Much larger is the Church's welfare system, which is largely funded by fast offerings.  Those numbers typically are not reported, but in 2020, the presiding bishopric reported that the Church spent nearly $1 billion in combined humanitarian and welfare in 2019.
  • Something is fundamentally wrong with “the one true Church” spending more on an estimated $1.5 billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 26 years of humanitarian aid.
The City Creek Center was a joint project between Taubman Centers, Inc. and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Church provided funding from its real-estate arm, Property Reserve, Inc. and not through tithing or other donations.

City Creek Center is also more than just a mall—it is 2.5 city blocks of retail, office, and residential.  It was built over the course of several years, beginning with the purchase of property in 2003, unveiling of the concept design and demolition in 2006, and final completion in 2012.  Construction continued through the great recession despite the risk, while many others lost their jobs.  At completion, it provided thousands of jobs for the Salt Lake area.  People complain about the Church's involvement, but it has generally been seen as a success.

Meanwhile, if you believe that the Church isn't spending enough in humanitarian aid, then you should contribute more to the Church's humanitarian aid fund.  Latter-day Saint Charities is the Church's humanitarian arm, and is funded through contributions.  The Church pays administrative costs so 100% of these donations go to help people in need.
  • For an organization that claims to be Christ’s only true Church, this expenditure is a moral failure on so many different levels. For a Church that asks its members to sacrifice greatly for Temple building, such as the case of Argentinians giving the Church gold from their dental work for the São Paulo Brazil Temple, this mall business is absolutely shameful.
What Jeremy and others who complain about the the City Creek Center fail to do is explain why it is a moral failing.  The City Creek Center created 2,000 jobs.  It successfully revitalized downtown Salt Lake City, removing a blight from Church Headquarters.  And it was all done using profits from the Church's businesses, and with no sacrifice from members of the Church.

Temples are built using money donated through tithing.  Tithing is expected to be a sacrifice.
  • Of all the things that Christ would tell His prophet, the prophet buys a mall and says “Let’s go shopping!”? Of all the sum total of human suffering and poverty on this planet, the inspiration the Brethren feel for His Church is to get into the declining high-end shopping mall business?
The man saying "Let's go shopping" is Robert Taubman, president, chairman and CEO of Taubman Inc., which is the real estate investment trust that helped fund the City Creek Center, and is co-owner with the Church.

The City Creek Center has largely been seen as a success.  It is a false dichotomy to say that you can't help the people of Salt Lake City and those elsewhere in the world—The Church's welfare program provides assistance to people all over the world.  It doesn't get as much publicity as Latter-day Saint Charities, despite being much larger.  One Bloomberg writer once gave the opinion that the Church "essentially runs the most comprehensive and effective social welfare system in the country...maybe in the world."
PRESIDENT HINCKLEY’S DISHONEST INTERVIEW 
President Hinckley made the following dishonest statement in a 2002 interview to a German journalist:
Reporter: “In my country, the…we say the people’s Churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.”
Hinckley: “Yeah. Yeah.”
Reporter: “Why is it impossible for your Church?”
Hinckley: “Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes.”
Where can I see the Church’s books? I’ve paid tithing. Where can I go to see what the Church’s finances are? Where can current tithing paying members go to see the books? The answer: we can’t. Even if you’ve made the contributions as President Hinckley stated above? Unless you’re an authorized General Authority or senior Church employee in the accounting department with a Non-Disclosure Agreement? You’re out of luck. President Hinckley knew this and for whatever reason made the dishonest statement.
Jeremy is interpreting President Hinckley's statement differently than what I think he obviously meant. When you pay your tithing, you keep the yellow slip.  Even if you don't, at the end of the year your finance clerk will print out a copy of all the donations they recorded throughout the year.  Nowadays, you can also get this information online.  Unless you choose to publish this, this information belongs to you, and not to the world.

And I think that is also really the reason many members don't want the Church's finances publicized.  Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 6:
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
While it is possible that one day the Church could publish financial statements—and they do in countries that require it by law—I think this is the reason they don't currently.

That being said, Latter-day Saint Charities has been publishing their annual reports.  There's also something to be said about being a light to the world and not hiding your light under a bushel.  So perhaps it is better described as a balancing act, between the desire to inspire others and to keep charity work private.  In my opinion, if Church leaders thought releasing financial reports would inspire others, that's when they would publish it.  As it stands, we it appears that the only reason people want financial reports is so they can criticize it.
TITHING BEFORE RENT, WATER,
ELECTRICITY, AND FEEDING YOUR FAMILY 
I find the following quote in the December 2012 Ensign very disturbing:
“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”
A quote that ends with "The Lord will not abandon you" should not be seen as disturbing at all.  If you keep reading, you will find that was true, and that "the family received some commodities from the bishops' storehouse during their financial difficulties."

Tithing is based on the principle that the Lord has given you everything you own, and he only asks you to return 10% back to him.  It does take faith and sacrifice, but it is one that anyone can manage.

Besides tithing, Latter-day Saints are asked to fast for two meals (24 hours) on the first Sunday of the month, and then generously donate the money they would have spent on the food to the Church for a fast offering.  This money is used to fund the Church's welfare system.  People who need assistance can meet with the Bishop and he will work with them to make sure their needs are met.  I served as a finance clerk for a time, and I got to write checks and see first-hand how money is used in the ward to help those in need.

Perhaps the most visible example is the Bishop’s Storehouse. A family who needs food can meet with a Bishop, and they will fill out a food order, and they will be able to receive the food that they need at no cost to them. The Church owns farms and ranches that produce food, and it owns mills and processing plants that package and bottle food an other commodities. These are funded through fast offerings, tithing, and other offerings, and largely run by volunteer labor. In this way, the Church is able to feed the people who are in need.

No one is going to become homeless and starve to death from paying tithing.
This despicably dangerous idea of tithing before feeding your family was further perpetuated in the April 2017 General Conference by Elder Valeri Cordón:
“One day during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children. On Sunday, I followed my father to see what he was going to do. After our church meetings, I saw him take an envelope and put his tithing in it. That was only part of the lesson. The question that remained for me was what we were going to eat.”
Would a loving, kind, and empathic God really place parents in the horrible position of having to choose whether to feed their children or pay what little they have
And the next day, his father received an urgent business order, and would pay it in advance.  Yes, a loving, kind and empathic God really does provide opportunities for His children to receive blessings from keeping His commandments.
to a multi-billion luxury megamall owning church that receives an estimated $8,000,000,000 in annual tithing receipts?
This comes from a 2012 estimate by Reuters and University of Tampa sociologist Ryan Cragun.  Based on countries that do report tithing income, he estimated $7 billion in tithing and other donations.  (I'm not sure how or why the Bloomberg article inflated it to $8 billion.)  While still just an estimate so we don't know how far it is off, it is probably better than D. Michael Quinn's 2010 estimate of $33 billion.  The Widow's Mite Report estimates $4 or 5 billion in those years, $6 billion in 2021.

