Containing 5,418 Articles Spanning 370 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
  DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2
Total Articles: 18
Mormon Apostle Dallin H. Oaks.
topic image
Oaks: We Should Follow The Spirit In Determining How Much We Shun Disobedient Children
Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009, at 11:54 AM
Original Author(s): Bamboom
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
The Dalin H Oakes talk. I'm watching him harp on about 'law'. Not surprising since he's a lawyer. I met him once at the Edinburgh mission home when I was 18. He had that same pinched look then as well. While listening to him talk about this situation where 'good Mormon parents' are confronted with this dilemma of one of their kids living in non-married sin I noticed that he was talking about an abstract version of the situation according to law. Oh how difficult for these godly parents when this 'sinful kid' says, 'If you loved me you wouldn't judge me and you'd accept me as I am'...etc. etc. and blah blah.

What was missing was a recognition of the reality. These abstract 'good mormon parents' full of spiritual purity he was talking about don't exist. Most mormon parents have a huge trail of hypocrisy behind them, of their own hideous mistakes, their shady business dealings, their own pettiness, their own pick-and-mixing of church doctrines, their own spiritual failures, their own betrayals of their own ideas and their children, their own shabby behaviour.

What's missing is where the kid 'living in sin' says not, 'If you loved me you would accept me', but rather, 'Who the hell are you to lecture me given some of the things you've done? Who the hell do you think you are? Why don't spend more time addressing you're own shallowness and hyprocrisy instead of lecturing me? Come to think of it, there are a bunch of ways in which your own eternal temple marriage is a complete emotional sham in order to keep up appearances. Is that what you think I should be doing?'

But Oakes carefully avoids getting into that. In fact that's the problem with all these conference 'talks'. They're full of cherry-picked pearls of wisdom and high-sounding ideals but never address squarely real human life, and they always assume that faithful members or parents are somehow paragons of virtue who would have a right to pontificate the way they do from the tabernacle pulpit.

As for this arrogance from the pulpit, this pretended 'quietness' and this calm, patronising delivery style.....it's just so obvious how much it's a practised technique, all the techniques you pick up in cheesy business seminars that teach you how to 'win friends and influence people'. It's almost embarrassing. I can't help but notice how much the whole thing looks like a mini-me senate or congress, trying to ape the look of 'power' and 'authority' of government bodies, the same attempt to look very serious while dispensing quite shallow and hackneyed responses that utterly fail to address to the human existential situation as it actually is globally, rather than simply as it is in some kind of 50's Utah Sunday School Valley.
topic image
Rephrase Of Oaks
Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009, at 11:56 AM
Original Author(s): Sthilda87
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
God has a plan- known & dispensed only through the LDS Church.

Mercy is only for those who stick to the plan.

God's love & mercy is conditional.

Blessings are found only by obedience to the LDS Church.

If you make any mistakes, you have not been following HF's plan.

God loves you only when you are doing right.

Oaks & Co know God's plan for you. You might think you know, but if you are not following LDS teachings, you are operating contrary to God's law.

God = Law = LDS Teachings

God's plan might Qualify us for eternity.

Blessings require Obedience.

Gifts are conditioned on Obedience. Love is conditioned on obedience.

Parents must rescue those of us who have wandered.

I don't know what compelled me to watch this oppressive double-think. Lately, I have been struggling mightily with what I believe about God, love, consequence, etc. So I imagine it's good that I watched this, because I've been away long enough, that I forgot how sneakily manipulative this LDS doctrine is.

I heard someone on this forum explain that the hardest thing for those of us who have left is to discern what we really believe vs what is indoctrination.

I have been struggling with my understanding of God, which is still muddied by LDS teachings.

The question for me - Is there a loving God? What do I know about a Higher Power, and what is just mental static, courtesy of TSCC?

Sometimes it seems so much easier to determine that no God exists. After all, wouldn't a loving God not allow the LDS church to exist, and to contaminate my mind with Oaksian garbage?

How am I supposed to proceed in faith, with all of this horse shiza in my head?

When it comes right down to it, I am just hoping that there is Something bigger, eternal, transcendent, and just bigger than me, and that love, mercy, truth and goodness are signs of His existence.

All of this talk of Law & Justice & Correction & Discipline seems like transparent tools of control & oppression.
topic image
The Family Relationships Wouldn't Be Impaired If Family Members Who Believe In The Church's Doctrine Would Mind Their Own Business
Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009, at 11:58 AM
Original Author(s): Mantisdolphin
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
What set me off about Oaks' talk was that the over-emphasis on law implicitly advises TBM family members that shunning is an option. Oaks isn't going to come out and say "Shun your family members who aren't part of the church." That sounds too uncharitable. No one would buy it but the most diehard fanatics. But ultimately, what else can one conclude from what he said?

He used the word "chasteneth," saying that God chastens and thereby shows his love. So if you love your kids, your family members, then chastening them is fine. He advised the church members that "real love for the sinner may compel confrontation." What does that mean? "Confrontation" sounds pretty active, in your face, and that can include the social violence of shunning or stigmatizing (and of course there is no lack of that directed by church members toward "apostates"). Both shunning and stigmatizing reinforce and call forth each other.

Oaks said, "real love does not support self-destructive behavior." Okay, sure I'm not going to let my kid run into the street. That's destructive behavior; I'm going to try to get a spouse help who abuses alcohol. But is it "self-destructive" for someone to decide to follow another religious or existential path than one laid out by the church? That's pretty much that person's decision I think. What some members of the church may see or construe as "self-destructive" behavior could be someone just following his or her conscience to believe what seems right for that person. The eleventh article of faith covers that. So the TBMs should really just back the F off. Oaks is having none of that though. He wants them being confrontational and chastising with the non-believers in their families. Of all the aggressive means in the believer's playbook against a family member who is apostatizing, "shunning"--the action of purposefully ignoring someone, leaving them out of consideration--covers a lot of what would be done. Omission becomes commission.

For Oaks to say that someone not kowtowing to the church's view of salvation leaves a family in a "house divided," with the "son divided against the father," etc., just invites--and this is really the only point that matters in finding Oaks' talk hateful--TBM family members to perform their "patient efforts" to "unite" their straying loved ones "in understanding God's love and God's law." Those "patient efforts" could involve shunning, subtle forms of stigmatizing, all manner of BS that most people on this board have experienced first-hand. Oaks couches the TBM compulsion in gentle terms in his conclusion, but he advances his argument with terms like "division" in the home and the inevitability ("after all we can do") of "impairing" our family relationships. These are not part of a live and let live philosophy, but of a relentless badgering of the non-believing family member.

