The title–”Discovering Nuance”–becomes immediately absurd when you characterize a legitimate criticism of Church pedagogy as “I didn’t get the whole scoop on LDS history while I was in Primary.” This characterization is nothing more than a caricature of the real issue, which makes the title of the post pretty funny.

“Nuance,” indeed.

Furthermore, this characterization sets up an implicit straw-man argument, which argument you build up and rely on for the remainder of the post (see, e.g., “Because I was a flippin’ nine-year-old, that’s why!”).
Do you really expect people to disagree with the proposition that kids in Primary should not be taught about polyandry? Really? That’s a pretty easy argument to make. It misses the point entirely, and, I am afraid, intentionally.

We are not taught, at any time, even when we become educated and wise and world-weary, and supposedly prepared and mature adults, many important things such as (how was it?) “seerstones, polyandry, Zelph, Kinderhook, or the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society.”

One need look no further than page xii of the new Teachings of the Presidents of the Church (which is, of course, meant not for the Primary but the Priesthood and Relief Society), for evidence of this trend:

“This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day. For example, this book does not discuss such topics as the Prophet’s teachings regarding the law of consecration as applied to stewardship of property. The Lord withdrew this law from the Church because the Saints were not prepared to live it (see D&C 119, section heading). 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.” See http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=213720596a845110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

Forgive me for looking at this statement with perhaps an overly critical eye, but the use of the word “discontinued” in the last sentence, not to mention the fact that polygamy seems at least implicitly, if not overtly, alive and well in certain temple contexts, seems to indicate that the doctrine might have some sort of “application to our day.” The mention of the law of consecration seems to have been included in an attempt to legitimize the absence of any discussion about polygamy, i.e. “See, it’s not just polygamy . . . .”

I count myself among those you deride and disrespect in your post. Only I do not, nor have I ever, complained that “I didn’t get the whole scoop on LDS history while I was in Primary.” My complaint is that I didn’t get the whole scoop on LDS History at Church.

Ever. Under any circumstances.

I followed the manuals. I went to church each Sunday. I prepared for a mission (first ever in my family), and read the approved books. I was precocious and curious and interrogated my Seminary instructors. They gave me answers, but I had no information, and therefore no reason, to ask what would have been crucial follow-up questions.

I was a diligent, dedicated, faithful missionary. I read all the mission approved books and the standard works. I memorized the discussions and learned convenient, canned answers from other missionaries. And I repeatedly and routinely told people, before, during, and after my mission that certain things were simply not true, that they had been misinformed, only to find that many times they were right and I was wrong.

I served in the Church in various capacities, went to the Temple, blessed my child, and ordained my brother-in-law, all the while doing my level best to bring my family closer to the Church. I worked tirelessly with the young men and fielded the occasional thorny question by responding in a way probably very similar to the way my leaders had dealt with my own questions when I was a young man.

And I finally had to learn about “seerstones, polyandry, Zelph, Kinderhook, or the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society,” etc. not at the Ward but instead on the web, not from the Bishop but from Brodie and Bushman.

Most of these discoveries are recent, and are fresh, and I am still trying to figure out how to deal with them. I am discovering that I am not alone, and those who find themselves in similar circumstances tend to have trod a similar path. And that path does not begin with complaints about what was or was not taught in Primary, and what we knew or did not know when we were nine years old.

Thank you for the time you took to answer my questions.

But I never had a problem finding out information about the other “issues”. It’s not concealed. And because my testimony is based on the spiritual confirmations I’ve felt since becoming a member, by reading the scriptures and participating in Church, including a mission, the fact that people, including Chuch leaders, are and were less than perfect does not bother me. After all, I’m far from perfect myself, but I keep trying and chugging along, imperfect as I am.

Maybe that’s where some of you should concentrate.

It should never be them vs. us; we’re all in the same boat!
Maybe a topic for another discussion altogether…

The leaders of the church are focusing on what matters most; a firm testimony.

If we have that testimony, if we are personally built on “the rock” – Christ – rather than just going with the flow, then we are prepared when new information comes to light, true or false, flattering to the church founders or not. When we see a story in the Ensign about new evidence being unearthed in support of the Book of Mormon, our reaction will be, “Okay, whatever.” When a major news network puts out a story proclaiming the Book of Mormon to be a forgery, complete with smart looking/sounding experts, our reaction will be to roll our eyes and switch to a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos”.

I appreciate those learned, honest historians who attempt to tell the story as accurately as they can, without apologies. I don’t appreciate it when people try to make people and events look rosy and simple. I find myself rolling my eyes and changing the channel again.

I hope one day my descendants will look at me as I was, not as they want me to be. I think my story will mean volumes more to them if they see a struggling, imperfect woman who had admirable qualitites, but who ultimately was saved through her testimony of the restored gospel, her faith in Christ, and her long-suffering through trials…not through her perfection (ha).

Good information enriches/poor information confuses. A powerful testimony saves.

I too hope that over time people will feel more comfortable talking about history as it was. I think it is an area where we have been and will be growing as members and leaders of the church. But time is short and church hours are precious. Repentance and Faith, strengthening and supporting budding testimonies, comes first.