Windy Sydney

Read more »

This is my 1000th post on WindySydney.

Can you believe it?

I can't.

When I first started this blog I was just learning about the truth of Mormonism, and I didn't even think people would read the thing. It was more of an exercise in getting my thoughts together and expressing my feelings in a positive way (as opposed to losing my mind and really freaking out that I was lied to my entire life).

Now, here I am, two years later. I can't believe how much I have changed over the past couple of years. I went from a woman who believed in a loving God to an atheist who questions everything.

I have to say that I am really happy I decided to start this blog, and I wanted to thank all the regulars who have dropped in over the last couple years. I have made some really cool friends, and even those who can't stand me and want me dead still hold a place in my cold dead atheist heart.

To celebrate the 1000th post, I decided to focus on a Mormon that I really can't stand.

Let me say this before believing Mormons freak out on me... I don't hate him because he is a Mormon, I hate him because he is a Mormon Moron. I would still loathe the guy if he was an atheist like me.

Glen Beck is one of the biggest douche-bags in television. He ranks right up there with Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

As a matter of fact, this is one of my favorite Bill Maher quotes from "New Rules."

If Obama had never been elected we would have never seen Glen Beck cry on TV. On a park bench while masturbating, sure... but not on TV. And was there any better TV than watching this weeping, wonderful special-needs cousin of Rush Limbaugh? Angry one moment then frightened and scolding, sobbing... We loved him because we have all known someone like him. Usually an ex-girlfriend.

The guy is a mental case... and thats putting it nicely.

Tip for this first spoof: Watch the news ticker at the bottom of the screen.









This guy is a nutcase, and the entire state of Utah is in love with him.

How scary is that?

Read more »

First, lets watch this clip from FOX "news." I prefer to call them faux news. Damn, they suck.



Okay, so lets take a look at the details here.

At the very beginning one of the anchors says, "You started chemo, but you *ALSO* started praying to a specific person."

Notice how they downplay the chemo right from the start?

It wasn't medicine and science that saved this woman's life, it was a miracle.

*puke*

That isn't a miracle. People can survive cancer like this, it isn't likely but it's possible. The fact that one woman got better is good news, and I am happy for her... but that isn't a miracle.

A miracle would be Jesus coming down and curing ALL cancer.

Maybe thats too much...

How about just the kids? Yeah... the kids with cancer? How about Jesus and God heal those people?

Why did God cure her and then allow thousands of other people to die of the same thing? What made her special?

Give me a break.

Andee

Read more »

Let me start this list with a video targeted at those who buy into Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's bullshit. I loved this:



Next we have one of my favorite youtube personalities also giving her take on Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. I was applauding her as I watched this. This girl is smart and straight to the point... which is something most religions and their clergy are not.



Next one...

Know what I miss?

Kids in the Hall.

That sketch comedy group has entertained me for hours upon hours upon hours of my life. You can really tell they have great chemistry together, and their ideas are brilliant. Here are a few of their religious themed sketches...

This is one of their sketches titled, "Dr. Seuss Bible."



Gavin and the Evangelists



I Have a Demon

Read more »

This is a report from AlJazeeraEnglish about Christian Evangelical US soldiers going out and trying to convert people from their strict Muslim faith. This particular video was made in May of '09, and it demonstrates how arrogant people of ANY religion can be.



I won't even go into the whole reason why I think we should be out of both of the wars (like... yesterday) and I won't even go into politics in general.

The one thing I want to talk about is the arrogance that these soldiers were showing in the video. They clearly knew that they were breaking rules by passing out Bibles printed in different languages, so they worked a way around it. They were simply giving "gifts." They were not trying to convert, they were just trying to have a conversation. How many other lies can they tell themselves to make their actions okay in their minds?

Let me write out one of my favorite quotes from Bill Maher's New Rules after the Taliban released Chinese missionaries that were kidnapped:

Walking into Afghanistan with a Bible and a cross is like crashing a party at Jay-Z's house and popping on a Kenny Chesney CD.

"Once they hear my music they will change their minds about what good music is!!! Come on!! It's the Chez-nut!"

If you want to get people to believe in your particular religion, make sure your God can do something really really cool. Like not let you get kidnapped.

Religion makes people so stupid.

Andee

Read more »

Damn, I wish I could have been there...

On August 7, 2009, over 300 Atheists traveled to the Bible Belt of America to visit the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Five religious skeptics document their adventures through the museum as they learn that not everyone believes in modern science.

The Creation Museum promotes the existence of a 6,000 year old Earth, in which dinosaurs and humans once lived together.

Read more »

Yet another video from Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort trying to get people to ignore facts and "think from the heart."

Don't listen to your head, folks. Pray for that discerning spirit witness.

You know, if I were to sit down and pray to a God and ask if a banana were a prophet and I got a warm and fuzzy feeling about it, what would they say? Of course they would say I was out of my mind... but of course, they are not. No. They are right.

I laughed my ass off.



Did you know that every day people die?

No shit, Sherlock.

Also, is it me or did finding Christ kill Kirk Cameron's acting ability?

Guess he wasn't all that talented to begin with.

He sounds like some door to door salesman... oh wait... he kind of is.