The family relationships wouldn't be impaired if family members who believe in the church's doctrine would mind their own business (something Oaks doesn't want them to do). If the TBMs just got along with their own "happiness"--not letting it be contingent on re-activating or baptizing "wayward" family members--then there would be no problem. But Oaks is interested in fanning flames of division. He wants the church members to feel the necessity to "confront" their "loved one" who has left the tithing fold. To me, his talk invites TBMs to be aggressive in their re-conversion efforts, and that's not what I need my family to hear as I try to get them the heck out of this stupid church. I'm trying to de-tox them and he's trying to get them to spread the poison anew.
topic image
Dear Mr. Oaks: Family, Isn't It About Time?
Monday, Oct 12, 2009, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Moniker
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Dear Mr. Oaks,

I listened to your conference address and have felt the effects of your talk in my personal life. I feel compelled to let you know the actions your words have caused in my life.

I did not leave the Mormon church because of any personal offenses by my family or friends within the church. Choosing to leave the Mormon faith was a very difficult decision for me. I was obeying all of the commandments at the time that I started researching Mormon literature and history to find the truths for myself. I was simply following Joseph Smith's example, by searching the truth of religion. I was sad to realize how untrue the church was, after reading the Church's early documents.

I had loving and supportive parents. Even though I knew they would be disappointed, I did not think my family would shun me the way they did when I told them my thoughts about the church. I was expecting them to still love me unconditionally. I was very disappointed. They used all kinds of threats and manipulation to get me to go back to church. When my mom died and we were dressing her body, my dad took the opportunity as a missionary lesson and said, "If you go to the temple again, you will be able to see her again. If not, you will never, ever see her again." This was a very horrible thing to say to a daughter who has just lost her best friend, her mother. It really hurt me. This and being left out of family get-togethers or barely being tolerated, simply because of my beliefs, helped me to see even more clearly what my family members' true colors were.

Before this experience with my family, I was so torn about what to do concerning the church. On the one hand, I did not like to live a lie by participating in an organization I did not agree with and that I thought was corrupt. On the other hand, I couldn't reconcile how a corrupt organization could have so many wonderful people as members. I looked up to and admired many mormon friends, family members and professors. However, when my friends and family turned away from me because of my beliefs, my previous notions about the people within the church were shattered. It was a testimony to me of what a corrupt organization can do to otherwise loving and good people.

In your talk, you claimed that a parent who keeps loving a child unconditionally, when that child is not "obeying the law", knows nothing of love. I disagree and feel that you know nothing about love. Firstly, your belief in your church is not "the law". It is a belief that you are free to have. A child who has a belief differing from yours is not "wayward" and is in need of neither fixing nor manipulating, especially not when one's child is an adult, as you suggested. Adult children should be free to choose their own religious belief system without expecting to be shunned or chastised by their family. Secondly, parental love does not know conditions or bounds. It does not manipulate. A family is supposed to stick together, through good and hard times and no matter what the individual members' beliefs are or aren't. A divided family is not a functional family. You suggested that although being seperated from family members who are not believing or living all of your church's teachings is painful for the righteous Mormons, it is sometimes necessary. I find this instruction to the members of your church to be hurtful. The personal effects are devestating and very painful to many Exmormons.

Since leaving the church and Utah, I have met many wonderful families. I'm envious of the loving, unconditional love and respect they show each other. I never saw this at this level with Mormon families. Since Mormons claim to have cornered the market on perfect families, this fallacy is even more difficult to digest.

Your talk had very interesting timing for me personally. I am of pioneer stock and all of my family members are very active in your church. I am a BYU graduate. I served way beyond what was asked of me within your church. I tell you this before you scoff to yourself and think, "I'm glad a loser like her is out of my church anyway." I am a good person and was a good Mormon. I was such a great daughter, sister and aunt. My family was my world and I love them more than I will ever be able to express in words. However, my son is my closest family member and I have to consider his needs in life first, above all else. I simply cannot expose him to the hurt of my family. I don't want him to be shunned and manipulated by family members the way I was. I think that not having an extended family is better than having a very hurtful, caustic one. There is not a place in my family for people who do not believe as they believe.

It is very sad to not have any grandparents for my darling baby though. They don't get to hear his first words or see his first steps. They don't get hand colored scribbles of "I love you" in the mail. My son doesn't get to see them at Christmas or to play with his many cousins. I was so sad about this recently, that I was considering letting them back into my life, even after the very hurtful ways they treated me, simply for being true to my own belief system.

I was starting to talk to my dad again by phone and email. I was skeptical because of how much he hurt me and proved to me that my family really wasn't a family at all. However, I did not want to deprive my baby of an extended family, so I was willing to have an open mind and heart about my family and give them another chance. There was another reason for opening the door to my family again: I loved them unconditionally. I love them so deeply and truly that it hurts because they continually put their religious beliefs before their love for me. These are the reasons why I opened myself back up to them again. I was treading lightly and using caution though, as I did not want to hurt my son indirectly, through my family's almost sociopathic need to "follow their leaders".

Then came your talk! Next came my family's horrible attacks on my character and my own little family. I once again am reminded of the pain the Mormon church leaves in its wake. I don't need to go through that pain again. I don't need my son to think this is the way a family is supposed to behave. I will teach him how loving family members treat each other through my unconditional love for him. He will know me by my fruits. I am grateful for my family in that they have taught me exactly how not to be in raising my own family. I have learned much from them.

I'm very happy to be at even more peace than ever with my decision to leave the Mormon church. I have no doubt at all now that it was the right thing to do. The evidence of how corrupt and unloving the Mormon church is has been impossible to ignore lately. I used to love it and it pained me to have it out of my life, even after it no longer represented any kind of truth for me. Now, I am at peace because I have watched the behavior of many Mormons long enough now to see how a corrupt organization turns love into a perverse concept. I am finally free of the guilt I had in keeping my son from my family. They are the ones keeping themselves from him. I would be an idiot to give them another chance. Thank you for your talk and especially for the timing of it. My son's life will be richly blessed because of it.

Sincerely,

A Loving Exmormon Mom
topic image
Oaks Is Too Obtuse To See The Irony
Wednesday, Oct 14, 2009, at 07:43 AM
Original Author(s): Multiple Authors
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks on Tuesday likened the post-Proposition 8 backlash against Mormons to the persecution blacks endured during the civil-rights struggle.