Whatever the income though, it is going to be big, because as it turns out, running a global church is also expensive.  Tithing money is used for:
  • Building and maintaining temples, chapels, and other church buildings
  • Ward and stake budgets for activities and teaching manuals and supplies
  • Paying for Church satellite broadcasts
  • Helping publish Church magazines
  • Paying for translation and publication of the scriptures
  • Providing education programs, including support for universities and the seminary and institute programs
  • Supporting the Church's worldwide missionary program
  • Supporting welfare and humanitarian aid programs
Sources:
Where Tithing Money Goes October 2018 Ensign article
The Widows Mite in the old Primary 7 New Testament lesson manual
The Church and Its Financial Independence article from the Church newsroom

Meanwhile, we already talked about the mall, which is part of City Creek Center.  This is part of the Church's business income, which is small compared to the amount received in tithing, and is not large enough to keep the work of the Church going for longer than a very brief period.

People criticize how wealthy the Church is.  When D. Michael Quinn wrote The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power in 2017, he was interviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune.  During the interview
it seems they expected more critical comments from him on the financial practices of the LDS Church.  Finally, one stated, "you have been excommunicated from the church, and yet this book is not super critical!"

Michael responded, I don't think that it is critical at all.  It could be viewed as faith promoting."

He concluded, "We are looking at 180 years of Mormonism. … For me, it is an American success story without parallel. … There is no church; there is no business; there is no non-profit organization that has gone from confiscation of all assets by the federal government to now worth billions of dollars.
The Church's newsroom quoted D. Michael Quinn that the history of Church finances is "'an enormously faith-promoting story.'  He told a newspaper reporter that if Latter-day Saints could see 'the larger picture,' they would 'breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.'"
“Well, God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son and besides, the Lord will take care of them through the Bishop’s storehouse.” Yes, the same god who tested Abraham is also the same capricious god who killed innocent babies and endorsed genocide, slavery, and rape.
Finally, Jeremy recognizes that the Church feeds the poor, but he ignores the argument and instead makes an appeal to emotion, citing times in the Bible when God used violence.

This calls back to the Scriptures section that Jeremy removed from the 2017 update to the CES Letter.  In that section Jeremy argued that the Christian God, if He exists, isn't worth worshiping.  This builds on that, that if He's not worth worshiping, He's not worth paying tithing to.

These are questions that mainstream Christians also have to deal with, so when they invite Latter-day Saints to read it, I'm left wondering if they have read it themselves.  Jeremy makes it clear in the CES Letter that he does not believe in God.  I recommend some perspective:  If as a mainstream Christian you can think of responses to criticisms of the Bible, then hopefully you will understand why I respond the way I do to criticisms of the Book of Mormon and the other things I believe in.

Jeremy criticized the Abrahamic test in an earlier section.  A frequently quoted line from the Lectures on Faith says, "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."  Besides being a test of Abraham's faith, Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son was also a type representing Heavenly Father sacrificing Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.  Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all that is unfair about life will be made fair.

Since Jeremy removed the Scriptures section, and here just links to the skeptic's annotated Bible on cruelty, which has over a thousand references, that makes it hard to respond to.  Instead, I'll just bring back a couple verses from the old version of the letter.

For "killed innocent babies" there was the part about the flood in the Science section that he removed, and also Exodus 12:12, the tenth plague of Egypt.  For genocide, slavery, and rape, I'll respond to Numbers 31 in his old letter, using a different color to represent Jeremy's older words.
Am I expected to believe in a god who would wipe out the entire planet like that? Kill millions of women and innocent children for the actions of others? What kind of a god is this? …

God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors? What kind of a god is this? Like the flood, what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others?
Christianity teaches that unlike us, God is omniscient and so can use His infinite power in ways that we, with our limited understanding would never do.  In the flood story, if taken literally, the people were so wicked that killing everyone was for the greater good.  In this scenario, the innocent children would not have been innocent for long.  Noah preached for 120 years and no one listened.  But this life is not all there is.

1 Peter 3 specifically mentions those who were disobedient in the days of Noah as among those Jesus went and preached to.  In Latter-day Saint theology, children who die before the age of accountability are heirs of Celestial glory.  Although other Christians believe in original sin, and therefore no one is innocent, some still believe that children who die are saved by Jesus Christ.  Peter also taught that the flood was symbolic of baptism, itself also a symbol of washing away our sins, burying our old life and being born again as a disciple of Jesus Christ.

The same things apply with the plagues of Egypt.  It wasn't just any blood they'd put on their doors, but the blood of a male lamb without blemish.  This was the first Passover and served as a type of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who was crucified at the the last Passover.  Through His sacrifice, we are made clean from sin, and so the destroying angel passes by us as well.
This is truly despicable behavior from God and Moses. Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some alive, he angrily says: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So they went back and did as Moses – the Lord’s prophet – commanded, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way, they got 32,000 virgins.
I think Latter-day Saints would agree with the mainstream Christian answer.  Even from a limited worldly perspective, the Israelites and the Midianites were at war with one another.  The women were those who had caused Israel to sin at Baal Peor (Numbers 25) and the male children probably would have grown up to avenge their parents.

However, from a divine perspective, again, God is omniscient and therefore is the only one who can make these sort of life-or-death decisions, and the purpose is to achieve the greater good.

Some have suggested that the young women were raped, however the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives, and rape would have violated that command.  
The claims, counsels, and directives of these General Authorities, compensated with annual six figure church salaries, to prioritize money before the needs, health, and well-being of children is hypocritical and morally reprehensible.
I'm not sure what Jeremy thinks it means to be hypocritical, but it means that what you teach doesn't match what you practice.  Does Jeremy think that the General Authorities don't pay tithing?  The leaked paystub indicates that they do pay tithing.  Or does he think that they prioritize helping the needy over paying tithing?  I think he's trying to say that people shouldn't be getting paid when there exists poor people, but that's not what hypocrisy means.  As it turns out, it is very difficult to give to the poor when you don't have an income.

According to leaked documents, in 2014 the base living allowance for general authorities was $120,000.  The Church declined to confirm the number, but did say that the living allowance is the same for all general authorities.  Jeremy acts as though that's a lot, but according to the 2010 Large Church Salary and Benefits Report from the Leadership Network Research Study, that's similar to the senior or lead pastor or minister of a church with 2,000-2,999 members and with a budget of $3-3.99 million.  Larger churches with larger budgets have far larger salaries for their senior pastors.  Presidents of large charitable organizations can even get paid over a million dollars.  Church leaders are severely underpaid for what they do.  They make around what I might expect to make as a software engineer.  Looking at public employee salaries for 2014, it seems the county commissioner had the same salary as the leaders of a multi-million member church.  It's not really a lot, it just seems like a lot if you don't think they should get paid at all—local leadership doesn't get paid anything, and instead hold on to their outside careers, so I think there's an expectation that no one does.

Jeremy also links to an interview with the co-founder of Liahona Children's Foundation, which helps malnourished kids, particularly Latter-day Saint kids in Ecuador and Guatemala.  It in turn quotes Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin and President Gordon B. Hinckley as encouraging members to be generous with their means.  Again, the Church is spending nearly $1 billion in combined welfare and humanitarian aid.  But poverty in the world is much larger, and so there's nothing wrong with these guys hoping to raise $50,000.  Every little bit helps.
Besides, whatever happened to self-sufficiency? Begging the Bishop for food when you had the money for food but because you followed the above counsel and gave your food money to the Church you’re now dependent on the Church for food money? If you give your food and rent money to the Church, you are not self-reliant…you are Church-reliant.
Bizarrely, Jeremy decides to undermine his entire argument by doing a 180° and saying that the Church shouldn't help the poor, since that will make people dependent.  However, the welfare system is set up to not just be a handout, but to assist people to become self-reliant, and that's the page Jeremy linked to.

