More On Mormons And Their Tithing. Even The Little Children Must Pay!!

I'd like to say thanks to Sarony from the Mormon recovery board for inspiring this post. As Sarony suggested...I did take a look at the September Friend Magazine and found the article regarding tithing, named; "The Windows of Heaven."

I mean, wow, I'm just sitting here and all I can say is wow, this is unbelievable!!

You have to look at it in PDF so that you can see all of the brainwashing and lovely pictures and what follows the talk. It shows a little girl, smiling of course, paying her tithing and steps 1-8 of Where does tithing go? This is incredible to me!! Talk about the early indoctrination program.

Here is the link to the September 2005 Friend Magazine.

I know that it exists, this is nothing new, but as a now "former TBM", to see it in the latest Friend, written specifically for kids; just brought it all home for me once again. My favorite in the list is #8-"No matter how your tithing is spent, it helps with the Lord’s work on earth."

So, that sums it up nicely, doesn't it? If it goes to buy a new limo or a mall or two, maybe buy a cattle ranch in Nebraska or a gaming preserve or more land in Hawaii or a housing development in Hawaii; that is the Lord's precious work.

I also like #4 where it says, "Then Church leaders in Salt Lake City, Utah, decide where the tithing is most needed." So basically, whatever these dumb asses decide to do, including putting it into their own pockets, is okay!!

The bottom line is that NOBODY knows where any of this money goes, because they do it all in secret from their members, the tithe payers and sealed their finances from EVERYONE, in 1959 and no one has seen them since.

These men and the Mormon Church will stoop to any level, as they truly know no shame. The story about the little girl and her shoes is complete BS, devoid of any common sense or decency and full of gaping holes. The little girl desperately needed shoes and they had $2.50 and then the "Mother asked Heavenly Father for a way to get more food for her little family and shoes for Marcella.

After the prayer, they all wiped tears from their eyes. Then, with a smile, Mother said, “Let’s go pay our tithing, girls!”

HOLY SHIT...is this for real?!!

This is truly sick, twisted, demented and par for the course in brainwashing cults. What really pisses me off though, is that they're manipulating little Children now and as they always have, with their sick, fabricated BS stories.

My question is, why wasn't the Bishop already helping this very poor, needy family, if he is so inspired by "God/Jesus" and "the spirit?" Notice that in the end, it wasn't even the Bishop that helped them, rather some family member that would have helped them anyway(MORmONS will claim they wouldn't have helped them), even if they didn't pay their last $2.50 to the damn MORmON cult?!!

Maybe this was before the welfare program but if this fraud of a Church/cult was built upon Mothers donating their Children's food and shoe money, which it was; then it is more evil and vile than I ever imagined.

This Church has nothing to be proud of, as they were built by shaming their members into donating their very last dollar or in this case $2.50 of their child's shoe money.

My "TBM" friend just the other day, told me that he had $70 total, with no food for himself, wife, kids(including a baby), etc, but that he had to pay his tithing for the last two weeks, taking his whole $70 and he did it. Kudos to this vile cult for their amazing brain-washing techniques, as they are working great and literally taking food right out of innocent men, women and children's mouths!!

People are still giving their last cent to this damn cult in hope of some amazing blessings that will never come or so that they won't be burned at the second coming.

To me, with each story I read and every new bit of history I discover; the Mormon Church/CULT is becoming indeed, the "whore of all the earth" that the Book of Mormon talks about. The Mormon Church is indeed one of the more evil Churches on this planet, if not the most evil!!

After reading this article in the latest Friend, I'm now more convinced of this than ever before...time for me to go get my workout in and get rid of some frustration and anger!!

Samuel the Utahnite

Boyd K Packer, "Modern Day Prophets", Mark Hofmann And Why They Won't Ever Say I'm Sorry!!

First I just wanted to say thanks for everyones comments, you guys are great!! Boyd K. Packers words speak for themselves about how he thinks and who he is. I just had some other thoughts. I'm grateful that all that is needed are the words of Boyd K. Packer to help people see more clearly who and what he is and the Church that he represents as a supposed "Inspired Apostle of God."

When I was younger, I remember going to the viewing of Spencer W. Kimball and the line was a mile long. Then I believe they also had a service for him. I honestly don't remember much about how the Mormon Church has handled the funerals of their Prophets but I'm sure that they've always done something, like they did for President Kimball. Well, I was just wondering, was that keeping in the spirit of Boyd K. Packers teachings?

Now, I have another question and something that has bothered me for a long time. If these words of Boyd K. Packer in this talk, his "to the one" talk and his "little factory" talk, are deemed too offensive to be made available to the public via Internet, along with many others talks, then why doesn't the current "Prophet of God" step forward, grow some balls and publicly condemn the words.

Why doesn't the Modern day "Prophet of God" or past "Prophets" condemn the racist teachings of Brigham Young, Mark E. Peterson, etc. At the very least, they should apologize to anyone that is gay or black for their discrimination toward these people and their harsh words, not to mention women. They should apologize to every Christian around the world for Joseph Smith's words boasting that he was greater than Jesus Christ. My strong belief is that if the Church and current "Prophet" won't apologize publicly for past transgressions and racist statements and teachings, then they must believe them and accept them; therefore they are the current standard and belief of the Mormon Church.

Anyway, I'm just dreaming because it will never happen. They may whitewash their history on Joseph Smith's new website, remove controversial talks from the public view, but they will never ever apologize or admit fault about anything. They proved this through the whole Mark Hofmann situation. They couldn't even admit fault when it was out in the open and clear that they had screwed up big time. Here is a quote from Dallin H Oaks regarding how Hofmann could fool God's chosen men:

Some have asked, how was Mark Hofmann able to deceive Church leaders?

As everyone now knows, Hofmann succeeded in deceiving many: experienced Church historians, sophisticated collectors, businessmen-investors, national experts who administered a lie detector test to Hofmann, and professional document examiners, including the expert credited with breaking the Hitler diary forgery. But why, some still ask, were his deceits not detected by the several Church leaders with whom he met?

In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.

The Church is not unique in preferring to deal with people on the basis of trust. This principle of trust rather than suspicion even applies to professional archives. During my recent visit to the Huntington Library in Pasadena, California, I was interested to learn that they have no formal procedures to authenticate the many documents they acquire each year. They say they consider it best to function in an atmosphere of trust and to assume the risk of the loss that may be imposed by the occasional deceiver.

Here is the whole talk

I'm speechless!! "Occasionally disappointed", "this is the price they pay",...uh Mr. Oaks, two innocent people died because your dumb asses were unable to detect with your magical powers that this guy was a forger and murderer and a complete fraud and their blood is on your hands, especially Hinckley's. He fooled experts so it was okay that he fooled Prophets, Seers and Revelators too?!! What about the gift of discernment Mr. Apostle?!!

I suggest that everyone read the whole talk, it is amazing the excuses and lies that he spews. Once again, he hid out at BYU to give such an important talk on August 6, 1987. It is entitled "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents." Why not give this "very important" talk in General Conference, where it should have been given.

At least the Church hasn't erased this talk off of their website.....yet!! Read it while you can. I do have an archived copy if indeed it does vanish someday.

Samuel the Utahnite

Thomas S. Monson and a little boys suicide!!

MP3 Download


Please visit my new podcast MORMONISM EXPOSED!!


