 | Joseph Fielding Smith - There Is No Such Thing As The Limited Geography Theory
Article Archived: Nov 30, 2007, at 07:50 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Infymus |  | "In the face of this evidence coming from the prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America. Neither can we say that the great struggle which resulted in the destruction of the Nephites took place in Central America.
If Zelph, a righteous man, was fighting under a great prophet-general in the last battles between the Nephites and Lamanites; if that great prophet-general was known from the Rocky Mountains to "the Hill Cumorah or eastern sea," then some of those battles, and evidently the final battles did take place within the borders of what is now the United States.
There were no righteous prophets, save the Three Nephites, after the death of Moroni, and we learn that Zelph was slain during one of these battles during the great last struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites and was buried near the Illinois River.
In the Book of Mormon story the Lamanites were constantly crowding the Nephites back towards the north and east. If the battles in which Zelph took part were fought in the country traversed by the Zion's Camp, then we have every reason to believe from what is written in the Book of Mormon, that the Nephites were forced farther and farther to the north and east until they found themselves in the land of Ripliancum, which both Ether and Mormon declare to us was the land of Ramah or Cumorah, a land of "many waters," which "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all."
This being true, what would be more natural then that Moroni, like his father Mormon, would deposit the plates in the land where the battles came to an end and the Nephites were destroyed? This Moroni says he did, and from all the evidence in the Book of Mormon, augmented by the testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, these final battles took place in the territory known as the United States and in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes and hills of Western New York.
And here Moroni found the resting place for the sacred instruments which had been committed to his care.
From Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith. Compiled by Bruce R. McConkie. 3 vols. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954-56, p.238-240.
| The post "I cried" made me profoundly sympathetic. I grew up with one Joseph Smith, and finally, after years of nonsense, discovered another.
My father was a great worshiper of Joseph Smith. "Worship" is the correct word. We heard about "the Prophet" endlessly---about all he suffered, all he did, all he "translated," and all he accomplished. He was second only to Jesus Christ, and if Jesus is not careful, old Joseph will knock him off his Celestial perch.
We visited Carthage Jail, Nauvoo, and, of course, the "Hill Cumorah." We walked in the footsteps of "the Prophet," and felt his presence. Well, my father felt his presence. I did not. I was too far gone, I guess.
When the first Christopher Reeve "Superman" movie came out, my wife and I went. The sense of nostalgia pulled me in. I told my father we had gone. He said "You should study and learn about a real "Superman," Joseph Smith. "
Bullets bounced off of "Superman." Joseph was not so fortunate. "Superman" was pretty darned loyal to Lois Lane. Joseph was not so loyal to Emma.
Later, I got my hands on the Tanners' stuff, and my eyes were opened to Joseph. I could not believe what I read. The guy was a philandering fraud, a skirt chasing, rock peeping liar. The two men could not be reconciled. The false Joseph, and the real Joseph, do not have much in common. Funny, really, how the Church can project one image of the man, and the history books undercut him with a vengeance.
But it is not just Joseph. I recall when Harold B. Lee became Church President. My mother said "He is a GIANT, a true GIANT of a man."
Those who knew him thought otherwise. And if you read the David O. McKay biography, you get quite a different view of Harold B. He was a political figure, and used the church to his advantage. He was a collector of power pellets, and he could be remarkably vicious.
The dual images of church leaders will always be in conflict. The image machine works well for the church, but when people come in contact with reality, the fall is long and the landing is hard. Spin comes with a high price tag when people catch on to the fact they have been manipulated.
Looking at all the Joseph Smith stuff in stores, I can see the spin goes on. The calendars, the awful "art," the "movies," and the false image of Joseph and Emma continues in hyperdrive. If anything, it is much more intense. But it all comes with a huge price tag. They can't figure that out.
| During my many years of accepting LDS teachings as true, I carefully tucked the blatant sexism in my "mental box" and stored it away for the day when I would finally understand everything. LDS women are so good at doing this. If the men had to do it, they'd leave. There would be no LDS church. I'm convinced of that.
I dutifully quieted my mental protests that despite the evolving more politically correct rhetoric, women in tscc are not really equal partners. I did the same thing with the fact that the scriptures portray women as less than second-class citizens. Why the hell did it matter if Abraham's wife was beautiful? Why wasn't she described as compassionate and intelligent? Why did it matter that Mary was described as the "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins?" And then there is poor Leah, the ugly sister who had to trick her husband into marrying her by sneaking into his marital bed that was meant for the love of his life. And he didn't get a clue that he was with the wrong woman until the light of day? Clearly, even the scriptures teach that a woman's worth is dependent upon her physical appearance (not to mention the disturbing fact that we all apparently look the same in the dark). Yet we don't teach that in YW. God loves all of his daughters, even the ugly ones.
Moreover, why don't the scriptures give men equal time on the physical appearance valuation scale? Why don't we ever read that Paul was a whiney runt or that Nephi had the buns of Lance Armstrong? Why are women dehumanized (when they're even mentioned) while the men are described based on what they accomplished? Just place it in the mental box ...
I carefully chose to ignore the fact that men are the final authority on anything, notwithstanding the fact that many have blatantly chauvinistic attitudes towards women and fewer social skills of a turd-throwing chimpanzee. "The church is perfect. The people aren't perfect. The church was designed for imperfect people." It sounded reasonable at the time.
My daughter is away to college and currently attending a student ward. She vents to me every week about how her bishop and other leaders keep harping on marriage. A few weeks ago, the women were taught "flirting etiquette" during the Sunday block (don't remember which meeting). They had an enrichment night on "How to cook for you man." Holy shit. Literally.
I've been conditioned to look to tscc to understand my eternal identity. My role as a woman. It's never really added up. And frankly, it's nothing to look forward to. The past few years I've had serious struggles with this. I couldn't ignore it anymore. The mental box started to overflow then would no longer stay closed.