Humanitarian aid is also not just about handouts, but for community projects, disaster relief, providing food security and clean water, immunization and other medical care, refugee response.
DISHONESTLY ALTERING LORENZO SNOW’S
WORDS AND TEACHINGS ON TITHING 
The Church took the Prophet Lorenzo Snow’s 1899 General Conference Address words and deliberately omitted and replaced key words on tithing with ellipsis in its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual.
This is what Lorenzo Snow said in his 1899 General Conference Address:
“I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.”
Compare this to how the Church uses and presents Snow’s exact same quote today in its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual:
“I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.”
The Church dishonestly alters and completely changes Lorenzo Snow’s words and teaching on tithing by removing “who has means” from his 1899 General Conference quote in its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow manual.
Now that Jeremy has learned how ellipses can be misleading, perhaps he should go back through his letter and fix so many places where he does the same thing?

The reason I don't have a problem with the ellipses here is that I don't think that the church manual is trying to teach the history of how tithing has been practiced, but rather they are using the words of past prophets to teach how we should obey the law of tithing today.  Since things are different, then you can't use the same words.

Then again, perhaps Lorenzo Snow used the word means to simply mean income used to be part of the definition at the time besides in addition to having resources, which is how we see it today.
In 2012, a Latter-day Saint published an eye-opening blog post that went viral among internet Mormons: Are We Paying Too Much Tithing? The article demonstrates how what is currently taught and practiced is contrary to how it was taught and practiced by the Prophet Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets, including Lorenzo Snow; whose above quote was deceptively altered and manipulated for today’s tithe-paying members.
Jeremy mentions that the blog was written by a Latter-day Saint, presumably as though that is a credential.  However, Alan Rock Waterman was excommunicated in 2015 for teaching against the Church on his blog.

Which isn't to say he's untrustworthy because he has been excommunicated—for my own understanding of the history of tithing, I much prefer the 1996 Sunstone article, "LDS Church Finances from the 1830s to the 1990s" by D. Michael Quinn, who was also excommunicated.  For more on the history of tithing, I recommend "The Tithing of My People" by Steven C. Harper in the Revelations in Context series for the historical context of the revelation on tithing.  The article builds on what he had written prior.  And I also like what he had to say in an interview with the Latter-day Saint Perspectives podcast.

Waterman has some ideas right, but he seems to reject the idea that Lorenzo Snow or others have received revelation and only accepts his own interpretation of what tithing means.

Here is how I would summarize the history given these sources.  In 1831, the Lord gave the law of consecration.  Primary principles involved was free agency, stewardship, and accountability.  There is kind of a "folk memory" that the Saints could not live the law of consecration, so it was taken away and we were given the lower law of tithing.  However, a better interpretation of events is that the 1838 revelation on tithing was how the Saints were to live the law of consecration.

In the original revelation, the Saints were to initially give all their surplus, and then give "one-tenth of their interest annually."  Joseph Smith instructed Brigham Young that the people should determine for themselves what is to be considered surplus.  Meanwhile, Bishop Partridge in Missouri wrote to Bishop Whitney in Ohio and explained how it was to be followed, understanding "one-tenth of all their interest annually" to mean 10% of what they would earn in interest if they invested their net worth for a year.

Such a definition didn't stick—which is probably good, because that would mean people without an income would have to pay tithing on their increasing net worth and be unable to pay.  Here are a timeline of changes:
  • 1841 - The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles reduced the initial donation to one-tenth of all they possess and 1/10 of increase afterwards.
  • 1846 - By this time, those in poverty were paying tithing.  Or at least apostle John E. Page left the Church in 1846 and spoke on feeling guilty taking tithing from the poor.
  • 1851 - Brigham Young proposed that the church accept excommunication as a penalty for not paying tithing. This was not enforced consistently or often. (And of course today, we do not excommunicate people for not playing tithing.)
  • Pioneer era definitions of tithing requirements varied radically. Quinn noted that in Cache Valley, bishops excused a large portion of the population from tithing due to poverty.
  • 1880 - John Taylor declared a biblical Jubilee Year, forgiving half of the delinquent tithing and half the debts owed to the Perpetual Emigrating Fund.
  • 1881 - John Taylor instructed stake presidents that Church members must be tithe payers in order to have temple recommends, but was poorly enforced.
  • 1899 - Lorenzo Snow announced a revelation that limited the law of tithing to one tenth annual income with no massive payment upon conversion, and this is how we live it today.
  • 1910 - Joseph F. Smith announced it was necessary to comply with this law of tithing to have a temple recommend, and this is also true today.
In March 1970, the First Presidency sent a letter to bishops and stake presidents to answer "What is a proper tithe?"
For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.
Ironically, Waterman quoted this, yet insisted on his own definition of income.  However, it is a mistake to judge others to say they are paying too much or too little tithing.  The payment of tithing is a personal matter between you and the Lord.
2. NAMES OF THE CHURCH 
1830: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
1838: THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 
After revealing “Church of Jesus Christ” on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith made the decision on May 3, 1834 to change the name of the Church to “The Church of the Latter Day Saints”. Why did Joseph take the name of “Jesus Christ” out of the very name of His restored Church? The one and only true Church on the face of the earth in which Christ is the Head?
For this topic, I recommend this January 1979 Ensign article, and the Church History Topic on the Name of the Church.  Jeremy makes a mistake here, when the Church was organized in 1830, it was originally called the "Church of Christ" which followed what it was called in the Book of Mormon.  Early revelations used referred to the Church by this name, and used the word "saints" to refer to the members of the Church.

Other churches also were called the "Church of Christ" and opponents were using the term "Mormon" and "Mormonites" to refer to the Church and its members.  At a conference on 3 May 1834, Sidney Rigdon proposed changing the name of the Church to The Church of the Latter Day Saints.  The Elders discussed it, and Joseph Smith put the motion forward and it passed unanimously.  "Saint" refers to a follower of Jesus Christ, and so most Church members at the time did not see it as distancing themselves from Jesus Christ.  Sometimes both names of the Church were used together.

KIRTLAND TEMPLE

Four years later on April 26, 1838, the Church name was changed to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and has remained ever since (except the hyphen was added later to be grammatically correct).
However, some of those who left the Church in Kirtland accused Joseph of removing the name of Christ in the name change.  But in a revelation dated 26 April 1838, the Lord declared that the name of His Church should be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

After Joseph Smith's death, other offshoots used "Latter Day Saints" and by 1849, Church leaders in Utah began using a hyphenated "Latter-day Saints" with in the name of the Church.  Later "The" was also capitalized, so the name today is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".
Is it reasonable to assume that God would periodically change the name of his Church? If Jesus Christ is the central character of God’s religion on earth and all things are to be done in His name, is it reasonable to assume that God would instruct His Church leaders to entirely leave out the name of Jesus Christ from the period of May 3, 1834 – April 26, 1838? What possible reason could there be for the name changes? 
Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838? Why would the name of Christ be dropped from His one and only true Church for 4 whole years? 
What does this say about a Church that claims to be restored and guided by modern revelation?
Hopefully, with the full context, these questions are easier.  Did the Church claim that the name of the Church was changed in 1834 by revelation?  No, but the 1838 change was. Is it reasonable that Jesus would want His church to be distinguished from protestant churches?  I don't see why not.

