My Thoughts Exactly

Occupy the Caucus

2011-12-01T17:26:00.001-06:00

Freedom From Religion (at least THIS one)

2010-11-29T12:56:00.002-06:00

So, it has finally happened. I have stopped updating this blog. I wasn't sure I was ever going to get to the point where I would generally lose interest in what the Mormon church said or did, but (thankfully) it did happen, as it does for countless others who leave the church every year. I am still disappointed about the separation of my family into two factions (members and non-members), but on the whole, it doesn't affect my life the way it used to. Little things will still annoy me, I'm sure. But I won't be needing to use this page for venting. I've said what I needed to say, it's all here in the archives.

I'm going to continue writing, but elsewhere. Come find me at The Cauldron and Crucible, a new blog for spiritual musings and assorted thoughts.

We are NOT a Christian Nation

2010-02-22T11:40:00.005-06:00

House Resolution 397, recently introduced to Congress (May 2009), implies that the beliefs of our nation's founders were uniformly Christian, and that Christian beliefs are required for moral governance and societal cohesion.

From the New York Times (Oct 2007): A Nation of Christians is NOT a Christian Nation

An article of faith among many American evangelicals is “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”

The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, “come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.”

While many states maintained established churches and religious tests for office — Massachusetts was the last to disestablish, in 1833 — the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day.

Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.” When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city’s clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, “happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a “Christian party in politics.” Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed “Christian amendment” to the Constitution to declare the nation’s fealty to Jesus. Theodore Roosevelt defended William Howard Taft, a Unitarian, from religious attacks by supporters of William Jennings Bryan.

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that “as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” there should be no cause for conflict over differences of “religious opinion” between countries.

Democracy Requires Minority Rights

Majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.

The Constant Threat

The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Most of the men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the Bible was true.

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.

***MY THOUGHTS***

Talk about picking and choosing! The House bill selects quotes useful for their argument, and implies that every member of the Continental Congress felt exactly the same way. No one has ever argued that there were Christians among the founders of this country. But implying that each and every one of them had the same beliefs and set about to purposefully create a Christian nation is preposterous to say the least.

Lots of things that have passed through Congress do so much more because of tradition, not out of uniform belief in those things. For example, continuing on with the words "In God We Trust" on the coinage does not imply that every member of Congress is also Christian. The majority may rule, but they do not represent everyone in the nation. We have dissent, we have opposing views, and we are allowed to express those opposing views through the power of voting, speaking out in public, wearing symbols, and writing blogs such as this one.

I'm opposed to labeling this country as a Christian Nation simply for the fact that it implies uniformity of belief of the citizens. That is catagorically untrue. I have to wonder what our Jewish members of Congress have to say about this. I would fear a majority rule, and a silence of the minority. That is what our Constitution is about, allowing everyone equal protection, equal voice, and equal freedom. The implication that we cannot have morals or ethics without being Christian is something I am going to speak loudly against whenever I have the opportunity to do so.

Why is there such a rush, such an emphasis on getting the U.S. declared as a Christian Nation? What does it do but serve to alienate us from the rest of the world, especially Muslims and Jews? I fail to see for the life of me what possible good it would do to declare an allegiance to any one faith, and to insist on conformity of values and beliefs. Some of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but we need not jump to any conclusions about their intent when it comes to the Constitution. Clearly, in a democracy, the rights of the minority must be protected, or the majority rule becomes the oppressors, the tyrants that the pilgrims and immigrants to this country were trying to get away from in the first place.

Why you can't just believe what you want in Mormonism

2010-02-15T21:38:00.001-06:00

Let’s say that in a ward of 200+ members, everyone taught the lessons they felt were acceptable to them as Christians, skipped over the parts they don’t agree with, and re-interpreted the messages of the GA’s so that it fits their world view? How long would that last, before some SP or Area Authority noticed this rogue ward and made a special trip to give the sacrament talk on “Loyalty to the Church”?

In my view, it would be impossible for everyone in the church to adopt that position, because it would tear down the base of loyalty and devotion needed to sustain the church in the first place. They need the myth. It’s the only magical claim they have. It’s what sets the Mormon church apart and lures people to leave their own church behind to join up. People are becoming convinced that the Mormon church has something to offer them that no other church can do: authority and priesthood power. By choosing to remain, those that know better are becoming complicit in upholding the myth.

I chose to leave because I refuse to uphold a church whose claims are designed to “replace” mainstream Christian beliefs. Missionaries don’t limit themselves to non-Christian types, their target group is other Christians. Their bait is a lie, in my opinion. And I have the concern for others of various Christian beliefs, in that I don’t wish for them to chose to become Mormon, live the Mormon lifestyle of “literal belief”, make the sacrifices necessary to belong, and cut off their children and grandchildren who decide it isn’t for them. In my opinion, they would do just as well without the Mormon belief system if they just maintained their membership in whatever Christian denomination they currently uphold.

I can see why others would want to stay to maintain family relationships. But making the case for others to stay is only helping the church continue to draw others in that are not as enlightened as the lucky few are. Lots of people get ex’d for doing what John Dehlin does, and I don’t think it’s right that some get to remain in good standing while others are cut off and bullied into submission. That’s another reason to get out, in my opinion.

The New Start

2010-01-14T11:11:00.001-06:00

I've been gone for a long time from this blog, I know. Well, 2009 wasn't so kind to me, but I've changed a lot of bad things and moved to a new place, and got away from a negative vibe that was haunting me. So, on with the show.

My focus lately has been on Gnostic teachings of the original Christians, the Nag Hammadi Texts, and a new interest in Astro-Theology. And I recently went back to one Sunday of Mormon Church. One Sunday in 7 years, not counting the two funerals I attended. Wasn't much difference. Except all the hugs and "we miss you's" etc. That was to be expected. The little kids I used to teach in Primary are teenagers now. I don't know how many times I recited that my oldest child was 20 now, and my youngest almost a teen. I was only there because I felt like doing something nice for my mom, who was injured and couldn't drive for the past month. But everyone there looked so hopeful, so sure that I had an epiphany and was returning to their fold. There I was, sitting in the meetings with my pentagram ring and my triquetra-hematite necklace. I didn't feel anything but awkward at all the attention. I also didn't feel shame, guilt or remorse for the decision I made to leave the church. I'm on the right path for me, and I know it.

If I were to continue attending, just to be there with mom and take her to church, there is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later, the bishop would be asking to speak with me. There is a file on me in the office. I am a Resigned former member. There was no "court of love". There was no process of excommunication in the works. I simply wrote a letter and told them to remove me from the membership list. That was November of 2002.

I jumped through all the flaming hoops they laid out for me and still they could not give me what they promised. I will have to wait till the afterlife just like everyone else. And I am not going to spend THIS life sitting in endless meetings, and feeling guilty and ashamed of myself. Does that mean I'm going to do the exact opposite? If you ask a staunch Mormon, the answer would be yes, naturally. If I'm not in church feeling guilty, what would be the exact opposite? Sitting in a bar whoring around? Joining a BDSM club and hitting the Swinger's scene? Would I naturally be smoking and drinking and doing drugs, smacking around my kids, and living with STD's?

I'm really shocked at the assumption that morality and religion go hand in hand. Is there no such thing as a moral, ethical person without the Judeo-Christian stamp? Are all non-Christians immoral and unethical people? Have we no moral compass or sense of right and wrong? Really?

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, although I don't know for sure he said it. "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."

What sets us apart from animals? Our sense of right and wrong. An INBORN moral compass. A gift from the Creator. The power to use logic and reason in our choices. And what does religion do? It seeks to take credit, to squash down our abilities to think for ourselves, to hand over autonomy in exchange for the promise of eternal life. We are not allowed to question, to doubt, to haggle over details, or even have hurt feelings about the way we are shuffled through like sheep. If the Brethren have decided, have chosen, and have pronounced it, then there is no more debate. The thinking has been done. It is left to those in charge, and doubting them is equal to doubting your god. Wow. No thank you. I prefer to muddle on through with my own thoughts and opinions and reason and logic. What I have discovered is that I flow through life like a river flows to the ocean. My thoughts and opinions change with the ebb and flow of life's experiences. I am not secured in a walled-in shelter. I am taking huge risks in being disappointed, in being shocked or confused. But I'm not living under a threat of eternal doom either.

Has anyone stopped to consider that we are all asleep and need to be awakened to the full knowledge and understanding of our divine nature? This is what the Gnostic Christians taught, generations before Jesus. The "resurrection" we need is not from death back to life in a literal sense. It is a transformation between ignorance and truth. Our 'resurrection' comes from gaining knowledge. The only good in this world is knowledge, and the only sin is ignorance. Yet the Mormon way would keep us all dependent upon others for all our wisdom and knowledge, and slam the door on anything that would cause us to question, to reason for ourselves, or to doubt.

If I were to have a vision, right now in this very room, of Joseph, Jesus and God, all together commanding me to take up a pen and write down their words and then go out in the world and tell everyone I know, no one would believe me. Even if it was true, it wouldn't matter. It would still be up to me to get others to believe and trust in me, in my character, and in my ability to relate the experience. If I was extremely good at charisma and charm, I could gather a small following. If I continued to claim more visions and experiences that only happened to me, and I was able to convince a few people that I had seen and spoken with Deities from heaven, it would still be balance upon the precipice of my word, my character, and my ability to convince others. There would be no magical, mystical quality about it. And it wouldn't even have to be true in order for me to accomplish it. I could do just as well with a lie as the truth. Real miracles are subject to the same fate as a lie, and I question and doubt that the Creator would use such means to convince us of anything. Is it more probable that a miracle might have occurred, or that a lie was told?

To quote Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason :

"In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their existence unnecessary. They would not answer any useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man's report. Instead of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion to be true, it should be considered as symptoms of it being fabulous. It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects."

So, if we want to put anything to the test, it would be a man's character. His ability to see a vision, relate it to others, and become a prophet rests on his moral character. It would not matter if the vision or miracle was true one whit. Because he was the only witness to it, then we would all have to rely upon his word. Having never met Joseph Smith personally, I would then have to rely upon accounts from others, and put my faith and trust in their character. It still would not matter if it was a lie or not. My belief would rest upon witnesses, not upon whether or not I believed such a miracle could occur at all. It is a thousand times more likely that no such miracle ever occurred. And I get that understanding from studying the character of the man who made the claim. This is why it is so upsetting to read volumes of Mormon history, to read the history of polygamy, of other "vision" claims from the same man. It's upsetting to discover just ONE lie in the story. It casts doubt upon the man. That's why there is such a movement in the church to maintain their beliefs and stand firm against any doubts. How would that be accomplished? Willful ignorance. The desire to NOT know any different. The desire to keep believing because so much time and effort has been invested in the cause and it would be TOO painful to realize it was based on a lie. Some people would rather live this way. And to me, that is the real sin. Turning down the use of the one gift our Creator gave us, the use of REASON.

Iowa overturns ban on Gay Marriage

2009-04-03T19:31:00.002-05:00

Oh, boy.....

Now the fight that has upended the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry in California, (i.e. took away a right previously enjoyed by a minority group, simply because it makes some other people feel "icky" about it), is marching up to my doorstep.

Granted, this just happened today. And will come into effect in 21 days. And there won't be an appeal in the Iowa Supreme court, so it will likely come to pass. But, one more pea remains on the plate: The Ballot Initiative.

This is where the people of Iowa will get the chance to do just what California recently did: take away a right that will be enjoyed by hundreds of couples as they pledge their love for each other and commit to live together as spouses, gaining equal protection under the law. A ballot initiative to change the Constitution of Iowa will be for the sole purpose of stripping away a right from a minority group. Just cuz the Christian God is pissed.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Mormon church will once again work their magic here as they did in California, by pressuring the members here to oppose the Supreme Court's ruling that banning one minority group from marriage is unconstitutional. They will convince the Christian right that they must change the wording of the Constitution to reflect the popular opinion of the people residing in the state, whether it amounts to punishing gays or not isn't the concern. It's upholding the Christian standard above all else. They must prove how much they love Jeesus by showing up at the polls to be counted among his faithful. They must take and preserve the word "marriage" and only allow it under Christian circumstance. (Muslim-Judaism et all).

The Mormon Church is used to doing this because they've been in the biz for over 100 years! Check out some famous "revelations" from Brigham Young regarding the "cursed" Black Race of Cain, and the evils of intermarriage!

Brigham Young Journal of Discourses
February 5, 1852

But let me tell you further. Let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain, that brings the curse upon me, and upon my generations, - - we will reap the same rewards with Cain.

Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but it would entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man, in an unguarded moment, should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them. It would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shudder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, all though the true principles of it are not understood.

...Suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.

But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it.

Even more disturbing is that just a mere 60 or so years ago, it was still ILLEGAL in a couple of states for a black person to marry a white person! All of the same arguments were used back then too, the family unit would be destroyed, God does not approve, blacks should stick with their own kind and be GRATEFUL that they have the privileges they've received so far, what's next PIGS and SHEEP wanting to be married?

I will repost part of what Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown commented just after Prop 8 passed in California:

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

What a sad day, indeed, when we can't just look at a fellow human being and say, hey, here's a human being, equal to me in every way, entitled to all the protections, freedoms, and privileges that I enjoy. Without looking at their skin color, or giving a rat's patooie about what goes on after 10 pm in their own bedroom.

California and Proposition 8

2008-11-11T08:10:00.005-06:00

Members of the Mormon church, who were strongly urged by church leaders to contribute to the Proposition 8 campaign, had an undeniable role in the measure's victory. Opponents of Proposition 8 have accused the church of discriminating against homosexuals, but the backlash against the denomination has also sparked accusations of discrimination.

During the campaign, a website established by Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance data and other public records to track Mormon political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Opponents estimated that members of the church had given more than $20 million, but the amount is difficult to confirm since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors.

Leaders of the No-on-8 campaign said they did not believe they were engaged in Mormon-bashing. "This is not about religion," said Jacobs. "This is about a church that put itself in the middle of politics."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she had grown up in the Mormon Church and thought it was "very disappointing what the church has done and the alliances they have made with churches that don't even like them and have called the church a cult."

More than 40 people demonstrated in front of a Mormon church in Seattle's University District on Sunday morning, expressing anger at the role the national church played in the passing of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California.

They lined the sidewalk, chanting slogans such as "Tax the church!" and holding signs saying "Shame on the church" and "All marriages are equal."

"I don't tell them what to do in their religion. They shouldn't tell me what to do in my life," said Chris Campfield, 27, of Seattle.

Matthew Wilson, 26, of Seattle, who organized the protest, said: "We want to make it very clear to this church that Washington will not accept divisive or discriminatory actions."

Proposition 8 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and overrides a California Supreme Court ruling that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. It passed with 52 percent of the vote and throws into question the status of about 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in California.

Proposition 8 drew a range of opponents — including some Mormons. Proposition supporters, in addition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), included the state's Roman Catholic bishops, some evangelical churches, and others.

But the Mormon church drew special attention after its top leaders issued a letter in June read in every congregation in California, asking members to "do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."

During the campaign, a Web site created by Proposition 8 opponents using campaign-finance data and other public records estimated that members of the LDS church had given more than $20 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. That amount is difficult to confirm, though, since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors, the newspaper said.

Similar protests occurred Sunday around California — at the state Capitol in Sacramento and outside the enormous Saddleback Church in Orange County. In Oakland, a protest at the city's Mormon temple prompted the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps.

There are calls by gay leaders to boycott Utah and an online effort to challenge the church's tax-exempt status.

Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

The LDS church, through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8 (resulting in millions of dollars of cash contributions from its members and countless volunteer hours), and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supports Proposition 8, has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation.

(Wanna Help? File a complaint with the IRS and protest the Church's involvement!)

Gay-rights supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, along with cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have filed lawsuits asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8. (YaY)

(oh, and listen to this crybaby)

"As a member of the LDS church we have known [and still do] the feeling of being ridiculed and mistreated because of our faith."

***My Thoughts***

Are you f**kin kidding me? Cries of persecution against YOU because you are persecuting the GAY community by stripping them of the rights to marry, have families, and be HAPPY!!?
Poor persecuted Mormons, getting picked on again for their faith. Maybe if you didn't overtly exercise your voting bloc power to make laws forbidding freedoms to those who don't share your particular views and faith, you wouldn't get "persecuted" in return. Haun's Mill Massacre was a great example of how Mormons brought persecution upon themselves by threatening to exert political voting power to control and limit the freedoms of the neighboring population, especially because they didn't share the same beliefs and faith. When will Mormons ever learn?

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" made this topic the centerpiece of his nightly Special Comment segment. I really liked what he had to say. Even brought a tear to my eye. This guy is a giant of a man, over 6 feet tall, very menacing if he wants to be. But his emotional appeal to the folks who oppose spreading Happiness to all men (and women), because of their personal religious faith, really set him apart in my eyes. I admire him greatly for making a stand against Prop 8, and I sincerely hope that the California Supreme court does overturn it. A right that was once enjoyed by all has been selectively restricted and removed from some, based soley on religious beliefs of others. Church and State should remain separate, not infiltrate every aspect of our lives. And the Mormon Church should DEFINITELY loose their tax-exempt status for using their church as a political platform.

Transcript of Keith Olbermann's comments, as aired on November 10, 2008:

A Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread Happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

---

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

Ranting against the Mormons

2008-10-26T13:16:00.003-05:00

Recently, an anonymous commentator to this blog (they're almost always anonymous) pointed out to me that I haven't spent any time cornering Catholicism, Islam, or any other major religion, just this one church.

Well, duh, DipShit. This is MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY. I focused on the Mormon Church because that's what I was raised with. And, if you haven't noticed, I haven't ranted about it for quite some time. And, one of my last posts was about Christianity as a whole being ridiculous. Why should I go on to bash Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or Buddhism? They are not part of my personal experience. Otherwise the blog would be titled: Everyone's Opinions on World Religions.

Poor Baby. Feeling persecuted again? Are all the Bloggers picking on Mormonism these days?

I'm sure if you dig around you can find some other blogs that target the other forms of religious beliefs (even anti-Wiccan ones), and then you can feel better about not being the only one persecuted for your beliefs. Unless feeling persecuted helps cement the belief that your church is the one-and-only true church on the face of the earth, which Mormons believe theirs to be.

That's a fact, Jack. Mormons are taught to feel special, feel select above all others, and feel like the "chosen" people. Kind of like Pharisees. And, they even get up in front of all the others one Sunday a month to talk about how blessed they are to be Mormons, and how unfortunate it is for the others who stay away, or leave it. As a matter of fact, it's actually better for those who remain outside and refuse to join, than it is for those who join and then leave it later. The first group still has a chance to be redeemed through Mormon proxy-baptism after their deaths. Those who leave after joining are cursed to spend eternity in the 'lake of fire'. Knowing this, it would seem more appropriate for missionary work to cease entirely, and just quietly process the dead into Mormondom, rather than spread the message, get them to join, and then condemn them to hell, torture, damnation, and 'outer darkness' for looking beyond the approved reading materials and speaking points and digging further into the doctrine, history and background of Joseph Smith and finding out he MADE IT ALL UP!!!

As to your assertion that your beloved prophet Gordo warned us all to get out of debt as soon as possible, you can say the same thing about Suze Orman on CNN, and she's no prophet. I don't feel any more pressure to obey Gordo than I do Suze, and it's just good grandfatherly advice as far as I'm concerned. What idiot WANTS to be buried under tons of debt, really? And because I am in debt for my house and my car (student loans, and some medical bills too), does that mean I'm going to HELL? What's your deal anyway? Everything Gordo speaks is a "prophecy"? Unless, of course, he's speaking as a man. Which he always did.

I don't live under a cycle of guilt and shame anymore. And I even quit bashing the Mormon ideology for a while. And all over this country, thousands of people like me hide their beliefs and practice in secret, because persecution of WITCHES is real. Documented history. Mormons also believe their persecutions were unwarranted attacks soley for their beliefs. My opinion is that if the Mormons hadn't arrived in Missouri haughtily claiming that all they survey would soon belong to them because "GOD" was giving it to them for being the 'chosen people', then maybe the current occupants of that land wouldn't have had any cause to freak out.

Imagine what would happen if some Muslim Extremists moved in to a house in your neighborhood, and brought with them ten other families who soon bought up all available properties in your town. Imagine hearing them speak to each other about how the whole town would soon be Muslim, by "Allah's Will". Then you might get an idea of what brought on the Haun's Mill Massacre in Missouri.

The Mormon Persecution Complex doesn't end there. Being driven out to Utah under disasterous circumstances (who the hell leaves for a cross country trek with handcarts in FEBRUARY??) , they arrived totally convinced that Utah was their own private country, separate from the U.S., and that they would be completely autononmous as a "Kingdom of God".
Rumors that the government was sending the U.S. Army to beat down the Mormons yet again, caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which incidentally happened on Sept 11, 1857.

I don't know any Muslims personally, but I don't have any reason to believe they all would take their religion to the extreme, and force everyone around them to adopt the beliefs or die. There are SOME radicals who would do just that, and feel justified in the work. Just as there are extremists in any religion, even Christianity. Right now, the Right-Wing Christian Conservative movement would do almost ANYTHING to turn over Roe v. Wade and bring women down to there most primitive biological level: baby machines. How far could women advance in the workplace if they had to take 6 weeks off every 9 months to pop out a kid? How much equality is there for women if they have ZERO ability to stop the 'Baby Train'? I'm not just talking abortion rights, but birth control of any kind. And they can just say no to sex, right? Tell that to the thousands who are raped and molested every year. Tell that to the twelve year old who has to carry a baby to term because her stepdad got her pregnant. Tell that to the woman who was gang raped and left for dead, only to live through it and then be forced to carry a baby to term, give birth, and raise it knowing that it was a product of violence, not love. Imagine being the child, growing up knowing you weren't wanted and came from an action of hate and violence towards your mother.

Look, there are TONS of things I could rant about on a daily basis. There is LOTS of injustice in the world. And Mormon or not, persecution will come your way. Injustice will cross you. Shit Happens. Thinking you're being tested on your affirmations of Mormoness when you come across something that makes you doubt your beliefs is a trap to keep you tied to those beliefs. The Mormon Church is more afraid that you will look behind that curtain and see the old man pulling the levers and speaking into the mike, pretending he's the Wizard of OZ.

Moving On

2008-10-01T19:44:00.002-05:00

I've been studying at a website I accidentally found, and I'm hooked. It's given me so much more to ponder and analyze than Mormonism ever did, and I am hoping to spread the word about it.

The Library of Halexandria :

"Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality. Halexandria makes the assumption -- an assumption which will be mathematically proven -- that all aspects of the universe are connected and that there are no limits to what we can possess or what we can become.

I have spent a few weeks at this site, reading everything I have time too. So, Mormonism goes by the wayside. I have better things to do now.

Satan has left the building

2008-08-20T16:03:00.002-05:00

I just had a stray thought that I'd like to share.

It seems to me, all the time while I was Christian, and even the 20+ years I was a Mormon, the common mantra was that Satan was looking for ways to keep me from the "one true path" back to God. I was constantly vigilant, on guard against Satan, because I didn't want to be "trapped" or "led astray". I lived in fear of losing my toehold on God's narrow path, and I worried about my immortal soul perishing in Hell for my petty sins of lust, envy, greed, sloth, pride, gluttony, or wrath.

I'm now Mormon-free, Christianity-free, and you know what? The devil leaves me alone.

No more worries, guilt, shame, or fear. No more attending church because of what the neighbors or the minister might think. No more participation in endless meetings, temple rituals, scripture studies, and Bible classes to make sure that Satan doesn't "get" me.

Now I'm actually feeling sorry for the folks who think I'm the one going to Hell. Seems to me they're already living in it here on Earth.

As a practicing Wiccan, I have heard the occasional comdemnation from Christian folks. "Thou shall not suffer a Witch to live" etc. And I've even been accused of having Satan over for parties.

He must be way too busy teasing the Christian zealots. I've never met him. We do not share zip codes.

Something else that bothers me is the use of Bible quotes to prove that I'm wrong in my understanding of the human purpose. Because I don't acknowledge Jesus as my personal savior, I'm going to be burned. Well, then I guess there will be plenty of folks there with me, and I'm not so hip to acknowlege a God that would punish me simply for living a simple life free of drug and alcohol use, free of harm to others, free of polluting the earth, and doing what I can to improve the lives of others and the world around me.

In alot of ways, I'm more like Jesus than most Christians I've met. What if that was the point? what if Jesus really wasn't trying to tear down Judaism, but uplift it, or improve it? What if there was never supposed to be anything like Christianity, just a new and improved Judaism? He was a Rabbi, a teacher, and a JEW. And Christianity didn't even put down modern roots until the Council of Nicea almost 400 years after his death.

Christianity is stupid. I have to agree with a recent post found on The Gods Are Bored:

How Fundamentalist Christianity Works

You want to travel from Detroit to Tampa.

There is only one route from Detroit to Tampa.

It is Interstate 75.

You may not take any other route from Detroit to Tampa.

There are certain exits from the Interstate that you cannot take, because they may lead you to a store that sells fireworks or some such. Or worse, those exits might lead you to an alternative route to Tampa.

There is no other destination if you are leaving Detroit, except Tampa.

No other city is as great as Tampa.

Don't listen if anyone tells you that, say, Indianapolis is just as nice, or that you can actually proceed past Tampa to Sanibel Island. Or that you can get to Tampa by taking a little detour and winding up on the Blue Ridge Parkway, and maybe in comparison to the Blue Ridge Parkway, Tampa suddenly doesn't seem as appealing.

My Thoughts Exactly.

Thanks to Anne Johnson over at The Gods are Bored. She is very witty and thought provoking, and I encourage everyone to go see her.

Mormons are Christian, right?

2008-06-04T21:28:00.002-05:00

Then why is it that in order to obtain the Celestial Glory and be reunited with our Heavenly Father, we not only have to have faith and belief in Jesus Christ as our personal savior, but we are also required to have faith and belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and as a instrument of restoration in bringing the temple ordinances previously unknown in the Biblical writings or teachings of Jesus?

Doesn't it strike any LDS member as strange that faith and belief in Jesus Christ alone won't get you there? Didn't he say that he was "the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me" ?

Jesus forgot to mention Joseph Smith as the "replacement messiah" for the latter days, didn't he?

Explaining the Miniscule Differences Between the LDS Mormon Theology and the FLDS Mormon Theology Pertaining to Polygamy and Priesthood Authority

2008-04-13T09:44:00.004-05:00

From the Dallas Morning News

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has more than a century of history and a system of beliefs and practices that have long set it apart. Here's a look at its roots and beliefs:

Is the FLDS Mormon?

Members say they represent the only true Mormon church – a claim otherwise rejected by people who consider themselves Mormon. As Mormon historian Martha Sontag Bradley of the University of Utah puts it: "The FLDS is as foreign to contemporary Mormons as they are to outsiders."

[ I don't personally believe this to be true. While the FLDS members maintain that they are the only true form of Mormonism because they did not relinquish polygamy, I do not accept the premise that the more well known Mormon Church based in Salt Lake City claims that they have no connection to the FLDS church. They will be forever tied to the FLDS polygamists because the original "prophet" of both organizations is the one who began the practice in the first place. If rejecting polygamy had not been a condition of statehood for Utah, we wouldn't even have to discuss the differences between LDS and FLDS faith and practice. They both tout the Book of Mormon as scripture, they both use the Doctrine and Covenants as a basis for their revealed doctrine, they keep all of the same observances for Joseph's birth, life, ministry, and death. The main distinction between them is that the FLDS still believes that separating from the mainstream is the only way to keep themselves elect and pure, and the Salt Lake City Mormons are trying very hard to appear mainstream and to integrate themselves among the many different Christian sects throughout the U.S. ]

What is the connection between the FLDS and the mainstream Mormon church – the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Both churches trace their origins to Joseph Smith. They believe that in 1823, an angel visited Mr. Smith, son of a farmer in upstate New York, and told him to reboot authentic Christianity, which was lost shortly after the deaths of the original apostles.

Among the teachings: Israelites came to what is now America more than 2,600 years ago, and their descendents were visited by Jesus after his resurrection. Both churches also believe that God was once a mortal man. The LDS church has more sacred texts than the Bible, including the Book of Mormon.

And the president of the church is considered a prophet, no less than Elijah, through whom God can deliver new revelations.

Where did the FLDS come from?

The FLDS, formally incorporated in 1991, is one of the largest splinter groups that rejected new Mormon revelations.

One of the early tenets of the LDS church was polygamy, patterned on the Biblical patriarchs. In 1890, as Utah was trying to become a state, the Mormon president announced that polygamy was no longer acceptable. But the FLDS believes that a former head of the LDS church instructed a group of Mormons to continue plural marriages.

A second major revelation occurred in 1978. Until that time, black men were not allowed full membership – "priesthood" – in the LDS church. The FLDS also rejects that change.

Are there differences in how the churches are organized?

The LDS president is closely advised, as a matter of church doctrine, by a group of more than a dozen other men. The organization that became the FLDS started with a group of advisers. But the father of Warren Jeffs, the current prophet, declared in the 1980s that the leadership should be held by one man.

Does the FLDS president hold powers that the LDS president does not?

One important power is the "placement marriage," according to historian Marriane T. Watson. Mr. Jeffs has the right and responsibility to assign girls or women to their husbands.

