Windy Sydney

June 15, 2008 at 7:29 PM

You have to be honest, the church does not. You have to be honest in your dealings. The church does not.

It is the complete double standard.

June 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Truly Confused,

You got it... a double standard.

I can't help hoping that one day, one of those guys in the ivory towers is going to grow a conscience. Maybe.

June 15, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Hey Sydney,

The mormon cult knew about joseph smith big love,but chose to lie and decieve the members.

so that joseph smith could look like a prophet of God.

so cheer up syd,because we have nothing to be ashame about.

because we were all young and duped and lied to by the mormon cult.

but now that we know the truth we can enjoy real freedom.

and we can embrace the truth.

because think about all of the lds members who are still decieved and is being lied to by the mormon cult.

because it is time for the mormon cult to take responsibility for thier own actions and lies and cover ups,because the lds cult knew about joseph smith big love.

but I guess to them it was small love.

and that is why they did'nt bother to tell us former members.

June 15, 2008 at 9:09 PM

Have you ever thought that maybe...your leaders didn't know everything. Not to mention church history is not taught much at all during church let alone history that does not uplift.

When you talk about the church misleading people I can never seem to figure out who would be to blame for people not to know certian things and for what motivation that they have for it.

June 15, 2008 at 9:16 PM

James,

I know my leaders didn't know everything... that is kind of my point. They should know the history of the church... the real history... not the whitewashed dribble that the main leaders put out in lesson manuals and teaching aids for church.

It's very clear that they are doing their best to show that events happened in a whitewashed way. They even go as far as to show paintings of Joseph Smith translating the plates with the plates right in front of him and his scribe... where is the magical seer stone? Where is his top hat? They know how it really happened... they are just not talking about it or sharing the truth.

The ones to blame are the ones who approve the lesson plans, the lesson aids. They have a lot to gain from it.

If they share the actual truth, they know people are going to raise their eyebrows. They know more people are going to question their authority... and that leads to apostacy. Apostacy leads to less members, and the more members you lose the less tithing you get coming in.

The people teaching these things to small kids probably don't know better. They take what the church says at face value. They shouldn't.

June 15, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Hey James,

the motivation is to get people to join.

because if people knew the true history about the false prophet joseph smith,that he was a killer,a adulterer,a polygamist,a liar,a con who lied and abused just to have sexual relations with 14 years old girls.

we former members and current memebers never would have joined.

because we would have known it was all a fraud james.

that is why the lds cult try to keep the true history about joseph smith hidden.

June 15, 2008 at 9:46 PM

You notice that the church didn't even talk about Joseph Smith's plural wives in the sunday school manual. The church just ignores things they want to go away and hopes that they will.

With the obvious 'activation' effort people are catching on to the lies.

The prophet is old enough to remember the racist comments made. Have you heard him be accountable for the church? Yet, if we publicly said too much we would subject to disciplinary action. There are enough people in the church that know the truth for the church to be accountable and they are not.

Joseph Smith was caught before marriage with a teenage girl and we revere him. We chastise 12 year old boys for jerking off and tell them they will ruin their lives. Hmmm.....

June 15, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Oh now come off it, how much time do we actually get to teach people during Sunday's?? Take away the actual meaning of Sacrament, the service itself, and there is probably 30 mins worth of talks all of which are designed to edify people to hope, faith and belief that this world isn't as monstrous as is displayed in the media...

Then you have Sunday School also really only about 30 minutes long on average which spends time discussing doctrines like What Christ has taught. Then you have Priesthood and RS which of half the time should at least be spent discussing our service to not only the ward but also the community indeed.

So by your calculations, we should dump all that and discuss all the nasty businesses of our churches history through the misdeeds and supposed misdeed of our past prophets...is that edifying? I sincerely doubt it.

I agree with you Sydney, I think that the church should be much more forthright in its discussion of things like Polygamy so that we can be distinguished from sects like FLDS and it should discuss events in church history more, but there is a time and a place for it. Sunday is not it.

For the record, there were times when JS didn't use the 'top hat' to translate...and then there were times that he did. How do you reconcile Emma's testimony when she was scribing?? I leave that to you.