"Were four little Mormon girls blown up in the church at Sunday school? Were there burning crosses planted on local bishops' lawns? Were people lynched and their genitals stuffed in their mouths?" asked University of Utah historian Colleen McDannell. "By comparing these two things, it diminishes the real violence that African-Americans experienced in the '60s, when they were struggling for equal rights. There is no equivalence between the two."

Oaks, in a strongly worded defense of the church's efforts opposing same-sex marriage, told students at Brigham Young University-Idaho in Rexburg that Latter-day Saints "must not be deterred or coerced into silence" by advocates for "alleged civil rights."

Last year, the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urged its followers to donate money and time to pass Prop 8, the successful ballot measure that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to wed in California. Afterward, protests, including several near LDS temples, erupted along with boycotts of business owners who donated to Prop 8 and even some vandalism of LDS meetinghouses.

"In their effect," Oaks said, "they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."

Jeanetta Williams, president of the NAACP's Salt Lake branch, said there is "no comparison."

"I don't see where the LDS Church has been denied any of their rights," she said. "What the gay and lesbian communities are fighting for, that is a civil-rights issue."
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_1355258...

This analogy is so twisted on so many levels, but for one, where was LDS during the civil rights marches of the 1960s... Oh, that's right. Ezra Taft Benson was denouncing it as a communist plot, while the rank and file held the separation of races as part of the divine plan. Here's just one quote from a Church approved manual back then...

“Perhaps the most convincing book in JUSTIFICATION of the south in DENYING TO THE NEGRO RACE SOCIAL EQUALITY with the white race is the one written by William Benjamin Smith, entitled The Color Line, A Brief in Behalf of the Unborn, from which the following is a quotation: “'Here, then, is laid bare the news of the whole matter: Is the south JUSTIFIED in this ABSOLUTE DENIAL OF SOCIAL EQUALITY to the NEGRO, no matter what his (personal) virtues or abilities or accomplishments? “'We affirm, then that the south is ENTIRELY RIGHT in thus keeping open at all times, at all hazards, and at all sacrifices an IMPASSIBLE SOCIAL CHASM BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE. This she must do in behalf of her blood, her essence, of the stock of her Caucasian race.... The moment the bar of ABSOLUTE SEPERATION is thrown down in the south, that moment the bloom of her spirit is BLIGHTED FOREVER,... That the negro is MARKEDLY INFERIOR to the Caucasian is proved both craniologically and by six thousand years of planet-wide experimentation; and that the commingling of INFERIOR with SUPERIOR must lower the higher is just as certain as that the half-sum of two and six is only four.' (The Color Line, pp. 7-12)” (First Year Book in the Seventy's Course in Theology, pages 231-233)

The LDS Church has now just proclaimed that their religious freedom is now under attack because they were successful in denying civil rights to a minority group?

Am I getting that right?

And Oaks has the absolute gall to compare themselves to the same persecution the African American community had in the past?

Please, would someone in the media call this so called church out???

I now have absolutely ZERO respect for Dallin H Oaks. Good job, Mr Apostle man.

I find it ironic that this impassioned, if misguided and ill-informed, defense is coming from Mr. Oaks. This is the man who has repeatedly claimed: "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." If he had the run of the world, I somehow don't expect that free speech would be thriving.
topic image
Helping Elder Oaks: The Ancient Order Of Marriage
Friday, Oct 16, 2009, at 03:06 PM
Original Author(s): Peter_mary
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
The ancient order of marriage is the divinely sanctioned union, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman.
"We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God's law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning." See: http://www.sltrib.com/Faith/ci_135548...
EXCEPT, if you are the Patriarch, Abraham, in which case you can be married to Sarah (who might be your half-sister), and to Sarah's slave girl, Hagar. The ancient order of marriage is pretty liberal when it comes to marrying siblings, cousins and slaves.

EXCEPT, if you are Kind David or King Solomon, in which case you might have as many as 300 wives and 300 additional concubines, and copulating with and siring children by slaves was perfectly acceptible, both in the eyes of your citizens, and in the eyes of God, who sanctioned the practice.

EXCEPT, if you are Jesus, and married to both Mary Magdalene and Elizabeth (and likely others) [Teaching unique to early Mormon apostles, most notably Jedediah Grant, Orson Hyde, and Brigham Young]

EXCEPT, if you are Joseph Smith, in which case you can secretely practice polygamy to girls as young as 14, and also be married to women who are already married to other men. The ancient order of marriage demands, however, that you don't tell your first wife about all the others, because it makes her really mad. For that matter, it's best not to tell ANYONE except your good buddies, because then they might think twice about your apostolic calling.

EXCEPT, if you are Brigham Young, in which case you can have as many as 55 wives married to you in this life, and untold numbers sealed to you in the life hereafter. It is also perfectly acceptable to divorce them if they don't take care of themselves, or expect you to take care of them.

EXCEPT, if you are John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, George Cannon, Heber Kimball, and on and on and on, in which case you can obtain a new wife every time your last wife gets worn out.

EXCEPT, if your wife died, and you're an LDS apostle, you can be sealed to another, much younger woman, so you'll get both of 'em in the eternities. (Dallin Oaks married June Dixon in 1952, who passed away in 1998. In 2000, he married Kristen McMain, both of whom are sealed to him for time and all eternity--contrary to the "ancient order of marriage.")

But other than THAT, the Mormons are absolutely correct in defending the "ancient order of marriage."
topic image
Dallin Oaks Spoke Yesterday
Tuesday, Sep 21, 2010, at 07:44 AM
Original Author(s): Michaelm
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Dallin Oaks spoke yesterday on the constitution:
"Whatever the merits of current controversies over the laws of marriage ... if the decisions of federal courts can override the actions of state lawmakers on this subject, we have suffered a significant constitutional reallocation of lawmaking power from the lawmaking branch to the judicial branch and from the states to the federal government."
In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that:
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Less than ten years after the federal courts banned states from prohibiting interracial marriage, a member of a stake presidency told my wife that she should marry "her own kind".