Here is another link regarding the TRUTH about the hate-filled bigot and homophobic Thomas S. Monson!!
=============

This was part of a talk given by Thomas Monson in the April 2005 General Conference. It was entitled, "Constant Truths for Changing Times." I read this a while back and I have really needed to post this. After analyzing what he said, I was shocked to say the least by the overall conclusions of this part of his speech. I just wanted to see what you guys think.

Here is the quote:

"Several years ago we had a young paperboy who didn't always deliver the paper in the manner intended. Instead of getting the paper on the porch, he sometimes accidentally threw it into the bushes or even close to the street. Some on his paper route decided to start a petition of complaint. One day a delegation came to our home and asked my wife, Frances, to sign the petition. She declined, saying, "Why, he's just a little boy, and the papers are so heavy for him. I would never be critical of him, for he tries his best." The petition, however, was signed by many of the others on the paper route and sent to the boy's supervisors.

Not many days afterward, I came home from work and found Frances in tears. When she was finally able to talk, she told me that she had just learned that the body of the little paperboy had been found in his garage, where he had taken his own life. Apparently the criticism heaped upon him had been too much for him to bear. How grateful we were that we had not joined in that criticism. What a vivid lesson this has always been regarding the importance of being nonjudgmental and treating everyone with kindness."

Link to talk

My opinion is that first of all, he missed the entire point of the fact that the little Boy died and that he and his wife did nothing to prevent it. As he said, " How grateful we were that we had not joined in that criticism." So basically, as long as they didn't sign the petition, they were in the clear? So, they have a clean conscience? Was this about the Boy or about Thomas Monson pointing out how righteous he is? So, they didn't sign the petition, great, but they didn't stop it either!!

Now let's remind each other of who this man pretends to be. According to the Mormon hierarchy, He is the 2nd most powerful man that God has on earth and is God's next Prophet, Seer and Revelator with all the keys and power. Only Hinckley has more authority that he does.

So with that being said, I find it astonishing that he had absolutely no inspiration whatsoever regarding this situation. He didn't know or feel that the boy might commit suicide? Why didn't he at least go and meet with the Boy and try to console him knowing that there was a petition going around and since he appeared to be so concerned for the little boy? Why didn't he go tell the little Boy that everything would be okay, see if he needed help, etc? After all, his Wife Frances said that, "I would never be critical of him, for he tries his best."

Why didn't they at least tell him that, instead of talking to each other and the walls? Maybe it would have made a difference, right?

Now, all of this leads me to wonder, how the Family and Parents of this little boy feel about Thomas Monson using the tragic death of their Son as an object lesson. Did he notify them beforehand? I have also begun to wonder, as I'm sure many have, if all of these stories are just bogus and made up anyway. Has anyone ever tried to confirm all of their little stories? I hope that this story is indeed made up!!

But, lets assume it's a real Family whose little Boy really did take his own life; do they appreciate Thomas Monson using the example of their Son to show the world how righteous he and his wife are? By the way, I wonder if it was the Deseret News that the Boy was delivering? Surely, Thomas Monson could have intervened and talked to the Supervisor since it is the "Church's Newspaper." He could have said, "hey, go easy on the little Boy, the neighbors are coming down pretty hard on him."

Was the little Boy and his Family Mormon? Were they in his ward or stake? Was the "delegation" that came over with the petition, Mormon? Lots of unanswered questions in this little but very sad story and I think we deserve the answers.

Now Thomas Monson ends by saying, "What a vivid lesson this has always been regarding the importance of being nonjudgmental and treating everyone with kindness."

I personally think that this story by Thomas Monson is a "vivid lesson" in his lack of humility or caring for a little Boy, that took his own life, because of something that Thomas Monson should have known or could have tried to stop. But hey, at least he didn't sign the petition, right?

To me, this story also proves what most of us here already know; that Thomas Monson has no more inspiration than my dog. He has no special power of discernment or revelation whatsoever. He is a man, just like any other man and this story certainly proves that point. He is an arrogant and self-serving man that can't wait to get his hands on the reins of a Billion dollar corporation. In other words, this is just another example that proves that these guys are not really Prophets, Seers, Revelators or Apostles of Jesus or any God. They are instead, FRAUDS!!

Hey, Mr. Monson, I know you are disconnected from us real people and all reality; but as your Mormon Church teaches, there are sins of commission and sins of omission. You Sir, committed a sin of omission by not intervening in this situation, that were aware of and that was happening right in your very neighborhood, right under your nose. If you are indeed God's 2nd most powerful man, the 1st counselor to God's mouthpiece, where was your inspiration?

Quit patting yourself on the back Tommy, for not signing the petition; the Boy is gone and you did nothing to stop it and you have nothing to be proud of and you are a disgrace.

You should be ashamed of yourself!!

Samuel the Utahnite

Mormon's Say That Even The Destitute Have To Pay Their Tithing!!

Give us your gold fillings, give us 1 out of every 10 of your geese eggs......because we don't want you to miss out on the wonderful blessings of tithing. God is just waiting to flip that switch that controls the windows of heaven!! He really wants to open them!! What a joke!!

Here are some amazing quotes that have been shared before but I thought I'd share them again for those that haven't seen them. They rob from the poor in order to sustain the rich, namely, themselves in their lavish lifestyles and mansions. They don't need mansions in heaven because they already have them here, paid for by tithe payers of course!! These men have no shame whatsoever!!

These quotes are perfect examples of how these men work and the guilt they put on the members, specifically the poor people that can barely even provide for their Family.

These men should be arrested for their crimes against the poor and humanity in general. Here are some great quotes exposing them for what they are and for their need for greed. Hinckley goes to a very poor country like Panama, or Russia and only wants to talk about tithing. It is disgusting!!

Here were Hinckley's comments in Panama December 18, 2000:

The article on this speech is in the Deseret News archives if you want to read the whole thing.


PANAMA CITY, Panama — The day will come that there will be a temple in Panama, if members here prove worthy, President Gordon B. Hinckley said during a member meeting in Panama City Dec. 18.

"That means that you must live the gospel," President Hinckley told the some 5,000 gathered at a downtown convention center. "You must love and respect one another as husband and wife, and your children as fathers and mothers. It means that you must get along with people and do well in your daily work. It means that you must attend your meetings."

Tithing is an elementary element of gospel living, he said. It is a commandment based on faith. The prophet told the Panamanian people that he and Sister Marjorie Hinckley would soon be meeting with their own bishop for their annual tithing settlement.

"When we have settled with the bishop we'll be able to sleep better because we will know that we have met our obligation to the Lord; we have tried to be honest with Him," President Hinckley said. "Now, the Church doesn't need my money. The Church could get along without my money, but I can't get along without the blessing of the Lord."

The Lord honors those who are honest with Him — He has promised to open the windows of heaven and shower blessings upon the faithful, President Hinckley said.

The prophet told of a Taiwanese man who struggled with tithing after being baptized. The man's financial means were limited and he worried he would not be able to pay rent and buy food for his family if he paid a full tithe. But he followed his wife's earnest persuasions and agreed to pay tithing to their branch president. The next day, the man was unexpectedly given a raise at work.

"When he left the place where he worked, he counted out the money. It was the exact amount of the tithing. He went home and told his wife. They sat down and cried together. And ever since then, he has been faithful in this basic law," President Hinckley said.

President Hinckley spoke of paying his tithing as a young boy. It was only a few cents each year, but he would hand it to the bishop and wait for a receipt that was probably more valuable than his contribution amount.

"But the significant thing is that I had paid my tithing and declared it to be in full," he said. "Out of that habit established when I was a little boy has grown a habit that has gone on throughout my life."