[The LDS church based in Salt Lake City had leadership that did the same thing while polygamy was practiced. It was normal for young girls to be assigned to the elders of the church, as young as 14, just to reserve them for when they reached maturity, and to prevent them from being available to single men within the church, who may not have earned their right to practice polygamy, or may not have sufficiently demonstrated their loyalty to the church. There may not have been sex involved, but there wouldn't have to be, so long as the young girl's affections were for her spiritual husband only, and any young potential suitor was cut off from approach.]

Are there other differences between the FLDS and LDS?

The LDS church once taught that its members should be self-sufficient and greatly restrict contact with nonmembers. The FLDS still holds those teachings, as shown by the substantial Eldorado compound. The compound may also represent a location for a "gathering of the saints" to precede the return of Jesus. LDS teaching no longer emphasizes the need for a literal, physical gathering place.

[Although Adam-Ondi-Ahman is still spoken of as a gathering place when the time is right to fulfill the prophecies for the building of the "New Jerusalem". This is still a widely held doctrine and belief within the Salt Lake LDS Mormon church.]

The following paragraphs are from RfM, because they only keep archives for 10 days. My comments will be in []
_________

Marriage Mormon Style and the Role of Women.

Author: Susie Q #1

The Mormon Doctrine of The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, Plurality of Wives continues to define a women's role.

Is any of this information in the Temple Preparation Class?
Does anyone fully understand what is going to happen?

Don't we deserve Full Disclosure for Informed Consent and Informed Choice? Are the covenants binding if you have not been given full disclosure? I maintain that they are not.

This post comprises parts of the endowment and the actual marriage ceremony and the D&C 132 references that support the doctrine of eternal marriage or the New and Everlasting Covenant which is Plurality of Wives.

Note:
The only part that meets the requirement of the law, that I can find is:

authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife.

Without that wording, the ceremony would not be legally binding in the US.

Married in the temple, to each other, are you sure? Where's the love?

After passing two interviews to get the temple recommend—
(see Temple Recommend Questions here ) either on the day of the marriage, or earlier, and going through the Endowment Ceremony: Washing and Anointing ceremony where the Holy Garment of the Priesthood (notice ladies, you wear the same garment of the Holy Priesthood!), is placed on you and covenanting to obey:

The Law of Obedience
The Law of Sacrifice
The Law of the Gospel
The Law of Chastity
The Law of Consecration --which is:

(I am only including this particular one on this post as it has it directly applies to the marriage covenant.)

A couple will now come to the altar. We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received.

It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square.

You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Each of you bow your head and say "yes."

Then and only then may you be sealed in the marriage ceremony.

Sometimes, the officiator will allow an exchange of rings at the end of the ceremony, and a kiss.
(I don't know the current policy on this practice. Maybe someone else does.)

Here is the ceremony:

Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.

Marriage Couple:
Joins hands in the "Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail."This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.

Officiator: Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Groom: Yes.

Officiator: Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?

Bride: Yes.

Officiator:
By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

To make sure one understands exactly what the "New and Everlasting Covenant" is, see: D&C 132

REFERENCE for easy reading: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. History of the Church 5: 501—507.

Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

[INSERT: compare introduction to the 1969 edition of the Book of Mormon.]

Here's the 1969 version:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.

-------The Prophet’s inquiry of the Lord--He is told to prepare himself to receive the new and everlasting covenant--Conditions of this law--The power of the Holy Priesthood instituted by the Lord must be operative in ordinances to be in effect beyond the grave--
Marriage by secular authority is of effect during mortality only--Though the form of marriage should make it appear to be for time and eternity, the ordinance is not valid beyond the grave unless solemnized by the authority of the Holy Priesthood as the Lord directs--
Marriage duly authorized for time and eternity to be attended by surpassing blessings--E
ssentials for the attainment of the status of godhood -- The meaning of eternal lives--Plurality of wives acceptable only when commanded by the Lord--The sin of adultery--Commandment to Emma Smith, wife of the prophet. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132

1981 edition:
1—6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant;
7—14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth;
15—20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods;
21—25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives;
26—27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost;
28—39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages;
40—47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven;
48—50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation;
51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;
58—66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

Did you catch it? Celestial Marriage is Plurality of Wives! The Mormon Church has never, ever stopped practicing their law that applies to polygamy or plurality of wives as that is what Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant) is! It is clearly an eternal principle for the Celestial Kingdom.

Did you notice that the marriage sealing ceremony not only continues the practice of plurality of wives and, because of the covenant of the Law of Consecration, married you to the church and it's commandments by covenant, not each other?

Investigators BEWARE:
Demand full disclosure for informed consent. You won't get it from the Mormon Church, so do your own research.
Know what you are doing, and what it really means!

**********************

The Role of Women in the Mormon Church - Motherhood, Her Sexuality and how the Temple Ceremonies of Washing and Anointing Define Her.

WOMEN ACCEPT THEIR ROLE

Women accept their role in Mormonism with a promise that borrows into her heart and is the essence of motherhood - the absolutely belief that they will never loose their children and their family if they comply with the doctrines taught them.

The believe they will have their children for all eternity of they adhere to the Mormon teachings. In fact, to have a child leave the Mormon Church is a personal failure that is to be avoided at all costs, as this is a personal assault on her by the adversary, and she must do everything in her power to keep from loosing her offspring.

She willingly submits to these beliefs even though, to an outsider, they seem to infringe on her independence, her honor and her good sense. Some outsiders, even call it abusive.

Women who are well entrenched and strong believers in Mormonism, often with several generations of Mormonism flowing in their veins, see the accusations of abuse, and lack of independence and freedom of thought from outsiders as silly and false. She absolutely knows she is not abused, not programmed, not brainwashed, and can "think for herself."

What she does not realize is that she is restricted by the doctrines and what she considers "thinking for herself" means she thinks long and hard and prays long and hard to obtain a "witness of the spirit" so she is "worthy" to obtain eternal life. A mother is often willing to go to any length to save, protect, and keep her family.

The teachings of the Mormon Church make it clear that the Holy Priesthood of God is never to be questioned. To question a male Priesthood holder, especially the top leadership is tantamount to questioning God. Even to have doubts is unacceptable. Doubts are never to be spoken or written. They are to be kept inside. (That is one of the reasons, in my observation that anger brews and explodes when people finally get out from under the thumb of Mormonism's control.)

I have heard Mormon women admit that they did not like or understand their position in the Mormon Church but it was how "Heavenly Father wanted it" and they go along with it thinking it is the only right thing to do. So, they defer to the priesthood, (some more so than others) thinking they are laying up treasures in heaven. The woman's place is foremost and always to follow and support the priesthood in all things.

Their role is clearly defined in Mormonism's in it's doctrine and is one area that has not changed and will never changed.

Their role is defined in Doctrine and Covenants 132, as part of the official doctrine and even though polygamy or plurality of wives is not lived outright (technically it is still lived according to the marriage ceremony --exact wording from D&C 132 in the temple.)

She wears the same garment day and night of the Holy Priesthood of God, and covenanted to be a priestess to her husband in the Celestial Kingdom, but that is as far as her authority or equality goes. It teaches them that Heavenly Father meant for them to be the mothers, and for the men to officiate in the Priesthood.

The temple rituals and covenants (called Endowments) do not make her equal to her husband. She is to be a priestess to her husband who will rule over her in righteousness! The message is clear. She is taught from a young age, beginning with a blessing when she is just a few weeks old to give her a name, that she is to go to the temple and be married for "all eternity."

There is a lot of lip service given to the notion that they are equal, but every woman knows that only applies in certain areas. They might share equal chores in the home, or have equal input on decisions in the home, but when it comes to the church hierarchy and how the Priesthood functions, they might be listened to, but their recommendations can be and are overruled on the whim of the leaders as they are the representatives of the Lord. What the priesthood leaders say is accepted as they claim inspiration given to them as the Lord's mouthpiece.

She may be the "neck" that moves the "head" in many areas, but not when it comes to officiating in the Priesthood. Her role is to support and remind and see that he fulfills his Priesthood functions but not to question or direct it. After all, her eternal place with her children and family is dependent on him honoring the Priesthood.

WOMEN HAVE NO PLACE IN THE HIERARCHY

Men overrule women.
Women have no authority in the church and no place in the hierarchy and only serve under the men. If the men in charge do not like something, the women are told to do things differently. If they do not agree, they are considered: "prideful" think they "own" a calling, and not obedient to the Priesthood. All of which is unacceptable.

Her agency, the doctrine of freedom to choose between good and evil, (free agency is n a misnomer and not part of the teachings) is held in a very small box of do's and do not's, all determined by how the men interpret the scriptures how they supervise the organizations, and how they make assignments-- "callings" and give "counsel."

There is a "vote" in their Sacrament Meetings, but it means one is promising to support the member in their calling. Dissent is not accepted either. The vote is only intended to obtain the support of the members by raising their hand to the square.

The men's "inspiration" overrules anything a woman says or claims as an answer to her prayers.

All assignments or "callings" as they are called have a right to "inspiration" and one is expected to "magnify their calling." However, it is important to note that "inspiration" is only given for their respective "callings." No one is entitled to any "inspiration" or direction from the Lord about anything other than the "calling" they currently hold.

There is also no need for the Priesthood brethren to tell the truth as they have the privilege of "Lying for the Lord" a well understood underlying concept in Mormonism taught in their scriptures.

All of Mormonism is governed by men with very little input from the women, who are predominately used to follow orders - with a dust pan and broom to clean up after the brethren - in more ways than one!

The typical Mormon Priesthood leader looses respect for a female who uses her own mind, challenges them, or corrects them. They are threatened by the misuse of her position as it means he is not doing his job as a Priesthood leader and he is then expected to call her to repentance and make sure she changes her ways and never does it again.

Women are accepted in the Mormon Church and loved and respected and admired only if they comply with the role they are given. Once they are seen as disobedient, rebellious, take a different interpretation than the official one, explain themselves, they are no longer considered "worthy," and can loose everything, including their children, especially in divorce.

If the husband is "worthy" which generally means that he lives all the commandments, in particular: the Word of Wisdom, and pays tithing and can answer the temple recommend questions in the affirmative,(or correctly as they are asked) in the eyes of the Mormon Church it is acceptable for him to leave his "unworthy" wife and take her children away. The worthy Priesthood holder is entitled to a worthy wife.

Once the woman is accused of not being "chaste" she is no longer "worthy." Never mind that the man might be having an affair, or has abused his own children, or is a pedophile. It is the woman's fault these things happened. It is not uncommon for a Relief Society President for instance, to tell a woman to "be a better wife" so her husband won't beat her or stray.

Women in Mormonism are also defined by their sexuality.

The underlying message about sexuality is that you will give your life to keep from being raped. The worthy, honorable thing to do, if sexually assaulted, is to fight to the death to preserve your vagina from dishonorable intrusion. Often, an honorable Mormon father teaches his daughters that he would rather see her dead than violated. It is worth noting, however, that this not a concept solely held by Mormonism.

Mormonism has found the key to controlling generations of it's members. It is a typical ploy of religiosity since time began; control the sexuality of the female and control of the family for generations to come is maintained. This also solidifies the influx of money.

Women are also taught that they control "the spirit" of the home. It goes along with the old adage if "mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" and Mormonism takes this a step further imprinting and programming young females from birth that they are to be sweet and worthy to have "the spirit" with them at all times. Of course, this is solidified at age eight with baptism, when they are commanded to receive the Holy Ghost as their constant companion and continues with the rest of the "ordinances."

Women in Mormonism are also defined by their attire.

Their whole wardrobe and their sense of their bodies is determined by the temple garment that is to be worn next to the skin as a protection and placed on her body in a ritual in the temple. It is also seen as a protection against her sexuality being defiled or assaulted in any way. She is told she is to remain chaste and worthy in thought and deed with the temple garment a constant, even Mosaic reminder that she is a daughter of Heavenly Father and this is what is expected of her. Again her sexuality is given a place before her life.

The temple garment, with it's Masonic markings is seen as holy and sacred and is never to be put on the floor or abused in any manner. In fact, discarding of used, and worn garments requires a further ritual as the markings are to be cut out and burned. Then, and only then, can the remaining material (now devoid of their sacred element) be used as rags to clean the floor, or wash the car.

Once dressed in the Holy Garment of the Priesthood, (worn day and and night)- an interesting title, as she has no rank in the priesthood or any right to officiate, only as a servant - she then must make her attire comply with it's restrictions.

That means, every part of her body that is covered by the garment must be covered - modestly. Because the garment comes to the lower thigh or knee, and has a cap sleeve, and is designed to fall several inches above her natural bra line, she is now confined to buying (or in many cases - making) clothing that covers her underwear. She has now become subservient to Heavenly Father - her God, who controls her (and men also) by her underwear, day and night.

There is the underlying message that women (and men) behave according to the clothing they are wearing, so the subtle indoctrinated, imprinted script says that the woman in Mormonism is wearing a holy-sacred reminder to dress modestly, and act accordingly and worthy of the blessings promised her.

*******************
Temple ceremonies -- define the woman's role

The following is how the Washing and Anointing Ceremony was carried out during the times I attended the temple from 1962 to 1990 when it was changed. I have written extensively about these rituals prior to the change, (as have many others) and am happy to know that our fellow human beings will no longer be subjected to this ritual.

Now the tunic is sewed up at the sides, and the naked body is no longer touched and anointed with water and oil. Hopefully, we all had a hand in seeing this ritual discontinued in our efforts to "give back" to humanity, especially our Mormon friends and loved ones.

These are some of my memories of the Washing and Anointing Ceremony in the Temple - beginning in 1962.

(All of these rituals are easily accessed on the Internet, also) I have attended nine temples from 1962 to 1995, eight of them in the US and one in Switzerland, doing hundreds of "sessions" as they are called.

You enter a small stall, and sit on a cold marble type slab. The female temple worker doing the washing and anointing stands behind and to the side of you and starts with the top of the head, the forehead, the eyes, nose, mouth, breast, bowels, legs..etc. She has a little spigot she gets water from that drips slowly.

The oil is done in the same fashion. There are promises given, with each part of the body that is washed-dabbed with water and anointed-dabbed with oil. These have to do with promising the female that she will be a priestess to her husband in the Celestial Kingdom if she is faithful to her covenants. Nothing untoward, or of a sexual nature is done, but it is just very, very ethically and culturally out of order. How anyone can equate that to something spiritual still amazes me.

I can still see the rows of tiny, narrow lockers where we completely undressed and donned the sheet-tunic, carrying our long garments into the little cubical where the old lady awaited me. One of the oddest things about the temple is that the lockers have keys, so in the whispered ambiance of the temple, one of the only sounds heard is the soft jingling of the keys attacked with a safety pin to your clothing..

Now back to the tunic used at that time. It is a true tunic - open at the sides and no seams. To walk in and out of the washing and anointing room, most people hold the sheets together.

I can still see, hear and feel and smell those old women assisting us. They reminded me of a grandma dressed in a white uniform, often with false teeth clacking, chewing a breath mint. I could feel her breath and smell the aroma of the mints as she whispered in my ear reaching under the sheet with those warm, sweaty, damp hands sliding over here and over there, anointing me first with dabs of water from head to toe, then going the same thing with oil.

I can still hear the water trickling from the tiny spigot that she put her hands into to begin the ritual of anointing. I can still hear the sing-song monotone of her memorized washing and anointing dialog.

This ritual is not just a tiny tap on an imaginary dot of the skin. Your body is stroked in a 2" to 3" area in a downward motion over specific areas of your body from your head on down to your legs and onto to your toes. You do not know exactly where they will touch you. You only know the general area. It is very uncomfortable as these women are usually seniors-retirement age of 65 to 75 and their head is outside the sheet. They cannot see where they hands are unless they look under the tunic where the sides are open. They open the sheet on the sides to begin.

Imagine a woman's hand under the sheet (for women-man for men) each time they say a body part, making a sliding motion of about 2" to 3" in some areas, with the four fingers of the right hand over the body part -probably trying to be very careful they do not touch the actual breast-nipple area for women, or the pelvic hair-penis-scrotum area for men when they get to the words that correspond with that part of the body.

Sometimes, I had to stifle a giggle as the old woman inadvertently tickled me and I squirmed. I tried to sit really, really still so she would not slide her wet, warm, oily hand anywhere it ought not to be as her face was averted outside the sheet and she could not see where she had her hands.

Sometimes she slid her hands within inches of my breasts and pubic hair as she slid her hands around in her predetermined and well practiced path. I always hated it and I would shudder when she slide those warm, oily hands down my legs onto my feet. Repeating in sing-song monotone, the blessings associated with the rituals.

When she finished she would help me step into my underwear, while still wearing that sheet tunic, adjusting it properly and sending me out into the dressing area where dozens of other women were coming and going. I was often hugged had the feeling she wanted to kiss me, she was so pleased. I still shudder.

The washings and anointing were only required the first time you go to the temple as these ordinances are done in blocks by people who do only those kinds of sessions as proxy for the dead. They are the first part of the Endowment.

After the washing and anointing ceremony, the initiate dresses in all white clothing from neck to wrist to ankle and follows the group of people all dressed the same, into the Endowment session which follows and includes a video and promises-covenants made which, until April 1990, included hand movements signifying ways in which your life could be taken - cutting throat and disembowelment if you divulged certain parts of the Endowment.

Those, fortunately were removed, along with the Five Points of Fellowship at the Veil which required the initiate to stand embraced with a man (unseen and representing the Lord) behind a curtain-sheet - ear to ear, hand to back knee to knee, etc. to review the covenants made earlier in the ceremony - then the curtain would open and you were led in by your hand to the Celestial Room of the Temple.

If you go through the Temple as proxy for any dead relative (what I often refer to as postmortem conversions) you must do the washing and anointing along with it. Years ago, we did the washing and anointing and the endowment session for the same name all in one evening, sometimes doing two sessions for two deceased people.

The part that is unethical and disrespectful, in my experience is that no one tells the new initiate anything ahead of time. You go along and do what dozens of other people are doing. It is very difficult to leave once you get in the temple. It can be done, I know, I have watched people do it, but it is rare. This is group pressure at it's most intense.

Under no other circumstances would anyone even dare to consider that you would strip naked, put on a shield-tunic, as it is called, and carry your underwear and go into a small room alone with someone you do not know while they whisper memorized, ritual dialog, usually with a breath mint in their mouth, then help dress you by helping you put on the regulation temple garment to be worn day and night.

To even suggest this bazaar, outlandish, absurd act is spiritual reeks of a complete lack of common sense and respect.

It is humiliating. I have never been so mortified in my life. It is a flagrant assault on one's self respect and dignity.

The Mormon church has no policy for full disclosure or they would disclose every single thing about their history, including their finances and their temple ceremonies to anyone who investigates or/or joins.

I maintain if these practices were made public, disclosed ahead of time, very few people would be interested in going to any of their temples. I am sure some would, it's tradition and they won't break with tradition.

Originally, I am told, this was a complete washing and anointing, similar to some other religious customs. There is no redeeming value to it. There is nothing spiritual about putting on a tunic, open at the sides, made from a sheet and carrying your regulation underwear into a little room to have your naked body touched by someone you do not know.

This is an obvious invasion of your complete being and done in a setting with a lot of other people so you go along because the rest are doing it, at least the first time.

You are assured by the members and leaders to believe that there is nothing that can harm you so when you feel violated and invaded, you are stuck with the mental gymnastics of trying to make sense of it.

Somehow, you must make a bizarre experience seem spiritual and good. If you don't the implication is that you do not have the right spirit. Surely it is not the church that is doing bad things, it must be me. So it goes on, around and around in circles. Always making you the one that is at fault, never the church.

The arrogance of Mormonism to assume that they had any right to touch anyone's naked body without full disclosure and full permission is out of the realm of common decency. This is the most despicable, horrid, spiritual abuse of another human being imaginable, but it must be done if they are to get your total submission.

This is the final frontier of breaking down boundaries - your naked body! This is about total submission, control, stripping you down and dressing the surprised, new initiate with physical touching under a flimsy tunic then dressing you!

Once that is accomplished, there is nothing you won't do and it does include giving your life if you divulge certain parts of the temple ceremonies. For this privilege you pay 10% + of your income for your life.

Generally, the women that object most vehemently to a husband changing his beliefs, have gone through this ceremony many times, some of them, hundreds of times. This is, in my observation, the crux of the power that motivates a Mormon female to be completely unable to deal with an apostate husband.)

The genius of the temple, especially the washing and anointing and the endowment is to keep the person totally committed, paying tithing and under their control. And it works.

How does the Mormon church get old Mormon men and women to believe it is a sacred ordinance to touch the naked body of strangers under a sheet with little dabs of water then oil while you sit in a small cubicle?

The only way you get people to do this is through extreme religious teachings: programming, conditioning, and trust and no prior specific information. It must be done while a large group of other people are doing the same thing so it is seen as acceptable in the eyes of the Mormon God.

(Note: even though the "naked touching" part is removed, the power of the initiation is still there.)

The unbelievable part is that the church does such a good job of convincing and programming the new converts and new initiate to the notion that this is spiritual, a higher law, you are special, God wants you to do this - that the members go along with it.

They get thousands of members to go to the temple thousands of times over their lifetime to continue this programming and, yes, what some call-brainwashing. They use a tried and true method. They call it "Building Relationships of Trust" or BRT. Get someone to trust you and they will believe anything you say and do anything you ask of them, especially if they are convinced it will guarantee them a place of honor in the Mormon Celestial Kingdom after they die. What we will do in the name of pleasing the Mormon God!

The interesting thing is that once you stop going to church, stop attending any function, stop reading any of their approved literature, you begin to separate and disconnect and break the code. Some call it blatant cult or cultish activities, although very subtle and well designed to subjugate you to them forever.

If a woman wants her place solidified in the after life with her children and family. she must, at all costs, have a husband that is "worthy" and honors the Holy Priesthood, and will, in the resurrection, call her by her "New Name" given her in the temple at her marriage, into the Celestial Kingdom.

Therein lies the power of years of imprinting, and programming by rote repetition, repeated temple attendance, talks from the "mouthpiece of the Lord" (the leaders) etc., and is the impetus for the disconnect when a Mormon woman is faced with an apostate husband.
______________

Escapee Describes Sex Horrors of Mormon Polygamy

Author: Deconstructor

Her story is very touching. She is an Ex-Mormon hero in my book, for leaving the tight mental grip of the FLDS Church.

Excerpts:

"But even though I hadn't wanted to marry [50 year-old] Merril, didn't love him, let alone like him, I still believed in the FLDS doctrines."

"I thought my husband was the revelation the prophet had received for me. I believed I was destined to bear his children and serve him until he died."

"I also realized the only way to protect myself in my marriage was by remaining of sexual value to him."

"Sex was the only currency I had to spend in my marriage - every polygamist wife knows that."

"A woman who possesses a high sex status with her husband has more power over his other wives."

"If she becomes unattractive to him, she is on dangerous ground - usually winding up as a slave to the dominant wife."

"So although I hated Merril touching me, I knew I had to make myself attractive to him, even though there was no chemistry between us and our sex life was always perfunctory."

"Nevertheless, I did bear him eight children - all of whom were regularly beaten by their father."

"The only way I could stop Merril beating my children was to have sex with him."

"But when my seventh child, Harrison, developed cancer as a baby and was whisked away to hospital, I finally realised that no one in our community cared about him."

"This whole experience was a wake-up call for me. For 32 years I'd been brainwashed into thinking that every person outside the FLDS was evil - but suddenly I saw the only people willing to fight for Harrison's life, and stay at his bedside, were outsiders, the wonderful doctors and nurses who saved his life."

"I secretly started to make plans to flee - from my husband, from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints and from its leader Warren Jeffs."

"And so, in April 2003, at the age of 35 and with just $20 to my name, I ran away with my eight children."

"I packed my eight children into our van and drove away from the compound, even though my 12-year-old Betty was screaming: 'Mother, you're stealing us. Uncle Warren will come and get us. We don't belong to you, we belong to the prophet.'"

here's the story

Reading her story really puts context to the talks of Brigham Young and other Mormon Church leaders that created these doctrines that the FLDS try so faithfully to follow.

Compare her modern experience with polygamy with what Mormon women felt about it during
the time of the great prophet Brigham Young.

_____________

Author: Christy219

I have a new appreciation for the polygamy doctrine. I have finally come to realize what it is, and how ridiculous the current church members act about it. I was just like them not too long ago...one mention of the word polygamy and I was recoiling, explaining how it is no longer doctrine, and taking it the obligatory step further by saying the LDS church takes a clear stance that polygamy is wrong, etc.

But I realize now that Mormons STILL embrace polygamy. While they all talk about how "horrible" it was and think how glad they are that it is no longer "the word of God," in order to be a faithful Mormon you must fully embrace it. Not only are they taught that they will live in polygamy in the CK FOR ALL ETERNITY, but they are also taught to adhere to the teachings of the prophets.

Suppose in 25 years marriage is 'as you like it.' In other words, gays can marry, and polygamy is okay if you choose it to be. Bottom line, it's legal. So the new prophet reinstates (not institutes) polygamy again. The TBM's MUST believe in it and go along with it. It doesn't matter if this never happens, Mormons need to realize that if it did, they would have to be okay with it or find a new church.

So why they all pretend like polygamy is a thing of the past is a real weird thing to me. They're all subjecting themselves to hell on earth in order to be polygamists in the CK. LOL

____________

For the "regular" Mormon, this would be true

Author: ruthm

The regular Mormon or average Mormon wouldn't have studied anything, or rarely reads the BOM, or anything else. They have no idea what the doctrines of the LDS church are. So for them, the current thing they are being told would be what they believe. But for those who have actually read or studied past "prophets" know that is not the case. There is a deeper doctrine that joe schmo doesn't know, and that the hardcore fanatics don't really share with everyone. It is still a doctrine as long as it is in the D&C, everything that any LDS prophet said is still a doctrine, no matter what the current prophets say, and anyone that is a hardcore member will tell you that.

______________

Mormon Doctrine 101 - D&C 132 is official Cannonized doctrine.

Author: SusieQ#1

It is a continuing part of the current temple sealing/eternal marriage ordinances, performed daily in all of their temples

There is no way it can be considered anything but official church doctrine.

If the average Mormon does not know this, they do not know their own church teachings/doctrine/official scriptures and probably have not read D&C 132!
(Very possible, and probably very likely!):-)

_______________

Author: Use to be Mormon

So, if this is true why can a man "today" be sealed to another woman in the Temple and receive the Everlasting Marriage Covenant? [If the first wife is deceased] Because Mormons do believe in polygamy just not here on earth, only in heaven "the highest degree of heaven the Celestial Kingdom"! The Mormon church can hide behind it's facade about we don't practice polygamy today it was banded over 100 years ago, but the real TRUTH is they DO BELIEVE in polygamy and must accept this practice or be burned to damnation, just like Joseph Smith told Emma in D&C 132!
__________________

So did God and the Prophets divorce their wives?

Author: Deconstructor

According to Joseph Smith and other early LDS Prophets, the law of plural marriage is "everlasting." According to LDS scripture, God and the prophets practiced polygamy. It is the only marriage system in heaven.

So when the church stopped practicing polygamy, did God and the prophets in heaven divorce their wives?

Is God the Father now a monogamist in yonder heaven?

Inspired Church leaders spent decades condemning monogamy as the devil's marriage system - a counterfeit to the celestial way of the Lord.

See here

Did this change? Did the Lord end polygamy in heaven?

Of course not. That's why D&C 132 still LDS scripture.

As Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained:

"Obviously the holy practice (of polygamy) will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium."

___________________

The long time it took to realize what polygamy really was, and is.

Author: lightfingerlouie

I grew up in a very orthodox family, full of the usual stories about "the Prophet," his greatness, and all he did.

I learned how the Mormons had been badly persecuted, and how everyone who spoke against the church was a "liar." So many liars. So very many liars.

I was told that Joseph Smith had numerous wives. But I was told the sanitized version, with "marriages" that did not involve sex, 14 year old girls, the wives of other men, and a life of lying, cheating, and skulking around from bed to bed.

I was even taught most of the problems were Emma's fault. She was the "weaker vessel," who could not come to terms with the Lord's program. She was so weak, I was taught, she left the fold when Joseph died. Brigham Young said "Joseph will have to go into hell to get her."

Whatever.

On my mission, I was constantly asked about polygamy. I gave the standard answers. I believed them myself. I could not understand it, but it "came from the Lord."

The first sense of just how awful it all was came years after my mission, when I read "The Giant Joshua," Maurine Whipple's novel about early Mormonism and polygamy in St. George. I first learned about the way arrangements were made, and how they were enforced----"blood atonement."

It made me question. I was not taught this. It sounded awful, but it made sense. How else could the stupid and pathetic practice of polygamy be enforced? It had to involve threats.

I have since read the good books about Mormon polygamy. That includes "Under the Banner of Heaven," 'Tell it All," and "Wife No. 19." It hit me very hard. Polygamy, as practiced by Warren Jeffs, is the same kind of polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It did not change at all. The same methods used by the early church are used now. To make it work, you must remove all freedom from the women. They must become property.

Women were, and are, chattel. Girls are married off young, and assigned to the role of slacking the lust of 50 year old lechers who should be arrested and castrated. They are not patriarchs, they are child molesters. They operate under the guise of the 'holy Priesthood," which is just an excuse to pick and choose the nubile girls. Some sacred authority that is.

