MovieChat Forums > September Dawn (2007) Discussion > The Dark Side of Mormonism

The Dark Side of Mormonism

posted 16 years ago by janelafey
54 replies | jump to latest

I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) for over 20 years until I asked to be excommunicated. Here are some of the reasons:
Mormons still believe in polygamy although they have more or less stopped practicing it since the 1800s (in order to gain statehood mostly). The main reasons for polygamy in the church were that Joseph Smith was attracted to many women other than Emma, his wife, and also more women than men joined the church. Plural marriage seemed the best way to take care of them. (and what a benefit for the older men!)
Joseph Smith's own history is very suspect. He was arrested for being a treasure seeker. Claimed he could find treasure. Those court records have now disappeared.
Re: Book of Mormon...Nobody ever saw the so-called golden plates that Smith supposedly translated from, (behind a curtain) although some said they had seen them in a vision. Some also later recanted. Now it has been pretty well proved that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon stole a manuscript called "Manuscript Found" written by an ailing former schoolteacher named Solomon Spalding. He used to read it to anyone who would listen. By the time the Book of Mormon was printed and circulated as a companion to the Holy Bible, Spalding was dead, and his widow had no money to pursue justice.
Mormonism asserts that some crimes must be atoned for by having your throat cut (shedding your blood) and they believe the church authorities have the power to execute members who commit murder or adultery. To qualify the word adultery--a man can marry more than one woman--as many as his heart desires, but if a woman were to have more than one husband or had sex with a man other than her husband, she would be eligible to be executed by the clergy. Also a Mormon who slept with another Mormon's "wife."
Some books: WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON? by Wayne L. Cowdry, et al
MASSACRE AT MOUNTAIN MEADOWS by William Wise
THE 27TH WIFE by Irving Wallace (The woman who dared divorce Brigham Young)
NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY - Fawn M. Brodie (a Mormon who was excommunicated for writing a true bio of Joseph Smith)
Had I known the true Mormon beliefs about blood atonement and polygamy, and the doubt as to Joseph Smith's truthfulness...and more, I would never have let those 2 "nice missionaries" talk me into joining.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moondance99 16 years ago

Still drinking the sacrament bilge water aren't you Mac.

Until you break on through to the other side, you'll never understand.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] geode 16 years ago

Hard to be believe that a member for over 20 years would have such a poor understanding of it all and buy into these rather tired ideas. The Spalding theory didn't even rate buy-in from the Tanners.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] janelafey 16 years ago

Solomon Spalding was nicknamed "Old It Came to Pass" because his Manuscript Found was riddled with this expression...also to be found in abundance in the Book of Mormon. Actually, there is nothing uplifting or edifying in the B. of M. unless you believe the myth that these people were once "white" and that God changed them into a "dark and loathsome people" because of their sins. As for the facts--don't take my word for it--read "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" and you'll find evidence aplenty that Sidney Rigdon (famous for starting up new religious CULTS) and Joseph Smith (treasure hunter for hire) conspired to perpetrate probably the most outrageous, outlandish scam ever done. If Joseph was indeed a prophet, one would have thought Emma Smith, his wife of many years would have followed the LDS church out to Utah. Emma elected to stay behind and start up her own church--probably to make a living for her and her children more than any religious fervor. It took years of study, thought, and prayer for me to leave the LDS church, but I have never regretted it. Organized religion is for a few smooth talking men to sucker the rest of us so they can get rich...in the name of God.

[–] geode 16 years ago

Solomon Spalding was nicknamed "Old It Came to Pass" because his Manuscript Found was riddled with this expression...also to be found in abundance in the Book of Mormon.

And it also can be found in another source. Ever think that both Spalding and Smith could have taken it from there ?

Actually, there is nothing uplifting or edifying in the B. of M. unless you believe the myth that these people were once "white" and that God changed them into a "dark and loathsome people" because of their sins.

Actually there is quite a bit that is uplifting and edifying in the Book of Mormon, and an honest person considering the Bible to contain such material would grant that it is also in the BOM, if only in passages that are essentially identical (and there are many).

As for the facts--don't take my word for it--read "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" and you'll find evidence aplenty that Sidney Rigdon (famous for starting up new religious CULTS) and Joseph Smith (treasure hunter for hire) conspired to perpetrate probably the most outrageous, outlandish scam ever done.

I have read the volume you indicate, it is presently even on my bookshelf. I did not find it convincing that Rigdon and Smith conspired in a hoax. There have been some pretty outlandish scams and I doubt formulating the BOM from whole cloth qualifies if this is in fact the case. What I think you are trying to say is that it would rank as one of the most effective scams in history since millions of people currently still adhere to the claim of it being authentic after all this time.

If Joseph was indeed a prophet, one would have thought Emma Smith, his wife of many years would have followed the LDS church out to Utah. Emma elected to stay behind and start up her own church--probably to make a living for her and her children more than any religious fervor. It took years of study, thought, and prayer for me to leave the LDS church, but I have never regretted it. Organized religion is for a few smooth talking men to sucker the rest of us so they can get rich...in the name of God.

This idea about Emma is not accurate in my opinion, and does little if anything to support your claim. Emma died claiming that Joseph was a true prophet and had translated the Book of Mormon using divine inspiration. She believed that it was the word of God. She did not think she was starting up her own church, but that she was following the church Joseph had started in a more proper way than those who followed Brigham Young to Utah including having her son as the leader.

Your thoughts about organized religion are often unfortunately correct.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] janelafey 16 years ago

As I previously stated, Solomon S. and his wife had a little inn, and he read his manuscript to many people. The manuscript was stolen from the printer's office where it was waiting for Solomon to get enough money to pay for having it published. So who stole the manuscript? And why? After the B. of M. came out, many people remembered having heard Solomon read it to them. Many of them came forward and gave signed statements to the Spalding family, but the widow did not have the money to pay for a lawyer to sue Smith for plagiarism.

Joseph Smith supposedly translated his manuscript behind a curtain. Nobody except Smith ever actually SAW the manuscript. The witnesses claimed to have seen it in a vision. This is probably one of the biggest reasons the Mormons left the area and moved over into Ohio, then Missouri, and finally Illinois. The further away they were from people who knew the truth--the better chance the cult had of surviving.

The end of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" has handwriting analysis done on a B. of M. manuscript page that was not the handwriting of any of the known scribes & was called "unknown scribe," which handwriting experts stated did look like Spalding's handwriting.

Lastly, Smith's translation of some Egyptian scrolls: translated by Smith as, I believe, a portion of the Pearl of Great Price turned out to be nothing more than a part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, traditionally buried with mummies. The Mormon scholar who was asked by the Church to translate this work left the Church rather than go along with the story that Smith's translation was correct. That was ALL the evidence he needed to realize that something was badly wrong. (When Smith was buying mummies and "translating Egyptian," scholars had just begun trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] geode 16 years ago

As I previously stated, Solomon S. and his wife had a little inn, and he read his manuscript to many people. The manuscript was stolen from the printer's office where it was waiting for Solomon to get enough money to pay for having it published. So who stole the manuscript? And why? After the B. of M. came out, many people remembered having heard Solomon read it to them. Many of them came forward and gave signed statements to the Spalding family, but the widow did not have the money to pay for a lawyer to sue Smith for plagiarism.