President Hinckley expressed his love for the Panamanian people and admonished them to exercise faith.

"If you will pay your tithing and keep the other commandments, we will find a way to build a temple in Panama. But we can't do it unless you do your part. The temple will cost much, much, much more than you will pay in tithing, but that will come about as a gift of the Church, as a blessing from the Lord, because you have exercised the faith to keep that sacred law."

"Your faith, and my faith, gives us the power within ourselves to do that which God would have us do. The history of the Church is a history of faith," President Hinckley said.

That an everlasting covenant might be established.

Abraham's people were a select, chosen people; a people called by the Lord to walk in His paths and keep His commandments, President Hinckley said.

"And that's who you are. People of covenant, given a role that is renewed in this time, that 'the fullness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the earth before kings and rulers.'"

"I hope there will be a time when I can come back and look into your faces and see a smile on those faces and have you say, 'We have tried and the Lord has blessed us.' "

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cgi-bin/pages.cgi?panama_city&geographical

Wow, I'll let you guys comment on what you think of those comments. It's just unbelievable!! I'm sure it isn't hard to pay tithing to the Church when they are the one giving you every penny you have. I hope his Bishop wasn't too hard on him!! He pretends to be like one of us? Please!! Hinckley is also being very dishonest about the whole blessings part by sharing that story about receiving "monetary" blessings.

Hinckley himself has said that the blessings that come from tithing may not be of a "monetary" nature, rather a "spiritual" nature. Therefore, not tangible and hard to prove, right?

Now these were President James E Faust's comments during the groundbreaking of the Porto Alegre Brazil Temple:

Again, the article on this speech is also archived on the Deseret News Website.


He emphasized the need for Saints all over the world to begin to sacrifice for temple building. He recalled how, when the Sao Paulo Temple was being built, members in Argentina found ways to donate.

They gave the gold from their dental work to help pay on the temple, said President Faust. He explained that he had purchased some of that gold, for more than the market price, and has shown the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members.

This sacrifice has been the hallmark of the success of members in the Latin American nations, he noted, indicating that the same principle of sacrifice is needed today, where members in one area can reach out to help those in other areas.

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cgi-bin/pages.cgi?porto_alegre&geographical

What can I say?!! People selling their gold fillings? Has it really come to that? He takes the gold fillings to various congregations to illustrate the nature of the sacrifice made by these members? He is one sick SOB!! I wish he'd show them to me!! Poor people!! Damn Cult!!

Now, in the April 2001 General Conference, Earl C. Tingey, shared an example of just how truly desperate the Church is to get "something" from even the poorest of poor:

I was once teaching the law of tithing to a group of Church leaders in Africa. One brother said, “Elder Tingey, how can I pay tithing when I have no income?” I inquired and determined that he had a large family of seven or eight children and was unemployed. I asked how he fed his family. He said he had a small garden and raised geese. I asked, “What do the geese do?” He replied, “They lay eggs.” I responded, “What if one morning you discovered 10 geese eggs in the nests of your geese?” A light flickered on in his soul. “I could take one egg and give it to my branch president,” he answered. He understood, and he could become a full-tithe payer.

For the full talk:

You see that? The Church is so poor, that they need some poor Families geese eggs!!

Now, let me share one more example from the Last General Conference, in April 2005 in a talk once again on tithing, with the perfect title of "Tithing—a Commandment Even for the Destitute." It was given by Elder Lynn G. Robbins Of the Seventy. Here are some great quotes:

"Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won't and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can't. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required?

No bishop, no missionary should ever hesitate or lack the faith to teach the law of tithing to the poor. The sentiment of "They can't afford to" needs to be replaced with "They can't afford not to."

One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing. The bishop can help them with their food and other basic needs until they become self-reliant.

In October of 1998 Hurricane Mitch devastated many parts of Central America. President Gordon B. Hinckley was very concerned for the victims of this disaster, many of whom lost everything—food, clothing, and household goods. He visited the Saints in the cities of San Pedro Sula and Tegucigalpa, Honduras; and Managua, Nicaragua. And like the words of the loving prophet Elijah to a starving widow, this modern prophet's message in each city was similar—to sacrifice and be obedient to the law of tithing.

But how can you ask someone so destitute to sacrifice? President Hinckley knew that the food and clothing shipments they received would help them survive the crisis, but his concern and love for them went far beyond that. As important as humanitarian aid is, he knew that the most important assistance comes from God, not from man. The prophet wanted to help them unlock the windows of heaven as promised by the Lord in the book of Malachi (see Malachi 3:10; Mosiah 2:24).

President Hinckley taught them that if they would pay their tithing, they would always have food on their tables, they would always have clothing on their backs, and they would always have a roof over their heads."


MP3 File

For the full talk:

Let's see, what was that again? "If a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing." Is this guy for real?

I guess we could say this only applies to places in the world where the Church welfare program exists, like the USA and Europe. It didn't exist in South America when I was there!! So basically, in those poor places, they will pay their tithing with no guarantee of nothing, so they starve to death to pay the Mormon Church their tithing!! Unbelievable!!

One more quick quote by Hinckley when he was in Moscow, Russia on September 10, 2002. This is also a real classic!!

Now my dear brothers and sisters, live the gospel. Live the Word of Wisdom. Pay your tithing. You may say, ‘I can’t afford to pay tithing.’ I’d like to say that you cannot afford not to pay tithing. The Lord has made a wonderful promise, found in the Bible in the book of Malachi to those who pay their tithes. Unto those He will open the windows of heaven and pour down blessings that there shall not be room to contain them. Take the Lord at his word. The Church will go on whether you pay your tithing or not. It is sustained in this part of the world by funds that come from the United States for the most part. Your tithing may be ever so small, but you take the Lord at his word and pay your tithes and offerings, and God will bless you.

For the full talk:

So, basically, the USA is supporting the Church there and the Church will go on whether they pay tithing or not, but PAY IT!! GOD WILL BLESS YOU!!

So in conclusion, give your gold fillings, your geese eggs, your food money, your bill money, your rent money, your gas money, your finger nail clippings, hell, just give us everything you have and the Lord will open up those "invisible windows" and pour out those "invisible spiritual blessings" upon you. So what if you end up homeless for not paying your bills and rent!!

If in the meantime you and your entire Family starve to death, God will bless you all on the other side for your incredible sacrifice of giving all your money and ultimately your life to the rich men in Salt Lake. At least you died for the cause, right? You'll die doing what you love, giving your money to the Billion Dollar corporation LDS Inc!!

After all, they have to buy their Billion dollar malls, build their World Trade Center, $300 million luxury resorts, have their limos, luxury cars, 1,000 + suits, 5 star hotels, million dollar + condos, exquisite cuisine and dining. I mean, come on, these men have a lifestyle to maintain!! So cough it up people, don't make them suffer, after all, they are only doing God's work as humble servants. Screw your Family and eating, what's more important here? Just do it!!

My opinion on Boyd K Packer, his exact words regarding funerals, whitewashing and respecting each other as we each recover!!