If Atheists ruled the world (fundie nonsense):



Painfully Stupid Prop H8 Commercial:



Televangelist Gimmicks & Free Offers


via videosift.com

Televangelist Scandals in the '80's


via videosift.com

Colby the Christian Robot


via videosift.com

The end of the robot video is HILARIOUS.

All the kids get together and dress like robots and sing about being robots. How true. How true.

One of the comments left on VideoSift asked the question, "Why is everyone wearing so many shirts?" Ahhh, the 80's. It was a simple time.

Christian Man Fired For His Intolerance. Watch the loser whine:



Think whatever you want Christ-follower, but why do you feel the need to express your religious beliefs at work?

He shares the argument that he was being harassed because one of the managers would talk about her future wedding to her partner. Christian boy is offended by this and thinks he has the right to tell other people what to say around him? If this dude's manager isn't allowed to talk about her female fiance, no one should be able to talk about their boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands and wives.

Would I walk up to you and tell you how much I disagree with many things in the Bible and consider them immoral? This guy is a first-class douche bag.

Bible Truths



That dog listened to rock music. Guess all dogs don't go to heaven, huh?

Preaching about Piss


via videosift.com

I... just... um...

...nothing.

The Complete Guide to the Future!


via videosift.com

Holy Shit these people are fuck-nuts. :/

And Finally...

Religiousil


via videosift.com

I had to add this:

Read more »

Oh, I know I have blogged about this many times, but I can't help myself.

Seth (a believer in the LDS Church and frequent commenter) and I were debating if Joseph Smith or any other church leaders were trustworthy.

I say no.

There is a huge list written by Ken Clark, a former Mormon and full time instructor for the church education system. He began keeping track of the inconsistencies he ran into when he was teaching students about the church, and it finally led him out of the church. I got to shake Ken's hand when I attended the ex-Mormon conference in '08, and he is a brilliant and funny man. If you are interested in watching the lecture, click here for the youtube list! You won't regret it. I give him soooo much credit for standing up for his own beliefs. It wasn't easy for him.



You can actually see my head in the beginning of this video. My Mom is to my left with the blonde hair and sunglasses in her hair, and I am on the right with the short reddish-brown hair. I miss my short hair. I want a haircut...

It's not my intention to just copy and paste what Ken Clark wrote for MormonThink.com. I am just going to pick and choose some of my favorite examples of how the church really can't be trusted.

I ask anyone who believes in the church to ask themselves if a God would want them to put trust into someone, why would a God want you to put your trust into people who have been proven liars? Why would a God choose liars to fulfill His plans? It makes no sense whatsoever.

All emphasis is mine.

As an informal defender, I discovered that those accusing the church leaders of being dishonest sometimes had the facts on their side (when I took the time to check). I dealt with the cognitive dissonance by pointing out that (1) all organizations are run by humans and if you search hard enough, of course you'll find a few isolated examples of deception; and (2) since the leaders are human, they will err on occasion. I guessed there may have been occasional isolated examples of premeditated deception but it was not a pattern or standard practice.

Sometimes I caught myself revealing less than the whole truth, or embellishing in order to defend the church. I noticed that other members often did the same thing. I gave myself permission to be slightly dishonest because I was defending God's one true church; or so I reasoned. Eventually I decided to let the lives and sermons of the church leaders speak for themselves. If detractors were right some of the time, the church and I would deal with it.

I see Mormons do this all the time. They only repeat what they know, and if they are one of the few people who actually knows the truth about the history of the church they only repeat what helps their point. They also lie to themselves and convince themselves that the lies the church tells are not bad because the Lord needs people to convert to the church. This is a bunch of crap at best. It's not honest, is it?

Before becoming a prophet, Smith's chosen profession relied on deception to earn a living. He assured clients that he could see underground treasure using a magic stone in the bottom of his hat and clients paid him to locate hidden gold using this method. He never did of course. Smith's arrest, trial and conviction in Bainbridge, NY for fraud in 1826 documented his activity. He was found guilty of glass looking. The modern term for Smith would be a con artist. (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 82-86). Modern scams operate on a similar principle Smith used to separate people from their money.

Joseph Smith was comfortable using deception when it suited him. He wove it into the fabric of Mormonism as a way of dealing with those who questioned his authority or who reported his deception or tasteless behavior. Excellent historical works record Smith's deception and the deception of other LDS leaders.

I have to take the opportunity to ask Seth and the rest of the believing Mormons who read this blog (most don't comment but email me) why a God would choose a man to restore the one and only true church upon the earth that had already deceived so many people? Couldn't there have been a more trustworthy person? Why in the world did God choose Joe?

Below is a list of notable prevarications by church leaders. Some rate higher on the "deceit-scale" than others. The list is not exhaustive, and offers only a sample of some of the well known incidents of deception on the part of LDS church leaders. Since well over one hundred examples are included, it is not a comprehensive list, and because lying began with Joseph Smith and continues today (2007), I concluded that lying is standard operating procedure for church leaders. I referenced each of the incidents with the secondary source. It's easier for the normal reader to locate information in a secondary source. The footnotes provided in the secondary sources will provide you with the references for primary sources if you wish to review them.