Then I realized, they don't want to tell us who we are. Really. Because we're destined to be "sealed" to someone as "Wife No. X." But sshh. We don't talk about polygamy in tscc. We're not supposed to understand it yet. We're not righteous enough. We'll all understand it in the "next life" when the "righteous" women are handed out like Christmas bonuses to the a**holes who met their earthly quota. Yippee. What a privilege. For someone else. Not for me.
And that's another thing. I guess the Celestial Kingdom will be overflowing with righteous women who are all entitled to the blessings of eternal marriage. Unfortunately, there won't be enough men to go around so they'll have to double, or triple, or quadruple .... up. Men will be more scarce because women are by nature more spiritual and righteous than men are? That makes no sense to me. So, if you're born as a man, you poor suckers already have two strikes against you. What a load of crap. Doesn't hell sound like the better place to be? I mean, think about poor Leah. She has an eternity of knowing that she wasn't even the second choice to look forward to. How great for her.
I know this is rambling but I have to articulate my thoughts sometimes to understand them. I love the fact that men and women are different. I like it when men act like men. I love being a woman. But different doesn't mean "better" or that one has authority over the other.
While I am aware of the issues relative to church history being altered or covered up, etc., this gender inequality thing is the real sticking point for me. My conclusion: if despite everything tscc is still true, I see no place or plan for me there. "Making it" to the Celestial Kingdom could be like one loooong annual High Priest dinner. I think I'd be happier in hell.
|  | My TBM Mother, Age 69, Clung To Me Today Like A 3-Year Old Child
Article Archived: Nov 20, 2007, at 09:01 AM
Stored Under Topic: EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: CdnXMo | | Backgrounder: My Mormon stepfather's health has been deteriorating somewhat these past couple of weeks. He's not dying, but his joints and other spots on his body have become pretty painful. The fact that he has bad arthritis in his knees exacerbates the situation. Since my TBM mother said that she had some work to do this morning at home and my stepfather needed a lift to a medical appointment, I offered to drive him. No big deal.
As he and I were leaving the house, my mother threw her arms around my neck (presumably to thank me) and held me as tightly as a small child would their parent. She also put her head on my shoulder, tight in against my neck, which always makes me feel uncomfortable. As I waited in the car for my stepfather, I thought about my mother's child-like 'clinging'.
I determined that even at age 69, there is a significant part of my mother's psyche that perceives herself as weak and powerless. When the missionaries knocked on the door of my parents' apartment in 1966, she took to Mormonism like a duck to water. Why? Well, one of the messages of the missionaries was that a loving, all-powerful 'Heavenly Father' and 'spiritual' elder brother, Jesus, were very aware of her as an individual and her 'trials and tribulations', and loved her beyond her comprehension. At the time, she was lonely, unhappily married, and depressed, with two, small, needy children whom she was not emotionally or psychologically ready to raise.
The teaching of the missionaries and LDS Church that she needed a 'savior' to 'spiritually redeem' her from the negative consequences of her 'sins' only reinforced her self-perception as weak and disempowered. She chaffed at times at the patriarchy in society, but was content to be an obedient member/follower of a religious organization run by men. In the LDS organizational structure, females have always answered to Mormon males. My mother never asserted herself against LDS patriarchy, never expressed how she really felt about Mormon polygamy (which was still taught in the church as a 'restored' doctrine until the late 1970s), and never spoke her truth about her dislike of the church's racist doctrine against blacks.
Since I was a small boy, my mother has perceived me as strong and independent, characteristics that she failed to cultivate in herself. During my formative years, her frequent response (sometimes daily) to arguments with her atheist husband (my father) and life's vicissitudes was to burst into tears and spend hours weeping in her room (no exaggeration), while the rest of the family forged on. All the crying and sobbing, praying and fasting, pleas directed to 'God', 'blessings of comfort' from 'strong' Mormon priesthood holders/fatherly figures, visits to the temple, scripture-reading, and so on over 20+ years did nothing to address my mother's underlying psychological dysfunction.
Mormonism has provided my mother (and so many other people) with a very convenient escape from having to face within themselves that which requires attention: their issues. After all, if a person is 'busily engaged in the work of the Lord', then after normal, everyday responsibilities are attended to, what time is left to confront and address one's 'crap'?
No one is coming to rescue us, not individually or collectively. When we accept this fact in our minds, we step on to a path that will take us to an increasingly stronger sense of our power. This is not the type of pseudo-power that results from having a lot of money or possessions or the type of power that people wield as a function of their position in an organization (haven't we all worked for an SOB boss?!). I'm referring to inner power, for lack of a better term, the inner knowing/experience that one is powerful because one is able to think and act, and improve the quality of one's life and the lives of others as a result.
In the LDS mindset, power comes not from within, but from without - from 'the Lord' 'out there', and whatever 'blessings', favors, forgiveness, etc. 'God' decides to dish out. This aspect of Mormonism is part of the reason why one hears members say from the pulpit, "If I didn't have the church, I wouldn't know who I'd be or what I'd do with my life! The church is everything to me!" And Mormonism defines what 'God' wants people to do, down to how many piercings per ear LDS girls 'should' have. Powerful people do not require an external organization or group telling them what to do. Their guidance comes from within and they know from experience that they can fully trust their thinking, intuition, and judgments, which reinforces their sense of being powerful as an individual, something that after 41 years as a member of the LDS Church, my mother still does not know.
| From: Walnut Grove Development LLC [mailto:sam@morganfinehomes.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:27 PM
To: infymus@mormoncurtain.com
Subject: hatemail
I'll be happy to add to your hatemail. You're a fucking idiot. I enjoyed browsing your site and strengthening my testimony though. Was a great way to end my sabbath after coming home from a mission homecoming. At what point in your life did you commit adultery and deny the truth???? The scriptures tell me that that is most likely exactly what you did.
S.W. Morgan Fine Homes
357 S 500 E
NEPHI UT 84648-4002
Phone: (801) 367-8574
Fax: (801) 785-9834
|  | Lunch With Will Bagley: Part II - Extent Of Indian Involvement At Mountain Meadows
Article Archived: Nov 19, 2007, at 08:40 AM
Stored Under Topic: EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: SL Cabbie | | I posted a review here a few years ago of a presentation Will gave at Ken Sanders' Rare Books where he remarked there's room for considerable debate about the number of Indians involved in the events and murders of the Fancher/Baker party in September, 1857, particularly in the initial attack, which killed or seriously wounded most of the adult men in the wagon train.
