The Mormon Church’s odd explanation for Joseph Smith’s polygamy

Last week, the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints announced that its founder, Joseph Smith, had as many as 40 wives.

The news itself isn’t that surprising, and subsequent assertions in the media that this was the first time the LDS Church had admitted to their founder’s plural marriages are a bit of an exaggeration.

After all, the Church had said many times before that not only did Smith practice polygamy, he received a revelation commanding him to do so in the early 1840s.

Mormons

Mormons via Shutterstock

And, of course, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff received a similar revelation commanding the faith to cease practicing polygamy in 1890 — not too long after the practice was outlawed in the United States.

So the question one has to ask in light of the recent announcement shouldn’t be whether the Church has already acknowledged its history with respect to plural marriage. Instead, we should be asking what’s up with these new “revelations.”

Last week’s announcement includes the word “revelation” thirteen times, the first of which comes in the second paragraph:

// //

//

After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration — for Joseph personally and for other Church members…Few Latter-day Saints initially welcomed the restoration of a biblical practice entirely foreign to their sensibilities. But many later testified of powerful spiritual experiences that helped them overcome their hesitation and gave them courage to accept this practice.

Furthermore, Heaven apparently insisted rather strongly. As the announcement continues:

Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

In order to understand the above passages, one has to understand that young religions that plan on being successful almost always adopt principles — invariably based on some sort of divine instruction — that are designed to rapidly grow the size of the flock. Mormonism is just the most recent example of a rapidly-expanding religion adopting an evolutionarily-advantageous growth strategy.

And the strategy is working, as Mormonism is one of the fastest-growing religions in America. While the faith no longer practices polygamy, Mormons do still marry early and procreate often. Plus, every member of the religion spends two years spreading the faith through missionary work. If the religion is organized around one guiding principle, that principle is clearly this: Make more Mormons, by any means necessary.

But to say that the Latter-Day Saints considered marriage a divine contract between one man and many women, because it gave them a Darwinian advantage over other religions, would be giving Joseph Smith far more credit than he deserves.

After all, the foundation of Mormonism is the story of a con.

Joseph Smith — himself a previously-convicted fraud — concocted an obviously-false, largely plagiarized story that comprised various elements of spirituality drawn from the “Burned-Over District” of upstate New York that Smith grew up in. In “translating” the Book of Mormon into English, he used “seer stones” that were the centerpiece of the money-digging scheme he had previously been convicted of. And when the the first 116 pages of the translation were lost, the version Smith reproduced was different from the original. A fact that struck many as odd; if the words were in fact dictated by God, they should have been indentical.

Given how ridiculous the story is, it’s a wonder that the religion has seen so much success. But if members of the faith are able to square the first and most absurd circle that is the story of how the religion was founded, rationalizing polygamy as being divinely inspired isn’t all that difficult. As their statement continues:

Although the Lord commanded the adoption — and later the cessation — of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties… Through it all, Church leaders and members sought to follow God’s will.

One can’t help but be reminded of the “revelation” the Mormon faith had that black people were equal to whites — in 1978. (And it’s a revelation they’re still apparently perfecting.)

So we are left with three possible explanations for why Joseph Smith established polygamy as a principle of the Mormon faith. The one being offered to us by the Church (an angel made him do it). The one suggested by the repetition of history (young religions — including Judaism and Islam — often adopt polygamy as part of the larger goal: sustainability and growth). And the one suggested by the biography of the religion’s founder (Joseph Smith was a horny con man).

I’ll leave it to you to decide which is most likely.


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

  • Michael Olsen

    It should be noted that the LDS and the “Fundamentalist Church of Mormon” are infact two completely separate groups. The fedamentalists did not come from, break off from, or otherwise originate from the LDS Church. The fundamentalists are a “modern” group that has choosen a very similar name. This has allowed them to selectively adopt those portions of the LDS faith they wish to follow, and to claim both a conection to and dissassociation from the LDS as has been convenient for their argumetns. The fundamentalists have long twisted and abused teachings and article of faith in the LDS Curch.

  • Alec

    It wasn’t a general practice; a few specific men were called to have multiple wives, many of whom resisted the idea at first. Joseph himself claims to have been coerced by an angel. Given that he was constantly poor, assaulted repeatedly by mobs (some of whom may have caused the death of his infant children) and finally killed by the mobs himself for his beliefs, he certainly seemed sincere in his attempt to follow his beliefs.

  • Alec

    Joseph Smith’s revelations drew a distinction between sealing (religious marriage) as creating marriages that would be in effect after this life, and secular marriages that would only be in force during this life. Today, Mormons combine the two, marrying for life and eternity, but that wasn’t necessarily the case back in Joseph’s day. Given the context, marrying a prophet only for the after-life perks and not consummating the marriage in an earthly sense in not a stretch of the imagination: especially when you combine with the lack of evidence for consummation.

    Furthermore, Smith’s proposals were made through another individual or with other individuals present, and women could (and did) turn him down without reprisal. This is the exact opposite of a predatory pattern, which would involve no marriage commitment, being secretive, and coercion.

    Also, I disagree that all God’s words must be ‘indentical.’ I believe that God is free to indent or not as he pleases.

    More seriously, Joseph Smith endured quite a bit of persecution and slander. Yes he was accused of many things, but the vast majority were on spurious charges and Smith was acquitted. Given the above, why would I take the word of the people who STOLE the manuscript pages in order to discredit Joseph? They clearly had an a priori bias, an inclination to break the law, and they offer no proof that they actually presented the original pages, let alone presented them untouched. You treat them as if they were a neutral third party that instantly placed manuscript in a locked box and threw away the key, instead of a mob. You may find the Smith story outlandish; it is. However, you make the mistake of appealing to thieves as a credible witnesses because you like their story more than Smith’s.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    John wrote: “If the First Presidency and Quorum of The Twelve stated or were proven beyond doubt that they were frauds then this would make me leave the faith.”

    Go back and read the question again. It calls for verifiable/objective and specific evidence.

    What verifiable/objective/specific evidence, if it existed, would prove to you that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were frauds?

    It’s really a simple and very reasonable question …. the fact that you continue to dodge the question illustrates that the church really is a cult that brainwashes its members.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    John wrote: “Not dodging the question at all!”

    Completely dodging the question. The question was for you to describe any verifiable/objective/specific evidence that, if it existed, would change your mind, and lead you to conclude that Mormonism is false.

    You haven’t done that. You can’t do that because you are a brainwashed cult member and they have indoctrinated you to the point that questioning the cult is simply not possible for you.

    John wrote: “You stated…”

    I gave you examples of what I might use, John. But it is highly deceitful of you to pretend that my examples are the issue here. The question I asked leaves you free to state your own issues. But, as you have demonstrated, you can’t do that. It’s impossible for you to question the legitimacy of your cult.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    It’s not about them being right or wrong. It’s about you and your church lying about having been driven from Nauvoo. Your leaders left voluntarily. They were not driven out. They left because they wanted to break the law. Those Mormons who were willing to obey the law stayed in Nauvoo and got along with their neighbors just fine.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    They would say that Brigham Young was the apostate.

    But regardless, the historical fact remains …. the “Mormons” left Nauvoo on their own. They were *not* driven out, and thousands of them remained in Nauvoo, getting along well with their neighbors, once the violent misogynist, Brigham Young, left for Utah.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “…was never hidden or suppressed by the LDS church…”

    Cody is lying. The best way to illustrate the lie is to challenge Cody to present a quotation from a widely distributed church periodical that discusses Smith’s child abuse and adultery.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…. I don’t blame them for not going public…”

    They didn’t just not go “public,” Church officials actively lied about the fact they were engaging in child abuse and adultery.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    And this, in a nutshell, is Mormonism. The LDS Church was complicit in the murder of over 100 innocent men, women, and children … yet the cult followers think it’s the people who publicize the church’s involvement who are to blame.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Lies

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Smith “married” little 14 year old girls. That’s child abuse.

    Smith “married” women who were married to other men. That’s adultery.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Smith “married” little 14 year old girls. That’s child abuse.

    Smith “married” women who were married to other men. That’s adultery.

    Look at what Mormonism has done to you, that you defend child abuse and adultery.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Mormons are indoctrinated to label contrary information as “apostate” and then ignore it.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Mormon ad hominem at it’s worst.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The Mormon Church has never apologized.

    You’ve been challenged to provide a quotation, and you fell flat on your face.

    The Mormon Church has never said they’re sorry for their involvement in the Mountain Meadows murders.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Breathtaking hypocrisy.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    It’s easy enough to see who the liar is.

    According to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was an abomination:

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I’m quoting it.

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

    According to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was an abomination.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “… 21st century standards…”

    Cody is lying and bearing false witness. I’m using the standards found in the Book of Mormon:

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The LDS cult indoctrinates their members to only use material from the church’s apologetic sites.

    That’s why Cody can’t formulate his own arguments, and can only post links to FAIR and FARMS, which are two notoriously deceitful LDS apologetic outlets.

  • Considering all the ridiculous crap you believe as a Mormon, your belief or lack thereof isn’t sought or respected. I am against vandalism and violence and always have been, but as with the rest of reality, your belief or lack thereof changes nothing.

  • Funny, since I know Mormons whose church tried to force and intimidate them into donating to the Prop 8 campaign.

    Also, the Mormon church is in decline just like all the others. All you have to do is google “mormon membership decline” and you get hundreds of hits. You are having the same membership and attendance problems as all the other Christians.

  • Except you know even less about my faith than you seem to understand about how the real world works. So it doesn’t prove any point, except that you’re happy to jump to conclusions and cry persecution the moment you find someone who doesn’t fall lock-step into your belief system.

  • Funny, I don’t see any gay rights organizations coming together to take millions of dollars from their membership to spend it on lobbying to take away your civil rights. If you want to be a private bigot, and are worried about your hate becoming public knowledge, then keep it to yourself.

  • Cody Quirk

    What’s laughable is your previous claims about the LDS Church and the manufactured notion that Mormons are persecuting LGBT people- which have already been blown out of the water and shown to be the other way around. Btw, I don’t believe you for a second that you condemn any acts of violence or vandalism against LDS and their houses or worship- not with that hate you’re displaying here.

  • Moderator3

    You are forgetting that you are a guest on this blog. if you are unable to behave in a manner that is respectful of your hosts, find a blog that will appreciate your comments.

  • Cody Quirk

    Actually the militant LGBT crowd is the one hypocritically crying bigotry the loudest against the LDS Church when in fact they are the ones violating the privacy and civil rights of Mormons and others that they cowardly view as a fightable threat.

    And no matter how much you squeal and bitch about Mormons bullying LGBT folks- the obvious evidence here and in the media and police reports shows that it is the other way around.

  • Cody Quirk

    Which further verifies my point with atheists.

  • Cody Quirk

    Actually what’s funny is that those churches are losing members to us and Mormons keep advancing into the mainstream without having to behave like chauvinists while also trying to physically and economically intimidate others in order to force people to accept us.

  • I can’t speak for everyone here, but I’m pretty sure most of us no problem at all with you or your church exercising First Amendment rights. But, sorry, you don’t then get to cry religious persecution when people point out your bigotry.

  • You haven’t refuted anything and it’s odd that you think you have. Links to a pro-Mormon website as “proof” that criticisms off the church are invalid is laughable.

  • Just treat it like Jesus fan fiction.

  • Cody Quirk

    Compared to the various other debate rule violations and vile ad homenim tactics used here by your atheist poster buddies?

  • Cody Quirk

    Lol, nice excuse.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, and ignoring the detailed evidence and references on there is easy for someone like you. And anything contrary on those sites that you post here I’ll just refute.
    It proves that I’m not a bigot like you’re trying to paint me as, and keep failing, and also failing to show how you yourself are not a bigot when in fact you are one, as displayed in your posts, congrats.

  • Cody Quirk

    CFR on political donations. Donations of a small amount are not supposed to be made public, and the methods employed in publicizing those donations were quite illegal and set up so that one could have his/her civil rights violated in retaliation.

    When gays “fight back”, they show themselves to be just a vile and as quick to fascist tactics like many of the white counter-protesters during the era of MLK, and the comparison of Jewish businesses is justified; the SAME methods and manners were used.

    BTW, since when did the LDS church organize boycotts of gay businesses, or publicly intimidated homosexuals that donated to a LGBT organization? And yet here we are on a article that has nothing to do with homosexuality and yet you are bashing the LDS faith, even if the church has backed off on the LGBT issues in the political arena, which further shows that you are the bigoted douchebag here.

  • Cody Quirk

    If marriage is a civil-right, then we should legalize ALL forms of non-traditional marriage, otherwise we are being hypocrites.

    Please also explain why people like you weren’t making the same arguments, or protesting in the same manner when Prop 22 was passed in California.

    Speaking of civil rights, please explain to me also about the various forms of vandalism to outright destruction of property and intimidation tactics employed by LGBT activists against the LDS Church, Catholics, and individuals that simply gave a few bucks to Prop. 8? I believe other’s civil rights may have gotten violated in those cases.

    Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where non-traditional marriage is legal, or a civil right.

    However marriage was and still is regulated by the states, as many states out there still prohibit, or are quite restrictive on certain forms of marriage, including common-law marriages.

    I don’t have a problem legalizing gay marriage through the state legislatures or the ballot box- and the LGBT lobby should have taken that approach in the first place instead of infringe upon a state’s 10th Amendment rights and further inject the feds into the matter.

    I don’t view IRS 501(c)3 at all in conformity with the First Amendment, IMO, however-

    http://mormonvoices.org/1009/legal-issues-surrounding-the-church-and-proposition-8
    &
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8

  • Cody Quirk

    BTW, the League was disbanded both because of international pressure, and because the efforts of the league were starting to become too internally divisive for the soviet government.

  • Cody Quirk

    Just as you and the others here proved that atheists are just as judgmental, intolerant, and as ignorant as any psycho bible-thumper, or Muslim terrorist.

    Congratulations yourself.

  • Cody Quirk

    In your opinion.

  • Cody Quirk

    Actually I find it even more funny that atheists are so pompous and chauvinistic of their views that they degrade themselves into behaving just like religious fundamentalists in attacking various religions and others people’s faiths.

    No wonder why religious belief hasn’t gone away so easily.

    The League of Militant Atheists is a example that even atheists/secularists are just as guilty as any other religion here in both the subjugation/persecution and mass murder of those that oppose their ideology, or are in mere opposition to it. That also includes the state atheist governments of the USSR, North Korea, China, and especially Enver Hoxha’s regime and how they have suppressed and killed many christians and others simply because they wouldn’t conform to the will and beliefs of those oppressive state atheist governments.

    It further shows that atheism is also no better then any other religion or philosophy that could be used in totalitarianism and in violence.

  • Cody Quirk

    According to your own prejudiced and ignorant opinions, never mind when it comes to doctrine like non-trinitarianism, polygamy, deification of man, prophesy, etc. there’s plenty of historical background and biblical context to back up such “absurdities” that you have no understanding of.

    And you further are displaying here why more people are not atheist- because they don’t like someone that acts so chauvinistic and pompous about their beliefs and constantly tear down the beliefs and “absured” views of others- when in fact they know little to nothing of that person’s faith, or religion, and instead behave in a way that is ignorant, prejudiced, and no better then any religious fundamentalist.

    So give yourself a pat on the back for showing atheism as the intolerant, ignorant ideology that it is.

  • Cody Quirk

    Still, when it comes to totalitarianism and mass murder, atheism does have blood on it’s hands throughout history, perhaps more so then any other religion out there… Though Islam is getting to that point right now.

    Furthermore, a lot of the “persecution” that O’Hair got was actually quite justified. However I feel sorry for her that she wasn’t able to relocate to the USSR, since she was a big fan of state atheism, which she tried to do before she started her atheist crusade in America.

  • Cody Quirk

    But again, there’s no evidence to back up Oliver’s words, and he said it at a time when he was shortly excommunicated and held a personal grudge against Joseph at the time over their disagreements. And how was D&C published in England? You’re not making any sense here.

  • Cody Quirk

    And that LDS website article still doesn’t contradict the FAIR one, nice try.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Fanny_Alger_and_William_McLellin

    Even when Oliver Cowdery turned against Joseph and left the church over disagreements with doctrine and leadership issues, he never repudiated his testimony in seeing the gold plates.

    Sorry, your unrealistic and false slander isn’t working.

  • Cody Quirk

    He still did neither because his plural marriages were not officially recorded by the legal authorities; and there’s still no solid evidence that proves he actually consummated any of his plural marriages, unless you want to include rumor and unverified testimony from critics and former friends of his.

    Furthermore, your excuse of D&C 132 is laughable, since these plural marriages were performed for celestial reasons.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Joseph_Smith_lack_of_children_through_polygamy_contradicts_Doctrine_and_Covenants_commandment_to_%22multiply_and_replenish_the_earth%22

  • Cody Quirk

    You should remember that leaders of the LDS church are not infallible, but they have certainly done what you have said when it was required of them.

  • I could care less about other religions. Let them do as the will. But I expect my Church to follow the Lord and to be held to a higher standard. I expect my Church to repent when it sins and to be honest. I expect my Church to do what is right and let the consequences follow.

  • coastrange

    Were there a lot more female converts then than male ones? It is hard to see why a man would convert if it meant he could not find a wife.

  • ComradeRutherford

    Oh, hey, don’t get me wrong, I like Jesus, He was right on. I read the Red Letters and Jesus is most clearly speaking Universal Truths.

    It’s the crazy ‘church’ that grew up after he left this plane of existence that I can’t abide. Like that Roman double-agent Saul/Paul who wrested control of the nascent church away from Jesus’ chosen heirs and turned Jesus’ message upside down and inside out in the later books. That guy was clearly out to gut Jesus’ message.

    For example, who could be more Anti-Christian than – just to pick one – Joel Osteen? He is preaching the exact opposite of what we read in the Red Letters. I can’t ever join a church like that, because it’s not a church at all, but a wealth transfer system to steal money from willfully ignorant idiots who have no clue about their own religion.

    If I were forced to join a church it would be the old-school Quakers.

  • The_Fixer

    As you have seen, provided that you read the above link, that many galaxies have black holes at the center of them, and some have quasars at their center as well. These quasars, intensely powerful stars that emit massive amounts of infrared, visible and other kinds of energy, are currently thought to obtain their power through the black hole also at the center of that galaxy. Our galaxy has no quasar at its center. If there were, we’d be able to sense it with the many spacecraft that we have sent into space.

    The size of the galaxy and the black hole are immaterial to this discussion.

    No, they are not “just guessing”, there’s data obtained through the Hubble Space Telescope and other sources that support current theories. These theories may change slightly with the addition of new data, but the basis is there.

    And no, science does not have all the answers just yet. However, the scientific method has worked for humanity in the past, and has not stopped working. If one eschews science, he or she has to also disregard the results – radio communications, computing, safer and more efficient automobiles, and a host of medical advancements among them.

    You are holding an awfully high bar for science to jump over. I will hold you to an equally high bar. Your god knows everything, now prove it with science.

    You can’t.

    With that, I think we’re done here.

  • MrNirom1

    What I see.. is bright light at the center of all galaxies. There may be black holes too.. but even science hasn’t figured them all out. They are not sure if it is the black hole that determines the size of the galaxy.. or is it the galaxy that determines the size of the black hole. Still just guessing. And did anyone notice that science does not have all the answers? They use to tell us one thing before Hubble.. and now.. they have had to change their beliefs after Hubble… and yet.. still don’t understand everything. But God… does.

  • The_Fixer

    Supermassive black holes. Or at least the effects of them, as we can’t actually see a black hole as light can’t escape from them. However, we can observe the effects of them. The Hubble space telescope has allowed us to do this, and a more complete explanation is here.

  • MrNirom1

    Yes.. you are right. Nobody has seen the center of our galaxy. When you look at all the galaxies… what do you see at the center of all of them?

  • The_Fixer

    Last I heard, the percentage of scientists identifying as atheist was in the high 90s. I have no data on the other occupations.

    However, the quantity of believers or non-believers is immaterial; using that as an argument is a rhetorical device used in propaganda and advertising known as the “climbing on the bandwagon.” Not a valid argument to make here.

    If you think reasoned arguments are bashing, then perhaps you need not participate in this discussion.

  • The_Fixer

    Nobody has seen the center of the Milky Way galaxy. There’s too much other stuff in the way.

    However, we can observe things near the center of our galaxy, and they can give some level of confirmation to the claim that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of it. You can learn about it here.

  • The_Fixer

    Prominent advocates of atheism do not claim that a god talks to them.

    Madelyn Murray O’Hair was, like most people, a mix. You call her a vile character; it appears that she was far more a victim of “good, honest church-going folk” than a perpetrator. She was driven out of Baltimore by harassment and threats. Even long after she died, there were a few instances of fraudulent E-Mail claims that she was trying to get programs like “Touched By An Angel” canceled. Both happened after she died, which shows that the writers of said E-Mail letters did not know she had died, or were using her name to further smear the atheist movement.

    I am not going to defend everything she ever said of did. She treated her son horribly after he left atheism. She was an abrasive character. However, there were a lot of instances of her getting harassed. For people taught to turn the other cheek, that was awfully hypocritical.

    Regarding the League of Militant Atheists, I address that further down. In essence, that organization was an arm of the Communist Russian government from 1929 to the 1940s. Nobody in this country who is serious would ever propose such a thing in the United States in this day and age. I can’t speak for everyone who is an atheist, but the serious atheists I know and have read do not want to legislate religion out of existence. We would be happiest if people came to atheism of their own free will, through their own knowledge and understanding of the world. Through reason.

  • The_Fixer

    That’s not a “church-like faith”. It’s a series of organizations structured similarly to churches, but it is not based on faith. Atheism is based on what is demonstrable by science today. That’s not faith, even as you have defined it.

  • The_Fixer

    Atheists approach this from a hard, scientific place. They don’t have a god that talks to them. So yes, they mostly are better.

    You are also using as an example the government-affiliated organization in Soviet Russia as a point of argument. That has no bearing on the current situation in our country. There is nothing comparable to that now, your example is impertinent.

    By the way, Madelyn Murray O’Hair is dead. While alive, she was villified for simply being an atheist. While she was an imperfect person, there was a lot of ill said of her that simply wasn’t true.

  • The_Fixer

    However, such a typical vehicle can do just that if it was modified enough.

    However, if I made the assertion that my car can fly, regardless of how it has been modified, I’d have to prove it. You are missing the point.

    I find it funny how, when atheists try and debate believers, suddenly we’re forcing our views on others. That never happens with religions? How about the Jehova’s Witnesses who came into our yearly Pride celebration to prosthelytize? How about the various sects that send people door-to-door and attempt to convert me? Religion is everywhere. Atheism is hardly to that point.

    The League of Militant Atheists was disbanded in the 1940s, and was an arm of the Soviet government. How is that in any way comparable to loosely organized atheists of today? Aside from that, we know that sometimes militant organizations sometimes are on the right side of history, despite the fact that they sometimes use reprehensible methods. Think about the Viet Nam war – anti-war people who bombed buildings were on the right side of history, they just chose methods that were reprehensible.

    Why does life need a “why”? I accept the fact that through a marvelous series of random events that we came to be here. That is the only “miracle” involved in our existence, which makes it all the more special, and worth protecting. You do, in fact argue against evolution by claiming that a god created humankind.

    Fine for your choice. I noticed that on the one hand, you seem to think that there’s a possibility that your scripture can be proven by science in the future, on the other, you say it is not necessary to be proven in another one of your many, many posts on this subject.