Are these priesthood folks really going to save the constitution?
"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. **Everything** may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

Here are two preambles. The first is from the United States Constitution. The second is from the Constitution of the Confederate States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Oaks Speech:
"I referred to these fundamentals as the divinely inspired principles in the Constitution, and I here affirm my belief that they are."
(Confederate constitution mentions guidance of God in the preamble, U.S. constitution does not)
"I mention first what is probably the most important of the great fundamentals of the United States Constitution-the principle of popular sovereignty"
(The preamble to the Confederate constitution mentions sovereignty, the U.S. constitution does not. It is so important in the confederate version that it is in the opening sentance.)
"The dominance of state law will also be changed if, after full review, federal courts decree that a state law on marriage is invalid under the United States Constitution."
Constitutional rights for interracial marriage flies in the face of what Oaks said here. Oaks ignores mention of Loving v. Virginia: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Oaks speech is very disturbing to me.
topic image
Did Dallin Oaks Ever Retract This Or Explain It?
Thursday, Sep 30, 2010, at 08:21 AM
Original Author(s): Joseph
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
On August 16, 1985, Apostle Dallin Oaks tried to ease the fears of Mormon educators with regard to the Salamander letter by claiming that the words "white salamander" could be reconciled with Joseph Smith's statement about the appearance of the Angel Moroni:
"Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word 'salamander' in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W.W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word 'salamander' in the modern sense of a 'tailed amphibian.'

"One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of 'salamander,' which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s.... That meaning... is 'a mythical being thought to be able to live in fire.'...

"A being that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the Angel Moroni:... the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.

"In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship or membership in the Church?"
("1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium," pages 22-23)

For those not familiar with Hoffman and the forged documents this link may help.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/track...

Odd that The Lord's Anointed did not detect the forgeries but Jerald Tanner, one of the main Anti-Mormon researchers around was the one raising doubts and questions. At the time Hoffman was not happy with Jerald over this.
topic image
Elder Oaks: Gay Rights Will Take Away Religous Freedom
Tuesday, Feb 8, 2011, at 07:29 AM
Original Author(s): Lloyd Dobler
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
See: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70...
"Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so."
I think what is really pissing Oaks of is the trend of religion becoming more and more marginalized, not because of some sort of reverse discrimination but because religion in general and mormonism specifically is failing to effectively compete in the public marketplace.

From the article:

In his speech, Elder Oaks cited a number of religiously diverse examples and leaders in highlighting his four points on preserving religious freedom:

Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to a free society, thus "deserving of their special legal protection."

What he really means is MORE valuable and important than other organizations in society. Sorry dude, its not MORE anyMORE.What he is also saying is goddamnit I don't want to be within 1 million miles of our tax status being messed with!

Religious freedom "undergirds the origin and existence of this country and is the dominating civil liberty."

A nod to the old, "everything will fall apart in society if we abandon religion", fear tactic. And since when is religious freedom the dominating civil liberty?

The constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion "is weakening in its effects and in public esteem."

What he is really saying is that less and less people are listening to religious leaders and even...gasp....mormon apostles. He is being tricky because it really is not free exercise of religion that is weakening but the practice of religion itself that is weakening.

Such a weakening can be attributed "to the ascendancy of moral relativism."

Such weakening of religion (not his red herring religious freedom) is attributed not to moral relativisim but to the morality of people putting people ahead of religious institutions. Yeah Oaks, less and less you your members are going to be selling out their own family members and friends for you and your 14 buddies in the future, you better get used to it dude.
topic image
Dallin Oaks Will Be The Ruin Of This Church
Wednesday, Feb 9, 2011, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Lostandfound
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
This is a touchy issue. The LDS Church is what lawyers call a "deep pocket" and they will likely need protection from being sued.

There have been several instances where the Church has been in trouble for civil rights violations. The first I recall was the polagamy issue. The Federal Government was sending Marshalls to arrest and jail men who practiced this form of marriage.

The result was the 1890 Manifesto by President Willford Woodruff which ended the open practice of polygamy.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Man...

Another case was the Church policy that black men could not hold the priesthood, marry in the temple or hold other church callings (except for boy scout leader). Their were threats by the Federal Government under President Jimmy Carter to pull the accreditation of BYU because of open and active discrimmination against black students and not admitting qualified black students who had applied to the university.

Some college football teams refused to play against BYU. This, coupled with the growing population of Black Mormons in Brazil ultimately led to a "revelation" by President Spencer W. Kimball which ended the policy of discrimmination against black males.

I would note that the Doctrine and Covenants states that those who are not married for time and all of eternity will be servants to those who are married in the next life.

Because blacks were not allowed to married for time and all eternity, it ensured that they would be servants in the eternities. There was a very strong element of slavery to the church's policy.

So, now we have the Civil Rights issue of the century - rights for gay and lesbian people. The LDS Church wants to maintain status quo:
  • No marriages for gay and lesbian members
  • No adoption services
  • No Church employment
  • No Temple admittance
  • No admittance to BYU or other church run schools
  • No trespassing on church-owned property (arrests of 2 gay men found on church property, and the church owns a lot of property)
  • No enforcement of ethical treatment for gay and lesbian patients who patronize LDS owned hospitals. (I once heard someone day that "gays are pretty much worthless and they should all be gased" right at LDS Hospital.)
  • No leasing, renting or selling of housing to gay or lesbian persons
  • No protections against hate crimes or hate speech if the person who is making the threats is doing so for "religion".
Elder Oaks, I'm sorry. If the Church keeps getting sued, it is probably not a "Freedom of Religion" issue. It is much more likely that we are actively and openly discrimminating against a specific group of people who have long endured our displeasure. Civil Laws will have to be crafted to protect these citizens.

I think that the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ would teach good citizenship and obedience to Civil Law. The rights of others would be respected and protected under the Constitution of the United States. Of course, the Church could grant or refuse marriage and other ordinances according to worthiness set by Church standards, and employ only those members who met church standards, but that would be the limit! The Church couldn't take BYU transcripts from students who had earned credits. The Church couldn't refuse medical services in Church owned hospitals. The Church couldn't actively and openly promote hostility, hate and discrimmination against gay and lesbian persons without being SUED. That isn't freedom of religion. That isn't freedom of speech. That isn't protected by our constitution.

Ultimately, I fear that Dallin Oaks will be the ruin of this Church. He is causing such bad PR for the Church and for Salt Lake City. He doesn't know how to work diplomatically with the gay and lesbian community and so he is resorting to demands for absolute legal protection under "freedom of religion". Won't work.
topic image
I Really Wish Someone Would Testify A Counter Argument To Congress
Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011, at 09:19 AM
Original Author(s): Jesus Smith
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
I really wish someone would testify a counter argument to Congress. Something akin to....

The NIH, one of many worldwide scientific institutes that promotes medical research, funds their National Cancer Institute (NCI) to the tune of $5B a year. http://www.aacr.org/home/public--medi...

Imagine if we were to double their budget...

Very well thought out estimates put LDSinc's annual tithing income in the range of $5-10B with $8B as a good figure. (simply take 1million families x median income x 10% and you'll agree.)

