MORMON
CURTAIN
⇒ MAIN INDEX ⇒ MC FAQ ⇒ CONTACT ME ⇒ 287 TOPICS ⇒ EX-MORMON FORUMS |
|
|
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! |
© 2005-2010 Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.1 ALPHA |
|
THE
MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 4,170 Articles Spanning 287 Topics Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery Online Since January 1, 2005 |
|
THINK QUESTION RESEARCH DISCUSS RECOVER |
|
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
"LDS CHURCH - SECTION 2".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that contains Archived Articles from throughout the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
|
|
| Mormon Church Responds To LA Times DNA Article Thursday, Feb 16, 2006, at 01:05 AM Author: Polygamy Porter -GUID- | ↑ |
| Yawn.
Nothing new, same old drivel from before.. man can't they come up with new material?: http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/... The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be - a record of God's dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.Then they list the same old two to three year old plausible crap from Sorenson, Whiting, Butler, and of course Lindsay.. notice how they tag on "Ph.D" on his name... LOL to try and add credibility... problem is that his Ph.D is not in Biology or Archeology. They're playing a PR propoganda game that cannot possibly turn out well for them, at least for anybody who they are hoping to convert to the Morg by trying to convince them of the authenticity of the BOM. The only thing they hope to accomplish is to limit the damage to their current membership by appealing to their "faith" and get them to avoid like the plague, any thoghts that might plant even a seed of doubt in their minds and ignore the physical evidence, their own observations and reason. DNA PeeNA. The Book of Mormon is true I tell you. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true .. (clasps hands over ears, makes NAAA NAAA NAAA sound) |
| Can I Sue The Church? Wednesday, Mar 15, 2006, at 07:15 AM Author: Richard Packham -GUID- | ↑ |
Once the eyes open, and the once-faithful Mormon realizes that the church is a fraud, it's natural to think back about how stupid you were, and what you have lost in time and money. Every new ex-Mormon is going to ask, "Can I sue them?" After all, they cheated me, they took ten percent of my income, they duped me, they ruined my life and caused me untold anguish, and that's WRONG! I am frequently asked, "Can I sue the church? Can I get a refund of my tithing? Didn't the church commit fraud, extortion? Can we file a class action suit?" The answer to the question "Can I sue?" is, of course, "Yes, you can sue." But the more important question is, "If I sue, will I win?"
There are several possible legal theories under which one could sue the Mormon church for a refund of tithing. In my opinion, none of them would be successful. There are perhaps very limited situations for which one could successfully sue for other damages.
FRAUDAlthough the fraud laws in each state differ slightly, generally fraud consists of the following elements, every one of which must be proven by the plaintiff:
The exmormon plaintiff suing the church and its representatives would have no problem, I think, in establishing 1, 2, 3 (perhaps), 6, and 8. But I think there would be serious problems in establishing 4, 5 and 7. The problem with 4 is in the reluctance of the courts to decide on the truth or falsity of any religious belief. You would have to limit your allegations to the factual claims or historical claims of the church. But did you join the church because of its factual claims? The church attorney would probably be able to get you to admit that it was not the facts, but the religious claims, and no court would decide that any religious claim is false. It would be even more difficult to establish point 5. How would one prove that Hinckley, or the missionary who converted you, knew that the church's claims were false? You certainly could not get them to make such an admission on the witness stand, primarily because they probably believe that the claims are true. If you tried to establish that the church leaders must know it's false because of certain facts which you can prove, which make it obvious to any ninny that the church is a hoax, then you have shot yourself in the foot when it comes to point 7. You would have to admit that you did not take the trouble to investigate these fantastic claims, even though the libraries are full of anti-Mormon books. You would have to make a jury believe that it was reasonable for you to hand over ten percent of your annual increase based on a New York confidence man's story that he had been visited by an angel. Yes, I think that the church defrauded us all. But I don't think we could make the case in court.
EXTORTIONExtortion in modern American law is obtaining something wrongfully by threat. It is a crime. Some former Mormons feel that they were pressured by the teaching that they would be separated from their families, that they would go to hell, that they would not gain eternal exaltation, etc., and that it was this fear that prompted them to part with their tithing money.But the missionaries did not threaten you, nor did your bishop, to get you to part with your tithing, any more than the insurance salesman threatened you when he warned you that your family would be destitute when you die if you didn't buy his policy. You would also have the problem of proving that it was perfectly reasonable for you to believe that the threats were real, that is, you really would not become a god if you didn't obey them and give them your money.
EMOTIONAL DISTRESSThe infliction of emotional distress is grounds for a lawsuit in most jurisdictions. However, it is strictly limited to the intentional infliction of emotional distress. That is, the plaintiff must prove that the actions of the defendant were motivated by the desire to cause emotional suffering in the defendant. I cannot see how any former Mormon could prove that the missionaries or the church leaders had that intention.
CLASS ACTIONSA class action is not a separate legal theory, but just a special procedure to enable a group of people with similar complaints to sue a single defendant. A fundamental requirement is that the members of the class must have pretty much the same case against the defendant. A class action would have difficulties establishing the class, I think. Not all exmormons joined for the same reasons. Not all were told the same things. Not all examined the church's claims to the same extent.
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONSAttorneys who would be willing to invest the time and effort to sue the LDS church for a contingency fee (no win, no fee) would be hard to find, I would think. The church has a large, well-financed legal department, and any lawsuit for a refund of tithing would bring out the big guns and the big money, because the case could set a precedent. Do you think the church would hesitate to spend five million dollars to fight such a suit? Either you or your attorney will have to be prepared to spend a similar amount.On appeal, you would have the entire nation's churches filing amicus briefs in support of the Mormon church's position, because their disgruntled members are thinking about their former donations, too.
SEXUAL ABUSEThe one area where the church has been sued successfully a number of times is when a member of the church molested a child, and the local church authorities learned of it but did nothing more than satisfy themselves that the culprit had repented, usually without reporting the matter to the civil law enforcement authorities (as is usually required by law). Few of these cases have actually gone to trial. The church has settled most of them out of court, perhaps because the church wished to avoid the negative publicity, and by settling it could insist in the settlement agreement that the specifics of the charges and the terms of the settlement be kept secret.If you believe you might have grounds for such a lawsuit against the church, you would be wise to consult an attorney who has experience with such lawsuits against the church. Contact The Mormon Alliance, Salt Lake City, telephone 801-467-1617, for assistance, or e-mail Lavina Anderson, who is one of the former Mormons who operate this clearing-house for Mormon sexual abuse. Another contact, who has worked in the prosecution of abuse cases, is Linda Walker. See her Child Protection Project webpage, or e-mail her.
NAME REMOVALThe church was also sued in 1985 for refusal to allow a member in good standing to resign membership without undergoing a church trial and excommunication. The church settled that suit out of court to avoid trial, and as a result it now allows members to resign without excommunicating them. If your local authorities insist on excommunicating you, rather than simply accepting your resignation, suggest that they call the church legal department in Salt Lake City for instructions.CONCLUSIONI'm sorry I sound so pessimistic. We must finally admit that we were fools, and the law was not intended to protect fools from their own stupidity.I would appreciate hearing from others who may have legal training. If any of you discuss this with your attorneys, I would like to hear what they say.
Comments? Write:
packham@teleport.com
|
| Will The Church Ever Worry About Honest Occupations? Monday, Mar 20, 2006, at 07:46 AM Author: lightfingerlouie -GUID- | ↑ |
| Mormonism controls what you think, say, drink, believe, entertain yourself with, and how you pray, think of God, deal with your family , deal with others, and on and on and on. Run-on sentence for a run -on list of behaviors.
