Windy Sydney

Sometimes the responses to articles I write crack me up. I have been told that I don't pray hard enough, that I want to sin, and that I didn't have the integrity needed to live the gospel. Sorry, those are wrong... as I have mentioned before, I live a very quiet life. I don't drink, smoke, and I certainly don't sleep around. What is it that I am doing that is considered a sin? Living with a male roommate? Even though we are not romantically involved at all? Not that it would be any one's business anyway... but we are not. What is this big sin that supposedly kept me from living life as a good little Mormon girl? I sure as hell don't know what it is.

Some people tell me I think too much, and you know what? I take that as a compliment. Thinking is good for you, studying is good for you. The more you learn, the less likely you are to fall victim to mistakes made in the past. I have never been the kind of person to just take some one's word for it. Prove to me you are right. Prove it. The Mormon Church has yet to do this. Instead, I am looked at like I am crazy. So here are some things the church could prove... but won't/can't.

In July of 1835, a man named Michael Chandler traveled the country with Egyptian mummies and papyri. The papyri intrigued Joseph Smith, and when he was given permission to view these papyri, he told everyone they were a "marvelous discovery." Joseph Smith claimed the papyri were written by Abraham, and he went about translating these papyri for the Church.

With the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, we now know that these papyri had nothing at all to do with Abraham, and that Joseph Smith's translations were complete fiction. The papyri are actually common funerary texts found with most mummies, and the papyri have now been translated correctly.

How is it that Joseph Smith, a prophet, got this wrong? Is it just because he made a mistake? I really don't think so. He didn't make one little mistake. He spent hours and hours on the translation, and he got it wrong constantly. One little mistake would be getting a name or symbol translated incorrectly... truth is, he got EVERYTHING wrong. Everything.

It doesn't add up. Does it?


The Church has played cover-up on the polygamy issue for far too long. Most Mormons have no idea that Joseph Smith had more than one wife, let alone that he married two 14 year old girls after telling them they would burn in hell (along with their families if they didn't). He also married women that were already married to living men... some of those men were sent on missions right before the sealings (convenient, don't ya think?). People definitely don't know that Joseph Smith kept these extra wives from his first wife, Emma, for as long as he could. So much for the picture-perfect marriage the church loves to portray.

Joseph Smith claimed that he didn't want to practice polygamy, but he was commanded to by an angel of God with a flaming sword.

Right.

Lets just be honest here. Joseph Smith liked the ladies. Period. He used his position as a "prophet" and leader with power to get what he wanted. Joseph Smith wasn't the only one who took advantage of the situation. Believe it or not, it was never common for teenagers to be married at this point in time. That argument stinks. Check out these links for a list of apostles and their teenage brides:

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=384089
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=6708
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=652268
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=519004
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=59383
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=182262
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=944742
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=68658
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=31993
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1156
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=145734
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=822581
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=123950
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=2146429
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663871
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=5776184
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663910
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=419174
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=757004
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663846
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=2910577
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=91176
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=32861
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=739564
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=8515868
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1855454
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663867
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=952846
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=630396
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=2093236
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663796
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=11300118
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=147311
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=171325
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=55596
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1733829
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=655144
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663839
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=410599
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=1663809
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=806530
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=667
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/search/AF/family_group_record.asp?familyid=118909

Take the year of marriage and minus the date born and you'll see that most all of these were teenage brides.

Many in the church claim that polygamy was practiced to take care of widows (not true... sure they would marry a widow once in a while, but how do you explain the girls under the age of 20? All of them?) or to even out the ratio of men to women. The church claims there were more women than men, and that is also proven false. All you have to do is look up the census report.

Polygamy doesn't add up either, does it?



This was supposedly the most correct book on the face of the earth, right? Joseph Smith claimed that the whole discovery of the book was divine. An angel of God came to him and told him where to find golden plates buried in a hill. If God were to go to that kind of trouble to have him locate the plates in the first place, don't you think he would want to make sure Joseph Smith got the translation right? What is the point of directing this guy to golden plates and scripture if you don't care about the accuracy of the translation?

Don't even get me started on how the church portrays the translation to its members. He used a seer stone in a top hat. People deserve to know that. The fact that they are not upfront and honest about this makes me cringe because they do nothing but claim to be all loving, and about "truth restored." Where is this truth?

The Book of Mormon has been changed recently to cover the DNA issue. So much for the most correct book on earth.

Doesn't add up.


Brigham Young, a supposed prophet of God, told his followers many times that Adam was God. Many of his followers didn't quite buy it, and it annoyed him. He preached this doctrine over and over again. It's in conference talks, it's in the Journal of Discourses. It's all over the place. Again, a prophet of God is wrong... why wouldn't God tell him so?

Not too long ago Gordon B. Hinkley told a nationwide audience on Larry King Live that the doctrine "As Man Is, God Once Was," was nothing more than a couplet. Wrong. Why did Hinkley deny this? It was taught to my aunts and uncles in Sunday School, and other church meetings. It's kooky. I truly believe that is why the church is distancing themselves from it, but it's not very honest, is it?

Blacks received the priesthood in 1978. Thank goodness the church finally came to their senses on this matter, but it took too much effort and took way too long. Brigham Young would be sincerely pissed if he knew that everything he preached turned out to be wrong, how could you believe in a prophet that would say such horrible things? It wasn't just him.. many other Mormon prophets did and said the same things. Are we supposed to just forget how the church treated these people? I can't.

Temple endowments have been changed. Again, these ceremonies supposedly came directly from God, and prophets in the past warned people against changing them in any way. Why then, were they changed?

Doesn't add up. Sorry.

These are JUST A FEW of the problems I have. I understand that some Mormons think these are very minor issues and they can be explained... but I disagree. Some of this stuff seems minor, and if that is the position you are in, how can you explain so many problems? So many inconsistencies?

It doesn't seem like any truth is at work here.