You are leaving out the fact that all, of at least most of these witnesses were responding to an individual who set out to disprove the stated origin of the Book of Mormon and sought them out. That is why Fawn Brodie found their statements questionable, because they all seemed the same and to remember things they would likely have forgotten after hearing Spaulding tell his tale once, and over 20 years earlier.

Joseph Smith supposedly translated his manuscript behind a curtain. Nobody except Smith ever actually SAW the manuscript. The witnesses claimed to have seen it in a vision. This is probably one of the biggest reasons the Mormons left the area and moved over into Ohio, then Missouri, and finally Illinois. The further away they were from people who knew the truth--the better chance the cult had of surviving.

The scribes who produced the manuscript saw it unless you are talking about the plates. Martin Harris said something about only seeing the plates in a vision, but I think other witnesses claimed to see the actual plates. But this has little bearing on the Spaulding premise. You theory about why the Mormons kept moving is not what historians have usually found as reasons, usually that the Mormons were feared as a voting block and in other areas of competition.

The end of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" has handwriting analysis done on a B. of M. manuscript page that was not the handwriting of any of the known scribes & was called "unknown scribe," which handwriting experts stated did look like Spalding's handwriting.

And one expert said that it was not the same as Spaulding's handwriting. He also disagreed with another expert about Hughes's handwriting and the "Mormon Will." I don't think they are by the same hand either, with one having loops of the last letter of some words over the top of the word and the other sample does not show this, yet the two pieces of handwriting are said to have been produced within a two year period of each other by Spaulding(according to the authors of that book). But I am not an expert.

These authors conveniently do not comment on more solid evidence why the "unknown scribe" cannot be Spaulding. The unknown scribe starts and leaves off on pages that were written upon by other scribes who are known, and did the writing when associated with Smith years after Spaulding's death. The writing is on the same pieces of paper. This "unknown scribe" has been said to have the same handwriting as that for one of the sections of the D&C, but nobody to my knowledge claims Spaulding wrote that one.

They also include the statements of people who claim that Spaulding's work was the same as the Book of Mormon, but without the religious or scriptural parts. Yet the portion by the unknown scribe (for 1st Nephi) has many religious and scriptural parts.

It appears to me that although the Mormon version of the origin of the Book of Mormon is in great doubt outside the LDS church, that the more educated and informed critics do not think the Spaulding claim is very solid.

Lastly, Smith's translation of some Egyptian scrolls: translated by Smith as, I believe, a portion of the Pearl of Great Price turned out to be nothing more than a part of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, traditionally buried with mummies. The Mormon scholar who was asked by the Church to translate this work left the Church rather than go along with the story that Smith's translation was correct. That was ALL the evidence he needed to realize that something was badly wrong. (When Smith was buying mummies and "translating Egyptian," scholars had just begun trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics.)

Very interesting, and some of the criticism about the origin of the Book of Abraham is hard to dismiss. I think most Mormon scholars (even some at BYU) have come to the conclusion that the origin of this work cannot be directly from the scrolls found with the mummies. The authors of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" decided to talk about this also. It is a red herring and has little or no bearing at all on the Spaulding theory.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] clovenhoof 16 years ago

What does all of this have to do with this movie? Can't you people go and have this debate on www.ihatemormons.com? Surely there's a website for people that actually care where you can debate this stuff.

Or would that be www.ihatemormons.org...?

[–] janelafey 16 years ago

To "clovenhoof": You're obviously one of those persons who equates criticism with a hate crime. Criticism does not equal hate.

To all: I believe the Mormon church was founded on fraud. I also know that the majority of Mormons don't want to hear evidence against the Mormon church, no matter how well founded. I myself did not write these books, nor did I set out to expose the church as a fraud. But I always had problems with Mormon doctrine. Polygamy, which is STILL one of the main beliefs, is repugnant to me, and it puts women under a patriarchal system that is detrimental to all. Blood atonement is to me abhorrent, because I do not believe that any MAN has the power of life or death over his fellow humans. And I'll go further back and state that the majority of the Bible writings are nothing more than the racist rantings of a patriarchal group known first as "Hebrews" and now as "Jews." I cannot explain the Christian writings. They are 180 degrees from the Old Testament--a religion of love, forgiveness, and peace. I believe that this is a philosophy we all should follow (though few do, even those who call themselves Christians.)

All I can say is that if anyone out there is ever approached by Mormon missionaries, please read some of the books I have mentioned, and then make up your own mind before you join. THE 27TH WIFE; WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON?; MASSACRE AT MOUNTAIN MEADOWS. (Fawn M. Brodie, I must dismiss, because she was raised a Mormon and could not be totally objective. The other authors are not Mormons and had no "beef" with the Mormon church.) I have just finished reading the latter 2 again and carefully, and I am convinced that the Spalding witnesses were truthful when they said they had heard the story before it became rewritten and embellished by Sidney Rigdon. No one ever saw those golden plates except for Joseph Smith, who had already gotten a reputation & conviction for being a fraudulent "treasure hunter" who never found treasure. Sidney Rigdon was also known to be of an unstable mind...the two Spalding copies of Manuscript Found DID DISAPPEAR--one from the printer's office, the other from a trunk at the Spalding home, which greatly hampered the poor widow at that time from making a case for plagiarism.

Most people are loath to give up cherished beliefs. I accept that. I'm not that way. I looked for truth, thought I had found it, and was devastated to learn that it was all propaganda. But I've recovered.

One thing I believe: Nothing happened in Utah without the knowledge and approval of Brigham Young. A village couldn't even have a dance without his permission & approval. He was perhaps the most despotic ruler the USA ever had, even if his kingdom was only Utah territory. His inflammatory rhetoric of "throat cutting" and vengeance against Missourians, his order not to sell supplies or give water to wagon trains helped fuel the hate. Not only that, the Mormons had the philosophy that it was all right to take from "Gentiles" (non Mormons) because Mormons were God's chosen people. He knew, and he only withdrew his approval when he realized that it was going to be impossible to cover up the crime. And he betrayed his "adopted son" to give the US government a scapegoat.

Utah and its people are somewhat different today. Still brainwashed, but not as hostile toward Gentiles. And wishing that this awful crime would just be forgotten. As Christians, we can forgive, but it's impossible to forget.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] geode 16 years ago

To all: I believe the Mormon church was founded on fraud. I also know that the majority of Mormons don't want to hear evidence against the Mormon church, no matter how well founded. I myself did not write these books, nor did I set out to expose the church as a fraud. But I always had problems with Mormon doctrine. Polygamy, which is STILL one of the main beliefs, is repugnant to me, and it puts women under a patriarchal system that is detrimental to all.

I would counter that polygamy is no longer one of the main beliefs, and in the mainline church does not affect women much at all.

Blood atonement is to me abhorrent, because I do not believe that any MAN has the power of life or death over his fellow humans.

So what ? This was never official Mormon doctrine and most Mormons do not find it a valid concept.

And I'll go further back and state that the majority of the Bible writings are nothing more than the racist rantings of a patriarchal group known first as "Hebrews" and now as "Jews." I cannot explain the Christian writings. They are 180 degrees from the Old Testament--a religion of love, forgiveness, and peace. I believe that this is a philosophy we all should follow (though few do, even those who call themselves Christians.)

So you have a problem with Christian sects in general that embrace the entire Bible ? Why single out the Mormons for your attacks ?

All I can say is that if anyone out there is ever approached by Mormon missionaries, please read some of the books I have mentioned, and then make up your own mind before you join. THE 27TH WIFE; WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON?; MASSACRE AT MOUNTAIN MEADOWS. (Fawn M. Brodie, I must dismiss, because she was raised a Mormon and could not be totally objective. The other authors are not Mormons and had no "beef" with the Mormon church.)