Since there is such a need for control, what about control of occupations? Mormons are notorious (at least in Utah) for being the cheapest employers on the planet. They pay incredibly low wages, take advantage of starving students, and cheat on and replace their workers without batting an eye. Provo is run by businessmen who screw students every way they can. Students are basically indentured servants when working in Provo. People like Larry Miller sell cars the old fashioned way--getting people to pay far more than they should, selling useless "loan insurance," treating people like dirt the minute their warranty expires, and cheating them on repair expenses (I dealt with this, so I know how Miller operates). But Miller is a moral hawk. We all know that. He cares about his standing with the Lord. Mormons love to be in the business of usury. They have more "post-dated" check places than anywhere on earth. They love high interest loans, loan sharking, and greedy banking practices. And the church does not care. If it brings in money , and tithing, then that is fine. Thus the pawn broker becomes a Stake President, and the loan shark a Bishop. All is well six days a week. Only Sunday appearances matter. When will the church start to deal with this? When will it mean it when its leaders ask "Are you honest in your business dealings?" It asks, but it means NOTHING. The church worries itself sick over coffee and masturbation, but crooked business dealings don't really matter at all. I know a person has to make a living. But if the goddam church is true, why is there so much acceptance for cheap, shoddy, and dishonest business practices? Why is the loan shark Bishop material? Why is the guy who rips off his customers and student employees on a BYU High Council? I guess it all comes down to your ability to see the purpose of religion. Maybe you need to understand the importance of a mall, and the fact that "the business of God is business." |
| Church News Spin: Dancing Around Henry Jacobs (first And Only Legal Husband Of Zina) Wednesday, Mar 22, 2006, at 12:11 PM Author: Reader -GUID- | ↑ |
| I don't know if anyone else noticed, but in the Church News for the week ending February 25, 2006, on page 4, there is an article entitled, "Among Last Living Children of Pioneers." The article discusses a 97-year old man named "Joseph Smith Jacobs," who lives in Provo, Utah. He is the last living child of a "pioneer" named "Henry Chariton Jacobs," who himself was the second son (born in 1846) of Henry Jacobs and Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young.
What is interesting about the article is that the still-living "Joseph Smith Jacobs" is the grandson of the man who was at the center of polyandry in the early LDS Church. Many of you will recall the story (detailed in Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and Von Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy"), but here is some background. Henry Jacobs and Zina Diantha Huntington both were early converts to the LDS Church (in the 1830's). They eventually fell in love, but before they could marry Zina caught the eye of Joseph Smith. While still single, she was one of the early LDS women to whom Joseph preached plural marriage and proposed (in late 1840 or early 1841, when she was 19). She refused Joseph's proposal, and instead, married Henry Bailey Jacobs on March 7, 1841 (a legal marriage under Illinois law, performed by John C. Bennett, then mayor of Nauvoo). Joseph did not give up, however; he later told her an angel had appeared and threatened him with a sword if he did not marry Zina (the same argument he would use with other potential plural wives); Zina (apparently with Henry's consent) eventually gave in, and on October 27, 1841 (when Zina was 7 months pregnant with her first son by Henry), she married Joseph (she continued to live with Henry, however, and there is no evidence of sexual relations with Joseph, but there also is not evidence against sexual relations -- based on sexual relations evident in other of Joseph's plural marriages, Compton believes that this union "probably" included sexual relations). After Joseph's murder, Zina (still married to and living with Henry) married Brigham Young on February 2, 1846 (it may have been as early as September 1844). Henry (still her legal husband) stood by as witness as Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith "for eternity" and to Brigham "for time" (that Zina was sealed to Brigham "for time," instead of Henry, is odd, because Henry was a faithful LDS member at this time and had already participated in temple ordinances -- family tradition holds that Brigham convinced Zina to do this by arguing she would receive greater blessings by marrying someone with higher priesthood authority -- BY, at this time, was an apostle and president of the 12, and Henry was a mere seventy). In any event, Zina now had her SECOND polyandrous marriage. Not long thereafter, as Henry was taking his wife and two small sons (the "pioneer" in the Church News article, Chariton, having been born just days after Zina's marriage to BY and the Jacobs family's leaving Nauvoo) across Iowa, Henry received word that BY had called him on a mission to England (his prior missions had all been in the States); despite being very ill at the time, and his young family also sick and in the middle of a traumatic exodus, Henry heeded Brigham's call and turned around and left his family to embark on the mission. Henry would not return until well over a year later. During that time, Zina and her two sons had moved in with Brigham Young, and Zina and Brigham cohabited openly as husband and wife (Zina eventually had a daughter by Brigham). Henry's letters make clear that he never got over his first love, Zina. She never legally divorced him (as far as I know), and he always remained her sole legal husband (shared by two other husbands). Henry married others plurally, and stayed faithful to the Church for many years (going to Utah), but was eventually disciplined out of the Church and settled in California. Zina stayed in Brigham's household, and her two sons by Henry were raised by him. That's the brief sketch of the story -- here is what bothers me about the Church News article. First, there is NO mention of Henry Jacobs as the father of Chariton. Instead, the article reads: "Joseph Smith Jacobs begins with the birth of his father, an infant pioneer. On a rainy Sunday in March 1846, only five minutes after crossing the Chariton River in Iowa, Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs gave birth to a son in her wagon. She chose as his middle name Chariton, after the location where he was born." It's fine to mention the mother, but why not the lad's father, who was present at the birth? He is not mentioned here or anywhere else in the article. The article goes on to state about Chariton: "Carried on to the Salt Lake Valley, where he arrived in 1848, Henry Chariton Jacobs was raised in President Young's household." How did Chariton come be be raised in BY's family? The article doesn't say. Could it be because (1) the unnamed Henry Bailey Jacobs was Chariton's biological and legal father (having married Zina first); (2) Joseph Smith was Chariton's eternal father (having married Zina 7 months later); and (3) Brigham Young was Chariton's current father "for time" (having married Zina just days before Chariton was born)? In any event, the reason Chariton was "raised in President Young's household" is pretty obvious, but the Church would rather not discuss that sordid part of the story. In sum, I found it very interesting how the Church News article carefully avoided the very existence of Henry Jacobs and the scandalous polyandry he was forced to endure, first, with Joseph, and then, with Brigham, which resulted in his losing his young wife and two sons. Yep, the sad memory of Henry Jacobs, and how he was screwed by the hierarchy, is well remembered, evidently even by Church leaders (which can only explain how the article so artfully writes him out of Chariton's and the grandson's lives). |
| LDS Instruction Manual: Church Requires Sinners To Suffer Monday, Mar 27, 2006, at 07:41 AM Author: Deconstructor -GUID- | ↑ |
| Did you ever get the impression from a church leader that they wanted you to suffer before accepting your repentance? Apparently the church has given some church leaders instructions on how to make repenters suffer for their sins. Here's a former MTC Branch President, explaining the tactics he was told to use... "[In the MTC] branch presidents were counseled to follow up belated confessions with a series of probing personal questions. They were expected to determine, for example, when the transgression first occurred (before the missionary was interviewed for his call, or after; before he was set apart, or after; before going through the temple, or after); the nature and extent of the transgression; and if the transgression was sexual, the sex and marital status of the partner, if the partner had children, if pregnancy occurred, if an abortion was performed, the number of times the transgression occurred, and the number of different partners." "Finally, at the end of each month, all branch presidents were to categorize the confessions they'd heard according to transgression, ranging from fornication/adultery, homosexuality, oral sex, masturbation, petting, abortion, and bestiality to stealing, and alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse. These numbers were totaled on a special form and turned in to the mission presidency where they would be aggregated and sent to Church headquarters for further study. "There is no repentance without suffering," the branch presidents were instructed in their Branch President's Handbook. "You do your greatest service when you require the sinner to suffer."" - Elder Gary James Bergera, "What You Leave Behind: My Six Years at the MTC," (Dialog 21:1/51 Spring 1988). This falls in line with what a living church apostle Dallin H. Oaks explained to BYU students in 1990... "President Spencer W. Kimball, who gave such comprehensive teachings on repentance and forgiveness, said that personal suffering "is a very important part of repentance." One has not begun to repent until he has suffered intensely for his sins. "If a person hasn't suffered, he hasn't repented. . . . He has got to go through a change in his system whereby he suffers and then forgiveness is a possibility." "President Kimball said, "Very frequently people think they have repented and are worthy of forgiveness when all they have done is to express sorrow or regret at the unfortunate happening." There is a big difference between the "godly sorrow [that] worketh repentance," which involves personal suffering, and the easy and relatively painless sorrow for being caught or the misplaced sorrow Mormon described as "the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin." "All of our personal experience confirms the fact that we must endure personal suffering in the process of repentance--and