At the end of the list is a brief review of recent research on lying.

I beg those who don't believe the church has lied or continues to lie to read this entire post by Ken Clark and check his sources for yourself. He is the real deal, and he has done his homework. Have you?

Seth, he also mentions the Kirtland Bank Scandal in the videos, you might get a better understanding of where I am coming from if you watch them.

Again, this is just a small sampling of the list Ken Clark made, please please pretty pretty please read his paper. It will make you think... if you are not afraid of thinking. ;)

1. The official version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith, fashioned in 1838, nearly 20 years after the event, was unknown to church members living in the 1830s. It evolved after years of refining and modifying. It describes a more spectacular and miraculous event than earlier versions of the same event. The 1832 account is the original handwritten version and not as dramatic as the 1838 version. The 1832 version does not mention God the Father one who appeared to Smith, or the religious excitement causing Smith to pray, persecution by enemies, being attacked by the devil, being told not to join any apostate Christian Churches by Jesus; and he was not called to restore a church and serve as its prophet. The 1832 "vision" resembles a common Christian epiphany where he imagined Jesus forgiving his sins. Church leaders suppressed the contradictory and less impressive version for over a century. (James B. Allen, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45. See also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp.24-25; and The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 148-166)

2. The LDS church consistently describes in sermons and paintings, the visitation of an angel named Moroni to Joseph Smith on September 21, 1823. Moroni is pictured floating above Joseph or next to his bed, alone in his bedroom. The pictures do not portray Joseph's five brothers that slept in the same room with him. A restored Smith house is used for LDS tours showing the small room and only two beds for six brothers. Nothing resembling the actual sleeping arrangement is hinted at in the church's official literature and pictorial recreations of the scene. It would seem inconceivable to most investigators (and perhaps many members) that Joseph's brothers sleeping in the same room and bed would not have been awakened by the events as described by Joseph. The inaccurate depictions and lesson manuals tell a different story to make the event seem more believable. This is an example of the deceptive "milk before meat" principle used to excuse the suppression of questionable historical stories about Mormon origins. Moroni's Visitation.

3. Official Mormon histories have omitted references to Joseph Smith's drinking and use of tobacco in order to create a more inspiring impression of their prophet, who if living today (2007) would be unable to pass a worthiness interview and earn a temple recommend in the church he founded. (Changing World of Mormonism, pages 413-414 and Chapter 18 of the same online book). "Joseph tested the Saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman, of the First presidency, related: 'Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time, he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter, he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Some of the brethren were tried as was Abraham of old'" ("Joseph Smith as an Administrator," Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, p.161. Quotation found in The Changing World of Mormonism, page 31).

4. Leonard Arrington, the official LDS Church Historian for nearly a decade (1972-1982) lamented the suppression of real Mormon history in favor of a faith promoting version. Six years previous to his appointment as church historian, Dr. Arrington wrote: "it is unfortunate for the cause of Mormon history that the Church Historian's Library, which is in the possession of virtually all of the diaries of leading Mormons, has not seen fit to publish these diaries or to permit qualified historians to use them without restriction." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1966, p.26). Leonard Arrington was demoted in 1982 transferred from the church historians office to BYU because of his refreshing honesty; he was a threat to the faith promoting history the church insisted he support (Deseret News, Church Section, July 5, 1980; http://library.usu.edu/Specol/manuscript/Arrington/LJAHA1/bio.html). The church does not report accurate unflattering historical facts about its origins and leaders to the membership or the world, unless forced to by published disclosures of deception.

5. Joseph Smith and the Mormons' official publications remove all references to Joseph Smith's activities as a professional con man. Documents discovered in 1971 by Dr. Wesley Walters in Norwich, New York, verify that Joseph Smith was a "glass looker" and that he was arrested, tried and found guilty by a justice of the peace in Bainbridge, New York, in 1826.

6. Joseph Smith claimed that he discovered gold plates with strange engravings, and special spectacles called "Interpreters." The LDS Church teaches members and investigators that the "Interpreters" were actually a Urim and Thummim used to translate the golden plates. This claim is not true. In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, the editor of the RLDS Saints' Herald, asked David Whitmer if Joseph Smith had used his peep stone to translate the plates. Whitmer, who offered his home to Smith and acted as a scribe for part of the translation of the Book of Mormon, replied that Smith gave the Interpreters back to an angel and used a peep stone or "Seers Stone" to translate the Book of Mormon; one that he had found while digging a well. It looked like an ordinary rock but Smith claimed it gave him the ability to see buried treasure, receive revelations, and translate ancient records. (The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 80-83)

7. Joseph Smith institutionalized the practice of lying, so church leaders could deny the practice of taking multiple wives and keep Smith out of legal trouble. Straight-faced lies permitted leaders to deceive with a clear conscience; believing that God permitted and even encouraged lying to protect the principle.

8. Vienna Jacques of Nauvoo heard rumors about "spiritual wifery." She wanted Emma to ask Joseph if the rumors were true. Was "spiritual wifery" a doctrine of the church?" Emma asked and relayed Joseph's answer. Vienna reported, "he, [Joseph] had told her [Emma] to tell the sisters of the society ... "the whole idea was absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing." Joseph was secretly practicing plural marriage at the time. (Mormon Enigma, p. 114) Joseph prevaricated. He was actively practicing and teaching the principle.