    If humanity is to succumb to religion and let it decide public policy, then there has to be sufficient scientific proof. To get back to my original point, the burden lies on the one making these extraordinary claims to prove them. I prefer that public policy be made on the basis of provable science rather than an ancient book riddled with inconsistencies and things that are just wrong.

  • The_Fixer

    Nobody is limiting their rights to free speech and assembly. You are confusing speech with lawmaking. Prop 8 tried to make a law that expressed a theological belief. Additionally, it attempted to deny people’s civil rights. That’s not mentioning the methods they chose to do so – incorrect assertions and the slander of an entire class of people.

    You are forgetting that our government is secular. We do not make laws preferring one religious belief system over another. Our legal civil rights take precedence over one’s religious beliefs. This was settled early on in the history of the country, when a series of then colonies had their own religions. In order to form a union, they had to decide that there should be no state religion, and that there should be no preference toward any religion in public policy. Conversely, they also decided that religions should be allowed to do what they will, as long as they did not violate public laws and as long as they limited their political activity.

    IRS 501(c)3 organizations, by law, are not allowed to officially endorse candidates for public office, and are restricted from certain political activities. They can talk about political issues in the context of their beliefs, of course. But not directly participating in politics by endorsing a candidate, or telling their congregations how to vote on issues, is the deal that was struck that allows them to be unburdened by taxes.

    Nice straw man, though.

  • The_Fixer

    Ok.. where does the Bible say that the sky is a metal dome? I can not find the word “dome” in the Bible.

    It says so in Genesis, when it refers to the “firmament.” Reflecting the belief that the world was disc-shaped, the authors of the Christian Bible/Pentateuch believed that the sky was a “firmament”, a solid object, that was constructed out of metal plates joined together. The firmament was supposed to separate the “waters from above” (rain) from the waters below (rivers, lakes and oceans). They thought it also had doors in it that would selectively let in rain and and the sun during the daytime, stars (which were thought of as “night light”) at night. This was what primitive people understood the world to be at the time, and wrote it in the bible.

    Later on, as the people of the world made scientific discoveries and had a better understanding of how the universe works, those responsible for “interpreting” the bible decided that the idea of the earth being a disc and covered by a dome was incorrect,and changed their interpretation. Now, they regard the firmament as an invisible boundary separating the earth from the sky (among other things), in spite of the fact that Genesis refers to it as a firmament. The root of the word is “firm”, which definitely expresses something of substance. Religious interpreters simply changed the meaning of the word to match more modern understanding as they knew that the idea of a metal dome covering an disc-shaped earth had been scientifically proven to be incorrect.

    And I suppose that because modern man can not build a pyramid like they did in Egypt today.. that therefore man did not built the pyramids.

    I am not sure what this has to do with anything, but in fact, we can build pyramids the way they did in that era. The method used to move the blocks was discovered to be using a certain amount of water in the sand, which allowed large blocks of stone to be moved easily. They discovered this by looking at the artwork of the era, which depicted the process.

    If you don’t believe in a God that has power to stop the digestive system of a whale.. or has the ability to put animals in an arc
    regardless of how many there are.. then you would be right.</em"

    If a god has this power, it’s been an awfully long time since he has used it. There are a lot of pressing problems in this world that could be reversed by such a god. However, the extraordinary powers that are talked about in the bible seem to center around feeding this god’s ego. Sorry, I don’t believe it because the world around me does not show the presumed influence of such a god. If he’s so powerful and good, why doesn’t he fix such things as global climate change, or even allow them to happen?

    We’ve discovered certain laws of physics. If a god created and governs the earth, he created the laws of physics, his laws. If they’re his laws, they he would abide by them, I’d think. Because that’s the way his universe would be.

    Your last paragraph is really philosophizing coupled with a dire warning. And a little bit of the famous “God’s plan” talk which somehow conflicts with the concept of man having free will. This concept is rather odd. How much free will does a person have when they can be punished in the most inhumane and cruel ways possible for exercising it?

    Philosophizing, indeed.

  • MrNirom1

    You can think what you will.. but you would be wrong. Yes.. if God commands it.. then you follow. Who do you fear… man or God? Ever heard of civil disobedience? Take that into consideration? No.. probably not. As with all laws.. you break them.. you pay the consequences of doing that… and laws of man are punished by man… not by God. You really have to understand the difference between the two.

  • Tornogal

    Cody (and anyone interested),

    A great source on the wives of Joseph Smith is the website named (not surprisingly) wivesofjosephsmith(dot)org.

    There people can read in the words of his victims that these relationships were. And they can decide if there is more there than “speculative evidence.”

  • Tornogal

    Cody,

    By “these kinds of websites” you mean LDS apologist websites, right? LOL!
    Yes, PLEASE send people to “fairmormon,” please, please, please! There people can see for themselves the gawdawful twisted logic necessary to preserve a belief in Mormonism. I hope every single person investigating Mormonism goes there.

    Please find even one credible non-Mormon archaeologist who agrees the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (a “true record”). You can’t.

    Please find even one credible Egyptologist who agrees Joseph Smith’s explanations of the “Facsimiles” in the Book of Abraham are anything but fiction. You can’t.

    Please explain how it is that the “revelations” of Joseph Smith were changed after-the-fact as they were translated from the Book of Commandments to D&C.

    Please explain how it was the prophet Joseph Smith pursuaded his followers to invest in the Kirtland Safety Society because it was promised by the Lord to prosper. (“I also herd [sic] President Joseph Smith, jr., declare in the presence of F. Williams, D. Whitmer, S. Smith, W. Parrish, and others in the Deposit office that HE HAD RECEIVED THAT MORNING THE WORD OF THE LORD UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE KIRTLAND SAFETY SOCIETY. He was alone in a room by himself and he had not only [heard] the voice of the Spirit upon the Subject but even an AUDIBLE VOICE. He did not tell us at that time what the Lord said upon the subject but remarked that if we would give heed to the commandments the Lord had given this morning all would be well.” (“Wilford Woodruff’s Journal,” January 6, 1837, as quoted in Conflict at Kirtland, page 296)

    Please explain why Mormon temple rituals are so similar to those of the Freemasons–the rituals Smith got access to just weeks before he revealed his.

    Please explain why the LDS church refuses to publish a financial report.

    And of course the only thing you can do is point to “fairmormon.”

    These aren’t “urban legends”, Cody. They are cold facts.

    You are trapped in a fraud. Good luck to you in escaping. Thousands have.

  • tapirrider1

    Adultery and bigamy were not legal back then and Joe broke those laws. Just because statuatory rape was legal when Joe married Helen Mar Kimball doesn’t get him off the hook. He was still legally married to Emma and was therefore breaking the laws of bigamy and adultery. And Joe took advantage of his position to have sex with Fanny. That was a behavior of immoral men at that time, which was later addressed in the changing of laws in the late 19th century. Joe was a sexual predator.

    I have seen several Mormons try to claim that Joe did not have sex with anyone else but Emma. But your Doctrine and Covenants section 132 clearly states in alleged revelation that the purpose of plural marriage is to raise up seed. Not having sex cancels out the very reason for marrying those wives. And why even try to pretend some kind of prophetic purity for Joe? We all know what Brigham and his successors did. Why should Joe be any different? Mormons need to admit that their founding prophet had sex with more people than just Emma.

  • tapirrider1

    So are you saying that the Fanny Alger affair did not happen? Your church’s official website is more reliable than fairmormon.
    https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng
    Tell me something Cody, if Oliver Cowdery’s words are “speculative evidence”, why don’t you go ahead and apply that to his testimony of the Book of Mormon as one of the three witnesses.
    Joe was a sexual predator and your church has been lying about polygamy from the very beginning.

  • tapirrider1

    Oliver’s words are a first hand historical document. Your 60 year later account was written by a person who was not even there. Oliver’s are the most reliable. Your church lied about the polygamy from the beginning. Your leaders lied to the world even while they had more than one wife themselves. Your Doctrine and Covenants published in England canonized the claim that your church did not practice polygamy, and at that very time your prophet and apostles and others in Utah were practicing it. Liars and adulterers, the whole leadership. And the deception your missionaries put on English converts was discovered when they arrived in Utah.

    Your god is not my god and I have no concern that your imaginary deity would tell me to take more wives. But I would seriously like to see what you would do today if indeed your Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency required of you to give your wife to one of the general authorities. That is exactly what Joe did to more than one member of your church.

  • tapirrider1

    Your 12th article of faith doesn’t give you the choice to decide which laws will be ignored. Joe broke the laws of the land and committed adultery. “All great prophets” were not subject to the United States laws of the 1830s. Joe was and he broke them and committed adultery when he screwed the babysitter.

    Mormons have been lying about polygamy from the beginning. I can’t believe that you just promoted the breaking of laws if god commands it. Glad to see a Mormon showing everyone what their church is about. I hope more people read what you just posted. And it doesn’t matter if Joe did not have sex with all of his wives. If he had sex with even one more than Emma, he was an adulterer and we know he was because of Fanny Alger and Oliver Cowdery.

  • If you think that Baptists and others like you any better than they did before all this, you are kidding yourself. I’m surrounded by them and similar Christians and they don’t like you any better than before but are happy to use you to do their dirty work for them. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  • Political donations are not private and haven’t been since the mid-70s.

    You are mad because gays finally started fighting back. If you don’t like it, stop with the bigotry. And again, prosecute the vandalism, that’s illegal. But boycotts most certainly are illegal. Christian groups do it against pro-gay companies all the time. They just suck at it. No, I’m not giving my money to an anti-gay bigot. Would you shop at a store where the owner donated money to restrict the rights of Mormons? Of course not. And comparing yourself to Jews in Nazi Germany is offensive to people who face real persecution, not just a few isolated incidents. You’d be ashamed of yourself if you weren’t such a douchebag.

  • Posting links to the same pro-Mormon website is not evidence of anything. I’m sure that if I were so inclined I could find plenty of other websites that say the opposite. Not that you’d be convinced so why bother? And I am certain that I have as many Mormon friends as you have gay friends. What does that prove? Nothing. But feel free to scream and shout. No one is impressed. In fact, I suspect you’ve made plenty of people who didn’t give a shit before less inclined to being sympathetic to Mormons, so congratulations.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yet you and others of the atheist/humanist persuasion still mimic and copy the same arguments and use the SAME ‘evidence’, so I’ll also butt heads with people like you too.

    I don’t agree with my church working politically with the same type of other churches that believe and even champion that bigoted crap, yet apparently they do it to build bridges and get those churches to change their minds, and viewpoints of the LDS faith, and apparently it is working, productive strategy for my church.

    In fact the LDS Church has also reached out and has tried to mend things over with LGBT groups and individuals, which I don’t have a problem with, and yet bigots like you are still here bashing them, hence why I’m also here too.

  • Cody Quirk

    What makes you think that the people attacking LGBT people in urban areas actually travel from their rural Bible-belt home and into the city to track down and attack someone they think is part of the LGBT lifestyle? Most of these perpetrators also happen to live in the urban themselves, and likely have a criminal records of similar crimes under their belt, duh.

    However, the Hotel owner wouldn’t also expect for someone to illegally obtain private info on their donation, and/or even where they live, and suddenly come to find his/her hotel, or even their own home vandalized while also getting phone calls and letters that threaten the owner’s life, and even that of his/her family. That happened to such individuals and businesses that didn’t donate large amounts to Prop 8, but simply 5-10$ even!
    In fact these days even if the owner doesn’t donate any money to Prop 8 or whatever ballot measure, the mere fact that if they simply speak out in favor of traditional marriage online, or even in private, and yet they can still get targeted for a boycott or even worse! Whatever happened to free speech?

    That itself is quite akin to the Nazis of the 1930’s targeting those shops that either were run by Jews, or simply catered to the Jewish community or donated to Jewish organizations. It is fascism pure and simple.

  • Cody Quirk

    Excuse me bigot- and you are one indeed -but YOU are the one doing the bashing and trying to shove your views down other LDS posters throats here, and with facts and allegations that are untrue.
    I’m only here to respond back and give you a taste of your own medicine, as I have with the other bigots.

    Plus-
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Specific_works/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition
    &
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8

    -shows so much of what you know about the Church’s involvement with Prop 8, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL THE CHURCH WANTED TO DO WAS SIMPLY KEEP THE LAWS ON MARRIAGE THE SAME! Your spin that the church is infringing upon the LGBT lifestyle is bogus and highly exaggerated while you instigate LGBT acts of vandalism and intimidation against anything Mormon.
    And again, why weren’t people like you flipping out when Proposition 22 passed years ago?!

    And compared to the various other protestant churches, the LDS Church really wasn’t that racist, nor did it ever had it out for homosexuals back then.

    Plus not only do gays have to be celibate in order to hold the priesthood and hold leadership callings, BUT SO DO HETEROSEXUALS THAT AREN’T MARRIED! Idiot!

    Homosexuality is still listed as a sin in the bible, and in both Testaments, like adultery is, no matter how much you dress it up, and the LDS church will never stop believing that.
    Regardless of what the bible says, however- you trying to bash, harass, and give people a hard time just because they believe differently then you makes you just as vile and as full of shit as any WBC street preacher at a military funeral.

    And if you have a problem with churches stressing celibacy, then that’s your fucking problem that not everyone wants to hear about. Celibacy is stressed about in the bible and those churches are trying to adhere to what the bible says about it, including no sex before marriage! If church members can’t follow that rule, then either their church deals with them in their own disciplinary manner, or those members hide it from others; it happens all the time in many churches out there, oh fucking well.

    Again, YOU ARE THE BIGOT! I got plenty of gay friends and family that I like and care about regardless of their sexual orientation, and if my own kids came out gay, I wouldn’t stop loving them and would still treat them the same as before they came out.
    You lost that argument there, especially since I don’t fight to bash and tear down the LGBT orientation in general, but only those vile pig bigoted hypocrites such as yourself that dwell in the LGBT ranks and indirectly are making other religious people and heterosexuals that might be viewing this blog more homophobic with your vile chauvinism and a prejudice that matches that of the extreme fundamentalist persuasion.

    But then again, I can keep telling you off and make you look more like the ignorant, hypocritical, BIGOTED asshole that you certainly are.

  • Cody Quirk

    That they are quite intellectual and level-headed, yet are devout members of a faith that you keep bashing.

  • Cody Quirk

    With atheism? I don’t think so.

  • Yes, you are a bigot. maybe not as much a bigot as some others. (It’s a sliding scale, not an either/or proposition.) But you are a bigot.

    Also, you are lumping criticism of your church, which is protected by the 1st amendment, with acts of violence. One is okay, the other is not. Your church is the principle instigator and financer of prop 8. They even paid Catholic groups to make it look like this was not so. That’s all documented fact. Claiming otherwise just makes you a liar. Claiming that it’s okay to be gay so long as you never have sex is not a fair and open-minded position. It’s absurd that you could even think that it is, but that just shows how fucked up religious people like you are. You are free to feel that way of course, but trying to inflict your religious nonsense on the rest of us is out of bounds. You’d think a church with a history of persecution would get that, but no. It’s only about your persecution. When you do it to others it’s okay. Your church’s “prophet” will issue an about-face on gay rights and even marriage within 20 years. That’s my prediction. That’s how you got out of the racist mess your church was in during the 1970s. (There’s a very sad interview with Donnie and Marie Osmond trying to spin their way out of it. I kind of feel bad for them watching it because they are clearly stuck trying to defend the indefensible.)

  • Cody Quirk

    Then explain this?

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/religion/20140808-atheist-churches-provide-a-community-for-dallas-nonbelievers.ece

    There are also other groups like these all over the country, even in other nations.

  • Cody Quirk

    And yet all those untrue stereotypes and false facts easily get refuted by these kinds of websites-

    http://www.fairmormon.org/

    However one particular thing you mentioned-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

    Only shows that not only is it prejudiced, but even simpleton to not have the complete facts and understanding of those urban legends and stereotypical claims leveled against the LDS faith that yet get addressed by such websites as FAIR.
    Or then again, we could start believing the anti-Semitic claims and urban legends about Jews then, including how they run Hollywood and all the international banks? After all, such standards and knowledge of yours can also allow for those other distorted, vile prejudices to be championed too.

  • It definitely needs to be updated. And it’s funny how you so easily dismiss hate grimes against gay people. Of course they mostly happen in urban areas since that’s where one would go to attack gay people. Duh.

    And no one has said you can’t participate in politics. You are not free, however, from criticism or for repercussions if your neighbors or customers don’t like what you are doing. That has always been true. It didn’t occur to a hotel owner that gay people might not want to come to his properties after he made a huge donation to Prop 8? Really? How is someone that stupid running such a large business?

  • Cody Quirk

    Again, you keep putting people’s words in their mouth. How intelligent of you.

  • Cody Quirk

    Funny because the LDS church has never sought to criminalize homosexuality, nor have they sought to stop same-sex constitutional rights, or rights for medical, or financial benefits.

    Yet forming an opinion about someone’s actions is prejudice when one scapegoats and especially doesn’t research the particular individual or group. And I am free to point out and expose the bigoted hypocrisy and double-standards leveled against my faith.

  • I’ll admit that some of the crap said about your church and it’s history is distorted by people with an axe to grind. That is mostly coming from other religious groups, especially fundamentalist Christians, and not from nonbelievers specifically. Perhaps you should take that up with the people creating that content less than the people referencing those sources. I’m not really that interested one way or the other. I don’t find the basic story, even as your own missionaries tell it, credible. If you want to believe it, that’s your right. I would like to repeat myself…Baptists and other groups make and distribute anti-Mormon propaganda (I watched some of it in my church as a teenager) so I find it hilarious to see Mormons and Baptists/Other Fundamentalists so happy to be politicking together because I know for a fact that not only do they not like you but they consider your religion to be a cult. So get mad at me all you want, but I’m not your problem.

  • Cody Quirk

    I am mad because of the hypocritical double-standard that the LGBT lobby applies to the LDS Church when they in fact ignore the other factors, actions, and circumstances that shows that they are the ones being the fascistic bully here, not us.

    Even if you denounce the vandalism, intimidation, and violence committed against LDS places of worship and even against individuals, nothing excuses that those protests and attempted media backlash against the LDS church instigated that which you claim to denounce, but in fact you obviously sympathize with.

    BTW idiot, skinheads and the KKK share the SAME form of racism. But LDS and baptists do not share the same views on the LGBT orientation/lifestyle.

    I’m obviously no homophobe, as I have shown in my posts, but I certainly will call out and expose that double-standard and utter bigotry against the LDS faith, so go fuck yourself you fascist hetrophobe; YOU’RE THE BIGOT, NOT ME!

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    I have yet to see the SCOTUS disagree with the religious liberty that is enshrined in the First Amendment which allows religious faiths and members to speak out on, and participate in the public, and political, forum.

    I don’t dispute your wiki link, however not all the incidents listed in there count as a hate crime; some of these incidents are regular crimes and the victim happened to be of the LGBT persuasion.
    Furthermore, it also again backs up what I’m saying about crimes against LGBT people- AGAIN, they are taking place either in the Bible-Belt region, and/or in urban areas that see a lot of crime in general; I don’t see many of these incidents happening in Utah or southeastern Idaho, where the church is prevalent.

    Also, the list stops in 2013- so either it needs to be updated, or there haven’t been any such ‘hate crimes’ taking place against LGBT people.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yet they also show that the allegations, “facts”, and urban legends written about them are very much BS- especially to the nonbeliever that decides to read a book put out by one of those extreme “counter-cult” ministries and then preaches it as if it were gospel.

    It also addresses the same distorted ‘evidence’ against the LDS faith put out by ‘nonbelievers’ as well. And indeed if you reject the LDS faith for the same reasons you reject religion in general, then that’s on you. Yet if people are going to be talking smack about my faith, or even write inaccurate articles about it, then I will be on here responding back, whether you and others that are prejudiced against religion in general like it or not.

  • Cody Quirk

    I’m still looking for that pile of goo our fish-frog ancestors came from too.

  • Cody Quirk

    And prominent advocates of atheism are any better?

    Especially when it comes to the vile character of Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

    Or this-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

  • Cody Quirk

    Where’s that pile of goo that our fish-frog ancestors came out of?

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, nice rebuttal, dude.

  • Cody Quirk

    Need to use better grammar.

  • Cody Quirk

    Did you actually read the link talking about the cartoon?

  • Cody Quirk

    Problem Joyce-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Debunking_FairMormon

    Yeah, you left over something that’s quite refutable?

    Plus the third link doesn’t work.

  • Cody Quirk

    Again, that is speculative evidence which you base on one’s testimony, of which you cannot verify to be accurate either.

    Plus-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Fanny_Alger_and_William_McLellin

    Too bad it’s not quacking.

  • Cody Quirk

    It still was legal back then, and there still is no solid evidence that he ever consummated the marriage (sealing) with her, or his other plural wives.

    He is no “sexual predator”, since there’s no solid proof to back up the claim, especially in light that many Americans back then, including famous figures like Edgar Allen Poe, also had extremely young wives.

  • Cody Quirk

    Only problem is it also kills his credibility and further dents a potential career in journalism for him too.

  • Cody Quirk

    There’s a reason why the LDS church considers them apostates, and especially why God won’t allow their faith to prosper and flourish.

  • Cody Quirk

    However, such a typical vehicle can do just that if it was modified enough.

    What my problem is, is how people not only tear down, but try to force their atheistic views upon others and even suppress the idea that there is a power, or intelligence, out there; such people are just as guilty, and some of that camp are as equally tyrannical as those radicals of a certain religion that try to force others to agree with, or convert to their one religion, or else face loss of liberty, privilege, and even death.

    Here’s a example of what I’m talking about-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

    I’m not arguing that evolution didn’t happen; I only believe that it explains the “how” to life and not the “why”, as I said. I further consider it possible that intelligent elements that science has not yet identified are the key elements in the progressive evolution of organic, and even inorganic matter too.

    In the meantime, by personal choice, I chose to adhere to the LDS faith, regardless if some of it’s scripture cannot be scientifically proven… Yet.

  • Cody Quirk

    “When the LDS and Catholic churches teamed up on Proposition 8 as a matter of bringing theology to public policy, you better believe that I am going to get grumpy.”

    So you’re going to get grumpy when religious organizations exercise their First Amendment rights?
    If you think government should restrict religious liberty, then you should certainly consider moving to another country that can and does, like China, perhaps?

  • MrNirom1

    LOL you can quote the words of Oliver in a letter he wrote to his brother all you want. That is simply the way Oliver felt about it then. But he was wrong. It doesn’t matter that it was 60 years later that Mosiah wrote his account. Joseph as we know.. continued to marry other women. And no.. it was not taught to the entire church until sometime later. But it was taught and it was practiced. I would seriously like to see what you would do today if indeed you were told by God to take more than one spouse. Would you? Or would you tell God.. no! hmmmm.

  • MrNirom1

    You are correct.. the keys to the priesthood for sealings were given line upon line.. but before sealings came.. the higher blessings.. the doctrine of polygamy came first.. for a man to have more than one wife. You see.. there are marriages for time.. there are marriages for eternity.. and then there are marriages for time and eternity. If what Joseph said happened.. that he was commanded to live the doctrine of the plurality of wives.. by God.. and that we lived in a country where we had freedom of religion.. the laws of man concerning marriage were technically unconstitutional.. then it is by man’s law that there is adultery.. not God’s. Man decided that according to their laws it would be called adultery… but under God’s laws.. to have more than one wife.. was not adultery. Otherwise you have say that all the great prophets committed adultery as well. Joseph Smith did not have sex with all of his wives.