So you know the motivation of the "other" authors ? You dismiss Fawn Brodie because she was once a Mormon. She stated that she in fact did have a bias that was sometimes too favorable to the LDS church but her husband detected such places in her writing and steered her back towards objectivity. I found "No Man Knows My History" to lack objectivity in parts, but when it did it favored thinking that was in conflict with Mormon teachings, such as her explanation of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Should I dismiss any of your thoughts for the same reason you dismiss her thoughts since you were once a Mormon ? I would guess the real reason you do this is because she did not reach some of the conclusions you want to hold to no matter what evidence is in conflict, such as thinking the Spalding theory is ironclad. Brodie does not think the Book of Mormon is a work coming from God either, but at least her thoughts on the matter are more consistent with the evidence that is available than those of the authors of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon"...which I have read.

Although you claim to have carefully re-read "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" you appear to have missed something which you claim is of importance to you when deciding about objectivity. The senior author appears to be a man named Wayne L. Cowdrey. That alone should have made you wonder about his background. He was in fact raised a Mormon (page 248). Unlike Fawn Brodie, he apparently was ex-commicated from the Mormon church before the publication of his book (it would seem when doing research for it), and I think it might be possible that he had much more of a "beef" than Brodie for this reason. So, are you now going to ignore this book as you do that of Fawn Brodie ? Quite frankly her book is vastly superior in terms of scholarship and in my opinion more objective.

"Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" was published by Vision House Publishers, an arm of "Christian Research Institute" for which the director at the time was Walter Martin, the author of "Kingdom of the Cults." Have you read this tome ? I have and believe me it has a biased agenda. The title itself indicates the bias. Martin writes the forward to the book by Cowdrey. The book is even dedicated to him.

I have just finished reading the latter 2 again and carefully, and I am convinced that the Spalding witnesses were truthful when they said they had heard the story before it became rewritten and embellished by Sidney Rigdon. No one ever saw those golden plates except for Joseph Smith, who had already gotten a reputation & conviction for being a fraudulent "treasure hunter" who never found treasure. Sidney Rigdon was also known to be of an unstable mind...the two Spalding copies of Manuscript Found DID DISAPPEAR--one from the printer's office, the other from a trunk at the Spalding home, which greatly hampered the poor widow at that time from making a case for plagiarism.

Some of what you state here is simply conjecture on the part of the authors, which make some claims easily shown to be wrong, such as their claim that part of Spalding's manuscript actually was included without alteration as the original Book of Mormon manuscript. Their arguments are not even internally consistent. You should read more on the matter instead of blindly following this work. Most serious scholars abandoned this theory long ago.

Most people are loath to give up cherished beliefs. I accept that. I'm not that way. I looked for truth, thought I had found it, and was devastated to learn that it was all propaganda. But I've recovered.

But you haven't recovered enough to get over the obsession to post on boards about the subject. Well, neither have I but I do not make the claims that you are making or attempt to smear the LDS church as much as possible. Does this make you feel better ? I have always wondered how ex-Mormons feel when they are compelled to continue the tear down the LDS church. Does this help you justify your leaving the church ?

One thing I believe: Nothing happened in Utah without the knowledge and approval of Brigham Young.

Actually this is giving Brigham Young far more power than any man has ever possessed in the entire history of mankind.

A village couldn't even have a dance without his permission & approval.

Citation please. I have never seen the decree giving him this power over dancing.

He was perhaps the most despotic ruler the USA ever had, even if his kingdom was only Utah territory. His inflammatory rhetoric of "throat cutting" and vengeance against Missourians, his order not to sell supplies or give water to wagon trains helped fuel the hate. Not only that, the Mormons had the philosophy that it was all right to take from "Gentiles" (non Mormons) because Mormons were God's chosen people. He knew, and he only withdrew his approval when he realized that it was going to be impossible to cover up the crime. And he betrayed his "adopted son" to give the US government a scapegoat.

Yes, Brigham had a lot of influence and it was not always used correctly. But there is no proof that he ordered the MMM.

Utah and its people are somewhat different today. Still brainwashed, but not as hostile toward Gentiles. And wishing that this awful crime would just be forgotten. As Christians, we can forgive, but it's impossible to forget.

It should not be forgotten, and the LDS church should teach it themselves in order to keep the lessons that can be gained from it in mind, lessons about tolerance, etc. But it was taught to me when I took high school Mormon seminary classes way back in the mid-1960's. So much for trying to forget that the incident occurred. The instructor even told us how hard it was for John D. Lee to be abandoned by Brigham Young.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] JackDaniels-theJackMormon 16 years ago

It comes as a surprise to me that anybody still buys into that Spalding theory anymore, let alone finding someone who thinks it has been "proven" by the rather poor scholarship found in the book cited.

"I'll take the fifth"

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Father_Anthonis 16 years ago

There is no "Darkside of Mormonism" cause it is the dark side.

Like that callous on your heart dropped place where it stood.

[–] janelafey 16 years ago

Polygamy IS one of the beliefs of Mormonism. This is why a Mormon male may be sealed to many women in the temples "for all eternity" and why women are sealed to one male only. Mormons believe that their male god has many "wives." As for blood atonement--Blood atonement is still a belief, if not a practice. This is why in Utah execution is still be done by shooting a person. Gary Gilmore was executed by a firing squad back in the 80s. I was told many times in church that some crimes can only be atoned for by shedding one's blood. Murder is one; adultery is another. However, adultery in the case of a female is when a "sealed" Mormon woman has sex with someone not her husband--she has committed adultery. A Mormon man may marry dozens, but it is only when he has sex with the "sealed" wife of another Mormon that it is considered adultery.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] geode 16 years ago

I sometimes wonder if Jane was really ever a member of the LDS church. If so she sure did not understand what it was all about in many regards. This is the first time I have heard such an outrageous definition of adultery as it is considered by the church. Where in the world did she get this notion ?

Mormons consider adultery (and fornication) to be this: having sex with someone other than their spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully married. So if a sealed woman has sex with the garden boy, it's fornication. If a non-sealed married man has sex with his neighbor's wife, it's adultery. That's it--being sealed has nothing to do with it.

But wouldn't the sealed woman having sex with the garden boy be considered adultery for her, and fornication for the boy ?

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Father_Anthonis 16 years ago

Wow one smiley code mistake, one small mis-spacebar mistake, and a mis hit of the letter "L" what a "genocide of spelling".

Heath Ledger's last performance in The Dark Knight was a little hard to swallow.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] geode 16 years ago

Even as edited it is a pretty poor example of writing. It really must have been terrible as originally posted.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] geode 16 years ago

Man these sad MEGA LOSER douchebags who all day just sit on there chunky scaly gross asses and troll this board defending this never ending bloody thirsty completely insane child molesting cult.

Oh, the irony.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] Father_Anthonis 16 years ago

Oh the "irony" that The Branch Davidians are MILLION TIMES LOSER to a "religion" the "yerrr religion" ever was?

Dark Knight is the worst movie ever. The villain died before it even came out.

[–] geode 16 years ago

Oh the "irony" that The Branch Davidians are MILLION TIMES LCOSER to a "religion" the "yerrr religion" ever was?

Not sure what LCOSER is supposed to mean, but it does have a ring to it.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] Father_Anthonis 16 years ago

Wow... One mis-spell.