9. Joseph Smith secretly married 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney in August 1842 without Emma's knowledge or consent. He had no intention of confessing his conduct to Emma. He wrote to Sarah and her parents who approved of the marriage, "The only thing to be careful of is to find out when Emma comes, then you can not be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety... Burn this letter as soon as you read it." (Mormon Enigma, p. 125)

10. Joseph deceived Emma again when he married two other women (probably Martha McBride Knight and Ruth Vose Sayers) without her knowledge or consent in the winter of 1842-43. (Mormon Enigma, p. 134 and note 13)

11. Joseph secretly proposed to 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon in Nauvoo in 1842 (Smith was 36). He wanted her as a plural wife. She declined, so Joseph recruited another LDS woman to convince Nancy. She rejected that attempt too and insisted that she be permitted to leave. Smith dictated a letter and sent it to her. In it he tried to convince her that God revealed the practice to Joseph and ordered him to take multiple wives. Part of the letter read, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another ... . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." Nancy showed the letter to her father, Sydney Rigdon. When Sydney questioned Joseph about it, he denied the whole affair. Joseph admitted to it only when Sydney showed Joseph the letter he had dictated and sent to Nancy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 119, and Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 2nd edition p. 32-33)

12. Martha Brotherton, an 18 year old convert from England in 1842, emigrated to Nauvoo, Illinois with her parents. Brigham Young approached Joseph Smith to ask if he could add Martha as another plural wife. Smith agreed and called a meeting with Young and Martha. She knew nothing of the agreement between them beforehand. And her parents were not invited, though she was a dependent minor. After Smith and Young tried to persuade her, Martha refused the offer of marriage. They encouraged her to lie to her parents and keep their proposal a secret and tried again and again to persuade her to accept Brigham's proposal. Martha finally appealed to them through tears and pleading that she be given time to think about the offer.

After being sworn to secrecy and permitted to leave the room, Martha revealed everything to her parents and wrote it down while the important details were fresh in her mind. She told others in Nauvoo about the episode before the family boarded a steamboat bound for St. Louis. She published her account in a St. Louis newspaper (St. Louis Bulletin, July 15, 1842, p. 2). Smith, stung by the article, immediately denied that the events Martha described took place. He went further. He issued false affidavits and statements that called Martha not only a liar, but also an apostate and "mean harlot." Smith used character assassination when he thought the situation warranted it; no matter how young his victim was. (Arza Evans, The Keystone of Mormonism, Keystone Books Inc., 2003, St. George Utah, pp. 20-21.)

Okay, those are only 12 of the examples of MANY that show the church lied in the past, lets take a look at more recent lies... shall we?

Former BYU professor David Knowlton, in a television interview airing August 16, 1992, (KXVS, Channel 4) in Salt Lake, said, "I'm ashamed, frankly, of a church that doesn't want to tell the truth. I'm ashamed of institutional lying." His comments stemmed from the church's denial, then admission that a committee existed within the church that keeps files on the activities on its members. It sends the files to local church leaders with instructions to interrogate them about their commitment to the church. The committee is active currently (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 46-47).

Current LDS apostles are refreshingly honest about ordering church members to be dishonest. They have ordered those who employed by the church to suppress the truth about Mormon history.

--Boyd Packer declared, "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." (Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271) He threatened and warned Church Education System Employees to suppress historical information when teaching LDS students.

--Dallin Oaks said, it's one thing to criticize the head of a corporation of person in government but "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. " (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) This was another salvo fired over the bows of Church Education System employees, warning them not to teach LDS students the whole truth about Mormon history.

--Oaks also wrote this in the church's official magazine. "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." (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, "Criticism," Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68)

The message from current leaders is clear. Pretend that the LDS leaders are infallible, obey and conform. For easy access to these and other statements see http://i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm)

I'm not going to copy/paste any more of Ken's hard work. Please check it out for yourself. He did such a good job on this...

So, there you have it.

How in the world could I place trust into a corporation (lets be honest here, no pun intended) that has been caught in so many lies?

Why do you continue to place trust in the church even though there is so much evidence they are keeping quiet? Things they don't talk about? Things they don't want ANYONE to know about?

If you don't have anything to hide, there is no reason to hide it.

They know very well that their membership would drop even lower than it is already if they were honest. They would lose their power, money, and quite frankly... people would know they were full of shit. They are covering up for themselves. They certainly don't want to be known as liars even though its clear they are.

Andee

Read more »

Someone just left a comment on the article I wrote this morning about TBM comments. This is what BOMG had to say:

Did you forget the Eight Witnesses who saw AND touched the plates?

Did you forget the nearly 20 witnesses of the dictation process?

Are you aware David, Martin and Oliver refuted what you said in their life times?

Are you aware not a single Mormon Church doctrine is found in the Book of Mormon? If you wish to bash the Mormons, use the D&C or the PofGP.

Consider:

www.whitmercollege.com
www.jsfellowship.com
www.bomchristian.com

Holy shit.