In the end I really do believe that the central feature and maker or breaker revolves around the Book of Mormon and its truthfulness....of which we've spent considerable time discussing whether or not it is true.

June 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Nicko,

We obviously disagree here big time.

How much time do you have? Think about it? You have seen the very paintings I am talking about (the translation) and you have learned the stories that were taught to you. Were they 100% correct? Nope. They were not.

I truly believe people talk about service and community needs for two reasons.. .one, because they have to. They are good people who want to help... and two... the church would probably rather have them discuss things like that instead of how the Book of Mormon was really translated (among hundreds of other things.)

They need to discuss the things they avoid like the plague Nicko! If they don't, people like me are going to assume they have been lied to, simply because we were not given the complete truth.

Everything doctrinal that you know about the church you learned somewhere... right? Well, instead of the covered-up version, you should have been given the truth.

If there is a time to discuss church doctrine it should definitely be on a Sunday. You have THREE HOURS of church service. That time should be spent studying the religion you claim to love and not other things.

When you mention there were times that Joseph Smith didn't use the "top hat" (why did you use quotation marks there? It was a top hat for crying out loud!) that really doesn't make up for the fact that we were not taught he used one at all! Where was the truth?

I reconcile Emma's testimony the same way I reconcile everyone elses'. She was living with a man who claimed to be a prophet of God, and she had no idea she would be cheated on and lied to. She wanted to believe it, so she did.

There is no reason for me to buy into the Book of Mormon being true. The witnesses, the changes to the Book of Mormon including the change made recently about DNA, and the fact that there are things in the book of Mormon that didn't exist at the time.

There isn't any excuse for them to be this underhanded with the correct info, Nicko! If you are going to teach church history, teach all of it. Period.

June 16, 2008 at 8:37 AM

Truly Confused,

I agree. There is a huge double standard here. Again, there is no excuse for dishonesty from an organization that requires honesty from it's members.

June 16, 2008 at 6:11 PM

Oh Sydney if the doctrines of the Church are Faith Repentance Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, what time do we have left to discuss Church History??

I think that its really on the members to go out and seek these things themselves and then choose which path to follow. Church on Sunday is for edification, not gathering historical information. I don't go there to debate polygamy, I go there to worship and understand more about Christ and his atonement. I think you are failing to see what Church is for.

I've already agreed with you on the case of the church needing to do more to assist people in historical stuff. But Thats my own opinion and mine alone. But again Sunday is not the time.

Why would I want to go to Church and learn stuff that isn't going to edify me? That seems beyond the point of going to church at all...in any faith.

Sunday Church is time for reflection, meditation, helping others, understanding life and hope and above all promoting happiness. If we begin to disintegrate that, why would people bother going at all. If you went to church and came away feeling dry and sour, that would be beyond the point.

You know when I was taught about the BoM translation I was taught that he used the breastplate and urim and thummin. I didn't even know until on my mission that there was a time when he just straight read from the gold plates whilst Oliver Scribed for him. And as for the church art...really now how many of it is actually 100% to the fact? The Samuel the Lamanite picture is obviously false. The Abraham Isaac picture is also obviously wrong....but its art Sydney...that is what art is. I think we could argue a whole other chapter about ART and Religion because many of the major works of our time are hyperrealities of what actually happened...

As for Emma...I sincerely love this woman for what she had to do and the sacrifices she made. I dislike very much any member who suggests that she sinned towards the end of her life...and there is no doctrine to suggest that anyway. But Emma's testimony about when she was scribing for JS was intriguing to not only me but also a Catholic friend of mine. Not only did she touch the plates during cleaning, but she also stated that when JS translated, they would break for a whilst, come back and he would start up again word for word like they didn't stop. Her testimony to me is more than just being 'duped' by her husband.

All the reasons you give for the BoM being not true have valid explanations. The difference between you and I is that you choose not to buy into them. I don't think there is any point in reviewing them...enough has been said already.

June 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM

(This is Sydney's Mom posting under Sydney's username!!)