Oh Mormon Jesus, you gave them twenty wives but they cannot see...

[–] MESpiegel 15 years ago

As they did above, these apologist clowns can't refute facts so they're reduced to being grammar Nazis.
It would be sad if it wasn't so entertaining.

[–] geode 15 years ago

As far as I can see you don't have a single relevant comment to add to the discussion, so you simply lead with name-calling. Get a sense of humor. It will help gloss over your ignorance.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] MESpiegel 15 years ago

Man these sad MEGA LOSER douchebags who all day just sit on there chunky scaly gross asses and troll this board defending this never ending bloody thirsty completely insane child molesting cult.

Oh, the irony.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

A fervent Mormon apologist who refuses to open his own eyes to you know, actual history;
and who dares to have that sig line

actually brings up 'irony'?!

You couldn't know irony if a Danite came and slit your throat with it. ROFLMAO
Too funny!

[–] geode 15 years ago

My eyes are quite open to history. I am not really a Mormon apologist and I have been fully aware of the murderous acts committed by Mormons during the MMM and the cover-up that was done right to the top for the past 40 years. I doubt you really know much about Danites, or the Mormon church in general. The real irony is you post as if you actually had relevant knowledge to bring to the conversation. But thanks anyway for attempting to pick a fight with someone you have encountered for the first time and failing to make much headway.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] geode 16 years ago

Polygamy IS one of the beliefs of Mormonism. This is why a Mormon male may be sealed to many women in the temples "for all eternity" and why women are sealed to one male only.

Serial polygamy, but so what ? Did you read what I posted ? You are not responding to what I said.

Mormons believe that their male god has many "wives."

This is not Mormon doctrine and has only been speculation. You have been paying too much attention to "The Godmakers" and not enough to articles in The Ensign.

As for blood atonement--Blood atonement is still a belief, if not a practice.

Where your statement is not correct was already well covered by Mac.

This is why in Utah execution is still be done by shooting a person. Gary Gilmore was executed by a firing squad back in the 80s.

It was said at the time Gilmore decided upon death by firing squad because of a notion of blood atonement. I was in Utah when the execution took place and remember this being reported. This was not in the 80's but in 1977. But he was not LDS and he did not understand what was involved. Some Mormons have claimed that it only needed the shedding of blood. Some have said that this is why death by firing squad was left available in Utah for so long. Gilmore had a choice. I seem to remember that the other was by hanging. But you are wrong again about this being still the means of execution in Utah. It was changed to lethal injection a few years ago.

I was told many times in church that some crimes can only be atoned for by shedding one's blood. Murder is one; adultery is another.

Such an idea would not pass correlation. It would have been in no Mormon lesson manuals. If you heard this in church it was sepeculation, and not doctrine...for it never has been doctrine. I'm sorry, I find it very difficult to believe that you were a Mormon for 20 years. However, I have noticed that bitter ex-members tend to confuse what they actually encountered first-hand and start including ideas found in anti-Mormon materials.

However, adultery in the case of a female is when a "sealed" Mormon woman has sex with someone not her husband--she has committed adultery. A Mormon man may marry dozens, but it is only when he has sex with the "sealed" wife of another Mormon that it is considered adultery.

Thank you. I thought I had pretty much heard virtually all the crackpot misinformation about Mormons, but this is new to me. Where in the heck did you get this idea from ?

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] JackDaniels-theJackMormon 15 years ago

crickets

"I'll take the fifth"

[–] geode 15 years ago

Jane's silence is in fact telling.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] MESpiegel 15 years ago

I took her text as the Mormon faith was built upon polygamy

which is quite true and the reason the cult was run out of state after state.

Or are you going to cover your eyes with the Urim and Thummin and deny that too?

[–] jeffwcos 15 years ago

janelafey,

Your posts are so riddled with errors that it's hard to even find the little bits of truth in them.

You continue to state that the present-day LDS Church still believes in Polygamy. You actually call it "one of the main beliefs".

Yet the church just led a successful campaign in California (with members donating over $20 million) to constitutionally define marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.

Hmmm... doesn't really sound like a bunch of polygamists to me.

And while I'm sure that many if not all church members wish that MMM had not happened, it is NOT a taboo subject. I was an LDS seminary teacher over the past couple years and TAUGHT MMM to my students. It's not a secret.

[–] geode 15 years ago

Jane will not answer. I would guess that she would invoke the rationalization she gave in a different thread that she does not argue about religion because people are brainwashed by their experience and it is a waste of time. Her behavior actually does not follow this as she often is argumentative until bested and shown to be wrong, and then she disappears.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] pas_si_simple 15 years ago

mormon's supporting an anti-gay marriage ban doesn't reveal they're no longer polygamists but merely anti-homosexuals/homophobic.

the only thing i'd like clarification on regarding LDS are their highly unethical adoption practices in Utah. i find the situation despicable... and don't understand why mormon politicians allow an adoption system akin to baby trafficking in their state.

[–] geode 15 years ago

mormon's supporting an anti-gay marriage ban doesn't reveal they're no longer polygamists but merely anti-homosexuals/homophobic.

I don't think you read Jeff's post very carefully.

Yet the church just led a successful campaign in California (with members donating over $20 million) to constitutionally define marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.

That definition does not allow for polygamy.

the only thing i'd like clarification on regarding LDS are their highly unethical adoption practices in Utah. i find the situation despicable... and don't understand why mormon politicians allow an adoption system akin to baby trafficking in their state.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you clarify what you think the problem might be ? What would you find in civil laws that you want too blame on LDS people ?

http://www.childadoptionlaws.com/child_adoption_laws/adoption_laws_uta h.htm

I have no good reason and suspect that monkeys possess some sort of soul. Geode

[–] ravenosa 11 years ago

You haven't had much luck defending the church and now you've resorted to attacking ex-members for their own past experiences and perspectives.

Perhaps when YOU reach the 20 year mark you'll have better luck offering a defense for Mormonism?

[–] wayneadams2003 15 years ago

Janelafay was excommunicated for WHAT?
How come those who were kicked out from the Church suddenly an experts with all those recycled nonsense? Those nonsenses existed for 150 years, and it didn't hurt the Church at all and it is still growing. I am a Mormon for 14 years and I kept hearing those recycled nonsense that ex's or anti's crops up with, and they gets rebutted ALL the time, but they're too stubborn to realise it isn't working. Remember it has started with SIX members, and now its nearing to 14 million mark. I am mormon, and WE KNOW that anyone practise polygamy gets kicked out of the Church. Is that's why you're excommunicated?
Work Hard To Avoid Hard Work

[–] geode 15 years ago

She said that she asked to be excommunicated, presumably for not believing in the historic Mormon viewpoint about polygamy and other matters. She must have done so years ago when a member could not simply ask for their name to be removed from the records. One could only cease to be a member of the LDS church through excommunication not all that many years ago. A church court would be called even if the request for separation was made by the member.

I have no good reason and suspect that monkeys possess some sort of soul. Geode

[–] wayneadams2003 15 years ago

I see, she doesn't believe it. That's fine then. I wonder why she hasn't moved on? I mean, if you were divorced from the first marriage, and then gets married to someone else. Would you talk and discuss deeply about the first wife? Or be happy with the one you have now? You see, several anti-mormons goes on and on and on and on and on and on about mormons when they left the Church years ago. It's a shame they rarely discuss with the religion they have NOW, or their renewed life. If they moved on and shut up about mormons, they will feel a lot better. It's not healthy to cling on to the past and criticise and faultfinding.