***Update-I know that many of you have found this talk when looking up David A. Bednar, because I mention him and his ridiculous talk on earrings, in this post. Here is the link to the complete post that I wrote specifically about that talk, with the links, for both the text and the audio, so that you can listen to and read it for yourself.***

I just wanted to take the opportunity to reprint exactly what Boyd K. Packer said about funerals. This thread was inspired by the "A Mormon Funeral" thread by Moroni's pizza but something that I have been pondering for months. I was finding my way out of the "Mormon cult" when I first discovered it and read it and it deeply offended me. I had just lost a loved one, had to do battle with a Bishop over ever detail of the funeral and then to read these words, well, there aren't words to describe what I felt and thought about this piece of garbage, Boyd K. Packer. Now I understood where my Bishop had been coming from. I researched it this morning, and isn't it amazing that this talk no longer exists on the Churches speeches website. It is gone!!

Just another modern day "whitewash" of Mormon History. But I have included a link to an official Church site where it mentions the talk in a course of religion that was taught by none other than David A Bednar, TEACHINGS OF THE LIVING PROPHETS Religion 333, Fall 2004, I'm assuming at BYU Idaho, since he was the Pres. According to the Official public Mormon Church, this talk now does not exist. But it was required reading, this talk, during week 4 of the course in 2004:

"The Unwritten Order of Things," a devotional address delivered at Brigham Young University on 15 October 1996. (reserve)


Here are Boyd K. Packer's exact words regarding funerals how they should be handled and what their "real" purpose is:

Another point of order: Bishops should not yield the arrangement of meetings to members. They should not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families. It is not the proper order of things for members or families to expect to decide who will speak and for how long. Suggestions are in order, of course, but the bishop should not turn the meeting over to them. We are worried about the drift that is occurring in our meetings.

Funerals could and should be the most spiritually impressive. They are becoming informal family reunions in front of ward members. Often the Spirit is repulsed by humorous experiences or jokes when the time could be devoted to teaching the things of the Spirit, even the sacred things.

When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of about the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures. Now it's all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do, their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.

I have told my Brethren in that day when my funeral is held, if any of them who speak talk about me, I will raise up and correct them. The gospel is to be preached. I know of no meeting where the congregation is in a better state of readiness to receive revelation and inspiration from a speaker than they are at a funeral. This privilege is being taken away from us because we don't understand the order of things--the unwritten order of things--that relates to the administration of the Church and the reception of the Spirit.

Our bishops should not give our meetings away. That is true of our missionary farewells. We're deeply worried that they now have become kind of reunions in front of ward members. The depth of spiritual training and teaching which could go on is being lost. We have failed to remember that it is a sacrament meeting and that the bishop presides.

There are many things I could say about such matters as wearing Sunday best. Do you know what "Sunday best" means? It used to be the case. Now we see ever more informal, even slouchy, clothing in our meetings, even in sacrament meeting, that leads to informal and slouchy conduct.

Here is a link to the whole talk:

It's unbelievable, arrogant and disgusting. It truly shows who this man really is. In other words, let's take advantage of people at their lowest point, to try to convert them to the Mormon Church. The entire purpose of a funeral is to Convert people and has nothing to do with the deceased? Is he smoking crack? I just can't believe that he then begins to ask, like we are all stupid little 2 year olds, if we even know what "Sunday Best" even is.

Let me tell you something Mr. Packer, I served a mission in South America where people wore rags to Church, are you condemning them? Are you mocking their poverty as you strut around in your $1,000 + suits without a care in the world due to your healthy "paycheck" that God gives you every month?

I think I'll head down to South America and share your "inspired" words with everybody and see what happens. Maybe they can sell you their gold fillings to help build a temple in Brazil? Oh wait, they already did that!! Maybe they can give you 1 out of every 10 chicken eggs, oh wait, the Church does that in Africa!! Plain and simple, the Mormon Church is filthy rich and robs from the poor to continue on with their lifestyles of filth lucre!!

What an arrogant, condescending, pompous ass!! I can see why this talk had to be "Whitewashed."

At least he gave "permission" for someone from the family of the deceased to actually talk but only if "their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting." How nice of him!! If he hadn't, it wouldn't be allowed. Amazing how comments or opinions become commandments, kind of like the whole 2 earring BS by Hinckley, Ballard and then Bednar.

Now I've also been to funerals of past Bishop's and guess what, it was all about the Bishop, what a great guy he was, how loving, how wonderful, etc. So once again, they are hypocrites, do as we say, not as we do. They live by a different set of laws and standards then us normal peon's and who are we to question God's anointed. Damn cult!!

You see, this talk, still exists internally in the Church, is used in Religion courses to study, but isn't "officially" available to the public on the Churches website. I guess I feel the need to show the "wanna be TBM's" that lurk around on this site, proof, absolute proof that this talk did exist, so they don't think we are making it up.

Isn't it interesting how many talks that Boyd K. Packer has given that "don't exist" anymore. Let's see, "The Little Factory" talk was removed from the Priesthood session in which it was given, 1976. Notice that there are only 4 talks instead of the normal 5. The "To the One" talk is not on the speeches website that goes back to March 5, 1978 at a 12 Stake Fireside at BYU. Now we discover that "The Unwritten Order of Things" also given at BYU, in 1996, like "To the One", doesn't exist either.

This begs another question. Why do they always go to BYU to deliver these controversial talks. I want to see it in General Conference. Bednar and earrings, we are against homosexuals, don't talk about the deceased at funerals, Mark E. Peterson's "racist" talk in I think 1954. I mean, come one guys, why do you have to hide out at BYU to give these ridiculous and offensive talks. Tell the whole world what you believe, you damn cowards!! Quit hiding at BYU and then "whitewashing" your talk when it is deemed too offensive!!

Now, something else that I've had on my mind for a few weeks now. First of all, for those of you that seem to be so offended by my anger or others anger at these types of things, for those that appear to be so passive about everything, do me and yourself a favor and don't click on my links or others that you don't like. Nobody is forcing you to read it!! I've seen those "passive people", that are offended by any anger, tell others not to click on their links if they don't like what they have to say. I'm sick of people trying to tell me that this stuff shouldn't make me angry. Fine, you have a right to not care and be passive and I have a right to be pissed off, right? You know who you are!!

How about we respect each other and pretend that we aren't in the Morg, where everyone has to believe and think the same way like they are robots. I don't have a problem with people that aren't bothered with these types of things, have no anger, etc. I may not understand it but I know that it is their way and their right to feel how they feel. But I do have a problem with people that don't have any anger, telling me, that I should think like them and not have any anger. Everyone has the right to feel how they feel. I know this may seem strange to a "Morgbot" but we do our freedom, don't we?

Sometimes on this board, as I read responses to people's posts, I feel like I'm back in the Mormon Church and that everyone is expected to conform and all think alike in order to keep everyone happy. I didn't leave the Church and gain my freedom, just to give it away again. It's okay to disagree and not understand, but we don't need to attack each other!!

Most people on this board, in my opinion, are all either heading in the same basic direction or already there, we are just all taking our own paths and what is wrong with that? I know that the "mind frame", it has to be my way or no way thinking, comes from the brainwashing since birth from the Mormon Church. We all have to try a little harder to respect each other and our personal and distinct paths, that is all that I'm saying.

Lately, I've just seen too many people that feel like everyone has to think only one way and we've all been guilty of that at one point or another. A lot of us have incredible passion that has come with our new knowledge that we have been deceived and lied to for our entire life. The point of this board, is for us to be able to express ourselves, recover from Mormonism, and we all have our own paths to take, so all I ask is a little respect, on both sides. Let's let people say what they feel and express themselves in a way that makes them comfortable individually. If "wanna be TBM's" or "True TBM's" or "TBM's in transition", those exmo's with active spouses, etc, are lurking around and my words offend them, who cares? Like Hinckley says about all the different versions of the "First Vision", so what?