Nicko, when I read this, I had to
put in my input...because you see,
I have been a Utah member for so
long and have lived and struggled
with this religion and its ideals
of perfection. In the 70's, I took
a Seminary Church History Class...
(and I still have that book/booklet
to the class) That did not mention
any of this. In my desire to
return to church again over the
past 10 years, I also took another
adult Church Seminary Class which
spoke of nothing of the history..
and Nicko...we asked questions!!

So much time wasted in the same
lessons over and over..especially
in young mens/young womens classes
that surely..at least during the
celebration of the pioneers entering SLC...that would be a time
to talk, share and be truthful about the church and its history.

-Vickie

June 16, 2008 at 8:02 PM

Nicko-so in an entire year of teaching on Joseph Smith there was not time to mention EVEN ONE OF HIS OTHER WIVES????

Not only does the church not teach the truth, they excommunicate people for telling it. They publicly tell people not to talk about it. If there was no problem with the history, the leaders of the church wouldn't tell it's members not to read and study. That is one of the key's that they are hiding something. Why aren't historians allowed in the church vaults to read the original historical documents?

June 16, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Sidney-you nailed it! I can forgive the history of the church-I really can. But they are so dishonest, while disciplining members for being honest, that I cannot accept that. They claim to have the only full truth on the face of the earth. What a joke. And no, I am not mad about it at all....

June 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Hey Vickie (Sydney's Mum - we say Mum here in Australia not MOM)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, church institution or CES as its called is the perfect time I believe to get into the nitty-gritty of hard doctrine. But you need to clarify I believe when this is possible. If we take what the CES program is, then we understand it like a normal educative process. You can't teach advanced Foucault in my discipline without understanding the basic principles behind what he is teaching. So there should be in my opinion advanced Church History and advanced Book of Mormon studies (the latter of which there is) in order to give Members a chance to understand what happened, and what the explanations are.

I think alot of what we are learning about Church History in these coming days is because of the more recent work of historians more than the fact that it was readily available a whilst back. The stuff on polygamy wasn't really readily known and only through a few more contemporary pieces do we fully understand or appreciate what happened.

I guess the counter-argument to all this is that institute and the CES program is designed to do the same things as I've discussed above as Sunday's are for. But I disagree. I think these times should be used to engage in these things and deconstruct them against the prevailing winds of anti-mormon stuff which floats around these days. I had one institute teacher who really did tell it like it was and he ended up being a co-ordinator I believe and still is. Fact is, he only did these things in the advanced classes.

Truly Confused, are the people who are excommunicated the ones who are doing the history or the ones who are arguing against specific doctrines such as women holding the priesthood, temple ceremonies, etc, etc,etc. The guy who wrote the piece on JS and his many wives didn't get Ex'd...and that was pretty damaging stuff. So your statement is a little too general for me.


As for the statement about Teaching of the prophets and JS, its actually two years if memory serves me but being in Young Men's I've not been to Elders Quorum since the beginning of the year so I can't remember. But again, I have to say yes, I don't think its appropriate to discuss Polygamy in the respect that it has been discussed in 'Sacred Loneliness' or the like during church. IT is a time a for spiritual enlightenment and things of the soul. As my wife (who knows all about polygamy trust me) argues, 'who wants to talk about that during church?'

It is again in my opinion a time to refresh the soul after a week of being in what can be a torturous world (man I sound pessimistic sometimes).

I know you may disagree with me, but I think we see Church in different ways. I consider Church and always have even before a member, like Art. To sit, contemplate, consider and cultivate oneself within the spirit.

I've rambled for long enough...sorry.

June 16, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Nicko, (this is Sydney)

I don't think that the correct historical lessons need a special class or plan of action. People are going to church, classes, events, activities all the time. During these activities, opportunities exist in which we learn of church history.

What I am suggesting is that instead of teaching the things they teach now, they simply teach the truth. Is it that hard to understand?

The opportunities for these kinds of discussions happen all the time, Nicko. When you learned about Joseph Smith and the golden plates for the first time, you had the opportunity right then and there to learn the correct version of the events. Instead, those in charge picked an extremely sanitized version of events to portray.