I mean, I don't even know where to start.

For those who don't want to click on the links provided to me, let me give you a little bit of info from one of them...

Whitmer College: Anti-Mormon, Pro-Book of Mormon

David Whitmer (for whom this site is named), was a follower of Jesus Christ, having obtained his testimony from a life of experience and study of the Bible and Book of Mormon. It was the Book of Mormon that showed David the errors of Joseph's church, and his post-Book of Mormon revelations.

Continually accused by the LDS and RLDS for being an "excommunicated apostate," David was neither. Whitmer College establishes these and other truths long obscured.

The other two are similar. I won't go into detail copying and pasting all the information for each one of them. There is no point.

Can I tell you how much I hate the word "Anti-Mormon?" I don't even like "anti-religion." It makes it seem as if I hate all Mormons and I hate all religious people. That isn't true. Most of my friends and family are religious people, and I love them dearly. I believe they are putting their faith and money into ancient fairy tales, but that doesn't mean I am against THEM. Just against the dogma in general.

Just wanted to clarify that.

The people on these websites believe that Joseph Smith went astray, but they still believe in the Book of Mormon. I really don't understand that way of thinking, but hell... I don't understand most religious thinking anymore... so I am the first to admit that my patience for this kind of thing is low.

Here is what I don't understand, BOMG...

You mentioned that there were people who touched the plates. That is actually true from all of the studying and researching I have done about this particular topic. Guess what, though? They didn't see the plates AND touch the plates at the same time. They were simply touching the plates while being covered with a cloth of some kind.

Why was it necessary to cover the plates with cloth? If God and Joseph Smith had nothing to hide, why were they hiding it?

Here is the deal with this way of thinking...

Lets pretend for a moment that the plates were actually real (don't buy it... I think that the things these men touched and assumed were brass plates was actually a prop of some kind to trick people) and Joseph had them in his possession. What I don't get is why God wouldn't WANT people to see the plates? Wouldn't God want as many people as possible to see for themselves that the plates were real? Wouldn't it do God a HUGE favor if scientific studies could now be performed on these plates to authenticate them? Imagine the people who would be converted if this were possible! It makes no sense for a God to want people to believe in him, believe in the Book of Mormon/Bible and then make it so HARD TO BELIEVE.

Instead, we have to just believe this on faith alone. Just like the Bible. There is zero evidence to support any of these stories, yet people are willing to believe them because it makes them feel better about life and death (IMO).

If a God wanted us to believe that the plates were authentic, the information was correct and that we should follow this book, Joseph and the witnesses should have handled things this way (from MormonThink.com... a great place for information).

1. None of the witnesses should have been related to Joseph or each other. Most of the witnesses were either related or good friends. Having unrelated people as witnesses would be far more effective than using your brothers and father.

2. The witnesses should not have already been eager believers. There should have been some skeptics.

3. There should have been no financial motive. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm and invested some $5,000 of his own money into printing the Book of Mormon, so of course he had incentive to 'promote' the book.

4. Each of the witnesses should each have written their own testimony instead of merely signing a prepared statement written by Joseph. If the prepared document wasn't 100% accurate many people would simply sign it anyway as it would be too much of a hassle to have it completely rewritten by hand - especially in the 1800s.

5. The witnesses should have been much more detailed about this amazing event. What did the angel look like? What exactly did he say? How did he speak? There are almost no details provided which can be analyzed and compared. If each witness had simply written their own account and provided significant details then their individual testimonies could corroborate each other.

6. The witnesses should have been interviewed independently immediately after going public. They should have been interviewed the same way police do with witnesses to crimes or that investigators do with UFO cases. Ask questions to see if their stories match; How was the angel dressed? How tall was he? How did he speak?, etc.

7. The witnesses should not have used subjective language and say strange things like comparing seeing the plates with seeing a city through a mountain or using spiritual eyes instead of their natural eyes to view physical plates.

8. The witnesses should not have been gullible people that believed in things like 'second sight', divining rods, finding treasure by placing a rock in a hat, etc. That the Three Witnesses were a gullible sort is illustrated by an incident in July, 1837. Joseph had left on a five-week missionary tour to Canada, only to find on his return that all three of the Witnesses had joined a faction opposing him. This faction rallied around a young girl who claimed to be a seeress by virtue of a black stone in which she read the future. David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery all pledged her their loyalty, and Frederick G. Williams, formerly Joseph's First Counselor, became her scribe. The girl seeress would dance herself into a state of exhaustion, fall to the floor, and burst forth with revelations. (See Lucy Smith: Biographical Sketches, pp. 211-213).

9. All of the witness should have been much more vocal and been interviewed much more often. There are very few interviews done with the witnesses that provide any additional information or corroboration of their statements. You would think that these people, after seeing such a magnificent sight, would spend their time testifying to the world about their experience instead of largely just signing a prepared statement and avoiding interviews by the media.

10. And of course it would have helped had all the witnesses remained loyal to the Church for the rest of their lives instead of having most of them abandon it later on. It doesn't make much sense to leave the true Church of God if you have really received an indisputable witness that it was true.