I was acting strictly as a reporter, passing on that Bagley noted the Paiutes' oral tradition is they weren't involved (although some clearly were at some point), that it was pine nut season, etc. I did remark that I found this credible, since Will noted there were only two or three rifles among all the Indians of Southern Utah, and I had a hard time believing Mormons would willingly "furnish guns to the Indians."
Although I said nothing at the time, I have some familiarity with firearms of that period; the lunch with Will at Lamb's Restaurant included some old memories of mine which we talked about. Will didn't know my grandfather, who passed away before he joined the history group my grandfather co-founded along with Harold Schindler (Will's mentor), but at one time my grandfather owned a substantial gun collection and had detailed knowledge of the era he gleaned from reading and hanging out with Harold (who eventually wrote my grandfather's obituary).
I caught some flak from some heavyweight posters, notably RandyJ, who admonished me for posting that no Indians were involved in MMM. I wound up tossing out a few of those one-liners we cabbies usually reserve for recalcitrant fares, and noted I was only acting as a messenger, but I also had a whole lot more familiarity with the geography of Utah, as well the Native American mindset, which led to me give considerable weight to those views.
The lunch was an outgrowth of some e-mails between Will and myself where, besides discussing the Long Diaries, I outlined the problem (How many Indians?) and the various reports, particularly the "confessions" of John D. Lee (I've read and own both Juanita Brooks' biography of Lee as well as a reprint of his attorney W.W. Bishop's volume).
The following are taken from Will's e-mail replies and are posted by permission:
>Lee's lying about the first attack: no white man in 1877 could admit to leading an Indian assault on a wagon train. He also is lying about the fact that most of his initial attackers were Indians: they were Mormons.
I raised the issue about the logistics of the Indians being back in Southern Utah by Sept. 7, noting--my grandfather was an old Southern Utah sheepherder, and I recalled him mentioning this subject, although not involving MMM--that while 50-60 miles a day on horseback or by carriage was easily feasible, sustained travel would need to include time for the horses to recover. Will replied,
>The Indians who met with Young on 1 September could have been back in [Southern] Utah by the sixth without breaking a sweat: Kanosh had a carriage, and Ammon (who had his wife with him when he met Brigham Young) was back in Beaver in time to attack the Dukes train while the massacre was going on. For my money, it doesn't matter if the Indians BY met with on the first were in the massacre: what he did was a criminal act that led to murder, if not at MM, in Box Elder and elsewhere. BY's orders to round up the Indians and attack the Fanchers were what should have gotten him hanged, and those orders went south with George A. Smith before BY even saw the Indians.
Will and I are still corresponding on the subject of Indian travel, etc., although as one might guess, the Long Diaries are occupying his time at present. I've presented to him the problem of finding a source for firearms (there's an inventory list compiled by Geo. A. Smith on this matter) that didn't involve crossing the plains in 1857, and I have some sources of my own I'll be following on this one.
More from the e-mail . . .
>Anyway, my estimate of the number of Indians at the event keeps dropping. Here's a writeup:
>So, what was the extent of Indian involvement in the massacre? To this day, Mormon historians avoid addressing the question directly, preferring to cite the incredible numbers the murderers reported at the John D. Lee trial. Participant estimates were as high as Lee's "wild and excited band of several hundred Indians" to John Higbee's "four to six hundred 'savages." When asked how many Indians were present at the slaughter, Philip Klingensmith said, "I could not tell you, but the hills were pretty full around there." He became even more evasive when Lee's defense council asked how many he actually saw: "I could not tell." The defense asked again, and the witness said, "I saw a good many around there." Finally, Bishop asked, "How many did you understand, from those in authority, were there?" Klingensmith had "heard it talked of that there was something more than a hundred Indians there." Bishop asked if, "Of your own knowledge, that there was over three hundred there?"
>Klingsensmith?s answer is illuminating: "I do not."
>In contrast to the talk of hundreds of Indians, participant Joel White testified there "might have been 40 or 50, somewheres along there."
>Beaverite said there were not more than one hundred Indians involved, which appears to be a reasonable upper limit for the total number of native participants over the entire week. However, given the conditions Professor Knapp describes, even these numbers appear improbably high, a fact other experts confirm. LaVan Martineau collected twenty-six accounts of war and conflict from Southern Paiute informants, but the largest war party he identified consisted of only twelve members.
>Assembling even a few dozen Indian "warriors" to attack a wagon train would require considerable effort, but their numbers were augmented by recruits from among the "several hundred Indians, held in servitude" in Utah Territory. Surviving accounts place at least three "adopted sons" at the massacre: Hamblin's Albert, a Shoshone; Samuel Knight's John from the Las Vegas Band; and John D. Lee's Clem. As early as 1851, Brigham Young had directed southern Utah settlers "to buy up the Lamanite children as fast as they could, and educate them and teach them the gospel, so that many generations would not pass ere they should become a white and delightsome people." By the middle of September 1851, the pioneers of Parowan had purchased ten Indian children. The stalwarts of the Southern Indian mission, including Lee, Hamblin, Klingensmith, and George A. Smith all participated in the Indian slave trade: when it came to kill the Arkansans, the Nauvoo Legion's native auxiliaries may have consisted almost exclusively of such "adopted" servants.
>Will
Other issues that arose in the discussion included the accuracy of Lee's "fingering" of a number of the participants at MMM. All were either confessed participants, dead, or other enemies of Lee who weren't involved.
I remarked that Lee had left a sticky mess for historians to unscramble, and Will nodded.
On the subject of his new book, "Innocent Blood," co-written with Ken Bigler, he anticipates a summer publication, and when I asked about the church sanctioned volume, he shrugged with an obvious "who knows?" He remarked that Oxford press is saying they haven't yet received the manuscript for publication. The figure--doubtless in the millions--involving probable church monies spent on this one has to be mind-boggling . . .