This stuff isn't deep doctrine in any way. Joseph Smith having many wives should be known fact. Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a top hat should be known fact. The church would be doing itself a huge favor by just being open and talking about it. Instead, people learn the correct version of events and realize the church was lying... more people leave that way.

They are shooting themselves in the foot if they are not being genuine, and the evidence really points to that.

I speak from personal experience that I learned church history in my church glasses every single week. These lessons are where I learned about Joseph being tarred and feathered... being killed. The opportunity was present to share the truth! Instead of being honest, they kept their mouths shut!!! This isn't something that only certain members need to know... it's something every member deserves to know! Without all the information at hand, how can they make the decision that is best for them? They can't, and the church knows it.

You don't think it's appropriate to talk about polygamy in church? The church believes in polygamy!! The church believes we practice it in the afterlife... why is that something that should be off limits? Again.. it's information that everyone should have to make an informed decision on the validity of the church's claims!

"Who wants to talk about that during church?" The only thing I can say about that comment is that I think most members would like to talk about it. Unfortunately for them, they know that bringing up issues like this would be raising a red flag to everyone in their ward that they might be an apostate.

Church on Sunday should represent soul refreshment, but it shouldn't be a place to share whitewashed information.

June 17, 2008 at 6:20 AM

Most Members would like to talk about it??? I think that is a pretty large generalisation Sydney. I would has it a guess that most members would rather speak about things of the atonement and stuff...as would I.

I think again we could spend thousands of words debating this because essentially we sit on the opposing sides of the fence.

But you say that this information is something that all members 'deserve' to know and quote the teachings of Joseph being tarred and feathered and eventually martyred of which I've never got your opinion on. I can remember only having but a few lessons on these 'moments' and when they were it was in connection with a greater principle such as sacrifice and persecution, not just of Joseph.

Again lessons to edify. I don't see what principles or edification can come from discussing polygamy. And because we only discuss doctrine in the church from those materials approved from the 1st presidency and the quorum of the twelve, it makes it hard to discuss the works of 'historians'....

What you consider whitewashed information I consider important but also secondary information. The fact is, the BoM was translated in different ways and one way was the top hat and the seer stones. What does it matter? Nothing if you have a spiritual witness that the BoM is the word of God.

OH and Polygamy in heaven? Can you show me Sydney where this is ACTUAL doctrine?? Not just some random quote from some book somewhere but actually in the Doctrines of the Church where it states that polygamy will be practiced in the eternities?

Whilst I may believe that it is, it doesn't mean that the word of Nicko is doctrine....

June 17, 2008 at 7:23 AM

Hey Sydney and Vickie,

This is the true heart of the matter.

And this is the hypocracy of mormonism at it's best,because remember lyndon lamborn the so called apostate who was ex-communicated for sharing his findings with other members about joseph smith.

it's shows once again that syd honesty and truth is the enemy of mormonism.

because lamborn got exed all because he spoke the truth.

and it once again proves to everyone that joseph smith is a false prophet,and that mormonism is a dictatorship.

because think about this latest stunt they have just pulled by trying to censor and control what the members read during church.

it is more lds leaders arrogance and new tactics of brainwashing with a higher dose.

because church history should surely always be talked about and discussed in a church setting at all times.

not just when mormons leaders feel that it is convient,or when they feel they can score some pr points.

it's no excuse for this cover and lies and down right corrupted behavior none.

June 17, 2008 at 8:22 AM

Nicko,

I don't think it's a large generalisation at all! You don't think that members of the church would like to discuss stuff like this? Stuff you know about but can't talk about because it would raise eyebrows? I think you are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

It is information that everyone deserves to know, Nicko.

It definitely matters how the translation was made Nicko... come on now... would you have believed the story if you knew Joseph Smith used a peep stone in a top hat? Would investigators believe it if they knew that? That is why the church doesn't talk about it!

As for polygamy in heaven, we both know about it. We have talked about it before.

In the Celestial Kingdom men will have more than one wife. On earth, if a man is married in the temple, then his wife dies and he marries again in the temple he is sealed to more than one woman in the afterlife... therefore we have polygamy. Don't deny it. Like I said, we have talked about it before!