  • tapirrider1

    According to brother John who posted here, Joe never had sex with any of his wives except Emma. And according to you, Joe had a ceremony making Fanny his second wife even before the priesthood keys to seal were given to him in the Kirtland temple. One thing Mormons have been good at from the beginning is lying about the polygamy.

  • tapirrider1

    Before the keys were given in the Kirtland temple. Nice. And how can Joe have a ceremony that makes it anything other than adultery while he was married to Emma? There was no legal basis for a second marriage. It was against the laws of the land, and prior to the so-called priesthood keys. The Mosiah Hancock account was written more than 60 years after the event, candy coating a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” You can coat a turd in chocolate but it doesn’t change what it is. Oliver Cowdery knew what Joe had done and called him out on it. Joe committed adultery with Fanny. He used his position and influence to persuade others to go along with his sexual wishes. He was a predator.

  • MrNirom1

    Ah yes… just a folks tale. LOL I mean after all.. the entire Bible is a folks tale.. right? Hope this helps.

  • MrNirom1

    Yea.. if it really looked like a duck.. I would agree. However…

    According to Mosiah Hancock, writing in 1896, Joseph did not approach Fanny directly. Rather, he enlisted Levi Hancock, the brother-in-law of Fanny’s father, to serve as an intermediary. Levi asked Samuel Alger:
    Samuel…. the Prophet Joseph loves your daughter Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?” Uncle Sam says, “Go and talk to the old woman [Levi’s sister and Fanny’s mother] about it. Twill be as she says.” Father goes to his sister and said, “Clarissy, Brother Joseph the Prophet of the most high God loves Fanny and wishes her for a wife. What say you?” Said she, “Go and talk to Fanny. It will be all right with me.” Father goes to Fanny and said, “Fanny, Brother Joseph the Prophet loves you and wishes you for a wife. Will you be his wife?” “I will Levi,” said she. Father takes Fanny to Joseph and said, “Brother Joseph I have been successful in my mission.” Father gave her to Joseph, repeating the ceremony as Joseph repeated to him.

  • tapirrider1

    Joe Smith was a sexual predator. When one studies and understands how and why the late 19th century laws changed, it is much easier to see the wrong committed by Joseph Smith with Fanny Alger and Helen Mar Kimball.

    His behaviors and actions were typical of many immoral men and those were the very things that eventually caused laws to be enacted that are used to convict sexual predators today.
    http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1169&context=yjlh

  • tapirrider1

    There is no evidence of a sealing or marriage to Fanny Alger but the church admits Joe was with her. That “dirty, nasty, filthy affair” destroyed Joe’s friendship with Oliver Cowdery, so it did in fact happen and the church no longer denies it.

    It happened before the sealing powers were allegedly given to Joe so the church is lying by saying it was a celestial marriage to Fanny. The church is lying to mislead from the fact that it was adultery. She was the 16-year-old babysitter, hired to help Emma with the children and housework and Joe took advantage of her. There is your proof of sexual predation. The founding prophet of the LDS church screwed the babysitter.

    And after that, Joe broke the 10th commandment. He coveted his neighbors wives and used his position of influence to marry them, even when their husbands were his followers. He was also breaking the laws of the land because the marriages were illegal. Adultery was illegal. His actions are the patterns of sexual predators. If it looks like a duck …

  • TruthNotReligion

    You declare yourself “victor” !

    LOL . . . be sure to tell your bishop that you should get a really, really BIG planet to command after you die, dude

  • MrNirom1

    What good would they be to you?

  • MrNirom1

    It is in the center of our galaxy. Have you seen what is in the center of our galaxy?

  • TruthNotReligion

    Where are the nonexistent “Golden Plates” NOW ?

    Anybody know ?

  • Second star to the right and straight on till morning.

  • TruthNotReligion

    Where are the nonexistent “Golden Plates” NOW ?

  • TruthNotReligion

    does this mean he won’t get his own planet after he dies ??

    and won’t become a “god” on said planet ?

    Bummer, dude.

  • TruthNotReligion

    you haven’t “seen” it because you .. will never “see” anything you don’t like.

  • TruthNotReligion

    = “God’s Will”

    . . . you DO believe in “God” … don’t you ?

  • TruthNotReligion

    what SPECIFICALLY is “inaccurate” about this ?

    Why do Mormons run away from this question ?

  • TruthNotReligion

    Kolob . . . exists ??

    Where is it ?

  • TruthNotReligion

    Funny . . . no one has yet been able to … ummmm … FIND Kolob.

    Not that this poses a problem for religious believers.

  • TruthNotReligion

    No one is “entitled” to have his/her “religious” beliefs . . . “respected”.

    An idea = an idea, and religious beliefs are just ideas.

  • TruthNotReligion

    Solomon didn’t have 700 wives and 300 concubines.

    That’s just a folk tale.

    Hope this helps.

  • MrNirom1

    Proof of being a sexual predator is much different than what you are talking about. Solomon with his 700 wives and 300 concubines was not even considered a sexual predator.

  • MrNirom1

    Christ even said… “many are called… few are chosen” and he also said… “My sheep hear my voice”. There are many who are not of his flock. So don’t feel bad… you don’t have to believe a thing.

  • ComradeRutherford

    “either Joseph Smith is a divine prophet of God or he is not. The Proof is in the Book of Mormon.”

    Circular arguments have no validity. You can not be taken at all seriously by citing the Book of Mormon as proof that Smith was a prophet of ‘god’.

    “Jesus loves me, this I know,
    A circular argument tells me so.”

  • ComradeRutherford

    Not if means believing the unbelievably crazy crap from the LDS church… I’d have to eat a ton of lead paint chips to start believing LDS scripture. Or regular Christian scripture, for that matter, I don’t want LDS members to think I am singling them out.

  • ComradeRutherford

    Since population is roughly 50-50, that means that for one man to marry 40 women, that means 39 men don’t have wives.

    From a report on today’s fundamentalist LDS, standard procedure of the 50 year old leaders is to excommunicate any young man that shows the slightest interest in the 13 year old girl the old men want to ‘marry’ next. There aren’t enough ‘E’s for how ‘Eew!’ that is.

  • MrNirom1

    Ok.. where does the Bible say that the sky is a metal dome? I can not find the word “dome” in the Bible.

    And I suppose that because modern man can not build a pyramid like they did in Egypt today.. that therefore man did not built the pyramids.

    If you don’t believe in a God that has power to stop the digestive system of a whale.. or has the ability to put animals in an arc regardless of how many there are.. then you would be right.

    But to then say God is not benevolent because he allows mankind to be destructive or that he punishes man in the most outrageous ways has no understanding of the plan that was implemented before the world was. Evil can flourish for a season but the time will come when you will see that evil is not allowed anymore to run rampant.. and this earth will change from what it is now.. to what it was before. You need not believe.. for what people will be experiencing will be fact enough. In this case.. it is a “wait and see”… just like science has to do in testing their theories.

  • The_Fixer

    You don’t have to believe me, you just have to critically think in order to spot the flaws in, say, the Christian Bible. It’s riddled with inconsistencies and contradiction.

    Like when it says that the sky is a metal dome. That it rained for 40 days and nights in spite of the fact that there’s no archeological proof of it. Not to mention that Noah could not have managed to fit all of those animals onto the ark to start with, let alone the feed to keep them alive. That a man was swallowed by a whale and apparently, was impervious to the whale’s digestive system.

    Then there’s the largest flaw of all – that there’s a benevolent god who made the universe, wants you to be in heaven and has only your best interests at heart – yet he allows the wanton destruction of nature, has a malevolent personality that punishes people in the most outrageous ways, and allows evil to flourish in spite of the fact that he is supposed to be perfect and omnipotent.

    I could go on, but won’t. If you can’t spot the flaws in the Bible, then you’re not reading it with the critical thinking portion of your brain.

  • tapirrider1

    “Proof”? The LDS church has now admitted that as many as 40 women were “married” to Joe. Now you want us to believe he only had sex with his wife Emma? LMAO. There is no doubt that Brigham Young had sex with multiple women and you honestly expect Joe to have been different?

  • MrNirom1

    We speak of flaws as if it is proof.. yet provide no proof of a flaw. Am I to believe that just because you say there are flaws.. that there really is flaws? Show me the flaws.

  • The_Fixer

    To ask that all of the Book of Mormon can be scientifically proven is just like asking the same about ALL the events from the Bible alone, to be proven.

    Well, I am asking that the Book of Mormon, the Christian Bible, the Torah, the Q’ran and any other religious text, or collection of texts, be backed up with proof obtained through real scientific method testing. To date, none of it has been proven and quite a bit of them all have been demonstrated to be wrong.

    Yet where science cannot answer, or explain, that’s where one’s personal faith comes in.

    Faith is something that I have in people, at least the ones in my life who have demonstrated themselves to be worthy of it. Faith in an unseen supreme being based upon what is written in religious texts with absolutely no proof is misplaced, especially when there’s quite a bit of independent knowledge that conflicts with what is stated in them.

    In the end, your faith is no more legitimate than any one else’s and no less legitimate. I find them all to be unbelievable for the reasons stated above. I’m pretty much indifferent to most people’s faith or lack of it, until they start to hit me over the head with it, come after me with the weight of their good book and impose their morals on me, or get involved in politicking and trying to set public policy. That’s when I get grumpy – otherwise anyone can believe any damn fool thing they want.

    When the LDS and Catholic churches teamed up on Proposition 8 as a matter of bringing theology to public policy, you better believe that I am going to get grumpy.

    As to your last assertion that science cannot prove everything is concerned, No, it doesn’t have to. Remember that science progresses as humans progress. What was once scientifically unproven can sometimes later be proven, as long as it doesn’t violate the basic laws of science. So it’s no surprise that certain things can or cannot be proven.

    I think we’re at an impasse here – enjoy your faith, just don’t hit me over the head with it or try to set public policy.

  • MrNirom1

    Care to be a bit more specific? I tried to follow your reasoning but there really isn’t any. Example… “These appear to be inconsistent and obviously made-up stories….”
    Care to share? I would just love to know what is inconsistent.. and especially “obviously” made up stories. Need some proof on this.

  • MrNirom1

    Oh.. so you want to talk about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.. but do we then also want to to talk about the extermination order given by the Governor of Missouri.. How about all the Mormon women who were raped and killed along with their children? Any outrage there nicho?

  • Godwin’s Law is simply the assertion that, in a given discussion, as t approaches infinity the probability that someone will invoke Hitler approaches 1. An alternative version of the Law states that whoever is first to invoke Hitler has run out of productive ideas and has therefore both lost the debate and belittled the Holocaust.

    You invoked Hitler, so I invoked Godwin’s Law. That wasn’t “rhetoric” and, given the context, wasn’t a straw man.

    In any case, aren’t we more or less done here?

  • Craig L. Foster

    Your Oops wrong place did not show up at anytime yesterday and I checked back several times — each time refreshing in order to get any updated comments. I would not have responded if had seen the note as I would certainly have realized the mistake. As it was, I assumed you were indeed commenting to me.

    My response could certainly have been worse given your own snarky comment and obvious ignorance regarding what is published on the FairMormon website (they have original essays but also link to numerous peer-reviewed scholarly publications). But I do appreciate being called an asshole. That seems to reflect the calibre of commenters on this wonderful website.

  • All of it.

    Here’s what you don’t seem to understand. I don’t accept your basic premise that there are any gods. Much less your specific god. Much less your specific “revelations” (specifically the Bible and the Book of Mormon) as being of divine inspiration. So everything built on any of those assumptions is to me (and any other nonbeliever and to a certain extent any non-Mormon) without foundation. So everything based on that is just meaningless gibberish. It sounds to me like that site was written to convince Mormons that things they are reading about the church online are not true. (And I don’t doubt that some of them are indeed false, but which ones?) To non-Mormons not already accepting your specific theology, it’s meaningless. The arguments may indeed have some merit, but they are not coherent for nonbelievers.

  • You think it’s your first amendment right to pass constitutional amendments restricting the rights of other people? Really. Fortunately the courts disagree with you.

    As for violence against gay people, it’s on the increase, so you’re just lying there. Here is a rather lengthy list of some of the better known cases. It is not in any way a complete list.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

  • MrNirom1

    Not true.. but their job is to definitely identify sources considered to be anti-Mormon. Did you read any of the articles on this particular book? Or did you just by pass it all together because it came from FAIR?

  • Cody Quirk

    What part of it is gibberish?

  • Cody Quirk

    CFR on the church members that claimed other church members threatened them if they didn’t donate to the Prop 8 cause…
    Unless that is, they happen to be LGBT supporters that are making up stories against a faith that they have no problem bearing false witness against.

    The only attacks on gay people and businesses that I have heard of has usually been isolated incidents either in the Bible Belt, or in areas with a sizable evangelical, or baptist orientation, and/or in areas where a lot of crime occurs. Another thing- IT IS IDIOT REDNECKS, CAREER CRIMINALS, STUPID TEENAGERS, AND PSYCHOTIC FUNDAMENTALISTS THAT PHYSICALLY ATTACK OR VANDALIZE GAY PEOPLE AND GAY BUSINESSES, NOT MORMONS OR OUR CHURCH!
    In fact a few “attacks” on LGBT people the past few years have been discovered as hoaxes after much investigation- in which they did it to themselves to get positive publicity or sympathy.
    I can provide links on that.

    The LDS Church has the constitutional right to not only believe in what it wants to about homosexuality, but also has the constitutional right to encourage it’s members to participate in the political process. In fact with the true intent of the U.S. Constitution, churches already had the right to express themselves fully in the public arena as well.

    And even if civil unions are not the same thing, the fact is the LDS church only supported maintaining the status-quo on legal marriage- in fact why didn’t the LGBT crowd come out in force against the LDS church when Proposition 22 passed years ago?! THE LDS CHURCH NEVER WANTED TO DESTROY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ENJOY!

    Yet because they simply supported maintaining the status-quo on marriage (even though they were leaving alone the other rights and privileges that same-sex couples already had then, especially in California), and because they’re easier to be targeted, unlike the Catholics and the various evangelical churches and their flocks that were vehemently supporting 8, or even the majority of African-American voters that backed 8- OUR CHURCH IN PARTICULAR GETS SINGLED OUT OVER THE OTHER CHURCHES AND GROUPS ON PROP 8!

    It doesn’t matter if you denounce the violence taken against us after the vote on 8, even if were the situation switched around, WE WOULD NEVER BE VIOLENT OR PREACH VIOLENCE AGAINST ANYONE OF THE LGBT PERSUASION, EVEN IF WE COULD GET AWAY WITH IT!
    Therefore you are the one being the hypocritical bigot here, not me and not my church, SHAME ON YOU!
    THE LGBT CROWD WERE THE ONES DOING THE VANDALISM AND BEING THE BULLY AFTER THE PROP 8 VOTE, NOT US!

    Again, shame on you! PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD INFRINGE ON OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND PUNISH CHURCHES, GROUPS, EVEN BUSINESSES THAT SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE LGBT ORIENTATION!

    I am no fascist here, and neither is my church, yet it seems those that want to shove their views on others and institutions that don’t agree with those views, or punish them for it- are the TRUE fascists here.

    And for the record, I have gay friends and relatives and I treat them with respect, even if I believe that the bible, especially in the first chapter of Romans, condemns same sex relations. And if that still makes me evil in your eyes, then you indeed are the bigot- not me!

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you’re the one making the pathetic arguments, especially when you keep ignoring historical context and using 21st century standards to judge 19th century actions and events.

    Yeah, I’m not the brainwashed one here.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nothing in the Book of Mormon scriptures changes the fact that your interpretation of it is really sucking and inaccurate, lol.

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you can’t rebut the stuff I’m posting here, but I’m doing great rebuking the stuff you post.

    Keep up the temper tantrum, bigot.

  • Cody Quirk

    You lack any form of compassion or standards in exploiting the people of that wagon train that got killed, despite BY’s orders to leave them alone.

    And you haven’t answered my question on which religions you consider not a ‘cult’.

  • LOL You’re like the Jews in Nazi Germany now? Seriously? You’re really going to make that claim? That’s laughable. Yes, people were angry. Again, any violence was a criminal act and should be prosecuted as such. (And probably counts as a hate crime so the penalty would be even worse.) That said, no, I’m not going to shop in a store that donated to Prop 8 or any other anti-gay cause. You want to strip gay couples of their marriage licenses but you didn’t expect retaliation like boycotts? Really? BTW, I know Mormons who were threatened by people in their own church (stake?) with expulsion (or whatever it’s called) if they didn’t donate to the Prop 8 campaign. So don’t give me this bullshit. Your church is anti-gay and the fact that other churches may be worse is a pathetic excuse. And I am sorry that some thugs committed acts of violence. Again, they should be prosecuted, but such acts happen against gay businesses regularly and against gay and trans people (and sometimes even against people who aren’t but look like they might be to bigots) every fucking day.

  • Cody Quirk

    Funny because I don’t see a bunch of people backing you up here, plus those Fancher-Baker descendant groups are quite satisfied with the Church’s apology and especially the work they’re done in better maintaining the MMM site and improving relations with those groups.

    Your tantrums are not changing anything on here.

  • Cody Quirk

    Obviously you indeed register in the single-digit IQ scale when it comes to history and sociology.

    And that desperate posting of yours won’t change a thing.

  • Well, I read it and it was just gibberish to me. Perhaps to someone looking for a rationalization it was sufficient but it was just further evidence that religious belief a lot of unfounded nonsense.

  • Umm…yes. So you admit that your beliefs are no more provable than those of other Christians and that the Bible doesn’t hold up to objective scrutiny any better than the Book of Mormon. Congratulations. I think you’re getting it.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yet they are apostates whose great grandparents left the LDS church and started their own and warped ‘Mormon Doctrine’ while inventing their own doctrines too- therefore they cannot be compared to the LDS faith.

    And that brainwashed temper of yours won’t change that fact.

  • Linking to a single biased partisan site is hardly “refuting”.

  • Cody Quirk

    That he committed adultery and child abuse? HA!

    They didn’t admit that because he IS NOT at all guilty of those charges- all those women were sealed to him by consent, and again, Helen Mar Kimball was of the legal age then.

    Plus there is no solid evidence that he ever had any sexual contact with them.

    Therefore he is neither guilty of those things, no matter how you keep throwing around that childish temper tantrum of yours.

  • I did not say I was against polygamy. I’m against polygamy the way it tends to be practiced around the world (meaning a system in which little girls are married off to grown men and in which women have no rights). I am open to hearing arguments for how such arrangements would work legally. (For example if I had two wives which would be next of kin? If both are, then what if they disagree about a medical decision on my behalf while I’m in a coma, etc.) There’s a lot to discuss. I’m basically indifferent.

    To equate gay marriage to bestiality, however, is insulting. Animals cannot enter into contracts or give consent. So fuck you you homophobic asshole.

    Also, there are gay groups protesting what Muslims do to gay people. Also what Christians do to gay people in places like Uganda and Russia. Unfortunately there’s a limit to what we can do in other countries besides boycott products. You may have missed the recent boycott or Russian products by gay people including Russian vodka.

    And no, I don’t think “it’s okay to be homosexual so long as you are celibate” is a reasonable position. You are free to hold it but I’m free to think it’s still homophobic. And claiming you aren’t as bad as Baptists on gay issues is like saying your skinhead group isn’t as racist as the Klan. I’m not impressed.

    And again, if violence is being committed against people for religious reasons that is illegal (and hate crimes laws are applicable). I have not patience for that. If you are mad because people are protesting crap that your church is doing, that’s their right too.

  • Cody Quirk

    -Before it became a publicly official practice, that is. And I don’t blame them for not going public right away about it then, especially with the violence and hostility against them.

  • Cody Quirk

    The fact of Helen Mar Kimball being a plural wife of Smith was never hidden or suppressed by the LDS church. And his polygamy was acknowledged and talked about many times by various leaders of the church.

    His polygamy was never a secret in public, or in written church history once polygamy was officially adopted by the LDS church.

    FYI, after Smith’s death she remarried at 16 to a 22 year old and remained a devout member of the LDS church until her own death.

    Another FYI, the majority of Smith’s plural wives (by today’s standards) were of legal age.

  • You completely missed my point. You argued that the earth being situated at a distance from our sun so that we can have liquid water is prove that god exists. I countered that there are likely millions if not billions of planets such a distance from a star. It proves nothing.

  • Cody Quirk

    The “thousands” that stayed were ones that broke away from the man body and cooperated with the local authorities while forming their own sects. Please also explain the mobs threatening Nauvoo with not just numbers, but weapons at that point? If there was no violent persecution and threats to invade Nauvoo, then the Mormons would have certainly stayed.

    But of course you ignored what the article talked about, which included this-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauvoo,_Illinois#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus

    Yeah, you’re the brainwashed/ignorant one.

  • Cody Quirk

    So you think the CoC is right to water down the Book of Mormon (which has yet to be scientifically disproved) and start doing away with their Mormon connections?

    Hey, if that’s what they want to do, more power to them.

    However anyone with a three-digit IQ, and ounce of intellectual honesty, and access to a decent library should be smart and courteous enough to not attack and defame a religion just because it’s unique and doesn’t line up with their own beliefs, nor believe every form of criticism against it.

  • Cody Quirk

    Ah, a anti-Mormon website.

    But there’s this- http://en.fairmormon.org/Lying_for_the_Lord%3F

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you don’t bother refuting my arguments.

  • Cody Quirk

    And how many times has ad hominem rhetoric been used and straw-man tactics displayed in this thread?

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, but you should remember the physical retaliation that militant gays took against LDS chapels and even their temples. You should also remember the harassment and intimidation Mormons involved in the arts and media received simply because they donated to the Prop 8 campaign- nevermind that such people never publicly or actively called for LGBT people to be persecuted, or their rights suppressed- they simply donated to a proposition and then their donations got exposed and they got treated like the Jewish shop owners did in 1930’s Germany.
    What exactly did those Mormons involved with the arts and media do to deserve such treatment in the first place?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_events_of_Proposition_8_(2008)#Protests

    That was real, people’s careers were ruined, and even their lives got threatened.

    So Mormons treat minorities like crap when they’re the majority in a place? CFR please.
    I don’t recall non-Mormons being persecuted in Utah, and many non-Mormons especially have held numerous state and local elected offices, as well as carry much political clout in the Salt Lake area too.

  • Cody Quirk

    That link answered your question in detail. If you refuse to read the answer, then that’s on you.

  • Cody Quirk

    That everyone bitches about blacks being denied the priesthood in the LDS church (never mind they could still be baptized in it and not have to be segregated with their own ward), when in fact there were churches out there that were way more extreme in their racism, and how they treated their non-white membership, and yet those facts get ignored.

  • Cody Quirk

    To ask that all of the Book of Mormon can be scientifically proven is just like asking the same about ALL the events from the Bible alone, to be proven.

    Yet where science cannot answer, or explain, that’s where one’s personal faith comes in.
    But then again, science cannot prove everything, however.

  • Cody Quirk

    The point is that science might be able to prove the “how” in life, but it can’t necessarily prove the “why” in life.

    Plus, only a legit atheist or agnostic can dismiss the events and miracles of the BOM (Book of Mormon) as ‘rubbish’, since many of the miracles and events in the bible also cannot be easily scientifically proven too, and therefore stands on the same ground.

  • Cody Quirk

    And yet the stuff you know about Joseph Smith keeps getting refuted by me, so I guess you really don’t know him that well after all, do you?

  • Cody Quirk

    No, but they understood it and read the bible in that style of writing, lol

  • Cody Quirk

    Funny that the Aztec and many ancient central American ruins were also not discovered by the modern world until AFTER that farm boy published the Book of Mormon.

