Since mtbikemom keeps harping on the Blood of the Prophets book, I decided to look it up and see what it's about. The subtitle told me all I needed to know: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Here is a quote from the top Amazon review:
Bagley is subject to criticism because much of any account of the massacre is simply "interpretation". Bagley chooses to interpret evidence to blame church leaders. In fact, the evidence may be capable of different interpretations. Perhaps, Bagley doesn't give Brigham Young enough credit for the letter he sent to the Southern Utah communities instructing them to leave the pioneers alone. (which somehow arrived just a day or two too late to prevent he massacre). Also, its difficult to rely on much of anything John D. Lee said. Lee wrote and said many contradictory things about the massacre. Additionally, his statements may have been motivated by a desire to escape criminal responsibility for his acts. Much of the other evidence in the book is both dated and circumstantial.
However, if there is a conclusion that can be drawn from the book it is this. The true and complete story of the massacre has never been told. Obviously, there is much more to it than has ever been explained. That the church participated in a coverup of the events cannot be denied. And, one has to ask why, if no one "higher up" had any culpability for what occurred.
I find it interesting that so many people focus on this one act of violence. There is no denying that it happened, that more people were guilty than were charged criminally for the crime, and that it was a very bad thing that they did. However, it is the ONLY time the early Church members did anything like it. Never before (when they were being massacred in Missouri and at Haun's Mill) or since (when the United States government was systematically hunting down and imprisoning church leaders) has any church leader advocated violence against the very real enemies of the Church. Those that were involved in Mt. Meadows did and will pay a spiritual price for their actions, and will not escape the judgment of God for their actions without sufficient repentance (and what is "sufficient" is up to God). Nobody know what Brigham Young did or did not do or think about the subject, except for the very scant evidence which is subject to interpretation. We do know that he made it clear afterwords that the massacre was the wrong decision, and nothing like it was to happen again. And nothing ever did.
Compare that with the history of the Crusades, the Pogroms, and the hundreds of years of wars, rape and pillage in Europe all in the name of spreading true Christianity, not to mention the Holocaust, and I think that our fruits speak pretty well.
There are several "special things" that one must do in order to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. First, is to have Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second is Repentance. Third is Baptism (by someone with the proper priesthood authority) by Immersion for the Remission of Sins. Fourth is the Laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. (see
http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/4#4) All of these are things that Christ told his followers in the Early Christian Church to do, so we believe that in doing them, we are following Christ.
These four things happen in the process of joining the LDS Church. After that, one must endure to the end, continually repenting and striving toward perfection, always doing your best to grow towards being more like Jesus. There are other ordinances in the Temple, including being married and sealed to your family, that are also necessary if you want to have the eternal family that we believe makes Heaven such a nice place.
The lake of fire may be either real or a metaphor. It really doesn't matter which, because the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth are very real. If a person rejects the atonement of Christ, they will suffer for their own sins, and that will not be a good thing. Where Mormons disagree with some other religions is whether there is a chance to accept Christ as your personal savior and receive the necessary ordinances after you've died. We believe that there is. (see
http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/2-3#2)
As for disagreements between the Bible and our other scriptures, we believe that there are far fewer points of contention than you make out. We do believe that not all of the gospel was revealed to the people in the Bible, and that not all that was revealed was written down. We believe that in some specific instances (such as when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the Israelites worshiping idols) the Lord took away the higher law and gave the people something that they could understand better. We believe that through the centuries the Bible text has been changed both by innocent errors in translation and transcription, and by deliberate means (such as at some synod or other which I can't be bothered to look up right now). The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible highlights some of these errors, and interprets some passages where the meanings of words have changed over time, but it was not completed, and is not exhaustive. We believe that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, but we don't believe that it is His last and final word. We believe that as society and technology changes, specific church programs and traditions may need to change, but the principles they are based on do not change. The Bible has very little to say about internet pornography for instance, and modern revelation is needed to help us fight this new threat. (see
http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/8-9#8)
As for which source trumps another, it really doesn't come up that often.We treat the Standard Works (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) as scripture, and where there is apparent conflict, it's often the case that an older work is simply clarified expanded or explained by a newer work, and when you understand what each is saying, there is no conflict at all. We believe that the statements of modern prophets and other Church Leaders during General Conference are as close as you can get to scripture without being officially canonized (though occasionally, there will be edits made between the talk given and the published version if there are doctrinal errors). Where these disagree with the scriptures it's often on a matter of current Church programs or cultural traditions (like wearing prayer shawls or having women cover their heads). Other statements by the General Authorities may be intended only for a specific group of people, or in the context of other talks given at the same meeting, so we're asked not to transcribe and pass around what was said in Stake and Regional Conferences. Sometimes, when General Authorities are speaking in an unofficial context, they say things that are simply opinion, and as humans, we can all make mistakes. That's why we don't claim that our General Authorities are infallible (like the Pope).