I love this place and it has been a huge part of my healing and recovery. I love the diversity of people and opinions and the knowledge that I gain here. My anger isn't once what it was, even a month ago, but I'm still angry when I read this kind of crap by a supposed Apostle of God. Who does Boyd K Packer think he is to have so much control over members of the Church? It is sad!! I can't help that it makes me angry and I'm not gonna apologize to those who don't get angry over it. To me and many others, this is a big deal!! I don't think anybody wants to be like Boyd K. Packer with a "God complex!!" To each their own, let's just have respect for one another!!

Samuel the Utahnite

Hugh The Free Morgbot Lives!!

Hugh the Free Morgbot started a great site that he regrettably now has to take down. However, I'm going to repost his entire website in this post so that it is not lost. He has done some great research on many things and has great points of view. I just couldn't allow it to all be lost. So here are his words as I reprint them for all to read and study. We wish Hugh the best in his journey and thank him for his hard work that will live on to help many people to find "the truth."

Samuel the Utahnite


Here was his opening paragraph explaining the name of his site:

Hugh the Free Morgbot
In one episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," the crew of the Enterprise found a Borg which they named Hugh. The Borg was a collective of beings whose brains were programmed to follow their leader implicitly. They were incapable of free thought. Hugh had been cut off from the collective and learned how to think for himself. I also have chosen to think for myself. Morgbot is a contraction of Mormon Borg Robot. Hence, I am Hugh the Free Morgbot.


Wednesday, August 10, 2005
The Purpose of This Site

I have created this site to offer information to church-going Mormons that they will not get out of their Gospel Doctrine manual or Teachings of the Presidents of the Church handbook. With this information, I hope that they will be able to make an informed decision about the claims of the church regarding its divinity and history.

I will not use "anti-Mormon" literature to make my points. In my analysis of the church, I will only use sources approved or published by the church and its leaders.

If you are a nonmember who has stumbled upon this site in search of information about the Mormon church, I suggest you look elsewhere (perhaps check my list of useful links). On this site, all of my articles will be written with the assumption that the reader has a working knowledge of church doctrine and basic history.

I will not force you to make any conclusions or decisions based on this information. But I do ask that you read it objectively and rationally, and ask yourself if it is in harmony with the teachings of the church that you know. Because if it is not, there is a problem. For it was the church itself that taught all of this to begin with.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Wednesday, August 10, 2005




Tuesday, August 09, 2005
The Book of Abraham: Inspiration or Imagination?


In July 1835 Joseph Smith obtained a set of Egyptian papyri which he claimed contained the writings of the patriarch Abraham of the Old Testament. Smith subsequently translated the papyri and published the translation in the Nauvoo newspaper, Times and Seasons, of which Joseph Smith was the editor.

The Book of Abraham was later published as part of The Pearl of Great Price and remains to this day part of that book, and an important part of church canon.

Emma Smith retained possession of the papyri after Joseph Smith’s death, and for years it was believed that she had sold the collection and it was subsequently destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. However, in 1967, a University of Utah professor named Dr. Aziz S. Atiya discovered parts of the collection in the archives at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The discovery was hailed in the church-owned newspaper, The Deseret News, in Salt Lake City on November 27, 1967.

The discovery caused great excitement among church members as it was clear that these were at least some of the papyri that Joseph Smith had used to translate the Book of Abraham.

The excitement diminished quickly, however, as Egyptologists around the country examined the papyri and concluded that there was nothing about Abraham written anywhere in the surviving pieces.

Mormon scholars conclude that there must be other portions of papyrus that are still missing, that will yield the true source of the Book of Abraham. Other more free-thinking scholars claim that perhaps these scrolls were the source for the Book of Abraham, but the message is encrypted somehow in the Egyptian pagan writings.

Both of these arguments ignore key pieces of information provided by Joseph Smith, the papyri themselves, and the words of Abraham as contained in his book.

First, we can establish that the papyri fragments now in the church’s possession are indeed the source for the Book of Abraham. We can compare Facsimile 1 in the Book of Abraham with the corresponding piece of papyrus (see the image at the beginning of this article). As you can see, the fragment matches the facsimile nicely, except for the missing portions, which Joseph Smith presumably filled in to complete the picture. In the book, Abraham describes the scene depicted in the facsimile:

"And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record." (Abr. 1:12)

From this passage, we learn that the source of Facsimile 1 is a part of the same record as the source of the text of the Book of Abraham. Coincidentally, during the process of translation, Joseph Smith’s scribes compiled a book called Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar in which an Egyptian symbol was written on the left hand of the page and its purported translation was given to the right of it. The translation in this book matches text in the Book of Abraham, and interestingly enough, the characters on the left-hand side match characters from the same piece of papyrus as Facsimile 1. The characters even appear in the same order in both works. There is no doubt that this papyrus was the source for Joseph Smith’s translation of at least a part of the Book of Abraham.

This leads to the important question: What do these characters really say? The scroll has nothing to do with a man named Abraham being sacrificed on an altar. The scroll actually describes the embalming process for a man named Osiris at the hands of the god Anibus (yes, those names CAN be read from characters on the papyrus).

So we have established that the papyrus is the same as that used by Joseph Smith. We have a scholarly translation that does not match the Book of Abraham scriptures. This leaves us with the possibility (?) that Abraham planted some sort of encrypted message hidden in the papyrus.

Joseph Smith’s (and the church’s) claim was that these papyri were written by Abraham himself. The quote above illustrates that point, as Abraham is the narrator and he directs the reader to a portion of his script. Biblical historians place the life of Abraham at approximately 2000 BC. But scholars of Egyptology claim that this papyrus was written around 50 BC to 50 AD (based on the names and places listed in the text), and was written in a script that did not appear until many centuries after Abraham’s death. How could he have possibly written it himself?

In the July 1988 Ensign, Michael D. Rhodes (currently a professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU, but at the time a software tester for the Air Force) published an article answering the question, “Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?” Here are his arguments, and my answers:

First, he cites Joseph Smith as describing the papyrus in this manner: “The record . . . found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.” (History of the Church, 2:348.) He points to the fact that the part of papyrus containing the Book of Breathings does not contain red ink, and is in a poor state of preservation. He ignores the fact that other bits of papyrus in the collection contain red ink characters. He also ignores the fact that the papyrus is clearly the source for Facsimile 1, so the “perfect preservation” description is up for interpretation.

Also, Rhodes’s quote, “The record . . . found with the mummies,” originally read, “The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies . . ..” Rhodes conveniently leaves out the part showing that Joseph Smith (or whoever originally gave the quote) never specifically said it was the Book of Abraham papyrus that contained red ink. Just that a portion of the collection contained red ink.

Rhodes’s next contention: “Although the picture found as facsimile one in the book of Abraham stands at the beginning of the Book of Breathings, this does not necessarily mean that it belongs to the text. The Egyptians often placed vignettes next to texts that bore no relationship to them.” Here, Rhodes ignores the translations of the Egyptologists that have linked the picture found at the beginning of the papyrus with the rest of the text of the Book of Breathings. He also ignores Abraham’s words, that the picture was indeed supposed to correspond with the words of the text.

The rest of Rhodes’s arguments attempt to offer that Abraham’s writings had been copied and recopied for centuries, until finally, someone had the idea of copying them onto a Book of Breathings scroll. He ignores the church's claim that Abraham himself wrote the scrolls.