  • Cody Quirk

    I understand one will have negative experiences with certain members and even leaders in the church, but just because one member of a faith acts like a douchebag doesn’t mean that the whole faith of that member is wrong, or bad- otherwise we’d believe the bigoted claims against Judaism because you got screwed over by one bad Jewish businessman.
    I’ve had plenty of negative experiences with certain LDS members myself, yet I know better then to jump to conclusions and suddenly think the whole church is like that one bad member.

    Another thing, you are comparing apples with rotten fruit- the FLDS and the other “Mormon fundamentalist” groups are apostate offshoots that have perverted and warped Mormon Doctrine, so don’t compare them with us.

  • Cody Quirk

    Your third link doesn’t work, and there’s this-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Debunking_FairMormon

    If you were active for so long and then suddenly had your named removed over something that FAIR had no problems addressing, then either you are a anti-Mormon troll, or you used the CES letter as a excuse for something else that made you leave.

  • Cody Quirk

    Which was carried out by local Mormon and secular authorities against the will of the church leadership.
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Brigham_Young

  • Seems that according to FAIR, any source not pre-approved and hand-selected by FAIR is an anti-Mormon source.

  • Cody Quirk

    Funny that I have yet to see this “Mormon-run wikipedia” get disproved, and rather notice that the bigots squawk and squeal over facts and details they really can’t rebut.

  • Cody Quirk

    I never went on a mission; I chose not to -yet despite my refusal, I wasn’t punished and I still got to enjoy the same privileges of active LDS that held leadership callings and participated in Temple ordinances. Plus I wasn’t forced to get married and have kids either; I also did that on my own time.
    However the New Testament of the bible talks a lot about missionary work and growing the flock, so growing the church is of course a big thing, even though it’s done on a voluntary basis.

    You got a LOT of reediting to do.

  • The_Fixer

    You know, at first I was of the opinion that the Mormon faith was no different than any other branch of Christianity. For me, it was nuts enough to believe in the creation fable, a guy getting swallowed by a whale and living through it, the ark and then Zombie Jesus.

    But I changed my mind a bit when I learned more about the LDS church and their beliefs. Not only do they believe the standard unbelievable Christian mythology, they pile another layer of their own special mythology on top of that.

    So yeah, they do compound absurdity with additional absurdity. And as much as I don’t want to point that out, sometimes I feel compelled to do so.

  • Cody Quirk

    There’s nothing “super-secret” about LDS temple ordinances, however being sacred ceremonies conducted in sacred places, no average joe can just up and participate in them.
    In fact the ancient Israelites were way, WAY more stricter then us on just whom could participate in the ordinances of the Jerusalem temple, let alone enter it’s inner courts.

  • Cody Quirk

    If you think polygamy should remain illegal but same-sex marriage legal, then you are nothing but a hypocrite.

    Mormons never denied homosexuals their first amendment rights in the public square, nor have they sought to destroy their constitutional rights either, in fact the LDS church actually supported establishing rights for people of alternative sexual orientations in housing and property in Utah.

    I’m a Libertarian, though I believe that states should be allowed to protect or redefine marriage, as they have done since the colonial era- It’s called the 10th Amendment. However with the recent court rulings, that is becoming moot, even if I don’t agree with it, yet you notice that the LDS church is not throwing a fit over same-sex marriage since it got legalized, yet militant homosexuals still have a problem with the LDS church, even if we’re way more moderate then the Baptists and hardcore fundamentalists on the issue of homosexuality, in fact homosexuals can still be members, and if they are celibate, they can hold the priesthood and leadership positions too; look at Mitch Mayne of the San Francisco Ward.
    However all because (except for me), Mormons turn the other cheek and act nice to their enemies, we’re being picked on and targeted because we’re an easy target and a minority.
    How about you folks try going after Islam and what Muslims happen to do to homosexuals in their countries? Or are you afraid of retaliation from them?

    BTW, if marriage is a civil right, then we should legalize ALL forms of nontraditional marriage, otherwise we are denying the people that want to be polygamists, polyandrists, or even married to animals- their civil rights.

  • Jamon Clark

    “people like me” is a very ignorant and rude thing to box in anyone. I asked originally the blog author to do his research. In the comment above, I pointed out an evidence that science alone has been unable to show the earth moving in a regular form around a star. The answer to that is that there are alot of stars really proves nothing. Neither does the understanding of science. Really that is it? The placement of the planet is the constant miracle. You want evidence of God, I gave you one, you didn’t like it…that is fine. I see no conflict between following Jesus Christ and Science. Generally Mormons do not either. Here is a little gem to show that I am not alone….. “The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study
    astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology,
    optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the
    understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of
    universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature;
    and God is the dispenser of all truth.” -Orson Pratt in 1860

  • I don’t doubt that you believe. (I neither believe nor disbelieve that you believe to be more exact since I have no way of knowing what you are thinking other than what you say.) Yes, I studied religion. I considered myself a Christian for about 30 years. I think it’s funny that people like you think that atheists have never read the Bible or studied Christianity. In fact it was reading the Bible that led me away from religion. I read the whole thing. Twice! Yikes! It seems obvious to me from talking to most Christians that they haven’t read the whole Bible, but that’s another topic.

    As for the earth being the right distance from the sun, that assumes that we have to live on this planet around this star. There are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy and over 100 billion observable galaxies. We only need to be on a rocky planet with water on one of those stars in order to survive. To think that the whole universe was created just for this one planet to be right here is a strange sort of hubris. It made sense before we knew that the earth isn’t the center of the universe and that all those stars are actually suns more or less like ours (some bigger, some smaller and about half of them in binary systems). Anyway, that’s just ignorance of what we now know about cosmology. The actual question is how rare is life in the universe and is it like life here or different and we don’t know but I’d sure like to live long enough for us to find out. Assuming that all of this was put here just for us is rather ridiculous and not an argument you should repeat in front of people with the least bit of understanding of science.

  • Jamon Clark

    Joyce the intent is to ask the author to actual do a little research on Mormonism. If you have read the blog I think you can see that this blog author poorly researched and understood basic latter day saint ideas/history. As someone who is not a member of the church but having a background wouldn’t you agree? I am OK with people having differing thoughts or beliefs, but when you just flat out say something historically ficticious as a basis of the decision, that to me is what needs to be corrected…. have a great day and thank you for the post/re-post

  • Jamon Clark

    I have my own witness of knowing a supreme being (God). I have planted a seed of faith and it has grown within me. If you do not want to plant it…it will not grow. the law of the harvest. You seemed to have made up your mind. However don’t knock it til you try it. Now the fundamental question is where is God? One way I have thought about it is as follows: If God were to be shown then that would severely limit my own development. I would not have the ability to choose, really I would have a diety next to me. It would be like me following my kid on a playground EVERYWHERE…if they were to be near falling I would catch them, or may not even let them climb up that jungle gym as they might fall. No in order to let my child develop I have to let them try new things, let them fall, make mistakes, and learn. There are countless evidences that there is a God in my perspective, I can think of one off the top of my head…the earth is the exact right distance from a burning hot star that does not fry us or leave us too cold….it is just right. You may disagree that is fine. On the other point…have I studied religions? I have read the Koran, and teachings of Buddha, I respect people of all faiths or non faiths. My intent in writing here was not to try to convert, but to point out to the blog author and others that read this that his research was shoddy and should not be passed off as fact.

  • Joyce

    I will repost this… I have read the BOM at least 8 times.

    I was a Mormon for 26 years. An inactive mormon for another 26 years and after reading the CES letter along with Mormon Essays found on LDS.com, I recently had my name removed from the records of the LDS church.

    http://cesletter.com/

    http://mormonessays.com/

    https://drive.google.com/file/

  • Joyce

    I was a Mormon for 26 years. An inactive mormon for another 26 years and after reading the CES letter along with Mormon Essays found on LDS.com, I recently had my name removed from the records of the LDS church.

    http://cesletter.com/

    http://mormonessays.com/

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18W3AgWXw6zbEFJNC0tV2FTQVE/edit

  • MrNirom1

    Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith is your source for your comment “the story of a con”? Really? Before using anti Mormon literature for your sources.. maybe you should read the other half of the story.. or if your not actually going to read it.. then post it.

    http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1458&index=10

    http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/turley-Krakauer.pdf

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven/Ron_Hellings_Dialogue

    http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-krakauer-journal

  • MrNirom1

    I rather enjoy my “special” pass. It can be had by all who want it. Just seems that all don’t want it. Oh well.

  • MrNirom1

    Well… first of all.. lets just correct your idea that Kolob is a planet… it is not. It is a star. For all the intelligence that people put forth about my faith.. it never ceases to amaze me how wrong they are most of the time. But I do appreciate your comment. Thank you.

  • But I do know and I’ve already answered the question.

    Q. “there was divine revelation in the past but no longer?”

    A. Revelation still exists for those willing to listen. God can’t answer a question unasked. You can vote someone to have the keys of the kingdom, but they still must make the choice to use them. When I pray about it, this scripture always comes to mind:

    “And it came to pass at the end of four years that the Lord came again unto the brother of Jared, and stood in a cloud and talked with him. And for the space of three hours did the Lord talk with the brother of Jared, and chastened him because he remembered not to call upon the name of the Lord.” – Ether 2: 14

    I’m not sure how to make it any clearer. If there’s something you feel is missing, you’ll need to re-word the question.

  • No, it places the burden on us. We shouldn’t have to wait for our leaders, we can go directly to God. The Church, yes, is dependent but we are not. This is why some say the Mormon religion is like jello, the doctrine is just the scriptures and the Church leaders may only tell the Church what to do and how to interpret them. But we can gain our own revelations and interpreted them for ourselves creating personal doctrine that is not binding to the Church or necessarily shared by others in the religion. Keep in mind, it was man and not God that called Brigham Young to lead the Church after Smith’s death. The Church didn’t tell us what to do, we told the Church what to do.

  • Sorry, I seem to have clicked on the wrong place. My post was indeed to someone else. I would think that was obvious and didn’t require a snarky put-down but assholes are as assholes do.

  • No, I do not praise anything that bashes Mormons. I don’t remember any gay-funded legislation or ballot initiatives to interfere with the rights of Mormons. Did I miss anything? I also don’t know anyone who has committed vandalism or violence against Mormons or their property and if I did I’d call the police and report them. I have no tolerance for such violence. But your persecution complex is hilarious given how Mormons treat everyone else when they are in the majority. (As they are in Idaho and parts of Utah.)

  • That structure requires even more faith in your religion’s leaders than it does in your god. I wouldn’t have fond that acceptable even when I was a Christian.

  • You’re still not answering my question. Hint: “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Word salad is not.

  • Either answer my question or do not but realize I’m not going to any more links.

  • Yes. And I also can’t prove that elves, leprechauns, unicorns and faeries don’t exist either. What’s your point?

  • You’re the one who clearly needs to read a book. It seems we know more about Joseph Smith than you know about Charles Darwin, and that’s a very low bar we’ve set for you.

  • I have a Mormon friend. The more he explains to me what they believe the more absurd it sounds. I try to be nice because this is a person I like overall but sheesh.

  • I said there was no evidence for the existence of god. I misspoke. I should have said that there is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural beings or deities. None. If you have any present it. No I haven’t studied LDS in depth. Did you study all the other religions? There are thousands of them. I looked for quite some time. They are all based on the same faulty premise. First present me with the evidence that any gods exist. THEN you get to present me with evidence that of the thousands of religions yours is the one that is the right one. You haven’t even accomplished step one much less step two. You are not entitled to any benefit of the doubt. I don’t offer it to Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or Zaroastrians or Sikhs or anyone else. You don’t get a special privilege just because reasons.

  • John

    Nice play on words but still doesn’t justify calling someone a sexual predator without any proof.

  • God can’t answer a question unasked. You can vote someone to have the keys of the kingdom, but they still must make the choice to use them.

  • John

    Not dodging the question at all!

    You stated 4 possible flaws, or as you called them “facts” that could disrupt the church’s position. Elaborate on them and let’s see if these are factual. I’m asking for one! Just one! Now, who is dodging the question??

    If you insist on me giving you one area that would dissuade my belief then here it is: If the First Presidency and Quorum of The Twelve stated or were proven beyond doubt that they were frauds then this would make me leave the faith.

    I know and acknowledge all of the arguments against the church, new and old. The question is whether you class these as factual? Historians and scientists disagree all the time as to what is fact, theory or thought. Unfortunately most articles like this never put a context around it.

  • Again, you are reference illegal acts which I do not condone. People who do such things belong in prison. None of that justifies anything the Mormons have done.

    Civil unions are not the same as marriage, as several courts have already ruled. I also don’t deny anyone their first amendment rights. I do, however, have a problem when groups of people work to deny rights to others. Or does that only work one way. Your “friends” in the religious right don’t like Mormons any more than they like gay people.

    And finally, no, marriage is not a “privilege”. It was established as a right in Loving v. Virginia. And as for polygamy, I don’t care one way or the other, but if you want to keep that from becoming legal, you’d better get to work on better arguments against it than you’ve come up with against gay marriage, because those aren’t working.

  • The_Fixer

    Please restate your point in a different way. 15 million people believing in what? I’m not getting the point you’re trying to make.

  • The_Fixer

    I especially like your point:

    There is, unfortunately, a terribly anthropocentric tendency in most of the religions invented by us humans.

    I would extend that to the invention of the god (no matter which one) himself (it’s almost never a her). God has some remarkably human qualities, don’t ya think? He gets angry, jealous, abusive, petty, yet loving and dedicated (quite a mix, huh?). When humans invented their gods, they basically had no more imagination than to make him Super Human. Instead of being unconditionally loving, he got pissed off on a regular basis, and became abusive and even murderous. He was just a bigger, more powerful and scarier version of a bronze-age man of power.

    I also am amused by those who say that the existence of a particular god can be proven by their scripture. I want scientifically credible, current-day proof that doesn’t rely on texts that are obviously the work of human authors. Genesis claims that humans were created in two different circumstances. It also tells me that the sky is a metal dome. That is obviously the belief of Bronze Age humans. It’s inconceivable that a supreme being would not get that right. Scriptural credibility? Fail.

    Regarding your third point, I agree wholeheartedly. I’d go further and say that if churches would devote their time to helping others, dump the theology and kept their collective nose out of politics, nobody would have any problem with them. Maybe make churches into entities that lift the human spirit through genuine charitable help, rather than those who wish to cram their particular god, and their specific morality, down our throats.

    In short, the problem with religion is the god, no matter what name he goes by. Because he’s a human invention with human traits, both positive and negative. Too bad the positive doesn’t outweigh the negative.

  • And what pray tell does that passage have anything to do with the question I asked?

  • So first off, fair. Not *every* Mormon goes on mission trips. I’m willing to stand corrected with respect to the word “every” in that sentence. However, that doesn’t at all take away from the point that paragraph is making: the institution of Mormonism is designed — even moreso than other organized faiths — to reproduce itself.

  • tapirrider1

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of abstinence.

  • Tornogal

    Oh Cody, you’re right!

    I most assuredly AM prejudiced against your religion.

    And I’m prejudiced against it because:

    – The Book of Mormon is fiction, yet the LDS church claims it’s “a true record.” And there is not one single credible non-Mormon archaeologist who agrees with the LDS church.

    – Joseph Smith told ten versions of his “First Vision,” and he didn’t even mention it to church members for about 20 years after it supposedly happened.

    – The Book of Abraham is dismissed as hokum by every non-Mormon Egyptologist who has compared the “facsimiles” in the book with Smith’s explanations of them.

    – Reputed “revelations” from the Book of Commandments were substantially edited as they were rewritten into the Doctrine & Covenants.

    – The LDS church held that Blacks were inferior to whites until 1978 based on definitive and hideous racist statements by its prophets. It now says it really doesn’t know why Blacks were banned from the priesthood.

    – Joseph Smith was admitted to the “Sublime” degree of Free Masonry and given access to their temple rituals. Just seven weeks later he “revealed” the Mormon endowment ceremony, along with secret handshakes and gestures. As anyone can see on the Internet, the rituals are highly similar.

    – The LDS church claims to be a charitable institution, yet it refuses to publish a financial report so people can see how much is collected, how it is spent, or how much the senior leaders are paying themselves in “expense allowances.”

    I could go on and on, but my point is, you are right. There is plenty about Mormonism about which to be prejudiced.

  • Dave of the Jungle

    Did people in 19th century New England speak in 17th century King James English? No.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nope, I’m just good at really derailing your arguments and avoiding your traps.

    And after not falling for your latest trap, you just can’t accept that I don’t fit your profile of a “brainwashed cult member”, even though you match that description yourself.

  • Cody Quirk

    Awww, are our arguments breaking down now?

    Tisk tisk.

  • Cody Quirk

    They don’t count- their church started as a breakaway sect that wouldn’t follow the 1890 Manifesto and they are also don’t follow the age of consent laws, or even allow divorce, which the LDS church both did in Utah before 1890

  • Cody Quirk

    No, you implied it, but it didn’t work, again.

    However you just got a fact wrong- Joseph never said that- it was Jesus that told him that in the First Vision, lol!

    Plus- http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interfaith

  • Cody Quirk

    That’s because you have a unrealistic view of what counts as a apology.

    Plus the url links, which you finally caved to and read, don’t back up your false claims, so therefore you think they are automatically wrong and stick your head back in the sand.

    BTW, those allegations against Joseph are from second/third-hand accounts and the unsubstantiated testimony of former members turned critics.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nope. I already posted the link that shows that we don’t view church leaders as infallible.
    And Joseph doesn’t match both descriptions, sorry to disappoint you.

  • Cody Quirk

    So Evangelicals and Pentecostals, whom make up nearly half of the US population, are cults?

    What religions are there that you don’t regard as cults?

  • Cody Quirk

    Only local church leaders acting as secular leaders were involved. Brigham, nor the top leadership, never orchestrated or gave the approval to butcher the members of that wagon train- despite what some LDS critics try to claim, yet which they lack the evidence for it.

    Yet that was an apology, and that walnut brain of yours can’t comprehend it.

  • Cody Quirk

    Still making excuses for being unable to refute my arguments, I see.

  • Cody Quirk

    Apologize for the obeying the then age of consent laws, and especially what God commanded us to do? lol.

    I personally would never apologize for practicing polygamy myself, even though I intend to be married to only one woman for good.

  • Cody Quirk

    Because what involvement the local church leaders there played in it they covered up and hid it from the BY and the top leadership afterward.

    That was an apology, the title says it all.

  • Cody Quirk

    As you have the right to spew lies and distortions, and as well as I have the right to respond back and expose your arguments.

  • Cody Quirk

    Very simple- telling me that either I have to obey ALL the rules of the church or face excommunication.
    Yet they only prod you to follow the rules if you’re going to hold a leadership position in the church, or actively attend the Temple.

    Then again, the LDS church endorsing the Democratic Party would be another- and yet both scenarios would never happen, as it would be a violation of our belief in free agency and neutrality of partisan politics.

    So much for a mindless cult member, lol!

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Not my viewpoint. That’s actually the argument you made.

    I don’t blame you for backpedaling, though. It was/is, after all, a really stupid argument.

    After all, your prophet claims to be in communication with the Divine. If that’s true, we should expect a little more from the man than from all the other quacks out there.

    Right?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You have the right to say stupid stuff, Cody. You don’t have the right to not be ridiculed for saying stupid stuff.

  • Cody Quirk

    According to your bigoted and distorted viewpoint.

    Bwwwaaaahhhhaaa

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “….we don’t have totalitarian leadership…”

    Yeah? Then tell me what sorta behavior, if the LDS prophet engaged in it, would deprive him of your loyalty.

    If you’re a typical cultist, you will ignore/dodge that question.

  • Cody Quirk

    Too bad you keep ignoring context. Otherwise the First Amendment of the US Constitution would only apply to stopping our Congress, but not any other legislative or executive body, from infringing upon the rights to free speech and religious liberty.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Bwwwaaaahhhaaaa

    Now he’s saying everyone else is in the same boat.

    Bwwwaaaahhhhaaa

  • Cody Quirk

    Funny, Christianity, Islam, and other major religions were once themselves cults founded by individuals claiming to talk to the higher powers and perform miracles.

    However when it comes to the modern definition of one, then nearly all of those evangelical churches and atheist groups would fit that definition. We don’t, especially since members are not at all forced to follow church rules, and we don’t have totalitarian leadership. Heck, I still brake the WoW and voluntary chose to come on here and give the bleaters here a hard time.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Only a cult member would confuse perfection with not committing adultery and child abuse. Only a cult member would defend their leader with such a pathetic argument.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    All the apologetic hot air in the universe can’t make these words in the Book of Mormon go away:

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

    Joseph Smith stands condemned by the Book of Mormon as an abomination.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody is lying.

    The LDS Church did not apologize. They didn’t admit their involvement. They didn’t say they were sorry for their involvement.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Yeah, but by your standards there’s nothing wrong when your prophet “marries” already married women, and takes little 14-year-old girls as “wives.”

    You tried. You failed. You have been unable to produce a statement of apology by your cult.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Still making excuses for your church’s involvement in the murders, I see.

  • Cody Quirk

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

    Plus Joseph Smith personally admitted to his character flaws, and likewise made mistakes (except in what he preached), which of course he admitted to.

    “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. Must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought?”

    Actual quote.

    Plus- http://en.fairmormon.org/Official_Church_doctrine_and_statements_by_Church_leaders

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Finally, the cult apologist actually reads the article.

    Notice that Eyring doesn’t say the church was culpable. He doesn’t say the church is sorry. He did *not* apologize.

    The best your cult could do is to admit that the murders were “terrible,” but they couldn’t apologize or even *admit* their own involvement.

    Shame on you for lying for your church and saying they had “apologized” when they did no such thing.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Bwwwaaaahhhhhha

    You just admitted your cult is in the same trouble as all the rest of the cults.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Mormon brainwashing doesn’t allow for members to question the cult leader. In fact, the cult leader can commit adultery and child abuse and the cult followers will defend him still.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Bwwwwaaaaahhhhhaaaa

    Joseph Smith was such a corrupt man that the apologists are driven to trying to defend the man by using “legal codes.”

  • Cody Quirk
  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “…. being a divine commandment, it wasn’t adultery.”

    Classic cult behavior. The supporters of Warren Jeffs say the same thing about him.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “… never said that all pastors will burn in hell…”

    I never said he did say that, Cody. So you just lied (again).

    Smith *did* say the pastors were “all corrupt,” and you (LOL) said Smith was just like the pastors.

  • Cody Quirk

    Do you type in braille or something?

    It’s an apology, deal with it.

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6862682

  • Cody Quirk

    By my standards, that’s an apology, and is certainly a apology to any average joe reading it.

    And again you have proven my point that you matter how much you get proven wrong, like you have been repeatedly here, you will keep on hating the LDS church and their members through your own arrogant, simpleton prejudice.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You’re dodging the question, John.

    We all know why, too (because you are a brainwashed cult member).

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The urls you posted don’t have any apology by the LDS Church for their involvement in the Mountain Meadows massacre. You clearly understand this, as you have been completely unable to produce a quotation/citation with the apology.

    The FAIR link on Joseph’s adultery/child abuse doesn’t contain a single citation to an publicly available LDS Church document that admits Smith’s adultery with married women or his abuse of little girls.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yes they did, and this is one example that you keep ignoring-

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6862682

  • Cody Quirk

    “What was done here long ago by members of our church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct,” said Eyring, who choked up while reading a statement delivered on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.”

    If that’s not an apology to you, then I feel really sorry for your spouse, or family member(s), that have to put up with you.