All in all, a remarkable afternoon . . .
|  | I Am Not Making This Up: Attempts Are Underway To Capture Cain / Bigfoot With Pasteries
Article Archived: Nov 19, 2007, at 08:33 AM
Stored Under Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Steve Benson | | Sounds like something Mormons might try, doesn't it? Maybe they could do what they do best: trap him with an invite to ward party refreshments and then teach him the discussions.
First, some background: Do Mormons believe that Bigfoot is Cain?
A claimed sighting of Cain/Bigfoot was made by early Mormon missionary David Patten:
" . . . David W. Patten, during his mission in the South . . . reported that, as he rode his horse, a large black man covered with hair appeared beside him and told him that he was Cain and was going to destroy his mission."
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Latter-day...
While some Mormons might question whether LDS missionaries have actually spotted Cain/Bigfoot, Spencer W. Kimball, in his book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness," pp. 127-28, describes Patton's encounter with Cain in decidedly Sasquatch-like terms:
"On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life of David W. Patten. From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten's account of meeting "a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain:
"'As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me. . . . His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight. . . .'"
Others--non-Mormons, even--have referenced Kimball's account as evidence that Cain is, in fact, the legendary Bigfoot, as "told time and time again within the Mormon religion."
Bigfoot buff Michael Nave writes:
"My work takes me all over the United States for many different training seminars and conferences. Recently, I met up with several people of the Mormon faith. One of these people, knowing of my interest in Bigfoot, suggested that I look into the 'Mormon connection.' The following story comes from my research on this topic.
"David Patten was a Mormon Priest who traveled and preached the Mormon gospel from 1832-1838. In author Spencer W. Kimball's book entitled "The Miracle of Forgiveness, 'there is a passage where David Patten is quoted regarding his meeting with 'a very remarkable person who had represented himself as Cain.' The following passage from the book is quoted from Mr. Patten's own rendition of the story:
"'As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me. . . . His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight. . . . '(Lycurgus A. Wilson, 'Life of David W. Patten' [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1900], p. 50., as quoted by Spencer W. Kimball, 'The Miracle of Forgiveness' [Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc.]18th printing 1991 p.p. 127-128).
". . . The fact that so many people from so many backgrounds have experienced Bigfoot and in many cases woven this creature into their folklore tells us that there must be more to this elusive creature than meets the eye.
"Sources: . . .
http://sasquatch.i8.com/mormonconnect...
http://archives.zinester.com/16335/62...
Will Cain/Bigfoot ever be caught?
Now comes word that efforts are being made to capture this fallen, apostate beast with--you heard it here first, folks--donuts:
http://www.wjla.com/news/aploader.htm...
Just think of it: Bringing Cain to Christ through Krispy Kremes.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
|  | Ten Days Into My Mission (in S. America) I Got A Deadly Disease And Nearly Died
Article Archived: Nov 19, 2007, at 08:20 AM
Stored Under Topic: MISSIONARIES - SECTION 3 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: FreeAtLast | | It was Jan./84, and after the initial orientation at the mission home, I was sent in a taxi to a shantytown on the north side of Lima, Peru. Although the skies were clear when I arrived, much to my astonishment, there was black 'snow' as the taxi pulled into my first area. (The locals piled up their garbage in the street and periodically someone would throw kerosene on the large piles and set them on fire. The 'snow' was millions of bits of burned garbage floating down.).
During my first interview with the Mission Pres. (before I got shipped out to my first area), he asked me what my parents did for a living. I told him that my father was an electrical engineer and my mother was a nurse.
As a 'greenie', I worked hard, but because of the filthy conditions and poor-quality food in the shantytown, I got diarrhea within a couple of days, and became weakened. On my second Sunday, I developed a raging fever (105 deg. F), almost passed out, and could barely move.
My companion (a Peruvian) called the mission home, and the AP's told him to bring me in so that the health missionaries (two sisters - one American, the other Peruvian) could look at me. After I arrived, they dumped me in the bottom bunk in the house that was rented for them (a couple of doors away from the mission home/office).
The MP was away in the Peruvian jungle at a zone conference; elders were sent to the airport to wait for him. Finally, the health missionaries arrived, and the American, a 28-year old who had worked as a nurse in the U.S., took my temp. and asked me how I felt. I could barely move or respond. After she looked at the thermometer, she told the AP's to get me in the mission vehicle (a Toyota LandCruiser) and take me to a local clinic (a mini-hospital) pronto.
Two missionaries carried me in. I didn't know it at the time, but I was mere hours away from death. The emergency doctor spoke little English, so the sister nurse had to communicate with him about my condition. He ordered a spinal tap. By that time, the MP had arrived.
Unbeknownst to me at the time (I was not told, and was too naive and trusting of the mission office staff to ask the doctor directly), the lab test on my spinal fluid revealed that I had spinal menangitis, which typically kills in 24-48 hours.
The MP lied to me that night, telling me that I had a far less serious disease. Years later, I figured out why he'd withheld critical health info. from me: He knew that my mother was a nurse and was afraid that if she found out that I had spinal menangitis and conferred with a doctor in Canada, he'd tell her to have me sent home to properly recuperate, a process that typically took 6-12 months.
The MP unilaterally decided that I would stay in Peru and finish my mission. After one week after I entered the clinic, I was sent back to the shantytown, where I became sick with diarrhea and shigella (a bacteria), typhoid fever (later) and parasites (worms, flukes, etc.). I lost one-fifth of my body weight (165 lb down to 130 lb) and returned home after completing my 'time' in terrible shape, and very stressed out by the experience.
In my third area (a shantytown on the edge of the Peruvian desert), my comp. and I were attacked, and I was nearly murdered (by a knife-wielding gang member). Of course, the MP had sent me there too.