The whole damned thing is sick. It is beyond pathetic. But it goes on and on and on. Joseph started it, and it never would go away. It took on a life of its own, and became a huge monster that cannot be controlled. One man's desire for sexual experimentation led to hundreds of ruined lives, child molestation, and a sick, sick theology. How utterly nauseating it is.

I cannot stand to hear Mormons talk about it now. "We will practice it in the Celestial Kingdom," or "It will come back when we are worthy,"

Can't these dopes figure it out? It is not holy, pure, or moral. It is just sick. It has, at least done one thing. It has prevented the Mormon church from ever having a shot at being mainstream. They will never be accepted as a normal faith. The baggage of polygamy will hold them down forever.

____________________

Subject: Top 10 Reasons Smith Likely Had Sex With His Teen Brides

Author: Deconstructor

One of the most common denials regarding Joseph Smith is that he did not intend to have sex with his 14 year-old bride Helen Mar Kimball.

The fact that Joseph Smith married 14 year-old Helen is undisputed by church historians and apologists. That he did so by promising her family salvation is also accepted by Mormons who know church history.

Yet some still try and argue that because there is no physical evidence of sexual relations between Smith and his bride, that the relationship was merely "dynastic" and was not about sex.

No, there is no stained dress or other physical evidence of a sexual relationship. But the history record is pretty clear what Smith's polygamy was all about.

Here are the top ten reasons why I think Joseph Smith intended to have sex with his teen bride, Helen Mar Kimball:

1. According to current LDS scripture, sex was the only reason Joseph Smith was commanded to marry virgins "a hundred fold" in this life. See D&C 132:62-63.

2. Smith received this "Divine Law" to only take virgins, which also exempted him from adultery (a sex sin), during the very same time he married Helen. He married Helen in May of 1843 and wrote D&C 132 a month later!

3. There is no recorded revelation during Joseph Smith's lifetime that he should enter into polygamy for dynastic or any other purpose other than "raising up seed." To those who say Smith married Helen for something other than sex, I ask: "where is the revelation?"

4. In the Book of Mormon the Lord expressly forbids polygamy for any other reason than to "raise up seed." See BoM Jacob 24-30. So a dynastic-only marriage would have violated God's commandemnt.

5. Joseph Smith had sex with his other teen wives, including Fanny Alger, age 16, Sarah Ann Whitney, age 17, Lucy Walker, age 17, and Flora Ann Woodworth, age 16. So why not Helen? (In fact, Smith secretly married Helen in the same month he married Lucy and Flora!)

6. Helen said it was more than just a ceremony. In her own testimony, she wrote "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it."

7. Joseph Smith did not describe his plural marriages as mere dynastic. He told his close friend and scribe William Clayton that Helen and the other teen girls "were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order" and "his lawful wives in the sight of Heaven."

8. In Nauvoo, Smith bragged about the pleasure he got from his teen brides, saying one "had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed."

9. Everyone Joseph Smith taught his polygamy doctrine to had sex with their secret brides. None of them thought they were merely dynastic relationships.

10. Those close to Joseph Smith understood he married these women for sex. When Helen's father, Heber C. Kimball, asked Sister Eliza R. Snow the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith, she replied, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."

So why didn't Helen get pregnant?

It's likely that at age 14, Helen was still not physically mature enough to get pregnant. Girls that age in the 19th century did not start menstruating until age 17 to 19.

See: here

So where is the evidence Smith's plural marriages were about sex?

There is more evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith had sex with his wives than there is that he saw God and Jesus in 1820. If Mormons will believe that story with such weak support, why will they not accept such a strong case for Joseph Smith practicing polygamy as the Lord commanded?

If you read D&C 132 you'll note how it bestows upon Smith the "blessings of Abraham," which, in Mormon theology, was the blessing of endless posterity. The "revelation" goes on to command Smith to "go and do the works of Abraham."

Also, verse 63 gives the *only* reason for Smith to plural marry: "for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment..."

Again, ALL of Smith's statements to those to whom he introduced into polygamy affirmed that the practice was to have sex and children, rather than to care for old widows. Following are several statements from early Mormons which help to explain the concept. Benjamin Johnson was a close follower of Joseph Smith, and the brother of one of Smith's plural wives, Almera Johnson. Benjamin wrote in his journal that Smith had taught:

"The first command was to 'multiply' and the prophet taught us that Dominion and power in the great Future would be commensurate with the number of 'wives children & friends' that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a [nucleus] of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end."

Mosiah Hancock, another disciple of Smith, wrote "Bro Joseph said 'the Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take righteous women even a plurality of wives that a righteous race may be sent forth upon the earth preparatory to the ushering in of the Millenial Reign of our Redeemer---For the Lord has such a high respect for the nobles of his kingdom that he is not willing for them to come through the loins of a careless
people.' "

Another example is from the journal of Helen Tracy, who wrote of a conversation between herself, Lorenzo Snow, and apostle Rudger Clawson:

"The Principle was quite a trial to Sister V. K. [Vilate Kimball, wife of apostle Heber Kimball] but she essayed to submit to it and went and chose two very old maids of quite plain and homely appearance for her husband Bro K[imball] spoke to the Prophet Joseph about it and he said, Bro K that arrangement is of the devil you go and get you a young wife one you can take to your bosom and love and raise children by. A man should choose his own wife and one he can love and get children by." (As quoted in "Prisoner for Polygamy: The Memoirs and Letters of Rudger Clawson," p. 12.)

Brigham Young re-affirmed this doctrine when he preached:

"Birth control----There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles [bodies], now what is our duty?---To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, so that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth."
(Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)

Maybe Smith only INTENDED to have sex with Helen?

Perhaps.

As Randy Jordan has pointed out:

"We have no indisputable evidence that Smith had sex with the 14-year-old Helen; but considering Smith's sexual activities with other women, including teenagers, there is no reason to believe that he didn't intend to have sex with Helen and produce children, just as he did with others."

"It was common during the polygamy period for men to go ahead and plural marry desirable pre-pubescent girls in order to secure them into their harems and prevent them from marrying other men. Then when the girl had reached puberty, she would begin having babies. This is likely why Helen, even if she did not have sex with Smith, complained about not being able to socialize like other girls her age: it was her after-the-fact realization that she had been deceived into joining Smith's harem, and thus becoming ineligible to be courted by young, single suitors."

Let's also remember that

a) At the time Smith "plural married" Helen, he had many other women with whom he could have sex with; so he could have kept Helen "in reserve" for the time when she reached puberty, or perhaps when Smith was horny and no other woman happened to be available

b) Smith was killed 13 months after his sealing to Helen, so he simply may not have had the opportunity to consummate their relationship before his death. However, it's a virtual certainty that he would have if he had lived.

The bottom line is that it is futile for Mormon Apologists to argue that Smith's sealing to Helen was "dynastic" or "spiritual" only, in an effort to show that Smith's plural marriages to young girls were proper. Helen's own complaint that she was "deceived" into the sealing, and that she would not have agreed to it if she had known in advance that it was to be anything other than "spiritual," is enough to show the impropriety of Smith's motives and actions.

There's simply no good reason to believe that had he not been killed, Smith would not have had sex with Helen just as he did with his other so-called wives.

Details here

General Conference April 2008: Thomas Monson Wants Ex-Mormons to Come Back

2008-04-06T20:15:00.001-05:00

Mormons who have strayed from their faith were invited to return to the fold Sunday by the church's new president.

President Thomas S. Monson said members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are ready to welcome "the less active, the offended, the critical, the transgressor" into fellowship.

"Come back," Monson said in his first address to the full church membership since becoming president in February.

WTF? It’s as easy as that, huh? All I have to do is step in to my old ward next Sunday and my newly installed bishop, (who never laid eyes on me in his life) will just welcome me with open arms and no questions? Why? Because Tommy said so?

They still don’t get it do they? Those of us who left, did it for a reason! A real, honest-to-goodness reason not to believe in it anymore! Mine was because they refused to seal my children to me because my ex-husband objected. Has THAT requirement been removed yet? So, what’s in it for me anymore? If it hadn’t been for that, I wouldn’t have had any reason to become “critical” of the church in the first place. I probably would have happily continued to “believe in the absence of evidence to the contrary”, because the evidence would have remained tucked away and hidden in the books and websites of the dreaded Anti-Mormon conspiracy, (aka Satan’s minions) and I would never have known that it was Joseph who started the practice of polygamy, and it was Brigham Young who insisted that he was Joseph’s rightful heir to the presidency, by virtue of his placement in the church heirarchy. I would have never known just how many offshoots of the “one true church” there really were, back in the days of Nauvoo. I wouldn’t have learned anything about the Kirtland Bank folding, the Kinderhook plates, or the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper office that lead to Joseph’s arrest in the first place. I’m being labeled as “critical”? Why is that Tommy Boy? Because I had an opportunity to discover what you would have happily held away from my eyes for the rest of my life, and all because of the chauvinistic attitude that prevented me from having my children sealed to me JUST BECAUSE I divorced their father?

I just wish that something equally “offensive” would happen to my sister or my mother. Because at this point, that’s what it’s gonna take to send them on the path of discovery. They are going to have to jump through some mighty flaming hoops to obtain some sort of blessing that they have been promised, and when they finally get tired of being the blame taker for the failures of that promise, they might take a serious look at how they got there in the first place.

Here’s a suggestion for you, Tommy Monson: How bout if YOU take a few steps in the right direction, in order to make the So-Called “true” church, as open and inviting as you pretend it to be….

Exmo Community Urges Mormon Leadership to Come Clean

The COJCOLDS, also known as "The Mor-mons" and by the former Mormon community as LDS Inc., urges President Tommy Monson and his fellow executives to come clean with the public about the truth behind their successful marketing ploy to run a corporation masquerading as a religion.

The church, which is actually a multinational corporation that receives 10 per cent of the income of its naive adherents, no questions asked, is among America's most successful cults wherein the top leaders benefit but are secretive as to how their income and lives are led. They give the impression to their faithful flock that they have a direct link to God and Jesus, meanwhile are in the real estate business, involved in building shopping malls and other developments, running colleges and universities, other tourism related ventures such as the Polynesian Cultural Center in Hawaii. They are also reported as being the original bankers of the casino business in Las Vegas, which is highly ironic due to their anti gambling, smoking and drinking regulations for average members.

The corporation-masquerading-as-religion imposes strict lifestyle rules on their members, taking up large quanitties of their time and money, meanwhile claiming to offer peace, happiness and close families. In reality, they tend to divide families by keeping them together only when engaged in Mormon activities, otherwise encouraging them to spend time segregated in various "jobs" known as "callings" and focusing on church activities rather than actual time spent together, despite their "Happy Family" rhetoric in TV commercials. They are also prone to dividing families when one or more family members decides to depart Mormonism or speaks out against its so-called doctrines and various impositions on individuals and families.

As for me, this is what it would take personally to get me to stop being “critical” and come back to the church that claims it wants me so bad.

I’ll Come Back to the Church When….

1. My children and I can be sealed together WITHOUT a husband/father figure.

2. My non-member family can witness weddings in the temple.

3. All members are invited to take part in the Second Anointing ordinance.

4. My temple recommend is not renewed based on amount of tithing payments.

5. True history is discussed. Joseph Smith's life is open for analysis, as well as all other leaders of the church.

6. Prophets are no longer considered the great communicator and intercessor between us and God.

7. Bishops remove all "notes" from personal files.

8. Forgiveness is something between God and the individual, and no longer requires Courts of Love to process.

9. My sons can wear whatever damn color shirt they want to and no tie. And my daughters can wear flip flops and have their ears double-pierced without condemnation or judgment.

10. I can have a meaningful relationship with the members that is NOT based on how well I follow the crowd and conform to the Mormon standard, or whether or not my husband is an active member, or how many children I have, or what my particular calling is within the ward.

This is a short list. There are MANY more things that I would have to see discussed, evaluated, and possibly removed, (like the washing/anointing part of the temple, or having to wear a thick suffocating veil over my face, and an ugly green apron over my dress, so I can pretend to be ‘fallen’ and ‘under Satan’s rule’ while on earth). Maybe this list is considered fighting against the holy order of the true church. Maybe I am requiring God’s will to be bent to suit me. Maybe God really is this narrow and expects complete conformity and obedience in order to be admitted into heaven. But it sounds an awful lot like the alternate plan that was supposedly rejected and got Lucifer thrown out of heaven in the first place. This God that requires complete obedience conformity, who uses secret combinations to bind the hearts and minds of men into covenants with him, who will not tolerate the use of their own intellect and insists on complete faith as a substitute for reasoning and doubt, is a God I’d rather not be involved with. It’s too similar to what the Christians call Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, the Father of Lies. No thanks. I’ll just stick to an old Abraham Lincoln school of thought:

When I do good, I feel good.
When I do bad, I feel bad. And that is my religion.

Simple. Not flowery, not proud, and certainly not against any Biblical commandment that I can think of. Unless, of course, I’m being carefully led down to Hell anyway, by a master trickster who uses “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”. God sure is vague isn’t he? Even the Bible itself is a mess of contradictions, missing portions, and outrageous laws spelled out in Leviticus. Go ahead, peruse that section of the Bible and see if God is “full of love and grace”.

I’ve had enough of this. I’m going full throttle again, against the LDS church. I’m going to use these talks given in General Conference this weekend as my propeller. I’m gonna make them answer me once and for all. I want to know from my mom and my sister: What’s in it for you? Why do you remain committed even after you see that I cannot obtain (by their OWN decree and rules) what they promise EVERY convert? How is it that you can remain when you KNOW that you can’t obtain it either? Why do you stay and put up with the pressure to conform, the warnings and the bitch-out sessions from “those in authority” when you fail to measure up? What the hell is it going to take for you to look out the window and see this church from the outside?

Hypocracy and the Holier-Than-Thou Attitudes of LDS Members

2008-03-07T14:30:00.005-06:00

I've lived it. I was one of the most valiant members of my ward when I decided to leave the church. I made many changes to my life in order to obtain the golden carrot of celestial bliss. I paid my tithing, upheld my callings, attended many leadership meetings, fulfilled the requirements of receiving a temple recommend, and I had the approval of my other LDS family members. All of it began to crumble in the year after my temple marriage had finally been accomplished.

I was sealed in the Winter Quarters Temple, near Omaha, Nebraska, on Friday, October 13th, 2001. It was the ward's assigned temple weekend, so I felt enormous pressure to be ready by that date. So I plowed ahead with it, not sure I liked the idea of being married on a traditionally bad omen-bad luck day, but bowing to the pressure of my bishop. The day I was sealed was the day I went through the endowment ceremony, and we got to sit in the Celestial Room for all of 15 minutes afterward. I was one of 5 brides going through that day, so I had to wait my turn for the sealing portion. My dress was customized to be temple-ready, so I didn't have to cover it up (except for having to wear the green apron). I was so giddy that I actually blurted out my "new name" (Rachel) to my LDS family who had gone through the session with me, not realizing that they had received the same name on behalf of the dead ancestors they had gone proxy for.

At the time of my marriage, I was in constant battle with my husband's ex-wife, who was no saint by any means, and often spread rumors about me and my children throughout the small community of 700 people. She and my husband had a very public drawn out divorce when it was discovered that she had been carrying on an affair with a co-worker for two years. None of that had ANYTHING to do with me. I didn't know her from a hole in the wall. But as soon as I arrived on the scene with "her husband", she fought me tooth and nail every chance she got. She still carried on with the man she left my husband for, (and eventually married him), but it was extremely difficult to hold my head up in the community after she got done trashing me by her rumor mongering. It didn't help that she was also the girl's softball coach, so my girls had to drop softball because she was so cruel to them. It didn't help that she was the girl-scout leader, so that my girls had to drop that too. Her boyfriend was the boy's baseball coach and the boy scout leader, as well as one of the school board members, and best friends with the elementary school principal. So, my sons were unable to join anything either. This woman made my life hell for over 4 years, with the final culmination of an accusation that my oldest son was molesting her son, and seeking a restraining order against any visitation rights unless my son was not present. Which she got. Without so much as one visit from a social worker, or any doctor's examination, my son was branded a deviant, and she was seen as the brave victim. Only my son hadn't been living with me at the time, he had been living with his father for 7 months at the time of this decision. But, I had another son, and I knew it was only a matter of time before the accusations swept towards him. So, I did the only thing I could do to preserve my sanity. I left my husband of four years behind, and started over in my own home town, where her influence and lies could never reach us.

During this time of tremendous stress and anger towards my husband's ex wife and her web of lies, I was a Holier-Than-Thou Mormon. I believed with 'every fiber of my being' (yada-yada), that I was better than her. I believed that being Mormon made me more blessed, more chosen, more spiritual and more worthy than her, and it was my only defense against her. So, I used it. We fought constantly about being able to take her children to church. Sometimes she would show up right after boring SM to take the children to lunch or the park and they would happily go with her, even though it was my husband's legal visitation time. She undermined my position many times by taking over control of the children at any public event we attended. If we took them to the store, she would show up and take them around the store with her, where we would either have to force the children to come with us, or make some sort of arrangement for her to bring them back. I had to stop letting her children travel with me anywhere because if we met up with their mother, she would just whisk them away and I would have to come home and explain to my husband that his ex wife had the kids again. She would sit with us in the stands at games, music concerts, any possible public events, and would have her boyfriend come right along and sit there too, with their kids right there between them. I might as well have been invisible. But I still felt superior to her, through it all. She was only a Catholic, after all, and a beer drinker, smoker, and a party girl, not to mention an adulterer. But somehow, I ended up with the reputation she deserved. I completely withdrew from participation in the community and instead, I substituted all things Mormon, so my kids and I could have a place of respite away from the constant chaos.

She, of course, blocked our efforts to have the children baptized. She waited until the day before to send a letter to the bishop, threatening legal action if he went through with it, and petitioned the court for sole custody because of our involvement in the church. She was a one woman campaign against the Mormon cult, and soon had the entire small community we lived in completely against us for wanting to baptize her children as Mormon. She became white and pure almost overnight, joining a popular community church and attending regularly, even planning her lavish wedding there. And, of course, her children would rather go to the fun church with all their friends than to the Mormon church 30 miles away. All this hateful and spiteful behavior only strengthened my belief that I was morally and spiritually superior to her, and I proclaimed it from the pulpit whenever I had the chance.

I have had five years now, away from her, away from my weak ex-husband, away from that small town of 700 people who never knew what became of me. The bitterness and anger that consumed me has completely abated. I have no reasons to fight her and no interaction with her world.

The whole time I fought this battle of wills, I had the passion and desire to prove myself worthy beyond a doubt. I wanted every possible blessing as proof of my righteousness and my status as an LDS faithful member, as opposed to the adulterous, slanderous, Catholic demon-spawn. It was a race, to be sure, and I got plenty of sympathy from my fellow members. When I dared to question the church's policy against baptizing my husband's children, I started to doubt. When I was finally confronted with the church's policy that my children could not be sealed to me and my new husband without consent from their father, I doubted even more. What was I striving to accomplish, if I couldn't have my children sealed to me, and my husband couldn't have his children sealed to him, then what purpose did the church serve in our lives? It slowly became clear to me that my involvement with the church was the tool that she used to destroy my marriage. Our ultimate goal of family unity would never be realized. And no one on the earth could override "God's restored plan".

Over the past four years since I have left the church, I have tried to explain to other LDS members that I left when I realized that I can't have what they have. And I've even tried to talk with my former friend "Mary", that even she cannot obtain it, according to the standards and procedures that are currently in place. Being married to a never-gonna-be Mo is preventing her from being sealed to her children. The fact that five out of six of her children have left will prevent her from obtaining the promise of being sealed to her family. And who do you think she blames for this? That's right, the rebellious children, the hard-hearted spouse, and her own failure to provide the example they all desperately needed as they were growing up. She blames HERSELF. And is is sad and wrong, and completely despicable that she feels this way because some "loving" church has conditioned her to take responsibility for the division of her family, when all they have to do to fix it is come off their lofty heights of self-righteous divinity, and allow families to be ceremoniously bound whether or not they are members of the church. But, that takes away the only thing of value that the temple brings to the church. It is a control mechanism. Members live in fear of having to sit outside at a family wedding. Thousands of members suddenly start to pay tithing or attend meetings a month or so before a big family event, knowing that if they fail to do so, they will not regain or renew their temple recommend, and will be excluded from the wedding. To allow people in without the TR removes this fear and destroys the effectiveness of the control mechanism. And, the whole reason that couples chose to be married in the temple, away from those who cannot enter, is because the church has a policy of forcing a one-year waiting period between civil marriage and sealing if it is not performed in the temple. This one-year wait period is waived in countries that require marriages to be performed by magistrates, or in public places, and in these cases the couple can go to the temple immediately afterward to be sealed. So, what purpose does the one-year waiting period really serve?

It's a fear button. It's power and control. They use it to coerce and manipulate couples into choosing the temple marriage and excluding those who choose to be rebellious, or those who won't convert to LDS. They will paint a picture of pain, despair, and possible tragedy for the entire year of waiting, and convince the couple that they will be blessed more and strengthened more if they commit to the temple above their own desires. The couple sacrifices family relationships from the very beginning of their marriage by choosing this path, and it often becomes a very painful thorn in the side for non-member family and friends who are excluded merely because they aren't members of the same club.

I waited the year because my husband had converted for me, and had to wait a year from his baptism to attend the temple. But, they kept him busy remaining worthy to baptize his oldest daughter (by a different mother) and to pass the sacrament every Sunday (provided he remembered to wear a white shirt and tie). I was never told that it would be next to impossible to have my children sealed to me without first gaining written permission from both fathers, (one a lax inactive member, the other completely gone from the picture). I felt SO deceived when they finally revealed to me that I could not make my family eternal until they each reached the age of consent and individually decided to link themselves to me and my new husband. So, ultimately, it would rest on my shoulders to ensure that my children would be raised to believe all of this was necessary, and to compel them somehow into thinking it was the most important covenant they could make (aside from marrying in the temple on their own), and that this would be the only way I could obtain Celestial glory with them. I would have to assist the church in convincing them that this would be the only way we could partake of "God's restored plan". If they refused to join with me when they turned of legal age, it would all fall back on me and my failure to remain with their natural father, and somehow compel everyone to remain together in that original family unit. They learned to hate my husband and his ex wife over the four years we were part of that world, so what would compel them to want to be with him as the leader of our Celestial family in the hereafter? Not high on my list either, as it turns out.

Then there is "Sally", the last remaining LDS member of her family. Somehow, she managed to obtain what I could never have. Somehow, through lots of legal wranglings, her husband adopted her kids, she overcame the stumbling blocks of a previous sealing to undo (by which she had to revisit every past sin resolved over a 10 year span, even the ones she had been previously forgiven for, and were supposedly forgotten) relive the circumstances of her own dis-fellowship-ment 10 years prior (even though she had been forgiven, and went through a year of scrutiny and goal-setting). She now has the 'assurance' that her family will be together forever. But, at what cost did she obtain this? Several times she had to confess her deepest, darkest sins, reveal very personal painful information and experiences, and run through the gauntlet of supervision, confession, and judgment by men who were strangers to her in any other capacity, and she had to submit herself again and again as a child begging for forgiveness, love and attention. And when she was just about at her lowest point, they finally grant her their "permission" to obtain the promise of the golden carrot. And she was THRILLED to have been given this chance. Does that sound Christlike? Because of all the agony she went through, the pain and torture of not being good enough, of having to constantly prove herself worthy, of having to jump through whatever flaming hoops that they laid out for her, without complaint or murmuring, she has paid a very high price for her salvation, and NOTHING is going to convince her that it was all for nothing. Her heart and soul will not allow her to even entertain the thought that she was deceived by those who claimed to have loved her the most, even though they treated her worse than anyone in her natural family would have dreamed. She is bound to them eternally because love is only demonstrated by how much they punish you for falling away. Acceptance in the fold is based upon the level of conformity you can obtain and how much you can impress the current bishop.

"Sally" and "Mary" are not perfect, and neither was I when I was Mormon. I cursed. I drank Iced tea. I played cards. I yelled at my kids. I said unkind things about others. I skipped church occasionally, and I sometimes didn't bother preparing a lesson for Sunday School. But when Sunday rolled around, I was the perfect hypocrite. I personified everything good and holy about a Celestial Family. We collectively brought nine children with us to church, and on those days, we were the best example of large Mormon families who make the gospel work in their lives. We were shining stars. I would wear myself completely thin every Sunday morning, making sure six girls had their hair clean, dresses neat, and tights with proper shoes worn. I ironed shirts for three boys and my husband, and still managed to look like it was the most effortless thing in the world. I remember being teased that I would eventually be the bishop's wife someday, because my life was so put together. (on the outside). When I got home, I literally fell apart every time. It was exhausting to work so hard on being so fake. Now, I do just exactly what I damn well please on Sunday, just like any other day. No lesson plans, no spending my own money on class materials, no stress, no uncomfortable garments and proper long dresses. I am exactly the same on the outside as I am inside. As for "Sally" and "Mary", they still tread the Mormon Hampster Wheel. A different persona exists for those they see at church, and for those they deal with at home.

I've taken the time to ask them what compels them to remain part of a church that is so bent on excluding those who don't adopt their specific beliefs. I've asked how God could possibly be so narrow in his acceptance, and why his one true church is so hard to believe in. Of course the answer is that they simply choose to believe it, and anyone else can simply choose to believe it just as simply and easily as they have, and then everyone could share in God's blessings. They really do think it's just a matter of choosing to believe it, and poof! You're in. The fact that 98.3% of the world needs more evidence to go on, just serves as proof of their own rebellious nature, and by extension, also serves as proof of how valiant and special those who choose to believe really are. My problem (as it has been explained to me numerous times) is that I choose to allow my own understanding to interfere with God's lesson plans, and I have rejected the messages simply because of the method by which they are dispensed. Take for example, the character of Joseph Smith. It can be said that he was a glass looker, treasure digger, and vagabond of sorts. But I shouldn't ignore the message contained in the Book of Mormon, just because the source of it is of questionable moral character. Nor should I dismiss it because of similarities to other texts and ideas by other authors at the time. And I shouldn't put away the basis of the Mormon belief system because it uses rituals and borrows concepts from other organizations. And it's not supposed to be judged by wordly thoughts or using logical reasoning. It's supposed to be a process of conversion that can only come from humble submission to the spirit, and the acknowledgment of the good uplifting feelings one has when surrounded by others of similar conviction.

Well, looks like I'm never going back. I don't know how to cut my brain out of my head and live off of feelings alone. And I just don't know how one could possibly claim to know everything about the church, just as I have learned, and still be able to maintain the fundamental beliefs that make a Mormon. Surely one would grow and change and perceive the world differently as each piece is revealed and put in its place within the scheme. It makes me feel as if I'm being lied to again. I can't come to the conclusion that it's still a true copy of the original church of Christ. I can't make the connection between the God of the bible, and the one portrayed in Mormonism. I can't accept the there are living prophets on the earth that have special powers and keys to holy priesthood powers if they are never going to exercise them out in the open for everyone to witness. I can't follow the lead of a man who is proclaimed to be a living prophet if he never makes good on that claim, either by making a prophecy of some kind (which his title implies) or by using his priesthood authority to bind or control some other evil aspect of this life, like famine or disease. That's a prophet in the biblical sense, and I don't know why it would be any different in this life, if the church wants to make the claim that all the keys have been restored. We should be living in a marvelous and wonderous age, if it were true. But, all I can see is 15 old, white men, each in control of some aspect of the church business, and all grouped together for a common goal, maintaining the base and keeping those tithing dollars coming in every month.

Can anyone tell me why it's worth it to remain in the church, even when most of your family has left it? What's in it for you? Can you honestly say that you know you're going to the CK and that all your sacrifice in this life will actually be doing some good for you in the next one?

Here's the most important question: If the church was not true, would you want to know?

The Prophet Who Didn't Make Prophecies: Gordon B. Hinckley Dies at 97

2008-01-29T15:26:00.000-06:00

I wasn't going to post about it. I have done a good job just letting Mormonism fall by the wayside and move on with more interesting things in my life. I consider myself to be recovered from its influence (except for the occasional clashes of opinion given forth by members of my family who are still involved in it).

Late Sunday night, the leader of the Mormon religion, Gordon B. Hinckley, passed away at the old age of 97, after battling colon cancer. During this period of time between the passing of one "prophet" and the installation of a new "prophet", the body of the church is in a slight state of upheaval. True, by tradition, the next in line is the President of the Quorum of 12, and that would be Thomas Monson. But, Boyd K. Packer, who has been acting President since Thomas Monson has been 1st counselor to the past three "prophets", could be named the next "prophet", because he is older than Monson and has served in the capacity of President of the Quorum for longer than Monson. A person like Packer is likely to even argue the case for himself, and could cause discord and even a schizm within the Quorum who is supposed to be receiving "divine inspiration" regarding the next to be called "Prophet, Seer and Revelator".

I can only hope for such a thing. It would demonstrate that the leaders are merely men, and Jesus doesn't have any say in the matter.

What is a prophet? One would assume that he has the ability to "speak with God, receive instructions from God, or be able to warn of troublesome events". Gordon Hinckley, like all of his predecessors, had neither the ability to see future events, but he also did not even know basic fundamental teachings of his predecessors, and denied many times in public discourse that such things as: "Man is what God once was." and "Blacks are never to receive the priesthood power because of their linage from Cain." These are truths that Brigham Young taught from the pulpit, and all his successors for over 100 years taught and believed, and sent their missionaries out to preach to all the world.