for serious transgressions that suffering can be severe and prolonged. I believe that every one of us who is truly honest with himself recognizes the truth of this principle. We have felt it in our own lives, and we have seen it in the lives of others. This month's Ensign (August 1990) contains an anonymous article describing such an experience. Under the title "Yearning to Return," a repenting transgressor who was excommunicated describes his personal feelings: "tearful hours," "misery," "wishing to be covered by a million mountains," "crushed by the shame," "dark blackness," "unbearable pain," and "anguish. . . as wide as eternity." "Why is it necessary for us to suffer on the way to repentance for serious transgressions? We often think of the results of repentance as simply cleansing us from sin. But that is an incomplete view of the matter." - Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, Sin and Suffering, August 05, 1990 This is also taught in a Gospel Doctrine lesson... "There are those who have falsely supposed that Christ's suffering supplants suffering on the part of those who repent. This simply is not the case. There is no repentance without suffering. What the present text means is that the repentant soul will not have to suffer "even as" the Savior suffered. But it does not mean that they will not have to suffer. Nor should it be supposed that their suffering is confined to the natural consequences of their actions. In addition to those consequences, he or she must experience the anguish associated with true repentance. President Spencer W. Kimball said of personal suffering that it "is a very important part of repentance. One has not begun to repent until he has suffered intensely for his sins. . . . If a person hasn't suffered, he hasn't repented. . . . He has got to go through a change in his system whereby he suffers and then forgiveness is a possibility." - Gospel Doctrine Manual, D&C; Lesson 2 The church has many ways of making people suffer for their sins. As described by the former MTC Branch President, an effective technique is asking probing personal questions during confessions. But do these tactics really help people overcome mistakes, or are there other reasons the Mormon Church treats people like this? |
| LDS Ownership Of Hunting Preserves Thursday, Apr 6, 2006, at 08:52 AM Author: Onearchivist -GUID- | ↑ |
f you are discussing information on the LDS ownership of hunting preserves,
there are net-accessible articles in the Deseret News archives - I found them
with a keyword search in their archives "hunting preserve", I think. Here is
some of what I found:
Deseret News Archives, Saturday, July 8, 2000Having read quotes posted in arm and srm, and having found them in various LDS-related websites, I wonder why the First Bishopric would be running the preserves. Two comments stand out from the interview with Elder Huff in my reading of this article. The first is, "some people question whether hunting should even happen at all. But the fact is, there are between 14 and 18 million hunters in America...This is recreation for a lot of people. Some enjoy this as much as others enjoy camping in the mountains." Perhaps some question only if hunting should happen as a business of a religion that has, since its earliest days, taught that recreational hunting is wrong. Comparing sport hunting to camping makes little sense in relation to Joseph Smith's teachings. He never preached against camping, but he did preach against hunting for recreation. These comments from Elder Huff sound a little like, "everyone's gonna do it anyway, why waste the chance to really make big money off 'em?" The second comment that struck me as - interesting - is "Imagine if we got to the point that we could boost the price (of each permit) to $2,000 or $2,500. Times that by 250, and it doesn't take a lot to understand that this could be a very profitable operation." I don't know if Elder Huff has ever read the words of Joseph Smith, Hirum Smith, Lorenzo Snow, or the rest. I would hope the Presiding Bishopric has. But maybe I don't hope they have. If they have read the teachings of the prophets on recreational hunting, then they are clearly and intentionally throwing over prophets for profits, and I'm not trying to be clever with that play on words. I am sad and, I admit, somewhat agitated and angry that church leaders would prize making a buck over the teachings of the restoration prophet and several other prophets since. I would like very much to see our leaders decide to shut down the hunting operations, speak out for the sanctity of all life, as Joseph Smith did, discourage us all from *enjoying*, seeking out the experience for *fun*, killing anything. It is interesting to me that for meat to be truly kosher for orthodox Jews, an animal must experience the very least pain possible during slaughter. If something goes wrong - a blade is a bit dull, or the butcher's misses the appropriate mark for the quickest, most painless death, and as a result the animal suffers any more than it might have otherwise, the meat is not declared kosher and cannot be eaten by a Jew faithful to the dietary laws. That attitude seems much more in line with what Joseph, Hirum, Pres. Snow, Cannon, etc., clearly stated. When compared to Elder Huff's comments, I am almost ashamed. In the temple recommend interview, we are asked if we belong to any organization that teaches anything contrary to LDS church teachings. How can I say, "Yes, and it is the LDS church itself?" |
| How is Correlation bad? Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 08:07 AM Author: fh451 -GUID- | ↑ |
| I'm sure this is something that people could go on about for hours. "Correlation" is the corporatization of the church. It may be a fine way to run a business, but a rather poor way for people to feel connected to a local organization. But the church is big business, so maybe it was inevitable if it was to survive. Henry Moyle, back in the late 50s / 60s nearly bankrupted the church with his expansion and building boom that was not backed up with the membership growth necessary to support it. So people like N Eldon Tanner came along with their business savvy and implemented controls on the finances and physical facilities of the church. That was the beginning (as I understand it) of the "cookie cutter" architecture that is employed by most LDS buildings. No wherever you go, you will see similar floor plans, decorations, furniture, carpets, pictures on the walls, etc. This is a great way to run a hotel chain, but not so great for a church.
Some of the side-effects of this were loss of local control over budgeting. There used to be a local ward budget contribution people were asked to contribute in addition to the normal tithing and fast offerings. This was discontinued and all operating funds came from Salt Lake. But it also meant that they told the local wards how and for what money was to be used. Thus, some of the "fun" things some of us remember from our youth were discontinued or scaled back. Like "Road Shows" and ward "Bizarres" and stake-wide play productions and other community-building activities. There simply wasn't any money to do it. Many lament the loss of these activities which made the church seem like more of a community than a corporation. The correlation committee also spread its umbrella over other organizations that were previously independant (at least to some degree). The Relief Society, Sunday School, and YM/YW organizations were brought under direct supervision of this committee. All lesson manuals had to be approved for content by the committee. The RS and PH use the exact same manual. All Sunday School classes use the exact same manual. The least common denominator for the lessons has effectively thinned down the content to such an extent that long time adult members are pretty much bored to tears now. But anywhere you go in the world, you will find the same lesson taught on the same Sunday. |
| Most Mormons Have No Idea What They Are Doing Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 08:10 AM Author: dimmesdale -GUID- | ↑ |
| Just casually talking to my high school son the other day.
I can't remember the beginning of the conversation, but the State of Missouri was involved, and I jokingly mentioned something about the "garden of eden" having been there. My son looked at me like I had two noses or something. "What are you talking about?" he asked. "You know!" I said...."The church teaches that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. You've heard of that, haven't you!" "What are you talking about?" he laughed. I said, "You've never heard that song, 'Adam Ondi Ahman?' It's in the hymnbook. That's the place in Missouri where all the prophets are going to come together in the last days to combine all the keys and meet with Jesus." "What in the world are you talking about?" he laughed again. "You've never heard this. Are you serious?" (I know he'd heard of it when he was a little boy, because I led that hymn in church many times...but maybe that was before he could remember.) "You've never had any lessons about this in Priesthood or SS or in Seminary?" "Never heard of it." (I am still not sure he even believed me.) (I haven't taken time to show him the scriptures.) This is a kid who has possibly missed about 4 Sunday meetings in his whole life. So, I asked my daughter. She said, "Never heard of it." Now.....if I were an active, believing mormon, I might be pretty upset about this. But, even as a non-active, unbelieving mormon I'm upset. Leaders and teachers are leaving out some of the basic teachings of Joseph Smith and other prophets that were VERY important when I was young. You might remember a couple of months ago when I talked about telling my teenagers about Joseph Smith finding the book of Abraham in a mummy that his mother had purchased. They started laughing and I had to calm them down before I could tell them that it was a real. They thought it was so absurd that they may not believe it still. Makes me realize that most mormons have NO IDEA what they are doing. I'll bet that if you went into my ward and asked them about Joseph Smith and the mummy, probably 5 people would have heard about it. One would be the ward scholar and another would be the ward "intellectual." I'll bet the bishop doesn't even know about it. (I'm not in a large UTAH ward, where many more elderly people who've been mormons from their birth would know about it. I'm from a mostly convert ward where most people know hardly anything. People still call the mother of Jesus, "Virgin Mary" or "the beloved mother, Mary." That's not mormon talk.) |
| It's About Time The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints Wakes Up And Realizes They Are Not The Only Mormon Organization Monday, May 15, 2006, at 08:48 AM Author: Geek Sqaud -GUID- | ↑ |
| Warren Jeffs and the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints are blowing President Hinckley's mainstream public relations effort out of the water like a hydrogen bomb.