  • Cody Quirk

    In that case, all the Premillennialists and Dispensationalists are in big trouble.

  • Cody Quirk

    Not to the extent that you are.

  • Cody Quirk

    Legally, it does, plus the Bible doesn’t set a specific age to marry.

    If you can’t accept that legal codes and societal taboos don’t stay repetitive, then that’s your problem. It only makes you look further ignorant.

    Plus in a secular and legal standpoint, moral relativism has to be considered, otherwise you have totalitarianism, or a theocracy of one particular faith over another.
    At least we have always been supporters of religious liberty.

    Too bad your arguments are decreasing in age range now.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nope, being a divine commandment, it wasn’t adultery.

    In fact the women were simply ‘sealed’ to him; there is no solid evidence that he ever had any sexual union with them, especially the 14-year old.

    That “admission” was never a reversal in the first place. You lose.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nope, he never said that all pastors will burn in hell; you keep failing here.

  • John

    Give me a fact that you think the church is flawed. Be interested to know just one! I can then discuss the aspects of your supposed “fact” and show that your questioning is flawed. “There are no facts, only interpretations” – Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Cody Quirk

    Yet you can’t even scroll over or read those url links in detail, so why should I take your arguments seriously in return here?

    I showed you the FAIR link on Joseph’s polygamy and how the church handled it afterward and you keep sticking your head in the sand. Maybe you should just give up your broken record/failing attacks?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Still dodging.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    When someone calls for the cold-blooded murder of “apostates” all the hot air in the apologetic universe can’t fix it.

  • Cody Quirk

    As you are dodging my rebuttals

  • Cody Quirk

    Again, you won’t even address the url link that explains that quote, and you especially won’t address the Church statement saying that the ‘Journal of Discourses’ is not only NOT a part of church cannon, but also contains content which distorts or even contradicts LDS church doctrine.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/As_doctrine_and_one_of_the_%22standard_works%22_of_the_Church

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “SLT article talking about the Church apologizing for the MMM! Wow, your points keep devolving here.”

    That’s the problem, Cody. You just read the headline. The headline is wrong. There was no apology.

    Go ahead…. try to find it. Produce a quotation of the “apology.”

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the killing of roughly 120 emigrants who were passing through Southern Utah in September 1857. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857. The emigrants–men, women, and children–were traveling from Arkansas to California, part of the Baker-Fancher wagon train. They were killed by a group of Mormons who were dressed up as Paiute Indians.

    The LDS Church has never apologized for their roll in the brutal murders.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The Mountain Meadows Massacre was the killing of roughly 120 emigrants who were passing through Southern Utah in September 1857. The massacre occurred on September 11, 1857. The emigrants–men, women, and children–were traveling from Arkansas to California, part of the Baker-Fancher wagon train. They were killed by a group of Mormons dressed up as Paiute Indians.

    The LDS Church has never issued an apology for their roll in the brutal murders.

  • Cody Quirk

    “hid behind urls”, LOL! Never mind you won’t even confront the content on those links themselves, you can’t even read the title on that one SLT article talking about the Church apologizing for the MMM! Wow, your points keep devolving here.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I read it. You clearly didn’t. Either that, or you’re lying again. There’s no apology by the LDS Church for their roll in the Mountain Meadows massacre.

    The proof is in the fact that you can’t produce an actual quotation of the apology.

  • Cody Quirk

    Projecting your ego from your other end, that is.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Yeah, you’re confused all right. The apology the church hasn’t offered is an apology for their part in the Mountain Meadows massacre, where > 100 innocent men, women, and children were brutally murdered by Mormons.

  • Cody Quirk

    So you didn’t read the title of that SLT article at all?

    I want you to talk about those url links in detail, which you refuse to do and keep sticking your fingers in your ears going “lahlahlahlahlah!”

    I’m just making you look bad here and destroying your arguments, that’s all.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “BTW, Abraham also had many wives, yet David and Solomon abused the practice to the point that God denounced it.”

    According to the Book of Mormon, having “many wives” *IS* the abuse:

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

    The Book of Mormon condemns Joseph Smith as an “abomination.”

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Your lies are well documented, Cody. Among your more brazen lies is your assertion that the LDS Church has ever apologized for their involvement in the Mountain Meadows massacre.

  • Cody Quirk

    Lol, why would we be apologizing for polygamy? Are we getting confused?

    You keep talking from your other end, I’m just making you keep farting.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    It was always just a way to prove the point that Mormons are completely and thoroughly brainwashed. It’s impossible for Mormons to consider any facts that would show their founding prophet was a bad person, even when the prophets own “revelation” condemns him as an “abomination.”

    The perfect example is Jacob 2:24, in the Book of Mormon, which condemns Joseph Smith as an “abomination” for having “many wives:”

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”

  • Cody Quirk

    I don’t lie like you do, I’m brutally honest. Plus as being a church of continuous revelation, a sin in scripture doesn’t always stay a valid sin- according to God’s will.

    BTW, Abraham also had many wives, yet David and Solomon abused the practice to the point that God denounced it.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “….. it’s no longer a sin…..”

    Classic brainwashed behavior. Any mental gymnastics are acceptable in protecting the founder of the cult.

  • Cody Quirk

    You are indeed, and it’s getting less serious as you keep arguing, haha.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “… you keep misinterpreting Mormon scripture…..”

    Cody is lying. I’m quoting LDS scriptures. Scriptures like Jacob 2:24 in the Book of Mormon, that describe Joseph Smith as an abomination for having “many wives.”

    Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

  • Cody Quirk

    What sucks for you is that in our church, even if something is a sin in ancient scriptures- if a modern revelation says that it’s no longer a sin, then that scriptural verse is invalid as long as that revelation stays in effect. But then again, there were some things in the Old Testament that were a sin there, yet were not a sin in the New Testament- Jesus did invalidate a good portion of the Law of Moses, for example.

    Which is why that argument will go nowhere, since polygamy is a sin during some time periods in the scripture, and then wasn’t a sin in other time periods in scripture. Deal with it.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Still at it.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Nothing at the LDS Church’s apologetic site changes the scientific fact that the Americas were full of people/nations when the Book of Mormon says the land was empty and set aside as an “inheritance” for the Book of Mormon people.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I have read the link. That’s how I know there’s no apology in there.

    You clearly know there’s no apology in there, too. Otherwise you would *quote* the apology and give the citation.

  • Cody Quirk

    Not as much as your bigoted ego is.

  • Cody Quirk

    And there you go again with your spin, still ignoring my arguments and url links to back them up.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Topical_Guide/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon/DNA_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

    And that link alone has plenty of science to support it.

    Again, you keep misinterpreting Mormon scripture, it’s just so sad how I keep deflating that ego of yours here.

    Man, if you actually are “scientifically literate”, then you are historically retarded for sure, lol. Might need to work on that particular literacy, which you suck at.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I have read the urls. That’s how I know there’s no apology in there.

    Everyone else knows there’s no apology because of your refusal (after more than two dozen requests) to produce a quotation/citation with an apology in it.

    You’re just playing the con man’s game — posting urls with hundreds of pages and then lying/asserting that there’s a an apology in there.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Yeah. There’s that projection, again.

  • Cody Quirk

    And again- http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

    Why can’t you even read the link? You’re making yourself look like an idiot by continuing to ignore my links.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody, you are lying. The proof of your lie is your dogged refusal to produce a quotation with an actual apology in it.

    You just make false/dishonest assertions and hid behind urls. But you can’t produce an actual quotation because the LDS Church has never apologize nor repented of the cold-blooded murders at Mountain Meadows.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Brigham Young advocated the murder of apostates. Brigham Young said:

    “I will tell you of a dream that I had last night. [Brigham recounts meeting two apostates in the dream. Two mobbers sneak into his house, threatening his children. Brigham asks the apostates about this, and the first says:] “O, they are good men, they are gentlemen.” With that, I took my large bowie knife, that I used to wear as a bosom pin in Nauvoo, and cut one of their throats from ear to ear, saying, “Go to hell across lots.” The other one said, “You dare not serve me so.” [Brigham (in the dream) kills this man as well, and somewhat graphically] then told them both, if they would behave themselves, they should yet live, but if they did not, I would unjoin their necks. At this I awoke. I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line. If you say it is right, raise your hands. [Watt records that all hands went up] Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.” [JOD 1:83 (Brigham Young)]

    You sound just like old Brigham, what with your seething hatred of “apostates.”

  • Cody Quirk

    Why can’t you even read the links in the first place? In fact if you still wanted to continue the argument “legitimately”, you could attempt to quote-mine from my url links and try to spin it like you have been doing so far. But you can’t even do that, it’s so pathetic and simpleton of you.

  • Cody Quirk

    You’re still talking out of your @ss,0-e^(i*pi)

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Bwwwwaaahhhaaaa

    You think child abuse depends on the day and age. You think morality is relative. You think it’s okay to have a 14-year-old wife 150 years ago, but not today.

    Your a moral relativist. And all because you are a brainwashed cultist who just *has* to defend the cult.

    Bwaaaahhhhaaaa.

  • Cody Quirk

    There certainly was in that one SLT article alone, yet you’re too hateful to admit your error, and are reduced to simply throwing a temper tantrum while refusing to read the url link.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The church did deny that Smith committed adultery by “marrying” other men’s wives, and child abuse by “marrying” little 14-year-old girls.

    The recent admission was the first time they’ve admitted that Smith did those things.

  • Cody Quirk

    I’ve yet to call for your death, and obviously you can’t understand figures of speech and political incorrectness, which BY was a big fan of, as were the various protestant ministers of that time that bashed sinners and ‘enemies of the church’ in equally vile and harsh language.

    You also didn’t further expand on that one sermon like the FAIR link did- let’s give 0-e^(i*pi)’s distorting ignorance a round of applause, lol!

    BTW, did you also check out the url link that talked about the level of violence in Utah in the late 19th century? I bet you didn’t ;)

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Bwwwaaaahhhhaaa

    You just admitted that Joseph Smith is a false prophet and abomination before god because Joseph Smith, himself, said that’s what those “pastors” were.

    Bwaaaaahhhhha.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The Mormon Church has never admitted, until now, that Joseph Smith committed adultery by marrying other men’s wives and that he committed child abuse by “marrying” little 14-year-old girls.

    Otherwise, you’d produce a quotation and a citation for the admission.

    When you give a link with hundreds of pages, and assert there’s an admission in there (somewhere) you are just playing a con man’s game.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You dodged the question, again.

  • Cody Quirk

    Because Jeff’s violated the present age of consent laws and other laws as well.

    Joseph never violated the age of consent laws in his time, and he also didn’t run his church like a puritan dictatorship, nor renounced himself as a true prophet, like Jeffs did.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    That’s just a bunch of double talk by Mormon apologists.

    What does it say about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith when it takes an army of Mormon apologists to try and deny the simple truth that the Book of Mormon condemns plural marriage and Joseph Smith as an “abomination?”

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You’re projecting again, Cody.

  • Cody Quirk

    Lol, I never said they didn’t deny the practice of plural marriage itself; only that they never denied that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, after his martyrdom.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    See, there we are again. Trying to discuss science with someone who is scientifically illiterate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

    But that’s not all. Mormon apologists are abject liars because you pretend that it’s *only* about nations, when the Book of Mormon says it was much, much more:

    “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” [Book of Mormon, 2 Nehphi 1;8]

    https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/1.8?lang=eng#7

    How can the Book of Mormon possibly be true when the apologists are driven to lie about it, in order to defend it?

  • Cody Quirk

    Which puts him on equal standing to the well-regarded American pastors and ministers of that century.

    Thanks for conceding that he’s a legitimate religious leader like any other, including with the likes of Dwight Moody.

    Also- http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The Book of Mormon uses very clear language. The fact you have to lie about what it says, says a lot about you *and* the book:

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

    According to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith (with his “many wives”) was an abomination.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    None of those links contains any apology by the LDS Church. You know it. We all know it. That’s why you can’t provide an actual quotation from the links with an actual apology — you’re just lying for your church, asserting there’s an apology for the Mountain Meadows massacre when there is and never has been one.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You’re still projecting, Cody.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    There’s no apology for the Mountain Meadows massacre at those urls. You know it … which is why you can’t provide the quotations, and are reduced to simply lying.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Doesn’t matter. If they were established as facts, would they dissuade you from believing in the LDS Church?

    If not those facts, would *any* verifiable/objective/specific facts, were they to exist, cause you to no longer believe in Mormonism?

    This is now the third or fourth time you’ve dodged/ignored the question. Every time you do, it illustrates your brainwashed state of mind.

  • Cody Quirk

    The LDS Church has never denied them and many MANY church leaders have verified Joseph Smith’s practice of it throughout the years… Unlike the RLDS Church.

    Those FAIR links on polygamy have been there for many many years.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy

    After all, what are we doing with D&C 132 in our church cannon?

    You are the one bearing false witness and spewing refutable facts here.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Nothing in those links changes the historical fact that Brigham Young called for the murder of “apostates.”

    You, apparently, learned well from him.

  • Cody Quirk

    The one I keep providing url links in response of, which you refuse to read and further make yourself look like an idiot here.

  • Cody Quirk

    And again, here’s that link that better explains the verse that you try to use in your faltering arguments, it’s up to you if you want to pull your head out of the sand and read it-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

  • Cody Quirk

    I know you think you are hated for being stupid. But I do not hate you for your stupidity at all, I assure you; rather I think it’s funny that you’re too stupid to even read the url links that have blown your arguments out into orbit, lol

  • Cody Quirk

    “Covered with nations”? Since when did primitive tribes in America have their own established borders, or even expansive, sophisticated governments then?

    The verse only talks about how other kingdoms and empires of the old world wouldn’t discover that continent yet- it doesn’t say anything about the people or nations already established upon the land.

    In fact, how do you know that the word ‘land’ means ‘continent’ in the BOM in the first place? Perhaps it is simply referring to the limited geographic location that they settled in.

    And now you fail to provide the verse that follows it stating that- “inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.”

    Sorry, those verses are too vague to fit in with your false black/white arguments.

    The Nephites especially didn’t keep those commandments, in fact they violated them multiple times until the Lamanites wiped them out for good- therefore that promise got voided out.

    Sorry, but making mountains out of the dung heaps you create isn’t helping you one bit.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You didn’t answer the question. What “distorted criticisms?”

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “To [sic] are trying to imply it….”

    Cody is lying. The issue isn’t the simple denial of polygamy … it’s specific to Smith’s adultery in “marrying” other men’s wives, and his child abuse in “marrying” little 14-year-old girls.

    Until now, the LDS Church has never admitted those facts.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Bwwwwaaaaa.

    You just admitted that your founding prophet was no more moral than “hardcore religious men.”

    Bwwwaaaahhhhaaa

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You need to read those links before you post them, Cody. Nothing there changes the historical fact that the LDS Church denied the practice of plural marriage.

  • Cody Quirk

    According to the simpleton way that you use the Book of Mormon, never mind Jacob 1:13-14.

    You’re losing the blog war here, I’m really starting to enjoy giving you a taste of your own medicine repeatedly.

  • Cody Quirk

    That’s because you probably haven’t clicked on the links, especially on the SLT article.

    That’s for proving my point and showing to the public how vile and irrational you are, choosing to behave like a troll because your arguments just can’t hold up, lol!

  • Cody Quirk

    Projecting how your arguments keep getting blown out of the water by the url links.

    You’re a funny piggy indeed.

  • Cody Quirk

    That’s because you can’t seem to read those url links that keep blowing your arguments out of the water, obviously that bigotry makes you more then irrational in debate.

    Then again, that’s an understatement with you.

  • John

    Who is presenting the “facts” here though? Supposed facts change a great deal over time. If it was a fact thta Joseph raped a woman then yes, his credibility as a prophet is gone. I am sure you will now raise that he did do this in the case of statutory rape? Again this is not proven if you were going to go down that line. Your “facts” are not “facts”. Tell me which parts of the Doctrine and Covenants are not factual on your terms? This is fruitless, I believe despite your supposed facts that scientists or historians believe that other historians and scientists would disagree with as fact.

  • Cody Quirk

    Obviously you are unable to read the url links that just blew your quotes out of the water, lol.

    Again- http://en.fairmormon.org/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Brigham_and_bowie_knife

    Oh, and you should know this about the ‘Journal of Discourses’-

    https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

    There goes your quotes.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, then why am I finding it so easy to refute how you try to use Mormon scripture and doctrine to justify your failing attacks? Oh that’s right, because you fit the definition of one, as well as are quite uneducated on the LDS faith too.

    But a bigot like you wouldn’t know what bigotry was unless it disagreed with your bigoted views.
    And LDS chapels have been more then simply vandalized.

  • Cody Quirk

    To are trying to imply it and hype up their recent official statement on it, and you are failing.

    Also, http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Character/Was_he_a_disreputable_person

  • Cody Quirk

    So are all those famous Americans, including George Washington, that owned slaves evil and vile?

    Many hardcore religious men married 14 year olds back then, especially in the Appalachian region.

    BTW- http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_the_practice

  • Cody Quirk
  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Let me help you out with some examples:

    If the Book of Mormon were shown to make non-factual statements about Ancient America, would you stop believing in it?

    If Joseph Smith were shown to have raped a woman, would you no loner believe in him?

    If the Doctrine and Covenants were shown to contain non-factual statements would you stop believing in Mormonism?

    What, John? What specific/verifiable/objective facts, if they existed, would be sufficient to convince you that Mormonism is false?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You’re dodging the question, John.

    The question is, what verifiable/objective/specific facts, if they existed, would be sufficient for you to repudiate Mormonism?

    I’ve yet to find *any* Mormon who will answer that question directly. They all dance around it, avoid it, or ignore it. But none of you guys feels safe enough about your church to come right on out and say:

    “If this [verifiable/objective/specific] fact existed, I would leave the church.”

  • John

    As I stated “my thinking, my study, rationalisation, comparisons and feelings. What would make me change? if the logic of these aforementioned areas determined that it’s teachings were incorrect then that would persuade me otherwise.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Smith “married” little 14-year-old girls. The same age as the little girls that Warren Jeffs “married.”

    And Jeffs is in jail for doing it, too.

  • Cody Quirk

    I guess every American in the 19th century that marries someone younger then 18 years of age is a sexual predictor then, never mind the societal attitudes and legal codes then.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    John wrote: “I believe the doctrines of the LDS faith are real and true.”

    Irrelevant to the question, John. The question is what verifiable/objective/specific evidence, if it existed, would change your mind?

  • Cody Quirk

    You just did above.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “…. links….”

    None of the links you provided have any apology by your church for the cold-blooded murders at Mountain Meadows. Your refusal to produce a quotation from them, with an actual apology, proves the point.

  • John

    I see your “challenge” now. Objective and specific facts would be a denial of my personal experiences in life. I believe the doctrines of the LDS faith are real and true. Nobody can deny or question my thinking, my study, rationalisation, comparisons and feelings. I am absolutely willing to state I have made a mistake, I do it regularly,

    After all my studies, thoughts and personal feelings these are are my facts! I can’t tell you what you believe. What you believe is made up of many different aspects and influences as are my beliefs!

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    If you did, you’d just repeat the quote. But you’re lying when you said you “did,” because none of those links have an apology from your church for the cold-blooded murders at Mountain Meadows.

  • Cody Quirk

    0-e^(i*pi) the lying brainwashed bigot keeps missing the links I provided that proves his arguments wrong, he’s even too simpleton to see the one from the Salt Lake Tribune even.

    Tisk tisk tisk

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You’re projecting, Cody.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I’ve read the links, Cody. You have not.

    That’s how I know you lied when you said there’s an apology in there.

    Everyone else knows you lied, too, because you consistently refuse to provide a quotation with the alleged apology (you have no other choice, since the apology doesn’t exist).

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Another defense mechanism used by Mormons is to imagine that quoting their scriptures and prophets is “silly antics.”

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “…. he’s basically challenging you to flufff….”

    Cody is lying for the LDS Church. The challenge is simple, and it is this:

    Cite verifiable/objective/specific evidence that, if it existed, would be sufficient for you to repudiate Mormonism.

    Cultists can’t do that with their cults. They can’t ever (no matter what evidence might exist) deny the cult.

    Cody and John have been illustrating the principle nicely.

  • Cody Quirk

    I actually did, it’s your own fault that you won’t read it, or cannot make valid arguments here because it’s getting harder for you to back up the bile spewing out of your mouth.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody is lying for the LDS Church.

    He’s never posted an apology from the LDS Church for the cold-blooded murders at Mountain Meadows because the LDS Church has never made an apology.

  • Cody Quirk

    Not like the programming that makes you unable to read url links or comprehend any kind of view or opinion other then your own, lol.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The Book of Jacob (in the Book of Mormon) says Joseph Smith was an “abomination” for having “many wives.”

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

  • Cody Quirk

    If you can’t read the link, then may I suggest Hooked on Phonics to better educate your simpleton knowledge of the LDS faith?

    lol, you’re just making it easier for me here.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    As part of their protective cult mechanism, Mormons imagine they are “hated” for being stupid.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Noting in the frantic apologetics of the Mormon Church can change the simple fact that the Book of Mormon says the Americas were empty when science says they were full.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    A day ago I posted this:

    John, the LDS Church most definitely *does* brainwash it’s members, and I can demonstrate the fact with a little help from you.

    A normal, rational person is able/willing to allow the possibility that they are wrong, and that they’ve made a mistake. A normal, rational person is willing to describe the verifiable, objective, and specific facts that, if they existed, would be enough for them to change their mind. Brainwashed persons, on the other hand, can’t do that.

    John, what verifiable/objective/specific facts, if they existed, would be sufficient for you to admit the fraud of Mormonism?

    If you ignore/dodge the question then, by you’re actions, you’re demonstrating the fruits of LDS brainwashing.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “No it doesn’t say the whole continent was devoid of all human life…”

    When Lehi arrived the whole continent was covered with nations. But in the Book of Mormon, Lehi says:

    “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.” [2 Nephi 1:8]

    The Book of Mormon is thus a proven fraud. Doubly so, since Mormon apologists are driven to lie about what it says, in order to try and defend it.

  • Cody Quirk

    Not so much as your desperate and silly antics and failing attempts to try to win some kind of argument on here, even if you’ve given up on making detailed and extensive accusations because of me, lol.

  • Cody Quirk

    John, he’s basically challenging you to fluff his bigoted ego and try to get you to admit that he’s right and you’re wrong, even if it’s really the other way around.

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you can’t find it after I posted it- are you blogging by braille or something?

    LOL, you’re so easy and uneducated.

  • Cody Quirk

    You’re the one unfamiliar with it, especially Jacob 1:13-14, and even don’t read or study the links I provided- you just keep running your mouth and I keep proving you wrong.

  • Cody Quirk

    Because I personally choose to believe in, and stick with it. But if you hate it and want to believe differently, then go right ahead.
    However if you can’t leave the beliefs of others like me alone, then people like me are going to give you the same kind of treatment back, especially here.

  • Cody Quirk
  • John

    Sorry, I must have missed something, whta challenge do you refer to?

  • Cody Quirk

    No it doesn’t say the whole continent was devoid of all human life- that’s what you’re trying to distort the scripture as, only you keep failing to do so, and also don’t also take into account Jacob 1:13-14, or Mosiah 25:12-13, etc. since the role of Nephite and Lamanite switched sides in the Book of Mormon many times, and even included the other additional tribes and peoples in their ranks as well.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_tribal_affiliations

    You just keep sucking in your rebuttals.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Is that why you’re so unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, and why you have no idea what’s in those “links?”

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I’m sure you will keep replying. I’m counting on it.