During the course of his "calling", he preferred to be called President of the Church. He shied away from the title of Prophet. He knew in his heart that he didn't have the power to lead by divine providence, only by precedent and tradition had he been handed the reigns of the leadership in the Mormon religion. And, the next "prophet" will be named in the same way, without having to demonstrate one iota of ability to make prophecies, or even have a bright light shine down on him from above, with a heavenly angel declaring that he shall be the chosen seer. It seems a shame that nobody else gets to have the scene with God and Jesus, just Joseph Smith (and we have his word on that).

I personally can't believe how many people are actually surprised that he died. He was 97 years old. He had cancer. It's a no-brainer.

While I'm here, I thought I would bring with me some quotes from Gordon through the years, and then maybe somebody out there can explain to me what exactly makes him so special, and why he gets the title of "prophet".

"Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways."

"No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time."

"I do not know what the future holds. I do not wish to sound negative, but I wish to remind you of the warnings of scripture and the teachings of the prophets which we have had constantly before us."

"Now, I do not wish to be an alarmist. I do not wish to be a prophet of doom. I am optimistic. I do not believe the time is here when an all-consuming calamity will overtake us. I earnestly pray that it may not. There is so much of the Lord’s work yet to be done. We, and our children after us, must do it. I can assure you that we who are responsible for the management of the affairs of the Church will be prudent and careful as we have tried to be in the past. The tithes of the Church are sacred."
- The Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live,” October 2001 General Conference (Ensign, Nov. 2001, Page 72)

"I hope that prayer will take on a new luster in our lives. None of us knows what lies ahead. We may speculate, but we do not know."
- The Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, October 2001 General Conference “Till We Meet Again,” (Ensign, Nov. 2001, Page 89)

During an CNN interview after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Larry King asked Hinckley if God could have prevented the attacks:

KING: President Hinckley, though, couldn't He (God) have prevented this?

HINCKLEY: Oh, I suppose so. I believe He's all powerful, yes. I don't know His will. I don't know how He operates.
- Larry King Live CNN Interview, September 14, 2001,
link here

"Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that." Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, Hinckley said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about what he said about those things." I asked whether Mormon theology was a form of polytheism. "I don't have the remotest idea what you mean," Hinckley said impatiently."
- Hinckley Interview in "Lives of the Saint", New Yorker, January 2002
link here

"Beyond the wonderful and descriptive words found in sections 76 and 137 [D&C 76; D&C 137] we know relatively little concerning the celestial kingdom and those who will be there. At least some of the rules of eligibility for acceptance into that kingdom are clearly set forth, but other than that, we are given little understanding."

"The next question you ask is why Eve was created from Adam. I can only respond that an all-wise Creator did it that way...."

"Now, Virginia, you call attention to the statement in the scriptures that Adam should rule over Eve. (See Gen. 3:16.) You ask why this is so. I do not know."

"You ask whether men are more important than women. I am going to turn that question back to you. Would any of us be here, either men or women, without the other?"
- The Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, November 1991 Young Womens Conference, “Daughters of God,” (Ensign, Nov. 1991, Page 97)

Question: "There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

Hinckley: "I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about."
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1

From an interview Jan 29th, 2002 conducted by reporter Helmut Nemetschek, ZDF television, Germany, at Salt Lake City, Utah, in the Church Administration Building:

Question: "Until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church. Why it took so long time to overcome the racism?"

Hinckley: "I don’t know. I don’t know. (long pause) I can only say that. (long pause) But it’s here now. We’re carrying on a very substantial work on Africa for instance and in Brazil. We’re working among their people developing them."

Question: "Now, Mr. President, one question which is a little bit complicated for me to understand but I heard it an one colleague asked me to ask you. What will be your position when DNA analysis will show that in history there never had been an immigration from Israel to North America? It could be that scientists will find out?"

GBH: "It hasn’t happened. That hasn’t been determined yet. All I can say is that’s speculative. No one really knows that, the answer to that. Not at this point."
- Interview Jan 29th, 2002 conducted by reporter Helmut Nemetschek, ZDF television, Germany, at Salt Lake City, Utah, in the Church Administration Building.
link here

From an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Company's Sunday night television show COMPASS:

COMPASS:: So in retrospect was the Church wrong in that [denying blacks the priesthood]?

HINCKLEY: No I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.

COMPASS: What was the reason for that?

HINCKLEY: I don't know what the reason was.

COMPASS: Is it a problem for the Church that it is still.. has a tag of being racist?

HINCKLEY: No, I don't think so. I don't see that anymore.

- Australian Broadcasting Company, COMPASS, April 8, 2005

Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."
- Interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997
link here

When asked about the church's posture towards Homosexuals, Hinckley said he knows they "have a problem." So Larry King asked him if they were born with this "problem:"

KING: A problem they caused, or they were born with?

HINCKLEY: I don't know. I'm not an expert on these things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.
- Larry King Live CNN Interview, December 26, 2004,
link here

Regarding the Mountian Meadows Massacre, the Prophet said: "No one can explain what happened in these meadows 142 years ago. We may speculate, but we do not know. We do not understand it. We cannot comprehend it. We can only say that the past is long since gone."
- The Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Mountain Meadows Massacre Monument Ceremony, September 11th, 1999,
link here

When is a "prophet" speaking as a man? Apparently every time he opens his mouth...

Review of John Dehlin's "Why They Leave" presentation

2008-01-02T12:20:00.000-06:00

[This is a power-point presentation that can only be viewed by Internet Explorer Browsers using a PC. If you have a Mac, or using another browser, click here to go to John Dehlin's Mormon Stories site.]

I sent a TBM member I know a link to this site. She just sent back an email thanking me, telling me she watched it and can see now why I chose to leave. BUT not one word about the particulars (like JS having many wives, Mark Hoffman scandal, the rock-in-a-hat translation) so I really doubt that she really did watch it, since she has previously denied any of these things happened.

It's frustrating having to plant all these tiny seeds, water them constantly, pull weeds and make sure they get plenty of sunlight, but I guess that's the best way to make a garden...

I just can't understand John's position that the church has a dilemma when it comes to admitting the basis of their religion has been proven unfounded, yet they feel it's in the best interest to perpetuate the myth for the sake of those who still believe in it vs. yanking the rug out from under them and letting the church authority fall apart.

Seems to me that the church is the one that created this false impression and delusion in the first place, and it only serves the interests of those in authority to keep the myth in place. It's not right for them to continue to hammer in the ideas of "one true church" to the faithful masses while a few lucky people that happen upon John's website get to learn all about the problems and then find ways to maintain their involvement by becoming a 'cafeteria Mormon'. Most people don't know they have the choice to do so, and that's the way the church wants it to stay.

That's why I left. I can't abide the constant drumming and drilling of the mantras of "one true church" and then work my way around all those expectations to maintain the perception of upholding Mormonism teachings when I know that there are thousands who take it literally and expect others to do the same. My sister is a classic example of this. I would never be able to get away with cafeteria Mormonism when compared to her interpretations of the teachings.

I think it's dishonest to remain in the church and keep a straight face when you don't believe a word of it. It's a waste of time trying to position yourself as a role model of moderation when you're expected to tow the line like everyone else. Besides, more often then not, if you aren't acting 100% like the most devout, they start to question among themselves why you get to maintain your recommend and do half the work. Then they complain to the bishop that you aren't being held to the same standards they are. Then when they slack off too, and attend only every other weekend, and reduce their calling responsibilities, and limit their participation in classes, etc., they point out that you have been doing it for years and still maintain your membership status on equal footing.

Then it's only a matter of time before the bishop gets on your case about attendance, tithing, calling responsibilities and other such "obligations", because even the smallest perception that someone is getting a pass when others must struggle through the least bit of sin (like making up missed tithing payments in order to obtain a recommend, or being disfellowshipped because of heavy petting) receives scorn and private condemnation of your fellow members. It's somewhat like running a kindergarten, in my opinion. There's always Sister Bertha-better-than-you who runs and tattles to the Bishop every small infraction she sees (like wearing flip-flops to sacrament meeting), and suddenly you're hauled in to explain yourself, or chastised to be a better example.

The church is wrong to keep perpetuating the myth of Joseph's divinity and the restoration of Jesus' original church organization, and just because they have worked themselves into a hole doesn't mean that they should now keep it going for the sake of preserving the status quo and maintaining the belief system so that people don't get upset and question what they have been taught. That's exactly what should happen, in my opinion. They are covering their own asses, by purposefully NOT looking any further than they have to, so they don't have to deal with the possibility of it not being true. Then they can keep up the act and maintain authority.

A lie is a lie is a lie, and it don't matter if it comes in black, white, or all the shades of the rainbow. Everyone deserves an equal chance to decide what to base their lives on, and those missionaries are sent out worldwide with one thing on the agenda: "feed them milk and sugar, never show them gristle or blood".

And John, if you are reading this, consider for a moment that you have an advantage that most members of your ward do not, that you have been presented or made aware of all the pertinent facts and have made a choice based upon that information, but not everyone does. Is that really fair and honest to knowingly allow such a divide within the church? Aren't you actually helping perpetuate that system by remaining active in the church and upholding the leaders, even though you don't take it literally like they expect you to? Don't you see that as cutting corners and re-interpreting to fit your own needs?

Why not ACTIVELY promote it, John Dehlin?

Don't you think having a website sometimes isn't enough?

My family used to come by all the time and read my blog, accusing me of all kinds of sin for "tearing down the church". Like you, I arrived at a place where I couldn't believe the literal interpretations of the church, its leaders and most of the devout followers. I left because I feel it's dishonest to help perpetuate the myth, even by allowing them to count me as a faithful devout member. I knew that I wasn't ever going to be devout again, after learning that the literal interpretations were wrong.

I am not on board with remaining in the church and acting as a covert spy, skimming under the radar to avoid detection, and gaining the popular vote for my acts of kindness. You are still subjected to the judgment of humans who believe they have the authority to intercede between you and God. Remaining in the church means having to pass their judgment from time to time, and that keeps the myth of priesthood authority alive and well in the Mormon belief system. But, I was a convert. I don't have multi-generations of Mormonism. I can see how 'cafeteria Mormonism' helps those who don't want to cause family strife or burn away the memories of those early pioneer families who believed 'literally' that Brigham Young was their God on the earth.

There are thousands converted every year, based on the same myth that holds those who have been born into the belief. This is wrong, in my opinion. Those who are multi-generational have reasons to hold on to those myths, because it ties the family together. I believe that those who are converted should be given the entire truth before choosing to join, or it's not an honest gain. I feel that the responsibility lies with SLC and the missionary program. They can (and have) done whatever it takes to gain converts, to keep the church alive, to keep the coffers filled with tithes, and to keep the loyal base strong. It involves the use of "fluffy bunny" information. They do it knowingly. That's why I call it a lie.

I read your essay on your website, (How to Stay in the LDS church after becoming disaffected) and I can't understand how you can advocate paying less than 10% tithe and the church will be satisfied with whatever you decide to offer. Either you are just fortunate to live where you live, or you simply have never heard of cases where people are compelled to pay the entire 10% of their gross, or lose their temple recommend. Is the answer just "move to a different ward"? That doesn't work, because that file follows you everywhere, and so do your past sins, and actions of rebellion (like not paying tithing). If you have a bishop who is out to 'bring you in line', moving to another ward 200 miles away does not solve this problem. (personal experience talking).

What if every member was eventually like you, John? What if they all let go of the literal interpretation, but kept their membership covertly like you do? How would that help prevent thousands of newcomers every year from being indoctrinated into the "one true church" concept?

Let's say that in your ward of 200+ members, everyone was just like you, taught the lessons they felt were acceptable to them as Christians, skipped over the parts they don't agree with, and re-interpreted the messages of the GA's so that it fits their world view? How long would that last, before some SP or Area Authority noticed this rogue ward and made a special trip to give the sacrament talk on "Loyalty to the Church"?

In my view, it would be impossible for everyone in the church to adopt your position, because it would tear down the base of loyalty and devotion needed to sustain the church in the first place. They need the myth. It's the only magical claim they have. It's what sets the Mormon church apart and lures people to leave their own church behind to join up. People are becoming convinced that the Mormon church has something to offer them that no other church can do: authority and priesthood power. By choosing to remain, you are becoming complicit in upholding the myth.

I chose to leave because I refuse to uphold a church whose claims are designed to "replace" mainstream Christian beliefs. Missionaries don't limit themselves to non-Christian types, their target group is other Christians. Their bait is a lie, in my opinion. And I have the concern for others of various Christian beliefs, in that I don't wish for them to chose to become Mormon, live the Mormon lifestyle of "literal belief", make the sacrifices necessary to belong, and cut off their children and grandchildren who decide it isn't for them. In my opinion, they would do just as well without the Mormon belief system if they just maintained their membership in whatever Christian denomination they currently uphold.

I can see why you would want to stay, John. But making the case for others to stay is only helping the church continue to draw others in that are not as enlightened as you are. Do you ever hope to reach them all with your message? And if you reach enough to really make a difference, wouldn't that be undermining the authority of the church? Lots of people get ex'd for doing what you do, and I don't think it's right that some get to remain in good standing while others are cut off and bullied into submission. That's another reason to get out, in my opinion.

Just Answer the Question: Do Mormons believe and teach that Jesus and Satan are Brothers?

2007-12-17T19:46:00.000-06:00

Once again, multi-mouth Mitt is attempting to dishonestly skirt and misrepresent as alleged anti-Mormon religious bigotry the clearly-stated Mormon doctrine of a Jesus-Satan brotherhood. For the one of the latest examples of his blatant deceptive tactics, see:
here and here
_____

But blatant deception is nothing new on the part of the Mormon Church, for and about which Romney utters his lies.

Mormon apologist W. John Walsh has continued predictable the Mormon duck-and-dodge hodgepodge by asserting that LDS doctrine does not teach that Jesus and Satan are brothers:

"Is Jesus the brother of Satan? . . .

" . . . [I]t can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father, but it is a misrepresentation to say so without giving the contextual background. Whatever similarities in background exist between Jesus and Satan pale compared to the differences. Jesus is the Beloved and Chosen, who is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. . . .

"['Is Jesus the brother of Satan?'] is a common question asked by those exposed to Anti-Mormon literature. Anti-Mormons often twist our doctrines out of context to make people falsely believe that Latter-Day Saints denigrate Jesus and consider Satan and the Lord to be equals. Of course, anyone familiar with our beliefs about Jesus Christ knows that we have the utmost respect and reverence for Our Savior and Redeemer.

"First, Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God the Father (and is therefore divine) and the mortal virgin Mary. Satan, a malignant spirit, does not share this parental heritage of Jesus, and cannot be considered divine in any respect.

"Therefore, in the usual way that we speak of brothers and sisters, Jesus and Satan are not brothers."

See here
_____

Nice attempt at dodging, there, Brother Walsh.

To had fuel to the fib, the official Mormon website declares that, in fact, Jesus and Satan are brothers, and does so by linking to an officially-published Primary lesson for children, wherein the Mormon Church teaches the following about the Jesus-Satan brotherhood:

"1. In the premortal life we were spirit children and lived with our heavenly parents . . .

2. Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father and is the older brother of our spirits . . .

3. Lucifer, who became Satan, was also a spirit child of the Heavenly Father . . ." ("Jesus Christ Volunteered to Be Our Savior, " Lesson 2: Primary 7: New Testament, 5)

See it here

Unfortunately for LDS spinmeisters, the Mormon Church's official magazine, the "Ensign," in its "I Have a Question" forum, had made it clear that the LDS Church emphatically accepts as doctrine--based both in quoted scripture and the statements of Mormon General Authorities--the notion that Jesus and Satan are literal brothers and that, in fact, Satan (also like Jesus) is a son of God:

"How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?

"Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah [responds]:

"'On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations.

"But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers.

"Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a 'son of the morning.' (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.)

"Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)

"How could two such great spirits become so totally opposite? The answer lies in the principle of agency, which has existed from all eternity. (See D&C 93:30–31.) Of Lucifer, the scripture says that because of rebellion “he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies.” (Moses 4:4.) Note that he was not created evil, but became Satan by his own choice.

"When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13–14; Moses 4:1–2.)

"When his modification of the Father’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7–9; D&C 29:36–37.)

"That brothers would make dramatically different choices is not unusual. It has happened time and again, as the scriptures attest: Cain chose to serve Satan; Abel chose to serve God. (See Moses 5:16–18.)

"Esau “despised his birthright”; Jacob wanted to honor it. (Gen. 25:29–34.)

"Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him; he sought to preserve them. (Gen. 37:12–24; Gen. 45:3–11.)

"It is ironic that the agency with which Lucifer rebelled is the very gift he tried to take from man. His proposal was that all be forced back into God’s presence. (See Moses 4:1, 3.)

"But the principle of agency is fundamental to the existence and progression of intelligent beings: as we make wise choices, we grow in light and truth. On the other hand, wrong choices—such as the one Satan made—stop progress and can even deny us blessings that we already have. (See D&C 93:30–36.)

"In order for us to progress, therefore, we must have the opportunity to choose good or evil. Interestingly, Satan and his angels—those who opposed agency—have become that opposition. As the prophet Lehi taught, 'Men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.' (2 Ne. 2:27.)

"Although the Father has allowed Satan and his angels to tempt mankind, he has given each of us the ability to rise above temptation. (See 1 Cor. 10:13.) He has also given us the great gift of the Atonement.

"When the Lord placed enmity between Eve’s children and the devil, Satan was told that he would bruise the heel of Eve’s seed, but her seed would bruise his head. (See Moses 4:21.)

"President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that 'the "God of peace," who according to the scriptures is to bruise Satan, is Jesus Christ.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957, 1:3.)

"Satan would bruise the Savior’s heel by leading men to crucify Him. But through his death and resurrection, Christ overcame death for all of us; and through his atonement, he offers each of us a way to escape the eternal ramifications of sin. Thus, Satan’s machinations have been frustrated and eventually he will be judged, bound, and cast into hell forever. (See Rev. 20:1–10; D&C 29:26–29.)

"In Hebrew, the word bruise means 'to crush or grind.' Therefore, the very heel that was bruised will crush Satan and will help us overcome the world and return to our Father. As we use our agency to choose good over evil, the atonement of Christ prepares the way for us to return to our Father in Heaven.

"We can only imagine the sorrow of our Heavenly Father as he watched a loved son incite and lead a rebellion and lose his opportunity for exaltation. But we can also imagine the Father’s love and rejoicing as he welcomed back the beloved son who had valiantly and perfectly fought the battles of life and brought about the great Atonement through his suffering and death. (Jess L. Christensen, 'I Have a Question,' Ensign, June 1986, 25–26)

See it here
_____

Moreover, in keeping with historic LDS doctrine on the matter, Apostle Spencer W. Kimball declared that Jesus and Satan are brothers:

"There is another power in this world forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judea, on the temple's pinnacles and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim." (Kimball, "Conference Report," April 1964, p .95)

"There is another power in this world, forceful and vicious. In the wilderness of Judea, on the temple's pinnacle and on the high mountain, a momentous contest took place between two brothers, Jehovah and Lucifer, sons of Elohim. When physically weak from fasting, Christ was tempted by Lucifer: 'If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.' (Luke 4:3.)

"Similarly Satan had contended for the subservience of Moses. Satan, also a son of God, had rebelled and had been cast out of heaven and not permitted an earthly body as had his brother Jehovah. Much depended upon the outcome of this spectacular duel. Could Lucifer control and dominate this prophet Moses, who had learned so much directly from his Lord?" (Kimball, "Faith Precedes the Miracle," p. 87)

See it here
_____

Now, to reasonably thinking people who hear the Mormon claim that Jesus and Satan are brothers, the reaction goes like this, with accompanying head-scratching as they try to digest the Mormon Church tortured explanations:

"Wow. Jesus and Satan sure sound like blood brothers.

"But, Mormons have a nuanced sense of brotherhood.

"Mormons believe that ' . . . all beings were created by God and are His spirit children,' says Kim Farah, spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Mormons believe in a pre-life existence populated by spirit children waiting to be born. All those spirit children are brothers and sisters in a general sense. This is why Mormons refer to each other as Brother and Sister (and joke about being the brethren and the 'cistern').

"'What this means is that as spirit children, Jesus and Satan were brothers. But they were not brothers in any sort of human sense,' says Jan Shipps, an historian at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, who is considered the foremost non-Mormon authority on Mormon history and culture.

"In other words, Jesus and Lucifer were never siblings like me and my brother, who I thought was Satan when he vomited in my shoes."

See it here

Yeah, right, uh-huh and whatever.

In the meantime, for additional quotes and sources to Mormon claims that Jesus and Satan are, literally speaking, brothers of God the Father, see:

here

*****My Thoughts*****

When I was about 13-14 years old, I remember attending various worship services with my grandparents, who were very upset that we had "become Mormon". Somehow, the minister we were listening to would know about this fact and make his sermon built around the false doctrines of the Mormon religion, bringing up such things as polygamy, becoming Gods, and Jesus and Satan being brothers. My sister and I sat dumbfounded at some of these sermons, not having a clue what the minister was talking about, and assuming that he was just mistaken, or had read Anti-Mormon literature. We also assumed that our grandparents had informed the minister of our "situation" and that they were trying to "deprogram" us by using the intervention of the pastors in the various church services they took us to. We attended the Church of the Nazorene, the Bible Holiness Church, the Christian Union Church, the Full Faith Christian Center, etc... and it seemed highly unlikely that each sermon we heard would be directed at the only two Mormons in the entire congregation.

I remember making fun of my grandmother's assertion that Mormons worship Joseph Smith. I even pretended to mock worship while chanting "Joseph Smith", just because I found the thought of it so absurd. Now I understand what she was talking about. I didn't see it before, because I had just joined the church, but after 20+ years in it, I believe her. I'm sorry I made fun of her concern for me, and wish I could take it back.

I remember writing a letter to my grandparents defending my religion, and pointing out all the reasons why it was true, and better, and more complete than their regular plain vanilla Christianity, and now, years later, I can see where I was wrong to be so proud, so arrogant and full of myself for knowing the "truth" while others wallow in "ignorance" and "stiff-neckedness". Shame on me for using these words against people who were worried about my welfare.

Here I am on the flip side of the coin.

The LDS church teaches that all humans, all angels, all creatures were created by one God of a whole eternal family of Gods, and that we all existed before the Earth was created for our physical test. We would need to obtain knowledge and experience in order to progress past this child-like state we were in, and we petitioned our God-creator for the chance to become like him. (similar to how our children want to grow up to become like us). In this pre-existence, we discussed together what types of experiences and tests we would need in order to grow and gain wisdom and knowledge. Our eldest brother, Jesus, the first born, proposed a plan of free agency, knowing some would be lost and not be able to return. Another of God's creations, an angel of light, called Lucifer, proposed a plan in which not one soul would be lost, all would gain the necessary knowledge and wisdom, and all would return. He expected to be glorified in exchange for this guarantee. And God decided that Jesus' plan was better, even though it meant that some of his children would not return. Then, according to Mormon theology, Lucifer basically incited a riot, stirring up 1/3 of the souls against Jesus' plan, because they wanted a guarantee that they would complete the trials and tests. There was 1/3 who sided with Jesus, and they would ultimately become those souls who would obtain human form, and receive the opportunity to progress to Godhood. And the remaining 1/3 were fence-sitters, neither for or against one plan or the other. And because of this they were considered "less-valiant" in the pre-existance. Therefore, these souls would still get the opportunity for a human experience, but they would be faced with harder trials, such as being born with disabilities, being born outside Mormon families, being born to parents of African or Asian lineage, or not having the same opportunity to hear the message of salvation while in this earthly state. Therefore they would be rewarded according to their accomplishments, and because they were lukewarm in the "family feud" between Jesus and Lucifer, their fates would be sealed and they would never obtain Godhood. But, those who chose Jesus and his plan, would be born to Mormon families, sealed in the covenant, serve righteous missions, obtain their endowments in the temple, memorize the sacred handgrips, words, and signs, wear the special garment with the compass and the square stitched in the right places, fulfill their duties in the church, complete the ordinance work for all of their dead relatives, pay an honest tithe, have as many babies as they are physically able to do without regard for financial concerns or personal preference, and always listen to the words and advice of their prophets and the "Lord's Anointed", and if they were good enough, and worked hard enough, and fulfilled all of the requirements, then they would be able to obtain Celestial Glory, and be sealed to their families forever in an unending chain of generations. But only the very elect of these select individuals would ever obtain Godhood, because it is also necessary to have been given the Second Anointing to make their calling and election sure, and to be made Priests and Kings (or Priestesses and Queens unto their husbands) in the Kingdom of Heaven, whereas in the endowment session, they are only anointed to potentially become such.

See, how wonderful this plan is?

Even after all that work, if you haven't had your calling and election made sure by receiving the Second Anointing, you'll make it to the CK, but you won't become rulers of your own spirit children, you won't be able to give them the same chance at progression to become a God themselves, and you won't be able to obtain it either, because you didn't know that you had to be anointed a second time in the Holy of Holies withing the Salt Lake Temple. There are thousands of faithful Mormons who don't know that they have been passed over for this ordinance because it is "so sacred" that it isn't even revealed to you until (or unless) you are called to receive it. And then, you are forbidden from discussing it with anyone, not any family or other members, because you are "so special" that you were chosen to receive this calling and election as a Priest and King (or etc.) that if you were to let it be known, you would lose this guarantee of Godhood.

Your own mother could have had this ordinance, and she couldn't tell you. And she can't ever know if you have received it either. Your bishop might not even know about it. Or your Stake President. But if they did, they couldn't tell you, or they would lose their guarantee. See how masterful the plan is?

Go ahead. Google it. Type in "Second Anointing LDS" You might be surprised.

And that's all I have to say about that.......

Mitt Romney's #1 Mormon Belief : Loyalty to the Church

2007-12-07T11:06:00.000-06:00

Ever wonder why both Mormon politicians and lay members vote in unison in support of the church, despite their differing political affiliations?

Ever wonder what motivates members of the church to reject their own spouses, children and relatives in favor of the church?

Ever wonder why members of the church sacrifice their personal integrity in defense of official church history and practices?

The answer is that faithful members know that their first and foremost duty is uncompromising loyalty to the church.

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley recently declared:

"Now may I say a word concerning loyalty to the Church. We see much indifference. There are those who say, 'The Church won't dictate to me how to think about this, that, or the other, or how to live my life.'"

"No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein."

"The book of Revelation declares: 'I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth' (Revelation 3:15-16)."

"I make you a promise, my dear brethren, that while I am serving in my present responsibility I will never consent to nor advocate any policy, any program, any doctrine which will be otherwise than beneficial to the membership of this, the Lord's Church."

"This is His work. He established it. He has revealed its doctrine. He has outlined its practices. He created its government. It is His work and His kingdom, and He has said, "They who are not for me are against me" (2 Nephi 10:16)."

"In 1933, there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state. President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel."

"On this occasion I am not going to talk about the good or bad of Prohibition but rather of uncompromising loyalty to the Church."

"How grateful, my brethren, I feel, how profoundly grateful for the tremendous faith of so many Latter-day Saints who, when facing a major decision on which the Church has taken a stand, align themselves with that position. And I am especially grateful to be able to say that among those who are loyal are men and women of achievement, of accomplishment, of education, of influence, of strength-highly intelligent and capable individuals."

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
- President Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

Unquestioning Obedience a Virtue

"For us, to 'believe all things' means to believe the doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the words of the Latter Day prophets. It means to successfully erase our doubts and reservations. It means that in making spiritual commitments, we are prepared to hold nothing back. It means we are ready to consecrate our lives to the work of the kingdom."

"The more we believe, the easier faith-based obedience becomes. Hence the value of 'believing all things.'"

"We are instructed to be like children, who are willing to be taught and then to act without first demanding full knowledge."

"Some members are constantly evaluating the gospel by the standards of the world. They may think, 'That is not how I think the Lord would want it done,' or, 'Based on my understanding of the scriptures, the Church position should have been . . .'"

"Some Church members may have reservations because of a physical appetite they are not quite willing to surrender."

"Other common reservations are flagged by words such as 'yes, but . . .' when scriptures or prophets are quoted. Or we may hear, 'I am not going to let the Church make my decisions for me.'"

"Obedience is a fundamental law of the gospel. It is not only the demonstration of our faith but also the foundation of our faith. But the philosophical standard of the world holds that unquestioning obedience equals blind obedience, and blind obedience is mindless obedience. This is simply not true. Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets — to be worthy of obedience."

"One day there will be answers to all our questions, and they will be based on divine fairness and love. The Lord will not hold people accountable for factors over which they have no control."

"Let us believe all things. Let us have unquestioning faith in all of the doctrines and truths of the restored gospel."

Elder Robert Oaks, "Believe All Things," Ensign, July 2005, page 30

"I know a 17-year-old who, just prior to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and simply said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.”"