During my final interview with the mission president, on the day before I was to fly out, he told me matter-of-factly that, in truth, I'd had spinal menangitis at the beginning of my mission. I was too 'brainwashed' by Mormonism and numbed from what I'd endured (I was suffering from PTSD) to tell him that he had no right to lie to me and be the cause of so much suffering (and almost losing my life).
Quite understandably, I felt a lot of anger about the Mormon patriarchal abuse that I'd experienced after I 'woke up' (in my latter 20's) to how dysfunctional, deceitful, and abusive the LDS Church really was.
| In "Stumbling on Happiness" author Daniel Gilbert starts his book with a unique premise. Humans are bad decision makers.
"Our temporal progeny (future selves) are thankless. We toil and wear ourselves out to give them just what we think they will like and they quit their jobs, grow their hair, move to or from San Francisco and [our future selves] wonder how we could ever have been stupid enough to think they'd like THAT!"
The book is an exercise on why we are bad decision makers, how we can't accurately predict what we want tomorrow, and why we consistently fall prey to bad decision patterns.
My nephew is what I would call a bad decision maker. He has never excelled at school or had a lot of ambition. At the same time he is smart, a returned missionary, and kind. And has hormones raging through his body.
Enter a beautiful South American young woman, a convert to the Mormon church, visiting Utah. She attended his student ward and three months later was his wife.
They married in the temple and at the reception his proud father praised his son for being an RM and marrying in the temple, honoring his priesthood, and making him proud.
His father then told how when his son returned home from a mission in Chile he told his father he wanted to marry a South American beauty. This proved the son's marriage was forordained and sanctioned.
I sat there and was stunned. I had married a man who was a lot like my sweet nephew. He was also a righteous man who did it all "right." But my righteous husband, though he wanted sex badly - never wanted fatherhood, parental or patriarchal responsibility, and did not aspire to any of that.
We began a thirteen year battle. I insisted on being a stay-at-home mother and we quickly had four children. He tried to guilt, threaten, and hate himself into being a provider, but alas, he just did not have it in him.
Finally I gave up. Finally I quit trying to force my square husband into a round sinkhole. We divorced.
With four children in tow I now started a difficult and laborious process of trying to get my education and put together a career that would support us.
I did it. It was hard, it was gratifying, it was unnecessarily difficult. My children paid a price during our years of instabililty and struggle (do research on how familial stress impacts the emotional health of children).
My husband and I could have delayed children or not had children. We could have both gotten careers off the ground first. We needlessly created a situation that became unmanageable.
We could have been better decision makers.
But just like the teenager that gets the cool tattoo at 16 and then pays to have it removed at 30, we thought we were making good decisions. And so did our family.
I remember telling my father I was pregnant with my third child. My husband was once again unemployed and lost. My father hugged me, congratulated me, told me that HF was proud of me and that I was a righteous daughter of God.
WOW - now that is interesting reinforcement.
Why is it so difficult to make good decisions. Read the book - but to put it simply:
We can not know how we will feel tomorrow and our imagination is so unrealistic about the decision's outcome; we either glorify the hoped for outcome or terrorize ourselves with a feared outcome that we are hopelessly unable to assess real cause and effect.
We tend to do what is expected in our cultural.
We think we want to be happy, but most of us will consistently choose prestige over happiness.
Our perfect picture future - we imagine the good but ignore the struggle.
I imagined my future marriage without the careful consideration of all the factors that create good marriages and safe homes.
I did not factor in depression (though I had already a clear history), that hormones were the driving force in our decisions to marry not a readiness to assume adult responsibiities, that money instability is stressful (you don't need millions, but studies show that you need enough to feel safe and meet basic life requirements), that my husband's inclination did not match my preconceived notions of breadwinner, that I was not interested in homemaking or raising children even though I was a woman and on and on and on.
We could have figured this out but another complicating factor was our religions beliefs reinforcing our bad decision making at every step.
Back to my nephew. They have been married four years and have two children. Neither has an education and the wife wants to be a stay-at-home mother. After all - just read Beck's talk - mothers that know - are home.
My nephew is increasingly distraught as he fails again and again to fulfill his role of provider. Hie $10/hour wage does not provide for much. Their small apartment is dirty and his wife has taken to reading away the hours. I remember reading to escape my situation.
Like me twenty five years ago, he and his wife can not sit and sort it through because they have a predetermined path that defines every decision. To assess what they want and how to get there is to question God.
They are outliars, three standard deviations from the norm - but no one cares. The whole goal to to make them fit. Perfect obedience will provide perfect lives. Maybe these square children will eventually become round and not disappear into quiet lives of desparation.
Maybe if my sister and brother-in-law just keep scolding them, guilting them, sending them articles, reading scriptures and quoting prophets - my nephew and his wife will wake up with resolve to be what they have no desire to be.
I tried to make my husband be everything he wasn't. I tried to make myself be everything I wasn't. Everyone thought that children and responsibility would stir in him his priesthood obligation. He did not rise to the occasion, he sank deeply into despair.
One day I started to tell the truth about us and that set us free. Under the crushing reality of life, children, bills, stress, unpreparedness - I started to use a different scale for measuring my decisions.
Instead of "how can I keep the commandments?" it became "how can I achieve the outcomes I want?" What a different way to live life.
It was like someone gave me glasses and I could see. Now when some caring person tried to set me straight and help me make the right decision, with my new found insight, I was able to tell them to mind their own business.
I want to sit my nephew and niece down and tell them, I have been where they are and I can give them information that would help. But they can't learn from me. In the end I failed in their eyes. I walked away from the source of my endless struggles to figure out my life, I walked away from the major source of my bad decision making - the Mormon church and turned my life around. They don't see the irony.
If prestige, culture and imagination are the stumbling blocks I doubt they will make any changes soon. They are rewarded and acknowledged as good decision makers as they get further behind, live more desparately.
One day the promise and the reality will become so disparate that they will see the truth. But how deep will be the hole they will have dug. And then their decisions will completely change.
They can figure it out. It will be hard, it can be gratifying, and it will be unnecessarily difficult. their children will pay a price from years of instabililty and struggle.