Work Hard To Avoid Hard Work

[–] geode 15 years ago

I see, she doesn't believe it. That's fine then. I wonder why she hasn't moved on? I mean, if you were divorced from the first marriage, and then gets married to someone else. Would you talk and discuss deeply about the first wife? Or be happy with the one you have now? You see, several anti-mormons goes on and on and on and on and on and on about mormons when they left the Church years ago. It's a shame they rarely discuss with the religion they have NOW, or their renewed life. If they moved on and shut up about mormons, they will feel a lot better. It's not healthy to cling on to the past and criticise and faultfinding.

Yes, I also wonder why so many ex-Mormons feel compelled to talk about things they do not like about the LDS faith. There seems to be quite a bit of residual bitterness and they feel a compusion to share it. This seems to be more of the case than with...say...lapsed Catholics.

But how many Mormons actually get "re-married" as you are putting it ? In my experience people who leave the LDS church most frequently leave and do not become very active in a different faith.

I have no good reason and suspect that monkeys possess some sort of soul. Geode

[–] wayneadams2003 15 years ago

Try Born Again. Several of born agains claims they're ex mormons, and they are the worst kind as they kept banging on about mormonism. However, those who decided to be inactive in any religious terms doesnt talk about mormonism. They DO get on with their lives. They are bitter because of their sins and pride. They are too proud to accept the teaching of Christ, "Forgive each other" and "Agree with thine enemy quickly". It means "forget about it and be friends, ok?". That teaching comes from ALL Christian faiths. Those who left mormonism refused to use the Lord's teaching. If the Mormon Church did something wrong, I doubt it is ENTIRE Church's fault. Perhaps it is one or two indivudals that makes a mistake or offended a person, that it is THAT person's fault. Not the Church. If a muslim offended one person, would this person attack ENTIRE Islam?
Work Hard To Avoid Hard Work

[–] geode 15 years ago

Try Born Again. Several of born agains claims they're ex mormons, and they are the worst kind as they kept banging on about mormonism. However, those who decided to be inactive in any religious terms doesnt talk about mormonism. They DO get on with their lives. They are bitter because of their sins and pride. They are too proud to accept the teaching of Christ, "Forgive each other" and "Agree with thine enemy quickly". It means "forget about it and be friends, ok?". That teaching comes from ALL Christian faiths. Those who left mormonism refused to use the Lord's teaching. If the Mormon Church did something wrong, I doubt it is ENTIRE Church's fault. Perhaps it is one or two indivudals that makes a mistake or offended a person, that it is THAT person's fault. Not the Church. If a muslim offended one person, would this person attack ENTIRE Islam?

This hasn't been my experience. Very few ex-Mormons become "born again" Christians...but those who do are probably the most vocal critics. But of those Christians who have never been Mormon this is still the most hostile group in that direction. Plenty of ex-Mormons like Steve Benson claim to be atheists and do talk about their experience. Go to an ex-Mormon web site and see what I mean.

I do not think you are all that correct why people who leave the LDS church for religious inactivity, with this being due to sin. That is what the Brethren would have people believe, because it takes away the chance that any responsibility lies with the church or other members. Most people leave the church because somebody offended them, but some do leave solely because of theological implications after a study of some aspects of Mormonism or Mormon history that are not really taught openly by the Mormon leadership.

I have no good reason and suspect that monkeys possess some sort of soul. Geode

[–] wayneadams2003 15 years ago

You might have not that experience, which you're lucky. However, I do. Yes, Born Again are the most vocal critics. Yes, there are few mormons who became athiests, and do talk about it, but why talk about it? Isn't this a time for them to move on? Mormons do leave for many reasons, including above. Some of Mormon History are not taught openly, however, we can still buy or read the history books that are availble to any LDS bookshops. The thing is, we attend the church for the doctrine, not history lessons. We may learn some part of history that is revelent to the doctrines. I mean, we learn about Moses and the 10 commandments, but we may not delve into his past or personal life for the sake of it. We are free to study whatever we like outside the church hours, but within the church, we just follow the gospel doctrines that are essential for us to prepare the aalvation.
Somebody may have offended them and leave, but usually they do come back when they realises they should forgive the offender. This offender can (and usually) apologise for any mistakes or misdeeds. I have been offended before by someone's attitudes, but I didn't leave the Church for that! I only goes to Church for Christ, not its members. However, some doctrine MAY not appeal to some members. Well, that's their problems to sort out. I didn't join the Church to match my tastes, needs and desires. I only join the Church to worship the Lord, and some of His doctrines MAY not appeal to me either, but I just get on with it.

Thankfully, the Church is progressing well and we've seen an increase of memberships. We've seen several new churches builts and opened, same as well for the temples. If members leaving, it doesn't harm the Church.

Work Hard To Avoid Hard Work

[–] geode 15 years ago

Yes, there are few mormons who became athiests, and do talk about it, but why talk about it? Isn't this a time for them to move on?

Yes, but they don't. The obsession continues. A Mormon friend of mine once said that nobody ever left the LDS church totally behind. This was years before he himself left. I wonder if he posts anywhere? He simply was totally inactive the last I heard.

Some of Mormon History are not taught openly, however, we can still buy or read the history books that are available to any LDS bookshops.

History books with the full story may be available to LDS bookshops such as Deseret Book but they are not sold by them.

The thing is, we attend the church for the doctrine, not history lessons.

The doctrine is available outside church. Christ meant for people to be gathered in His name to support each other and act as the "body of Christ" in doing the good he did when on earth.

We may learn some part of history that is revelent to the doctrines. I mean, we learn about Moses and the 10 commandments, but we may not delve into his past or personal life for the sake of it. We are free to study whatever we like outside the church hours, but within the church, we just follow the gospel doctrines that are essential for us to prepare the aalvation.

Salvation has already been granted by Christ to almost all according to Mormon doctrine, with the exception of a precious few "Sons of Perdition"....

Somebody may have offended them and leave, but usually they do come back when they realises they should forgive the offender.

I would bet that a majority do not come back, whether or not they feel they should forgive the offender.

This offender can (and usually) apologise for any mistakes or misdeeds. I have been offended before by someone's attitudes, but I didn't leave the Church for that!

Good for you, but many do not react this way. A majority of those excommunicated probably never come back. Many of these people have felt offended by the actions of the "Courts of Love"

I only goes to Church for Christ, not its members.

Little point in going to church then, as I indicated above.

However, some doctrine MAY not appeal to some members. Well, that's their problems to sort out. I didn't join the Church to match my tastes, needs and desires. I only join the Church to worship the Lord, and some of His doctrines MAY not appeal to me either, but I just get on with it.

An ex-Mormon once told me, "We didn't choose the church, it chose us." People born Mormons had little choice about going through the motions, whether or not they approved of doctrines. Many leave because they do not feel that some of the doctrines some of the Mormon church did not come from Christ.

Thankfully, the Church is progressing well and we've seen an increase of memberships. We've seen several new churches builts and opened, same as well for the temples. If members leaving, it doesn't harm the Church.

Actually the growth of the church is of great concern to the GA's as the stats for the past few years have shown that as many people leave the Mormon church as join it. There is little or no net gain outside of the addition of children born in Mormon families who get baptized without really going through a true conversion process. There are religions growing far faster. Christ talked about everyone being of value and of bringing lost sheep back into the fold.