So what if the $8B tithing were diverted to cancer research? That would more than double the annual budget. What strides could science make with twice the money?

Science has shown huge returns on investment over the past century. Life expectancy has nearly doubled. Quality of life for the healthy is astronomically better in nearly every nation. Even the environment is making a come back.

What has LDSinc done to improve lives? They build buildings. They plan and construct malls, ranches, church indoctrination centers, and entertainment businesses. They get unpaid janitors. They've healed...no one, that science wasn't already healing. Ok, they've donated $328M over the past 25 years to helping humanitarian causes. ( http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/facts-and-stats ) That's roughly $1.00 per current listed member per year. One dollar.

LDSinc is hurting humanity, reaping a wind-fall of cash from unwitting believers and returning a dollar each back to society.

Parasites.
topic image
Mr. Oaks Goes To Washington
Wednesday, Oct 19, 2011, at 09:17 AM
Original Author(s): Elguapo
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Elder Oaks just testified before the Senate finance committee about the importance of tax exemption for charitable donations. You can see the transcript of his comments here: http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/d...

I love how he introduced himself too: "I am Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." He even refers to himself with the silly title and middle initial. It all just sounds so self-important.

I didn't hear the whole proceeding, but it doesn't sound like religious organizations are being singled out in any way. None of the eleven options for tax reform even mention (so far as I could see) the possibility of revoking 501(c)(3) status for churches or any other entity. But Oaks was worried about it still, and mentioned it in his later comments.

The part of his testimony I thought interesting was this rationale for making churches tax exempt:
Today millions of these private “associations”–religious and charitable–are responsible for tens of millions of jobs and innumerable services that benefit our citizens at every level. I speak of private educational institutions, hospitals, social welfare agencies, and innumerable other organizations ministering to the needs of children, youth, the aged, the poor, and citizens generally. The financial well-being of this private sector is dependent upon private contributions that qualify for the charitable deduction. And the impact these private institutions have on those they serve is magnified by the millions of volunteers motivated by the ideals they pursue.

For example, in the aftermath of Katrina and the other 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aided the cleanup efforts with almost 3,000 tons of emergency supplies, over $13 million in cash and use of heavy equipment, and its members gave more than 42,000 man-days of service. Other non-profit organizations provided over $3.5 billion in cash and in-kind donations to help with relief efforts.
It seems to me that religion is riding on the coattails of the Red Cross and other truly charitable institutions here. I don't know how much tithing revenue the Mormon church receives each year in the U.S., but it must be in the billions. That means hundreds of millions annually in tax subsidies. And we're justifying that by saying we gave $13 million back? Are there any critical thinkers left in government?
topic image
Oaks Tells BYU Graduates: "You Have A Mark Upon You."
Friday, May 4, 2012, at 02:08 PM
Original Author(s): Fetal Deity
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
But, to a lot of non-Mormons out there (like potential employers and future colleagues), that isn't necessarily a positive. (Possible synonyms for "mark" could include: blemish, blot, blotch, pock, scar, smudge, splotch, spot, stain.)

More BYU Commencement gems:

"[Oaks recognized] the challenging times facing graduates – wars and rumors of wars, natural disasters, recession and the prospect of further financial disaster, values and standards being denied or cast aside as more people call evil good, and selfishness replacing service...." [In other words, the world is no different today than it was 4,500 years ago when a worldwide flood and dinosaurs threatened to extinguish humanity!]

"' ...BYU graduates and other Saints suffer worldly criticism and perhaps even persecution....'" [And since Mormons are untouched by imperfection, these criticisms and persecutions are simply proof of the wicked world's blind hatred towards them and that Mormons are right and everyone else is evil and wrong.]

"Elder Oaks told students to emulate Brigham Young's inclusive attitude toward his fellowmen." [In this sense, the meaning of the word "inclusive" would be better expressed as "non-inclusive."]

Quoting Brigham Young: "'"Our religion is adapted to the capacity of the whole human family. It does not send a portion of the people to howl in torment for ever and ever ...."'" [Unless you have the audacity to question, abandon and then speak against Mormonism!]

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles...
topic image
Dallin Oaks On Why A Federal Marriage Amendment Is A Bad Idea
Wednesday, Sep 5, 2012, at 02:00 PM
Original Author(s): Mujun
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Last week, Senator Orrin Hatch broke ranks with a couple of tribes to which he belongs and said in an interview that he believes laws governing marriage should be left in the hands of the states. While I disagree with him in terms of what he thinks those laws should ultimately be, I respect and applaud his statement that the federal government should not be dictating such things to the states, especially in the form of a constitutional amendment.

The Senator was only following The Brethren, ... that is to say he was following what they had said up until 2004 when the church came out and stated its endorsement of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Up until that point, the church had been talking out of the other side of its mouth.

In a 1992 Ensign article, Constitutional scholar, former law professor, former Utah Supreme Court Justice and (since 1984) LDS Apostle Dallin Oaks explained that one of the key, inspired points of the US Constitution was the balance of powers between the federal government and the states.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the...

If you scroll down to the heading "Inspiration," then look at the last paragraph of Item 3, you will read:
"The particular powers that are reserved to the states are part of the inspiration. For example, the power to make laws on personal relationships is reserved to the states. Thus, laws of marriage and family rights and duties are state laws. This would have been changed by the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (E.R.A.). When the First Presidency opposed the E.R.A., they cited the way it would have changed various legal rules having to do with the family, a result they characterized as "a moral rather than a legal issue." I would add my belief that the most fundamental legal and political objection to the proposed E.R.A. was that it would effect a significant reallocation of law-making power from the states to the federal government."
Of course, Oaks was just restating an argument that the church had already asserted in the March 1980 Ensign when it gave various, detailed arguments against the proposed Equal Rights Amendment.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the...
"14. Would the ERA further erode the constitutional division of powers? It would transfer from states to the federal government much of the power to deal with domestic relations, and further shift much law-making authority from locally elected legislators to nonelected federal judges."
I've raised this point with some of the faithful. The obvious contradiction and hypocrisy don't register. The few who were willing to listen responded with something along the lines of "Well, they couldn't foresee at that time what kind of threat would emerge with all of these evil gay people wanting to have committed relationships and equal rights."

Fifteen men sustained as prophets, seers and revelators and none of them saw marriage equality coming as an issue just a decade or so in advance?
topic image
Dallin Oaks: "Disadvantages For Children Raised By Couples Of The Same Gender"
Tuesday, Oct 9, 2012, at 09:34 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Mormon leaders once again attack gays and lesbians.

Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, took on a number of hot-button issues in a speech centered around the need to protect vulnerable children. He condemned abuse and neglect and called abortion "a great evil." He urged parents and caregivers to respond to children who struggle, including with same-sex attraction, with "loving understanding, not bullying or ostracism."

He also cautioned that it should be assumed that kids raised by same-sex couples or unwed mothers will be at a disadvantage.

"Children are also victimized by marriages that do not occur," Oaks said.

Evidence, he added, indicates that children are at a "significant disadvantage" when raised by single or unmarried parents. "We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender."

How sad that the LDS leadership must continually find ways to attack gay and lesbian families and individuals. More enlightened leaders understand that these are loving parents who provide wonderful, safe, secure homes for many, many children in need of love and stability.

Additionally, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of parents in America are gay with children from a previous marriage, adoption or various methods. The vast majority know that many in society, like the LDS leadership, are hyper critical of their parenting and therefore strive to be the most competent parents possible.

If these children are "disadvantaged" it is only because of the actions and attitudes of individuals, leaders and organizations who have treated these families and less than other families in America. Many of the 1,000+ government benefits of "civil marriage" would help these families and their children.

It's time we start supporting each other in America and stop attacking and dividing. Love is what these children and their parents need. Not derision and discrimination.
topic image
Did Oaks "Lie For The Lord" During Conference?
Tuesday, Oct 16, 2012, at 11:58 AM
Original Author(s): Sock Puppet
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
From http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/...
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an apostle of the church, spoke about family, the value of life, and the importance of loving everyone - all worthy subjects. He also spoke about bullying and the "permanent" psychological damage that bullying can cause children by making them feel "worthless, unloved, or unwanted."

Then, in what seemed an about-face, Oaks changed themes. After describing a long list of supposed social ills, he said that church members should "assume" that "children raised by parents of the same gender" are "disadvantaged" and "victimized" by this circumstance. He did not bother to properly support his claim, apart from vague references to an unnamed "scholar" or a supposed "New York Times article."
I agree with Oaks. Children raised by same gender parents will be disadvantaged, even victimized, by the societal attitude fostered by the LDS Church against same gender couples and parents. What's the solution, then, Oaks? Maybe the LDS Church could do a 180 and become an agent for helping to foster the enlightenment going on in the attitudes towards homosexuality. Tolerance and acceptance? Shouldn't those be some of the Christian virtues that the LDS Church embraces and promotes?

Homosexuality has occurred in mankind for as long as there has been a recorded history. It occurs in other sexual species. The closed-mindedness that encourages and teaches intolerance of it is crumbling.

As with the ban on the priesthood being extended to blacks, the general population's morality has outdistanced LDS thinking regarding homosexuality considerably. I suspect before 2020 a 'revelation'. The excoriation of homosexuals will then be recharacterized by Mopologists as the 'talking as men' that dates back all the way to the OT. But Pres News Room will take the vague dive--'we don't know why god kept religious inclusion and privileges from homosexuals previously, but that is now in the past.'
topic image
Dallin Oaks' Unsuccessful Rewrite Of The Actual Mormon Church Teaching And Practice Of "Celestialized" Plural Marriage
Wednesday, Dec 5, 2012, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Talk about the unconscionable rewriting by Dallin H. "Hoax" of Mormon Church history for expediency's sake, this one really takes the Cult cake:

"[According to Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks], [t]he ancient order of marriage is the divinely sanctioned union, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman[.] [Quoting fellow LDS apostle M. Russell Ballard from a speech Ballard delivered in 2008 at Brigham Young University, Oaks declared]: 'We follow Jesus Christ by adhering to God's law of marriage, which is marriage between one man and one woman. This commandment has been in place from the very beginning.' . . . [see Oaks, 'Religious Freedom,' in 'Newsroom: The Official (Mormon) Church Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders, and the Public,' transcript of Oaks' speech at BYU-Idaho, Rexbury, 13 October 2009)

Now, for the inconvenient caveats:

"EXCEPT, if you are the Patriarch Abraham, in which case you can be married to Sarah (who might be your half-sister), and to Sarah's slave girl, Hagar. The ancient order of marriage is pretty liberal when it comes to marrying siblings, cousins and slaves.

"EXCEPT, if you are Kind David or King Solomon, in which case you might have as many as 300 wives and 300 additional concubines, and copulating with and siring children by slaves was perfectly acceptible, both in the eyes of your citizens, and in the eyes of God, who sanctioned the practice.

"EXCEPT, if you are Jesus, and married to both Mary Magdalene and Elizabeth (and likely others) ([a] [t]eaching unique to early Mormon apostles, most notably Jedediah Grant, Orson Hyde, and Brigham Young).

"EXCEPT, if you are Joseph Smith, in which case you can secretly practice polygamy to girls as young as 14, and also be married to women who are already married to other men. The ancient order of marriage demands, however, that you don't tell your first wife about all the others, because it makes her really mad. For that matter, it's best not to tell ANYONE except your good buddies, because then they might think twice about your apostolic calling.

"EXCEPT, if you are Brigham Young, in which case you can have as many as 55 wives married to you in this life, and untold numbers sealed to you in the life hereafter. It is also perfectly acceptable to divorce them if they don't take care of themselves, or expect you to take care of them.

"EXCEPT, if you are John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, George Cannon, Heber Kimball, and on and on and on, in which case you can obtain a new wife every time your last wife gets worn out.

"EXCEPT, if your wife died, and you're an LDS apostle, you can be sealed to another, much younger woman, so you'll get both of 'em in the eternities. (Dallin Oaks married June Dixon in 1952, who passed away in 1998. In 2000, he married Kristen McMain, both of whom are sealed to him for time and all eternity--contrary to the 'ancient order of marriage').

"But other than THAT, the Mormons are absolutely correct in defending the 'ancient order of marriage.'"

"Helping Elder Oaks: The Ancient Order Of Marriage," by "peter_mary," 16 October 2009, original emphasis)
topic image
Elder Oaks Takes A Swat At Those Whose Names Were Removed, Other Interesting Tidbits From 2013 Midwest Area Conference
Tuesday, Mar 5, 2013, at 07:33 AM
Original Author(s): Anon For This
Topic: DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2   -Guid-
Some of you may recall the infamous Easter 2009 post I shared in which Elder Oak told members in IA, IL, MO, MN, KS, ND, and SD that the church would not help members in need during the economic downturn. See http://themormoncurtain.blog/topic_da...

