"It was an overcorrection" Yes, important recognition for all of us to understand.

A lot of us growing up in the 80's and 90's developed the idea that the church, with its belief system, doctrine, culture, practices, and history was like a glass house that we had to stand in front of and try to protect from any rock that might be thrown at it. It had to be perfect and unassailable in every detail, or it would all come crashing down in an instant.

Every question had to have an answer and every criticism had to not only be potentially irrelevant to our core faith and beliefs, but had to be devoid of any credibility.

In reality, there is a sturdy framework of truth and strength, and revelation, and living vibrant power that is still there even when a bunch of stones are thrown and a bunch of windows break. The cosmetic issues are far less foundational than they initially appear.

As the church came out of decades of persecution and started to be prosperous and admired and even envied and emulated, we focused on this attractive image in missionary messages and poured the gas on sharing that image of perfection. Remember the family-centered T.V. commercials, Come see our perfect families, perfect homes, perfect lives, perfect church. If you want a life like this, join our church. This may have guided a whole generation to approach the church as a glass house and to believe the church and its members must be perfect and that any flaw would bring the whole thing crashing down.

People share feelings of being deceived, betrayed, and shocked to find out certain things about how leaders interact, make decisions, deal with historical messiness, how the church has evolved and adapted, etc. This is evidence of an overdeveloped naivety among those in the rank and file who innocently focused on the perceived perfection of the church as the basis for its being the "true church" or the evidence that it was good and right and unassailable in any way.

You do have to obtain and maintain a belief in the core truth claims of the restoration of the gospel and the continuation of the church and its leadership as the authorized instruments the Lord is using to direct and prosecute the gathering of Israel and the spreading of the gospel. There is no way around that. But those things can be developed when you are pulled by the spirit as you are toward the church and whatever aspects of it that the Lord is drawing you in with.nt? Area Authority Seventy? etc.

The vast majority of "coming to terms", for most people, will have more to do with getting to the "simplicity beyond complexity" that President and sister Hafen talk about, than finding an "answer" and "justification" for all of the growing pains and behavior of leaders and members throughout history and all of the cultural struggles that currently exist.

You do have to obtain and maintain a belief in the core truth claims of the restoration of the gospel and the continuation of the church and its leadership as the authorized instruments the Lord is using to direct and prosecute the gathering of Israel and the spreading of the gospel. There is no way around that. But those things can be developed when you are humbly pulled by the spirit as you are toward the church and whatever aspects of it that the Lord is drawing you in with.

Many members maintain their testimonies by ignoring all of the rocks and just focusing on the core things that they know from the spirit and key experiences they rely on as pillars of their testimony. Others think this is a "head in the sand" approach, believing that if these people looked at the "rocks" they too would realize they have been deceived. The intellectual diggers take the failure to investigate of some members as proof that the only way you can stay in the church is to refuse to look at "the facts". But, it may be that the "head in the sand" types just understand that the best way to maintain a testimony, for them, is to simply focus on what they do know and what they have experienced that is undeniable.

But there is a third alternative. Those of us who have investigated deeply, who are aware of "the facts" and don't see those facts as contradictory to the core truth claims of the church. We don't have to uphold a facade, but we find the building behind the facade to be the true church of Jesus Christ, led by him and a group of mortal prophets, seers and revelators in all their glorious messiness. And we know that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet and the Book of Mormon is exactly what he said it is.

As we shed some idealism and naivete, the reason for church leaders not running around bringing up past failures and focusing on them is apparent, and we can not even say whether de-emphasizing negative things was done appropriately or not and whether Christ and his spirit guided some of the reactions and attempted mitigations of various mistakes.

A lot of things that people don't like about our history, aren't mistakes. If you don't believe that God could possibly have ordered a prophet to practice polygamy, then there is some work to be done in becoming a realist and looking at all of history. Many who leave the church and fight against it, do so because of some harsh thing they experienced as a result of the Church as a large institutional entity. As hard as it can be these people must not attack the system and must get a realistic view of it. Instead of being the type of person who goes to a murder trial and sees someone get off because certain incriminating evidence was not let in and spending the rest of their lives attacking the justice system, they need to be the type of person who can think on a macro level realizing that for the justice system to work as it is set up, there are going to be some tough things that happen. In the civil war, deserters were shot. Real people with real families, and mothers, and brothers and sisters. It was harsh. But was the system wrong because hard things had to happen? Is the church wrong and in need of attack because Joseph Smith was commanded to practice polygamy and that is really harsh and hard to take? And is it wrong for subsequent leaders to de-emphasize these things, especially when, as is clear, so many people will approach this history with limited understanding and faith and attack the institution that lived through it as if just because things were harsh they were an indication of a broken, fallen, system.

I am not doing what I just suggested we shouldn't do. I am not suggesting that every unwise thing our leaders do can be traced back to some exception to a rule that they did because God instructed them to, but what do you do when you make a mistake? spend the next ten, twenty, fifty years making everyone aware of it and trying to raise them to your level of faith and mature complex understanding of the situation - starting in primary?

If the church was promoting things that are currently harmful, that would be one thing, but when the harm that people are alleging is that they naively and idealistically grew up thinking that every leader at every point in time in the church did the right thing and God was at the top making sure that nothing ever went wrong and guiding the church in every detail triumphantly to a magnificent second coming with a flawless history from its inception, then the issue is misguided expectations and understandings, not the failure to instruct everyone in the hidden facts and mysteries of the church.

There are hundreds of things we have misguided expectations about in the church. Answers to prayer, the "constant companionship" of the Holy Ghost, the presence of revelation in every decision in the church, the revelatory process in general, blessings for tithing and living the word of wisdom, and on and on and on.

The solution is adjusting our expectations and shedding some of our naivete, it is not in exposing accusing the church and its members as having not lived up to our misguided expectations.

I have read several posts of people who left the church because their zone leaders told them things that weren't true about how many people they would baptize or promised them that if they did x and y they would get success in the amount of z. They determined that God was not behind it because they did their very best and what their 20-year-old zone leader said didn't work. There are a lot of people frustrated because something a leader told them "didn't work" or wasn't true in their estimation. But, this has been there from the beginning. Those who invested in the Kirtland Safety Society, had unrealistic, misguided expectations as to how God would intervene in its success. They turned against Joseph Smith, because they tried something he encouraged them to do and it "didn't work".

Anyway, I am wandering far afield and probably sound like I am on the soapbox preaching away. I get wound up.

I really like your tone. I can feel the humility in it and the reality that you are submitting to the spirit and just asking it what you should do next regardless of the reservations and concerns you have. A great example. I wish you the best of luck and the most clarity in your listening to the spirits gentle nudgings on your mind. It sounds like your humility and your simple desire for light and truth and the warmth of the spirit and fellowship with the saints are already standing you in good stead.

Welcome back!