I have no good reason and suspect that monkeys possess some sort of soul. Geode

[–] wayneadams2003 15 years ago

I am using capital letters to place my comments. Please don't think I am shouting at you. lol

Yes, there are few mormons who became athiests, and do talk about it, but why talk about it? Isn't this a time for them to move on?

Yes, but they don't. The obsession continues. A Mormon friend of mine once said that nobody ever left the LDS church totally behind. This was years before he himself left. I wonder if he posts anywhere? He simply was totally inactive the last I heard. YES. SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL OBSESSED WITH THE CHURCH. A FRIEND OF MINE HAS LEFT THE CHURCH, BUT STILL TALKS ABOUT IT AND HIS OWN NON MORMON FRIENDS ARE FED UP OF HIS ATTITUDE AND HAS LOST SOME OF FRIENDS BECAUSE OF THAT. WE HAD TO EXPLAIN TO HIM THAT IT IS POINTLESS TO TALK ABOUT THE CHURCH IF HE IS LOSING NON MORMON FRIENDS. YOU PROBABLY RIGHT THAT NO ONE HAS LEFT THE CHURCH 100% WHICH IS SAD (OR GOOD THING IF IT MADE THEM THINK ABOUT RETURNING!!)

Some of Mormon History are not taught openly, however, we can still buy or read the history books that are available to any LDS bookshops.

History books with the full story may be available to LDS bookshops such as Deseret Book but they are not sold by them. CORRECT. THE CHURCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, AS THE CHURCH IS NOT A PROFITABLE ORGANISATION. THOSE BOOKS ARE WRITTEN BY INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS AS A CAREER OR JUST WANTED TO EARN SOME WAGES. THE CHURCH ONLY INTEREST IS PROCLAIM AND TEACH THE CHRIST'S MESSAGE. THOSE BOOKS IN LDS BOOKSHOP ARE JUST AN ADDITIONAL INTEREST ONLY AND IT'S NOT COMPULSORY COMPARED TO CHURCH LESSON MATERIALS (CHURCH MATERIALS CAN BE BOUGHT AT THE DISTRIBUTION CENTRE AND IT'S CHEAP, AS IT IS NONPROFITABLE AND THE PAYMENT IS FOR THE PRINTING OF THOSE BOOKS).

The thing is, we attend the church for the doctrine, not history lessons.

The doctrine is available outside church. Christ meant for people to be gathered in His name to support each other and act as the "body of Christ" in doing the good he did when on earth. PERHAPS, HOWEVER, HOW CAN WE SUPPORT EACH OTHER? THE CHURCH HAS WARDS WHERE WE CAN PARTAKE SACRMENT TOGETHER, HOLD SUNDAY SCHOOLS AND SO ON. ALSO WE USES THE BUILDING FOR THE SCOUTS AND PARTIES AND SO ON. DOCTRINE MAY BE AVAILBLE OUTSIDE, SUCH AS HOME TEACHERS, VISITING TEACHERS AND MISSIONARIES.

We may learn some part of history that is revelent to the doctrines. I mean, we learn about Moses and the 10 commandments, but we may not delve into his past or personal life for the sake of it. We are free to study whatever we like outside the church hours, but within the church, we just follow the gospel doctrines that are essential for us to prepare the aalvation.

Salvation has already been granted by Christ to almost all according to Mormon doctrine, with the exception of a precious few "Sons of Perdition".... SORRY, I TYPED THAT WRONG, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT SALVATION, I WAS THINKING OF ETERNAL LIFE (EXALTATION). SALVATION APPLIES TO ALL HUMAN RACE, BUT ETERNAL LIFE AND IMMORTALITY ARE DIFFERENT MATTERS. ETERNAL LIFE IS WHERE WE CAN REACH UP TO GOD'S STANDARDS AND EVENTUALLY BECOMES LIKE HIM. SALVATION GRANTS ALL PEOPLE AN IMMORTALITY BUT NOTHING LIKE HIM, AND STILL RECIEVE JOY THOUGH. EXCEPT FOR, LIKE YOU SAID, SONS OF PEREDITION.

Somebody may have offended them and leave, but usually they do come back when they realises they should forgive the offender.

I would bet that a majority do not come back, whether or not they feel they should forgive the offender. WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T COUNT HOW MANY LEAVING (WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHO DOES, BUT I DON'T), WE DO VISIT THOSE INACTIVES AND SEE HOW THEY ARE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE HOME TEACHERS TO PROVIDE THEIR WELFARE. IT DOESNT MATTER IF IT IS A MINORTITY OR MAJORITY, IT IS THEIR FREE AGENCY TO LEAVE OR NOT. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE IT. I EVEN MISSED CHURCH FOR A MONTH OR SO, AND NO ONE BEGGED ME TO COME BACK, HOWEVER, I WAS ASKED HOW I AM DOING AND SO ON, I AM COMING BACK TO CHURCH NEXT MONTH ONCE I AM DONE WITH MY RESPONSIBILITIES.

This offender can (and usually) apologise for any mistakes or misdeeds. I have been offended before by someone's attitudes, but I didn't leave the Church for that!

Good for you, but many do not react this way. A majority of those excommunicated probably never come back. Many of these people have felt offended by the actions of the "Courts of Love". I KNOW, THEY'RE NOT, HOW DO I PUT IT... LET'S SAY... THEY'RE NOT 100% MORMON OR.... FULLY UNDERSTOOD HOW CHRIST BEHAVES. I MEAN, FORGIVENESS IS ONE OF THE CHRIST'S ATTRIBUTES. IF THEY CAN'T FORGIVE, THEN THEY'RE NOT YET FULLY IN HARMONY OF CHRIST TEACHINGS. I HOPE YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN HERE. LOL. I AM STRUGGLING TO THINK OF HOW TO EXPLAIN IT ON HERE.

I only goes to Church for Christ, not its members.

Little point in going to church then, as I indicated above. LOL, PERHAPS. I ONLY GO THERE TO LISTEN TO SERMONS, PARTAKE THE SACRAMENTS, PRAY, AND STUDY A LESSON (ALSO TEACH). FOR ME PERSONALLY, I SEE IT AS A TRAINING GROUND OR A REMINDER OF HOW I CAN HELP THE COMMUNITY AND MY OWN SOCIAL SPHERE.

However, some doctrine MAY not appeal to some members. Well, that's their problems to sort out. I didn't join the Church to match my tastes, needs and desires. I only join the Church to worship the Lord, and some of His doctrines MAY not appeal to me either, but I just get on with it.

An ex-Mormon once told me, "We didn't choose the church, it chose us." People born Mormons had little choice about going through the motions, whether or not they approved of doctrines. Many leave because they do not feel that some of the doctrines some of the Mormon church did not come from Christ. THAT'S THEIR OPINIONS WHICH DOESN'T MEAN IT IS A FACT. WE CAN'T SAY IT IS A FACT OR NOT. THE DOCTRINES IS STILL THERE, AND WE ARE FREE TO HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT IT. HAVE YOU READ A STORY IN THE BIBLE ABOUT A RICH RULER TALKING TO CHRIST ON HOW HE CAN GAIN ENTRY TO HEAVEN, AND JESUS TOLD HIM TO GIVE ALL OF HIS POSSESIONS AWAY TO THE POOR. RICH RULER WERE OFFENDED. THAT STILL APPLIES TODAY. SOME OF HIS MESSAGES MAY "OFFEND" SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT READY TO ACCEPT HIM AND HIS GRACE. IF YOU'RE READY TO FACE CHRIST, YOU WOULDN'T BE OFFENDED WITH ANY OF HIS MESSAGES. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME ON EARTH TO READJUST THE ATTITUDES AND THOUGHTS SO WE CAN ACCEPT HIM BETTER.