"Wearing two pair of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake."
- Apostle M. Russell Ballard, “His Word Ye Shall Receive,” Ensign, May 2001, 65

Church Leaders Expect Conformity

"But no child in this Church should be left with uncertainty about his or her parents' devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Restoration of His Church, and the reality of living prophets and apostles who, now as in earlier days, lead that Church according to 'the will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, . . . the word of the Lord, . . . and the power of God unto salvation.' In such basic matters of faith, prophets do not apologize for requesting unity, indeed conformity, in the eloquent sense that the Prophet Joseph Smith used that latter word. In any case, as Elder Neal Maxwell once said to me in a hallway conversation, 'There didn't seem to be any problem with conformity the day the Red Sea opened.'"

"What a classic example of the warning Elder Richard L. Evans once gave. Said he:

Sometimes some parents mistakenly feel that they can relax a little as to conduct and conformity or take perhaps a so called liberal view of basic and fundamental things-thinking that a little laxness or indulgence won't matter-or they may fail to teach or to attend Church, or may voice critical views. Some parents . . . seem to feel that they can ease up a little on the fundamentals without affecting their family or their family's future. But, if a parent goes a little off course, the children are likely to exceed the parent's example.

"To lead a child - or anyone else - even inadvertently, away from faithfulness, away from loyalty and bedrock belief simply because we want to be clever or independent is license no parent nor any other person has ever been given. In matters of religion a skeptical mind is not a higher manifestation of virtue than is a believing heart, and analytical deconstruction in the field of, say, literary fiction can be just plain old-fashioned destruction when transferred to families yearning for faith at home. And such a deviation from the true course can be deceptively slow and subtle in its impact. As one observer said, "[If you raise the temperature of my] bath water . . . only 1 degree every 10 minutes, how [will I] know when to scream?"
- Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, General Conference, Sunday April 6th 2003

Do church leaders think they have a duty to tell the truth, or to protect church authority at all costs?

Apostle Dallin Oaks:

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

Apostle Boyd K. Packer:

“You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.”

“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.”

“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.”

“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. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs!"
- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271

Apostle Russel M. Nelson:

"Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid."

"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up “facts” with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:

“The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom. 1:17-18.)

"I repeat: 'The wrath of God is … against all … who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'"

To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action in light of this sacred scripture:

“These dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information … yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and … wicked, … entirely forgetting the Lord their God.” (Alma 47:36.)

"We must realize that we are at war. The war began before the world was and will continue. The forces of the adversary are extant upon the earth. All of our virtuous motives, if transmitted only by inertia and timidity, are no match for the resolute wickedness of those who oppose us."
- Russell M. Nelson, “Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69

Never Criticize Past or Present Church Leaders - Even if it's True

"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."

"As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."

- Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks published a similar talk for the February 1987 Ensign Magazine. Again, Apostle Oaks declared that there is no place in the church for public criticism of church leaders, even if the criticism is true. He also said:

"Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.”

"Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)"

"Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. The same is true of popularly elected officers in professional, community, and other private organizations."

"A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause."

"Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately."
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68

"Some people exalt themselves above God and His annointed servants because of their learning and scholarly achievements. We must never allow our intellect to take priority over our spirit. Our intellect can feed our spirit and our spirit can feed our intellect, but if we allow our intellect to take precedence over our spirit, we stumble, find fault, and may even lose our testimonies."
- Apostle Joseph B. Wirthlin. October 2004 General Conference.

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.’ (DC 21:6)”
- Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, Oct. 1970, p. 152

One effective way church members are locked into loyalty is through the temple ordinances, which include strong oaths of total loyalty and sacrifice to the church.

(Warning to LDS members: I am about to reveal the words used in actual temple ordinances both past and present. This has been done before on many sites, all one has to do is ask for it. If you wish to remain loyal to the church, DO NOT READ IT)

_____________________________________________________________________

Quoting from the temple ceremony:

TEMPLE NARRATOR: (All patrons stand.) "And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God."

"All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this alter that you will observe and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Old and New Testament, as it has been explained to you. Each of you bow your head and say "yes.""

TEMPLE PATRONS: "Yes."

ELOHIM: "That will do." (All patrons sit down.)

TEMPLE NARRATOR: (All patrons stand.) "Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

"Each of you bow your head and say "yes.""

TEMPLE PATRONS: "Yes."

PETER: "That will do." (All patrons sit down.)

Mormons take these oaths very seriously. In fact, all members of the church who attended the temple prior to 1990 also made death-oaths in connection with these pledges of absolute loyalty.

From the temple ceremony before 1990 through the 1930's:

Death Oath #1:

ELOHIM: "All arise." (All patrons stand.)

ELOHIM: "Each of you make the sign of the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, by bringing your right arm to the square, the palm of the hand to the front, the fingers together, and the thumb extended. This is the sign. Now, repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty."

"I ________, think of the new name, covenant before God, angels and these witnesses that I will never reveal the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken."

(Patrons perform the action as the Officiator guides them.)

"That will do." (Patrons sit down.)

Death Oath #2:

PETER: "The sign is made by bringing the right hand in front of you, with the hand in cupping shape, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square. This is the sign. (The officiator demonstrates.) The Execution of the Penalty is represented by placing the right hand on the left breast, drawing the hand quickly across the body, and dropping the hands to the sides. I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, and sign, and penalty, and which you will be required to take upon yourselves."

PETER: "All arise. (All Patrons stand.) Each of you make the sign of the Second Token of the Aaronic priesthood by bringing the right hand in front of you, with the hand in cupping shape, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square. This is the sign."

"Now, repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the Executing of the Penalty."

"I, _________, think of the first given name, solemnly covenant, before God, angels, and these witnesses that I will never reveal the second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, and sign, and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken."

(Patrons perform the action as the Officiator guides them.)

"That will do." (All patrons sit down.)

Death Oath #3:

PETER: "All arise. (All patrons stand.) Each of you make the sign of the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or Sign of the Nail by brining the left hand in front of you with the hand in cupping shape, the left arm forming a square; also by bringing the right hand is also brought forward, the palm down, the fingers close together, the thumb extended, and by placing the thumb over the left hip. This is the sign."

"Now repeat in your mind after me the words of the covenant, at the same time representing the Execution of the Penalty:"

"I solemnly covenant in the name of the Son that I will never reveal the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood or Sign of the Nail, with its accompanying name,and sign and penalty. Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken."

(Patrons perform the action as the Officiator guides them.)

"That will do." (All patrons sit down.)

Prior to the 1930's, these death oaths were even more gruesome.

From the temple ceremony prior to the 1930's:

ADAM : "We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots."

ADAM: "All bow your heads and say Yes."

TEMPLE PATRONS: "Yes." (All patrons sit down.)

PETER: "The brethren and sisters will now stand, push back the seats, place the robe on the left shoulder, and receive the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood. We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field."

"All bow your heads and say yes."

TEMPLE PATRONS: "Yes." (All patrons sit down.)

PETER: "We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out."

"All bow your heads and say yes."

TEMPLE PATRONS: "Yes." (All patrons sit down.)

Is it any wonder that faithful Mormons will give up everything, including their own family members and integrity to the cause of the church?

How could anyone who takes these oaths seriously be open-minded about problems with the church?

*******MY THOUGHTS********

After hearing Mitt Romney's speech, hits on my site tripled in a matter of hours. The key words used were "weird mormon beliefs". So, in response to this surge of interest in what Mitt believes, and how much influence those beliefs would have on his duties as President, I decided to highlight in red, those things that his spiritual leaders have taught, and those things that he dare not publicly refute or deny. Also, it is worth pointing out that Romney has served as Bishop of his local ward, and as a Stake President. What does this mean, you ask?

It means that Mitt has been set apart as one of the LORD'S anointed already. He has been in total command of a couple thousand LDS members under his charge when he was Stake President. He was one of the two men who interviewed members for temple worthiness. He sat in judgment of other's faithfulness and devotion to the LDS church, and he presided over "courts of love" during times of excommunication for members who were not living up to the church's standards. He has the rights and privileges similar to a Catholic Archbishop, even though he has had no formal training in theology, counseling, psychology, or even attended a seminary in preparation for his church duties. He was simply chosen one day to fill the vacancy, and the members revere him because of it. They believe he was "called of God" to fulfill that office, and they will continue to reverence him even after he has been replaced by someone else. He was a Bishop of his local ward, with about 200+ members under his direct umbrella of responsibility and stewardship. These people had to come to him for welfare assistance, getting their temple recommendation updated every year, and report to him any personal problems regarding sexual conduct, keeping the commandments such as the Word of Wisdom, and questions about church doctrine.

It's laughable that he maintains that no one man should be held as a spokesman for his religion when he has done exactly that for many years. He has taught doctrine directly, he has overseen others who teach doctrine to the members,( in his past capacity as Bishop and Stake President) he has corrected those who teach false doctrine, (as a Bishop and Stake President) and he has disciplined members who do not obey the counsel of their leaders, who defy the authority that is placed over them, or who do not profess absolute belief in the founding prophet.

He has presided over the tithing settlement at the end of the year, and made certain that each member living within his ward boundaries was current on their 10% "donation" to the church, or he refused to renew their recommendation until they hand over a check. He has started the proceedings of excommunication against members that he could counsel, persuade, urge, or otherwise guilt-trip into conformity.

It was his primary duty to be a leader, guide and "father of the ward", and to say that he does not feel that he is a spokesman for his religion is an outright LIE, since that is how he has conducted himself in the past to the members of his ward or his stake. That's how they view him today even, since he is still considered to be one of the "Lord's Anointed", having served in those offices before.

It's also likely that he has been a High Priest's Quorum President, or Elder's Quorum President in the past, and let's not forget that he was also a missionary for two years in France. If that isn't enough to qualify him as a spokesperson for the religion, I wonder what it would take to become one?

It's like telling the country that only the Pope can tell us what Catholics believe or only Pat Robertson can reveal what Christians think.

Another thing that pisses me off is his insistence that all questions regarding specific doctrines of Mormonism get referred to the official website of the church. That is a cop-out. He knows EXACTLY what the specific doctrines of the church are, because he is responsible for making sure they are followed. He is not in the dark about the teachings, he doesn't get to say, "I don't know that we teach that". He knows full well what goes on in the temple, he knows exactly what the reasons were for denying blacks the priesthood up until 1978, and he knows without a doubt what the ultimate goal is for every Mormon when they die. Letting him skirt the issues and get referred to a whitewashed, "Christianized" website that never gets any deeper than "faith in God and Jesus" is a shame and reveals the laziness of today's media to get to the meat of the sandwich. Where is the hard hitting cover-story? Where is Murphy Brown when you need her?
_________

Edited 12-8-07 to add:

I read an article here written by Bill Dolack and he hit a major point that I had missed about Romney's speech. Without copying the entire article, I would like to share a minor excerpt from it here:

Article VI of the United States Constitution prohibits imposing a religious test "as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Romney, through use of the big lie, is busy trying to convince the public that the voters themselves are prohibited from imposing a religious test – and nothing could be further from the truth. While Article VI doesn't say, "The government shall impose no religious test," it is painfully obvious that this is the intent of the passage. To force this restriction upon the people would do irreparable harm to our First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

He goes on to say that:

It is MY right as an American to express my religious freedom by rejecting ANY candidate who I believe is unqualified for office for any reason, including religious reasons. Despite Romney's attempt to use the big lie, this is not "the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution." He is unconstitutionally attempting to impose a government prohibition upon individual people.

I couldn't agree more!!! I wish I had thought of that when I heard him say it. But instead, I became confused, even doubting for a short while that anyone could challenge Mitt's beliefs publicly, because it seems as though the Constitution prevents us from doing it.

That's the Lie!!!

He WANTS us to believe that we do not have the right to question his beliefs, and that he doesn't have to reveal them to us, and that the Constitution SAYS SO!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's absolutely amazing!!! What a classic twist of words, expertly delivered in the same hypnotic drone of the Mormon bishop that he has been in the past! And just like a willing sheep, I was sucked into it, even momentarily.... Wow I guess that Mormon training doesn't wear off easily. I am so glad I can mill about the Internet reading articles about any thing I want to read about and discover, else I might have actually gone on to believe that Mitt had found a legitimate way of keeping his religious beliefs off-limits from the average non-Mormon voter, and he covered himself with the blanket of the Constitution to do it!!!

Oh, Mittster, you are in deep shit now. Wait till it sinks in after a couple of days, wait till the pundits finally understand what you are implying, wait till the writer's strike is over buddy!

Stephen Colbert is going to eat you for lunch!!!

The Real Mormonism Money-Maker is: YOU!!!

2007-11-30T20:27:00.000-06:00

From Noggin via PostMormon.com

Has anyone else ever taken note of the "Trickle Down Tithing Scam"? My grandfather complained about it a time or two before he passed away years ago and it never hit me as to why he would have such a beef with it until I reformatted my Mormon brain into a more ex mormon state of mind. Basically it goes like this:

Thomas Temple Attender works for the LDS church. He makes $40,000 a year gross. Thomas Temple Attender promptly pays 10% of his salary dollars back to the church in tithing.

Now then

Thomas Temple Attender hires Peter Priesthood to paint him... say... a very nice portrait of his wife, Henrietta Homemaker. Peter Priesthood charges Thomas $20,000.00... to which he is immediately paid upon completion.

Peter Priesthood has now earned $20,000.00 and now Peter Priesthood, being the faithful member that he is, and ever wishing to not burn at the 2nd coming, will now pay the LDS church the $2,000 in tithing that it demands.

To save time and space, I'll forego the rest by explaining that Peter Priesthood then hires Fanny Alger to babysit his 9 children as a nanny and he pays her $10,000.00 to do it. Fanny Alger, very interested in seeing her daughter marry in the temple next month, then pays the LDS church $1,000 tithing dollars in order to qualify and be worthy to go to the ceremony. Fanny Alger then hires Zina Huntington/Smith/Young to do X who then pays prompt tithing dollars on those earnings... and it trickles down down down from there.

In this way, the LDS church is getting many multiples of tithing dividends on the original $40,000 it paid Thomas Temple Attender at the start of this thought experiment. The kicker is that Thomas Temple Attender's salary is generated from... you guessed it....

TITHING DOLLARS!!

Thomas: $40,000 = $4,000 tithing dollars to the church

Peter: $20,000 = $2,000 tithing dollars

Fanny: $10,000 = $1,000 tithing dollars

Right there the church has practically doubled the tithing dollars from the original $40,000 it paid to it's employee.

There is much more to this thought experiment... like for example, the church is notorious for lower paying (by national comparisons and standards) careers. Though the pay is lower by competetion standards, it is even more of a bargain for the church in that the employee basically signs an implied contract with his job that states he/she will be a faithful Mormon... in essence, he WILL pay the LDS church 10% of his salary. So every church employee is an automatic 10% kickback to the Mormon church.

Nice, huh? I'm a small business owner. Man, I cannot tell you what a slick deal that would be if I could get my employees to sign up for a deal like that... oh shoot... see... but then I'd have to offer them benefits like... eternal life and that could get rather complicated... especially if I tested their loyalty by sending them to the other side of the United States on business trips and marrying their wives while they were gone.

****My Thoughts****

I used to encourage my kids to pay 10% on the allowance that I paid them, AFTER I had already paid my 10% to the church. Just think how much money the church retains by encouraging their members to do business with fellow Mormons! That money NEVER leaves! It just keeps getting recycled and redistributed to the church one way or another.

Most cults make you promise away all your worldly possessions, inheritances, bank accounts, etc to the uplifting and sustaining of the organization. That's what compels their loved ones to try and draw them out, since it seems completely senseless to live in sackcloth and ashes, devoting all your time and energy to the organization, preaching and attending endless meetings, hoping for a chance to one day GLIMPSE at the guru running it all, and proclaim it to be the most spiritual, uplifting moment of your life.

Look, just because you can get in your car and drive around the block without permission, that doesn't mean you aren't in a cult. Mormonism is a cult of the mind. The "sacred undergarments" are a thought control device, not a physical protection against harm. When your most trusted guides and authority figures counsel you to guard yourself against receiving or seeking information from "outside"....BOOM! There's your cult. It's right there in the words.

" Don't read unapproved literature"

"Don't surf the Internet unprotected"

"Don't question the Lord's anointed"

They don't HAVE to build 25-foot high walls surrounding a secluded compound. You have already accomplished that in your mind. All they have to do is make you afraid to tear down that wall and look on the other side, and they have you, safely tucked away from "evil" and "Satan".

The illusion is that you are free to choose right from wrong. You know you can step in a bar at any moment, just by making a right turn instead of left. You know that you can dive deep into Mormon history in just a few clicks of the keys. You know that you can shuck those garments off and keep them off for a whole day. But the guilt, the fear, the shear panic you will face when you go against the words of the Brethren, keeps you within their control. Why do you follow their advice? Because you believe them! And you feel good when they pay attention to you, praise you, encourage you, and "choose" you for service. All of that would go away if you ever disobeyed their words. You would lose their comfort, their company, and their guidance. But these are MEN. Not God. God will STILL be there for YOU. Even without these MEN to tell you what you must do. Nobody OWNS God. If you believe in God, then that's ALL you need. No handshakes, no tokens, no secret temple names, no sacred underpants. Just belief in God.

As for myself, don't judge my journey as a road map for everyone. I chose to extend beyond Christianity, beyond religion itself for a short time. And I'm not stating that it is the right choice for everyone. But you at least owe it to yourself to look around and be WILLING to change your belief based on what you see, not limit yourself to what you are told.

The Woman's Place in Eternity

2007-11-27T22:49:00.000-06:00

For today's post, I refer you to Sister Mary Lisa, who knows exactly what to say.

New York Daily Opinion Piece on Mitt Romney's Faith

2007-11-26T21:52:00.000-06:00

Enough cliches about faith. Mitt's Mormonism matters

By Errol Lewis

Sunday, November 25th 2007, 4:00 AM

Let's quit tiptoeing around the question of whether Republican Mitt Romney's Mormon religion will be an issue in his bid to become President of the United States.

Of course it will matter. And it should.

Voters have every right to be curious and concerned about a candidate's beliefs - especially a candidate like Romney, who keeps talking about the importance of faith in his life.

Romney's not a run-of-the-mill believer. Before entering politics, he served as a Mormon bishop, presiding over several congregations in Massachusetts.

There's little chance that a devout follower of Rastafarianism, the Unification Church or the Nation of Islam - not just a believer, but a leader - could expect to run for high political office and not get a couple of questions about what they believe and what public actions they took as a church leader.

Romney has gotten a few. He told CBS News he is a "true-blue through-and-through" believer, but also said, "My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to our nation."

Those contradictory statements won't cut it. And they don't sidestep the plain fact that Mormonism, like the other faiths I mentioned, is not a Christian religion.

This is a sore point with Romney and other Mormons, who emphasize their reverence for Jesus, belief in His divinity, and the fact that the religion's official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Those protests hold little water with leaders of most Christian denominations. In 2001, the Catholic doctrinal office (then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now the Pope) decreed [that] Mormons must be re-baptized to join the Catholic Church. Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists have similar official disclaimers.

The reasons are clear to anyone who stayed awake through Sunday School and takes a look at the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Mormons, it turns out, believe human souls have existed for all eternity, temporarily inhabit physical bodies and can eventually evolve into gods. They also believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that tribes from Israel traveled to what is now America, built ancient cities and fought epic battles.

Needless to say, there's no physical evidence of the cities or the thousands killed in the ancient wars of the Mormon holy books, and DNA evidence rules out American Indians as descendants of ancient Israel. It will take time for Mormon supernatural claims to attain the respect given those of older religions.

But forget the historical and theological disputes. I have no quarrel with the nearly 6 million Americans who practice this religion - but I do have questions for the one among them who wants me to vote him into the White House.

In particular, I want to know more about Bishop Romney's beliefs and actions related to the Mormon religion's odious and longstanding practices of racial segregation.

Brigham Young, an early father of the Mormon Church, preached, "If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain [those with dark skin], the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

In addition to this death penalty for race-mixing, Mormons barred blacks from becoming priests or taking part in the religion's holiest rituals. This went on until 1978.Romney, who was 31 when Mormon elders officially scrapped the church's racist doctrines, says he broke down and cried when the change was announced.

I really hope he did more than wait till the end and weep: I'd like to know what Bishop Romney grew up believing on this subject, exactly what he taught to others - and what steps, if any, he took to battle discrimination when doing so was at odds with his religion.

A clear explanation is the least we should expect from a candidate who wears his faith on his sleeve.

****My Thoughts****

Brigham Young's statement is contained in the Journal of Discourses and can be read here.

Most Christian denominations never learn that Mormonism teaches that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that God started out as a mortal man on another Earth and became exhalted after his death, creating his own Earth to populate with his own spirit children, (us), and that we will have those same opportunities for exhaltation and Godhood if we:

1. Become Mormon
2. Participate in Temple rites and rituals
3. Perform the same acts of temple ritual for our dead ancestors
4. Enter into polygamy

That last one is still a major belief of Mormonism, even though it is condemned in practice. It is NOT condemned in theory, and is still believed to be necessary to obtain exhaltation (that is, the highest level within the Celestial Kingdom). Many covert temple sealings have been done without government knowledge or approval. Among these is the "second anointing" ordinance, which even many mainstream Mormons themselves know little to nothing about.

Mormonism used to focus most of their conversion efforts on the American Indians and the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands because the Book of Mormon speaks of Lamanites as the principle ancestors of these people. DNA evidence has know proven that these people are of Asiatic origin, and not of Jewish descent after all. The Book of Mormon has now been reworded to state that Lamanites are among the ancestors of these people. That runs counter to over a hundred years of belief and the conversion efforts of thousands of members to redeem the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, with a book of scripture that was supposedly about their own people.

IF People like me shut up and go away....

The church can go on subtly changing doctrines, denying the past, obfuscating the present, and controlling the future. George Orwell's 1984.

The only way to limit the church's ability to rewrite history in a favorable light is to remain vigilant and informed. There is no such thing as "accepting it on faith" , because faith only comes into play when certain plausible ideas cannot be proven or disproved. That is not the case with many doctrines of Mormonism, they can and have been proven false, scientifically and scripturally. The only tool the church has left is to create enough fear within the organization, so that knowledge is limited. "We will tell you all that you need to know, and if you desire to know more, you will be accused of loosing your faith, becoming full of pride, trusting in the intellect of man and not of God, and all sorts of evil will befall you if you question your anointed leaders."

Sounds like something Warren Jeffs might say...

Mormons Worship Joseph Smith more than Jesus Christ

2007-11-18T22:27:00.000-06:00

***My Thoughts***

I wanted to show you how the Mormons set aside the works and teachings of Jesus in favor of the life and times of Joseph Smith. Typically the month of December is a time to celebrate the prophet's life and accomplishments, and revere him on his date of birth, which, unfortunately, lands two days before Christmas. Some of us ex-Mormons have taken to calling the season "Merry Smithmas", on account of all the focus being given to the founder of the religion, instead of the founder of Christianity, and I brought this article from the archives of the Recovery from Mormonism board to post here. In it, there are several quotes from past Mormon prophets who extol the virtues of their beloved leader. I thought it might be relevant to anyone wondering what Mitt Romney's religion is all about.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Season for Gratitude,” Ensign, Dec. 1997

This is a season for giving and a time for gratitude. We remember with appreciation the birth of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which is celebrated this same month of December, two days before Christmas.

How great indeed is our debt to him. His life began in Vermont and ended in Illinois, and marvelous were the things that happened between that simple beginning and tragic ending. It was he who brought us a true knowledge of God, the Eternal Father, and His Risen Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. During the short time of his great vision he learned more concerning the nature of Deity than all of those who through centuries had argued the matter in learned councils and scholarly forums. He brought us the marvelous Book of Mormon as another witness for the living reality of the Son of God. To him, from those who held it anciently, came the priesthood, the power, the gift, the authority, the keys to speak and act in the name of God. He gave us the organization of the Church and its great and sacred mission. Through him were restored the keys of the holy temples, that men and women might enter into eternal covenants with God and that the great work for the dead might be accomplished to open the way for eternal blessings.

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood. Ever and ever the keys he will hold. Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom, Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old. (“Praise to the Man,” Hymns, no. 27)

He was the instrument in the hands of the Almighty. He was the servant acting under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ in bringing to pass this great latter-day work.

We stand in reverence before him. He is the great prophet of this dispensation. He stands at the head of this great and mighty work which is spreading across the earth. He is our prophet, our revelator, our seer, our friend. Let us not forget him. Let not his memory be forgotten in the celebration of Christmas. God be thanked for the Prophet Joseph."

Why the Mormon Church hates Christianity - JOSEPH SMITH

Jesus Christ is just not enough for the Mormon Church. Grant Palmer was not excommunicated for not having faith in Jesus Christ. He lost his salvation, in the eyes of the church, because he did not accept the stories the church tells about Joseph Smith.

This all goes back to the very foundation of the Mormon Church and its authority:

Joseph Smith

Salvation not through Jesus Christ, but Joseph Smith

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]"
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142

"Whosoever... does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist...,"
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 176

[There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"
- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are... [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91

"He that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312

"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"
- Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."
- Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a God, and also upon Brigham Young, our Governor"
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p. 88

"It is to be feared that in course of a century, some gifted man like Paul, some splendid orator, who will be able by his eloquence to attract crowds of the thousands who are ever ready to hear, and be carried away by, the sounding brass and tinkling cymbal of sparkling oratory, may command a hearing, may succeed in breathing a new life into this modern Mahometanism, and make the name of the martyred Joseph ring as loud, and stir the souls of men as much, as the mighty name of Christ itself. Sharon, Palmyra, Manchester, Kirtland, Far West, Adam-ondi-Ahman, Ramus. Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail, may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, in another age; like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Calvary to the Christian, and Mecca and Medina to the Turk."
- Prophet Brigham Young, History of the Church, Vol. 7, p.40-41

Thanks to Joseph Smith, Mormon leaders condemn Christians:

"This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..."
- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'"
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckleey, LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p.7

"The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began."
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.375

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foudation of this (Mormon) church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth..."
- Joseph Smith speaking as Jesus Christ, Doctrine and Covenants 1:30

“The Lord said that this is the only true and living church upon the face of the earth with which He is well pleased [see D&C 1:30]. I didn’t say that. Those are His words. The Prophet Joseph was told that the other sects were wrong [see Joseph Smith—History 1:19]. Those are not my words. Those are the Lord’s words."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, June 2004 Ensign, page 3

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join."

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw• near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them;..."
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith History 1:18-20

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60

"And he [the angel of God] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
- Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10-11

"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent"
- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255

"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon"
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p.324

"When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 5:73

"With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:199

"The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:171

"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:176

"Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers' sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. ...You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89

"The Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called"
- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196

"But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of Christian Churches ... But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance"
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, 18:172

"Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom."
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 10:127

"What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute best."
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225

"What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing... Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God."
- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 13:225

"Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness. For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men."
- Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282

"...the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, ...But with the Bible it was not and is not so....it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was."
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13

"Must we, under the broad folds of the American Constitution, be compelled to bow down to the narrow contracted notions of Apostate Christianity? Must we shut up our consciences in a nut shell, and be compelled to submit to the bigoted notions, and whims, and customs of the dark ages of popery, transferred to us through the superstitious of our fathers? Must we be slaves to custom and render homage to the soul-destroying, sickening influences of modern Christianity? No!"
- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, Vol.1, No.7, p.111

A Hypothetical Conversation

2007-11-15T00:01:00.000-06:00

Question: If Jesus Christ came back to earth and announced that the LDS church wasn't true would you still believe?

Answer: He wouldn't do that, so it wouldn't be Jesus who said it. Obviously he would be the anti-Christ.

Rebuttal: So anyone who claims that the LDS church is not true would be in agreement with the anti-Christ, in your opinion?

Answer: Yes, that's correct.

Question: Are you at the point in your testimony that there's nothing that could ever cause you to not believe the church is true?

Answer: Yes, there is nothing that will ever cause me to give up that belief.

Question: Even hypothetically?

Answer: No. To spend any time at all thinking about hypothetical reasons is to give equal time to the adversary, and I won't do that.

Question: If it weren't true, would you want to know it?

Answer: No. I wouldn't want to know anything that may destroy my belief. I take great pains to avoid reading materials published by those who would try to persuade me to doubt, and I refuse to give into that temptation. I believe that Satan tries very hard to get faithful Mormons to leave. He did it to you...

Question: So, you sincerely believe that my choice to leave was because of the work of Satan?

Answer: Yes. I sincerely do. You gave into the temptation, you didn't trust what your teachers taught you, you questioned their inspiration and their authority in spiritual matters and you went on your own quest. That's why you can't be sealed to our family anymore. Your rebellious nature prevents us from being united in the Celestial Kingdom.

Question: And you think that if you aren't careful around me, you might hear some things that come into direct opposition to what you believe, so rather than having to weigh the evidence in your own mind, you would rather depend on the guidance of your church? Does that make life easier, not having to make these kinds of decisions on a daily basis?

Answer: Even know I can see Satan working in you... You know that's not what I said or implied. What I stated is that your rebellious nature is what caused you to go looking for answers from outside the church, and once you got the answers that would give you an excuse to quit keeping God's commandments, you left. That was Satan's trap and you fell straight into it. I'm not going to make that same mistake...

Question: Have you ever considered that it might be Satan's trap to keep you from questioning this doctrine, to keep you bound to your leaders, doing everything in lockstep with their commands, never turning your head to either side and searching for truth with the mind and reasoning powers God bestowed upon you for your use?

Answer: You're just trying to cause me to doubt my beliefs again. Only an agent of Satan would do that...