Another things is that we don't have any way of knowing what is "doctrine." It's another thing we have discussed before.

Defending the church is one thing, but you have to know that they are not being honest all the time. This stuff isn't deep doctrine like you keep claiming... this is simply history.

Joseph Smith is being studied all year, and the church put out training and lesson manuals. Like Truly Confused said, why is it that there is no mention of his other wives? They are not teaching the correct version of events... it's easy to see it. I don't know how you can defend and rationalize it. It's right in front of you!

June 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM

One more thing I wanted to add, Nicko.

You said that these things came from secondary sources? The sources come from the church!! The church has admitted that Joseph Smith used a peep stone in a hat to translate! The church knows all about it and agrees with it. Why don't they teach it?

Joseph Smith had more than one wife, and the church admits to this too! It's on the geneology site for crying out loud! Along with the ages of the women! Why isn't that being discussed? These are not "secondary sources" Nicko.

June 17, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Hey Syd,

The reason nicko defends this corrupted behavior that is right in front of nicko is because,all the lds leaders do is lie and try to cover up for the fraud of joseph smith.

and occasionally they will plant a mole like nicko to do pr work and to try to defend the errors and lies and cover ups and sexual abuses of mormonism.

so hey nicko what are you a mole?

because you are not doing a good job,because the truth is getting out about joseph smith being a killer,a polygamist,a liar,a adulterer,a pedophile who lied on God just so he could have sexual relations with 14 year old girls,joseph smith and brigam young were perverts.

and that is why members are leaving,because mormonism is falling apart at the seams.

because remember syd that the devil is a liar and the truth is not in him.

so stop lying nicko,because you and sydney have already talked about the meat issues at hand.

so stop beating around the bush nicko,because the truth still remains and forever will remain that mormonism is all a big lie and a fraud,and we all know it.

June 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Donangelo,

Why in the world would you say that Nicko is a mole? Why do you continue to insult him even though I have asked you to stop?

I don't think Nicko is lying, he just doesn't see things the same way that I do.

Again, I need to emphasize to you that you need to stay respectful to everyone here... even people who don't share your particular belief system.

June 17, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Nicko talks about the priority of the lessons being there to edify.

Well I spent two years attending and amongst the edifying there was also the constant reminder that

1 Only this church has Authority.
2 You can't be saved with your family without us ( or even without paying Tithe).
3 If you get blessed it proves the church is true if you don't then its your own fault.( unworthy)
4 You need the church more than we need you.

It was more to do with keeping people trapped in fear and dependant on the church in my opnion.
Then there was the constant pressure to convert your friends.
It seemed clear to me that Church members never really had friends outside the church but that they were only potential Investigators.

And the real reason the Truth isn't taught is because

1 Many members would quit( there are many trapped in that church and if they knew those historical and even doctrinal things then they would leave in horror ).

2 Hardly anyone or NON would join if they knew .

The real issue here is that the church is not what it is claiming to be.It was founded on deception and lying and can only survive by continued deception and lying.

and if missionaries knew the real history they wouldn't dare knock on a door !

I've seen the effects of the hat and stone translation with them, they were bewildered and horrified.

The church might do some good for some but it causes alot of family break ups and hardship.

I lost a close friendship in church simply because I asked her the difficult questions she promised she would never runaway from.It seems she was shocked herself.She was so certain I was wrong and that she had been taught the truth.

She spent 17 years in church converted at 20, served a mission recently and was surprised (shocked and bewildered) when I mentioned the Hat and stone.

June 17, 2008 at 3:26 PM

And also I think its disrespectful to brush under the carpet the memories of those polyagmous wives who afterall scacrificed greatly for the cause.

The church's website on Joseph Smith is a disgrace.They purposely have quashed all memory of those additional wives of Joseph Smith and instead potray him as some wonderful faithful monogomist.

Its the same with Sunday School books, DVD's , Ensigns etc

They show no respect for those early saints who sacrificed themsleves in polygamy.The church would rather they were blotted out of existence.

June 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Elder Joseph,

I agree with you completely. The church doesn't discuss these things simply because it doesn't add to their credibility.