Thankfully, the Church is progressing well and we've seen an increase of memberships. We've seen several new churches builts and opened, same as well for the temples. If members leaving, it doesn't harm the Church.

Actually the growth of the church is of great concern to the GA's as the stats for the past few years have shown that as many people leave the Mormon church as join it. There is little or no net gain outside of the addition of children born in Mormon families who get baptized without really going through a true conversion process. There are religions growing far faster. Christ talked about everyone being of value and of bringing lost sheep back into the fold. CHRIST TALKED ABOUT THE LOST SHEEPS, THATS WHY G.A. IS CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE LEAVING. THEY ARE THE LOST SHEEPS AND WE ARE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO HELP THEM TO FIND THE WAY BACK, OR, IF THEY STILL WANT TO LEAVE, THEN WE WILL RESPECT THEM. I KNOW PEOPLE ARE STILL LEAVING, HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE MORE COMING IN. PERHAPS WE NEED A REVOLVING DOORS AS THEY ALL COME AND GO. MANY ARE CALLED AND FEW ARE CHOSEN. SO, THAT EXPLAINS WHY WE HAVE FEW MORMONS THAT STAYS ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

HOPE THIS HELP. IT'S NICE TO HEAR FROM A FRIENDLY ANTI-MORMON OR (EX-MORMON WHICHEVER YOU ARE). BECAUSE I HAD ENCOUNTERED SOME ANTI-MORMONS, AND THEY ACTED NASTY AND FOUL MOUTHED. THEY OFTEN MOCK THE CHURCH AND STIR THINGS UP. FROM READING YOUR MESSAGES, I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU'RE SINCERE AND FULL OF THOUGHTS WITH A HONEST CRITICISM RATHER THAN PULL DOWN A PERSON'S FAITH. IT IS GOOD TO QUESTION ABOUT THE CHURCH AND ITS TEACHINGS AND WE MORMONS OFTEN ACCEPTS THAT (WELL NOT ALL MORMONS AS THEY'RE NOT READY TO BE MORE LIKE CHRIST AND RESPOND NICELY). I AM WILLING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS OPENLY AND HONESTLY AND I AM SURE YOU WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO DO THE SAME.

ALL THE BEST

WAYNE
Work Hard To Avoid Hard Work

[–] geode 10 years ago

Yes, there are few mormons who became athiests, and do talk about it, but why talk about it? Isn't this a time for them to move on?

Yes, but they don't. The obsession continues. A Mormon friend of mine once said that nobody ever left the LDS church totally behind. This was years before he himself left. I wonder if he posts anywhere? He simply was totally inactive the last I heard. YES. SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL OBSESSED WITH THE CHURCH. A FRIEND OF MINE HAS LEFT THE CHURCH, BUT STILL TALKS ABOUT IT AND HIS OWN NON MORMON FRIENDS ARE FED UP OF HIS ATTITUDE AND HAS LOST SOME OF FRIENDS BECAUSE OF THAT. WE HAD TO EXPLAIN TO HIM THAT IT IS POINTLESS TO TALK ABOUT THE CHURCH IF HE IS LOSING NON MORMON FRIENDS. YOU PROBABLY RIGHT THAT NO ONE HAS LEFT THE CHURCH 100% WHICH IS SAD (OR GOOD THING IF IT MADE THEM THINK ABOUT RETURNING!!)

I think this really is the case with many who leave.

Some of Mormon History are not taught openly, however, we can still buy or read the history books that are available to any LDS bookshops.

History books with the full story may be available to LDS bookshops such as Deseret Book but they are not sold by them. CORRECT. THE CHURCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, AS THE CHURCH IS NOT A PROFITABLE ORGANISATION. THOSE BOOKS ARE WRITTEN BY INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS AS A CAREER OR JUST WANTED TO EARN SOME WAGES. THE CHURCH ONLY INTEREST IS PROCLAIM AND TEACH THE CHRIST'S MESSAGE. THOSE BOOKS IN LDS BOOKSHOP ARE JUST AN ADDITIONAL INTEREST ONLY AND IT'S NOT COMPULSORY COMPARED TO CHURCH LESSON MATERIALS (CHURCH MATERIALS CAN BE BOUGHT AT THE DISTRIBUTION CENTRE AND IT'S CHEAP, AS IT IS NONPROFITABLE AND THE PAYMENT IS FOR THE PRINTING OF THOSE BOOKS).

Isn't it best to allow as an objective and honest version of history as can be written to be made available? It is said that "the truth will out" and embracing historical details despite their negative aspects may be the best course to take.

The thing is, we attend the church for the doctrine, not history lessons.

The doctrine is available outside church. Christ meant for people to be gathered in His name to support each other and act as the "body of Christ" in doing the good he did when on earth. PERHAPS, HOWEVER, HOW CAN WE SUPPORT EACH OTHER? THE CHURCH HAS WARDS WHERE WE CAN PARTAKE SACRMENT TOGETHER, HOLD SUNDAY SCHOOLS AND SO ON. ALSO WE USES THE BUILDING FOR THE SCOUTS AND PARTIES AND SO ON. DOCTRINE MAY BE AVAILBLE OUTSIDE, SUCH AS HOME TEACHERS, VISITING TEACHERS AND MISSIONARIES.

Actually I meant what you posted, that gathering in the name of Christ is important outside of learning about doctrine.

We may learn some part of history that is revelent to the doctrines. I mean, we learn about Moses and the 10 commandments, but we may not delve into his past or personal life for the sake of it. We are free to study whatever we like outside the church hours, but within the church, we just follow the gospel doctrines that are essential for us to prepare the aalvation.

Salvation has already been granted by Christ to almost all according to Mormon doctrine, with the exception of a precious few "Sons of Perdition".... SORRY, I TYPED THAT WRONG, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT SALVATION, I WAS THINKING OF ETERNAL LIFE (EXALTATION). SALVATION APPLIES TO ALL HUMAN RACE, BUT ETERNAL LIFE AND IMMORTALITY ARE DIFFERENT MATTERS. ETERNAL LIFE IS WHERE WE CAN REACH UP TO GOD'S STANDARDS AND EVENTUALLY BECOMES LIKE HIM. SALVATION GRANTS ALL PEOPLE AN IMMORTALITY BUT NOTHING LIKE HIM, AND STILL RECIEVE JOY THOUGH. EXCEPT FOR, LIKE YOU SAID, SONS OF PEREDITION.

Yes.

Somebody may have offended them and leave, but usually they do come back when they realises they should forgive the offender.

I would bet that a majority do not come back, whether or not they feel they should forgive the offender. WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T COUNT HOW MANY LEAVING (WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHO DOES, BUT I DON'T), WE DO VISIT THOSE INACTIVES AND SEE HOW THEY ARE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE HOME TEACHERS TO PROVIDE THEIR WELFARE. IT DOESNT MATTER IF IT IS A MINORTITY OR MAJORITY, IT IS THEIR FREE AGENCY TO LEAVE OR NOT. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE IT. I EVEN MISSED CHURCH FOR A MONTH OR SO, AND NO ONE BEGGED ME TO COME BACK, HOWEVER, I WAS ASKED HOW I AM DOING AND SO ON, I AM COMING BACK TO CHURCH NEXT MONTH ONCE I AM DONE WITH MY RESPONSIBILITIES.