Response: I believe that this thing you call "Satan" would be much more subtle. It's easier to comfort you with many soothing lies than to confront you with truths you are too afraid to hear.

Answer: I am not afraid to hear the truth, because I already have the truth. You are the deluded one, not me...

Response: Sure I am. My mistake. Have fun living in your box where Satan can't get you. Or is it where Satan won't let you out...I keep getting them confused...

Answer: Oh, don't worry about me. I have all the knowledge I need. I don't need to search for answers to unasked questions like you. I am content with what has been given to me, not prideful and rebellious like you.

Response: That's the fallback, isn't it? Those who leave are prideful, rebellious and under Satan's power. That's true for all those who leave, isn't it? I guess it matters more to me than it does to you, to get the truth no matter what the cost. Funny how this church divides and condemns families instead of uniting them, isn't it?

Answer: Goodnight. I'm done arguing with you. Nothing is going to change. I'm going to the Celestial Kingdom, and you could too if you would just set all this Anti-Mormon crap aside and come back to what you deep down know is the true church.

Response: Thanks for the final twist to the liver. You really know how to kick us Satan-loving heathens right where it counts, don't you?

Don’t question the Church, ever!!!

2007-11-14T15:43:00.000-06:00

A young woman’s discovery leads to severe punishment:
Link here

In the Endowment video, I noticed that it had fish and birds created on the 5th day of creation but also had all the animals created on the 5th day. Then Adam is created on the 6th day. After I got home from my travels to the Temple, I checked my Bible and sure enough. The animals were created on the 6th day, the same as man. Then I check the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. Both had the animals created on the 6th day. This started to really bug me so on my next trip to the Temple a month later, I paid special attention to the creation as it was portrayed. Yes, they had it wrong.

I made an appointment with my Bishop when I got home and told him about my discovery and asked for an explanation. Quite honestly, he replied that he had never noticed that discrepancy and would be going to the Temple the next weekend and would check it out. When he got back, he called me to come in for an appointment and the Stake President was also there. That should have been a clue that something was up. Anyway, my Bishop confirmed that in fact the Temple ceremony DID have the animals created on the 5th day. That he had called SLC to get clarification and was told by GA that it was "Newer Revelation". I asked him how I was supposed to teach my primary kids the creation story as it is in the Bible and Pearl of Great Price, knowing in my heart that it was wrong. The bottom line for them was, "Did I believe in new revelation?" I told them I thought new revelation should be consistent with prior revelation and not totally different. Wrong Answer. They questioned my commitment, my conduct, my thoughts, my studies, and readings. Something must have caused me to "lose my testimony." It was a 4-hour ordeal, I cried a lot, I didn't know how to answer them. Finally, they said since I was female, I was not allowed received revelation since I didn't have the priesthood. So trying to find an answer for the obvious conflict was beyond my spiritual reach. I received a letter a few days later from my stake president indicating that I could no longer wear my temple garments, I could attend services but could not take sacrament. I was welcome to continue paying my tithe. Within just a few days I had gone from what seemed a seemingly insignificant error to being an Apostate.

MY THOUGHTS:

Is the church EVER wrong? It seems to me that they can use the 'Newer Revelation' as a cover-up for mistakes in doctrine. They don't REALLY believe that the sequence of events in the Creation story have been re-clarified in this new order. They used it as an excuse to chastise someone who would dare to question their authority on the matter. Since she wouldn't accept it as a real answer, she was punished for her insubordination. And since she is lowly female, she has no way of receiving any answer independent from what the Brethren tell her. Females do no receive revelation, because they do no have priesthood authority, she is told. But that is also a lie. Females in the early Mormon church, the one that Joseph Smith founded, were given priesthood authority equal to the men, and this continued until Brigham Young and his successors slowly ebbed it away to nothing. The modern Mormon church has apostatized from it's original restoration. Modern revelation is nothing more than a series of cover stories designed to cut out dissenters and doubters. Fear is now the motivator to keep the members quiet.

What would possibly be gained by questioning authority? Your family and friends would avoid you, you would not be able to maintain an equal status with them if it were not for that golden recommend. The only way to keep those people close to you is to stay in step with them, do what's expected of you and never let a doubt or question interrupt your testimony. The only thing waiting for you on the other side is hostility, frustration and separation from them, the ones whose opinions you treasure the most. And as long as appearances and acceptance mean more to you than honesty, truth, and personal integrity, you'll stay right where you are, changing and molding your beliefs with every new issue of the Ensign magazine, or every General Conference broadcast.

You silly sheep. You can't see that you are guarded day and night by ravenous wolves who look for any excuse to cast you outside the fence and make you into an example for others to avoid. Or, like lobsters, your family and friends whom you hope to impress are the ones who keep pulling you down further into the basket, keeping you from seeing the daylight above. They don't even care to see it for themselves, but they aren't going to let you see it either.

What would be the worst thing about reading some article that comes into direct conflict with your beliefs? You might change your mind. That sort of thing is unimaginable in the Mormon world. And if you come to believe that you have been lied to, and you leave the church, would you be upset that your chance to be permanently sealed to your family in the afterlife is gone? I would be more upset that they told me such a thing existed in the first place! They do not have the power or authority to perform these multi-generational sealings, they cannot promise a link between families through temple rituals and handgrips. It's all been a huge hoax from the start. And it is often assumed that the real reason I am angry and hostile towards the church is because I am not ALLOWED to partake in this blessing. Let me be perfectly clear when I say this: I am angry because THEY believe their rituals have any binding authority, and they are smugly excluding me from it because of my UN-belief. I have NO belief that the Mormon church has any such power or authority to determine my worthiness for its blessings. I have NO belief that families who are sealed together in the temple are better off than families who are not. And I especially don't believe that you should work harder to maintain relationships with family you have been sealed to, and cut everyone else off because they aren't MORMON.

Here's what really bites my ass though:

An individual that I know has maintained a relationship of sorts with her ex-husband, his new wife, and his entire family, even though the central cause of their divorce was HIS arrest and conviction of molesting as many as 10 children, including a niece and a nephew of HERS, and because of this temple sealing that they had 15 years ago, and the children they have that were born "in the covenant", she feels perfectly justified in continuing on with attending family events on her ex-husband's side, including weddings and family reunions, EVEN THOUGH she is remarried AND her new husband has adopted the kids as his own. They even go bowling once a month with her ex husband and his new wife, (who knows that she can't have any children with him because he's a sex offender), AND they invite the ex husband and his new wife over for events the children are involved in, (even thought the niece and nephew live in the same town and are never aware that he is around) AND they've even had dinner together at her house with the children referring to him as "Uncle", knowing very little about the circumstances that led him to be separated from them. AND ALL OF THIS IS IN THE NAME OF MORMONISM!!!

What a f*cked up plan of Heavenly Father's this is?! Why the hell would I want to be part of that system? If families are forever, I don't want any part of that family, the ones who stay put together in dangerous relationships and risk the serious psychological unhinging of their children from being forced to include such sick individuals in their lives forever, all in the name of MORMONISM.

That's why I hate this church. They teach you that your common sense and rational thinking are secondary to promoting the faith and maintaining family connectedness (as long as their all Mormons too). What would happen on the day that this individual decided to research the church history and doctrine and decide to leave it? This family that she has fought so hard to keep together and maintain relationships with, all in the name of Mormonism would soundly reject her, reject her children, reject her place among them, the righteous Mormons that they are and have been for generations. And since she is a convert, with no claims to family sealing in her own family, she has no choice but to avoid doubts and reinvest herself solidly in the Mormon belief system.

I was lucky. I had virtually no one to upset when I left. Just my mom and sister. I didn't have to worry about disrupting a plan of family togetherness, since there is NO WAY my mom will be sealed to a man in this lifetime (and even if she did, I wouldn't get sealed to HIM). None of my other brothers or sisters will ever rejoin the church, none of their spouses will ever join, no children are being raised Mormon, except my sister's. What's the f'n point of all of this? There's no way my mom will get what the Mormons promised her 22 years ago. She is working for nothing. There will be nothing to gain except the futile hope that she might just be worthy to be assigned to 'another worthy man' once she gets to the afterlife. Someone she doesn't know and has never met. But that's the best she can hope for.

As for my sister, she fared a little better. But she can't leave, ever. Too much invested. Too much to lose if she were to start questioning. Stupid Cult. I wish I had never heard of it.

Why Bridges are Impossible between Mormonism and the rest of the world

2007-11-04T13:01:00.000-06:00

Please, it's like trying to build a bridge from New York to Kolob. You can't build a bridge between fantasy and reality, and since the Mormons will first insist that you "respect their beliefs" by refraining from discussing them in the first place, there is no chance of any such "bridge" becoming a two-way crossing anyway. The temple is off limits, the garments are off limits, the signs, tokens and hand grips are off limits, bringing up anything out of the Journal of Discourses gets immediately dismissed because it's not official canonized scripture, and anything else you bring up gets set on the shelf of : We have been teaching these things for years, nothing is hidden in the church, you're just ignorant and lazy if you didn't know "X" before now....

There is no accountability of leadership in the church. If there is any wrong, it is because of individual member actions, not the organization. Blame individuals to save the reputation of the organization at all costs. Burn bridges if necessary. The church must go on, it must survive any condemnation, questioning, examination, or ridicule. Lie for the Lord, withhold key points of doctrine until investigators have been baptized, "milk before meat"....

I've narrowed it down to the top five:

Was it normal to marry 14 year old girls?

Polygamy was practiced because of "too many women, not enough men"?

Should we judge Joseph by present-day standards?

Did Joseph used a seer stone in a hat to "translate" the Book of Mormon?

Who knows more about ancient Egyptian writings, today's archaeologists, or Joseph Smith?

Are the American Indians descendants of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon?

Even if just ONE remains true, it's enough for me to stay out of this organization, and urge others to closely examine their beliefs against the coldness of reality. Planet Kolob, or Planet Earth.

Building Bridges

2007-11-01T10:52:00.000-05:00

Well, I've had nearly three weeks off from blogging. I thought it would do some good for me to clear my head and rid myself of some negative vibes coming from posting about Mormonism for a while. I've spent some time floating around the message boards of apologetics and recovery, trying to pinpoint the source of my anger and frustration so I can work on dissolving it. I participated in a few discussions on both sides of the coin, and now I am ready to share my thoughts here.

One of the better discussions I was involved in was about maintaining good relationships with Mormon family members after leaving the church. It seems that there is lots of hostility from members who come across sites like mine, because I really have nothing nice to say in support of their beliefs. To a Mormon who expects 'confirmation of the Spirit' in order to discern truth from lies, my site will come across as packed full of hate. There are no warm fuzzies here.

I also had a chance to briefly discuss my position on an apologetic site during my break. I shared with them my reasons for departing the church, and was met with hostile responses that laid the blame for my unbelief back on my shoulders. It seems that what I had learned about the church's history should never have been a surprise to me in the first place, and if I hadn't been so "prideful, ignorant, lazy, or stupid" I would have known all along about Joseph's polygamy and sharing wives, and his marriage to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. If I had cared to check out books that are available in EVERY ward library, I would have known all about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and I would have had knowledge of the teachings of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, because these things were taught in every Seminary class, and were always (supposedly) available to every member. Then I was informed that it was my personal responsibility to discover these on my own, and that the church has no obligation to bring out all theses facts to every member. That's the purpose of 'personal study' after all. So, in a nutshell, I was to blame for my failure to learn about these troubling items of history, and I am also to blame for my subsequent departure from the church for my inability to maintain my testimony in the face of it. This is the attitude from the posters on the apologetic web site that I visited for about a week. It is clear to me that no matter what else, the attitude will be 'the church is perfect, the people are not'. Blame the victim, blame the apostate for their own unbelief, but never blame the church for withholding information, or whitewashing history to make it more palatable to investigators. If you have a problem with the church, it's your problem to overcome, not the church.

Now, I will share sippets of conversation and posts from various sites, with my remarks in blue type.

If the LDS church leadership stopped teaching its members that those who leave the church due so due to all sorts of personal failings (like desiring to sin, pride, arrogance, listening to “Satan”) - would that improve relations between Mormons and Ex-Mormons?

So how to stop the cycle of anger between Mormons and Ex-Mormons? It would have to be stopped at its point of origin.

So what is the point of origin?

The point of origin is when we were all in the childhood “home”, which in this case, would be Mormonism. We all heard certain myths repeated over and over. One myth is that “people leave the LDS church for the following reasons:” (insert list of reasons all based on personal flaws, weaknesses, and sins).

Then we grow up. Some of us actually become those who leave. Those myths are still in our heads. Those myths are still in the heads of those who remain in the church.

So what happens?

Still believing Mormons view their apostate friends and family members with suspicion and even fear. Apostates know their family members and friends now view them with suspicion and fear. This makes apostates angry, because they know why they left the church, and it usually had nothing to do with the myth taught in the LDS church. Or perhaps it doesn’t even make the apostate angry. Perhaps it makes the apostate sad and anxious to correct the myth. So the apostate explains his/her reasons for leaving the church, wanting to show the difference between his/her reasons and the myth. For example:

Apostate: I left the church because I no longer believed. I cannot believe God would work through Joseph Smith when he was marrying other men’s wives behind his own wife’s back, when he was marrying young women assigned to his guardianship. I cannot believe in the historicity or divinity of the BoM when JS translated it by looking in a rock in his hat, which is the exact same method he used to find slippery buried treasures in the earth – with no success. I cannot believe in the BoA when the papyrus have been found and are Egyptian funerary documents. (etc)

Believer: You’re attacking the church!! You’re attacking my faith! You are mean and psychologically disturbed because you can’t leave the church alone!!

Then, depending on personalities, the apostate gives up or gets even more defensive.

This is the cycle of anger between Mormons and Ex-Mormons. The only way for that cycle to truly stop (other than band-aids here and there) is for the Mormon church leaders to STOP teaching their bigoted ideas about apostates in the first place.

Continuing to pretend that this is something we can each fix on our own is baloney. The only entity that has the power to fix it will never do so – so we’re all left just trying to figure out how to maintain relationships.

One of the ways some Ex-Mormons deal with this constant frustration is to vent on Internet boards, or personal blogs, often in order to avoid venting in REAL life with intimate associates. And if that upsets you, then think about your beliefs in regards to anyone who chooses to leave the church because of UN-belief. Did you automatically substitute that reason with some hidden sin that hasn’t been resolved? Exactly. That’s the hurdle we have to jump in order to regain acceptance by our friends and family who choose to remain loyal and faithful to the church. Even though this blog is clearly specified to be for personal catharsis, you can’t stay away. You have to keep coming back to see what else the “evil apostate” is saying about your church. It’s like a scab you can’t help pick. And then you whine about the scab bleeding.

In the real world, proven relationship strategies always include identifying the problems on one or both sides of a relationship first, then second, obtaining commitment from the offending party/parties to stop contributing to the problem, and THEN AND ONLY THEN do the two parties move on to reconciliation and moving forward.

What I find interesting is that even after I have left, I have still been victimized by the church because of the attitudes taught and sustained by my family members who remain. As long as they are asked, “Do you associate or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?” , that tension, hostility, and defensiveness will remain. And it is not MY hostility. It is voiced in the attitudes and beliefs of my family members that are still faithful LDS. In order to justify their answer to the bishop, they go out of their way to make sure they are NOT sympathetic to me. They make sure that their association with me is kept at a bare minimum so that I don’t tarnish their integrity and honesty when they go up to be interviewed for worthiness. This is the most painful, anguishing part of leaving Mormonism, knowing that those who remain see you as someone they must avoid or limit contact with, so that they can truthfully answer the question of loyalty to their church. That is the source of my anger.

Can I change that? NO! The only side in a position to change this is the church itself. Until they stop insisting that there must be a space as wide as a valley between Mormons and apostates, there will never be any bridge building between the two. The church that calls itself the only “true” church has no interest in creating relationships with people who do not hold the same beliefs. They will always be seen as lacking in some way. Even worse for those who left the church, because they are viewed as people who really deep down believe the gospel, but can’t abide by the rules and wish to rebel against them in favor of “wordly “things. This kind of thinking is what keeps the faithful loyal to the church. They don’t want to question, because it is viewed as dis-loyalty. They won’t have discourse with apostates, even if they are members of their own family (husbands and wives, children, grandchildren) because this is association with apostates, which could lead into sympathizing with apostates. They can’t let themselves see it from our point of view, and that’s what keeps real dialogue from happening. Real dialogue is a faith-destroyer. Real dialogue is a chance to see things in different ways than those prescribed as “safe”. Real dialogue can never happen without real effort, and it can’t be shouldered by the apostate alone.

Wanna know what really gets me? Being told that anger serves no purpose and I should move on with my life. This is to shun me into silence and attempt to control me YET AGAIN. I know that I am having an impact on others, and the defenders of the faith want me to SHUT UP about it. So, if they continue to tell me that I don’t seem to be happier, that I have anger issues, that I am spending all this wasted time and effort being angry when I could be out living my life, that is their way of trying to make the anger I feel somehow MY fault, and not the religion itself. After all, they don’t shout from the pulpit that all apostates and non-believers must be shunned and treated harshly at family gatherings (if they are invited at all). The church doesn’t actively tell their members what to do if someone in their family decides to resign. But that interview question that all faithful temple-recommend carrying members have to answer and examine in their own lives still exists.

“Do I associate or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?”
What does that mean?
Do I sit across the table from my apostate sister at Thanksgiving? If I do, will I appear “sympathetic”?
Will it be seen as “association with an apostate” ?
How about if I call her up on the phone? Is that going to be called “associating with a known apostate?”
Can I answer my interview question faithfully on a Sunday, knowing I just had dinner with my apostate sister last night?

And let’s not forget the central role of the mother, who has been advised throughout her life as a Mormon that her children will not depart from the teachings of the gospel if they are brought up correctly. When a child decides to resign, what does that say about Mom? She didn’t do her job right! Her child is VOLUNTARILY leaving the church, that must mean she wasn’t faithful enough, didn’t work hard enough, didn’t prepare the child thoroughly to withstand the teachings of the world. It is HER failure as a mother that shines through to those around her. And she will try anything, say anything, do anything in order to bring that child back, whether it is by shunning, by guilt, by loud crying and coercion or outright blackmail. It is her duty to make sure that her children come with her to the Celestial Kingdom, and if anyone of them fails to make it, she has failed in her earthly role, the only role God created women to fulfill, and she couldn’t do it fully. She won’t receive her full blessings because of this failure. Her other children may follow suit if they associate with the “apostate child”. The family strife is endless. Don’t even get me started on husbands and wives with apostate-threatening spouses.

We are called sinners, betrayers, fallen-away, troubled, doubting, trusting in the arm of the flesh, unwilling to follow the commandments, having problems with the Word of Wisdom, or masturbation, we are humiliated, marginalized and demoted to second-class EVERY DAY that the church keeps this single question in place on their list of “worthiness measurements” and they only way that true healing is going to occur is for that question to disappear. It shouldn’t be a measure of worthiness on an individual to have those around him choose to leave. Yet it shakes the faithful to the very core by even knowing one person who left the church because of unbelief. This single question is the cause of the divide between us. And until the church stops measuring the worth of its faithful by this standard, nothing will ever change. Ex-Mormons will still be angry because of the treatment they receive from their friends and family, and Mormons will still feel hostile and defensive when someone they know decides to resign and go find another path.

Here's my suggestion for how Mormons and Ex-Mormons can begin to build bridges: Delete the following question from ALL worthiness interviews:

"Do you associate or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?"

This one question in the temple recommend/worthiness-for-any-calling interviews is the major stumbling block between those who leave and those who stay.

Actually it's the terms "associate" and "sympathize". How are they defined? What are you allowed to say and do? What are the limits?

Because the church does not define "associate" or "sympathize" to their members, they are left alone to determine what it means to "associate with" or "sympathize with" an apostate. Many do not know how to define it, so they cut off ties completely. (Which is akin to cutting off a finger for a hangnail). Some make cordial attempts at continuing "association with" apostate members who are family, but stop short of "sympathize" when it comes to hearing anything about their views, their experiences, or their reasons for leaving the church. They are instead choosing to remain true to this question asked of them, and keep the 'association' part surface level only. Then there are those who try to fellowship the apostate family member, in an effort to bring them back to the church so that the question will no longer apply to that individual they are trying to "win back". There is never any real dialogue in this case either, because the expected outcome is that the individual will come back, thus taking pressure off the member so that their answer to the question will remain in tact. It's not about the person who is hurting and in shock, it's about making sure the member won't have to lie when answering this question next time around.

When all else fails, the member doesn't really have a choice but to condemn the apostate, because it's now THEIR fault that shunning and blame have taken the place of companionship and trust. The question is still, "Do you associate with or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?" And until that is removed as a marker of worthiness for each member of the LDS faith, no real bridges can ever be built. That is the source of the anger many Ex-Mormons feel. The loss of companionship and sympathy from their former friends and family. It's really tough to realize that all your close relationships were solely based on your adherence to the same belief system. Once that faith is traded in, so is the foundation for any dialogue.

I submit that the church needs to stop requiring their members to limit or stop their association with or sympathy for apostates, and let the truth stand or fall on its own. If people are going to leave, let them do so, and if they can convince others to leave, then the church must not be everything it claims to be. If the church wants only the strongest of the faithful, and the ‘most choice’ spirits among the children of God, those will be the ones who stay no matter what the apostates say or do.

Of course if the church were to do this, people might start talking to apostates and build bridges of trust and understanding, maybe even share some knowledge and ideas. Wow, that would be terrible, wouldn't it?

If you (or anyone else) would embark upon a search for truth, the very first thing you would have to do is dismiss the "warm fuzzies" as an indicator of truth. What we have been taught as Mormons is to "sieve" all information through the Holy Spirit Indicator, and place things that agree with our current world view in the "truth" category, and all things that contradict our current beliefs must be placed in the "lies" category. This is what many of us are taught growing up in the church. Now, once in a while, we break free from that pattern, and come across some book, or web site, or TV special that presents Mormonism in a way that seems unpleasant, shocking, or upsetting. That does not mean it is NOT true. It simply means that it is different than what we have heard before, and may be worth investigating further.

It is very difficult to break the habit of sifting information through this Holy Spirit Indicator, because the pattern has been ingrained in us so constantly. (And is it really any wonder why?) It is our only defense and protection for our testimony in the church, but it MUST be done if you sincerely want to know why it is that those who leave feel the need and compulsion to put up web sites like these. I have spent hours and days researching every conceivable argument, floating back and forth between FAIR and FARMS essays, and all of the web sites out there made by people who have chosen to leave.

There is a vast difference between what the church presents as "true history" and what outside non-secular and un-interested historians would label as "true history". Even when LDS historians attempt to reveal too much "truth", the leadership steps in to curb and control it:

Apostle Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," speech delivered at the 1981 Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium:

“There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work... There is a temptation... to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith-promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful... In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary... In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it... The fact that something is already in print or available from another source is no excuse for using potentially damaging materials in writing, speaking, or teaching: ‘Do not spread disease germs!’”

If you really believe that there is such a thing as "learning too much" or "revealing too much", then by all means, continue to scream at those who talk openly about things just because it is shocking, upsetting, or uncomfortable. But consider that it just might be true, even though it isn't 'faith promoting' like the church would present it. Truth does not have to be wrapped up in a bundle of ‘faith’ in order to remain pure. There is no such requirement, unless you are trying to protect your beliefs from changing. This is called “working backwards from a testimony”. Here’s an example of the circular logic necessary to maintain your position:

1. I believe that the church is true.
2. If the church is true, it makes the Book of Mormon true.
3. If the BoM is true, it makes Joseph a prophet of God.
4. If Joseph is a prophet of God, it means God picked him to organize the church.
5. You wouldn’t question God, would you?
6. Therefore the church is true.

This is right in line with a talk given by Thomas Monson (February 2001 Ensign) . . .

"First Presidency Message":

"Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.

Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it'."

This BOTHERS me. I've always really liked Pres. Monson, but he's telling people to just turn off their brains. Don't ask questions, and pretend they don't exist. Shut your eyes, plug your ears and just keep saying "I know the church is true" no matter what.

And isn't he just partially admitting that if you pursue those thoughts, if you think it through critically, that your faith will fail? If faith was well-founded, how could it be harmed by additional information, study, open discussion, and rational thought?

And if testimonies were built SOLELY on the witness of the spirit and NOT at all on personal opinions, couldn't the Holy Ghost STILL give someone a witness of the truth AFTER studying science and asking the hard questions?

The church seems to think that studying and questioning is a sin, (at the very least it's dangerous) because it causes you to lose the spirit. And it does seem that those who question and study DO tend to leave the church. But I have a different explanation. I think the spirit is your own feelings. And your feelings change when you have more information. It's hard to feel the spirit when your brain is telling you it's BS.

So much for "The Glory of God is Intelligence", and seeking after truth.

Monson is imploring people to ignore the best route to intelligence: scientific inquiry. Instead he advocates faith, which is superstitious hope, no matter what other words people use to describe it.

Notice when they fear science is leading people away, they call it "so called science." How preposterous to presume the only real science is that which agrees with their myths.

Why doesn't he just use his faith instead of science to get to his next overseas testimony-fest? Because faith isn't going to get him there. Science will.

His message clearly pleads with people to live in a box, and slap themselves if they start to want a glimpse outside. If they fear investigation and questioning will shake faith, it is an admission that the basis of faith was groundless.

He should feel safe. It is difficult to disrupt the lives of people who live in faith-bubbles. How do you uproot something with no roots?

White-Washed History : Is the LDS church responsible for leaving out "troublesome facts"?

2007-10-07T12:52:00.000-05:00

Quote from October 6th General Conference session:

M. Russell Ballard

“Those who are curious in this general way deserve clear and accurate information that comes directly from those of us who are members. So they do not have to rely on the incomplete answers, half-truths, or false statements that may come from the media or other outside voices. The many misunderstandings and false information about the Church are somewhat our own fault for not clearly explaining who are and what we believe.”

This apostle is talking about the Mormon church getting a lot of spotlight these days because of Mitt Romney's candidacy. This talk he gave during conference was sort of a pep talk to members on how to teach non-Mormons about the church. Keep-It-Simple-Stupid method was discussed. Ballard's four points were facts, faith, family and fruits of the the restored gospel.

See this site for a review of Saturday's speakers.

In my case, I would take issue with the fact that the church doesn't even provide information to their own members about past issues like polygamy, for example. The only thing Ballard pretty well said about it was:

“Polygamy a, limited practice in the early pioneer days of the church, was discontinued in 1890, some 117 years ago.”

But that's not entirely true. Polygamy was still practiced as late as 1904, in secret, and in direct opposition to law enforcement officials who had to be brought into Utah to take over the courts and the governor's office. Men were imprisoned for continuing the practice, if they could be found and tried, and only when the judges were no longer faithful LDS members themselves did the church finally give up the underground rebellion of continuing polygamy. BUT, that does not mean that it is no longer the belief. It has never been removed from doctrine, it has merely been suspended from active practice. The church still maintains the belief that polygamy will be allowed again at some time in the future, that it is God's will, that it is the only way for complete exaltation in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Men can still be sealed to more than one woman in the temple, even if secularly divorced from her and she is still alive married to someone else. She cannot be sealed to the new husband unless she gets permission from the first to cancel the sealing previously done. But he can go on to marry again without canceling the first. And it is still the belief that he can choose to call both of his wives forth from the grave on the day of the Resurrection, and he, knowing both of their names given to each in the temple, can choose to retain whichever wife or wives he so chooses. What wife would refuse to go with him, after all, if he does indeed hold the power to bring them into Celestial Glory if he so desires?

All the power rests on the husband, the priesthood holder, and all the women can do is hope that they are worthy to be called forth...

Anyway, my main issue here is that the members are led to believe that they possess all the knowledge of the past and present teachings of the church, and can adequately defend any negative position others may present. I would categorically state that this is false. Members I was acquainted with during my 20+ years as a Mormon, in my opinion, have no idea that Joseph was polygamous and had as many as 33 wives, according to familysearch.org. (File Number: 9KGL-W2) Members that I grew up with, or have known me since childhood, would adamantly deny that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone in a hat to dictate scripture. And I would be hard pressed to find one member of my old ward who would be knowledgeable about Joseph's various vision accounts when speaking in public or recounting his experiences to converts, and that the 'official version' didn't appear in print until 1842.

These are the things that anti-Mormons will bring up against Mormons, to try to show them that they don't even know enough about the church's past teachings to defend against them with intelligent arguments. The only tool they have is, "My church never taught that, you are lying!" Then comes the day when they check out fairwiki, run by fairlds.org, an apologetic website promoting and defending the church, and they read article after article defending Joseph's polygamy practice with teenage girls, or the seer stone in a hat method of translation, or the various "First Vision" stories where Joseph first named the angel Nephi instead of Moroni. The church apologists are defending these allegations, but the regular members are unaware of the underlying history behind the accusations in the first place. And that's why the church is loosing
it's membership: failure to disclose the troublesome history themselves.

The Internet seems to be more of a challenge to the Mormon church than so-called 'anti-Mormons'. Before the arrival of the information age, any nay-sayers could be ignored and lumped together as ignorant of the beliefs. Now that Google has become a household word, it's unimaginable that there could be Mormons who have never heard of Joseph's polygamy, or the stone in the hat, but it happens. And that is mostly due to the second message that the church sends to its believers: "Correct" information comes from "trusted" sources. In other words, do not trust the Internet, for they are liars and deceivers. Yet I got MY information straight off of fairlds.org.