People are imperfect, and that's why we need revelation.  A Church that claims to be restored and guided by modern revelation is a Church that you can expect to have changes.
3. ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM 
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encourages members to get an education.  A 2017 Pew article reported on their 2014 religious landscape survey where they found that Latter-day Saints were "more religiously observant, on average" than those with less education.  Other Christians were just as religious, while Jews and "nones" were less likely to be religious with more education.

I've been described as an intellectual, and I think it is no secret that I love learning new things.  And learning thoroughly and not just at a surface level.  So if the Church really were anti-intellectual, you would think that would offend me more than anything else.  But as you might expect, I disagree with each Jeremy's characterizations of the things he brings up in this segment.
“SOME THINGS THAT ARE TRUE ARE NOT VERY USEFUL” 
Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk to Church Educational System Instructors and faculty at a CES Symposium on August 22, 1981 entitled The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect. 
Elder Packer said the following:
“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.”
Elder Dallin H. Oaks made a similar comment in the context of Church history at a CES Symposium on August 16, 1985:
“The fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.”
Joseph using a rock in a hat instead of the gold plates to translate the Book of Mormon is not a useful truth? The fact that there are multiple conflicting first vision accounts is not a useful truth? The fact that Joseph Smith was involved in polyandry while hiding it from Emma, when D&C 132:61 condemns it as “adultery,” is not a useful truth?
Elder Oak's quote comes from a section about how Satan can use truth or half-truths to mislead people.  In the paragraph prior, Elder Oaks said, "Facts, severed from their context, can convey an erroneous impression."  This has been the case throughout the CES Letter, that with context and a greater understanding, many of Jeremy's issues would disappear.

Joseph using a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon is true.  "Instead of the gold plates" is debatable—the gold plates is the Book of Mormon, but I think Jeremy just means "instead of looking at the gold plates" since I don't think anyone thought he "used" them in some way other than that.  Is it useful?  Sure, if you are in the context of learning the history about the method that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon.  It isn't useful in, say, learning about the protestant reformation.  Neither of these talks say that the seer stone is not a useful truth.

The fact that there are multiple first vision accounts is true, but that they seriously conflict is not true.  The multiple accounts are useful for filling in details missing in other accounts.  In the Come Follow Me lessons, it is brought up as a comparison to Paul's multiple accounts of his vision, so it is useful for that.  Neither of the talks indicate that the multiple first vision an counts is not a useful truth.

It is true that Joseph was sealed to women who were married to other men.  However, it is also true that it appears that none of these women considered themselves married to more than one man at the same time.  Is that not a useful truth?

It seems Jeremy must be aware of the principle as well, since he chooses to leave out many truths about the Church that he does not find useful.  Is the fact that the Book of Mormon does not copy the King James Italics word-for-word not a useful truth?  Is the fact that Vernal Holley's map does not represent Book of Mormon lands not a useful truth?  Is the fact that there are far more contradictions between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon than there are between the first vision accounts not a useful truth?  Is the fact that many of Joseph's plural wives said they received spiritual or angelic confirmation of the principle not a useful truth?  Is the fact that the witnesses collectively affirmed their statements hundreds of times not a useful truth?  Is the fact that the Church doesn't have a position on evolution not a useful truth?

And never mind the subjects that the CES Letter didn't cover, such as evidence from the language of the Book of Mormon, Hebraisms and Early Modern English patterns that Joseph would not have known.  Or the correspondences between Book of Mormon claims and Mesoamerica.  Or the positive effects that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has in the lives of its members.  Are these not useful truths?  They are when it comes to building faith, but these are not useful truths to Jeremy.
Elder Packer continues:
“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith – particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith – places himself in great spiritual jeopardy.”
If facts and truths can destroy faith…what does it say about faith? If prophets of the Church conducted themselves in such a way that it can destroy faith, what does this say about the prophets?
It says that many people incorrectly put prophets on a pedestal.  We've seen that from Jeremy, that apparently he had some kind of elevated expectations of what a prophet is or should be, and the reality didn't match his expectations.

Facts only destroy faith when we put our faith in something untrue.  And a lot of people do that.  Facts removed from their context aren't very useful.
What’s interesting about Elder Packer’s above quote is that he’s focusing on history from the point of view that a historian is only interested in the “weaknesses and frailties of present and past leaders.” 
Yes, but the reason Elder Packer is saying that it isn't useful is because these writers or teachers remove the historical context, and fail to provide prerequisite information.  The reason it isn't useful is because we already know that prophets and apostles are men, but what about them being prophets?  As it turns out, Jeremy and others apparently didn't know that they were men, and perhaps that would have been useful to learn in the context of them also being prophets.
Historians are also interested in things like how the Book of Mormon got translated or how many accounts Joseph gave about the foundational first vision or whether the Book of Abraham even matches the papyri and facsimiles.
Yes, and in their historical context, these are useful things to learn as well.  No one is saying that they aren't useful truths.
Besides, it matters in the religious context what past and present leaders “weaknesses and frailties” are. If Joseph’s public position was that adultery and polygamy are morally wrong and condemned by God, what does it say about him and his character that he did exactly that in the dark while lying to Emma and everyone else about it? How is this not a useful truth?
It's not a useful truth because it's not even a truth.  Adultery is to have sex with someone who is not your wife.  Joseph was a polygamist, meaning he had many wives, and so was not an adulterer.  This is just the sort of thing that Elder Packer was talking about, teaching so-called "facts" removed from their historical context.

The Book of Mormon teaches that plural marriage is wrong except in times that it is commanded by God.  God commanded Joseph Smith to practice plural marriage.  His wife, Emma was opposed to it, so some believe that in order to keep God's commandments without upsetting Emma, he was sealed to multiple women secretly.  He introduced the apostles and others to plural marriage as well.  It is said that he tried to teach it publicly, but had to retract his words as the Saints weren't ready yet.  It was not a commandment for the whole Church until later on.  Emma temporarily accepted plural marriage, choosing some of his wives.  In the meanwhile, Joseph gave some "carefully worded denials" since confessing he was a polygamist would have gotten him killed.
A relevant hypothetical example to further illustrate this point: The prophet or one of the apostles gets caught with child pornography on his hard drive. This matters, especially in light of his current position, status, and teachings on morality. Just because a leader wears a religious hat does not follow that they’re exempt from history and accountability from others.
And in this situation, this hypothetical leader would get excommunicated.  Apostle Richard R. Lyman was excommunicated on 12 November 1943 after the First Presidency discovered that he was living with a woman other than his legal wife.  He had secretly married this woman, defining it as a plural marriage, so after a disciplinary council by from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, he was excommunicated for violating the law of chastity.