Mormonism and polygamy have always and will always be glued together in the public image. Just because one sect of Mormonism did away with polygamy a century ago does not eliminate the fact that the founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith, practiced polygamy and the followers of Brigham Young practiced polygamy. Mormonism has and does include several organizations such as: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints being some of the better known Mormon sects. In short, any groups of people who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith are indeed Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is just one Mormon sect. Of course it's the biggest and richest but it's not the only Mormon Church on the planet. The current problems with the FLDS in Colorado City are getting a ton of international attention. People watch a modern Taliban in the US and wonder why and how could such a horrible thing happen? Well, the answer is always the same. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Embarrassing facts the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been trying to hide or ignore for decades, now it's all coming back bigger than ever. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is embarrassed of it's own factual history. Sure they can play the persecution card but the History Channel and PBS never forgot about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The current media is showing the rest of the world the sick guilt and control Mormon doctrine is based on and the horrid results such a theocracy becomes when allowed to grow unchecked. In a day and age when all of us have a sour taste for religious, fanatical, terrorism, well heck, we sure wonder when we look at the FLDS and Warren Jeffs and when we see it all go back to Joseph Smith we understand better why the man was so hated and shot by a mob. The real Mormonism isn't the fluffy PR the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints sends out via their Hollywood styled publicists or their Madison Avenue PR agency. No, real Mormonism is simply found by going back to Joseph Smith. Fortunately, it's all available on the Internet and easy to find. If you want western Mormonism, then it's Brigham Young you want to study. People are and it's scaring that big church in Salt Lake City to death. Warren Jeffs and Big Love all wrapped up into a big burrito and the American public is taking a big bite and want to know more. |
| Davinci Fallout - The Church Distances Itself Further From It's Origins Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 08:16 AM Author: darquestar -GUID- | ↑ |
| Following on from all the DaVinci code hype, the church issued a statement on whether Jesus was married or not. As reported on KSL;
"The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine." Such statements include; Jedediah M. Grant - Jesus and his disciples were persecuted for being polygamists. Orson Hyde - "It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction , it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it." Orson Pratt - Jesus a polygamist, God the Father had a plurality of wives. "We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time." Click here for summary and links to JoD. http://www.irr.org/MIT/WDIST/wdist-po... It's yet another example of the "I don't know that we teach that" move to the mainstream; Another example of mormon doctrine being exactly what the leaders want it to mean when it's convenient. |
| LDS Church Official Statement On Divinci Code - Jesus Christ Was Not Married - Or Was He? Thursday, May 18, 2006, at 08:41 AM Author: Infymus -GUID- | ↑ |
Let us look at Mormon Church History:
"Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, are allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do... Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified." - Journal of Discourses 2:82, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854[When Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if this meant that Christ had children, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" (Letter to J. Ricks Smith, dated March 17, 1963] "I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children." - Journal of Discourses 2:210, Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855 "It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it." - Journal of Discourses 4:259, Orson Hyde "We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married." - The Seer, p. 172, Orson Pratt "Evening Meeting. Prayer By E Stephenson. Joseph F Smith spoke One hour & 25 M. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides. He also refered to Luke 10 ch. 38 to 42 verse, Also John 11 ch. 2 & 5 vers John 12 Ch 3d vers, John 20 8 to 18. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary & Martha manifested much Closer relationship than Merely A Believer which looks Consistet. He did not think that Jesus who decended throug Poligamous families from Abraham down & who fulfilled all the Law even baptism by immersion would have lived and died without being married." - Wilford Woodruff's Journal 8:187, July 22, 1883Mormon leaders have demonstrated a systematic desire to bury their own history and the teachings of their prior leaders. When times change, the "never changing God" of Mormonism preaches, "They were speaking as men." |
| Great Church, Just Do Not Take It Seriously Monday, May 22, 2006, at 07:52 AM Author: Prokrusteez -GUID- | ↑ |
| I tuned into Mormon Stories podcast and listened to the Dehlin and Palmer stories. Very worthwhile, came away a better informed person and a better person. I really appreciate what these guys have been willing to do and sacrifice. Bravo to both of them! And I will continue to read and listen. I own both of Palmer's books; first one was great, second was OK, but should have settled for a used copy.
Before I mention anything else, let me assert my ultimate support for Article of Faith 11, "who, what, how they may" doo-dah, doo-dah. At this point, I'm having a hard time understanding how these two guys retain their allegiance to the church as a whole while at the same time basically declaring it a fraud. They also unapologetically highlight the church's failings regarding its ethical and moral obligations to be what it claims to be. It seems to me that these two guys are essentially saying that: 1. The church is actually 'alright enough' provided you don't take it seriously, because we took it very seriously and got our "Drawn Sword" spanked. In fact, we took it so seriously that we were working off the assumption that our pursuit of truth would ultimately and directly lead us strait to The Church as advertised on TV. 2. The church is 'alright enough' to participate on a Chinese menu basis, if that. 3. The church is 'alright enough' as long as you keep your expectations quite low in terms of what to expect from the members, the local leaders, the regional leaders, the top leaders, the doctrine, the culture, the apologists, sunday school teachers, etc. 4. We choose to remain at risk of further church disapproval and discipline, as if it really matters at this point, should we cross some line that someone somewhere is monitoring. So my question is, why would these guys waste such precious time and energy on something that isn't worth taking seriously. We're talking about the human soul and salvation supposedly. I do, however, love the new twist they have put on redefining acceptable, faithful church activity. It seems to go something like this: "The church is great and you can bet your favorite Peep-Stone on it that I'm a Mormon. Now, the only way I can tolerate this worthwhile institution or co-exist with it is to essentially dismiss it as unworthy of taking seriously. But you can bet your "golden pot" that I'm a Mormon and the church is 'alright enough' for me to subject myself to disciplinary action and the threat of further disciplinary action if I do something this organization might not approve of." As a hypocrisy check and in an effort at full disclosure, I have yet to resign my membership; however, I don't participate on a Chinese menu basis or on any basis other than being on some list somewhere. My resignation letter is cocked and loaded as soon as "an anointed" decides to take themselves seriously before I'm ready to mail it off at the right time. Again, I remain a fan, but don't quite get this part of their story. |
| LDS Inc. Doesn't Recognize FLDS Church According To WestTexas.com Thursday, May 25, 2006, at 07:42 AM Author: Koriwhore -GUID- | ↑ |
| According to this;
http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.... West Texas editorial, LDS Inc doesn't recognize the FLDS church. Maybe that's why LDS Inc. is so quick to dismiss any association with them and refer to them as "those people who practice polygamy." and not as "fundamentalist LDS" or FLDS. Sort of like Bill Clinton refering to Monica Lewinsky as "that woman" when he claimed not to have sex with her. I think the Morg relies upon the old, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." approach to PR. Or, IOW, the ostrich approach, if you ignore it long enough, maybe it will go away. They're hoping that eventually, they can just maintain the status quo, and as long as nobody points out what a crock of shit it is to maintain D&C; 132, then they can just go along their merry way pretending like they've got nothing to do with "those people who practice polygamy" even though they maintain the belief in the practice in the next life and still practice polygamy today by sealing widowers to multiple wives in the temple, but not vice versa. |
| Mormons And Their Church Proclamations Tuesday, May 30, 2006, at 07:27 AM Author: Deconstructor -GUID- | ↑ |
| So what's the moral track record on LDS Church proclamations?