Well, four years later, Elder Oaks was back, thus time going after those who complained that the church was not providing their needs. No joke. Yesterday was the Midwest area conference 2013. This time they learned from past mistakes and scheduled this broadcast a month before Easter so the lack of emphasis on Jesus wasn't quite so startling as it was on Easter of 2009.

Elder Oaks started off by referring to a letter from someone who had requested their name be removed from the records of the church. This person had written that they were leaving because the church didn't seem to care about them and was not providing for their needs. Elder Oaks then compared this person to one of five thousand that Jesus fed, many of whom stopped following Jesus after he stopped providing food, citing a scripture from the New Testament to show that the church is there to provide for our eternal needs. Elder Oaks basically suggested that people should stop their complaining and realize that the church serves up eternal blessings. The church is not necessarily there for our present needs.

This oversimplification and apparent demonization of those who have left the church was a piling on after Sister Reeves, 2nd Counselor in the Relief Society Presidency, told members that she had read a study that proved statistically that the primary reason return missionaries left the church was due to immorality and failure to read their scriptures on a daily basis. LOL. This same sister also admitted that she did not have a bad thought come into her head until about fifteen years ago, when she briefly entertained dirty thoughts at a grocery checkout line after seeing other women pick up sleazy magazines in the line and added them with to their groceries.
 
mcimg
HOME
FAQ
CONTACT ME
370 TOPICS
THE EX-MORMON FORUMS
RSS FEED
Google
Search The
Mormon Curtain




WWW
Mormon Curtain

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
Oaks: We Should Follow The Spirit In Determining How Much We Shun Disobedient Children
Rephrase Of Oaks
The Family Relationships Wouldn't Be Impaired If Family Members Who Believe In The Church's Doctrine Would Mind Their Own Business
Dear Mr. Oaks: Family, Isn't It About Time?
Oaks Is Too Obtuse To See The Irony
Helping Elder Oaks: The Ancient Order Of Marriage
Dallin Oaks Spoke Yesterday
Did Dallin Oaks Ever Retract This Or Explain It?
Elder Oaks: Gay Rights Will Take Away Religous Freedom
Dallin Oaks Will Be The Ruin Of This Church
I Really Wish Someone Would Testify A Counter Argument To Congress
Mr. Oaks Goes To Washington
Oaks Tells BYU Graduates: "You Have A Mark Upon You."
Dallin Oaks On Why A Federal Marriage Amendment Is A Bad Idea
Dallin Oaks: "Disadvantages For Children Raised By Couples Of The Same Gender"
Did Oaks "Lie For The Lord" During Conference?
Dallin Oaks' Unsuccessful Rewrite Of The Actual Mormon Church Teaching And Practice Of "Celestialized" Plural Marriage
Elder Oaks Takes A Swat At Those Whose Names Were Removed, Other Interesting Tidbits From 2013 Midwest Area Conference
5,418 Articles In 370 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (370 Topics)
TopicImage AUTHOR INDEX