That doesn't really matter in the long run though. Even if the men in question really touched plates of some kind, doesn't make the information from those plates true. As I mentioned earlier, there is sooooo much against the validity of the Book of Mormon that its laughable. I have shared these examples before, but here they are again...

• Laban's sword blade was made of steel, long before steel existed.
• "We did work timbers of curious workmanship." But where did Nephi get the lumber? There are very few trees in the Arabian desert.
• Nephi used a compass to navigate with about 1800 years before compasses were discovered.
• Nephi found cows, horses, oxen, asses, and goats and goats when he arrived in the New World in 590 BCE. Yet none of these domesticated animals existed in North America before the Europeans brought them over 2000 years later.

This list goes on and on and on. I encourage you to really think about these facts. If the Book of Mormon were true, why did God make it so hard to believe in? Same goes with the Bible.

Now for the argument that the men I mentioned recanted their stories at one point or another. This actually proves my point. If they said one thing, and then recanted and then went back to their original position on the matter they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. At some point they lied.

"The sky is red."

"This wasn't true. The sky was blue. Those who believe the sky is red are being taken advantage of."

"I was right the first time. The sky is red."

We can't talk to the witnesses personally and gauge for ourselves if they were telling the truth or lying in the first place. So, since that can't be proven we have to look elsewhere to determine if the information from the Book of Mormon is in fact truth. To do this, we go to science. We compare the information from the book to data and things that can be verified. When we do this, the Book of Mormon comes across as a bunch of crap (cause it is!).

You are willing to place your faith in something without having any evidence. You are trusting the men who make these claims instead of looking at the scientific and historical proof. On one side of the coin we have a group of men who have many reasons to lie for Joseph Smith, or who were conned by him. On the other side we have science, logic, reason and historical evidence that can prove many things in this book false.

I am on the side of science here.

Men lie. Especially when they have something to gain. Money, power, or just to make the people in their lives happy.

Seriously dude... think about it.

Read more »

Those who have been reading the blog a long time might remember a post I made in February of 2009 about two funny Book of Mormon reviews written on Amazon.com.

I found them hilarious and I remember laughing REALLY hard when I read them. It was funny, and most of the people who left comments and emailed me about that particular post really enjoyed it.

Well, for the past couple days I have been getting comments on the article from TBMs... the first comment is from a ten year old... or someone who CLAIMS to be a ten year old. There is no way of knowing who anyone is online, and I usually take comments written by children with a grain of salt. If a kid reads this website and gets upset, I do feel kind of bad... but that is free speech for you, isn't it? When I get comments like this I usually never respond because I don't want to antagonize a child. I don't want to hurt a child.

Anyway... here is what 10 year old (again, maybe) anonymous had to say:

Im only ten. I dont know everything (trust me i dont think i do...) But i do know is that while reading this, i could only get through the first couple of paragraphs, before i started crying. I felt like i wanted to vomit ( im not trying to sound mean or anything but thats the way i felt) after reading this. I was making a schedual of things i had to do before i went to bed and one is read the scriptures. I was look ing for pictures when i stumbled across this, i though it was a normal pic then doubble clicked and got this. It hurt. I dont know what made you drop out of the church but i guess you have your reasons. I know i wasnt forsed to read this so im not holding anything against you or anything im just stating what im feeling. When i was eight, well two years ago i mean, my dad died. My family, we were nothing. I could bacically hear my mothers heart ripping inside her chest and i didnt know what was going on, When we got the news i felt like crawling into a ball and dieing myself. But i had to stay strong for my mom, so i just went up into mmy room. I kept thinking why me? What could i have done to deserve this? But i pushed those thoughts aside and did the thing me and my dad loved doing the most, reading my new scriptures. (he died a couple moths afer he baptised me) And i didnt stop reading. even when i didnt understand it, i kept reading and, i felt the spirit so strong, i didnt even feel like crying, all i could do was smile. Cause i could feel my daddy right there next to me, hugging me. I havent missed a day reading the scriptures once since then. I think ive been the the strong one carrying my family ever since. I think i have a stronger testamonly then every teenager out there, because even though, reading things like this thingy you wrote, things like that, dont even phase me. So thank you for making me express my feelings and with your attemt to have me questoning, made me even closer with my Heavenly Father. Thank you and good luck with your life i hope it brings you happiness and love. C:

Dearest Anonymous,

I am sorry if a comedy bit written by two people (neither of which were me) about the Book of Mormon made you cry within the first couple of paragraphs and then you felt you wanted to vomit. I completely understand that feeling because thats how I felt after learning the truth about the church. It's not fun. It's not easy... but I am better off for it now.

So, you were making a list of the things you had to do before you went to bed and one of those things was read the scriptures? Cool. Go for it. Read, read and read again... just like I did. Nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, reading the Book of Mormon and really absorbing what is in it might really help you in the future one way or another.

I lost my Dad, too. It wasn't easy and I loved him very, very much. He was a good father and he taught me soooo much. I am sorry you lost your Dad, I really mean that.

If you take comfort in the Book of Mormon that is great. Some people take comfort in religion, some take comfort in remembering the person they lost, some people even take comfort in the thought that they have tons of wonderful memories with the person they lost.