Eventually, the word will get out, and when it does, the church will look even worse for not doing the right thing.

I am sorry that you lost a close friend, the same thing has happened to me. It's so sad when you have to decide between living your life authentically and living your life with all of your relationships intact. Choosing to live authentically isn't being selfish, it's being honest.

I applaud you for talking to your friend about it. You never know if she will open her heart or mind.

June 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Elder Joseph,

Thank you for pointing that out! The wives sacrificed almost everything! Some of the women didn't want to be married, but felt that they had to be married in order to go to heaven... if the prophet of the church wants to marry you, you would have a hard time proving to everyone that you were a believer at heart if you said no.

It will happen eventually. One day the church will realize that the membership is getting smaller and smaller (it is!) and they will have to make drastic changes.

June 17, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Sydney

You said

"I applaud you for talking to your friend about it. You never know if she will open her heart or mind."

Thank you for the kind words ,I have a great hope for that. She tried to defend the church initially but found the evidence always in my favour .I think she couldn't find any other way to escape but to cut off ties with me.

Its likely her Bishop advised her this as she was seeking answers in church to my findings.

I'm devasted really but feel assured that Truth will Prevail and ironically Joseph Smith did say that Truth will cut its own way ! :)

June 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Elder Joseph,

You are welcome for those words, I know words can be very little comfort when it comes to things like this.

It *is* very likely that her Bishop advised her to step away from the questions, maybe one day the cognitive dissonance will be too much for her and she will investigate further.

My grandfather has stopped talking to both my mother and I because we questioned the authority of the priesthood. His bishop advised him to step away from the situation, and he listened to his bishop instead of two women who loved him regardless of how he treated them.

The church has too much power. How many friendships, relationships, marriages and families have been torn apart because of the LDS Church? I think most LDS people would be surprised.

June 17, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Hey Sydney,

To be honest I don't think the lds cult will ever change.

because they love lying and doing wrong,and the lds cult love decieving their members.

that is why the mormon cult has rejected the God of the holy bible.

they have rejected the holy bible,
because they love the darkness,they love to sin.

June 17, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Donangelo,

I don't believe the general membership likes to sin or live in darkness... I hope your statement was directed at the leaders of the church?

June 17, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Hey Syd,

Yes pretty much the leadership I'm talking about.

June 17, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Sydney

Thanks for confirming that its most likely the Bishop who advised her to cut off ties with me as I don't hold it against her for that reason.She does believe that God speaks to her through the Bishop/Priesthood :( and I can understand that she may feel she is risking her Temple Recommend status as the Bishop will probably ask her again to see if she has obeyed ?
( ie Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual? )

Its the same in my ward.I have helped a convert ( he baptised 3years ago) was paying Tithe but always looked depressed and anxious.Slowly over the past two years I shared my findings with him and he had found some things too ....

The result ?

He stopped tithing ,stopped worrying, his confidence and self esteem has rocketted up and he declared that he feeels great about himself in comparison with the tyrants Joseph Smith, Brigham Young , Heber C Kimball and Co !

It was a literal Born Again moment that day I visited him after lending him my Grant Palmer 'Insiders View' book ! lol

He still attends sacrament to maintain friendships but asks the tough questions whenever they try to work him up the priesthood Ladder .

They couldn't give him answers, were freaked out and then the bishop told him not to associate with me :(

He refused of course and told the Bishop how genuine I am and a privilage to be friends with .That will have upset the bishop and his authoritive status ! lol

I feel thats quite sad coming from the Bishop who I thought was my friend as I have never dissuaded my church friend from attending church or continuing friendships in church.I even recommended he visit the Temple here in Preston England on the next temple trip just to see a little more of the church and the culture and The beauty of the temple building and its grounds.

Though he knows that the members are plotting and hoping he will feel 'the spirit' !

I don't think so ,he knows the truth now and is more happier than he was 3 years ago.

June 17, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Elder Joseph,

It's more than upsetting that a church leader's thoughts take priority over a grown person's relationships.

What I don't understand, and probably never will, is why we get treated so harshly for sharing the TRUTH! These things happened, and our family and friends deserve to know the whole story. We are not the ones causing the problem here... the church is.