No one is claiming that people are exempt from history and accountability from others just because they are a religious leader.
Further, testimonies are acquired in part by the recitation of a historical narrative. Missionaries recite the narrative about Joseph Smith searching and praying for answers, about acquiring the gold plates and translating the Book of Mormon, about the Priesthood being restored along with other foundational narratives. 
Why should investigators and members not learn the correct and candid version of that historical narrative, for better or for worse? Are members and investigators not entitled to a truthful accounting of the real origins of Mormonism? 
The question should not be whether it’s faith promoting or not to share ugly but truthful facts. The question should be: Is it the honest thing to do?
I feel like members and investigators do learn the correct version.  I would say that what missionaries and others leave out is saying, "by the way, there exists controversy that these events happened."  Which should be implied given that not everyone is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  We don't know all the details, and members are not historians, so I wouldn't expect everyone to know all the details that we might know.  But we share what we know, and we teach people that they don't have to take our word for it, but they may ask of God.
CRITICIZING LEADERS 
Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the following disturbing comment in the PBS documentary, The Mormons:
“It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.”
This comes from a soundbyte used at the beginning of part two of the documentary about two minutes in, teasing one of the things that they would talk about in that installment, which they do in act three, "Dissenters & Exiles."  However, we don't get to see Elder Oak's quote in any context beyond that.  But a transcript of the full interview is available, and you can see what he meant.  He was referencing something he said during a May 1986 talk on Criticism at a Latter-day Saint Association fireside.  He talked about this comment while discussing a quote from a 1985 talk which Jeremy already brought up in the previous section, "Reading Church History" and in the 2007 interview, he explained both quotes.
Helen Whitney: You used an interesting phrase, “Not everything that’s true is useful.” Could you develop that as someone who’s a scholar and trying to encourage deep searching? 
Dallin H. Oaks: The talk where I gave that was a talk on “Reading Church History” — that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, “Not everything that’s true is useful,” and that [meant] “was useful to say or to publish.” And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they can’t publish something, they’ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.] 
I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever. Well, of course, that sounds like religious censorship also. 
But not everything that’s true is useful. I am a lawyer, and I hear something from a client. It’s true, but I’ll be disciplined professionally if I share it because it’s part of the attorney-client privilege. There’s a husband-wife privilege, there’s a priest-penitent privilege, and so on. That’s an illustration of the fact that not everything that’s true is useful to be shared. 
In relation to history, I was speaking in that talk for the benefit of those that write history. In the course of writing history, I said that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful. See a person in context; don’t depreciate their effectiveness in one area because they have some misbehavior in another area — especially from their youth. I think that’s the spirit of that. I think I’m not talking necessarily just about writing Mormon history; I’m talking about George Washington or any other case. If he had an affair with a girl when he was a teenager, I don’t need to read that when I’m trying to read a biography of the Founding Father of our nation. 
In his talk that he references, he cautions those to be skeptical of what they read, to be aware of the biases that others have, the missing context, of half-truths, and so forth.  He also taught that we aren't limited to intellectual evaluation, but also spiritual evaluation.  But if our attitude is one of faultfinding then the Spirit isn't going to help us.

The way I see it, if I have chosen to follow someone, then that doesn't mean they are without fault, but that criticizing them is going to impair their ability to lead me.
RESEARCHING “UNAPPROVED”
MATERIALS ON THE INTERNET
The Church doesn't approve or disapprove materiel.  The use of quotes around "unproved" seems appropriate here with the understanding that is intended to provide an ironic tone.

The quotes Jeremy uses in this segment all amount to "Don't believe everything you read on the internet." This is true, and one that Jeremy also believes, given his disbelief of things published by the Church, by FAIR, or other faith-positive websites.

Elder Quentin L. Cook made the following comment in the October 2012 General Conference:
“Some have immersed themselves in internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.”
Elder Cook is not saying that you can't research on the internet.  He's pointing out that not everything on the internet paints an accurate picture.
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said the following in his CES talk “What is Truth?” (33:00):
“…Remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything at any time and every place. You will find even those who still claim that they have evidence that the earth is flat. That the moon is a hologram. It looks like it a little bit. And that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet. And it is always good to keep in mind just because something is printed on paper, appears on the internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.”
Why does it matter whether information was received from a stranger, television, book, magazine, comic book, napkin, and yes, the internet? They are all mediums or conduits of information. It’s the information itself, its accuracy, and its relevance that matters.
Yes, that is correct.  And that is what President Uchtdorf is saying, so I'm confused as to why Jeremy thought that he was saying it did matter.  President Uchtdorf listed several mediums of information and said that it doesn't matter how it is communicated, that doesn't make it true.
Elder Neil L. Andersen made the following statement in the October 2014 General Conference specifically targeting the medium of the internet in a bizarre attempt to discredit the internet as a reliable source for getting factual and truthful information:
“We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a ‘truth’ filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.”
I'm not sure what part of this statement Jeremy finds bizarre.  Does he think that Internet information has a truth filter?  Or does he think that information must be true if it sounds convincing?  Those were the only two claims made here.  There is no attempt to discredit the internet, only false information.

And Elder Andersen doesn't specifically target the internet, as he goes on to talk about Time magazine and other print media that reported on the Salamander Letter, which turned out to be a forgery.  Not everything you read is true.
UPDATE: Ironically, the only way for members to directly read the Church’s admissions and validations of yesterday’s “anti-Mormon lies” is by going on the internet to the Gospel Topics Essays section of the Church’s website. The essays and their presence on lds.org have disturbed and shocked many members – some to the point of even believing that the Church’s website has been hacked.
It is only ironic if you thought the Church was opposed to the internet.  It is not.  While I'm not aware of anyone thinking the Church's website was hacked, I suppose people have thought stranger things, and I don't want to discredit anyone who might have had that experience.

The essays do not admit or validate "yesterday's 'anti-Mormon lies'" except in the scare-quote sense that they never actually were anti-Mormon lies.  I'm always confused by people who were disturbed by the Gospel Topics Essays.  They are extremely pro-Church and defend against common criticisms, and I think everyone should read them.
With all this talk from General Authorities against the internet and daring to be balanced by looking at what both defenders and critics are saying about the Church, it is as if questioning and researching and doubting is now the new pornography.
Jeremy's argument in the entire section is built on a false premise, so sorry if I sound like a broken record:  No one is against the internet, or saying that you can't use it.  They are saying that not everything you read is true.

There's nothing wrong with questioning and researching.  I've found tons of answers doing so.  The scriptures do invite us to "doubt not, but be believing" but I'm not sure I'd put it at the same level as pornography.  I think it's normal for people to lack confidence at times, but the problem comes when you give in to your doubt and reject Jesus Christ and His gospel.  But having questions doesn't mean you doubt, or lack faith.  It just means that you don't know everything.
Truth has no fear of the light. President George A. Smith said:
“If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.”
A church that is afraid to let its people determine for themselves truth and falsehood in an open market is a church that is insecure and afraid of its own truth claims.
That is probably why we not only "let" people determine for themselves, but we insist people choose for themselves.  Just because someone else said something doesn't make it true, and you cannot rely on someone else's testimony.  We invite everyone to study out what we teach and to pray about it and learn for themselves.  In order to know the truth about spiritual things, it can only be revealed by the Spirit.
Under Elder Cook’s counsel, FairMormon and unofficial LDS apologetic websites are anti-Mormon sources that should be avoided. Not only do they introduce to Mormons “internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcoming of early Church leaders” but they provide asinine “faithful answers” with logical fallacies and omissions while leaving members confused and hanging with a bizarre version of Mormonism.
Given that Jeremy is criticizing both FAIR and Elder Cook at the same time, I can only assume that he is trying to make the argument that they can't both be right.  However, just because Jeremy doesn't find FAIR convincing, or because he doesn't think FAIR's answers are faithful doesn't mean that they aren't.