Again, I didn't write these two funny reviews, I just shared them. What is funny to one person isn't funny to everyone else.

This is a blog about my exit from the Mormon Church. It says so right on the page. I did what was right for me. You do what is right for you.

You are ten. Be a kid. Go out and have fun with your friends. Get good grades. Learn learn learn... PLEASE learn. I am not talking about religion either. Learn about the world, learn about other cultures, learn about science, learn about the earth, and learn about how you can help save it. You seem like a bright kid, and while you are welcome to the blog at any time, please remember that this is a place for ME to share what I think and that you are more than able to create a blog and do the same thing (please get your Mom's permission before doing so).

Good luck you to,
Andee

Again, I don't really like replying to kids. I don't want to turn a child's life upside down or make a kid cry. Not my goal. This is a place for free thought and conversation about Mormonism and life in general. There is no way for me to block children from accessing WindySydney without marking the blog "adult content" which it is *NOT*.

Here is a comment from Joseph. I will be tackling this one a little different because... well... because I want to.

Hey, I don't mean to offend you in any way, I'd just like to let you know that for one who claims to have read the BoM close to 20 times, you really don't appear to have gotten much out of it.

Hey there Joe.

When people begin a comment with "I'm not trying to offend you, BUT" you know that you are likely going to offend someone. Right? Why else say that? Don't worry, I didn't take offense to your comment. I just wanted to take the time and make a proper reply.

Guess what? I got tons out of the Book of Mormon. Did you read the entire blog or just this particular post (that I didn't write, just shared)?

It's hilarious when people think they can judge what I know and what I don't know by reading one post on WindySydney. Here are some of the things I got out of the Book of Mormon (only a very small sample from 1 Nephi, go here for TONS of examples):

• The Native Americans are the decedents of those "who dwindled in unbelief." As a punishment for their disbelief, their skin was darkened and they became "a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations." 12:22-23
• The Nephites were "white and exceedingly fair." 13:15
• You must do whatever the prophet (Jesus or Joseph Smith) says. Those who don't will be cut off. 22:20
• Soon all the churches of the devil (non-Mormon churches) will be destroyed. 22:23
• "I make a record in the language of my father ... the language of the Egyptians." That's a strange language an Israelite around 600 BCE to write in! 1:2
• It only took Nephi and his family three days to travel from Jerusalem to the Red Sea. (A distance of 250 miles) 2:6
• Nephi breaks his bow, "which was made of fine steel." But the technology for making steel did not exist in 600 BCE. 16:18
• Nephi says that whatever he wrote on the plates was sacred. But he admits that he might make some mistakes, just like they (the guys who wrote the bible?) did. Not that he's making any excuses, of course. 19:6
• How could Nephi, supposedly writing this around 590 BCE, quote words from the book of Malachi, which was not yet written? 22:15
  

Get back with me on those, I would love your explanation. What have you gotten out of the Book of Mormon? Please share. That is why I welcome comments. Just remember to keep from judging those who have a differing opinion than yours. I know it's hard, just try.

I'm not talking about a spiritual witness or anything, because I'm sure you DID receive that, but have since lost it for one reason or another. I'm talking about factual accuracy.

Again, if you had taken the time to read the blog and not just assume things about me from an article that I didn't write you might understand more about me. You know nothing about me, you only know that I thought a spoof of a Book of Mormon review was funny. Wanna talk facts? I am ALL FOR IT!!

Please, lets talk facts.

Pretty please???

With a cherry on top???

Get back to me, leave a message here and we can have conversations about the facts in the Book of Mormon. I welcome it, I encourage it and I hope you follow through.

Maybe your memory isn't what it used to be, but you seem to be doing a very poor job separating the rumors from the facts, specifically having to do with the events occurring in the BoM (but, I'm sure, pervading to other aspects of your representation of Members of The Church).

I have a pretty good memory.

It's really funny that you think I am the one with the facts wrong. Please, again, get back to me about the things I listed above and we can talk about my poor job of distinguishing facts from rumors. Bring it. :)

Or, maybe you are intentionally misrepresenting the book and its means of being written? Your motives are beyond me, but I think it should be made known that your version of events is by no means accepted by the majority of those who know absolutely anything about this religion.

Thank you for your opinion, though I must disagree.

For the 5,000,000,000th time, I didn't write the reviews you have a hard time with. I just copied and pasted them for fellow ex-Mormons to enjoy.

I am not misrepresenting the Book, nor its means of being written. I have the actual facts, and you have what the church has spoon fed you. Learning about the "translation" of the Book of Mormon was one of the major things that made me realize the church was a bunch of crap.

Joseph Smith used a seer stone that he had been previously convicted of fraud with to translate the golden plates into what you now call the Book of Mormon. He put the stone in a hat, put his face in the hat, covered the light and claimed words glowed from the mystery rock.

It's not just something South Park made up. It's what really happened:

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us." -Emma Smith

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation... . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation"5 -David Whitmer

"

The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." -Issac Hale

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes - Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down. -Michael Morse (Emma's Brother-in-law)

There are plenty more quotes, but I didn't add them. I have the link if you want it.