Re-baptisms must be something that is part of the record. As an inactive member I have not been visited by a Home Teacher in about 15 years now. I did not request "no contact." My last Home Teacher visited me just once, and told me in that visit that he was leaving the church because of the way an historian had been treated and ex-communicated. He had been a bishop at the time and wrote SLC regarding his concern and was immediately released and told if he brought the matter up again he would face church discipline.

This offender can (and usually) apologise for any mistakes or misdeeds. I have been offended before by someone's attitudes, but I didn't leave the Church for that!

Good for you, but many do not react this way. A majority of those excommunicated probably never come back. Many of these people have felt offended by the actions of the "Courts of Love". I KNOW, THEY'RE NOT, HOW DO I PUT IT... LET'S SAY... THEY'RE NOT 100% MORMON OR.... FULLY UNDERSTOOD HOW CHRIST BEHAVES. I MEAN, FORGIVENESS IS ONE OF THE CHRIST'S ATTRIBUTES. IF THEY CAN'T FORGIVE, THEN THEY'RE NOT YET FULLY IN HARMONY OF CHRIST TEACHINGS. I HOPE YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN HERE. LOL. I AM STRUGGLING TO THINK OF HOW TO EXPLAIN IT ON HERE.

I think if the courts had been more routinely "Christ-like" in their actions it would be easier for people to seek forgiveness and return to the fold.

I only goes to Church for Christ, not its members.

Little point in going to church then, as I indicated above. LOL, PERHAPS. I ONLY GO THERE TO LISTEN TO SERMONS, PARTAKE THE SACRAMENTS, PRAY, AND STUDY A LESSON (ALSO TEACH). FOR ME PERSONALLY, I SEE IT AS A TRAINING GROUND OR A REMINDER OF HOW I CAN HELP THE COMMUNITY AND MY OWN SOCIAL SPHERE.

Going to church should also include strengthening the testimony of others.

However, some doctrine MAY not appeal to some members. Well, that's their problems to sort out. I didn't join the Church to match my tastes, needs and desires. I only join the Church to worship the Lord, and some of His doctrines MAY not appeal to me either, but I just get on with it.

An ex-Mormon once told me, "We didn't choose the church, it chose us." People born Mormons had little choice about going through the motions, whether or not they approved of doctrines. Many leave because they do not feel that some of the doctrines some of the Mormon church did not come from Christ. THAT'S THEIR OPINIONS WHICH DOESN'T MEAN IT IS A FACT. WE CAN'T SAY IT IS A FACT OR NOT. THE DOCTRINES IS STILL THERE, AND WE ARE FREE TO HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT IT. HAVE YOU READ A STORY IN THE BIBLE ABOUT A RICH RULER TALKING TO CHRIST ON HOW HE CAN GAIN ENTRY TO HEAVEN, AND JESUS TOLD HIM TO GIVE ALL OF HIS POSSESIONS AWAY TO THE POOR. RICH RULER WERE OFFENDED. THAT STILL APPLIES TODAY. SOME OF HIS MESSAGES MAY "OFFEND" SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT READY TO ACCEPT HIM AND HIS GRACE. IF YOU'RE READY TO FACE CHRIST, YOU WOULDN'T BE OFFENDED WITH ANY OF HIS MESSAGES. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME ON EARTH TO READJUST THE ATTITUDES AND THOUGHTS SO WE CAN ACCEPT HIM BETTER.

I was not actually referring to doctrines set forth in the Bible, which obviously are attributable to Christ. I was talking abut doctrines unique to the LDS church.

Thankfully, the Church is progressing well and we've seen an increase of memberships. We've seen several new churches builts and opened, same as well for the temples. If members leaving, it doesn't harm the Church.

Actually the growth of the church is of great concern to the GA's as the stats for the past few years have shown that as many people leave the Mormon church as join it. There is little or no net gain outside of the addition of children born in Mormon families who get baptized without really going through a true conversion process. There are religions growing far faster. Christ talked about everyone being of value and of bringing lost sheep back into the fold. CHRIST TALKED ABOUT THE LOST SHEEPS, THATS WHY G.A. IS CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE LEAVING. THEY ARE THE LOST SHEEPS AND WE ARE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO HELP THEM TO FIND THE WAY BACK, OR, IF THEY STILL WANT TO LEAVE, THEN WE WILL RESPECT THEM. I KNOW PEOPLE ARE STILL LEAVING, HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE MORE COMING IN. PERHAPS WE NEED A REVOLVING DOORS AS THEY ALL COME AND GO. MANY ARE CALLED AND FEW ARE CHOSEN. SO, THAT EXPLAINS WHY WE HAVE FEW MORMONS THAT STAYS ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

Is enough really being done to reach out to those who have wandered away?

HOPE THIS HELP. IT'S NICE TO HEAR FROM A FRIENDLY ANTI-MORMON OR (EX-MORMON WHICHEVER YOU ARE). BECAUSE I HAD ENCOUNTERED SOME ANTI-MORMONS, AND THEY ACTED NASTY AND FOUL MOUTHED. THEY OFTEN MOCK THE CHURCH AND STIR THINGS UP. FROM READING YOUR MESSAGES, I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU'RE SINCERE AND FULL OF THOUGHTS WITH A HONEST CRITICISM RATHER THAN PULL DOWN A PERSON'S FAITH. IT IS GOOD TO QUESTION ABOUT THE CHURCH AND ITS TEACHINGS AND WE MORMONS OFTEN ACCEPTS THAT (WELL NOT ALL MORMONS AS THEY'RE NOT READY TO BE MORE LIKE CHRIST AND RESPOND NICELY). I AM WILLING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS OPENLY AND HONESTLY AND I AM SURE YOU WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO DO THE SAME.

I have no intention of pulling down anyone's faith. I am not an anti-Mormon and more routinely get accused of being a Mormon apologist.

I forgot I had posted to you in this thread. It was a long time ago.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

[–] ShotgunRex 12 years ago

LOL at saying Mormons still practice Polygamy. Newsflash...No they don't. Janelafey is either lying or is just completely full of sh-t.

[–] philsk 9 years ago

This argument and others regarding this film are about as relevant as the discussion entitled, "how many fairies can you fit on the head of a pin?".

There are the Gospels and other stories about Jesus Christ and Christianity and most (rational) people will realise that they are basically fairy stories, made up by people who either wanted to believe in something because they were seeking an answer to "something/who am I/why am I here/what happens when I die/is this all there is".....and so on. And you really have to wonder about the level of intelligence of people who believe in such stories (take for instance the Ark and all of the creatures on it, resurrection, and many other "stories" made up for the gullible).

Then look at the Mormons and realise that this "faith" was again made up by somebody who wanted to be someone and have a following and power, so he invented his own version of "Christianity" however this time he added a few extras to it to suit his lustfulness and just like the poor suckers who bought into the first version of Christianity, there were others willing to buy into this one as well.

Fact is that Christianity and other religions associated with it have been responsible for more wars, deaths, massacres, genocide and poverty than any other event in the history of the world (as we know it anyway). The Mormons massacred these people and killed many others, so they are no different to others who "fly the Christian flag in one form or another".

That is the truth, however Christianity and what the Mormons believe in are purely fairy stories.