In the end, he acknowledges that the authenticity of the Book of Abraham cannot be proven by academic means, but must be confirmed by a witness from the Holy Ghost. I submit that although the authenticity of the Book of Abraham cannot be proven by academic means, the fact that it is a false translation of a pagan manuscript has clearly been proven.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Monday, August 08, 2005
Blacks and the Priesthood

In the first chapter of the Book of Abraham, verses 25-27, we read:

“Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.”

From this passage of scripture, Joseph Smith introduced the doctrine that Egyptians, and more broadly, Africans, were descendent's of Cain through Ham and his “cursed” wife Egyptus. This began the doctrine in the church that the blessings of the gospel would not be extended to those of the black race. The leaders of the church regularly defended this doctrine:

“Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin" (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp.476-77).

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God..." (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 22. p.304).

The curse of Cain was not limited to just full-blooded African descendents:

“Now what is our policy in regard to inter-marriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!” ("Race Problems-As They Affect The Church," Elder Mark E. Petersen, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)

Regarding when this curse might be lifted, and when the blacks might be able to receive the priesthood, church leaders have said:

“I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come.... (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 2, pp.436-38).

“Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle [the Civil War] free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands....Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.250).

“Cain slew his brother ... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.... How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp.290-91).

“When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity ... he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.143).

Brigham Young made it clear in the quotes above that the curse was not to be lifted until after the resurrection of the dead. However, on June 9, 1978, the church announced a revelation had been received (the text of which was never released) by then-President Spencer W. Kimball, extending the blessings of the priesthood to every worthy male member, regardless of race or color.

So how do we reconcile these two teachings? Which prophet was wrong? Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who often cited Brigham Young’s teachings in explaining the curse prior to the 1978 revelation, stated:

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). " ("All Are Alike Unto God," pages 1-2.)

Following Elder McConkie’s counsel, we can then take any statement ever made by any modern prophet with a grain of salt, for it just may turn out that next week a new modern prophet will reveal something totally contrary to it, and we will be expected to believe it. This contradicts the basic Mormon belief in the infallibility of the prophets, as illustrated by President Wilford Woodruff: “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place." (Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

Either Brigham Young led us astray by leading us to believe that blacks were not worthy to hold the priesthood, and would not hold the priesthood until after the resurrection, or Spencer W. Kimball led us astray by teaching that it was now permissible for blacks to hold the priesthood.

Could it possibly be that the church could no longer hide behind a 150-year-old doctrine of racism as the world around it shook off segregation and adopted civil rights? Could it no longer afford to allow the protests and demonstrations against the church and its university, and therefore simply did away with the problem by drafting an Official Declaration? Or did the Lord make one of his servants lie to his people to test their faith?

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Monday, August 08, 2005

Sunday, August 07, 2005
Polygamy

It is hard to write an article about polygamy using only church sources, because the church was so quiet about the topic until arriving in Utah, where the practice became public knowledge. We know from the heading of Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants (which was recorded July 12, 1843) that the principle of polygamy was known to Joseph Smith as early as 1831, though the church does not publicly share how they arrive at that conclusion.

We do know from the church’s family history website, www.familysearch.org (search for Joseph Smith, born 1805, married to Emma Hale), that Smith was married to at least twenty-four women, and at least twelve of those marriages occurred before Section 132 was recorded. Marriages of note include Emma, Joseph’s first wife; fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Heber C. Kimball; and Eliza R. Snow, sister of future church president Lorenzo Snow, and future plural wife to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s death.

Polygamy was not something that the church publicized in the early days. In fact, the opposite was true: church leaders actively denied that the principle of plural marriage was practiced or even taught. When accused of being a polygamist, Joseph Smith declared on May 26, 1844 (after D&C 132 had been received), “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers" (History of the Church, vol. 6, p.411).

Hyrum Smith declared, “Brother Richard Hewitt ... states to me that some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrines, for there is no such doctrine taught: neither is there any such thing practised here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High Council, and lose his license and membership also: therefore he had better beware what he is about" (Times and Seasons, March 15, 1844, vol. 5, p.474).

After the church’s escape to the Salt Lake Valley, the leaders felt comfortable enough to openly preach the doctrine, until the United States Government began seizing assets, arresting church leaders, and forcing even the president of the church into hiding. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff declared that the practice of polygamy would be discontinued.

Mormons today see this as the church’s willingness to submit to the law, and a demonstration of God’s mercies in sparing the church from the swift hand of legal justice. But if that is the case, why was polygamy not abolished earlier, since the practice was illegal in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and the territory of Utah?

There is plenty of “anti-mormon” material that offers historical proof that Joseph Smith introduced the practice of polygamy to cover up extramarital affairs. I will not offer that material here as it would be quickly dismissed by any faithful member as fabricated nonsense. I therefore ask you to ask yourself, “Why did we need to practice polygamy?” When answering the question, please keep in mind that there were not more women than men at the time. And polygamy does not create a population boom, because a monogamous woman can give birth to just as many children in the same amount of time as a polygamous one. So the standard answers “The women needed men to marry” or “The church would grow faster that way” do not work.

Despite not being able to share Joseph’s intimate details with you, I will share some of the thoughts of other church leaders on the plurality of wives with you:

Brigham Young:

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Joseph F. Smith:

“Some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p.28).

Those members who now feel they have lost their chance at exaltation because polygamy is no longer practiced in the church can take heart: “Obviously the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 578).

But in reality, the practice of polygamy continues even today. Every member knows that a man, whose first wife has passed away, may be sealed again to another woman in the temple. Even though the man is only married to one woman at a time according to the laws of the land, he has entered into polygamy according to the laws of God. In the next life he will have both wives at his side for eternity. This principle does not appear in Sunday School manuals, but it is obviously accepted by the church as true.

Current church members enjoy dismissing nonmembers who ask about Mormons and polygamy. “Oh, that was a long time ago, practiced by a few people, and we don’t do it anymore.” "People who do that are excommunicated." But the church does indeed practice it, just in a modified, legal way.

Polygamy has been whitewashed by the church in an attempt to distance itself from the doctrine. Take a look at the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual used in priesthood and Relief Society meetings. You will find no mention of polygamy or Young being married to more than one woman at a time. What you will find are quotes from his speeches that have been changed to hide the fact that he had originally been speaking of polygamy:

Original quote: “There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty. To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 1977 edition, p. 197.)

Quote in the manual: "There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty. …It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can” (p.164).

Craig Manscill, chairman of the committee responsible for compiling the manual, was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune as saying, regarding the changes, “Was it in the material that we reviewed? Oh, it was there. And did we ellipse in certain places? Of course we did. But we were following what our leaders had asked us to do." ("Absence of Polygamy In LDS Manual Stirs Controversy," Salt Lake Tribune, 4/5/1998, C3.) Obviously the leaders felt it was easier to hide the past than to try to explain it.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Sunday, August 07, 2005

Saturday, August 06, 2005
Blood Atonement

Early Mormon leaders taught that a man's own blood could atone for serious sins, such as adultery and breaking temple covenants. They taught that sometimes even Christ's atonement was not enough to pay the price for these sins, but the spilling of one's own blood would do the trick:

A Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered September 21, 1856: "There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them."