    I’m also counting on you never repudiating the Mountain Meadows massacre, or ever describing any verifiable/objective/specific evidence that could ever change your mind about Mormonism.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Feeling frustrated?

    Can’t find that apology?

    Can’t deal with the fraud of the Book of Mormon?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…idiot…”

    That’s your brainwashing speaking, Cody.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “Native Americans have Lamanite blood in them, even if they may not be direct descendants.”

    Until DNA analysis proved the Book of Mormon is false, every copy of the Book of Mormon had the following introduction:

    “The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of the two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites,and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

    Note the phrase “Principal Ancestors.” Note, also, the literal treatment of the Tower of Babel (a fable, not literally true).

  • Cody Quirk

    Neither was I “assigned”. Heck I only go to church once a month, and I like to drink beer on occasion, yet I will certainly respond to bigoted BS when I see it.

    For someone that cannot refute the links I have provided, you really shouldn’t be trying to turn the moron label around on others that have exposed you.

  • Not sure what that has to do with bigotry in my religion… (the one we’re talking about, Mormon Christians)

  • No, our religion is based on revelation, from the individual to the top leaders. We all may talk to God and hear His voice. Our’s is not a religion for merely going to church on Sunday and patting ourselves on the backs for do it. We’re trying to know God.

  • BlueIdaho

    John you should take note–to increase the traffic on your site and increase ad revenues post more articles on the mormons. It drives them crazy.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “Still doesn’t say that other ‘people’ won’t find the land…”

    The Book of Mormon never mentions any other such people. It says the land was empty when Lehi arrived, and never mentions any other arrivals.

    The problem with arguing with people who are scientifically illiterate is that they often don’t realized the significance of things like this. In fact, when Lehi supposedly arrived in the Americas, science tells us there were tens of millions of people living there, and dozens of nations.

    Yet the Book of Mormon says the land had been kept pristine “from all other nations” as an “inheritance” for Lehi’s posterity.

    That one verse proves the Book of Mormon is a fraud. There are dozens of other verses that prove the fraud, too.

  • Cody Quirk

    Oh, so after the previous challenge I issued to you to renounce the bigotry against the LDS faith, only your challenge counts for 0-e^(i*pi) the lying brainwashed bigot.

    Keep posting. I’ll keep replying.

  • Craig L. Foster

    PS Go back to school and learn how to write a decent sentence.

  • Cody Quirk

    0-e^(i*pi) the lying brainwashed bigot still can’t refute the links and evidence I have provided here.

    Keep exploiting those victims. At least I don’t exploit the hundreds upon hundreds of Mormons that died fleeing to Utah territory.

    Thanks for wasting your time with me, keep feeding at your trough of bigotry.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    My challenge was first. Keep dodging it. Every time you do, you prove the point.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I didn’t say you were paid.

    And for someone who believes in the Book of Mormon, you really shouldn’t be calling anyone a “moron.”

  • Cody Quirk

    Idiot

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6862682

    So when are you going to renounce the bigotry against the LDS faith?

  • BlueIdaho

    Ether? I thought that was something they used to put you to sleep before surgery. Oh yeah, this will do the same thing.

  • Cody Quirk

    Still doesn’t say that other ‘people’ won’t find the land, nor that there were already other groups established on the land before Nephi and his family came over.

    Also in verse 9, it states- ‘those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.”

    The problem is that the Nephites didn’t keep His commandments and they later got all killed off by the Lamanites, so they were “not kept from other nations”.

    Another thing- http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Demographics

    Native Americans have Lamanite blood in them, even if they may not be direct descendants.

    You just keep failing.

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you couldn’t accept my challenge either, just like you still can’t refute them Marmon’ Apologist links, lol.

  • Cody Quirk

    LOL, I’m not paid by the church to do this, otherwise I’d do it more often.

    The church already apologized, moron-

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6862682

    Again, plus note that 0-e^(i*pi) the lying bigot, still won’t consider this as acceptable, and is still going to get his time wasted by me on here.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…. vile… bigot… hate….”

    Your persecution complex (a product of your brainwashing) is showing.

  • Cody Quirk

    Actually thanks to you, you have shown how much of a vile, irrational bigot you are, to the point that you blindly denounce any evidence to show how wrong you are, even when you cannot refute it, lol.

    You’re the brainwashed one still feeding at the trough of hate, not me.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…of the LDS Church to correct the wrongs of the MMM …”

    The LDS Church as never repented of or apologized for the Mountain Meadows massacre. Instead, they assign apologists, like you, to go online and lie about their culpability.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “I already provided the evidence of the apology…”

    Not true. I’ve challenged you at least half-a-dozen times to provide a quotation from the LDS Church with an apology for the Mountain Meadows massacre, and you haven’t done it.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nope, you cannot renounce bigotry, and you refuse to accept the detailed articles, statements, and efforts of the LDS Church to correct the wrongs of the MMM and fix their mistakes of the past, all the while you keep exploiting it and bearing false witness against the LDS faith and it’s members.

    But again, brainwashed bigots can never make peace with that which they hate.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “claiming that you represent the feelings and views of the descendants of the MMM.”

    Cody Quirk is lying. He’s doing it for the LDS Church. I’ve never said any such thing.

    But thanks, Cody, for once again showing how steadfastly you refuse to repudiate the acts of violence committed by your cult/members when they murdered > 100 men, women, and children at the Mountain Meadows massacre.

  • Thank you for your kind and reasoned remarks, Jamon. I actually wish you well, too.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Yeah. I knew you couldn’t do it. I knew you couldn’t take the challenge.

  • I did the same thing, Fixer, as I was making my exit from the Catholic Church. I read every religious text I could find, as well as studying the discourses and interpretations of what those religions were supposed to mean. My conclusions?

    (1) It’s absurd and foolish, as well as obscenely prideful for anyone to claim the words they wrote down are the irrefutable messages from an omnipotent deity. And rather gullible to claim infallibility on the part of words someone else wrote down. There is, unfortunately, a terribly anthropocentric tendency in most of the religions invented by us humans. “You’re saying God says kill those people over there? Okay!”

    (2) The true believers seem to be intellectually incapable of realizing their assertions of absolute proof are patently absurd to non-believers. It’s like insisting the Lord of the Rings is proof there were once Hobbits, Orcs, and Elves in the world. “But, but Tolkein’s words were divinely inspired!” “No they weren’t.” Impasse.

    (3) If one throws away the fundamentalist, literalist bullshit, there are often some decent moral and spiritual messages in the religions, such as the Golden Rule and admonitions not to judge others. But that one also needed ALWAYS to be on guard against those who would use their particular religion as justification to oppress others and for self-aggrandizement. Or as I remarked elsewhere (and read elsewhere), it’s amazing how often ‘God’ is asserted to hate the same people his followers do.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “Show me where in the Book of Mormon that it says ONLY Nephites and Lamanites..”

    When Lehi (projenator of the Nephites and Lamanites) arrive in the Americas, the Book of Mormon says he spoke by the “spirit” and said:

    “… behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.”

    https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/1.8?lang=eng#7

    The dishonest apologists at FAIR/FARMS know all about that scripture, by they way.

    Joseph Smith also unambiguously identified the native Americans as “Lamanites.” It’s in the Doctrine and Covenants. Do you want me to quote that for you, too?

  • 2karmanot

    “I have a college education” OMG, you and Marcus Bachman.

  • Cody Quirk

    You’re the one that has not only been bearing false witness against the LDS faith, but falsely claiming that you represent the feelings and views of the descendants of the MMM.

    I already provided the evidence of the apology, even though you haven’t read it, nor is it the kind of apology that fits your silly standards.

  • Cody Quirk

    After you post a reference from the scientific literature (a peer-reviewed science journal) that supports *any* non-trivial claim in the Bible with regard to ALL the events that transpired within both Old & New Testaments. Include the journal name, volume, page, date, and authors.

    Good luck yourself.

    You fail to prove that the LDS faith is a complete sham, and especially that Joseph Smith was nothing but a ‘serial adulterer & money-digger’ when the evidence shows that he was way more virtuous and complex then how you and the others try to paint him out to be.

  • 2karmanot

    “I can get knee-deep in the mud” I love it when you talk dirty.

  • 2karmanot

    I have yet to witness an ad hominid pout.

  • Cody Quirk

    Show me where in the Book of Mormon that it says ONLY Nephites and Lamanites, and no one else, existed on the continent.

    And there has not been any scientifically established evidence to completely disprove the Book of Mormon.

    Plus-
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Warfare
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Metals

  • 2karmanot

    Exactly;y so

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “So you admit that you didn’t even read the links….”

    You’re the one who hasn’t read the links, Cody. I have. That’s why I know there’s no apology in there. That’s why I know you will continue to fail my challenge of providing an actual quote with an apology in it.

  • John

    15 million people and growing with world renowned scientists, politicians, business leaders, educators, surgeons and multiple other fields in the ranks – all of which are brainwashed! No, they simply believe! They have approached the faith genuinely and in some instances scholarly – yet here they are as practising members!

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I knew you couldn’t take the challenge, John. Thanks for proving my point that you really are brainwashed.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “… lying swine like you.”

    More demonstrations from Cody regarding the programming he’s received by the LDS Church.

  • Jamon Clark

    I understand your points. it sounds like you have studied it out, sought reliable sources and are doing your own thinking. I wish you nothing but the best. It is ignorance when people like the author of the blog perpetuate wrong ideas and purport them as fact. I am sorry you have had a bad experience with others (this was implied). I understand your perspective, there are some people who have misused religion for their own gain. In my mind this does not mean that God is dead, but to each thier own. I hope you continue in your quest for knowledge and appreciate the ability to have a constructive dialog

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “Yeah, I provide whole statements….”

    Cody is lying. He’s bearing false witness. He’s doing it for the LDS Church.

    You haven’t provided a *single* quotation where the LDS Church apologizes for their role in the Mountain Meadow’s massacre, Cody. Not even one.

  • Cody Quirk

    So you admit that you didn’t even read the links I provided? You’ll just find any excuse to keep bashing the LDS faith, regardless.

    Yet the LDS faith will keep growing and becoming more accepted in society, no matter how much you rant and scream in the blogs. Deal with it.

  • 2karmanot

    Are all Mormons so obsessed with body fluids? PS. look up compound sentences, perhaps it will aid you with comprehension.

  • John

    Aren’t you brainwashed by the media, articles like this, influences of others seemingly in prominent positions. If I am brainwashed then so are you for probably note reading the book of mormon without prejudice, not sincerely approaching the principles found within Mormonism and rejecting anything thatMormons may say. This stance of Anti-Mormonism is brainwashing in the same context as you say I am

  • 2karmanot

    —–“a bit too complex for a poorly educated farm boy to completely fabricate.” Well, that would explain the hilarious rubbish contained within.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “If you can renounce violence….”

    Finally, Cody admits to bearing false witness. Finally Cody admits (as is easily seen, by looking through the exchanges) that I repudiate any/all violence on both sides.

    Still no repudiation from Cody for the cold-blooded murders at Mountain Meadows, though. That’s just too much because brainwashed persons cannot allow that their cult ever did anything wrong.

  • Cody Quirk

    You’re a historian?
    LMAO!

    Sorry, I don’t cast my pearls before lying swine like you. Keep posting here, I’ll only refute you with a accurate link or two included.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…the book [of Mormon] did talk about others .”

    The only “others” were the Jaredites, and the Book of Mormon says they all died. So, according to the Book of Mormon, *all* the ancient Americans were Hebrews from Jerusalem.

    And that is factually/scientifically false.

    The Book of Mormon also says the ancient Americans smelted iron/steel, domesticated horses, cultivated Old World crops, and used the Hebrew and Egyptian languages — all false.

    The Book of Mormon is just a clumsy fraud.

  • John

    oh no – wikipedia!! It must be true!

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    No, Cody. Ancient Americans didn’t come by ships from Jerusalem. You keep posting links to FAIR, which is nothing more than an LDS apologetic site run by paid apologists.

    Here’s a challenge that you will fail at. Post a reference from the scientific literature (a peer-reviewed science journal) that supports *any* non-trivial claim in the Book of Mormon with regard to ancient America. Include the journal name, volume, page, date, and authors.

    You will fail for the simple reason that there are none. Your failure will be an illustration to all of just how ridiculous and completely untenable the Book of Mormon is.

  • John

    It isn’t always about sources but the interpretation and context of them. Try another job Jon. On top of this to site Wikipedia as one of your credible sources…….you should be embarrased!

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, I provided whole statements and facts, yet that bigotry has you too brainwashed to accept them in the first place.

  • Cody Quirk

    If you can “renounce violence”, then why not renounce bigotry too while you’re at it?

    Glad I can keep a brainwashed bigot such as yourself wasting time on here.

  • John

    This film was discredited as was it’s creator years ago. Nothing new I guess!

  • I’m amazed at the immense number of people God has given “The Truth” to where that message is mutually incompatible with the others. It’s like He is saying, “There actually is no right way to be a Christian”. Since it is based on self-declaration of Providence, all are equally true. Now, logical validity is another matter, but whatever.

  • Cody Quirk

    Some ancient inhabitants did migrate that way, but not all of them; the book did talk about others .

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites/Relationship_to_Amerindians/Descendants_of_Lehi

  • John

    If Smith was a sexual predator then where is the evidence of him having this type of relationship with anyone except his first wife Emma? No record of this ever happening and no children from other marriages. Please don’t make such silly comments without evidence.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You still can’t bring yourself to say that your repudiate the cold blooded murders committed by your cult/members at Mountain Meadows.

    The best you can say is “it wasn’t morally justified.”

    Worse, you pretend that its the historians who are “vile” and not the murderers themselves.

    Classic, classic brainwashing.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The link has no apology. You realize that it has no apology because you have (for the fourth or fifth time, now) failed to provide an actual quotation.

  • Cody Quirk

    I just showed you the wiki and lds.org links, check the thread.

  • Cody Quirk

    It wasn’t morally justified in the first place, but again a brainwashed bigot such as yourself keeps exploiting it and abusing the memory of those massacre victims for your own selfish, vile gain, so I’m not going to give a worthless bigot such as yourself the satisfaction. But I will keep wasting your time and getting under your skin though.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: They already did.”

    Not true. The LDS Church has never apologized and/or repented for their role in the Mountain Meadows massacre. I challenged you to provide a direct quote, and you couldn’t do it because it’s not in those “links and articles” that you just blindly took off the FAIR site.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “… we can be smart in believing in the Book of Mormon…”

    No, Cody, you can’t. The Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud. For starters, it says that the ancient Americans were Hebrews from Jerusalem who arrived less than 3,000 years ago. In reality, the ancient Americans arrived by way of Siberia, and came more than 10,000 years ago.

  • Read the Book of Mormon and then you can have the privilege of writing
    about Mormonism where your words will be taken with respect,

    But only if one agrees with everything in the Book of Mormon. If, on the other hand, one concludes something along the lines of, “These appear to be inconsistent and obviously made-up stories that are even more absurd than those in the Christian Bible” — one can expect to be verbally attacked and one’s opinions not to be respected but to be dismissed and attacked by a swarm of Mormon true believers.

    Religion is like that. And you guys are far from the first to insist the existence of your religious book and its contents somehow suffices as ironclad proof of absolute truth. YOU believe the book is proof — that’s great for you. But the rest of us who have indeed read the Book of Mormon (as well as every other religious book I could lay my hands on, because I was curious and I like to learn about the belief systems of other people) have reached different conclusions.

    You talk about the importance of being ‘sealed to the family’ — and I can’t help but think about that 10,000-strong fundamentalist off-shoot of the LDS which still advocates polygamy, insisting that each man should have three wives…but because human genetics produces roughly equal numbers of boys and girls, those teenaged boys are tossed out of their families, sometimes even abandoned on the side of the road and told never to come home again. By the way, assuming you’re not a member of FLDS, they all consider the rest of the LDS church to be a bunch of apostates, and that YOU are not reading your own book correctly.

    But any of these other conclusions will never by “taken with respect” by folks like yourself, because they don’t agree with yours. Y’see, you’re not at all alone in this particular disingenuous rhetorical tactic. First you’ll claim that none of us has any familiarity with your religion, then you’ll assert without proof that none of us has actually read your book, and finally even if we do say we’ve read it, you’ll argue that we didn’t read it the right way. Like I said though, don’t feel bad — nearly every religion’s true believers use that tactic when faced with people who don’t believe as they do.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote “You have not renounced….”

    Cody is lying. He’s bearing false witness. He’s doing it for his church.

    I can/do renounce all acts of violence on both sides, both those acts of violence committed by Mormons and those committed against Mormons.

    But Cody, who is a brainwashed cult member, is unable to repudiate the cold-blooded murders committed by the LDS cult/members at Mountain Meadows massacre.

  • Cody Quirk

    They already did, I provided the links and articles- but because they did it in a way that you think doesn’t go far enough, even though it’s obvious that you would still hate on Mormons even if they did apologize in the manner that you want them to, since you are too brainwashed in your bigotry to leave them alone.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    As a brainwashed cult member, you are simply incapable of acknowledging that your cult does anything wrong. Even when your cult kills > 100 innocent men, women, and children (as they did at Mountain Meadows massacre) you cant’ repudiate it.

  • Cody Quirk

    Indeed we can be smart in believing in the Book of Mormon- ever notice the large percentage of college-educated LDS members and especially how the church is quite big on furthering one’s secular education?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Every brainwashed person thinks that it’s only a sin if someone does it to them, and never a sin if they do it to others.

    So Mormons will never repudiate the murders they committed at the Mountain Meadows massacre. They will hyper focus on the violence done to them, but never on the violence done by them.

  • Cody Quirk

    You you have not renounced all those acts of violence committed against the LDS faith- plus I doubt you truly renounce then in your heart at all; I beat you would still get a kick out of witnessing violence against anything LDS with your own eyes, because your own hatred has left a sadistic taste in your mouth.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “The word ‘apology’ doesn’t have to be officially said.”

    So you admit you lied? You admit the LDS Church has never apologized or repented?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “I’m really too intelligent …”

    Anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon can be all that smart.

  • Cody Quirk

    Again, you keep exploiting the MMM- are you a descendant of one of the survivors? Were you even there?

    Your making yourself look even more pathetic.

    For you, truth is “brainwashing”.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “Nope…”

    Cody is lying. He’s bearing false witness. He’s doing it for his church.

    I have/do renounce all acts of violence. But Cody refuses to repudiate the acts of violence when Mormons murdered > 100 innocent men, women, and children in cold blood at the Mountain Meadows massacre.

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you’re showing everyone here how brainwashed you are in your bigotry against the LDS faith- never mind the hundreds upon hundreds of innocent LDS men, women, and children that died of cold, hunger, and disease from being forced to relocate to Utah.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…. your vile attacks on the LDS faith.”

    For Mormons, a “vile attack” is pointing to the cold-blooded murder of > 100 innocent men, women and children at Mountain Meadows at the hands of Mormons.

    For Mormons, truth is a “vile attack.”

  • Jamon Clark

    “Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine
    that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If
    Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live
    licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably
    anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.”

    —George Bernard Shaw, The
    Future of Political Science in America; an Address by Mr. Bernard Shaw
    to the Academy of Political Science, at the Metropolitan Opera House,
    New York, on the 11th. April, 1933

  • Cody Quirk

    The word ‘apology’ doesn’t have to be officially said. The Church not only repudiated what happened, but they built a memorial on the site for the victims and have developed good relations with the MMM survivor-descendant groups too.

    Then again, even if they “officially apologized”, that would still not be good enough for you, you would only find another excuse to bash the LDS faith.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Keep it up, Cody. Show how brainwashed you are, that you can’t even repudiate the murder of > 100 innocent men, women and children by your church, at Mountain Meadows.

  • Cody Quirk

    Nope, you obviously cannot renounce the persecution that drove the LDS faith into Utah territory in the first place, and you fail to also understand the context of 19th century society and culture as well.

    I’m actually enjoying seeing a bigot like you struggle. I’m really too intelligent for that “brainwashing” smear to stick, lol.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “Brigham was quite moderate.”

    Only if you are a brainwashed cultist. Here’s a typical quote from Brigham, and it’s not “moderate” at all:

    “I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath [sic] my bowie knife, and conquer or die [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.]. Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet [Voices, generally, ‘go it, go it.’]. If you say it is right, raise your hands [All hands up.]. Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 83; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-16.html

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “… when compared to the many violent sermons ….”

    Bwwwaaaahhhhaaaa

    Cody’s standard of morality for a prophet is based on other preachers.

    Bwwaaahhhhaaaaaq

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote:

    “What violence?”

    Are you blind? I’ve been quoting Brigham Young. Why don’t you try reading posts before you just fire off your brainwashed retorts?

    “I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath [sic] my bowie knife, and conquer or die [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.]. Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet [Voices, generally, ‘go it, go it.’]. If you say it is right, raise your hands [All hands up.]. Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 83; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-16.html

  • Cody Quirk

    No, you should hang your head in shame for trying to exploit it and use it for your vile attacks on the LDS faith.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You should read those links before you post them, Cody. No apology there. No repentance.

    Go ahead. Try to find the apology. Quote it.

  • A. Pratt

    While Mormons busily multiply post hoc explanations for Smith’s behavior, Occam’s Razor steers us directly to the obvious, namely, that Smith was a sexual predator. He used his prophet-fish status in his tiny Mormon-pool to manipulate women into acquiescence. For the horrors of polygamy, read Carolyn Jessop’s book, “Escape.” For the ridiculousness of it, read Joanne Hanks’ “It’s Not About the Sex My A**.” Smith’s original, alleged “revelation” where God commands polygamy is found in Section 132 of the Mormon scripture book Doctrine and Covenants.

  • Cody Quirk
  • The_Fixer

    The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claim to prove it. It’s not up to me to disprove the existence of a god, it’s up to the believer to prove it.

    If I claim that my 1990 Chevrolet Cavalier can levitate and fly around like a plane, someone would demand proof. That’s because the science of flight says that without wings and appropriate other hardware, it can’t. It’s not up to others to disprove that it can’t, it’s up to me to prove it. That’s because it’s common knowledge that something needs wings to fly.

    The default position with any extraordinary claim made is that it is unproven and in order to be an accepted fact, it has to be proven. Religions have never been able to do that, so the default position stands: It ain’t true until or unless it is proven.

  • Cody Quirk

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Blood_atonement
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Crime_and_violence_in_Utah

    What violence?

    Plus when compared to the many violent sermons as preached by protestant leaders and pre-millennialist religious leaders in 19th century America, Brigham was quite moderate.

    Oh, and this-
    http://en.fairmormon.org/One_Nation_Under_Gods/Use_of_sources/Brigham_and_bowie_knife

    Sorry, your arguments just aren’t working.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “the LDS Church has done a good job of renouncing it …”

    The LDS Church has never repented for their roll in the Mountain Meadows massacre.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “….you also forget the context of the timing of the massacre…”

    There’s no justification for the Mountain Meadows Massachusetts. You should hang your head in shame for trying to justify it, you should hang your head in shame for refusing to repudiate it.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “Yet you cannot renounce …”

    Cody is lying. He’s bearing false witness. He’s doing it for the LDS Church.

    I have and do renounce all acts of violence. Cody, on the other hand, only renounces those acts of violence directed against his tribe; he refuses absolutely to renounce the acts of violence committed by Mormons at the Mountain Meadows massacre. This is typical of cult members — they are functionally unable to find any fault with the cult.

  • Craig L. Foster

    Perhaps you did not realize numpty that Kolob is not a god in Mormon theology, it is a planet. It’s a little hard for Kolob to have “many malevolent moods and psychotic rumblings.”