I am happy that your friend is happy now, I know for fact the church makes some of the members unhappy but they are too invested to take a step back and figure out what is really wrong. Instead they assume there is something wrong with them, that they can't feel the spirit or something... its messed up.

I am happy that your friend is happy. That is all everyone wants, right?

June 17, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Sydney...sorry I had to grab points out of the replies to reply to cause it gets too confusing otherwise...sorry for the length!

You don't think that members of the church would like to discuss stuff like this? Stuff you know about but can't talk about because it would raise eyebrows? I think you are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise

Again no I don't. Based on my experience with members of the church, I don't think they would at all. Why? It doesn't edify at all. But having said this, we have discussed some of the more 'extreme' points of doctrine and history in my ward, and no eyebrows were raised. This supposed culture of fear to speak doesn't appear to exist where I live.

It definitely matters how the translation was made Nicko... come on now... would you have believed the story if you knew Joseph Smith used a peep stone in a top hat?

It wouldn't have mattered one brass razoo. In fact, why would it when in the bible which I believed in quite strongly back then we have even more bizarre stories of men and women receiving revelation in strange manners. Balaam and the Donkey speaking anyone??

In the Celestial Kingdom men will have more than one wife. On earth, if a man is married in the temple, then his wife dies and he marries again in the temple he is sealed to more than one woman in the afterlife... therefore we have polygamy. Don't deny it. Like I said, we have talked about it before!

Sydney you still haven't pointed to any doctrine which declares that I will have more than one wife in the Celestial Kingdom. Once you claimed in your posts that it was a reward for righteousness like some type of suicide bomber. Show me where it ever stipifies anything of this nature and I will gladly entertain the point.

Joseph Smith is being studied all year, and the church put out training and lesson manuals. Like Truly Confused said, why is it that there is no mention of his other wives? They are not teaching the correct version of events... it's easy to see it. I don't know how you can defend and rationalize it. It's right in front of you!

I think I've done a pretty good job defining to you what I believe Sunday is for. If you can't accept that Church is designed to uplift and edify, then you can't entertain any reason why the Church wouldn't discuss these things.

I think I've also already pointed out very clearly that I believe that there is a time and place to discuss these things which is Church Institute and other areas of Church Educative processes. AND I agreed with your Mum and said that I thought that the Church Could do more in these areas to promote what is essentially 'new' historical information.

You said that these things came from secondary sources? The sources come from the church!! The church has admitted that Joseph Smith used a peep stone in a hat to translate! The church knows all about it and agrees with it. Why don't they teach it?

No thats not what I said at all. I said that the top hat stuff was secondary to the main crux of the translation story itself. I never said that I thought that the information came from secondary sources. You need to read my posts a little more carefully.

I do However believe that the information regarding the women whom JS and BY married (as well as others) was relatively obscure until more recently. We can say oh he married a 14 year old (the only one really proven) and a few other below the age of 18, but what good is that unless we actually know their stories. Which is why I loved the book Sacred Loneliness and would advocate any member to read it, but also read some of the reviews on it.

I can foresee at time when CES instructors will begin to use information like this in their lessons...but as for using it on Sunday when DOCTRINE should be taught and shared, I don't believe its appropriate. I don't go to church to get a history lesson on something which has no relevance to my worship of the Saviour.

June 17, 2008 at 7:07 PM

The reason nicko defends this corrupted behavior that is right in front of nicko is because,all the lds leaders do is lie and try to cover up for the fraud of joseph smith.

and occasionally they will plant a mole like nicko to do pr work and to try to defend the errors and lies and cover ups and sexual abuses of mormonism.

so hey nicko what are you a mole?

Actually donangelo I am a human/cybernetic organism sent back from the future in order to eliminate any opposition to the New World Order of Mormon Robots who plan to kill all your kind. My mission is to destroy Sydney's credibility as she will one day be the leader of the revolution against us. If I can crush her now, then we Robots will win.....

Enough said.