In the CES Letter, Jeremy hasn't criticized FAIR's logical fallacies and omissions, so I'm not sure exactly what he is referring to.  In the CES Letter, he has either cited them as a source to support or justify his claims, or with fairly non-specific criticisms that he found their answers either unofficial, unconvincing, or off-topic.

Jeremy certainly uses logical fallacies in his letter.   For example, appeal to normality is a logical fallacy that says if something is normal, it is good, otherwise, bad.  Just because something is bizarre or unfamiliar doesn't mean it is bad or wrong.  It does make me wonder what version of Mormonism Jeremy thinks he's providing.

Jeremy is also guilty of omissions.  His description of Zina Huntington above left out her own testimony regarding plural marriage, for example.  It may have been due to bias, ignorance, or because it wouldn't support his position, I don't know.  I'm sure I've left things out too, you kind of have to if you aren't writing a biography.  And even then, because there's always more we could say, or more that we don't know.

It seems pretty clear that Jeremy disagrees with FAIR, and he thinks the Church should also disapprove it.  If having unapproved sources is a sign of anti-intellectualism, should I conclude that Jeremy is an anti-intellectual for his disapproval of FAIR?  Of course not.  As it seems, he actually agrees with all the Church quotes he provided, that just because you read something on the internet, that doesn't mean it is true.

Anyway, Elder Cook's counsel was on remaining committed, and so his counsel wasn't about avoiding the internet, but to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions that affect our testimony.  You can follow the Spirit to know if that means that there are certain sites that you should avoid.
What about the disturbing information about early Church leaders and the Church which are not magnified, or exaggerated, or invented? What about the disturbing facts that didn’t come from the flat-earthers or moon-hologramers but instead from the Church itself? Are those facts invalid when someone discovers them on the internet?
No.  Again, no one is saying that you can't use the internet, or that everything on the internet is a lie.  What we are saying is that not everything you read on the internet is true.  This logical fallacy is known as a straw man, where someone creates an illusion of refuting a position by attacking an imaginary position they created in the place of an actual position.

Jeremy has described himself feeling disturbed several times throughout the CES Letter as he learned new facts and information.  By mentioning it here, it makes his question seem as though whether it disturbs you or not should also play a factor into whether you should accept it or not.  If so, that would be an appeal to emotion, another logical fallacy.  There is no logical reason why facts in their proper context without exaggeration or invention should be dismissed.
What happens when a member comes across the Church’s Book of Mormon Translation essay where they learn – for the first time in their lives – that the Book of Mormon was not translated with gold plates as depicted in Sunday Schools, Ensigns, MTC, General Conference addresses, or Visitor Centers?
The Gospel Topics Essays are extremely well researched, I don't think there is any reason to doubt them.  They make a fantastic resource and are referenced in other Church materials.  Jeremy again wants to criticize them, while at the same time claim the Church is anti-intellectual when he is the one with problem with it.

The Book of Mormon was translated from gold plates, and the essay affirms that.  I think Jeremy just means the seer stone in a hat thing, but the essay still acknowledges that "some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates."
Or the Church’s Race and the Priesthood essay where yesterday’s prophets, seers, and revelators are thrown under the bus over their now disavowed “theories”?
As discussed before, those theories were generally presented as theories.  No one is being thrown under the bus.  If someone has that reaction, then they should read the essay more carefully.
Or the Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay and that the Book of Abraham and its facsimiles do not match what Joseph Smith translated?
Again, that's not what the essay says.  It says, "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments."  You can keep reading the essay and they provide a couple possible explanations why it doesn't match: we don't have all of the original papyri, and given that the translation was revealed to Joseph, it might have only served as a catalyst for revelation anyway.
Or the Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay where they learn the real origins of polygamy and the disturbing details of how Joseph practiced it? That Joseph was married to other living men’s wives and young girls as young as 14-years-old behind Emma’s back? That God sent an angel with a drawn sword threatening Joseph?
The real origin is that God revealed plural marriage to Joseph Smith, and it is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, something I imagine most members are well aware of.  Given the follow-up questions, maybe Jeremy just means that Joseph Smith practiced it, or how he practiced it.  The essay puts things into their historical context: "Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today's standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their late-teens."  It also notes that Joseph likely did not consummate his sealing to Helen Mar Kimball, and that as an adult, she defended him and plural marriage.  It offers explanations for his sealings to women who were already married.  It talks about Emma's reaction.  We don't know how much she knew, but she did approve of some of them, but likely didn't know about all of them.  The angel with a drawn sword is used to show how reluctant Joseph was, Joseph was not threatening women.
Or any of the other troubling essays, for that matter?
The essays are responding to controversial topics, but are not themselves troubling.  "Are Mormons Christian?", "Becoming Like God", and "Mother in Heaven" for example are pretty straightforward with no surprises for active Latter-day Saints.  "Joseph Smith's Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women", "First Vision Accounts", and "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints" might have something new, but are largely non-issues for believing Latter-day Saints.  That just leaves "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies" but it does a great defense of the Book of Mormon, explaining why DNA science cannot disprove the Book of Mormon.
Is this member in need of repentance for discovering and being troubled by all the inconsistencies and deceptions?
No, of course not.  To remind you of the context of what Jeremy was talking about, he mistakenly thinks that Elder Cook is asking people who use the internet to repent.  But no, he's asking people who have weakened their testimonies in the gospel of Jesus Christ or His Church to repent.  Reading and believing false things on the internet is one of several ways he lists that that might happen, but reading the internet is not inherently wrong.  Jeremy realized that the Church has a website, but he apparently decided to make an argument that we shouldn't read the Church's website instead of questioning his assumptions.

Jeremy calls the essays inconsistent, but they are only inconsistent with an incorrect preconception.  He also calls them deceptive.  I'm not sure why, since he has typically cited them as "admitting" the truth.  Maybe he means being troubled by being deceived in the past?  Like Jeremy, for a few of these topics, I didn't know all the details either, but I wouldn't call the Church deceptive, I would just call myself ignorant.
Why is the member required to repent for discovering verifiable facts and for coming to the same logical conclusion about the LDS Church’s dominant narrative that Mormon historian, scholar, and patriarch Richard Bushman did?
The member is not required to repent.  It is not wrong to read truth on the internet.  Nor is it wrong for the Church to correct its dominant narrative.  That's one of the purposes of the Church essays, many of which have been incorporated into lessons.  Since the time of the CES Letter, the Church has published Saints which describes the history of the Church in a narrative format, and includes many of the controversial topics that critics bring up.  As we have gotten better at learning our own history, we can now be better in how we share it, so that the dominant narrative is true.
Most of the main information and facts that I discovered and confirmed online about the Church is now found from Church sources, Church-friendly sources, and neutral sources.
And that must be very frustrating to admit in a section supposedly on the Church's anti-intellectualism, but I'm glad that Jeremy isn't above undermining his entire argument, since it makes my response that much easier.
“And it is always good to keep in mind just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.” Exactly - the exact same can be said of Mormonism and lds.org.
Jeremy repeats President Uchtdorf's quote here, but this time he apparently figured out what he was saying, yet he didn't go back and edit his argument.  We are not asking you to take our word for it.  We invite people to pray and ask God to know the things we teach are true.