    But blessings to you and your smug snottiness. Please feel free to continue to feel oh so superior as you barf your ignorance all over the Internet.

  • Jamon Clark

    my whole point is do your research…..

  • No no no, we can’t have that Nicho! Everything the Mormons and their founders did that was bad or criminal never happened and was terrible anti-religious bigotry and propaganda and everything bad reported to have happened TO them is 100% true because one Mormon-run wikipedia says so.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yet you cannot renounce the long-standing bias and prejudice unjustifiably leveled against the LDS church and it’s members for over a century, especially the sensationalist, laughable ones that you level against it too.

    BTW, you also forget the context of the timing of the massacre- Utah was in a state of war with the federal government, the Saints were paranoid that they were going to get exterminated, and the Fancher-Baker wagon train coming through had the locals even more on edge with rumors swirling of the hostility of members of the train towards the locals.
    And after the massacre happened, the church and locals cooperated with the federal government, even if the local members and leaders did hide their roles in the massacre from the feds and BY himself.

    Besides, the LDS Church has done a good job of renouncing it and shedding more light upon the circumstances alone.

    I’m a Libertarian, and one that believes that both evolution and the creation of the universe as talked about in the scriptures go hand in hand. I’m not the vile brainwashed one here.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    FAIR is a bunch of apologists devoted to defending Mormonism. And nothing they say can change the fact that Brigham Young taught and practiced violence.

    The fact that you refuse to repudiate the cold-blooded murders that your church and its members committed at Mountain Meadows show just how negatively the LDS Church affect the moral compass of its member.

    Here’s another example of the hate/violence that Brigham Young taught .. and that religious fanatics like Cody Quirk refuse to repudiate:

    “I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath [sic] my bowie knife, and conquer or die [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.]. Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet [Voices, generally, ‘go it, go it.’]. If you say it is right, raise your hands [All hands up.]. Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 83; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-16.html

  • Jamon Clark

    Exactly…do some research….

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    What “distorted criticisms?”

    Just because someone disagrees with you, or criticizes your church doesn’t make them a “bigot.” Religion isn’t your pass to assert stupid stuff.

    But when you paint all critics as bigots simply because someone, somewhere vandalized a church building *you* are being the bigot.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Here’s an example of how the LDS Church has lied about polygamy:

    Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pg. 909 (September 1, 1842)
    “All legal contracts of marriage made before a preson is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.”

    More quotations examples can be found here:

    http://www.mormonismi.net/jamesdavid/denpract.htm

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “The old RLDS church also repudiated a lot of the accuracy of the Book of Mormon .”

    The Book of Mormon doesn’t have any non-trivial “accuracy.” It’s a clumsy fraud. Anyone with a three-digit IQ, an ounce of intellectual honesty, and access to a decent library knows that.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “….14 was considered a legal age….”

    What difference does that make? Slavery was legal, too. We’re talking about morality, here. You seem to think that if 14 years was legal, then it was moral.

    Even your own Book of Mormon says Joseph Smith was an abomination:

    “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” [Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24]

    https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/2.24?lang=eng#23

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    For the forth or fifth time, Cody, nobody is saying the church had never admitted that Smith practiced polygamy.

    What the church has never admitted before, in public, is that Smith committed adultery by “marrying” other men’s wives, and that he was a child abuser who “married” little 14-year-old girls.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You stepped in it, Cody, trying to defend the sexual predator who founded your church.

  • Cody Quirk
  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    You need to stop posting links without reading them, Cody.

    Mormons were not “driven” out of Nauvoo as evidenced by the fact that thousands stayed.

    You’re confused by the persecution complex with which you have been brainwashed — as evidenced by the fact you won’t even repudiate the cold-blooded murders at Mountain Meadows, committed by your church.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, and links to left-wing, poorly researched websites also help the arguments against the LDS faith?

    Especially if it’s political and religious bias is quite apparent.

  • Cody Quirk

    Actually with how you couldn’t refute the links I posted in the comment thread of a previous article, you’re the one losing it and cannot substantiate that fact that the distorted criticisms of the LDS faith here are lacking in merit and solid evidence while highlighted the biases and irrational hatred of anything Mormon.

    Maybe you should go back to your trough?

  • Cody Quirk

    Wrong, many LDS leaders and scholars did admit that Joseph practiced polygamy long before. Again those FAIR articles that talk about it came out long before the Church did.
    And again, 14 was considered a legal age to marry back then, and no matter how you distort it, you cannot refute the context of the social factors of American society and law back then.

  • Cody Quirk

    No, you just keeping showing why people can’t take you seriously. Yet I enjoy keeping you on your toes and making you waste your time on here.

  • Cody Quirk

    Wrong. This is why they left-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauvoo,_Illinois#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus

    The old RLDS church also repudiated a lot of the accuracy of the Book of Mormon and also tried to claim that Joseph Smith NEVER practiced polygamy, lol.

  • Cody Quirk

    However, evolutionists still cannot scientifically prove that god, or a higher spiritual power, doesn’t exist. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that.

  • Cody Quirk

    I was never home schooled and I have a college education.

  • Cody Quirk

    Yeah, and you and the other bigots are a good representative of it?

  • The_Fixer

    Or the one that we used to be a pile of goo that turned into a fish-frog
    that then turned into a monkey-squirrel that then became us?

    Well, you haven’t exactly got evolution right, but evolution is based in fact, provable with science. However, none of the religions can make that claim.

  • Cody Quirk

    Hey, you praise anything that bashes the LDS faith, even if it lacks evidence and merit, and also think the LGBT community is being persecuted by the LDS Church when it fact it is the other way around.

  • Cody Quirk

    Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Enjoy.

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Blacks_and_the_priesthood

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_prophets/Revelation_after_Joseph_Smith/Do_modern_prophets_prophesy

    Speaking of human bigotry, we could talk about the origins of the Southern Baptist Convention and how, like many of the southern protestant denominations included, supported slavery, white supremacy, and segregation. In fact, unlike the LDS Church, they were big supporters of the KKK in the 1920’s and didn’t repudiate the racist language in their church documents until the 90’s.

  • Cody Quirk

    How about the one about the bearded dude talking to the burning bush? Or the one that we used to be a pile of goo that turned into a fish-frog that then turned into a monkey-squirrel that then became us?

  • Cody Quirk

    There’s no evidence that a tea cup can’t orbit around the sun, but I bash anyone that believes it because I have no respect or consideration for how others believe. See?

  • 2karmanot

    “That is a sign of maturity and decency.” Perhaps, but most likely it is a sign of compassion. The delusions about the divine that give one a sense of belonging and meaning are sacrosanct to the dignity of the supplicant and most people, even lucid critics, give humane consideration to such. However, the dogma and detritus of religion is fair game for the intellectual scrutiny of reason in the pursuit of truth. So, may god bless you my dear, give you your own personal planet, the blessings of Kolob, and may his many malevolent moods and psychotic rumblings throughout human history pass by you and those you love.

  • Cody Quirk

    Well if God forced Joseph to translate it in Japanese in a country where almost no one spoke it then- would it still accomplish the goal of getting converts or growing the church there in general?

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “… not the church itself…”

    That’s simply false. Brigham Young was the president of the church and he shameless preached acts of violence. Here is a link some examples (which I’m sure you *won’t* repudiate at all):

    http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/bagley.htm

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    I read the whole thing, it’s actually a easier read then the bible, and a bit too complex for a poorly educated farm boy to completely fabricate.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I knew you couldn’t do it. I knew that you, a brainwashed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just couldn’t bring yourself to repudiate the cold-blooded murders committed by your church *and* its members at Mountain Meadow’s massacre.

    Cody Quirk wrote “Do you renounce ….”

    Yes. Every bit of it. I’m not a crazed religious fanatic like you, Cody. I renounce the violence on both sides. You only renounce the violence on *one* side.

  • Cody Quirk

    So a inaccurate evangelical anti-Mormon cartoon knows the LDS faith better then LDS do?

    http://en.fairmormon.org/The_Godmakers:Cartoon

  • The_Fixer

    Why would any person who has an education, values logic, lives in the modern world and has an interest in science want to spend time reading a book that they view as conceptually flawed?

    I was raised Catholic, got out of that nightmare and looked at other religions in an effort to find “the truth”. All is got me is a lot of wasted time. As soon as I realized that the concept of a supreme being was at odds with what I observed in the world around me, and what I knew of science, the jig was up. There was no need to read any one of their books, other than to point out their flaws to believers.

    So, thanks for the invite, but I won’t be doing so. This is not specifically to pick on Mormons, I don’t read the Koran or any other religious texts. Good grief, I’ve read enough of the bible to know that there’s no need to read any more of it.

  • Cody Quirk

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism#Violence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Proposition_8_supporters#Death_threats_and_vandalism

    It was more then just a ‘few isolated incidents’ of vandalism.

    I also forgot to include the various envelopes of white powder mailed to the LDS temples in California and Utah.

    Prop 8 would’ve only prohibited same-sex marriage and NOT civil unions, NOR would it have denied medical and financial benefits to same-sex couples that are legal under California law you idiot!

    You are the fascist bigot that cannot respect one’s first amendment rights when they don’t agree with you!
    BTW, marriage is a privilege and not a ‘civil right’, otherwise we should indeed legalize polygamy too.

  • Craig L. Foster

    Like rats coming out of the woodwork, a bunch of religious bigots have raised their ugly heads and slithered out of the dark.

    I obviously do not believe the tenets of other religions but have enough courtesy to not make snide comments about beliefs, practices, dress, etc. I do not attack because I realize that these beliefs, etc. are held dear by believers. Furthermore, even though I certainly do not agree with atheism, I do not write snotty attacks.

    This doesn’t make me special. There are numerous people of all faiths who, while not believing nor agreeing with other faith traditions, are polite about others’ beliefs. That is a sign of maturity and decency. Too bad that has not been displayed here.

    I now await the rude comments and personal attacks.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: ” I haven’t mentioned why we had to flee Missouri or Nauvoo….”

    The Mormons who left Nauvoo were the ones loyal to Brigham Young, and they left because they were tired of being told to obey the laws of the United States of America.

    A very large contingent remained in Nauvoo, obeyed the law, and got along fine with everyone. They were called the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” They repudiated the adultery/child abuse of Smith, repudiated polygamy, and are now known as the Community of Christ.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ

  • FatRat

    I preferred Battlestar Galactica.
    http://endtimesjournal.tripod.com/mormonsinspace.htm

    MORMONS IN SPACE
    (a.k.a. Battlestar Galactica)

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “Plus 14 years old was the Age of Consent back then…”

    Bwwwaaaaahhhh.

    You just admitted that your founding prophet was no better than Edgar Allen Poe.

    Bwwwaaaahhhh.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “And again, the Church never denied that Joseph Smith was a polygamist…”

    That’s not in dispute. My point is that your church has never, until now, admitted that Joseph Smith was an adulterer who “married” other men’s wives and a child abuser who “married” little 14-year-old girls.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody wrote: “Actually you are the bigot here, pig.”

    You’re losing it, Cody. Just because you believe in something stupid doesn’t mean I’m a bigot for disagreeing with you.

    The fact that you scream “bigot” in such situations simply shows that you understand full well how indefensible your position is.

  • The_Fixer

    Thanks for posting that, it was great.

  • Cody Quirk

    They were committed by members of the church, but not the church itself- Brigham tried to stop the massacre.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

    Do you renounce the violent persecution against the LDS faith that drove it into Utah?
    Do you renounce what happened at Haun’s Mill?

  • Cody Quirk

    http://www.heraldnet.com/artic

    http://www.denverpost.com/comm

    http://www.veooz.com/news/2mXg

    Also-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism#Violence

    And those incidents were caused by those drumming up bigotry against the LDS faith. Then again I haven’t mentioned why we had to flee Missouri or Nauvoo, I also haven’t mention how the terrorist attacks against our missionaries and chapels in South America were also instigated by Ed Decker’s tour of that continent, telling everyone that LDS missionaries were CIA agents.

    Actually you are the bigot here, pig.

    And again, the Church never denied that Joseph Smith was a polygamist- in fact those FAIR links on his wives I included were on the website long before the church officially came out about it.

    Plus 14 years old was the Age of Consent back then- Edgar Allen Poe married his 14 year-old cousin. However there is no solid proof that Joseph ever had sexual relations with her, in fact there is little solid proof that he had sexual relations with any of his plural wives at all.

    Nice try, but you are the one brainwashed by the bigotry and militant LGBT propaganda against the Mormon faith.

  • Craig L. Foster

    Hound, I was commenting on Green’s list of sources.

    I did not provide the above links. That was another poster. Perhaps you should read just a wee bit more carefully before responding to something of which you are obviously unaware.

  • 2karmanot

    “and women are allowed” Seriously? You fail to see the irony here?

  • 2karmanot

    Are you joking sayeth I, who am unto myself am a revelation?

  • nicho

    Not only that. Just before Jos. Smith had the super-secret temple ceremony “revealed” to him, the new Masonic Ritual (also super-secret) was enacted. The Mormon ritual is pretty close to the Masonic one — even to the point of inviting people to kill you if you revealed the secret. So, the deity must have been recycling. The other thing Mormons like to forget is the blood oath that was required in the temple. This was an oath to overthrow the US government. That was done away with under pressure (another “revelation”) but there are still a few Mormons walking around who took the oath.

  • 2karmanot

    “what have you got to lose?” A bad migraine? If Mormonism lasts a thousand years. it too may become as insidious and evil as Catholicism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1xvdZMC10

  • nicho

    So, the question is how many propaganda posts a Mormon needs to make to earn his Temple Recommend. Cody must be pretty close by now. You have to be pretty suspicious of a “church” that has super-secret ceremonies that can’t be attended by all members. Every other religious organization I know of is encouraging people to attend — not making them jump through hoops to get a special pass.

  • The_Fixer

    More like “somewhat deranged man who thinks that a God talks to him.”

    Which handily describes any and all “prophets” venerated by any and all religions.

  • MKR

    I notice below you used many “sources” for your blog. However, you made a huge error in the article, which causes me to question pretty much everything you wrote. You say, “every member of the religion spends two years spreading the faith through missionary work.” Sorry, that’s just not true. While missionary work is encouraged, no one is required to spend two years doing missionary work and not every member does. You might want to 1. talk to some actual Mormons while researching in the future and 2. make sure what you write is accurate, as this post surely isn’t accurate.

  • 2karmanot

    “divine prophet of God” God? ROTFL!

  • nicho

    It serves about as well as believing that Jesus took a long weekend in Branson, MO after the crucifixion.

  • Jamon Clark

    I hope you have found happiness in your belief and that it serves you well

  • Dave of the Jungle

    There’s no evidence that there isn’t a tea cup in orbit around the sun but I say there is so there is. See?

  • Jamon Clark

    there is no evidence of a lack of God, however the Book of Mormon is the evidence that there is a God. If you find out the Book of Mormon is true then you will know that God is real, if you have read it and studied it and found it to be false then you are right where you are….what have you got to lose?

  • nicho

    What Mormons really believe. This will give you a chuckle for the day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSlbuli7HM

  • nicho

    No, forming an opinion about someone’s actions is not “prejudice.” When a secret cult spends millions of dollars to spread lies and misinformation in an attempt to take away my civil and human rights, I am free to criticize them for the corrupt and hateful organization they are.

  • Dave of the Jungle

    Interesting that it’s written in the same English as the King James Bible. I guess that makes it sound more “official.” For me, it makes it merely an obvious fraud.

  • That’s a great question. It’s one I’ve been asking for some time now. When I pray about it, this scripture always comes to mind:

    “And it came to pass at the end of four years that the Lord came again unto the brother of Jared, and stood in a cloud and talked with him. And for the space of three hours did the Lord talk with the brother of Jared, and chastened him because he remembered not to call upon the name of the Lord.” – Ether 2: 14

  • Dave of the Jungle

    Indeed.

  • nicho

    Great minds, etc.

  • nicho

    Wow — The Mormon Cult Rapid Response Team moved into high gear pretty quickly. It’s amazing how someone telling the truth about them gets their magic undies in a mighty twist.

    Shall we move on to the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Mormon terrorist attack on settlers?

  • Dave of the Jungle

    Far be it from me to even mention the Mountain Meadows Massacre at such a time.

  • nicho

    Please read the Book of Mormon

    Have you read that thing? It’s a sophomoric attempt to replicate the bible — but with even weirder stories. Most of it is just gibberish. If you took out all the “And so it came to pass” and similar filler words, it would be 20 pages long.

  • Since there is no evidence for the existence of god, I’m going to have to claim that he is not a prophet of this unproven deity. I reject it like I reject all other theistic claims. Please provide proof that it is true other than just what’s in your book.

  • It’s funny that you reference scholarly writing when you only provide links to a single, highly-biased website. That wouldn’t even pass muster in a high school English class much less “scholarly writing”.

  • Rather than try to unpack the word salad in the blog to which you have linked, I will only ask one question: there was divine revelation in the past but no longer? Why? Why would they not continue?

  • Jamon Clark

    There is nothing odd about the revelation…. either Joseph Smith is a divine prophet of God or he is not. The Proof is in the Book of Mormon. Please read the Book of Mormon not some works cited list, read the actual book then you can properly begin to understand Mormonism. Until then your list is left wanting.. What you failed to mention on the odd list is how important being sealed to a family in the mormon church is. So please do not try to pretend this is fair or some semblance of journalism by hiding behind some works cited list and being taken out of context. Read the Book of Mormon and then you can have the privilege of writing about Mormonism where your words will be taken with respect, Based on the article, EVERY high school seminary educated Mormon and scholar of mormonism (whether member or not) is reading this and sees how poor your research and understanding is. I am embarrassed for you.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    I renounce the vandalism, Cody. Do you renounce the cold-blooded murders committed by your church when Mormons butchered over 100 men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows?

    http://www.amazon.com/Massacre-Mountain-Meadows-Ronald-Walker/dp/0199747563

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Thank you, Cody, for demonstrating your status as a brainwashed LDS member. No Mormons can answer the question I put forward…. they are brainwashed (as you have demonstrated) to the point that they cannot conceive of the possibility that their church is false.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…. especially when it came to the LDS chapels that were vandalized…”

    You’re the bigot, Cody, for lumping anyone who criticizes your church in with a few “vandals.”

    Cody Quirk wrote: “…. the LDS Church never denied ….”

    The LDS Church has *never* admitted, until now, that Smith was an adulterer who “married” other men’s wives, and a child abuser, who “married” little 14-year-old girls.

  • There was no revelation from God to stop blacks from holding the office of the priesthood, that was a man made rule God commanded us to stop – human bigotry. And yes, the articles the Church is putting out are odd, unless you know the reasons why, the real reasons. And that would be to hide the fact the the Church no longer receives revelation from God. (This also explains the overuse of the word “revelation.”) To learn more on God’s views on polygamy and what the Church leaders are hiding, follow the link below.

    http://learnaboutchrist.info/polygamy-is-not-a-sin-breaking-mans-laws-is/

  • Craig L. Foster

    Mr. Green, I congratulate you for using a number of sources in your lovely little essay.

    However, you obviously and certainly painfully fail to understand some fundamentals of scholarly writing.

    First, it helps to actually cite sources. Nice that you provide a link but when the link goes to Amazon.com it leaves one wondering whether you actually read the book such as Under the Banner of Heaven. Did you read it? if so, please actually give the page numbers that you are supposedly referring to.

    Second, it helps to be able to differentiate between friendly and critical sources and then note those differences. You seem to give the same credibility to each and every source, regardless of potential biases and problems with accuracy. An example would be Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great” from Slate.

    Third, it’s nice to give a little context to what you are writing, particularly using actual scholarly sources like Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, Brian Hales’ three volume work titled Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, or Bringhurst and Foster, The Persistence of Polygamy. These works discuss in detail Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, the beginnings of Mormonism and other pertinent subjects and would have given you a better understanding of Smith and early Mormonism. These sources wold have been better than Slate, Cracked, and Wikipedia.

    Finally and most importantly, it really doesn’t matter what sources you use if you are going to approach a subject like biased neophyte. For the most part, your sources were fine. It was your poison-penned analysis that made an at best mediocre essay downright pathetic. All this essay really showed was lack of scholarship on your part and an embarrassing anti-Mormon bigotry.

    I would suggest that you stick to writing about politics but, quite frankly, after reading this sad bit of yellow journalism, I have no desire to read anything else you have written because I will not know what to believe. Furthermore, I know to take pretty much anything americablog publishes with a very large grain of salt.

  • Bcre8ve

    “yet the raw evidence does not at all point to the LDS church, or Joseph Smith, being a complete sham”

    OK. Now we’re getting somewhere! So you acknowledge that he was at least partially a sham. This is progress!

  • Bcre8ve

    Links to the same website, over and over, is not the same thing as a rebuttal. Especially if it is that website.

  • Bcre8ve

    And then, of course, there is “Lying for the Lord” – official LDS Church

    “Other manifestations of Mormonism’s theocratic ethics would soon begin
    in Kirkland and continue intermittently for decades – the official
    denials of actual events, the alternating condemnation and tolerance for
    counterfeiting and stealing from non-Mormons, threats and physical
    attacks against dissenters or other alleged enemies, the killing and
    castration of sex offenders, the killing of anti-Mormons, the bribery of
    government officials, and business ethics at odds with church
    standards.””

    doctrinehttp://www.exmormon.org/lying.htm
    And, in that case, nothing you say can be taken as the actual truth. (And yes, I did read your site about this concept, and they, after saying that it didn’t exist, and that even if it did exist, it was only remarkable because otherwise they had a reputation for such honesty – then goes on to conjure up scenarios where “conflicting morals” obviate the need for lying, and that some lies were SO big, and SO public, that they couldn’t have been lies, because nobody would be that stupid (so he must have been misunderstood!). Just like every liar.

  • Bcre8ve

    Must be all the home schooling.

  • Bcre8ve

    Exactly. Whenever I hear these comparisons I think, “Did Obama go house to house, in one city, slaughtering every man, woman and child, to the tune of 200,000 souls, to retaliate for an “uprising” after he invaded their sovereign territory? Then try to act like some sort of patron of the masses by returning the embalmed heart of their favorite composer in a ceremony meant to legitimize their occupation?”

    Yeah. Exactly like the Nazis. And the Holocaust. And Pol Pot. And Stalin. And that bad guy from those horror movies…..

  • Bcre8ve

    Seriously? “I think you’re an a**h*le, so I am here to be an a**h*le in response?”

    There’s some Christian brotherhood and turning the other cheek for ya’!

  • Bcre8ve

    With their ever-changing target of what “traditional” marriage is, no less. What next? Biblical child brides? Biblical slaves to carry your children? Biblical rape for the purpose of procreation? But what is important to remember (supposedly) is that it is Biblical, so that makes it OK. To some.

  • Bcre8ve

    And you, of course, are exceedingly objective. Right?

  • blzlovr
  • DONELLA FLORENCE

    I am enjoy read this Answered thanks to admin share this information with us.

    Plab 1 Books

  • So a bombing in 2010 is directly linked to Prop 8 because reasons?

    Also, vandalism and arson are crimes. Whoever does such things should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Meanwhile, your church funded a ballot initiative (both directly and indirectly while taking measures to hid their involvement) to strip rights away from gay people. So fuck you. You’re the bigot here and you have a lot of nerve being such a hypocritical douchebag.

  • LOL. And now you’re doing exactly what you accuse other’s of doing.

  • The_Fixer

    Perhaps you can explain to us how people are trying to turn atheism into a “church-like faith.”

    Faith is not what atheism operates on, it’s the polar opposite.