June 17, 2008 at 7:15 PM

And also I think its disrespectful to brush under the carpet the memories of those polyagmous wives who afterall scacrificed greatly for the cause

Actually Elder Joseph I agree with you there. I believe that these women need to have their stories more readily available so members can know of their sacrifices. This is why books like the one I've mentioned time and time again are so important to read in my opinion. Whether or not it makes it to church institute manuals is a matter of time to wait and see. But I should STRONGLY advise that this is my opinion and mine alone.

donangelo - because they love the darkness,they love to sin

Please....show me where someone like Elder Maxwell (my own personal favourite) ever loved to sin....

Elder Joseph,

I have to agree with Sydney there. I do think its quite disenchanting for a Bishop to dictate to members what to do and what not to do. Advise I can live with, but also that the members should figure these things out through prayer and supplication.

I do think also though that circumstances apply and in your case I don't know them all. Personally, if my children were associating with someone who was preaching hatred against the church (not saying you did just an example) I'd be advising them strongly to disassociate themselves with them...but thats just me.

June 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Nicko,

No worries on the length of the reply, mine will probably be just as long!

"Again no I don't. Based on my experience with members of the church, I don't think they would at all. Why? It doesn't edify at all. But having said this, we have discussed some of the more 'extreme' points of doctrine and history in my ward, and no eyebrows were raised. This supposed culture of fear to speak doesn't appear to exist where I live."

That must really be the difference between being in the church in Australia and being in the church in Utah. Most of the people that I know would love nothing more that to sit down and seriously talk about this stuff.. they just can't because it's so "taboo." Why should it be taboo?

"It wouldn't have mattered one brass razoo. In fact, why would it when in the bible which I believed in quite strongly back then we have even more bizarre stories of men and women receiving revelation in strange manners. Balaam and the Donkey speaking anyone??"

I know it matters, Nicko. Do you really believe the church would have as many converts if they gave the complete historical version of events? The head-in-the-hat thing sounds ridiculous, and they know it. It would cause too much doubt. If these so-called magical events truly happened, they shouldn't be ashamed to talk about them. The point is that they hide it for a reason, because it makes them lose credibility. No matter what, they will continue to lose credibility.

"Sydney you still haven't pointed to any doctrine which declares that I will have more than one wife in the Celestial Kingdom. Once you claimed in your posts that it was a reward for righteousness like some type of suicide bomber. Show me where it ever stipifies anything of this nature and I will gladly entertain the point."

I mentioned before that it is impossible to find out what is doctrine and what isn't. This is a question I asked my Mom's bishop when I had the meeting with him... he didn't even have a good answer.

Remember when we were talking about my hatred of polygamy? We talked about having multiple wives in the celestial kingdom and you said, jokingly, that I didn't need to worry about it because I wasn't going to the celestial kingdom? (To those who don't know... Nicko was just joking). You didn't deny it then, did you? Why do you deny it now? Again, if you are married in the temple, and that wife passes away, and you marry another woman in the temple you have more than one woman sealed to you in the afterlife. That is how it is. It's fairly obvious to most of the Mormons I know and talk to. They certainly don't deny it... as a matter of fact, it bugs the hell out of most of them, but they put it on that infamous "shelf" and trust in the church and the prophet! In Utah it's common knowledge!

"I think I've also already pointed out very clearly that I believe that there is a time and place to discuss these things which is Church Institute and other areas of Church Educative processes. AND I agreed with your Mum and said that I thought that the Church Could do more in these areas to promote what is essentially 'new' historical information."

Again, I agree the church should uplift and edify. BUT there are plenty of opportunities that the church takes to teach people about history while they are in church meetings. I was there, I know it happens. I also know that they don't give the complete truth. This might be another example of the location of our wards. In Utah they give lessons about this kind of thing, and the lessons are not correct.

"No thats not what I said at all. I said that the top hat stuff was secondary to the main crux of the translation story itself. I never said that I thought that the information came from secondary sources. You need to read my posts a little more carefully."

History isn't "new." The church has known about this stuff since it happed. They went out of their way to not talk about it in hopes it would never surface. It's obvious! The church has had these journals and records the whole time! Do you really think they didn't know? Come on.

I would add more, but I need to get off the computer. Until next time!