This is a timeline of the events:

• 1822 - Joseph Smith finds a seer stone while digging a well by his farmhouse
• 
  
• Sept 1823 - Joseph Says he sees Moroni in a vision in his room and is allowed to see the plates but not take them.
• 
  
• Sept 1824 - Joseph visits the plates again, but is not allowed to take them
• 
  
• Sept 1825 - Joseph visits the plates yet again.
• 
  
• March 1826 - Joseph is arrested for "glass looking" with the seer stone to find buried treasure
• 
  
• Sept 1826 - Joseph visits the plates
• 
  
• Sept 1827 - Joseph finally takes possession of the plates
• 
  
• April 1828 - Joseph begins translation of Book of Lehi with Martin Harris as scribe
• 
  
• June 1828 - Manuscripts for Book of Lehi are lost
• 
  
• July 1828 - Joseph receives revelation telling him his gift of translating is taken away for a season
• 
  
• Sept 1828 - Joseph starts re-translation of Book of Mormon without any instructions from God or any kind of revelation. He just does it on his own, the really odd thing is he doesn't attempt to re-translate the Book of Lehi, and skips 1Nephi, 2Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni and Words of Mormon. He continues where he left off chronologically at the end of the Book of Lehi, or the beginning of Mosiah. His wife Emma served as scribe.
• 
  
• April 1829 - Joseph begins the "rapid-fire" translation now with Oliver Cowdery as scribe
• 
  
• April 1829 - Oliver Cowdery wants to translate with the magic rock in the hat, is granted the ability, then God changed his mind because Oliver isn't patient enough.
• 
  
• May 1829 - Joseph receives revelation not to re-translate Book of Lehi and to replace it with Books of Nephi. The Lord also tells Joseph that "NOW" his gift of translating is "restored" hmm...
• 
  
• June 1829 - Transcript is finished, witnesses "see" the plates and Joseph gives them back to Moroni.

Yeah, that last one there... you know the witnesses to the Book of Mormon in the front of every copy?

Guess what?

They didn't see the golden plates with their eyes.

Nope.

They saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes."

They saw the plates in their heads, my friend. NO ONE SAW THE PLATES. Probably because they never existed. Here are some things you might not know about the witnesses:

• The witnesses' experiences may have only been visionary in nature. There are many statements given by the witnesses that indicate they only saw the angel and the plates in a visionary experience. Why would people need to see real, physical plates in a vision or a real angel that was physically on the earth? There are also several statements saying that the only time they saw the plates was when the plates were covered in a cloth or tow frock.
• The witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time. The plates were seen in two groups of four not all eight together as popularized in church paintings. Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until perhaps three days later (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71). Why is this significant? Any magician will tell you that it is easier to deceive people in smaller groups.
• David Whitmer said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them." So which statement was David Whitmer lying about or had been mistaken about? Either way he doesn't sound like a completely trustworthy witness. Note: LDS apologist rebuttal to this issue here and a critic's response here.
• All the witnesses had close ties to Joseph and his family. Some like Martin Harris had a substantial financial investment in the success of the Book of Mormon.
• These men lived in the early 1800s and believed in magical things like many people did during that time period such as divining rods, second sight, seer stones, etc. Some of the witnesses, especially Martin Harris, were easily swayed by tales of the supernatural, especially in a religious context.
• Many of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and following other leaders and religions such as Jesse Strang, the Shakers, Methodists, etc. By 1847 not a single one of the surviving eleven witnesses was part of the LDS Church.
• Of the witnesses that left the church, most believed that Joseph was at best a fallen prophet, the church changed its doctrines in error and changed revelations against God's will.
• The witnesses, who have been heralded as good, honest, Abe Lincoln-type of men were later called liars, counterfeiters, thieves, etc. by Joseph Smith himself.
• The "testimony of the witnesses" is similar to testimonials which were commonly included in books etc. in those days to help spur sales. And of course, the BOM's producers originally intended to sell copies for $1.75.
• All three witnesses believed that God Himself had told them (through Joseph Smith) that they had been specially chosen to testify to the world that they had seen the angel and the plates –– if they had enough faith. Martin Harris was even told the exact words he must use: Joseph Smith said he had a revelation in which the Lord commanded Harris to say, “I have seen the things which the Lord hath shown unto Joseph Smith Jun., and I know of a surety that they are true, for I have seen them.” And just to clinch the command, God threatened Martin Harris, saying, “But if he deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.” A personal promise (and a threat of condemnation) coming directly from God is bound to have a powerful influence on a person’s thinking!

Maybe, just maybe, I know what I am talking about. Maybe that is why so many people leave the church? We can't all have been sinners who just wanted to go around eating babies and murdering people in their beds without guilt!

It's clear you don't have any idea about the truth of the church. I was there once. I was once just like you... taking offense to things people said without having attended church, knowing the people in it, feeling the spirit... you name it. I was there.

If you want to have an open debate on the blog I welcome you with open arms. Maybe you will learn something. Maybe I will learn something.

I like to learn.

Andee

So there you have it folks. It only took a month for someone to tell me I had no idea what I was talking about. I knew they would come back!!

Read more »