  • Kurt

    Cody, I’m glad to see your posts on here. Usually, I just see anti-mormon people citing anti-mormon garbage in comments. I haven’t read all your posts, but I’m glad to see some defense of mormons is going on. Keep it up!

  • Cody Quirk

    Word ;)

  • Cody Quirk

    More ad hominem pouting and baseless temper-tantrums I see.

    What’s the matter? Don’t like your bigotry getting refuted?

  • quax

    “Americans, nor Mormons, killed 6 million Jews.”

    You don’t say?

    I can see you really are clearly in command of your history facts.

  • Cody Quirk

    So do many Mormons that don’t waste their time here with irrational simpletons that think they know LDS doctrine and history better then Mormons themselves do.

    However I’m a exception, I can get knee-deep in the mud with the other bigots here. Word of advice- if you don’t like the taste of what you dish out, then don’t dish it out in the first place.

  • quax

    Congrats. First good point you made.

  • Cody Quirk

    Americans, nor Mormons, killed 6 million Jews.

    Plus the Missouri government tried to exterminate the Mormon people in the first place.

  • Cody Quirk

    I should ask likewise.

  • quax

    As a German it always astounds me how quickly some Americans of various kind love to compare their petty grievances to a genocide of unimaginable scope and scale.

    Take a deep look in the mirror an read that last line of your comment back to yourself.

  • FAIR is a group that has the explicit goal of defending any and all criticism of the LDS church and whitewashing the historical record, portraying themselves as a persecuted class with a prophet who martyred himself, crying ‘prejudice’ any time someone dares question anything about them. Seems to me that they have to have a group dedicated to apologetics is in itself is laughable, and by design has absolutely no impetus to offer impartial advice, nor reasoned arguments.

  • ‘Attacks’ is the operative word, and why I chose not to dive into the one-source swamp with you. I literally do have far better things to do with my time than argue with someone whose responses are self-described as attacks.

  • Cody Quirk

    You are correct about the Street Preachers, however much of what the Wikipedia and objective sources say about LDS history verifies the majority of the stuff on FAIR. Furthermore a lot of the ‘documented history’ of early Polygamy that is paraded by secular researchers is based off of second-hand accounts and speculative evidence, especially when it comes to some researchers that claim that Joseph Smith was committing serial adultery, or breaking the law constantly- never mind that many never consider the context back then that many of the various state and local legal authorities attempt to go after and/or try Smith, or his followers, were deeply biased against him and his movement to the point that they used any speculative or unsubstantiated evidence against him- or even fabricated evidence themselves to try him.

    The issue of his 1826 “Glass Looking” trial is a good example of something that was a mere hearing instigated by Josiah Stowel’s family against Smith- which he was never tried, and was acquitted… Yet was greatly exaggerated and trumped up by critics of the Church later on.

  • What gives you the right to lecture me?

  • Cody Quirk

    Just like there’s nothing sensational about mankind getting started by a couple that got kicked out of a garden for eating a piece of fruit, or a burning bush that spoke to Moses, or a whole sea parting for a group of people, etc.

  • Cody Quirk

    The majority of your links do not report on the LDS Church in a objective manner at all- that includes ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’, ‘Patheos’, ‘Cracked’,’Slate’, etc. And you also distort what the LDS church talks about in their statements and teachings.

    You article reeks of poorly researched prejudice, making you no better then the ranting anti-Semite .

    BTW-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Specific_works/Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

  • Cody Quirk

    Excuses excuses.

    Funny, when one Mormon responds to your posts & attacks in detail, you back down.

    Suit yourself.

  • Cody Quirk

    What gives you the right to dictate how a religious group should govern itself?

    BTW, while there is no ‘female priesthood’ in the LDS Church, there are female leaders and women are allowed to give prayers and sermons in our church.
    And unlike the many hardcore fundamentalist churches that think that women should be entirely subservient to men, along with discouraging them from working or staying single- we do and advocate for no such thing and were one of the earliest religious institutions to advocate for women suffrage.

  • EdA

    It should be noted, in some refutation of explanation (b) that polygamy was pretty common in the Middle East/North Africa during the times that Judaism and Islam were getting started and that some faith traditions, e.g., Shakers, most decidedly did not advocate plural marriages.

    Although a bit of a tangent,given the context of the discussion, it’s worth noting that even though Mitt Romney presumably knew that his own personal grandfather was the child of a polygamous marriage, as governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts he did not hesitate to repeat endlessly that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman (so which one of his great-grandfather’s marriages was valid) — and also, of course, to invoke an old law whose intent was interracial couples who came from the slave states of the former Confederacy from getting married in Massachusetts. Earlier in his distinguished career, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch had claimed that he would be a better advocate of equal rights than Ted Kennedy.

  • It may or may not be worth pointing out that my sources are:

    – The LDS Church’s official website
    – Slate (as a criticism)
    – The LDS Church’s official website (again)
    – The LDS Church’s official website (again again)
    – Biblegateway/Biblehub (for scripture)
    – USA Today
    – Brigham Young University
    – Cracked (account of a Mormon missionary)
    – Americablog
    – Under the Banner of Heaven (via Amazon)
    – Slate
    – Patheos
    – Wikipedia
    – Brigham Young University (again)
    – The New York Times
    – Americablog (again)

    I’ll know better next time than to think that BYU is anything other than a “biased, sensationalist” interpretation of LDS history.

  • SoundOn

    I’ve shown Tornogal to ignore the encyclopedia and dictionary and here he is trying to teach you how to avoid a brainwashing. That’s funny.

  • SoundOn

    Keep going, you forgot all the stuff in the bible that Mormons believe in like talking donkeys, virgin births, people being raised from the dead. Now isn’t Joseph Smith starting to resemble biblical prophets like Abraham?

  • It’s called a Patriarchy for a reason, and women like me have been fighting against such cultural constructs our entire lives.

  • Not “can’t.” It’s won’t.

    Because you are not worth my time, bub.

  • Gordo B Hinko

    I concede. You win. There is nothing sensational at all about an angel with a flaming sword commanding a man to marry 40 women, golden plates, peep stones….

  • Mark

    Today, the two groups who most misrepresent Joseph Smith are Evangelical street preachers and the LDS church. Both groups proof-text his writing to show the point they want and neither has much bearing on reality. I highly encourage you to go read up on some primary sources. A lot of incriminating stuff is in his own handwriting.

    Most researchers aren’t biased. 95% of people are telling the same story. People like FAIR are in the extreme minority on their views of JS. And they don’t even claim to be trying to be unbiased researchers, they’re claiming they’re trying to make the LDS church look good. Why would you ever start your research with a group who has their conclusions before they ever look at the evidence?

  • Cody Quirk

    And with all those legal ramifications and increasing opposition against polygamy by the U.S. government then, do you blame them for caving and doing away with plural marriage?

    Woodruff stated that he inquired of the Lord of what to do about the increasing ramifications and persecution of the Church, and the Lord purportedly showed him the consequences of what would happen if they did not issue the manifesto and certainly gave him His blessing to finally do away with the practice of plural marriage.

    Whether God actually instructed Woodruff to cease the practice then, or the LDS Church simply engineered a clever PR stunt- is a matter of speculation/debate in a objective standpoint.

    However, if it was Joseph Smith’s intention to start a new religion for the sake of having multiple concubines and commit serial adultery- then why wasn’t polygamy introduced earlier in the LDS church then, and why was it so complex and selectively practiced then? And why would a serial adulterer endure all that violence and persecution against him and his followers, to the point that he died for it?

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Lustful_motives

  • Cody Quirk

    Actually you are the one that’s been brainwashed in your vile prejudice.

    The LDS Church’s history and it’s present and past leaders are not 100% perfect, but I have researched enough to know that the overwhelming majority of claims and arguments against it are biased and sensationalist, as is this article.

  • Cody Quirk

    LOL, it also includes non-church sources and material, and yet you can’t even refute my url links in the first place.

  • Cody Quirk

    “A normal, rational person is able/willing to allow the possibility that they are wrong, and that they’ve made a mistake. A normal, rational person is willing to describe the verifiable, objective, and specific facts that, if they existed, would be enough for them to change their mind. Brainwashed persons, on the other hand, can’t do that.”

    Yeah, you don’t fit that above description, for one you are not objective in your personal study of the LDS Church.

    It may not have a perfect history, nor are it’s present and past leaders entirely perfect in their personal character or even their conduct, yet the raw evidence does not at all point to the LDS church, or Joseph Smith, being a complete sham- many LDS leaders and members admit the former, which therefore shows that we are actually more balanced and informed then people like you.

    Plus with a faith as established and as complex as the LDS church, along with detail evidence proving that it is NOT fraud- I highly doubt someone as biased and ignorant as you can prove it as you claim it is.

  • Gordo B Hinko

    Haha…if you are citing the FAIR website, then you are beyond brainwashed by the LDS church, my friend. I hope that you someday clearly see the LDS church for the fraud that it is.

  • The part I find amusing is how Cody links again and again and again to the same website, as if a single source — a self-referential wikipedia with an obvious pro-Mormon agenda, founded by Mormons on a mission to defend their religion — is irrefutable all by itself.

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    Yet you’re defending gay prejudice against the LDS Church.

    Hmmmmmmm.

  • Cody Quirk

    At that Extermination Order issued by Governor Boggs would be legal too?

  • Cody Quirk

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues

    Yet many times he cooperated with the authorities legally when they were treating him properly, and the fact that the Saints in Missouri were so actively persecuted that they couldn’t go through the courts and were forced to take up arms to defend themselves, hence why he and his followers had to move often, because their constitutional and legal rights were continuously violated by the various legal authorities that were supposed to hold up such rights and support the law, yet didn’t when they wanted to resort to drastic measures against a individual or group of people that were not popular with public opinion at the time.

    In fact with how common racial and religious prejudice was in America back then, one couldn’t always deal with this dilemma through the courts alone.

    That last time, he surrendered himself to the authorities and ended up being murdered simply for following the law by waiting in jail for the trial.

  • Cody Quirk

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues

    Many of these charges were fabricated or trumped up by his enemies and enemies of the LDS Church.

    BTW, the FLDS Church is a apostate sect that broke off when some members refused to accept the 1890 Manifesto and wanted to continue practicing polygamy, so you are comparing apples with rotten oranges.

    Joseph also was killed for his faith after surrendering himself to the biased legal charges against him, while Warren ran away like a coward and after getting caught, actually admitted that he was a false prophet.

    Or course you are quick to claim that most researchers are lying and that only ‘certain people and sources’, which are biased and inaccurate in their study of LDS doctrine and history, which further shows your lack of accuracy.

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    Do you think you would be prejudiced against a religion if you rejected any arguments in favor of it?

  • Cody Quirk

    It’s funny because that’s how neo-nazis reject the evidence of the Holocaust; they scream “LIES!” “PROPAGANDA!”.

    BTW-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8

    Get a clue, bigot.

  • nicho

    Cody is spending a lot of time on a gay website. Hmmmmmm.

  • Cody Quirk
  • nicho

    Do you have links to those firebombings?

  • nicho

    Wow. Looks like the cult leaders spent almost as much money on this propaganda site as they did spreading lies and misinformation in California trying to take away people’s civil and human rights.

  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk
  • Cody Quirk

    False Prophets like the many evangelical pastors and their churches out there that falsely predict when the rapture and the end of the world are going to happen.

  • Cody Quirk

    I know bigotry when I see it, especially when it came to the LDS chapels that were vandalized and firebombed after the Prop. 8 vote.

    BTW, the LDS Church never denied that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, plus you didn’t answer my rebuttals in a comment thread of a previous article, in which you ran away like a coward.

  • nicho

    Mayb Mormons’ ignorance about their own cult can be explained by the fact that any Mormon who tries to write honestly about their history is excommunicated. Young Mormons get only the revisionist propaganda that we’re seeing here.

  • Cody Quirk

    Here are some url links that respond to your article’s allegations in detail-

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Not_Biblical

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Lustful_motives

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_issues/Trials/1826_glasslooking_trial/Con_man

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Money_digging

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/The_lost_116_pages

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Racial_statements_by_Church_leaders

    How laughable is it also that the sources you cite in your article are biased and sensationalist interpretations of LDS Church doctrine & history, which further ruins any form of accuracy that your piece could have, but doesn’t.

    However noting that you are a Democratic activist, I’ll be sure to pass your article along many LDS members and political activists that might consider joining your party, never mind that Utah Democrats are trying to reach out and grow their insignificant LDS base in that state- your article is justification as to why LDS should avoid, or should even consider leaving the Democratic Party, if they do happen to be members.

    And no, I am not a Republican, but I am well informed enough the the claims and allegations you make here are total crap and no better then any anti-Catholic or anti-Semetic bigotry.

    Which is what you are- a bigot.

  • nicho

    You too? I had the same revelation. Maybe we should start a church. Can we get a tax exemption?

  • Actually, Woodruff’s ‘revelation’ that polygamy was to be repudiated came about in large part because Utah Territory had applied — and failed — to be accepted as a state. So came the 1890 Manifesto, and in addition the Mormon-dominated territory government was required to write a polygamy ban into their state constitution as a condition for acceptance into the Union. (There was also the anti-LDS Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, which made it all but impossible for the Mormon church to operate as an organized religion, and it had been upheld precisely on the tenet that the church was promoting a crime in advocating for polygamy and performing plural marriages.)

    Joseph Smith however wasn’t the first con man to start a sex cult masquerading as a religion, and he won’t be the last. That’s one of the really great things about religion: You never have to prove that a supreme being actually told you what you claim he, she, it, or they did. Plus among the religious, it’s amazing how often their god hates the same people they do.

    With that, I assure you all that God has instructed me to start drinking early today. And not a one of you can prove otherwise.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    Funny how Mormons think they are hated when people disagree with them.

    Funny how Mormons think they know all about their history when they’ve been calling the critics “liars” for saying what the Mormon Church has finally admitted.

  • Kurt

    funny how everyone hates mormons… also funny that everyone’s an expert on mormons except mormons…

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    John, the LDS Church most definitely *does* brainwash it’s members, and I can demonstrate the fact with a little help from you.

    A normal, rational person is able/willing to allow the possibility that they are wrong, and that they’ve made a mistake. A normal, rational person is willing to describe the verifiable, objective, and specific facts that, if they existed, would be enough for them to change their mind. Brainwashed persons, on the other hand, can’t do that.

    John, what verifiable/objective/specific facts, if they existed, would be sufficient for you to admit the fraud of Mormonism?

    If you ignore/dodge the question then, by you’re actions, you’re demonstrating the fruits of LDS brainwashing.

  • David Tiffany
  • Those seer stones, Uma & Thurman were pretty amazing. They helped him find false treasure and then found a false religion. And then they lost their power and were retired to the LDS Hall of Fame. The polygamy part may have helped grow the cult, but the main driver was that Joseph Smith was a notorious horndog. He always kept his pants & boots close by.

  • Tornogal

    John,

    Do you think if you were a victim of brainwashing that you would know it?

  • Cody Quirk

    Not as fringe as the many wacky fundamentalist christian churches that attack it, or the growing movement to turn atheism into a church-like faith.

  • Gordo B Hinko

    Good for you for traveling around the globe. It sounds like you won’t be convinced otherwise, but most people would quickly recognize, for myriad of reasons, that the LDS church is nothing more than a fringe cult.

  • Hue-Man

    Warren Jeffs’ followers in Canada:

    On Wednesday, B.C.’s Criminal Justice Branch (CJB) announced that, on recommendations from the RCMP and on the advice of a Special Prosecutor appointed by the province’s Attorney General, Mr. Blackmore and another man, James Oler, have each been charged with one count of polygamy. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/14/na0815-polygamy/

    Their cases will be heard December 4, 2014.

    “Also appearing in court were Emily Ruth Crossfield and her husband, Brandon James Blackmore, who is Blackmore’s son. They are charged with unlawfully removing a child under 16 from Canada with the intent that an offence of a sexual nature would be committed.”

    “The husband and wife are followers of Oler’s faction, which is believed
    to remain loyal to jailed American polygamist Warren Jeffs, who leads
    the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or FLDS.” http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Accused+polygamists+from+religious+sect+make+court+appearance/10278250/story.html

  • John

    I have travelled around the world and been part of various organisations and categorically say that the church does not brainwash as you claim. I so often find people making statements like: “This is probably the best, most honest article on the founding story of Mormonism” – you clearly have done little reading and to judge this article as one of the best of it’s kind. How do you know the accuracy of this article, what is your thinking based on?

  • whoinventedfreeride

    Sorry. You are misinformed. Joseph was convicted in 1826. BYU has verified this fact in an entire BYU Studies edition dedicated to the issue.

  • whoinventedfreeride

    You are misinformed. Joseph Smith was convicted in 1826 for disorderly conduct. You can verify this with the BYU Studies edition that covered the conviction in great detail. By Joseph’s own account, the 116 pages that Joseph lost were never replicated because he claimed the lost pages were from the book of “Lehi” and newly “translated” pages were from the book of “Nephi.” Joseph knew he couldn’t reproduce the pages and so he made up story to cover his behind.

  • whoinventedfreeride

    This is probably the best, most honest article on the founding story of Mormonism. The Mormon church is demonstrably a fraud and sadly, the victims of the fraud are its own members, of whom the church brainwashes weekly to keep them paying 10% of their income. Furthermore, members are tricked into living an unnecessarily Puritanical lifestyle–even a cup of coffee is “evil” in the eyes of Mormons. Sad stuff.

  • mirele

    Smith may not have been a con man, but he did have 30+ wives besides Emma Smith in a time when it was illegal. Some of those women were married to other men. Some of those women were not of legal age. The LDS Church has admitted to most of that, but one thing it has not admitted to is the following:

    What Joseph Smith did was WRONG.

    He violated the law. He violated the covenant he made with his first wife, Emma, to cleave to her only. He took the wives of other men. Zina D. Huntington Jacobs was seven months pregnant with her husband’s child when she was “sealed” to Smith. And Henry Jacobs was a church member! How was that respecting him? And she was only one of nearly a dozen women married to other men who Smith married.

    The church needs to come out and say that Joseph Smith was wrong for marrying all those women, but given how much of the church leadership is descended from polygamists, the chances of that happening are akin to those of hell freezing over.

  • His friends were the ones who would collect up money in their community to bail him out so he could flee the jurisdiction.

  • mirele

    Wikipedia says the following:

    In 1826 Smith was arrested and brought to court in Bainbridge, New York, on the complaint of Stowell’s nephew who accused Smith of being “a disorderly person and an imposter.”[74] Court records show that Smith, identified as “The Glass Looker,” stood before the court on March 20, 1826, on a warrant for an unspecified misdemeanor charge,[75] and that the judge issued a mittimus for Smith to be held, either during or after the proceedings.[76] Although Smith’s associate Oliver Cowdery later stated that Smith was “honorably acquitted,”[77] the result of the proceeding is unclear, with some claiming he was found guilty, others claiming he was “condemned” but “designedly allowed to escape,” and yet others (including the trial note taker) claiming he was “discharged” for lack of evidence.[76]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith#Treasure_hunting

  • John

    Joseph Smith was never convicted for a crime. Yes, he was brought before
    various judges for false reports of his character but was not once
    charged.

    The words of the 116 lost pages were never reproduced by Smith, this is also a false claim.

    There
    are others I could go into with this article but I’m frankly surprised
    that one with apparent educated status has published such
    inconsistencies and unfounded statements.

  • nicho

    In the Old Testament it was “feet” that was a euphemism for your junk.

  • Mark

    If you
    go and ask the FLDS, warren Jeffs isn’t guilty either. Don’t ask friends or
    enemies. They’re both going to lie to you. Go to disinterested third party
    historians. And if you ask them about JS, he is guilty of several crimes. Think
    of it like you’re buying a car: don’t ask the dealer or the competitor—they’re
    both going to misrepresent–go online and ask Kelly Bluebook.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

    1826 – Likely guilty of a minor charge (disorderly conduct) for claiming to be
    a glass looker, or someone who could use a seer stone to find buried treasure.
    But it was probably more of a $1 symbolic fine.

    1830 – Acquitted of disorderly conduct.

    1837 – Found guilty of illegal banking and fined $1,000.

    1837 – Acquitted of conspiracy for murder

    1838 – Fled charges of banking fraud. He was pretty clearly guilty.

    1838 – Smith led an armed group and threatened Judge Adam Black. Grand Jury
    found sufficient evidence to proceed with trial. Smith released on $500 bond.
    Fled trial (allowed to escape).

    1838 – Smith was indicted by a Grand Jury for treason (for burning down
    people’s homes in retaliation/escalation during the Mormon War of 1838). Fled
    trial (allowed to escape).

    1842 –
    Conspiracy for murder. Let go.

    1843 – Missouri
    Treason. Can of worms.

    1844 –
    Perjury, fornication, and polygamy. Killed before trial but pretty clearly
    guilty (if nothing else, the essays the church just published admit to the
    polygamy, which was a crime)

    1844 –
    Inciting a riot to destroy the Expositor. Killed before trial but pretty
    clearly guilty.

    1844 –
    Treason against Illinois. No bail granted. Killed before trial. This trial
    would have been interesting.

  • nicho

    Yeah, because his “friends” will tell you the truth. Pfft.

  • Probably because every time a warrant or writ against him went out, he’d flee to another jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. In a time when the law was in the hands of local judges, it was easy to avoid having to accept responsibility for his actions. But it is established historical fact that he had trouble with the law everywhere he went, was arrested multiple times, and had multiple warrants against him for fraud and treason. His shenanigans ultimately resulted in his own death, when the people he was defrauding grew tired of his exploits and took matters into their own hands.

  • 2patricius2

    Contestant, what is your answer? A, B, or C. I pick C: “The one suggested by the biography of the religion’s founder (Joseph Smith was a horny con man).”

  • Well…you see, “god” hasn’t made a revelation yet. I”m pretty sure it will when they look really stupid(er) in a few years. Sort of how it backpedaled on its racism.

  • They also had time on their side – literally. It’s one thing to believe a crazy man when you’re uneducated and don’t know any better. Joseph Smith followers don’t have the luxury of ignorance that many people thousands of years ago do.

  • He’d definitely be convicted today though. What a loser.

  • UncleBucky

    Holy Revelations, Batman!

  • UncleBucky

    Provo is a center for con-man defenders, no? I mean, just wondering?

  • UncleBucky

    Tsk, tsk, yeah, it’s really too bad. Poor Joseph Smith. He wasn’t a con-man… He was only one in a series of MLM schemers. :D

  • Why people claim Joseph Smith was “convicted” of being a so-called “con-man” is beyond me. Joseph Smith was never convicted of any crime in his life – not once. Anyone who says he was a “convicted con-man” is going to his enemies – & not to his friends – to learn about him. That’s like asking Judas Iscariot to teach you about Christ. All you’ll get is lies unless you go to Joseph’s friends to learn about him.

  • Hue-Man

    And all “old” religions were young once. The only difference is that the original con men have been dead for 2,000, 3,000 or 7,000 years! And yes, they were all men.

  • Indigo

    If there’s one topic I am genuinely indifferent to, it’s Momonry in all its wondrous manifestations.

  • 2karmanot

    “the angel came with a drawn sword,” Is that what Mormons call heavenly junk these days?

  • Rambie

    Because an angel tells them to. ;)

  • Anthony Shifflett

    I’m certain that given another 50 years they’ll join the rest of the country in supporting marriage for all. These revelations take time, you know.

  • Pat Padrnos

    Darn!! There you go again with one of those common sense questions!!

  • nicho

    How come the Mormons can “redefine marriage” — over and over — but no one else can?

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS