I find it shameful that my forefathers were involved in the cover-up for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Where are the Hill Cumorah battle remains mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Didn't Moroni supposedly bury the plates on the hill? Didn't Joseph Smith supposedly find the same plates on the same hill? Where are all the archaeological remnants of the battle and the hundreds of thousands that supposedly perished there? It wasn't that long ago, surely there must be some kind of evidence that it happened.Another major issue I find with LDS church doctrine that I feel warrants an apology:
Africans and the priesthood/interracial marriage:
16 January, 1852, recorded in Wilford Woodruff s journal Brigham Young said: "Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."
Really? I think that the founder/restorer of the LDS church saw it otherwise: http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=117
Brigham Young: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses 10:110)
Joseph Fielding Smith, 1963: "'Darkies' are wonderful people and they have their place in our church."
Brigham Young: February 5, 1852, address to the legislature: "We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed."
There you have it, according to the Prophet: June 9, 1978- the day the LDS church lost its priesthood authority.
Book of Abraham/Book of Mormon Translation: Joseph Smith claimed to translate, using a similar technique to his translation of the Book of Mormon (BOM), some ancient Egyptian texts into what is considered a part of LDS scripture; known as the Book of Abraham (BOA). The only problem is that 100 years later, some of these texts were re-discovered and translated by a team of Egyptologists and their content wasn't found to be at all the same. Despite the errors, the BOA is still a part of the Pearl of Great Price.
My conclusion: if JS lied about translating the BOA, he certainly could have been deceptive about the BOM. If it all stands or falls on the truth of the BOM, then I am of the opinion that this one thing makes the tower fall. Check out the Kinderhook Plates debacle for another example of JS making a mistake. Another item: JS translated the BOM by looking at a rock that he had placed in a hat: a quote from Russell M. Nelson printed in the Ensign in 1993: "Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light...
Links on the BOA: http://www.lds-mormon.com/abraham.shtml Academic analysis, including discussion on the various LDS attempts to legitimize the translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham Follow the links into some of the scholars that have studied this issue, notably Robert Ritner
Gordon Hinckley lies on national TV: Gordon Barnes Hinckley, president of the LDS church from 1995-2008, was very active in communicating with the media. On several occasions, he gave interviews wherein he either made deceptive statements or remarkable challenges that seem to indicate a pattern of misinformation.
Larry King Live, 12/26/2004 'The Church doesn't become involved in politics. ' I would say that this is an inherently untrue statement, as Hinckley who is honored and revered as an example to all the LDS faithful, had just professed his personal political preference: "Republican' For other examples of the LDS involvement in politics (both local and national, search out Equal Rights Amendment, Same-Gender civil unions (notably 2008's Proposition 8 battle in California), pari-mutual betting, Utah liquor laws and the Utah Legislature.
A major belief of Mormonism is the promise to men that if they are worthy and fulfill all of the necessary requirements in this life, they will be blessed in the afterlife with godhood. They will be able to be gods of their own universes and have multiple spirit wives and spend all their time being godly and breeding billions of spirit children to populate their universes just as God himself has done with this world and universe. In a Time Magazine interview, published in August of 1997, Hinckley denies this doctrine thus: 'I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.' WHAT??? If men can become gods, doesn't it stand to reason that God was once a man?
San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997 Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [from other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.
Here's the true church policy, taken straight from the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young- 1997 p. 29:
"... God the Father was once a man on another planet who 'passed the ordeals we are now passing through...'"
And then we have the big challenge: Hinckley places the entire weight of the church on the First Vision, wherein JS claimed to be visited by angels or something and they gave him the mandate to restore the ancient church or something. In an interview with PBS, 2007:
Q: Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?
'Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.'
Which version of the Vision story are we to believe? Does the flexibility of the true story lend flexibility to the black and white rhetoric of Hinckley's statement? Does this make Hinckley dishonest?
What about Polygamy? Hinckley seems to be a bit flexible on the truth of this matter as well: Larry King Live September 8, 1998.
KING: You condemn it [polygamy].
HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.
The last time I checked, D&C 132 was still there, right between 131 and 133, threats to Emma Smith and everything. Read it sometime. this is a fantastic example of spousal mental abuse. (verses 52 and 54 are particularly juicy)
Speaking of polygamy, What about polygamy? D&C 132 was written down and made known in 1843. JS had been practicing plural marriage of some kind or another for at least 12 years at that time. Joseph Smith had somewhere between 24 and 35 wives. The official LDS familysearch.org website lists a number of them. Check out Helen Mar Kimball- do a little math: subtract her birth year from her marriage year. The median age for first marriages in the US in the 1800s was 22 years old for females. JS also married women who were currently married to other men- try to make sense of the Zina Huntington mess- she was married to Henry Jacobs, who was sent on missions by president Smith. While he was gone, JS married Zina. He returned, JS was killed; a couple of years later, Brigham Young wanted her, so he sent Jacobs on another mission and claimed her for his own. Jacobs was neither divorced nor dead, and yet his wife was married to TWO other men. Both Mr Jacobs and Mrs Huntington Jacobs Smith Young died, undivorced, in Salt Lake City.
What is really ironic is that there was 'revealed' in 1835, D&C 101, which was removed from the book in 1876 due to the following language: '...we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again...'
More interesting quotes from GBH:
“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [First] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its own history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event [The First Vision] is the pivotal substance of our faith.”
- Gordon B. Hinckley, General Conference, October 2002
“I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph Smith talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy.”
- Gordon B. Hinckley, Improvement Era, December 1961, p. 907
My impression of President Hinckley is that he didn't believe it. He knew the church wasn't true and not honest in claiming that it is. His statements, over and over, were phrased in a 'we' and a 'they' context, but never in a sense of 'I.' Many of his talks sound like lectures from a humanist philosopher.
A little question I'd like to pose to all the LDS readers: If the church is the modern restored church of Christ, why aren't you Jewish?
I was shocked, appalled, disgusted, pissed off, and absolutely surprised to see the following picture in a recent edition of the Salt Lake Tribune:
A photo showing a seemingly innocent handshake between the (now former) President of the Free World GWBush and President of the 'we don't take sides in political matters' LDS Church Thomas Monson
Seemingly innocent until you notice the detail:
Why is GWB giving TSM that strange handshake? I'm not going to get into what it is here, that information is readily available on the internet, try Google- you can probably figure out some search criteria. (Hint: it is far more than a common Masonic handshake)
Anyway, that really got my blood boiling, so now I'm venting. I'm going to scream my lungs out about this for a while, and then I'll stop and (hopefully) calm down.
A few items that I should get out of the way: I am a member of an LDS family, 5th generation on both sides. My ancestors stretch firmly into the royalty of old Mormondom, including a President of the church, some apostles as well as several families that were active in the New and Everlasting Covenant of plural marriage. I noticed a few discrepancies between what we were taught and what I was observing when I was a kid: I was often encouraged to 'study the scriptures' for answers to my questions, the only problem was that I discovered more issues than I resolved.
Anyway, as I became an adult and developed critical thinking skills, I realized that there were several things that made no sense. I discovered that things aren't what they seem, and I have spent a great number of years trying to make sense of it. Through all my studying, I could never make sense of all the various contradictions, seemingly opposing doctrines, inconsistent statements and changes. I eventually allowed one little thought to creep in- once I did, it all made sense INSTANTLY. Simply considering that they made it all up made all the incongruities suddenly fall into place.
I did not 'fall away' due to laziness, desire to sin, unhappiness, being offended, or a lack of faith. Please don't patronize me by thinking that I am guilty of any of those things. My current position is based 100% on facts I have learned and my interpretations of the research I have done into these issues. My status as a 'sinner' or 'unhappy lazy bastard' has nothing whatsoever to do with the results of these simple inquiries.
My findings (to be detailed below) have lead me to one result in regards to Mormonism: It simply isn't what it claims to be: the one true church restored on the earth by Joseph Smith by divine revelation. As far as I can tell, it doesn't stand up to even shallow scrutiny.
Again, please don't try to tell me that you 'know' it is true because you 'feel' something about it. I have had great emotional experiences from such things as movies, concerts, riding motorcycles and reading books. If you 'know' that the LDS church is whatever.... then I 'know' that The Lord of the Rings is also true, beyond the shadow of a doubt, with every fiber of my high-fiber being. It's also arrogant and rude to dismiss dissenting opinions and statements just because you've been taught to witness that you 'know' something. Three year olds make that claim every Fast Sunday, parroting what they've been taught.
Using well-accepted academic techniques that can be easily verified using books and reliable sources, I can say something that I 'know':
The LDS Church is NOT what it claims to be.
No amount of supposed goodwill and supposed family focus can take away from the fact that the LDS Church has been and continues to be a dishonest organization, and the leaders are perpetuating fraud.
I'm not saying people don't have the right to follow the leaders of the church- you can choose to do so if you like.
The history of the church, the Book of Mormon, marital status and even the words of the founders and leaders have been changed to make the story of 'the church' more palatable to the world. Not a very noble action for an organization that prides itself on being better than the morals of this world.
I have provided links to information that supports many of the claims I am making, other information is available using simple internet searching techniques. Wikipedia links will only be used when the link can be used as a gateway to numerous reputable links. The claims of the church regarding its divine restoration and place as the 'one true church' do not stand up to even the most basic critical examination. As Boyd Packer once said: "Feminists, homosexuals and so-called intellectuals are a danger to the church."
Using the old rhetoric 'You can leave the church but you can't leave it alone' won't work on me. I was lied to for over 30 years, and I feel bad that so many of my friends and family are continually abused by the deceitful dogma of LDS Inc. and its leaders. So I'm here screaming about it for a while.
I'll make a deal with you: you get the church to come clean about its history, apologize for its actions regarding blacks and the priesthood, retract its statements regarding same gender marriages, stop claiming to be the sole route to heaven, offer the priesthood (and equal treatment) to women, accept at least partial responsibility for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, allow all family members to attend temple weddings, stop calling my house, stop harassing my kids, stop dropping by unannounced and refund people their tithing money- at that point I'd be willing to leave them alone. Until then I owe it to my friends and loved ones to expose it for the fraud that it is.
Over the next few posts, I am going to be purging my mind of some things that have been bugging me lately. A good friend of mine called it 'Emptying My Church Bag.'- Gotta dump this thing out and get rid of all the old cheerios and fruit roll-ups stuck to the bottom.
Disclaimer: ATTENTION: all active members of the LDS Church. This blog post has the potential to be very disturbing to you and I am advising that you proceed with caution. My posting of this was likely to be disturbing to the other residents of my previous bloghome, so I relocated to respect the feelings and sensibilities of my co-residents. It is not my intention to tear down or to de-convert anyone. I will assume that any potential readers of this are intelligent enough to read and digest this information of their own free will and choice. I assume no responsibility for any cognitive dissonance that occurs following the ingestion of this material.
I have an excellent podcast from a guy named John Dehlin- an active member of the LDS church- explaining some of the things I am going to discuss. Unfortunately, John has closed his podcast and removed all his links. I'll share this file with you if you're willing to listen to it, just email me and it will be on its way.
Despite the extensive nature of these disclaimers: before proceeding, any members of the COJCOLDS should ask themselves the following question: If The Church isn’t true, would I want to know? If the answer is ‘No’- click here to go to a happy place. If ‘Yes’, read on.
Also, if you an active member, please consider that consuming the stuff contained in this blog could force a positive answer to question #7 in the temple recommend interview: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" That describes me fairly well. Just a warning.
If you are unprepared in any way for what follows- please consider yourself warned. I can't have the blood of your eternal salvation on my hands. (It's a joke, people!) But seriously: I feel very strongly about the stuff of which I write. Most of it will be factual and referenced to primary sources, the rest of it will be my opinions and impressions- always identified as such.
Wow, this disclaimer stuff is a pain in the butt.
There's not one single thing that made me decide that I didn't believe in the LDS church any longer, there's a whole shelf full of them.
I tried for many many years to make sense of the varied versions of the Book of Mormon, all the old history books being revised, all the contradictory doctrine, blacks and the priesthood, polygamy and more. As I would inquire about these things, I was told 'You just don't understand yet, keep working on it and it will become clear.' So I would obediently file my concerns away on a shelf.
Eventually the shelf started to bow, after a while it broke. I will document the reasons my personal path has changed, the reasons why, and other issues that came up as I worked to resolve things.
Enough of this- tiptoeing and tapdancing around here like I'm never going to actually get to it. I'll be back later with the actual posts.