  · ADAM GOD DOCTRINE (4)
  · APOLOGISTS - SECTION 1 (25)
  · APOLOGISTS - SECTION 2 (25)
  · ARTICLES OF FAITH (1)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE (14)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - SECTION 1 (18)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - SECTION 2 (14)
  · BLACKS AND MORMONISM (12)
  · BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD (9)
  · BLOOD ATONEMENT (3)
  · BOB BENNETT (1)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 3 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 6 (19)
  · BONNEVILLE COMMUNICATIONS (2)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM - SECTION 2 (23)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 3 (15)
  · BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES (18)
  · BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (24)
  · BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES (5)
  · BOOK REVIEW - ROUGH STONE ROLLING (28)
  · BOOKS - AUTHORS AND DESCRIPTIONS (12)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS - SECTION 1 (26)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS - SECTION 2 (15)
  · BOY SCOUTS (20)
  · BOYD K. PACKER - SECTION 1 (21)
  · BOYD K. PACKER - SECTION 2 (9)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG (24)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY - SECTION 2 (28)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · BRUCE D. PORTER (1)
  · BRUCE R. MCCONKIE (7)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · CATHOLIC CHURCH (5)
  · CHANGING DOCTRINE (11)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 2 (23)
  · CHRIS BUTTARS (1)
  · CHURCH LEADERSHIP (3)
  · CHURCH PROPAGANDA - SECTION 1 (5)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES - SECTION 2 (24)
  · CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS (10)
  · CHURCH VAULTS (4)
  · CITY CREEK CENTER (23)
  · CIVIL UNIONS (12)
  · CLEON SKOUSEN (2)
  · COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (2)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 3 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 4 (22)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 5 (35)
  · CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MORMONISM (14)
  · D. MICHAEL QUINN (1)
  · D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON (3)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 1 (19)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS - SECTION 2 (18)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 1 (22)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 2 (24)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON - SECTION 3 (31)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (15)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (6)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DAVID WHITMER (1)
  · DELBERT L. STAPLEY (1)
  · DESERET NEWS (2)
  · DIETER F. UCHTDORF (8)
  · DNA (23)
  · DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS (8)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · ELAINE S. DALTON (5)
  · EMMA SMITH (4)
  · ENSIGN PEAK (1)
  · EX-MORMON FOUNDATION (33)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1 (35)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 10 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 19 (26)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 22 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 23 (30)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 5 (23)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 6 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 8 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 9 (26)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 1 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 10 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 19 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 25 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26 (52)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 3 (21)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 4 (22)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 5 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 6 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 8 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (26)
  · EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE (19)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON - SECTION 1 (7)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON - SECTION 2 (2)
  · FACIAL HAIR (6)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 1 (25)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 2 (24)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS - SECTION 3 (19)
  · FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS (11)
  · FARMS (28)
  · FIRST VISION - SECTION 1 (18)
  · FIRST VISION - SECTION 2 (3)
  · FOOD STORAGE (3)
  · FUNDAMENTALIST LDS (7)
  · GENERAL AUTHORITIES (29)
  · GENERAL CONFERENCE (14)
  · GENERAL NEWS (5)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 1 (23)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 2 (20)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY - SECTION 3 (22)
  · GRANT PALMER (8)
  · GREGORY L. SMITH (9)
  · GUNNISON MASSACRE (1)
  · H. DAVID BURTON (2)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HATE MAIL I RECEIVE (23)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HEBER C. KIMBALL (4)
  · HELEN RADKEY (17)
  · HELLEN MAR KIMBALL (4)
  · HENRY B. EYRING (5)
  · HOLIDAYS (12)
  · HOME AND VISITING TEACHING (9)
  · HOWARD W. HUNTER (1)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (11)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · INTERVIEWS IN MORMONISM (15)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JEFF LINDSAY (6)
  · JEFFREY MELDRUM (1)
  · JEFFREY R. HOLLAND (30)
  · JEFFREY S. NIELSEN (11)
  · JOHN GEE (1)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JOHN L. SORENSON (3)
  · JOHN TAYLOR (1)
  · JOSEPH B. WIRTHLIN (1)
  · JOSEPH F. SMITH (1)
  · JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH (6)
  · JOSEPH SITATI (1)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY - SECTION 1 (21)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - PROPHECY (8)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 1 (25)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 2 (23)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 3 (22)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SECTION 4 (30)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SEER STONES (7)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - WORSHIP (13)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · KEITH B. MCMULLIN (1)
  · KERRY MUHLESTEIN (9)
  · KERRY SHIRTS (6)
  · KINDERHOOK PLATES (6)
  · KIRTLAND BANK (6)
  · KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS (17)
  · L. TOM PERRY (4)
  · LAMANITE PLACEMENT PROGRAM (3)
  · LAMANITES - SECTION 1 (34)
  · LANCE B. WICKMAN (1)
  · LARRY ECHO HAWK (1)
  · LDS CHURCH - SECTION 1 (18)
  · LDS CHURCH OFFICE BUILDING (9)
  · LDS SOCIAL SERVICES (3)
  · LGBT - AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (39)
  · LORENZO SNOW (1)
  · LOUIS C. MIDGLEY (5)
  · LYNN A. MICKELSEN (2)
  · LYNN G. ROBBINS (1)
  · M. RUSSELL BALLARD (11)
  · MARK E. PETERSON (6)
  · MARK HOFFMAN (12)
  · MARLIN JENSEN (3)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MARTIN HARRIS (4)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MELCHIZEDEK/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (8)
  · MERRILL J. BATEMAN (2)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 1 (23)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 3 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 4 (25)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 5 (17)
  · MISSIONARIES - SECTION 6 (16)
  · MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 (18)
  · MORE GOOD FOUNDATION (1)
  · MORMON CELEBRITIES (14)
  · MORMON CHURCH HISTORY (8)
  · MORMON CHURCH PR (13)
  · MORMON CLASSES (1)
  · MORMON DOCTRINE (33)
  · MORMON FUNERALS (12)
  · MORMON GARMENTS - SECTION 1 (20)
  · MORMON HANDCARTS (10)
  · MORMON INTERPRETER (2)
  · MORMON MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS (1)
  · MORMON MEMBERSHIP (38)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MORMON MONEY - SECTION 3 (18)
  · MORMON NEWSROOM (5)
  · MORMON POLITICAL ISSUES (5)
  · MORMON RACISM (18)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONIES (38)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CHANGES (15)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 1 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 2 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 3 (25)
  · MORMON TEMPLES - SECTION 4 (38)
  · MORMON VISITOR CENTERS (9)
  · MORMON WARDS AND STAKE CENTERS (1)
  · MORMONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (0)
  · MORMONTHINK (14)
  · MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE (20)
  · MURPHY TRANSCRIPT (1)
  · NATALIE R. COLLINS (11)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · NAUVOO EXPOSITOR (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL - SECTION 1 (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE (1)
  · NEIL L. ANDERSEN - SECTION 1 (3)
  · OBEDIENCE - PAY, PRAY, OBEY (15)
  · OBJECT LESSONS (15)
  · OLIVER COWDREY (6)
  · ORRIN HATCH (5)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PATRIARCHAL BLESSING (5)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PBS DOCUMENTARY THE MORMONS (17)
  · PERSECUTION (9)
  · PIONEER DAY (3)
  · PLAN OF SALVATION (4)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 1 (26)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 2 (24)
  · POLYGAMY - SECTION 3 (15)
  · PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS (1)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROCLAMATIONS (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · PROPOSITION 8 COMMENTS (11)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (10)
  · RELIEF SOCIETY (14)
  · RESIGNATION PROCESS (24)
  · RICHARD G. HINCKLEY (2)
  · RICHARD G. SCOTT (7)
  · RICHARD LYMAN BUSHMAN (11)
  · RICHARD TURLEY (1)
  · ROBERT D. HALES (5)
  · ROBERT L. MILLET (6)
  · RODNEY L. MELDRUM (12)
  · ROYAL SKOUSEN (2)
  · RUNTU'S RINCON (73)
  · RUSSELL M. NELSON (13)
  · SACRAMENT MEETING (11)
  · SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (1)
  · SCOTT D. WHITING (1)
  · SCOTT GORDON (4)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SERVICE AND CHARITY (25)
  · SHERI L. DEW (1)
  · SHIELDS RESEARCH - MORMON APOLOGETICS (4)
  · SIDNEY RIGDON (7)
  · SIMON SOUTHERTON (33)
  · SPALDING MANUSCRIPT (6)
  · SPENCER W. KIMBALL (10)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 1 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 11 (27)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 12 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 13 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 14 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 15 (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 3 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (26)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 6 (26)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 7 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 8 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 9 (25)
  · STORIES - SECTION 1 (1)
  · SUNSTONE FOUNDATION (2)
  · SURVEILLANCE (SCMC) (11)
  · TAD R. CALLISTER (1)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 3 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 4 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 5 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 6 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 7 (7)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TEMPLE WEDDINGS (6)
  · TEMPLES - NAMES (1)
  · TERRYL GIVENS (1)
  · THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE (1)
  · THE SINGLE WARDS (3)
  · THOMAS S. MONSON - SECTION 1 (29)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 3 (7)
  · UGO PEREGO (3)
  · UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME (35)
  · UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY (3)
  · VALERIE HUDSON (3)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VAUGHN J. FEATHERSTONE (1)
  · VIDEOS (30)
  · WARD CLEANING (3)
  · WARREN SNOW (1)
  · WELFARE - SECTION 1 (0)
  · WENDY L. WATSON (4)
  · WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME (11)
  · WILFORD WOODRUFF (6)
  · WILLIAM HAMBLIN (8)
  · WILLIAM LAW (1)
  · WILLIAM SCHRYVER (5)
  · WILLIAM WINES PHELPS (3)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 1 (24)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 2 (25)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM - SECTION 3 (36)
  · WORD OF WISDOM (7)
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2013

Compiled With: Caligra 1.121

HOSTED BY



AVOBASE

AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.

If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.

AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.

And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.

Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.

Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.