Now the tactic seems to be: "We told you over and over, its been in our teachings forever, so why are you claiming you never heard these things? We've been teaching this stuff since Seminary, it's not the church's fault that you never paid attention in Sunday School! Why are you blaming the church for your ignorance? All you had to do is check out a few books from any LDS library, the information is right there! What do you think personal study is all about?"

Oh, yeah. That will work. Blame the uninformed. Tell them that if they had never heard of Fanny Alger or Helen Mar Kimball, it's their own fault. Insist that the head in the hat method of translation was taught in Seminary for years. Make them feel completely stupid for their shock at learning about the various First Vision accounts and that Brigham Young taught that blacks would never gain rights to the priesthood authority because they were of the race of Cain. Let's see how many members stay in a church that makes them feel completely lied to and tricked when they find out the rest of the story...

LDS Church Young Women's Manual Lesson-- How to be Submissive to Men

2007-09-26T16:48:00.000-05:00

I never would have believed it if I hadn't read it for myself...

On the lds.org website, the Young Women's manual is available online. Lesson 11 is titled, "Appreciating the Bishop". In this lesson, girls ages 12-17 are taught by their leaders to respect and revere the bishop of the ward.

Some quotes from the manual: [bold is my emphasis]

“The bishop presides over every person in the ward and directs their local church activities. … All of your adolescent life you will be under the direction of the bishop. He will appoint teachers and supervisors to do his work, but he will be very much interested in your progress. Your life here will be constantly weighed by him, for he is the judge of your worthiness … to receive higher ordinances, and to be worthy to go to the Temple.

“If you are going to work in the Church system you will learn to be obedient to your bishop. If you get into trouble you will be wise if you seek his advice and counsel. He has been designated by the Lord and appointed by the President of the Church to be responsible for you and to make sure you progress according to your worthiness and ability. …

“… He will see you every year at tithing settlement. He will interview you. … If you go on a mission he will be the one who makes the first inquiry as to your fitness and ability to serve in this capacity” (S. Dilworth Young, More Precious than Rubies [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1959], pp. 40–41).

Is it any small wonder that men like Warren Jeffs come to power and control, when the members are so willing to submit to his authority?

I am also quite sick at the thought that the LDS church seeks to distance themselves from the FLDS sect in every possible news story, but they teach their young girls the same kinds of attitudes that the 'radical polygamists' teach. Women are to obey their bishops, seek his counsel and guidance, submit to closed door interviews where the bishop can ask any manner of personal questions, and set aside their personal boundaries in order to be considered worthy to obtain higher ordinances or attend the temple. This puts the bishop in a position to take advantage of many young girls, all with the seeming consent of the parents. The girls are quite vulnerable and make easy targets when they are taught to 'obey' their bishop because he is called of God.

In the LDS church, bishops are not trained clergy. They are farmers, they are business professionals, they are bus drivers and lawyers. They have little to no training on how to counsel people in distress or crisis, other than what is provided in the Church Handbook of Instructions. They often focus on minutiae of worthiness issues, like hemlines and shirt colors, and skip over really getting to know the members personally. But the interviews behind closed doors are the real danger to 12 year old girls. There, sequestered and alone, they bravely face a man who could be a complete stranger to them, yet they are to treat him as they would a father figure, and obey his counsel. This is taking a huge risk, and it is shameful that parents don't see the potential danger. I know a few men in the ward that I used to attend who were just on the edge of creepy, and if they had ever been elevated to the level of bishop, lots of people would have gone inactive. Yet there are the occasional wolves in sheep's clothing, just waiting for their turn at being the bishop so they can have access to all the young teens in the ward. It happens. Even home teachers have been known to take advantage of the youth in the ward, and parents are often unwitting accomplices because of the blind trust they have in "callings".

Mormons are so unaware of their own history, they can't even see the stark resemblance between Joseph Smith's Mormonism and Warren Jeffs' Mormonism. Warren Jeffs was convicted of being an accomplice to rape for arranging and forcing a marriage between a 14 year old girl and her 19 year old cousin.

Jeffs advised her to pray and to submit to her husband, learn to love him, and bear his children -- or risk losing her "eternal salvation," the woman testified.

Contrast this story with that of 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, who was a plural wife of Joseph Smith:

"he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household; all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

Oh, but the similarities don't end there....

Warren Jeffs is the spiritual leader of a sect that calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints. They teach polygamy, blood atonement, and isolation from the federal government, just as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught. They hold to the original teachings of the church, and accuse the Mormons of being a break-away branch of the true church. They are unapologetic when confronted about their polygamy practices, and have nothing but contempt for LDS members, because their church gave up polygamy to obtain statehood. Joseph Smith was so determined to have a kingdom of Latter-Day Saints that he uprooted his followers numerous times so that they could practice their religion away from the interference of the federal government. Brigham Young accomplished that for a period of 40 years before the U.S. troops came banging on the doorstep, arresting anyone they could find practicing polygamy. In 1890, the LDS gave up the practice, but only on the secular level. It is still acceptable practice to be married to more than one wife in the eyes of the church, and is still part of the original doctrine. The only difference between LDS and FLDS in this respect is that the LDS are covert about the practice, and do not discuss it, even openly deny it to the media and to the world.

Now, granted, the men who are polygamously married to another wife through the temple sealing ordinance is under no obligation to support her, co-habitate with her, or otherwise maintain contact with her, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the LDS church, he is still sealed to her, and has the right to claim her in the afterlife as his wife, if he hopes to obtain the highest level of celestial glory. She cannot be sealed to anyone else without a cancellation of this marriage, and has to obtain HIS permission to do so. She also has to be interviewed extensively for any past sins and for worthiness issues prior to being 'given' to another man. But HE does not have to take these steps to be sealed to another woman in the temple. This is in the LDS church. So, what would you call this, if it's not 'spiritual polygamy'? And this is how they get away with saying they are not associated with polygamy, it was done away with many years ago, stop persecuting us, etc. Those of us who have left the church KNOW that it is still practiced in the temple, and in the LDS view, that supercedes the temporal law anyway.

Warren Jeffs rules his church with an iron fist, and any who oppose him are cast out, excommunicated, cut off from parents or children, and personal belongings, even wives and children are assigned to other 'more worthy' men. Joseph Smith was married to as many as 33 wives himself, some of whom were ALREADY wives of other men. If any man opposed him, he was publicly denounced, excommunicated, property seized and redistributed, and the wife was taken anyway. Most of the time, Joseph merely sent them on missions to England and took the wife while her husband was away. He might come back two years later to discover his wife mysteriously pregnant, and then the choice to leave her and their children behind or stay and submit to 'spiritual wifery' would have to be faced.

Questions:
If polygamy was supposed to help the church 'be fruitful and multiply', why couldn't these women do that with their OWN husbands?
They can't be pregnant more than once at a time, right? So why would it be necessary for her to be having sex with Joseph Smith, if her husband could get her pregnant just as easily?

Growing up in the church, I was told that polygamy was a small practice and only used to secure the futures of widows, or young girls with no parents. Now that I have learned the truth about the practice, and that the source of the teaching was Joseph, not Brigham, and that other men's wives were given in plural marriage, I can't fathom how the LDS church can claim that they have nothing in common with the FLDS church. They have the same roots, and the same doctrine. They teach the young women early on to obey the bishop, follow his counsel, he is responsible for you, he knows what is best for you, etc. It's not that much of a leap...

Mormon Church Authorities Revoke Underwear Privileges

2007-09-24T20:11:00.000-05:00

This story has been all over the message boards...click here for the full article

Quote:

"In a letter to Lamborn dated Sept. 2, Molina noted that a disciplinary council had been held Aug. 19 and excommunication was ordered. Lamborn, 49, a Mesa resident who has been a priesthood leader for 20 years, was informed he was no longer a church member, could not “enjoy any membership privileges, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings.”

***My Thoughts***

Ok, there are SO many things wrong with this story, I hardly know where to begin.

In short, this guy decided to tell his bishop that he no longer believes the church is true, and his "authority priesthood hierarchy" holds a meeting without him to decide what to do to limit his influence on the other members. They decide to ex-communicate him AND announce it to all the wards in his stake, "to let people know if there is a danger to them, such as him teaching doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church"

Danger? What, this guy was carrying knives and guns around with him? Was he was threatening to hurt someone? No, the danger is that he might share his ideas with others and turn on the critical thinking skills the church works so hard to dampen with their endless mantras of "follow the prophet, he knows the way". The only 'danger' that he represented was that he may actually have a valid point of view, and the church authorities thought it would be best to discredit him with the shroud of excommunication before he could talk to anyone else.

The church authorities know what stigma comes with the word 'excommunication'.

So, Brother Lamborn went to the press. And now he's got the whole Internet buzzing with this news.

I just have to step back and make a comment on the church's withdrawal of "privileges" like wearing garments, and paying tithing.

This guy probably didn't own any other underwear besides garments. Now the church has ordered him to cease wearing them, by their own special decree. And just how do they propose to enforce this law upon a man who has been excommunicated simply because he can't believe their church is what it claims to be? Is there a special committee on 'underwear wearing' that each stake musters forth to check out members worthiness factor? Are there now going to be spot checks at sacrament meetings?

Good Gravy! I can't believe they actually put that in PRINT!!! "You may not wear garments". Underwear is a privilege?!! Didn't he rightfully buy and pay for those garments? Wasn't he REQUIRED to wear them at all times and forgo all wordly underpants? And now they are going to go to his house and confiscate them?!! AS IF!!! Who the hell do they think they are, telling people what kind of skivvies they CAN and CANNOT wear?

Once I left the church, way before I sent in my letter, the garmies were the first things I did away with, on my own. What makes them think he is still wearing them voluntarily!? Under the temple covenants we made, we were committed to wearing them, because that was a reminder of the promises we made to God, in the temple. Once we figured out those promises were made under false pretenses of the church being what they claim, the covenant dissipates. God doesn't CARE what our underpants look like, Mormons!!!

The utter GALL they have to hold a counsel meeting and decide to paint him as an evil apostate who is a 'danger' to others because he might teach "doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church". Aren't the people of the church smart enough on their own to discern truth? Can't they be trusted to hear him out and then decide on their OWN that he is a 'danger'? Apparently not, so the Stake President decides to announce from the pulpit that Brother Lamborn is an apostate, is not to be trusted, cannot partake of privileges of underwear-wearing, or paying 10% of his yearly income to the uplifting and sustaining of the church, cannot speak, pray, or partake of the LORD'S SACRAMENT because he doesn't believe every one of the truths the church teaches. He went and found his own "truth". And that makes him someone to be avoided.

Is there anything here that does NOT sound like a cult to you?

They are trying to 'shame' him by publicly humiliating him, and the only thing that is happening is that people are going to want to know WHY he doesn't believe anymore. That Stake President just unwittingly helped lead hundreds of his faithful members to the very sources of information he was seeking to protect them from, seemingly because it is his responsibility to shield those with weak testimonies from topics that are 'not very useful' for promoting faith.

Oh, and a word about tithing while I'm at it...

Paying 10% of your yearly income to the church is a privilege that Brother Lamborn now HAS to give up? Wow. Looks to me like he just got a RAISE. Wonder how he'll sleep at night with all that money in the bank and his bills paid off. Hmm... Brother Lamborn, we have decided that you will not be allowed to finance the 2 Billion dollar mall project going on in Downtown Salt Lake. There, that'll teach him.

Why should he feel bad for being excommunicated because he found out about Joseph's 33 wives? They are listed on the familysearch.org website!! For anyone to see if they chose to learn about it!! But, that wasn't the problem really, it was Brother Lamborn's REACTION to the news.

There are over 25 pages of comments on this article from the East Valley Tribune. Quite a number of Mormon-faithful are deriding Brother Lamborn's discovery, and calling it "common knowledge', 'old news', and 'fully-known to most Mormons'. Oh, is that so? Then why are thousands leaving the church every year, even faster than new converts are coming in?! Do you think that Joseph's polygamy is part of the discussions given to investigators? No Way! We all now that 'too much truth, given without the proper authority and without the proper spirit, can be a faith destroyer'. (Quote from Boyd Packer)

I know that I was shocked and troubled when I first learned of it, and it sure the hell wasn't in seminary class or Gospel Doctrine!!! How the hell was I going to learn about it while I was stuck in Sunday school with 3-11 year olds teaching them to sing," Follow the Prophet"? I wasn't learning anything new, year after year. I was rehashing and teaching the surface doctrine, the 'fluffy bunny' stuff, to kids because that's what I was ASSIGNED to do. So all those Holier-than-Thou Mormons who know everything about Church History and still believe can kiss it, because that is NOT how the church operates everywhere. How arrogant to think that the church has ALWAYS been upfront about its history, when they take such large measures to shield their members from ever discussing it, and they excommunicate you for finding out!!!

I am SO glad I resigned, I took control, I told THEM that I was NO LONGER a member!!! Ha! None of their chastisements and admonitions made any impact upon me because I was no longer AFRAID of them!

If I had taken my concerns to the bishop, and convinced him that I actually had valid points and that I could possibly convince others of weaker testimonies that the teachings were false, he may have done the same to me, paint me as an apostate before I could resign of my choosing! And as it happens, I did try to convince some people to leave. AFTER I resigned. I will always have that in my corner. I decided THEY were wrong, so I LEFT.

And the whole reason I keep this blog alive is so that one day, when someone I know stops by and reads what I have written here, whether it's today or years down the road, they can come to know the truth is out there, they can take the control back for their lives, and they can stop living in a religion dictated by the choice of underbritches.

On the Autumnal Equinox

2007-09-22T16:09:00.000-05:00

An Angel Appears to Joseph--But Which One?

{These posts are from RfM}

[Yesterday], September 21, is the anniversary of the appearance of the angel Nephi to Joseph Smith, telling him of the existence of the sacred record buried in the Hill Cumorah. That was in 1823.

Yes, NEPHI!

The earliest printed account was in the Times and Seasons (1842) volume 3, no 12 page 753, where Joseph Smith tells of Nephi's visit:

"When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do, ... He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang."

Note that Joseph Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons.

The Millennial Star also reported the angel's name soon afterward as "Nephi", and "Nephi" was his name in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price (1851). Lucy Mack Smith's biography of JS also says his name was Nephi.

So, why is Moroni holding the trumpet on the top of Mormon temples? It should be Nephi!

And [today] it will be the 180th anniversary of the delivery of the plates to the prophet Joe (1827).

An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?

More bizarre but true Mormon History - starting 183 years ago yesterday...

September 22, 1823 - "The Angel" Moroni tells Smith to return to the Hill Cumorah in a Year with his oldest brother, Alvin

"Both early Mormon and non-Mormon sources agree that on 22 September 1823 Moroni required Smith to bring his oldest brother Alvin to the hill the following year in order to obtain the gold plates."

One of Smith's devout followers, Joseph Knight, recorded Smith's relating that the following dialog occurred on the hill in 1823:

"Joseph says, 'when can I have it?' The answer was the 22nt Day of September next if you Bring the right person with you. Joseph says, 'who is the right Person?' The answer was 'your oldest Brother.' But before September [1824] Came his oldest Brother Died. Then he was Disapointed and did not [k]now what to do." (Jessee 1976a, 31; also Hartley 1986, 20)

The Smiths' Palmyra neighbor Willard Chase reported:

"He then enquired when he could have them, and was answered thus: come one year from this day, and bring with you your oldest brother, and you shall have them. This spirit, he said was the spirit of the prophet who wrote this book, and who was sent to Joseph Smith, to make known these things to him. Before the expiration of the year, [Smith's] oldest brother died." (1833, 241-42, emphasis in original)

Smith family neigbor Fayette Lapham remembered that Joseph Smith's father told him in 1830 that "Joseph asked when he could have them; and the answer was, 'Come in one year from this time, and bring your oldest brother with you; then you may have them.' During that year, it so happened that his oldest brother died."

November 19, 1823 - Alvin dies suddenly

"The intensity of the Smith family's despair over Alvin's death less than two months after Joseph's visit the the Hill Cumorah is understandable. Alvin's last words to his brother Joseph were to "do everything that lies in your power to obtain the Record. Be faithful in receiving instruction, and in keeping every commandment that is given to you. Your brother Alvin must leave you." (L. M. Smith 1853, 88)

"Alvin's final charge underscored the dilemma Joseph now faced: he had been commanded to meet the angelic treasure-guardian at the hill the following 22 September 1824 and to bring Alvin with him."

"By some accounts, Smith had been violently jolted three times and severely chastised for disobeying instructions during his first visit, and Mormon convert Joseph Knight wrote that now Smith "did not [k]now what to do" (Jessee 1976a, 31). One can only imagine the turmoil Smith would have experienced during the ten months between the death of his eldest brother on 19 November 1823 and his next solitary visit to the hill."
- Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.135-136

September 22, 1824 - "God's Messenger" Moroni asks Joseph where his brother Alvin is

"Joseph hoped to obtain the plates on 22 September 1824 even though he did not bring Alvin. The day was a stinging disappointment. According to Smith's 1832 autobiography, the messenger told him "to come again in one year from that time [1823]. I did so [in 1824], but did not obtain them."

"His friend Joseph Knight wrote, "But when the 22nt Day of September Came he went to the place and the personage appeard [sic] and told him he Could not have it now" (Jessee 1976a, 31). Lorenzo Saunders remembered that Smith told him, "At the end of the time he went to the place to get the plates the angel asked where his Brother was. I told him he was dead." Fayette Lapham recalled the story as "Joseph repaired to the place again, and was told by the man who still guarded the treasure, that, inasmuch as he could not bring his oldest brother, he could not have the treasure yet" (L. Saunders 1884a, 10; Lapham 1870, 2:386).

"As Smith left the hill in disappointment on 22 September 1824, apparently the message he had received was: without your dead brother Alvin, you cannot have the gold lates."

"When Smith returned a year later, the spirit asked about his brother. Learning he was dead, the spirit "commanded him to come again, in just one year, and bring a man with him."
- Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.136

September 29, 1824 - Joseph Smith Sr. denies in local newspaper to dissecting Alvin's body

Wayne Sentinel 2 (29 Sept. 1824): Page 3, prints an advertisement placed by Joseph Sr. dated "Sept. 25th, 1824," denying "reports [that] have been industriously put in circulation, that my son, Alvin, had been removed from the place of his internment and dissected."

Smith chastised town gossips for disturbing the peace of mind of a still-grieving parent, and then made two comments that allude to his son Joseph as target of such gossip:

"[these rumors] deeply wound the feelings of relations [and] have been stimulated more by desire to injure the reputation of certain persons than a philanthropy for the peace and welfare of myself and friends."
- Wayne Sentinel, 29 Sept.-3 Nov. 1824; Kirkham 1951, 1:147; Rich 1970, 256

Not exactly faith-promoting. No wonder you don't hear this part of the story in Sunday School. This is not a testimony killer, but it sure is a bizarre story to explain away.

Why did the angel Moroni require Alvin to get the gold plates?

Why didn't the Angel Moroni know Alvin was dead?

***My Thoughts***

Joseph's upbringing was steeped in occultic ritual and magical thinking. Grant Palmer's book, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins", contains a section comparing Joseph's 'alleged' adventures in obtaining the golden plates with E.T.A. Hoffman's "The Golden Pot". Judge for yourself here

Also worth mentioning is D. Michael Quinn's book, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View." The author was a church historian who ultimately was excommunicated for revealing too much truth to the masses. Excerpts available here

I haven't been over to FAIR to find out what their take is on the switch in names, but if I had to venture a guess, it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of discounting the Times and Seasons article, even though Joseph was the editor, and discounting journal entries made by others, since they are not 'cannonized' scripture. And, let's face it: if all we could depend on for accurate history was 'cannonized' scripture, universities would become useless, and apologetics wouldn't be necessary to try to scrub out any opposing viewpoints. Oh, and we would all be Mormon.

When the Prophet Speaks...

2007-09-20T15:04:00.000-05:00

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
- Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud" (GBH, General Conference address, The Ensign, November, 2002, p. 80).

"I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy. (GBH, General Conference address, October, 1961)

"Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of [the] First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp.70-71

“As I see it, there are four great foundation stones on which this Church stands, irremovable. The first, the great First Vision, the visit of the Father and the Son to the boy Joseph Smith, the opening of the heavens in this the dispensation of the fullness of times, the great bringing together of all of the work of God in all the past dispensations throughout the history of the world. The curtain was parted with that First Vision, and it stands as an absolute fundamental in the Church and its history and its well-being.
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Aug. 1998, 72

"We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith. When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, "Yes, sir. That's the miracle of it." That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens."

"Then in 1820 came that glorious manifestation in answer to the prayer of a boy who had read in his family Bible the words of James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (James 1:5)."

"Upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this Church."

"That They came, both of Them, that Joseph saw Them in Their resplendent glory, that They spoke to him and that he heard and recorded Their words—of these remarkable things we testify. I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith."
- Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith," October 2002 General Conference

"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, Interview "The Mormons"; PBS Documentary, April 2007

[***What separates Mormonism from the Christian mainstream? The belief in the First Vision story forms the basis for the entire structure of Mormon belief. If that were set aside, the church could not claim to have restored prophecy, authority, or scripture. Giving up on the ‘chosen’ nature of Joseph Smith means acknowledging 167 years of fraud perpetuated by one volume of text written by a man who had no more spiritual discernment than any other human on the earth. Without Joseph’s ‘divine calling’, there is no LDS church.***]

Questions about the First Vision Story: here

1. Why didn't Joseph Smith write the "official" version of the First Vision?

In fact, the Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price was written by a scribe, James Mulholland, and went unpublished for years. There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church.

2. If the official First Vision story was so important, why did it go unpublished until 1842?

Smith supposedly had his vision in 1820. Yet it took over seven private revisions and another 22 years to have it first published.

3. If Jesus Christ and God the Father really told Joseph Smith in 1820 that all churches were an abomination, then why did he try joining the Methodist church in June of 1828?

Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)

4. If Joseph Smith saw God in 1820, why did he pray in his room in 1823 to find out "if a Supreme being did exist?"

In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?
See: here

5. Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote a church history in 1835?

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year. Smith testified that he prayed while in bed to discover if God existed when he was visited by an angelic messenger (Moroni) that forgave him his sins. Elements of this narrative are similar to the later "official" version except the "official" version has different dates, locations, visitors and purposes for Smith's first spiritual experience.
See: here

6. If Joseph Smith could not deny that he saw God, then why did his own handwritten accounts deny it?

In the other First Vision accounts, including one handwritten by Joseph Smith himself, he does not say that he saw God the Father. Instead, these earlier accounts refer to an angel, a spirit, many angels, or the Son. Yet in the "official" account, it says Joseph Smith saw God and knew God knew it, and therefore despite persecution, he dared not deny or change his story.
See: here

7. If Joseph Smith's First Vision was the most important historical event since the atonement, then why didn't early church members know about it?

"As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous "Wentworth Letter," which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith's obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations."

"In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin."

"The first regular periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but its pages reveal no effort to tell the story of the first vision to its readers. Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland, Ohio, from October, 1834, to September, 1836. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the Church, published a series of letters dealing with the origin of the Church. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but they contained no mention of any vision prior to those connected with the Book of Mormon."

"In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained "the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe." Included in the book were the "Lectures on Faith," a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication."

"The first important missionary pamphlet of the Church was the Voice of Warning, published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt. The book contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830's, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book's authenticity, the resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but nothing, again, on the first vision."

"The Times and Seasons began publication in 1839, but, as indicated above, the story of the vision was not told in its pages until 1842. From all this it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today."
(Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.1, No.3, p.31 - p.32)

8. If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face?

How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?

9. Why does the "official" First Vision story contradict Joseph Smith's own handwritten testimony?

In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."
See: here

Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join."

In fact, looking at all the versions of the first vision story, you see a pattern of contradictions and evolution, not a pattern of mere elaboration on a single original experience.

10. If Joseph Smith saw God the Father in the flesh with a body in 1820, why did he teach later than God the Father did not have a physical body?

Up until the last version of the "First Vision" story, Joseph Smith taught that God the Father did not have a body.

For example, in 1835 Joseph Smith taught a class of Elders the "Lectures on Faith" which were also printed in the scripture volume Doctrine and Covenants. In this original Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith stated that God the Father was a personage of spirit. In Section 5 we find this statement about the Godhead:

"The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man."
- Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 Edition, p. 53

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself signed a statement that was printed in the Preface to this 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this statement he testified:

"The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work."

President Joseph Fielding Smith also explained that the Prophet Joseph Smith helped prepare this part of scripture:

"Now the Prophet did know about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published [in the Doctrine and Covenants]."
- Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, page 195

Actually, these teachings were considered complete with regard to their doctrine concerning the Godhead at the time they were given.

On page 58 of the 1835 Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants the following question and answer appear:

"Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation?"

"A. It does."

11. Why did Joseph Smith's mother, in the extensive history of her son's life, not mention Joseph ever having a vision from God and Jesus Christ, or that he was persecuted for it?

According to the "official" story, Joseph Smith told his mother his first vision story. Although Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of Joseph Smith Jr., wrote a lot of details about her son during the early 1820s, in her history of Joseph's life she did not mention him ever having a visitation from God and Jesus Christ. Nor does she mention any persecution.

You would think that Lucy would mention such an astounding event in her son's life. This was a bigger event than a big foot sighting; this was a visit from God and Jesus Christ! But apparently despite Joseph telling his mother, it was not significant enough for her to mention it in the extensive biography she wrote about her son.

The only element of the first vision story that Lucy mentions is religious revivals around Palmyra, yet she dates them to 1823, not 1820. Historical records of the time corroborate Lucky Mack Smith's dating of revivals in 1823 and none in Palmyra during 1820.

[***I think Gordon is secretly trying to get his fellow Mormons to do the research and determine for themselves that Joseph saw what he saw, did what he did, and had all the authority bestowed upon him by God and Jesus Christ, or he made the whole thing up. The fact that he emphasizes the church’s position rises or falls on that claim is what makes me believe that he himself has discovered the truth of that claim. But, in the position that he is in, he knows full well that if he were to ever say so in public, he would be removed immediately as a fallen prophet and lose everything in this mortal existence. By subtly challenging his flock to resolve the question, he is actually helping them leave by showing them the back door. Gordon is not a stupid man, I will have to say that much. People who take up the challenge to ‘prove’ the Joseph Smith story are more likely to discover the hidden truth about the man, therefore demonstrating what Gordon is trying to tell the people:

The church is a fraud.
Joseph Smith was not a prophet.
The First Vision story is a fantasy tale.
Get out before you waste your lives in servitude to a lie.***]

LDS church expresses ‘regret’, falls short of apology for MMM

2007-09-12T23:03:00.000-05:00

Link to Deseret News article here

***My Thoughts***

I was just thinking how fortunate (and smart) the church is for choosing to only study church history every four years, giving ample time to fine-tune it and refine it so as to keep the membership steady. I wonder how many people are baptized during years of study with the Old and New Testament as opposed to years of study with the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History. Each topic takes a year of course study, thereby giving the church plenty of time to ingrain the new converts into the lifestyle, so much so that by the time the year of church history rolls around, they have already become used to taking cues from their peers. That’s why newbies often spend the first 6 months to a year in Gospel Essentials classes taught by the missionaries instead of the Gospel Doctrine classes where all the hard-core faithful attend.

During my early adult years, I rarely sat in Relief Society or Gospel Doctrine class, because I was constantly assigned to teach in Primary, constantly churning the milk of the message and never getting to the meat. Even through Temple Preparation class, I wasn’t made aware of all of the things that would happen that day, as if they meant to keep me off guard and surprise me so quickly I wouldn’t have time to process all of the information. I also deduced that the only people who ever received the calling to teach Gospel Doctrine were the staunch believers, who wouldn’t miss Sacrament meeting if their own mother was dying in the hospital. These are the same people who actually took pride in the fact that they never strayed from the manuals and suggested articles from the Ensign. They would keep the topic on focus and reprimand anyone who asked an un-formulated question by referring them to the Bishop as a ‘troublemaker’ (which happened to me a couple of times). That person would almost always end up wrangling 3 year-olds in the nursery or trying to each squirmy 8-11 year olds songs to sing in honor of the prophets of the church.

The way I see it, (and that’s why the title is My Thoughts Exactly) the church is slowly evolving into a Christian mainstream. No longer do they want a separatist environment that Brigham Young envisioned for them. No longer do they want to be called a “peculiar people”. All they want is for all the controversy to go away, stop pointing out their failures, their mistakes, and calling on them to do away with their beliefs. People like me who have left the church are mostly holding a bit of a grudge against the church because they have claimed to hold the fullness of the gospel that Jesus Christ bestowed upon his chosen followers. This information was lost through a great apostasy, and Joseph Smith restored it through his miraculous powers of translation and visions. This is the fairytale that must be done away with in order for the church to be accepted by “Christianity”. This little piece of ‘priesthood authority’ is what keeps Mormons from being treated as just another denomination of Christianity.

I just had to share here some quotes from RFM, which bring the question of Brigham Young’s prophetic power and influence into new light:

From RfM

Author: NoToJoe

If BY is innocent in MMM and all blame lies at the feet of local leaders then why were the local leaders not punished?