GOING AFTER MEMBERS WHO PUBLISH OR SHARE
THEIR QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, AND DOUBTS 
“The September Six were six members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped by the Church in September 1993, allegedly for publishing scholarly work on Mormonism or critiquing Church doctrine or leadership.”
They weren't excommunicated for questions, concerns, or doubts.  Apostasy is more than that, it is openly criticizing the Church and its leaders, which is reportedly their reasons.  Two of the six have since been rebaptized, and one of the others is still technically a member, having only been disfellowshipped. 
A few months before the September Six, Elder Boyd K. Packer made the following comment regarding the three “enemies” of the Church:
“The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.”
Elder Packer didn't call these things "enemies" but "three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away."  He explained that he "chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right."

In his interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons they asked him about the quote
Helen Whitney (HW): I’d like to discuss dissent in the Church. I recognize that every church has to take steps to maintain orthodoxy. I’d love to go back to something you wrote about 15 years ago. I heard a lot about it when I started this film. You isolated three movements you felt were a particular danger to the spiritual health of this Church: the gay and lesbian movement, the feminist movement, the intellectual movement. And that was quite a while ago that you wrote that. And so my question is, the world has changed a lot — do you still feel those dangers are present? And if so, why? 
Boyd K. Packer (BKP): First, in the Church, we don’t criticize; we don’t discipline members for what they think. But if they teach things that are going to lead people astray and to unhappiness, then we sound the alert. We don’t discipline them for their attitudes or their tendencies. We warn people if they go on that path: there are snares there, so stay away from them. It’s just that simple. 
HW: But could you help me understand why those particular groups or movements were of special concern to you? 
BKP: In the center, we do feel and think and know that the ultimate end of all activity in the Church is that a man and his wife and their children can be happy at home. When influences come that challenge or disturb the possibility that our home will exist in the next world, provided you have the ordinances, we find great dangers in them. Families come apart if they follow those paths — individuals pull away from families. I remember saying those things. And if it’s in print, I said it. That’s part of the alert and learning. It’s very simple. Down some of those paths, you have a right to go, but in the Church, you don’t have a right to teach and take others there. 
HW: Talk about the intellectual dissenters. You have a Church who thinks, right from the beginning, intelligence is the glory of the God. The life of the mind could weaken faith. If that’s possible, please talk about it. 
BKP: The glory of God is intelligence, light and truth. We are commanded to bring up our children in light and truth. Another scripture says, “To be learned is good if you hearken unto the counsels of God.” You should know from your explorations that we encourage education. We encourage people to get all the education they can. We’re not afraid of it. We’re not afraid to have them go into any field. If someone says, “What should I do with my life?” We say, “Whatever you want to” as far as an occupation, go as far as you can. But if you get hung up and involved and intellectually lose your way — and some do leave — they’re questioning everything. But their questions don’t have a productive insight. The mind is the source of inspiration, but if you get wandering too far the inspiration will stop. And that’s a bad place to be in life — to be without guidance and help, to be without a conscience, in other words. 
We keep encouraging our people to learn all they can — there’s a safe path in all of that. 
I think he summed it up really well.  There's nothing wrong with learning—and it's actually a good thing—it is only bad if you ignore God (2 Nephi 9:28-29).
The spying and monitoring arm of the Church. It is secretive and most members have been unaware of its existence since its creation in 1985 after Ezra Taft Benson became president.
Time magazine reported that it was created "Some time during the Benson presidency" which was between 1985-1994.  D. Michael Quinn wrote in Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power that it was created "After Benson became church president".  While it might have been created in 1985, the sources don't specifically say that it was.  What we do know is that it was created before 1990, the date of an internal memo referencing it which was leaked to local media.  The memo was addressed to the Strengthening Church Members Committee regarding the existence satanic cults in an area of along the Wasatch Front, which is populous region of Utah.  (The memo was not about intellectuals.)

After receiving criticism for the committee in 1992, Church spokesman Don Lefevre explained that it receives complaints from church members about other members, and then passes it along to their bishop or stake president.  The following week, the First Presidency made a statement about it denying that it was secret (and talking about it inherently means it is not) and explained what it does.  Referencing Doctrine and Covenants 123:1-5, which is on gathering statements and publications on the Church, they said this committee fills this need, and is a General Authority committee, then comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson.  It is not a "spying and monitoring arm of the Church."
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland admitted it still exists in March 2012. The historical evidence and the September Six points to SCMC’s primary mission being to hunt and expose intellectuals and/or disaffected members who are influencing other members to think and question, despite Elder Holland’s claim that it’s a committee primarily to fight against polygamy.
After September 1993 when six members of the Church were excommunicated or disfellowshipped, the Church was accused of orchestrating it, however, Church leaders affirmed what they said in the previous year that the Strengthening Church Members Committee relays information, but does not come with instructions to take specific action.  Membership councils are held at the local level, without involvement from Church headquarters.  Elder Oaks disagreed with characterizations that the Church was cracking down on intellectuals, that members criticizing leaders has always been a problem.  He also said that the issue isn't disagreement, but how they handle the disagreement.

In March 2012, the BBC aired an episode of This World called "The Mormon Candidate" that focused on Mitt Romney and his beliefs.  Investigative reporter John Sweeney traveled to Utah and part of that he had a sit-down interview with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. Unfortunately, his documentary comes across as an exposé, where he presents us as a cult, and conflates us with polygamist groups.  I said it in the Book of Abraham section where we last saw this interview, but it's probably reasons like this that interviews with Church leaders are so rare.

The part about the Strengthening Church Members Committee begins at 33:11.  He begins by talking to some former members of the Church, but they seem to conflate the committee with the Member Locator Services department.  He then talks to Church spokesman, Michael Purdy and asks him what the committee is and if it exists, who says he didn't know.  But when he just asked specifically if it exists, he said yes, but he couldn't tell the details of what it does.  It is framed as if he is forced to admit it exists, but he was really saying he doesn't know what it does, which was answering his first question.  I think Sweeny misunderstood since he asked two questions at once.

When he asked Elder Holland what it was, he answered that it was his understanding that it was primarily to protect the Church from polygamists, though he is not on the committee and so didn't know all the details.  Sweeny seemed surprised that he said it still exists, but as it turns out, it's not a secret.  Saying he "admitted it still exists" implies that the Church had claimed otherwise, but it has not.

It is possible Elder Holland was mistaken about its purpose, as he is not on the committee.  But even if it deals with polygamists, it's not like that's the only thing it does.  Church statements in 1992 and 1993 linked previously imply it deals with criticism of the Church, but again, its purpose is to gather information which it forwards to bishops and stake presidents.  It does not direct local leaders what to do with the information.  There is nothing wrong with thinking and questioning—in fact, we are taught to think and question.  What is a problem is when members criticize the Church or its leaders, and that is when they enter into apostasy.
“WHEN THE PROPHET SPEAKS
THE DEBATE IS OVER” 
N. Eldon Tanner, first counselor in the First Presidency, gave a First Presidency Message in the August 1979 Ensign that includes the following statement:
“When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” 
President Tanner was repeating what Sister Elaine Cannon had said in the October 1978 General Conference, and expanding on that.  Notably, Sister Cannon said in her biography written by her daughter that President Kimball spoke to her afterwards about the remark, expressing concern that although true the remark could be misunderstood to imply that members are to blindly follow their leaders, when we are free to decide for ourselves.

And that is what President Tanner clarified when he presented it, too, saying that the Latter-day Saints "are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval."