Mormons today hang a church proclamation in their homes. Yesterday in Sacrament Meeting most Bishops read a letter from the First Presidency remindng them to obey that proclamation. Here's another church proclamation, just as serious and just as official as the one the church is now pushing on the membership. This church proclamation came from the president of the church and was published in the Deseret News for all members to obey: Church Proclamation to Women “Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, 'My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife,' 'No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years." "It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears." “I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way." "And my wives have to go and do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. 'What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate all." “I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel —the whole of it." "[Priesthood Men,] say to your wives, 'Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without further murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.'" "Now recollect that two weeks from to morrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, 'It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;' then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children." “Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many women in this territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heals, and that it may be following them all the day long." “Prepare yourselves for two weeks from to morrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the Celestial Law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from to-morrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.” - The First Presidency, President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4., pp. 55-57; also printed in Deseret News, Vol. 6, pp. 235-236 So you see, the church has a history of making demands and bullying people. Do these "proclamations" deserve anyone's obedience? |
| An Experiment In "Visitors Welcome" Friday, Jun 9, 2006, at 08:31 AM Author: Surviving in Utah -GUID- | ↑ |
| Being bored last Sunday, I decided to experiment with the truth of the Mormon slogan found on every chapel, "Visitors Welcome." For my experiment, I ensured that I was dressed in Levi's and polo shirt with sandals. Here is the results
Upon entering, I was asked by a young man (18-25) if I needed help. Me - I was just driving by and saw your church and decided that I would like to know more about your religion. I noticed the welcome sign and just came in. Young Man - Oh, that is great, let me find someone who can answer any questions you might have. Young man brings older gentleman (50-60) to me and informs me that Brother XX is the High Priest Group leader. Me - I don't know exactly what that means but I assume that being a leader Brother XX can answer my questions. Older Man - Are you a member of the Church? Me - No, I just moved here from Illinois (lie) and decided to investigate the local churches around my house. Older Man - Oh, where do you live? Me - I just bought a house in Draper. Older Man - Why are you here at this chapel, weren't there Mormon chapels closer to your house? (This chapel is the one on 9th East and 3300 South. Me - Yeah, I noticed that but I didn't like how any of the others looked architecturally and I really like how your chapel looks. Older Man - I realize this but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has boundaries for each building and you really need to go to the one by your house. If you tell me your address, I can find out what Ward you are suppose to attend. Me - No, I really would rather attend this church if I decide to go to church. I feel that the look of the building is important to my worshiping god. The older gentleman was now joined by another older gentleman (Second Counselor in the Bishopric). Second Counselor - Hi, what is your name (extending hand)? Me - Well, I don't really feel like letting you know right now, since I am only here to visit. The older gentleman explains to the Second Counselor that I am visiting and looking for a church to attend and that I am not a member of the church. At this, Second Counselor gets real excited and wants to have me come to his home. Older gentleman then explains to the Second Counselor that I live in Draper and have mistakenly visited this chapel because I like the looks of the building. Second Counselor's excitement disappears and he explains to me that I need to attend a chapel close to my house. Me - I really don't like the look of the other buildings. If I attend a church I want to go to one that has a building with character. Somewhere where it looks like god would be. Second Counselor - That might be fine for now, however when you join our church, you will be required to attend the building that is in your house's boundaries. Me - I don't know that I am really interested in joining your church, I just wanted to visit it and see if I like what the preacher says. Older Man - We don't have preachers Second Counselor - We have a lay ministry and the church member teach to lessons. Me - NO PREACHERS? How do you know that the sermon is going to be any good? I mean, I know when I do presentations, I can really suck at it. Second Counselor - Well, we don't have a preacher. But why don't you let me find out who is the Bishop in you area and give him a call and tell him you are coming? I would also suggest that on your way to the chapel in Draper, you might want to stop at your house and change into a suit if you have one. This is how we show god that we respect him and want to worship him. At this point I was getting even more bored with my Sunday and said that would be nice I he could get me the phone number and I would call the Bishop. Second Counselor get me the number and asks for my name, address and phone number so he can give them to the Bishop in my area. To escape, I give fake name, address and phone number. Strange Sunday. |
| Why Would The LDS Church Suddenly Downgrade The Search Features For Its On-Line Scriptures? Tuesday, Aug 1, 2006, at 07:02 AM Author: CraigC -GUID- | ↑ |
| About two weeks ago, the LDS Church downgraded its on-line scripture search feature located at this link:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/contents The new search engine is far inferior to the previous one. The new search engine no longer gives the number of counts for a given word or phrase. This is important because frequently used words and phrases can be used as indicators of authorship. For example, just a month ago, when you wanted to count the number of times that the phrase "it came to pass" is used in The Book of Mormon, you could type that phrase into the search window, and you would get a count of the number of occurrences of that phrase. In the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, the phrase "it came to pass" occurs 5.6 times per 1000 words (1,402 appearances in 251,204 words). Why would anyone want to know how many times the phrase "it came to pass" is used in The Book of Mormon? Because several eyewitnesses indicated that Solomon Spalding used that phrase at high frequency when he was writing Manuscript Found - the document that allegedly served as the basic storyline for The Book of Mormon. Here are some of the eyewitness statements indicating that "it came to pass" is likely a good marker for Spalding authorship: John Spalding said of his brother Solomon: "I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with 'and it came to pass,' or 'now it came to pass,' the same as in the Book of Mormon" (Howe 1834, 280). Henry Lake said about Spalding, "I well recollect telling Mr. Spalding, that the so frequent use of the words 'And it came to pass,' 'Now it came to pass' rendered it ridiculous" (Howe 1834, 282). Abner Jackson said that when the Book of Mormon "was brought to Conneaut and read there in public, old Esq. Wright heard it, and exclaimed, 'Old Come to Pass has come to life again'" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 64). In 1882 Joseph Miller wrote: "The words 'Moreover,' 'And it came to pass,' occurred so often that the boys about the village called him 'Old Came to Pass'" (Davis, Scales, and Cowdrey 1977, 72). The above quotes suggest that the frequency of use of the phrase "it came to pass" can give us some idea which chapters received significant Spalding input. When you type in "it came to pass" now, the search engine returns the number of verses containing one or more occurrences of that phrase. This makes it much more time-consuming to figure out the number of usages of this phrase (or any other phrase, for that matter) in each chapter of the book. Another example is the phrase "children of men". This phrase appears to be a good marker for Rigdon. See: http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#19 Also interesting is what now happens with simple word searches. Before two weeks ago, you could easily determine how many times the word "it" or "as" or "all" or "be", or any other frequently used word was used. Now, when you search for the word "It" (or other frequently used words), you receive the following message: "The word IT is not a significant word and was not used in the search • Use significant words that are not common." The above instructions to the user are important because frequently used noncontextual words can also be used as markers for authorship. It would be interesting to know who decided to downgrade the on-line search features. This is likely no accident. |
| A List Of How The Mormon Church Has Gone Mainstream Tuesday, Aug 1, 2006, at 07:16 AM Author: jubeyjane -GUID- | ↑ |
Examples of Mormon Mainstreaming:
|
| LDS Policies On Adoption Wednesday, Aug 30, 2006, at 08:17 AM Author: Wally -GUID- | ↑ |
| Here are three relevant LDS policies (all CAPS in the quoted material are mine for emphasis):
1. The LDS policy concerning adoption and unwed motherhood: "Church members who are involved in pregnancy out of wedlock are encouraged to go to their bishop. By virtue of his priesthood office and calling, he can counsel with them as they make important decisions that affect their own well-being and that of the child. He also can help them begin the process of repentance. Because of the social and emotional issues inherent in such situations, the bishop should consider referring the unwed parents to LDS Family Services (where available) regardless of whether they choose to marry, place their child for adoption, or keep the child without getting married. "The First Presidency has stated: 'Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by parents who provide love, support, and all the blessings of the gospel. 'Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the possibility of a successful marriage is unlikely, UNWED PARENTS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PLACE THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION, PREFERABLY THROUGH LDS FAMILY SERVICES .... 'UNWED PARENTS WHO DO NOT MARRY SHOULD NOT BE COUNSELED TO KEEP THE INFANT AS A CONDITION OF REPENTANCE OR OUT OF AN OBLIGATION TO CARE FOR ONE'S OWN FAMILY. GENERALLY, UNWED PARENTS ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE STABLE, NURTURING ENVIRONMENT FOR THE BABY'S WELL-BEING. 'When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration. PLACING THE INFANT FOR ADOPTION ENABLES UNWED PARENTS TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD AND ENHANCES THE PROSPECT FOR THE BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL IN THE LIVES OF ALL CONCERNED.' (FP letter dated June 15, 1998). "If LDS Family Services agencies are not available, LEADERS SHOULD ENCOURAGE THE CONFIDENTIAL PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION WITH A TEMPLE-WORTHY COUPLE THROUGH A LOCAL LICENSED AGENCY. ...." IOW, the Church's primary goal with every unwed parent is to get 'persuade' her to put the baby up for adoption with the Church, which can ensure placement with a temple-married couple. 2. Once the adoption is completed, the Church has the policy of no contact with the birth parents: "Local Church leaders should DISCOURAGE adopted children and their adoptive parents from seeking to identify the children's natural parents. However, when adopted children have genetic or medical problems, the family may seek medical information about the natural parents but should be DISCOURAGED from seeking their identities." The reason for this policy is obvious -- once the child is placed with a temple-married couple, that child is theirs for eternity and every tie between the birth mother and child is severed forever. 3. Finally, there is this statement in the Proclamation on the Family: "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." I hear this passage cited most often as the reason the Church puts such great pressure on unwed parents to place their child for adoption with LDS Family Services (which guarantees the child will go to a temple-married couple). Some even interpret this passage to mean it is basically a commandment for any unwed mother to give up her child for adoption rather than raise him/her as a single parent. Bottom line, Church leaders are taught to push for adoption whenever the mother is unwed -- a bishop can't force her to do this, of course, but the above policies allow a bishop to bring great pressure to bear. |
| Why Did The Church Keep Changing It's Name? Monday, Sep 11, 2006, at 07:00 AM Author: Grey Matter -GUID- | ↑ |
| Why did the church keep changing it's name?