John Lee was the only man ever held accountable for MMM. Yet he was certainly not the only man responsible. He had dozens of accomplices who appear to have received a nod of approval from the Beehive House.

At the time, thanks to the doctrine of blood atonement, Brigham Young was having throats slit for adultery and apostasy. Am I to believe that BY would not punish his rogue Cedar City member after learning of the murderous behavior? Not a likely story.

So 150 year later the TSCC [the so-called church] sends a puppet to the site of a horrific slaughter to recite the standard “local leaders to blame, Bro. Young’s instructions to let them pass unmolested arrived too late”

But wait!!!!! These excuses are not logical. Why were the guilty not held to account? Maybe they weren’t actually considered to be guilty. Why did Bro. Young think it was necessary to say “don’t kill the settlers?” Maybe he know they were in grave danger.

The TSCC may declare Briggy’s innocence for the one-billionth time. But to me something doesn’t add up. SOMETHING STINKS!

Author: JW the Inquizzinator
Yep, reminds of that scene in "A Few Good Men" with Jack Nicholson as Col Nathan R. Jessep

Kaffee: Crystal. Colonel, I have just one more question before I call Airman O'Malley and Airman Rodriguez. If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
Jessup: Santiago was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred because--
Kaffee: That is not what you said, you said he was being transferred because he was in grave danger.
Jessup: That’s correct.
Kaffee: You said he was in danger, I said "grave danger?" You said "is there another kind?"--
Jessup: I recall what I said--
Kaffee: I can have the court reporter read back to you--
Jessup: I know what I said. I don't have to have it read back to me like I'm--
Kaffee: Then why the two orders? Colonel?
Jessup: Sometimes men take matters into their own hands.
Kaffee: No, Sir. You made it clear a moment ago that your men never take matters in to their own hands. Your men follow orders or people die. So Santiago shouldn't have been in any danger at all, should he have, Colonel?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Few_Good_Men

Oh if we could only get BY on the stand.....just substitute "Massacre" for "Code Red"

Kaffee: If Lt. Kendrick gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched, then why did he have to be transferred? Colonel? Lt. Kendrick ordered the Code Red, didn't he, because that's what you told Lt. Kendrick to do!
Ross: Object!
Kaffee: And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!--
Judge: Lt. Kaffee!
Kaffee: You got Markinson to sign a phony transfer order! You doctored the log books!
Ross: Dammit, Kaffee!
Kaffee: You coerced the doctor!
Judge: Consider yourself in contempt!
Kaffee: Colonel Jessup, did you order the code red?!
Judge: You don't have to answer that question!
Jessep: I'll answer the question. You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Jessep: You want answers?!
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?! You, Lieutenant Weinberg?! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Jessep: I did the job I was sent to do--
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?!
Jessep: YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!!

Author: SL Cabbie

Yep, And John D. Lee Mentions in His "Confessions" that BY sent some of his minions to confiscate his diaries (he kept them meticulously even though his spelling was atrocious), including one Lee claimed contained written orders to Dame and Haight that were carried by George A. Smith . . .

But church apologists have insisted for over a hundred years that Lee's jailhouse confessions were fabricated by his attorney, William W. Bishop, in order to recoup Lee's legal fees . . .

Anyone who doubts this one need only read the review by Carin Reddig in the following link from an Amazon.com offering of the book . . .

QUOTE:“It is important to remember when reading this version of John D. Lee's writings that his words were manipulated by the editor to convey an anti-Mormon message”

Author: Cheryl
If BY is innocent in MMM and all blame lies at the feet of local leaders then maybe present day Mormons should question local leaders a whole lot more, not necessarily do what they say or believe their words.

Author: Randy J.
Not only were the MM murderers not punished by church leaders, church leaders also proactively protected them from arrest and prosecution. From the confession of John D. Lee:

“There is another falsehood generally believed in Utah, especially among the Mormons. It is this. It has generally been reported that Brigham Young was anxious to help Judge Cradlebaugh arrest all the guilty parties. There is not one word of truth in the whole statement. Brigham Young knew the name of every man that was in any way implicated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He knew just as much about it as I did, except that he did not see it, as I had seen it.”

“If Brigham Young had wanted one man, or fifty men, or five hundred men arrested, all he would have had to do would have been to say so, and they would have been arrested instantly. There was no escape for them if he ordered their arrest. Every man who knows anything of affairs in Utah at that time knows this is so.”

“It is true that Brigham made a great parade at the time, and talked a great deal about bringing the guilty parties to Justice, but he did not mean a word of it--not a word. He did go South with Cradlebaugh, but he took good care that Cradlebaugh caught no person that had been in the massacre.”

“I know that I had plenty of notice of their coming, and so did all the brethren. It was one of Brigham Young's cunning dodges to blind the government.”

Young continued to protect Lee for almost two decades, until it became expedient to sacrifice him as a scapegoat so that the government would cease further investigation and prosecutions. Read details of Young's betrayal of Lee at [here]

Author: Baura
The charge has been made that MMM was the result of a few "rogue Mormons" who went off the deep end. The Church as a whole shouldn't have any blame at all.

The phrase "rogue Mormons" makes it sound like Warren Jeffs and a few of his cronies were responsible: people who had broken with the institutional church and said "hell with them, I'm doing it my own way."

This is a serious misreading of history. Even if we buy the Church's explanation it still smells to high heaven.

The massacre was organized by the local Church leaders who were in full fellowship. At the height of the tension they didn't know what to do. They sent a rider to get instructions from Brigham Young on what to do. They were not a group of "rogue Mormons" they were the official leadership trying their best to do what they thought Brigham Young wanted them to do. When the rider didn't return in time they had to make their best guess of what Brigham Young wanted and they murdered 120 men, women, and children.

Now here's an interesting question. How in the Holy Heck did the Church Leadership in the area get the idea that what Brigham Young would have wanted them to do is commit mass murder?? It would have been one thing for a few angry Mormons to show up and kill the Fancher party. That would be bad enough, but when the Stake Presidency and Stake High Council try their BEST to do what they think the Prophet Seer and Revelator would have them do they end up murdering 120 people.

When the constituted Church leaders try their best to do what they think is "right" (the Mormon version of "right) and it turns out their best guess of "right" is to murder over 100 men, women and children what does that say for their method of discerning right from wrong? What does that say about Mormon leaders' access to inspiration--to the "still small voice" that these Holy-Ghost-containing, power-of-discernment gifted leaders best understanding of "right" is mass murder?

Even if we buy the "Brigham had nothing to do with it" mantra that the apologists repeat over and over the lesson from MMM is very, VERY negative for the claims of the Church.

***My Thoughts***

I am just trying to figure out what Brigham Young ever did as a prophet that would convince people he was so deserving of the respect and admiration he received, even more so now that he has been dead over 100 years. What demonstrable proof is there that he was a prophet of God? The whole of the Journal of Discourses, a set of 26 volumes of speeches made by Brigham Young and his apostles and successors has never been set aside as scripture by the church, yet the people living in that time abided by it as if it were. Who decided that it wasn’t going to be called scripture, when Brigham Young himself declared that he had never given a discourse that the Saints could not call scripture? And doesn’t negating that claim negate the authority of Brigham Young as a prophet?

I have never been able to understand the reverence the Mormons have for whoever happens to be prophet at the time. On the one hand, the church wants the outside world to see them as just people praying for guidance and inspiration like everyone else. On the other hand, the church teaches their faithful followers to ‘follow the prophet, don’t go astray, he knows the way’. It’s a fake front to deceive the Christian movement into believing that Mormonism is just ‘enhanced Christianity’. Revering a prophet as if he has special powers of ‘visions’ and can lead millions of people with just a stroke of his pen in a proclamation, or through a speech given at General Conference is like believing that Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker were also prophets of God. He’s just a guy getting paid to do a job. He ascended to the highest position by virtue of his age and time of service, nothing else. And I think a prophet should at least be able to do a decent magic trick…

An Excellent Article about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in the Salt Lake Tribune

2007-09-08T22:25:00.000-05:00

Kirby: Facing the truth of Mountain Meadows

by Robert Kirby of the Salt Lake Tribune

"In 1874, Mormon pioneer relatives of mine lost three children in three days. Robert, Amelia and Thomas Kirby were all younger than 4 when diphtheria came calling.

"The level of faith in God required to endure such tragedy and continue on with the church was a testament to the devotion of my fathers. Down through the years, my family believed steadfastness like this solidly proved the truthfulness of Mormon doctrine.

"Not necessarily. People get tough for all sorts of reasons, including an utter lack of options. With three kids in the ground and more still to feed, it's not as if the Kirbys could go bowling. Putting their heads down and moving forward may have been the only alternative.

"I don't want to take anything away from my pioneer ancestors, but I don't want to give them more credit than they're due, either. Martyrdom, suffering, deprivation and unwavering devotion prove the intensity of belief, not the truthfulness or even common sense of it.

"My church raised me on the saintliness of my Mormon pioneer ancestors, an honest folk persecuted for no reason other than that we were God's favorites. Satan raged against us because we had The Truth.

"I heard all the faith-promoting stories about Haun's Mill, Carthage Jail and Nauvoo, Ill. We were whipped, burned out, murdered, robbed and stripped of our civil rights. The U.S. sent an army against us. All of this proved we had The Truth, right?

"Unfortunately, such a one-sided view of our history presented a problem when I finally learned that in 1857, Mormons (including my great-grandfather) slaughtered 120 defenseless men, women and children at Mountain Meadows.

"As unforgivable as that was, just as troubling to me were our subsequent efforts to dodge The Truth, to cover it up, to water it down, to pretend that it never happened or, worse, to blame it on others.

"I heard all the self-serving explanations for Mountain Meadows, ranging from the deliberately obfuscating to the patently ludicrous: "Indians did it." "The immigrants had it coming." "We only shot them a little."

Historians, notably the inestimable Juanita Brooks, who tried to bring the facts of the massacre to light, were ostracized by fellow Mormons and even threatened by church leaders. We couldn't, it seemed, handle The Truth about ourselves.

"Considering what we believed about ourselves, it's understandable that we didn't want to talk about it. After all, if enduring persecution is all the proof we need of having The Truth, what's proven when we're the ones causing it?

"Faith can be a tricky business. It's a valuable lesson we should have learned years ago. As we commemorate the 150th anniversary of Mountain Meadows next week, we can start by realizing that faith is something we owe God, not other human beings."

***MY Thoughts***

Looks like that makes TWO people who didn't know about the Mountain Meadows Massacre until this year, me AND Robert Kirby.

Does anyone out there still insist that this is "old news" and that the Anti's are just rehashing this for a new generation of Mormon-bashers?

Judging by the comments on the article, it looks like I'm not the only one who was "distressed and shocked upon learning about it". Link to article here.

Mountain Meadows Massacre: Why I'm Mad as Hell

2007-09-05T12:45:00.000-05:00

All over the web, discussions keep mounting over the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You would have thought it happened two weeks ago. And in reality, it feels just like that to many Mormons who are just learning about it for the FIRST TIME EVER in this latest issue of the Ensign Magazine. I have been following this story for months, ever since I found out that September Dawn was going to be distributed across the country. Evidently, the church thought it must be time to talk about it, now, 150 years later.

I remember growing up as a kid in Primary and Seminary hearing about such things as the Haun's Mill Massacre and the assorted violent attacks that Mormons suffered while trying to homestead in Missouri, which ultimately led to an extermination order by Governor Boggs. I remember feeling persecuted as well, just by association of being Mormon. I was very upset that Mormons were treated so bitterly and harshly, and that innocent children had sometimes fallen victim to these violent outbursts of vigilante justice. And that's exactly how I was supposed to react, I was justified in my reaction. I was even angry that it was never discussed in history class in my high school, and the subject of Mormons was hardly broached at all, even though they were pioneers in the wilderness and were responsible for populating large portions of Missouri and Illinois. I learned more from my church than I ever did in my high school, and I felt pretty special for having knowledge about such important historical events that my poor non-Mormon peers would never know. I even wrote a paper on the Haun's Mill Massacre for a history project in my high school, where I went on and on about the unfair attack against Mormons by cowardly men who hid in bushes waiting to surprise innocent women and children.

But never have I heard of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, either from my history class or from Seminary lessons in the Mormon Church. Why is this? Why did it take so long for this story to come out? It should have been taught right along with Haun's Mill or Carthage Jail, but instead it was ignored. Think of the lessons we could have learned all along the way about how we shouldn't take the prophet's words as revelation in every possible instance. The church could have used many opportunities to point out how fanaticism will never be God's way, and that the words of the prophets and apostles still need to come under critical analysis and prayerful consideration before being obeyed by the members of the church. Somehow, we never got these lessons growing up in church. And then one fateful day, the LDS church was faced with the accidental uncovering of the mass burial site, and state laws which had to be obeyed regarding the examination of the remains. Had it not been for this one event, the LDS faithful all over the world wouldn't have ever needed to know that this massacre took place. Oh yeah, the rock cairn was there, Hinckley did a dedication of the site back in 1999, and the descendants of the victims were part of the ceremonies. But all Hinckley would say about the event is that we don't know what happened, nobody can explain it, so let's put it all behind us now, and by the way, don't take our actions here to mean that we are admitting any fault for this massacre. What a guy. Carefully making sure that the corporation of the LDS church won't get sued by the descendants of that wagon train. Was this dedication broadcast on Deseret News Channel? Did it get a mention in the Ensign back then? Did anyone in the broader area past Utah even know that a murderous rampage against unarmed men, women and children took place? And now, while reading the Ensign article printed in this current issue, we learned that this event has "shocked and distressed those who have learned of it. " Those five words speak volumes. It means that the church did not do anything out of its way to make sure that the whole body of the church new about it, that they acknowledge their part in it, that it was a mistake made by individuals who 'misinterpreted' Brigham Young's insertion into the temple covenants to seek vengeance upon Joseph's murderers unto the fourth generation, or his sermons on blood atonement and how to help your fellow man gain exaltation by spilling his blood for him so he can atone for his sins. All we ever hear in connection with the Mountain Meadows Massacre are the excuses: we are supposed to put ourselves in the Mormons shoes and ask how we would feel if we were run out of every settlement we built, had our wives and children murdered before our eyes by our enemies, and lost all worldly goods in fires set by angry mobs.

This is what I am coming across now, when I visit the Mormon Apologetics message board. Cries of Haun's Mill! and Carthage Jail! come loud and clear. An eye for an eye, too bad for them! But I have taken the time to go all the way back to the early beginnings of Mormonism, to the roots of persecution, in order to try to solve the puzzle of which-came-first. And I sincerely believe that if all Mormons took the time to look before Haun's Mill, before the move to Missouri, before the Kirtland Era, all the way back to Joseph Smith's character and history, and then trace the events in a solid timeline all the way down to his murder in Carthage, we could finally see both sides of the coin, and realize that maybe the Mormons weren't quiet, mild-mannered settlers after all.

Where I live, there are hardly any Black families, but there are lots of Ukrainian immigrants. In the next county, there has been an influx of Mexican workers moving in to the communities. In another county nearby, there are lots of Transcendental Meditationalists and a special college for them. I think nearly everyone can work together to promote peace and prosperity to the community regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds. But if we suddenly had about 100 newcomers move into our town, proclaiming their church to be superior to all others, claiming their living prophet has promised them all of this area will belong to their church someday, how many days or weeks would it take to set the entire town against them? A careful study of historical accounts (not just a one-time through on Ensign articles) will paint a much more complete picture of how the Mormons were viewed by others. Here lies the problem with limiting your research to only those written by the Mormon faithful---you can't really know how others see the Mormons if you only read the Mormon point of view.

Are the Mormons really in a position to relay how others view them?

Can they accurately describe what the Missouri settlers might have felt towards them, or why the folks in Kirtland, Ohio turned against Joseph Smith?

Not every account of Mormons is necessarily Anti-Mormon, just because it wasn't written by a Mormon. But time and time again, most talks center around how to maintain your testimony, how to limit influences from outside the church to sway your thinking, and how to be sure that what you read is really the inspired truth from God.

When I was a member, I was given a calling as a Primary Music instructor. I have had no training in music, can't even read music well, and don't know the first thing about playing a piano. How inspired could this calling have been? My assigned format was "Follow the Prophet" and I taught children as young as 3 years old how to always follow the advice of the living prophet of the church and to not go astray. I watched Gordon Hinckley proclaim during General Conference that tattoos, piercings, and body jewelry were unnecessary and unnatural, and I paused with baited breath as I waited for him to make his judgment on my one hole piercings in my ears. I actually reached up and held on to my right earlobe as he went on to say that the church would not take a position on one pair of piercings for women. I let out my breath, and so did TWELVE OTHER WOMEN. In that moment I knew that I had passed a judgment by a living prophet, and was grateful I hadn't gone to get a second piercing done.

How screwed up is this thinking?

Gordon Hinckley is not the kind of guy to go around making prophecies, even thought he is a prophet. So when he took the opportunity to tell us his personal opinion, Mormons throughout the country treated it as if it was a prophecy. This is why following a prophet is so crazy. If he were a prophet, we would be able to easily identify what what opinion and what what prophecy. But because he doesn't make prophecies, and doesn't predict anything at all for us in our lives, EVER, we really have no option but to rely on his opinions as God's word. And that's how it was treated. Women and girls all over the country took out their second piercings, and men removed their single earrings, or they couldn't pass sacrament, give a talk, get a temple recommend renewed, or receive a blessing from priesthood holders. It became a measuring stick for the faithful. Adherence to Gordon's 'opinion' meant the difference between reverence for God's anointed prophet, and rebellion against the prophet's counsel. And since we have all likely heard, "follow the prophet, he knows the way" in our youth, and have once or twice gotten up on the stand on F&T Sunday to proclaim our belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and Gordon Hinckley as a prophet today, rebellion against suggestions of any kind would not have been looked upon too favorably, especially the closer you get to Utah.

Reverence for the living prophet is still very much the norm in today's Mormon world, much like it was 150 years ago, isolated in the wilderness of Utah Territory. Anyone reading the Journal of Discourses can plainly see that it is full of the opinions of men, and not counted as scripture among the Mormon faithful, and for good reason. But, imagine living there during the moment the words were uttered. Imagine what it would mean to be building up a kingdom for God and to have a living prophet to guide you. Would there really be any such thing as 'rogue Mormons' who took those speeches just a bit too seriously? Or is it more likely that Brigham did not actually forsee an instance where his words could actually be taken as God's instruction on how to handle any intruders into the Utah territory? I'm in the camp of placing blame at Brigham's door step because his claims of being a living prophet cannot be demonstrated by the evidence available. I have not received any proof given by Mormons that he was an inspired man, destined to lead the church forward after Joseph's death, and that he had any skills other than as a great orator and had a magnificent stage presence. He commanded attention, and he got reverence and respect because he cultivated fear in those who placed him there. He can't be called a prophet if he can't see future events. He can't be called a prophet if he can't see the consequences of his words. And he certainly should not be revered as a prophet by the Mormon faithful if he can discredited so easily.

I'm mad as hell for the Mountain Meadows Massacre because Brigham Young never corrected his blood atonement doctrine after the event was carried out. He never spoke out to congregations that followed that this was not what he intended by his words, and that those who committed the crime would be accountable for it. He never assumed responsibility for the furor his speeches created, instead choosing to rest on the excuses of blaming the immigrants for being there in the first place, and for the Indians attacking them in conjunction with a few 'rogue Mormons'.

I'm still mad at the Mormon church because they have the same reverence for Gordon Hinckley as the old saints did for Brigham Young. Gordon Hinckley has yet to make ONE single prophecy, how can he be called a living prophet? What proof is there that he has this power at all?

But mostly I'm mad because one of the main questions still asked during an interview to receive a temple ticket is: Do you sustain Gordon Hinckley as prophet, seer, and revelator?

Why the hell should I, when he has never prophesied, seer'd, or revelated anything EVER?

Which one of the Mormon prophets ever DID get a prophecy right? More importantly, when was the last time a Mormon prophet made prophecies of any sort?

The reverence for living prophets is what makes it impossible to place Mormons within the realm of Christianity. It's also what makes Mormons "rogue". Listening to the opinions of a single man in regards to how you can best show your loyalty and worthiness to God is what makes a cult. It's not hard to draw the conclusion here.

I've Made It To The Big Time

2007-09-04T14:51:00.000-05:00

As the Mountain Meadows Massacre continues to be discussed on Pro-Mormon message boards all over the internet, more and more people have been checking out my site due in part to the link given by smac97 on the mormon apolgetics board set up by fairlds.org. I've always maintained that the best source of information for leaving the church can be found on site run by those who will defend the faith tooth and nail, using any and every means possible in order to make the church look like the victim in every instance, and doing their very best to paint all of us former Mormons as "fallen sinners" and "under Satan's influence", etc. Well, I would like to take this opportunity to thank smac97 for pointing the way to my site, and tell him what the results of his link have done for his cause.

smac97, not only did i get a rush of folks coming to my page to verify what you said that I said, (even though I was merely quoting from a news source and pasted it to my blog), I also can brag that many of the folks that checked out my site that day stuck around and read many other posts, topics that you didn't link them to. You are doing a good job leading others into the right directions to get source material from outside Mormondom, and you are doing it under the guise of being a faithful LDS member. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts as a double agent, while carefully planting links to all of us "disgusting Anti's with an ax to grind" so that anyone checking out our blogs may fall upon a logical discussion of all things Mormon and maybe hit upon things that can not be so heartily explained away. Obviously, you can't do that yourself or you risk losing your rank in the Morgdom. But showing others the paths to search out for themselves is exactly what is necessary for the truth to finally burst forth. I thank you again, smac97, for making me famous at the mormon apologetics board, because without your link, they wouldn't know I was out here, muddying up the waters and causing such a racket with my little blog of Mormonism. My hit counter jumped 42 spots in ONE day because of your link. Thanks for doing your part to make sure Mormonism is exposed for what it really is. Keep up the good work.

Before you go, please check out my side bar, I have lots of posts on many interesting and never-before-heard of topics like the Kinderhook Plates, the Adam-God theory, polygamy in Nauvoo, the Kirtland Bank failure, the real translation of the papyrus Joseph called the Book of Abraham, and discussions on what it would take to build a Jaredite ship, or how metals and horses could have been used in the Americas before they were known, and why the hill Cumorah couldn't possibly be in New York, even though that's what Joseph Smith claimed. That's just a sampling of what makes the Mormon church false, not whether or not Brigham Young ordered the massacre of 120 men women and children because they might have been associated with people from Northern Missouri. I don't have to simply prove Brigham Young was a false prophet in order to prove the church is false. It's been false from day one, with Joseph Smith's lies and cover-ups. The church has a long history of lies and cover-ups, just google Mark Hofmann and you'll see what I mean. It's all up to you , Mormon faithful. You can get yourself out of this cult and the control it holds over you the minute you figure out that it's all been a hoax from the beginning. Stop trying to conform to a religious ideal you could NEVER obtain without a 'second anointing'. Quit paying tithing to keep your temple ticket active. Get your life back before your kids get sucked in completely and you're the one standing outside the temple waiting for them to appear after their wedding cult ceremony. READ SOMETHING FOR ONCE!!!

And Now---The Rest of the Story

2007-08-29T08:55:00.000-05:00

Quote from a pro-Mormon message board:

"When one reflects on the persecution of the early Saints, it can lead to a clearer understanding of why the MMM happened. The Saints were whipped into a frenzy based on fear that they were going to be driven out of Utah. This frenzy grew to the point where the individuals who participated in the massacre had lost their ability to reason. The end result was the slaughter of innocent men, women and children."

So goes the attitude of the faithful LDS. All over the Internet, on message boards and an article in the latest Ensign magazine, the church takes the stance that it was a horrible tragedy, but there were reasons why it happened. In the which-came-first drama, we are to believe that the first strike was laid against the Mormons, way back in Palmyra, New York in 1830. They have always been persecuted unfairly, they have always been the victims. They would have you believe that every instance of disagreement with their neighboring Non-Mormon communities resulted in unfair persecution because of their faith. If you are Mormon, and looking into this historical event for the very first time ever, you'll need to hang on to this persecution complex as much as possible in order to maintain your testimony that the church is what is proclaims to be: a victim of persecution and hostility. This is designed to prove to you that your church is true, because of the belief that the more persecution it receives, the more evidence of it's truthiness.

I am now going to share several links that will uncover these incidents of unfair persecution. Among these will undoubtedly be stories most rank-and-file Mormons have never heard about. And that is to be expected in a church that wouldn't willingly hand over information to their enemies, just so it could be used against them later. It's amazing what you can learn when you no longer have to limit your reach and keep only accounts written by LDS spin doctors.

***Most of these links will take you to Wikipedia listings for these topics. The purpose to linking these articles is not because I believe them to be 100% accurate by any means. I am certain that there is room for correction, and additional information. The intent is to show an unbiased account of these occurrences, for they are neither pro- or anti- Mormon in nature. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and can be altered and corrected by anyone who can cite their sources and document their reasoning, likewise, information posted can be challenged by anyone else who can show their documentation. This is to encourage Mormon readers to look up information on their own, independent of the church, and decide for themselves what facts are true and what facts are 'not useful' for promoting a testimony of truth.***

An Introduction to Joseph Smith

Persecution in New York

The Kirtland Safety Society

Settling in Missouri

The Mormon War

The Salt Sermon

Danites

Gallatin Election Day Battle

Expelled from DeWitt County

Daviess Expedition

Battle of Crooked River

Extermination Order

Haun's Mill Massacre

Seige of Far West

Nauvoo and Theocracy

Joseph Smith's Political Ideal

Polygamy in Nauvoo

The Quorum of the Anointed

The Nauvoo Expositor

Why Joseph Smith was murdered

September Dawn: Mormons Portrayed as Religious Zealots Bent on Revenge

2007-08-25T22:04:00.000-05:00

I thought that the frenzied speeches and the wild accusations the Mormon bishop used to stir up anger and hatred against the wagon train really made Mormons look like crazy wild-eyed terrorists, (and the Micah character didn't help either). But, as much as I disagree with the portrayal of Mormons as blood-thirsty vengeance seeking bastards, I have to stop myself and ask the questions:

What would it have taken to stir up the Mormons to do such a hateful, vile thing if it wasn't the frenzied speeches of their leaders and their call to duty to perform the acts of vengeance they covenanted to do in the temple?

Does anyone really believe that they calmly sat around a campfire sipping Ovaltine and discussing the pros and cons? Did they spend three days and nights praying in the temple, waiting for a vision from God and a confirmation that this is what they were to do?

Mormons no doubt would like us to believe that this was just an isolated group of religious zealots who had blood lust and were just looking for an excuse to show the rest of the U.S. not to mess with the Mormon Empire. After all, weren't the U.S. troops supposedly on their way to start a war with the Mormons? One wouldn't have to look very far into the history books to discover why that is, yet Mormons would have everyone thinking that they were only protecting themselves from a first strike. They want us to believe that they have been unfairly persecuted and cast out from their homes everywhere they settled, but a closer look would uncover the true facts of why they were treated harshly. Polygamy, claiming absolute authority of God, marching about proclaiming that all they see will eventually belong to them because they are God's chosen people, Joseph Smith boasting himself as the new Mohammed and claiming that no other man ever did such a great work as he did; these are the reasons the Mormons were driven out of Ohio, out of Missouri, and eventually out of Illinois, not "religious persecution" but 'religious zealousness".

The "poor me" attitude only get them so far. Those of us who care to really look into the history surrounding Joseph's Kirtland Banking business in Ohio, his Zion's camp activities and pompousness in Missouri, the development and deployment of the Danites, his self-grandiose stylings as General of the Nauvoo Legion and presidential candidate of the Mormons, (even to the extent of being proclaimed King) is what brought persecution on the heads of the Mormons. Not wearing funny underwear and abstaining from coffee.

Imagine how it would feel if we had a Muslim family move into your all-white Christian neighborhood, and told everyone they met that eventually everything they owned and all their land would belong to them, because God was coming to restore his kingdom on earth right in your backyard. How long would it take before that family was run out of town? Likewise, imagine a single Christian family in a Taliban state. Would it be wise for them to walk about preaching superiority and denouncing all others apostates?

I would love to hear some staunch Mormon explain ANY OTHER WAY these men could have been stirred up in such a way as to kill women and children who obviously would not have been involved (directly or indirectly) with the murder of Joseph Smith, or any of the attacks on the Mormon people in Missouri or Illinois. Whether or not they were the spouses or children of the men who perpetrated the crimes, THEY did not need to be slaughtered to atone for those sins in any case. EVEN IF it could be proved that the Fancher-Baker party had the original gun that killed Joseph Smith, where was the trial by jury? Where was the evidence, or the eye-witness accounts? And why would the women and children be just as guilty, and in just as much need of 'blood atonement'?

The only logical answer to that is that they would be witnesses to THIS CRIME and needed to be permanently silenced. If the Mormons had been justified in their murderous acts, the women and children could have been spared. Instead they were 'done away with' and butchered on the prairie. And the Mormons kept the 'spoils of war': the wagons, horses, cattle, gold, weapons, clothing and furniture, and even the personal jewelry of the slain. And the babies were adopted into 'proper' Mormon homes, away from the evil influences of their 'gentile' birth.

Can any Mormon faithful man or woman please explain it to me so that my eyes can see the hand of God in this dastardly, cowardly act of vengence?