The "debate" isn't our own thought process, the debate is as to what the Church's position is.  In Jeremy's opening section, he said he wanted official answers from the Church.  This is what happens when the prophet speaks with the concurrence of the other General Authorities.  This is not a statement to support anti-intellectualism.
Some things that are true are not very useful + Censorship + Deceptively altering past quotes + Prioritizing tithing before food and shelter + It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true + Spying and monitoring on members + Intellectuals are dangerous + “us versus them” rhetoric + When the prophet speaks the debate is over + Obedience is the First Law of Heaven = Policies and practices you’d expect to find in a totalitarian system such as North Korea or George Orwell’s 1984; not from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Jeremy is summarizing this section, so each of these we have talked about before in the context of anti-intellectualism.  This time, let's take a look in the context of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and specifically if Jesus taught any of these things that Jeremy is criticizing modern Church leaders for.

Some things that are true are not very useful - Elder Packer in this section spoke on two topics, first the idea of prerequisites is something Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 3:2 that milk comes before meat, and because they were as "babes in Christ" that he says, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for thitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."  This seems to be related to the principle that Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:6 when He taught, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

The second thing Elder Packer spoke on in that section was on a preoccupation with finding fault in Church leaders.  I'm reminded of Matthew 11:18-19 where Jesus references what others said of Himself and John:  "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.  The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners."

Censorship - Jeremy never talked about censorship, but I noticed that this was an addition to his list in the 2017 update.  This update also added in Elder Oak's quote, “The fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it" so I can only assume that is what Jeremy is referring to.  There were several times that Jesus commanded His followers to keep secrets.  Jesus told a leper He healed to tell no one (Matthew 8:4, Luke 5:14), and again when he healed a deaf man (Mark 7:36) and raised the daughter of Jarius from the dead (Luke 8:56).  He told His disciples to tell no one He was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:20, Mark 8:30, Luke 9:21) or about the visitation of Moses and Elias until after the resurrection (Matthew 17:9, Mark 9:9, Luke 9:36).  Elder Oaks was talking about things removed from their context, and things that do not edify (referencing 1 Corinthians 10:23), but I think these other scriptures illustrate the point well that in the gospel of Jesus Christ, not everything needs to be shared.

Jeremy might have intended that Censorship cover the "researching 'unapproved' materials on the internet" but as discussed in that section, members are not restricted from accessing any internet materials, nor is there any punishment for doing so.  The only quotes Jeremy provided is that not everything on the internet is true, which Jeremy agreed with.

Deceptively altering past quotes - This goes back to the "dishonesty and whitewashing" section, where two of Brigham Young's quotes, "wives" was changed to "[wife]".  When you alter a quote and mark that it has been altered... that's not deceptive.  There is also a reason it was changed—it is because it is in a manual using his quotes to teach us how to live.

Prioritizing tithing before food and shelter - This comes from the Church finances section.  But Jesus commended the widow who gave her two mites to the temple, which was all that she had (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4).  There was the rich young ruler, whom Jesus told that if he wanted to be perfect to go and sell all that he possessed and to come and follow Him (Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, Luke 18:18-30). I'm also reminded of the widow from Zarephath who sacrificed all she had to feed  the prophet Elijah and was blessed for it (1 Kings 17).  Great sacrifice is very much part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true - This is reminiscent of  what I related above about Elder Packer's quote regarding a preoccupation with criticizing leaders of the Church.  The scribes and Pharisees criticized Jesus for failing to perform ceremonial washing when eating (Mark 7:1-23, Matthew 15:1-20), for eating with the publicans (Mark 2:15) and for gathering grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-3:6), among other things.  These criticisms were all true, but largely dismissed: Jesus did eat with publicans, but as it turns out, eating with tax collectors isn't wrong.  There do exist places in the scriptures where prophets are wrong, but it is the Lord that chastens them, and not their fellowmen.

Elder Oaks said the reason for this is because it diminishes their effectiveness as Church leaders.  I'm reminded of when Jesus taught in Matthew 18:6 which the NRSV translation gives as "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Spying and monitoring of members - This is how Jeremy characterizes the Strengthening the Church Members Committee. However, as we saw in that section, it had little to do with spying and monitoring, but forwarding complaints to their local leaders.  Is it really "spying" when an apostate member publicly and repeatedly speaks out against the Church and its leaders?

Intellectuals are dangerous - The Church doesn't treat intellectuals as dangerous.  The quote was the dangers that come from so-called scholars and intellectuals.  It was actually on those that attack the Church.  Scholars and intellectuals that don't attack the Church are not a problem.

"us vs. them" rhetoric - I'm not sure what Jeremy is referring to, as he didn't talk about it in this section.  But whatever the case, I think Jesus used more "us vs. them" rhetoric than the Church uses.  Take a look for example in Matthew 10:
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. 
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
I think it's easy to think of Christianity as a message of forgiveness—which is true—but it doesn't mean that we can just sin and expect to be forgiven. Jesus has strong words for those that refuse to repent.

When the prophet speaks the debate is over - In Acts 15, there was a debate in the Church as to whether converts should be circumcised or not.  The apostles met together, and they concluded that it was not necessary, that they would not have to keep the law of Moses, only that they would "abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."  This ended the debate on whether circumcision was necessary for salvation.

Obedience is the first law of heaven - Jeremy didn't talk about this item, only referencing it here.  So lets talk about that first.  Jeremy linked an 2008 Ensign article that talked about how we are blessed and protected for our obedience.  But the phrase is much older, originating with Joseph F. Smith at the October General Conference in 1873.  In a talk about Obedience, he said:
Obedience is the first law of heaven.  Without it the elements could not be controled.  Without it neither the earth nor those who dwell upon it could be controled.  The angels in heaven would not be controled without it, and in fact without obedience there could be no union or order, and chaos and confusion would prevail.  When we are obedient we may be guided to the accomplishment of all that is required of us by our heavenly Father, for it is on this principle that the designs and purposes of God are accomplished.  The elements are obedient to his word.  He said "Let there be light and there was light."  He commanded the land and the waters to be divided, and it was so.  When Christ commanded the storm to be still, and the sea to be calm the elements were obedient to him.
Only disorganized matter would exist without obedience, and so it is quite literally the first law of heaven.  Did Jesus teach obedience?  Yes, He taught "if ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

So yeah, except for the things Jeremy misunderstood, each of these criticisms of The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints are also found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And regarding the 1984 comparison, one important difference between totalitarian governments and the more "extreme" parts of Christian discipleship is the concept of personal choice and individual responsibility.  No one is going to force someone else into heaven.
As a believing member, I was deeply offended by the accusation that the Church was a cult. “How can it be a cult when we’re good people who are following Christ, focusing on family, and doing good works in and out of a church that bears His name? When we’re 15 million members? What a ridiculous accusation.” 
It was only after seeing all of the problems with the Church’s foundational truth claims and discovering, for the first time, the SCMC and the anti-intellectualism going on behind the scenes that I could clearly see the above cultish aspects of the Church and why people came to the conclusion that Mormonism is a cult.
When I was on my mission in the South, that's when I learned how people misunderstood about us and our beliefs, and I can understand why people would come to the conclusion that we are a cult.  The difference is that Jeremy actually believes these mischaracterizations despite being part of the Church for much of his life.

Next:  Conclusion
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)