1. My church – 1828 2. The Church of Christ – 1829 3. The Church of Christ - 1830 (when church incorporated) 4. The Church of the latter-day Saints – 1834 5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – 1838 Will it change again? |
| How The Church Handled A Sexual Abuse Situation, Church Courts, And The Church Legally Fighting To Hide Their Reasoning Thursday, Sep 14, 2006, at 06:38 AM Author: Anonymous -GUID- | ↑ |
| ANE DOE, ET AL., Respondents, v. THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, ET AL., Petitioners.
COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION ONE
June 1, 2004, Filed CASE HISTORY: Reconsideration denied by Doe v. Corp. of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2004 Wash. App. (Wash. Ct. App., July 15, 2004) Review denied by [Tom] v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 153 Wn.2d 1025, 110 P.3d 213, 2005 Wash. (Wash., Mar. 29, 2005) OVERVIEW: The trial court ordered the church to disclose the report of church disciplinary action (RCDA) for a church member, who abused his two stepdaughters after respondents' had filed a tort action. In analyzing whether the clergy-penitent privilege protected the stepfather's RCDA from disclosure, the trial court found that the clergy-penitent privilege did not apply because the church failed to establish that all participants in the disciplinary proceeding were "regularly licensed or ordained" clergy. On appeal the court reversed, concluding that based on church doctrine, the participants in the stepfather's disciplinary proceeding were ordained clergy, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 5.60.060(3), 26.44.020(11). It was undisputed that the stepfather's stake disciplinary counsel was conducted in accordance with church doctrine and under the church doctrine the participants in the stepfather's disciplinary council were ordained clergy members. Thus, his RCDA was protected by the clergy-penitent privilege and could notbe produced. OUTCOME: The court reversed the order and remanded for entry of an order denying the motion to direct the church to produce the RCDA. --------------(The following is the reasoning the courts did not make the church produce that RCDA report, but it is a sad and interesting read. Be glad you are out of that pedophile protecting church. Also, it would appear that the church cares more about its image then helpless child victims of sexual abuse. It is an educational insight on what one can expect from the church, how the church and their "called of God" leaders behave.) SUMMARY: Two stepdaughers who had been sexually abused by their stepfather sought damages from the church for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The stepfather confessed the sexual abuse first to a church bishop and then to a disciplinary council that included church members who were ordained for purposes of serving on the council. The council prepared a report of church disciplinary action and sent it to church headquarters. The stepdaughters alleged that the church bishops and other church officials breached a statutory duty and a duty of reasonable care by failing to report the stepfather's sexual abuse. Superior Court: The Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-04105-1, Richard McDermott, J., on June 10, 2003, ordered the church to produce the disciplinary report on the stepfather. Court of Appeals: Holding that the report of church disciplinary action was protected from disclosure by the clergy-penitent privilege, the court reverses the trial court's order and remands the case for further proceedings. OPIONION (What the court decides and why, but much was edited out for the sake of space): The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a Utah religious corporation that exists to conduct temporal and legal affairs on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, an unincorporated religious association. John Roe, an LDS Church member, sexually abused his stepdaughter J. Doe and her younger sister, R. Doe. Jane Doe was sexually abused from 1988 to 1995 and her younger sister from 1992 to 1998. According to J. Doe, sometime in ****1995**** she met with Bishop H., the bishop of her LDS Church ward, and told him her stepfather was sexually abusing her. After this meeting, Bishop H. met with Roe(the child sexual abuser,husband) and Doe's mother. Jane Doe's mother testified that the Bishop did not inform her about Roe's abuse of her daughter. Bishop H. did not report the alleged abuse to the civil authorities. ....As the Utah Supreme Court has explained: A bishop's and stake president's duties include giving spiritual guidance and counsel to the members of the Church in their jurisdiction. They receive no formal educational training as clergymen, are not compensated by the Church, and perform their ecclesiastical duties in addition to their vocations. Scott v. Hammock, 870 P.2d 947, 949 (Utah 1994). In 1998, in an e-mail conversation with a friend, Jane Doe disclosed that her stepfather had sexually abused her for a number of years. The friend notified the new bishop of their LDS ward, Bishop [Idiot #1]. Bishop [Idiot #1] reported the alleged abuse to the Stake President, [Idiot #2]. In January 1999, Stake President [Idiot #2] convened a stake disciplinary council to address the sexual abuse allegations against Roe and consider formal church disciplinary action. In November **** 1998****, Roe admitted to his spouse that he had sexually abused Jane Doe. At some point before January 1999, Roe also apparently confessed to his ward bishop.( Under LDS Church doctrine, an essential prerequisite to being saved is that an individual repent for his transgressions. When an LDS Church member is accused of a serious transgression such as sexual abuse, a stake disciplinary council must intervene and help the church member repent and reestablish a covenant with God. Formal church discipline is administered by a disciplinary council and can result in probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication. See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics..... John Roe's disciplinary council was held on Sunday January 10, 1999. Roe attended and apparently confessed in the course of the proceeding. The disciplinary council decided the appropriate discipline for Roe was disfellowshipment. LDS Church procedures require that an RCDA be prepared and sent to the Church headquarters in Utah when the discipline is disfellowshipment or excommunication. An RCDA is a summary of the disciplinary proceedings and describes the decision of the council. The LDS Church did not report Jane Doe's allegations that her stepfather sexually abused her to the civil authorities. In January 2000, Roe's spouse learned that he had sexually abused her younger daughter, Rebecca. Roe's spouse called Child Protective Services to report the abuse. Roe was criminally charged and prosecuted for the sexual abuse of both Jane and Rebecca Doe. Roe pleaded guilty to child molestation in the first degree and was sentenced to prison. In February 2002, Jane Doe and R. Doe's guardian ad litem, [Tom] filed a tort lawsuit against Roe and the LDS Church for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint alleges that the LDS bishops and other church officials "breached both a statutorily proscribed duty and a duty of reasonable care by failing to report" Roe's sexual abuse of Jane Doe. The LDS Church answered and denied the allegations against it. In his deposition, Roe asserted the clergy-penitent privilege and refused to answer questions about his disciplinary council proceeding. When [Tom] requested production of Roe's RCDA and RCDAs for other church members, the LDS Church objected on the grounds the RCDAs were protected from disclosure by Washington's clergy-penitent privilege statute and [Tom]'s request violated the Church's federal and state constitutional right of free exercise of religion. In addition, the Church objected because the documents were irrelevant and violated third parties' rights to privacy........The special master concluded Roe's communications were a confession under LDS Church doctrine because the church handbook specifies that disciplinary councils are part of a process of repentance and are held "to save the souls of transgressors."The special master also concluded that the RCDA was confidential because the church handbook imposes a duty of confidentiality on all participants in LDS Church disciplinary councils..... The LDS Church contends the trial court erred in requiring production of Roe's disciplinary proceeding RCDA because the clergy-penitent privilege applies and the court's order violates the Church's free exercise of religion under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and art. I, sec. 11 of the Wash. Const. The LDS Church argues that under its church doctrine each participant in Roe's disciplinary proceeding was an ordained clergy member. Alternatively, the LDS Church argues that all the participants were necessary for the communication to occur..... A disciplinary council must be held when a Church member is alleged to have committed child abuse. The stake president, his two counselors, a stake clerk, and the 12-member high council are required to participate in the stake disciplinary council. In addition to these participants, Roe's council also included Roe's bishop and the stake executive secretary. ["Tom"] argues that because the high council members are ordained only for purposes of participating in stake disciplinary councils, they are not clergy. We disagree. n16 ["Tom"]'s argument ignores the Supreme Court's decision in Motherwell and too narrowly construes the court's definition of who is an ordained clergy member. According to Motherwell, whether a clergy member is an ordained clergy is determined by "ordination within one's church or religious denomination" and whether the ordained clergy member was functioning in a clerical capacity. Motherwell, 114 Wn.2d at 359-60...... Here, the parties agree that the stake president and bishop are ordained. The parties also agree that the high council and all other participants were ordained for purposes of the stake disciplinary council by the laying on of hands. According to Stake President Mitchell, who presided over Roe's council, "[f]or purposes of the disciplinary council, all 18 men are functioning in an official clerical capacity and are considered under Church doctrine to be clergy bound by sacred obligations of confidentiality." Under the LDS Church doctrine, all the participants at Roe's disciplinary proceeding were ordained clergy members functioning in a