A Discourse by President Heber C. Kimball, delivered December 13, 1857: "Jesus said to his disciples, 'Ye are the salt of the earth; and if the salt loses its saving principle, it is then good for nothing but to be cast out.' Instead of reading it just as it is, almost all of you read it just as it is not. Jesus meant to say, 'If you have lost the saving principles, you Twelve Apostles, and you that believe in my servants the Twelve, you shall be like unto the salt that has lost its saving principles: it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men.' Judas lost that saving principle, and they took him and killed him. It is said in the Bible that his bowels gushed out; but they actually kicked him until his bowels came out. 'I will suffer my bowels to be taken out before I will forfeit the covenant I have made with Him and my brethren.' Do you understand me, Judas was like salt that had lost its saving principles-good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. It is just so with you men and women, if you do not honour your callings and cultivate the principles you have received. It is so with you, ye Elders of Israel, when you forfeit your covenants."

Remarks by President Jedediah M. Grant, delivered September 21, 1856: "Some have received the Priesthood and a knowledge of the things of God, and still they dishonor the cause of truth, commit adultery, and every other abomination beneath the heavens, and then meet you here or in the street, and deny it. . . .The same characters will get drunk and wallow in the mire and filth, and yet they call themselves Saints, and seem to glory in their conduct, and they pride themselves in their greatness and in their abominations. They are the old hardened sinners, and are almost-if not altogether-past improvement, and are full of hell, and my prayer is that God's indignation may rest upon them, and that He will curse them from the crown of their heads to the soles of their feet. I say, that there are men and women that I would advise to go to the President immediately, and ask him to appoint a committee to attend to their case; and then let a place be selected, and let that committee shed their blood. We have those amongst us that are full of all manner of abominations, those who need to have their blood shed, for water will not do, their sins are of too deep a dye."

Joseph Smith - "In debate, George A. Smith said imprisonment was better than hanging. I replied, I was opposed to hanging, even if a man kill another, I will shoot him, or cut off his head, spill his blood on the ground, and let the smoke thereof ascend up to God; and if ever I have the privilege of making a law on that subject, I will have it so" (History of the Church, vol. 5, p.296).

A Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered March 16, 1856: "Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands."

A Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered May 8, 1853: "If you want to know what to do with a thief that you may find stealing, I say kill him on the spot, and never suffer him to commit another iniquity. That is what I expect I shall do, though never, in the days of my life, have I hurt a man with the palm of my hand. I never have hurt any person any other way except with this unruly member, my tongue. Notwithstanding this, if I caught a man stealing on my premises I should be very apt to send him straight home, and that is what I wish every man to do, to put a stop to that abominable practice in the midst of this people."

When Mormons hear nonmembers ask about the doctrine of blood atonement, they respond in one of two ways. If the Mormon has never heard of the doctrine, they exclaim, "That's not true! We've never taught anything close to that!" If they have heard mention of the doctrine, they explain, "Well, that is based on something Brigham Young said that is taken out of context." I challenge you to show me how the context of the above quotes has been twisted to change the meaning from something other than the obvious.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Saturday, August 06, 2005

Friday, August 05, 2005
Adam Is Our Heavenly Father?

If a member engages in a conversation with an “Anti-Mormon,” the Adam-God Doctrine is sure to pop up eventually. The “Anti-Mormon” will contend that Brigham Young taught that Adam was our Heavenly Father and the physical father of Jesus Christ. The member will immediately claim this as false, saying that that doctrine could not be farther from the truth the Church teaches. Even recent church leaders have denounced the idea:

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." (Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, Church Section, October 9, 1976).

So President Kimball has denounced the principle as false doctrine. Now, the important question is, was the principle actually taught as truth by a prophet of God? Or maybe that prophet’s statements were misunderstood somehow. Let’s see exactly what Brigham Young taught on this subject:

“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our Father and God." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873.)

“When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! About whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. … When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. … Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. … Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea-"if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pp. 50-51.)

“Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p.319.)

Brigham Young was not misquoted. Brigham Young was not misunderstood. When he taught the principle, it was carried to the homes of the members. Numerous journals from the period record being in meetings where the principle was taught. Young was not the only one to teach it:

“I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth-the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren….” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 1.)

It is interesting to note that 120 years after Heber C. Kimball taught the doctrine of Adam-God from the pulpit, his own grandson, Spencer W. Kimball, denounced it as a false doctrine.

We then return to the question: are prophets infallible? Which do we believe? Was Young correct to teach it? Was Kimball correct to denounce it? Either way, a prophet of the church taught something that was false, and members of the church were led to believe that it was true. If prophets can get one doctrine wrong, how can we know when they are getting it right?

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Friday, August 05, 2005

Thursday, August 04, 2005
Mark Hofmann


Anyone not living in Utah during the 1980’s may never have heard of Mark Hofmann. But he was one of the biggest news stories of that decade for Utah. Anyone who would like to meet him can try and arrange a visit with him at the state prison in Draper, Utah, where he is serving a life sentence for killing two people with bombs.

That is only a small fraction of the Mark Hofmann story. The bombs were an attempt to cover up years of dealing in forged documents, most of which were related to Mormon church history. Hofmann dealt directly with many church leaders and sold over forty of his “historical documents” to the church. These forged documents included the following:

· The so-called “Anthon Transcript” containing characters from the gold plates, which Martin Harris took to Professor Charles Anthon to be examined and certified as real. According to later court records, Hofmann traded this document to the church for $20,000 worth of items from church archives.

· A transcript of a blessing given by Joseph Smith to his son, Joseph Smith III, apparently naming him as successor to the leadership of the church. This was also traded to the church.

· A letter written by Joseph Smith in 1825 describing how to find buried treasure. According to court documents, the church paid Hofmann $15,000 for the letter.

Hofmann sold many other documents to private individuals. But it is his direct dealing with the highest leaders of the church that is alarming. Evidence shows that the church purchased the blessing and treasure documents, not to share them, but to suppress them, since release of the information could prove embarrassing to the church. This begs the question: what other information has the church suppressed, for fear of embarrassment?

The mere fact that Hofmann succeeded in selling these items to the church begs another question: how did he fool apostles and prophets? What happened to the power of discernment?

Book of Mormon and Bible stories tell of prophets catching the wicked in their lies. Are modern prophets, and the modern church, not worthy of such protection?

Elder Dallin H. Oaks tried to explain how Mark Hofmann was successful in duping the leaders of the church, in a devotional delivered at BYU:

“In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents,” Ensign, Oct. 1987, 63.)

Inspiration would have saved the church thousands of dollars. It would have saved the church from a mountain of questions and embarrassment. It would have saved the lives of two church members. But according to Oaks, that is the price you pay to trust even the untrustworthy. So the question is, in what circumstance can we expect the leaders of the church to discern the actions of the wicked, and know when the church is being led astray?

For more information, you can read the book, Tracking the White Salamander, here:

Tracking the White Salamander

The image at the beginning of this article appeared in the Deseret News upon the announcement of the discovery of the Anthon Transcript. Mark Hofmann, left, is showing the manuscript to Pres. N. Eldon Tanner, Pres. Spencer W. Kimball (with magnifying glass) and Pres. Marion G. Romney, all of the First Presidency; and Elders Boyd K. Packer and Gordon B. Hinckley of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Thursday, August 04, 2005

Wednesday, August 03, 2005
The Kinderhook Plates

An article by Stanley P. Kimball appeared in the August 1981 issue of the Ensign entitled, “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax.” This article related a series of events involving six small brass plates that were found near the town of Kinderhook, Illinois in 1843.

During an excavation project, the plates were unearthed along with human bones. The plates were bell-shaped and clasped together by an iron ring threaded through a hole at the top of each plate. The plates were inscribed with unreadable characters.