So, when someone tells me the church is a good place to raise a family - I can't imagine what they are thinking.
|  | Book Of Mormon Evidences
Article Archived: Nov 14, 2007, at 09:11 AM
Stored Under Topic: APOLOGISTS (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Baura | | Why "Book of Mormon evidences" are not evidences at all.
From time to time the Ensign publishes an article showing a similarity or "parallel" between something in the Book of Mormon and something in ancient Hebrew, ancient Egyptian, or pre-Columbian American (north and south) cultures. Some that have stirred a lot of interest are so-called "chiasmus" passages in the Book of Mormon and the finding of the consonants "NHM" on a stone in Yemen. The "NHM" inscription has been called "the strongest evidence yet" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
Jeff Lindsay has a website with scores of "Book of Mormon Evidences."
It therefore is important to look at what really is evidence for a given proposition and what is not. We can get our bearings by first looking at the nature of coincidence.
On November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas. Not too long afterwards people began compiling amazing "coincidences" between the Kennedy assassination and the Lincoln assassination. This spread to include "parallels" between Kennedy and Lincoln themselves.
The list of coincidences/parallels include:
Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846.
Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946.
Lincoln was elected president in 1860
Kennedy was elected president in 1960
Kennedy's assassin fired while in a warehouse and then fled to a theater.
Lincoln's assassin fired while in a theater and then fled to a warehouse.
Lincoln's assassin used three names: John Wilkes Booth.
Kennedy's assassin used three names: Lee Harvey Oswald.
John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.
Both assassins were from the South.
Both assassins had exactly 15 letters in their name.
Both assassins were shot to death before they could be put on trial.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln were shot in the back of the head while seated with their wives.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln were shot on a Friday.
Lincoln was shot while at FORD'S theater
Kennedy was shot while riding in a FORD automobile.
Lincoln was shot while in Box 7 of the theater.
Kennedy was shot while riding in car 7 of the motorcade.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln were in the company of another married couple when shot and in each case the husband of the couple was injured during the assassination but not fatally.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln had vice-presidents who were Southern Democrats, and former U.S. Senators named "Johnson" and both Johnsons chose not to run for re-election in '68. Each Johnson was also the father of two daughters.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
Kennedy had a secretary named "Lincoln."
Lincoln had a secretary named "Kennedy."
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
Kennedy proposed sweeping civil-rights legislation.
The name "Lincoln" has seven letters.
The name "Kennedy" has seven letters.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln studied law.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln had been ship's captains.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln were named after their grandfather.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln lost a son while in the White House.
Both Kennedy and Lincoln were the second-born in their families.
Etc.
Many other striking parallels have been put forward.
Another example of a "parallel" or "coincidence" which is contrary to our intuition is the famous "birthday coincidence:" Consider the following: If 50 people are chosen at random what is the probability that two of them will have the same birthday (day and month)? One way to think of this is as follows: Well, if there are 366 people then there MUST be two with the same birthday (ignoring leap years). Therefore for 366 the probability is 1. For half of that, or 183, people the probability should be about half of what it is for 366 people or 50%. For 91 people it should be about half again or about 25% and for 50 people it should be about 13 or 14%. This line of reasoning, although seemingly plausible, is completely wrong. Without going into the details of probability theory I will simply point out that for 50 randomly chosen people the probability that at least two of them have the same birthday is slightly over 97%.
Why should the actual probability be so high? A similar question is "Why should there be so many parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln?" The birthday problem is just simple mathematics at work but the Kennedy-Lincoln list of parallels is not susceptible to exact mathematical analysis. It often makes us think that something spooky is going on--that there must be some supernatural connection at work.
The birthday problem works the way it does because as the number of people increases the number of possible coincidences increases at an even faster rate. With two people there is only one way to get a match. With three people, however, there are three ways to get a match. If I label the three people A, B and C then there can be A and B with the same birthday, B and C with the same birthday, or A and C with the same birthday. By adding one person we've tripled the number of ways to get a birthday match.
With 4 people there are 6 possible matches: AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD.
With 5 people there are 10 possible matches. AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE.
With 6 people there are 15 possible matches. (I'll stop listing them.)
With 7 people there are 21 possible matches.
With 8 people there are 28 possible matches.
With 9 people there are 36 possible matches.
. . .
And with 50 people there are 1225 possible matches.
It is because of the great number of possible coincidences that the chance of hitting at least one is so great.
With the Lincoln-Kennedy list of "coincidences" the number of "possible matches" becomes astronomical. With any two presidents there are an unbelievable number of "possible matches" in some aspect of their lives. Consider how many cabinet members there are or the number of White House staff members or the names of their children or their past positions, political or otherwise. Consider names of doctors they may have been treated by in their lives or the names and ages and occupations of various relatives. Consider all the possible incidents that may have happened in their pasts--what was the name of the minister that married them, that married their parents, etc. The number of possibilities is huge.
The parallels that I have given above concerning Kennedy and Lincoln were discovered by many different people scouring both Kennedy's and Lincoln's lives for any similarities that could be found. The number of parallels reflects the amount of searching that has been done to dig them out rather than any specific connection between the two presidents.
If the list were filled with the failed connections such as "Lincoln was from Illinois and Kennedy was from Massachusetts" then a list of tens of thousands of items could easily be made. On such a list the "hits" would appear very rare indeed. However in the lists that are actually presented the failed connections--the misses--are ignored. No aspect of the two presidents' lives is even considered until AFTER a coincidence is found. Then questions such as "what is the probability that two presidents would have secretaries with each other's last names" is asked. Of course that probability when considered by itself is extremely small. But out of tens of thousands of possiblities it is to be expected that there will be a few dozen that actually are hits. And each of those hits will have a very small probability when considered by itself. But the probability of any one of these hits when considered by itself is not significant. It is the whole picture INCLUDING the misses that is significant. If a million "thousand to one shots" are considered it is to be expected that many of them will actually occur.
This is an example of "a posteriori" research--"research" after the fact. The significance of a bit of evidence is judged only after it is found to be a hit. "A priori" research, on the other hand, would be to decide what items will be compared BEFORE the hits or misses are known.