clerical capacity.......... ["Tom"] argues that because the stake president, not the high council, makes the final disciplinary decision, the role of the high council at Roe's disciplinary proceedings is "perfunctory and dispensable," and the presence of the stake executive secretary was not necessary for the communication to occur. Church doctrine mandates the attendance and participation of the high council at the stake disciplinary council in cases of alleged child abuse. The role the high council plays at disciplinary proceedings is described in the church handbook. One-half of the high council is appointed to represent the Church member. Councilors may ask questions about the Church member's alleged transgressions and present their views on discipline. The high councilors cannot veto the stake president's disciplinary decision, but the handbook encourages every effort be made to address councilors' concerns and achieve unanimity. Under LDS Church doctrine, the stake clerk is required to attend at the direction of the stake president. The clerk prepares a summary of the stake disciplinary councils and the RCDA. The stake executive secretary is "an executive assistant to the stake president" who keeps "reference notes on matters discussed, decisions reached, and actions to be taken." Although not required by Church doctrine to attend the disciplinary council, the stake executive secretary's role is analogous to a legal secretary or other third party administrative assistant. See State v. Aquino-Cervantes, 88 Wn. App. 699, 707, 945 P.2d 767 (1997) HN13Go to the description of this Headnote.(administrative assistants are essential for the provision of legal services to occur and do not vitiate confidentiality required by the attorney-client privilege). The presence of the stake executive secretary at Roe's disciplinary council did not vitiate the confidentiality requirement of the clergy-penitent privilege. ["Tom"]claims Roe waived his right to assert the clergy-penitent privilege when he agreed to allow a prior confession to be used in his disciplinary proceeding. ["Tom"] relies on a church handbook provision governing the use of prior confessions that states: "information received in a member's confession cannot be used as evidence in a disciplinary council without the member's consent." Roe allegedly confessed to his bishop prior to the stake disciplinary council.["Tom"]argues that by agreeing to confess again to the disciplinary council, Roe waived any privilege to both his earlier confession and his confession to the disciplinary council. We conclude that Roe's consent to the use of his prior confidential confession in the disciplinary council did not constitute a waiver of Roe's right to assert the clergy-penitent privilege. The LDS Church imposes a duty of confidentiality in both circumstances. Similarly, the confidential recording and transmission of the RCDA was not a waiver. See Martin, 137 Wn.2d at 787. LDS Church procedures require preparation and transmission of an RCDA to church headquarters and maintains its confidentiality. See also Scott v. Hammock, 133 F.R.D. 610, 619 (D.Utah 1990). In Scott, the court held that the ***Utah*** privilege statute applied to the transmission of privileged intrafaith communications from one ecclesiastical officer to another. The court reasoned that a communication from one religious authority to another within the Church hierarchy was necessary for carrying out church discipline. ["Tom"] also argues that Roe waived the privilege when he told his spouse about the sexual abuse in November 1998, prior to the January 1999 disciplinary council. This disclosure to his spouse did not waive his privilege as to the communications in his disciplinary proceeding. Roe has consistently refused to talk about the communications in the disciplinary council or the disciplinary council proceedings. And there is no evidence to the contrary.... We conclude that under LDS Church doctrine the participants in Roe's disciplinary council were ordained clergy members and Roe's RCDA is protected by the clergy-penitent privilege. We reverse the trial court's order requiring disclosure of Roe's RCDA and remand for entry of an order denying [Tom]'s motion to direct the LDS Church to produce the RCDA. Reconsideration denied July 15, 2004. Review denied at 153 Wn.2d 1025 (2005). |
| The Church's Website Contains A Bold Face Lie Friday, Jun 8, 2007, at 07:40 AM Author: John Larsen -GUID- | ↑ |
| The Church’s website contains a bold face lie
This is the biography of Zina Diantha Huntington Young, the second president of the Relief Society: http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884... (downloaded June 7 2007). I have included the complete text here: ”Zina D. H. Young, a midwife and an educator, worked closely with Eliza R. Snow in the Relief Society. In 1870 Brigham Young called Sister Young to promote silk production among the women of the Church as part of the Church’s emphasis on home industry and self-sufficiency. During her presidency the Relief Society affiliated with the United States National Council of Women and campaigned for women’s suffrage. Sister Young continued the Relief Society’s emphasis on health care, grain storage, education, and compassionate service. Widowed by her first husband, she raised two sons from that marriage, one daughter from her later marriage to Brigham Young, and four of Brigham Young’s other children”Notice the chronology offered by the text: “windowed by her first husband” and then “later marriage to Brigham Young”. In fact her first husband died 9 years after Brigham. Here is the actual timeline of events:
"It is tempting for those reading the heart-breaking letters of Henry to Zina to assert that, somehow, Brigham "stole" Henry's family. Such a conclusion treats Zina and her children as objects that can be physically stolen, like any of Henry's other possessions, such as a horse, a jacket, or a pocket watch.Nothing said about the fact that Brigham publicly called Henry out and announced that he was living with "another man's wife" just before sending him away, and, interestingly, just before BY started living with Zina. Also, the author says, ". . . Zina played an active part in the dissolution of her marriage . . ." but never mentions that BY himself also played an active part in the dissolution of her marriage! One last thing: it wouldn't be hard to find tons of quotes from BY indicating that he did, indeed, view wives and children as "property." |
| What's In The Secret Church Vault? Tuesday, Jul 3, 2007, at 01:56 AM Author: Mister Scratch -GUID- | ↑ |
Over on the aptly named MADboard, a poster named erichard has posted a list of stuff which is supposedly held in the top-secret Church Vault, which is dug into the side of a mountain in Little Cottonwood Canyon, just outside Salt Lake City. (It is visible from the road, in fact.) I thought this was quite intriguing:Incomplete List of Items in the First Presidency Vaults"Obscene Material"? "$18.50 to be paid in kitchen chairs"??? I love how this list is a mixture of the obviously historically relevant, the mundane, and the absolutely whacked-out absurd. Who knows what else could be in the vaults? A research lab, where they are developing better equipment for spying on the membership, maybe? ; ) In any case, I always enjoy threads like these, since they rankle the hypersensitive TBMs to no end. |
| Answer To "How Is The Priesthood Organized?" Friday, Apr 3, 2009, at 09:11 AM Author: BOUNCED! -GUID- | ↑ |
| The below information comes from Boyd K and is found at: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp... A quorum is a brotherhood. Except for the offices of bishop and patriarch, those ordained to offices in the priesthood are organized into quorums. Melchizedek Priesthood quorums are: • The First Presidency • The Quorum of the Twelve • Seventies quorums • High priests quorums • Elders quorums Aaronic Priesthood quorums are: • Priests quorums • Teachers quorums • Deacons quorums Each quorum is presided over by a president or a presidency. The Quorum of the Twelve is presided over by one president, the President of the Twelve (see D&C; 124:127), as is the priests quorum presided over by the bishop (see D&C; 107:87–88). The seventies quorums are presided over by seven presidents. (See D&C; 107:93.) All other quorums are presided over by a presidency consisting of a president, a first counselor, and a second counselor. The Ordained Offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood The ordained offices in the higher priesthood are: Elder High Priest Patriarch Seventy Apostle |
| This Is The Lords One True Corporation Wednesday, Jul 22, 2009, at 07:54 AM Author: confused -GUID- | ↑ |
| “It might seem strange, almost slightly blasphemous, to refer to a church as a corporation, but the analogy here is simply inescapable. The Church is undeniably corporate.”
- Jeffery Kaye, “An Invisible Empire: Mormon Money in California,” New West, May 8, 1978, p. 39 “Our [Church Public Communications Department fund-raising] representatives are trained in personal grooming habits, correct deportment, proper word usage, the right kinds of voice tone for different situations, good telephone procedures, and the like. It’s almost an entire remake of the whole person once they’ve been through the whole [training] program. They are instructed to contact attorneys, certified public accountants, bank officials, and any other officials who handle the financial affairs of the elderly, well-to-do clients and tell them about the needs of our school in Provo [BYU]. You’d be surprised just how well this system works for us.” - Interview with Scott Barnett, an assistant director for the LDS Church Development Office, January 7, 1982, and interview with James Olson, assistant legal counsel for the LDS Church Development Office, January 7, 1982, in John Heinerman and Anson Shupe, The Mormon Corporate Empire, p. 107 |
| Working At The Mormon Church Granite Mountain Records Vault Thursday, Oct 29, 2009, at 08:19 AM Author: Molotov -GUID- | ↑ |
| So, I was able to get a job at the vault because my dad had worked for the church for about 10 years at the COB so he was a good reference. I got the job after they made sure my recommend was current and I was trust worthy enough to allow in. I believe I had two interviews and I'm not sure what kind of background check the church does, but I have been told that it is quite a process to be allowed to work for the church. Still, I wasn't by any means perfect and neither were some of my co-workers. I think my dad's reputation as a hard worker helped me out most.