Within a week, the plates found their way to Nauvoo, where they greatly excited the Mormon members. The find clearly provided evidence that ancient people in the Americas did in fact write on metal plates.

Joseph Smith apparently got a hold of the plates, and according to History of the Church, on May 1, 1843, he said the following:

“I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.”

Kimball points out that much of History of the Church, though attributed to Joseph Smith himself, was actually taken from journal entries of his associates. This is the case in the above quote. “I have translated a portion…” actually originally read, “President J. has translated a portion….” The quote was taken from the journal of William Clayton.

A few years later, some men in the area claimed to have forged and planted the plates in an attempt to trick Joseph Smith into making a false translation. In 1920, one of the original plates was obtained by the Chicago Historical Society. Since then it has undergone numerous tests to determine its authenticity. By 1980, it had been proven beyond doubt that the plate was not of ancient origin, and that it had been etched in a manner consistent with the claims of the men who said that they had produced it.

So the question remains: did Joseph Smith try to translate these plates? Kimball cites the following letter written by Charlotte Haven, a nonmember who was visiting her member sister in Nauvoo at the time:

“We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore, who passes through that place and this in his monthly zigzag tours through the State, traveling horseback. His last call on us was last Saturday [April 29] and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of brass, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like writing, and strange figures like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them.” (Charlotte Haven, “A Girl’s Letters from Nauvoo,” The Overland Monthly, 16 (Dec. 1890), p. 630. Letter dated: “City of Nauvoo, May 2, 1843.”)

On May 3, Brigham Young included in his diary an outline of one of the plates and a note explaining that he had viewed it at Joseph Smith’s house.

Kimball then relates a series of events in which the plates were removed from Nauvoo, and possibly returned for a time. Between the plates’ absence, and Joseph Smith’s other duties as mayor and president of the church, there was no time to make a complete translation of the plates before he died in Carthage the following year.

But evidence suggests that Smith at least offered information about the plates’ possible origin. According to Kimball, Parley P. Pratt stated in a letter to a friend, “Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah.”

Kimball calls this statement, as well as Clayton’s and Haven's similar declarations, an example of “misinformation and hearsay” regarding the translation. Though Clayton and Pratt both mention Egypt and Ham, Clayton did not include the Jaredites as Pratt did.

In order to evaluate the worth of Clayton’s or Pratt’s statements, we must understand what kind of position one of them might have been in to quote Joseph Smith accurately. Of William Clayton, we read:

“Beginning in early 1842, William Clayton found himself involved in nearly every important activity of Nauvoo, but especially the private concerns of the prophet. For two and a half years, until Joseph’s death in 1844, they were in each other’s company almost daily.” (Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, George D. Smith, ed., pp. xxii-xxiii).

As a personal secretary, Clayton surely had the opportunity to hear from Smith’s own mouth what he thought about the plates.

The fact is, until the surviving Kinderhook plate was proven to be a forgery, Mormon scholars defended these very same quotes, claiming that Joseph Smith had offered a partial translation. Thus, they asserted, charges that the plates had been forged by locals were preposterous.

Their position reversed completely in 1980. Suddenly, there was no faith in Clayton or the purported translation. It appears that Mormons interested in defending their faith will twist whatever is available to fit the puzzle in their minds, even if that puzzle changes shape over time.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Things to Think Through

Besides these major points of interest, there are many other things that I could discuss in detail, but have decided instead to make a list to highlight them. In order to believe in Mormonism, we must do the following:

· Accept that Adam and Eve were the first humans on the Earth, and believe that before their fall, there was no death, and that evolution is a myth.

· Accept as literal the stories of Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, Jonah and the Fish, Lot’s Wife, and numerous other Bible stories that bear striking resemblance to myths and legends of other early civilizations.

· Accept the Book of Mormon as a literal history, despite the lack of any physical evidence, despite the historical mistakes made in the text, despite the literally thousands of errors that have been corrected over the years, and despite the later claims of several of the book’s witnesses that they never actually saw the plates.

· Accept that, according to the Book of Mormon, Lamanites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary.

· Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, despite his employment as a treasure hunter as a youth (with the aid of a peep stone), despite his being found guilty of “money-digging” in court, despite his various accounts of the first vision, despite his convincing women that an angel with a drawn sword had commanded him to take more than one wife, despite his drinking and smoking and selling of liquor.

· Accept every president since Joseph Smith as a prophet, despite the apparent lack of continued revelation, and despite the teachings of modern prophets that contradict the teachings of earlier ones.

· Accept the temple ceremony as revealed truth, despite its similarity to the ceremony of Freemasons, of which Joseph Smith and many early leaders were members. And despite the numerous changes the ceremony has undergone over the years to hide much of its Masonic influences. For more information on the Freemasons’ ceremony, see: Captain Morgan's Exposition of Freemasonry

· Accept that when people who live the Word of Wisdom get cancer it is merely a trial of their faith.

· Accept that when people who pay tithing lose their jobs and end up on welfare it is merely a trial of their faith.

· Accept that when good people don’t get cancer, or don’t lose their jobs, it is because they are being blessed for their obedience.

· Accept that all other churches are wrong, and any claimed manifestations of “the spirit” or other miracles must be due to the trickery of Satan.

· Accept that blacks really were less valiant in the preexistence.

· Accept that polygamy will be reinstated after the Second Coming.

· Accept that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

The list could continue on for pages. The point is that there is too much to sweep under the carpet in order to believe that the Mormon church is in fact the true Kingdom of God on the Earth. On the other hand, in order to disbelieve the church, one only has to accept that the good feelings the church identifies as “the spirit” are simply emotions one feels after being conditioned to feel them. Certainly a story of a young boy seeing God is a heartwarming tale for anyone willing to believe it is possible. At the same time, the tale of a talking pig herding sheep, as depicted in the movie, “Babe,” is a heartwarming tale. That does not make it true. But the feelings are the same.

Occam’s Razor, simply stated, is “The simplest explanation is the best.” For me, the simplest explanation for the inconsistencies in the church’s history is that the church is the creation of men.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Monday, August 01, 2005
Wacky Quotes

On the inhabitants of the moon and sun: Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271.)

On Lamanites becoming "white and delightsome": I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. - Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report, October, 1960.

On Jesus having a wife and kids: 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. All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this — they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfill the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough 'to fulfill all righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth.' Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only 'did that which he had seen his Father do. (Elder Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 220.)

On the humility of Joseph Smith: I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409.)

On interracial marriage: Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. (Brigham Young, Remarks made March 8, 1863.)

On finding a new bride: Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake. (Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.)

On segregation: Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? (Elder Mark E. Peterson, "Race Problems - As They Affect The Church," Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)

On Chinamen: Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous? (Elder Mark E. Peterson, ibid.)

On metallurgy: Gold and silver grow, and so does every other kind of metal, the same as the hair upon my head, or the wheat in the field; they do not grow as fast, but they are all the time composing or decomposing. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 219.)

On being a witness of the Book of Mormon: If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions. (David Whitmer, Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 27.)

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Monday, August 01, 2005

Sunday, July 31, 2005
Useful links:

http://www.exmormon.org - a website with useful information about the Mormon church. It also offers a bulletin board where those who are leaving or who have left the church may go for support.


http://www.utlm.org - a website created by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, well-known for publishing informative newsletters and books about the church's history and teachings. Be sure to check out their online books.

posted by Hugh the Free Morgbot Sunday, July 31, 2005