This is the way real research to test a theory needs to be done to have any validity. One looks first at the theory and then, before looking at the evidence, one decides what would be expected if the theory were true. If further research shows that what was expected to be found ahead of time actually is found then that is evidence that confirms the theory.
Crackpot science, on the other hand, works in the other direction. A pet theory of the "crackpot" is proposed. Since the formulator of the theory is more interested in supporting his theory than in finding the actual truth, the evidences that will or will not support the theory are not decided upon ahead of time. The "theorist" looks through all kinds of possible evidences that may or may not be consistent with his pet theory and only records those that he feels are favorable.
This is exactly what was done with the "Lincoln-Kennedy" list of parallels. It is also what is done with Book of Mormon "evidences."
If the Book of Mormon were actual history there are quite a few things that would be expected to be found. It would be expected that there would be the remains of a vast civilization on the American continents which, between 600 BC and 400 AD, planted wheat and barley, had a Judeo-Christian religion, used a hybrid form of Egyptian and Hebrew language and script, used horses, had the wheel, used smelted iron and steel, etc.
No trace of such a civilization has ever been found. This is the "a priori" approach. This is the approach that real science uses in testing theories. First decide what would result if your theory were true then see if that is the way things really are.
The Book of Mormon evidences that are presented are all "a posteriori" pieces of evidence. They are only considered "evidence" because someone found a way to view them as supporting the Book of Mormon claim of historicity. Thousands of "misses" (which are every bit as significant as the "hits") are ignored in compiling the lists of "evidence."
In such an approach the sheer number of the "parallels" that are found is a reflection of the amount of time spent trying to dig them out rather than because of any real validity of the "theory" being considered. And there is no question that millions of man-hours have been spent by Mormons trying to find "evidences" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
When viewed from this standpoint the list of sporadic parallels that are presented by Lindsay and others is strong evidence that the proposition they are trying to prove is, in reality, false. These kinds of lists of sporadic, "a posteriori" parallels are exactly what is to be expected when a crackpot theory is presented by its adherents. It is not the kind of evidence that real scientists collect to objectively test a theory.
Oh, when viewed in isolation it can be, psychologically, quite striking. Just as the list of parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy is quite striking. Both are made to be psychologically persuasive to the reader. But neither list is designed to get at the truth of any underlying proposition--the proposition was already decided as true before the evidence was gathered.
When one considers the sheer number of things mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the even greater number of things that can be known about ancient Israel, Egypt, or the Americas--millions of square miles during a thousand or more years (things found dating to a thousand years after Book-of-Mormon dates can still be considered hits--but just assumed to be remnants handed down from the previous civilization of a thousand years ago) then the number of possibilities is truly astounding. That a hundred or ever a few thousand can be forced into a list is to be expected even if the Book of Mormon is not historical. However, what is not to be expected, if the Book of Mormon is historical, is that this is the best that they can do.
The lists of "Book of Mormon evidences" that Mormons proudly publish are more a proof that their position is a pipe dream than evidence that it has any merit.
| | | Wow, It Really Was Your Whole Life, Wasn't It?
Article Archived: Nov 14, 2007, at 09:10 AM
Stored Under Topic: EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: lightfingerlouie | | I recall one of Boyd Packer's "talks," in which he said that the church is, indeed, "a way of living," and not "just a church" (not his exact words).
He was right about that, wasn't he?
I am always stunned at how much it influenced everything about me. I was always a reluctant member of "the team," and the yoke chafed and rubbed. But I pulled, and tried to keep pulling. Like everyone else who has been in the Mormon system, you find you don't let go easily.
It influenced what I think of politics, the government, education, sex, entertainment, money, psychology, medical care, "free time," and family.
There were no parts of my life it did not get into. Talk about water flowing into every crack in the rocks. Nothing was not pried into.
I first realized it when I was about 12 years old, and I was asked about masturbation. That was the first time I discovered the church would stop at nothing to get into my life. I was almost dizzy with surprise. It hit me then---"This is not religion." Real religions don't bother with such personal and intrusive things. They work on the entire person, and don't care about the weenie.
When I went to the temple, it really hit me. I found that everything I owned, thought, valued, or cared about belonged to th "Corporation of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." They wanted it all, and they made no bones about taking it. It was alarming to me---and very frightening. I could not accept it, or recover from it. It made me want to run.
I went on a mission, and found out just how much they owned me. I was treated like a common infantryman. We wore uniforms, obeyed orders, marched when told to, and rested when told to. They influenced what we ate, thought, listened to, read, and did with out "spare time." Any deviation was a cause of serious intervention. In short, they treated the missionaries like shit.
You do not get away from this intrusive system without a real struggle. Its like the proverbial tar pit, and if you get one leg out, the other sinks in deeper. You pull, twist, gyrate, and cry. Eventually you get out, but you are covered in sticky tar, and it does not come off without great effort.
This is serious stuff. It is, indeed, a total system of mind, thought, and financial control.
| | | What Was Your Feeling The Very Instant You Realized The Church Was A Fraud?
Article Archived: Nov 14, 2007, at 09:03 AM
Stored Under Topic: EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Infymus | | This is a very valid point.
For me, it wasn't and it was due to the "chains and hooks" embedded in me by Mormonism. Fears created by Mormonism (and religion in general) are very pervasive. This is why out of all of the trinkets of Mormonism that are dropped by Ex-Mormons, it is the garments that are the last to go. I've seen Ex-mos who took nearly two years before they could finally move from taking them off here and there, to taking them off a little more, to finally FINALLY throwing them in the garbage. The psychological conditioning of Mormonism runs extremely deep.
Imagine a religion that can dictate to you what kind of underwear you have to wear. Imagine the control at that level.
Shrek said to his annoying ass, "Ogres are like onions". Ok, Shrek never existed (but hey, neither did Nephi or Moroni for that matter) but leaving Mormonism is like peeling back the layers of an onion. It takes time. It produces anger and pain and at the same time, an insatiable appetite for more.