My husband took me to work every day. When driving up the canyon just after the ski resorts, there is a hairpin turn on the left side to go up to the vault. I had never noticed it before working there. There is a gate that you have to go through to get up to the parking lot. At the gate, you push a button and they ask who you are and you tell them and they let you up. No exceptions. You have to wait for them to look at you in their security camera every day. They are not messing around up there. When they lifted the gate, we would drive to the parking lot and then I would get out and go in the big metal door that led to the desk where the security guard checked your badge every day. When my husband came to pick me up every day at the same time, he always had to push the button and tell him who he was and why he was there. Layout of the Vault: After you check in you go down the hall and to the left. I wish I could draw it up, maybe I'll work on that. After the corridor you can only go left into another long hallway. Along this there are little sections on either side that are work areas for people who are programming microfilm and microfiche. (Programming is what they call it, but this is what that entails: you hook a roll of film on a stand on the right side of your desk and then hook the end of the film to another roll on a stand on the other side of the desk that has a handle for you to roll it back up, but in reverse. You look through film by unrolling it under a microscope where you look at it every few frames to see if it is clear enough to read and reprint or not. If it is clear and clean you give it a number that tells the printer to print it as is. If it isn't clear, then you give it a number - or program it - and it tells the printer what setting to print it on in order for it to come out more clearly than the original. This is what I did there, and I was good at it!) So there is a large section to the right and then another to the left where people are working on film. After that there was another area with offices and a secretary on the left and on the right is a hallway and door that leads to the corridor that goes back into the actual vaults A through F. Still walking down the main corridor then there is another work area on the right where the people who get film out of the filing cabinets in the Athrough D vaults organize it and put it into batches according to where the copies are ordered from etc. At the end of the long main corridor on the left is a hallway that goes back to a small kitchen with vending machines and a phone (no cell phones in there as far as I remember) and behind the kitchen a large room with tables for eating and lots of chairs that are set up once during the monthly devotional and for holiday parties. I vaguely remember another corridor opposite the hallway leading to the kitchen. It seems like there may have been more vaults down this one, but I was never quite sure and if it was actually there it didn't seem like it was used much. So work started every day with team prayer. You were on teams. When I worked there I remember two programming teams and another couple teams that did something else with the film that I don't remember. There were also a few people that ran the printers and so in all I think there were only about between 45 or 65 people that actually worked there. I hated and dreaded this team prayer every day. I don't really like praying about working well or fast and praying about it with coworkers doesn't help. (I guess I would have been kicked out if they knew I had that attitude!) They had it at about 8am even though we had to be at work at 7am. I also hated the early hours but I have never been a morning person. Anyway, there were a few interesting things that happened there. Nothing crazy but still, possibly worth sharing. They always had a devotional every month on the first Monday. A few times one of the 70 came and spoke and gave a lesson. It was interesting, but basically like getting paid for being in church. Once there was an incident when a friend of mine who was working there (she had not been through the temple and did not wear garments) was leaning over organizing film on a large table. Her shirt came up a little and her skin on her back became visible. She was later reprimanded because a coworker had told the boss that she wasn't being modest. She was very upset and quit not a month later. Obviously the scolding was ridiculous because she was not being immodest or disrespectful on purpose. Another time when I was assigned to a new workstation, I was talking to a man who worked there. He was a pretty big guy (as in overweight) and worked quite slowly. He told me a little about himself. He said that he had worked there almost 10 years if I remember correctly and that he had 6 or7 kids. (This surprised me that he was doing the same job I was doing because this job only paid about $8.50/hr.) I asked him if he was ok with his job here and he said he was. He said something like, it didn't necessarily pay much, but that he was sure he didn't need more because since he worked for the Lord as his job, his family would be taken care of. (I could not believe that someone could be so stupid.) There was an older lady who worked there and she was super sweet. She was funny and kind and helpful and interesting. She worked hard and did her job very well. She worked at the vault and for the church corp. for I think about 14 years she said. It could have been more. In any case, she was approaching retirement within a few months. She was excited and couldn't wait to be home with her family and grandkids. She was around 67 I think. (I could be totally off, but I'm pretty sure these details are close if not right on.) So around the time she was putting in her two weeks and arranging to finish up and get her retirement package, etc., things changed and suddenly she was in trouble all the time. She didn't know what was going on or why but one day told me she had figured it out. She told me they were trying to get her fired or to get her to quit before her time was done to keep from giving her retirement. She was super upset during her last few days there and became difficult to work with. (Who wouldn't be!)She told me she just wanted to get done and get out. She did go, but I never found out if she got what she had worked so hard for. She was just out of there on her last day and never looked back. When working on film, it is really quiet because its hard to talk and concentrate on what you're doing at the same time. I didn't really become close friends with anyone I worked with, so I listened to books on cd with a portable cd player. I listened to about 65 books during my one year of work there. At one point a coworker asked me what I was listening to. This guy was so righteous he made your eyes bleed to look at him. He was irritating in all the ways those type of people are while trying really hard to just be your best bud and make work a good old time! When he asked what I was listening to today I told him and then couldn't wait to hear what he had to say - "I'm listening to Silence of the Lambs", I said. He was shocked and had disapproval all over his face. He said something like, "That movie is rated R isn't it? I'm sure the book probably is." (So passive aggressive.) I said, "I'm sure it is." and kept working. He watched me for a few minutes and I said, "Do you want to borrow it after I'm done? It's a good book. Really creepy." He said no thanks and looked troubled. The next week during our Monday morning team devotional (where someone from the team was picked to read a scripture or give a short message) our team leader - who I really thought was a nice guy - mentioned begrudgingly that we needed to make sure we were listening to uplifting things while we worked. It seemed to me that he didn't really care what anyone listened to on their headphones as long as they did their jobs. So after working at the vault for about a year, I got another job. I was excited to be done, but also realized I hadn't seen a few things that I had wondered about. They told me when I first started that all the water used in the kitchen and bathrooms was provided by the natural reservoir that was in the back of the vault. I had never seen this and was really curious. I knew I would never have a chance to see it again so on my last day I asked if they would show me and if I could take a few pictures. They said I could as long as I didn't take any pictures of anything else inside the vault on the way to the reservoir door. I agreed and he led me down the long corridor where A through F vaults are located. At the very end was the door that I knew led to the water. He unlocked it and when we went in it was sort of anticlimactic. I was expecting a huge lake or rushing waterfalls or something cool. After I got over the disappointment, it was pretty neat. It was a pool with pumps attached. The pool was probably about 6 feet wide by 10to 15 feet long. It was clean and clear and looked nice but it was basically just functioning in an empty dark holed out area. That part of the vault did not have the corrigated metal walls. It was rough granite through there and that was cool too. The only other really interesting thing that happened was during the summer that I worked there. A company that was contracted with the church to do some construction in the some of the vaults sent a group of their guys out for about a month or so. I made friends with one of the guys and we chatted during lunch and made small talk when he was hanging around on his breaks. One day during this construction, our team leader told us that for the next couple days we would be taking turns throughout the day to sit outside thedoor of the F vault while the contracted construction guys worked in there. We were told that we needed to just sit out there and could read or listen to our headphones, as long as we made sure no one took anything out of the vault that wasn't their own tools. We agreed and were happy to have a break from programming film. When it was my turn, I sat on the designated chair and listened to my book and just smiled at the guys as they went in and out. At one point, I realized, this is the vault that has lots of really important stuff in it and tried to peek in. Unfortunately, because of all the construction, every shelf was covered in plastic sheeting and the only thing I saw was a small stack of books (pages side toward me) on a shelf near the door so I couldn't even identify them. I didn't understand at the time that this was THE F VAULT!!! I should have been rummaging through there to find the Hoffman documents or a papyrus or something! Total bummer. When it was over, I went back to my desk and didn't think a thing of it other than, maybe they saw the sword of Laban when they were covering things up. Haha! So that is about it. Other than those little tidbits, the only other possibly noteworthy things about working there were: it was hard to get a raise and they had a ceiling that I reached during the one year I workedthere. That was a deal breaker (as Liz Lemon would say) for long term employment but they weren't budging as far as raises went. |