When we were in Mormonism and we began questioning, we were told to stop, to pay, pray and obey. We were told we needed "milk" before "meat" (although we later realized that nobody ever had any meat, and meat was simply those who kept their mouths shut), we were told to put our thoughts and ideas on the shelf and stop trying to figure out. "Our answers would be answered later on in the next life. Joseph Smith gave us enough meat to last for centuries". The boys at FARMS provided us ten thousand word essays that before, we wouldn't bother to read because look, ten thousand words! They must have done their research, right? They are college professors working for the Lord's University, there is no reason to actually READ through the whole document and besides - the material they reference on the Anti side was forbidden. We were told stories of people who actually felt the spirit "rush out of the room" and some even heard maniacal evil laughter when they picked up Anti material.
Interesting. Now that we are outside of Mormonism, those same people are now saying that we are apostates. We are being sifted even as wheat by Satan. We no longer have the companionship of the Holy Ghost. We have abandoned God. We are no good, we should be avoided, chastised, prayed for, love bombed, name submitted to temples and more. We were told we just could not see the real truth. When we now read the FARMS material and Anti material and see the flaws in the FARMS work, we're told we should "Shut up and sing" (kudos to anyone who remembers that reference!)
Tell you the truth, I'd much rather be on this side of the coin. I believe those people in Mormonism who sweetly smiled (with daggers behind their backs) while we were Mormon, and then called us apostates when we left - are the most unhappy of them all. They are the Mormons who paint on their happy faces every day while behind the scenes are grappling with so many emotions they are popping prozac on a daily basis. They will never be free because they have no concept of what true freedom means.
I've met few Ex-Mos who said it was a "lightening" moment. For most of us, it was more of a "Oh my god, is that true?" as we peeled back the layers and saw the truth. It came in waves.
Here is something - when I was Mormon I was told that Jesus Christ would open the fountains of knowledge to me and I would never thirst. The ol' bait and switch of "Knock and it shall be opened" sales pitch. To tell you the truth, I was starving as a Mormon. My thirst was never quenched - and when I proclaimed I was hungry and thirsty, I got chastised for it. When I got out of Mormonism and began to unravel the real truths, my hunger and thirst began to be satiated. As Mormons, I could never be satiated because the truth was always kept from me. It was the truth that was fulfilling.
|  | Relief Society Quiz Question Yesterday: Who Was Joseph Smith's Wife?
Article Archived: Nov 12, 2007, at 08:54 AM
Stored Under Topic: JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 3 (click Topic Name for More Articles)
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Southern Man | | The priesthood/relief society lesson yesterday was the obligatory annual lesson deifying Joseph Smith (on a side note, I was surprised that the JS lesson didn't occur until this late in the manual, and the year. Every PH/RS manual for the past several years has contained such a lesson, and it has always been the second or third lesson in the manual, meaning you get it in January). The teacher made up a quiz about Joseph Smith, in the form of a fill-in-the-blanks pop quizz that she handed out to the sisters.
The questions were, of course, entirely banal, and didn't ask anything about JS's less faith-promoting activities. I noticed three questions about his marital history: Who was Joseph Smith's wife? When did they marry? Who were her parents?
I asked my wife why the questions were phrased as though JS had had only one wife. I told her there obviously wasn't enough room, on the one line provided, to write in 33 names, or 33 dates of marriage, or 66 names of parents. All I got was a dirty look.
In PH, it was stated that JS was killed because he refused to deny that he was a prophet, and that he had seen HF and JC. Gee, that was news to me. The worst comment made about him was that he was a "poor businessman".
So the deification of Joseph Smith continues unabated. It always amuses and amazes me to see how little TBM's know about the man's actual history. I did hear one comment from one of the old stalwart members. He said he was disturbed that JS kept his polygamy secret. He said that if it was a commandment and a revelation from God, then why was it denied and hidden for so long? Why wasn't it just brought out into the public eye immediately? But most of the quorum members treat him like a weird relative, maybe not to be praised, but not to be denied either, and to be defended against outsiders.
And so it goes on.
| I experienced a trifecta of BS at church yesterday...
First, the elders quorum meeting lesson was on Joseph Smith. I had a very hard time sitting thru this propaganda period without puking. There was a line in the lesson manual that actually read, speaking of Joseph:
"This budding prophet had no preconceived false notions and beliefs. He was not steeped in the traditions and legends and superstitions and fables of the centuries. He had nothing to unlearn." The Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball; Chapter 21.
I can not recall an individual MORE influenced by his surroundings, colloquial mysticism and surrounding influences than Joseph Smith. The lesson paints a wholly rosy and glorious picture of Smith, saying nothing of the shallow, vain, base, perverted practices he perpetuated.
The staggering thing is that these men just sat there and said nothing! No one challenged the veracity of this rubbish.
I thought to myself that this display would be very much like the eulogy for a monster of a man. No one speaks ill of the deceased; they only speak of good things and gloss over the monster that he was. And no one says a word.
At one point, the instructor mentioned the change in the introduction of the BOM. He presented the change as a statement of fact and then paused and said, "I don't care...I still know it's true".
I left more disgusted than I have ever felt about TSCC. The lies and propaganda that is spun out as "lessons" is purely for indoctrination.
Second, a neighbor dropped off a copy of The Friend for my 3 year old. The first story in the issue tells of a young family that chooses to not buy food in order to pay tithing....and at the end of the article, there are suggested questions to ask young readers:
"What would you do if you were hungry and the only money you had was for tithing?" (The Friend, Nov. 2007 pg. 3).
My DD will NOT be reading this or any edition of The Friend.
And lastly, while teaching my sunday school class, a student stated how much she detested her seminary teacher and thought how narrow minded and "stupid" he was. She had asked the ST about where dinosaurs fit into the POS. He answered that dinosaurs had never existed and that the "evidence" was placed here on earth as a test of our faith. WTF?????? Luckily the kids in my class all thought this was total BS.
Pure manipulative evil.
| |
2.0 Feed
0.3 Feed
