Steve wrote on April 26, 2008 01:47 PM: The Dude,

In my opinion, a lot of people need validation, such as websites for their views (such as those sentiments expressed here) because they don't feel secure in their footing. It is my experience that many people that leave my church (yes, I am Mormon) need to constantly reaffirm that decision because, quite frankly, they are not sure that they have made the right decision. Having recieved the truth of something by the Spirit is powerful, and it takes a LOT to try to bury that powerful testimony. To know whether these things are true, someone like Joe need only pray, and in all honesty, look at the works of the church as a whole. Since he no longer wants any part of it, I'm sure he'll be able to find any number of websites to sooth his troubled conscience.

This is only my opinion, I hope that the bluntness does not offend.

Ken wrote on April 25, 2008 08:01 PM: Joe said, "Mormons try separating themselves from polygamy, yet they believe in the same thing and founders. Ask them how that's possible."

Many of your forefathers beleived in a constitution that gave freedom to all men, yet had slaves. How is that possible?

The Dude wrote on April 25, 2008 07:44 PM: Joe,

Why do you need validation for your anti-Mormon views. If I don't like something or someone, I don't need any literature or websites to validate my position. I just simply choose not to be around or involved in things that I don't like. By the way, you say to "ask your Mormon neighbor" about a bunch of stuff. Why don't you ask your Mormon neighbors how much service they give to their fellow human beings. Why don't you ask them why they help people with other beliefs. I only say that because you don't seem to tolerate other beliefs and you don't sound like a very service oriented person. Can't wait for your response.

Huston wrote on April 25, 2008 05:44 PM: Part 2 of 2

Joe:

“if Joseph Smith was commanded by God to take on plural wives, how come he publicly denied he was doing so?”
He only denied charges of adultery and that it was widespread.

“your Jacob verse is taken out of context and words were added by you, so it doesn't count”
My brackets merely give the context of the preceding verses. The meaning is clear.

The rest of your points are random--

“the Book of Mormon has gone through almost 4,000 changes”
Are you implying that embarrassing errors have been hidden? If so, can you cite any? Most of those changes are just correcting punctuation, grammar, spelling, and typo’s from edition to edition.

“the Pearl of Great Price and Book of Abraham, which both have been proven without a doubt to be fraudulent”
Then why do reasonable, intelligent people still believe them? Is it possible that your objections have solid explanations and that there’s some--maybe even a lot--of evidence in their favor that you’re ignoring?

“why does this official LDS site not mention any of the plural wives of the prophets?”
Why should it?

“Looks like typical LDS church coverup and whitewash to me.”
Doesn’t that sound paranoid? Doesn’t the church work hard to take its history and texts to as many people as possible?

“the American Indians and the native peoples of South or Central America are not Lamanite descendants, they are of Asian descent (via DNA). Smith proven wrong again.”
What proof? That many American Natives have Asiatic ancestors? Of course! But not many people today would be literal descendents of Book of Mormon peoples; unless every one were tested and found to have only “Asian DNA,” this argument is a red herring.

For evidence of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity, please see www.MormonEvidence.com.

Huston wrote on April 25, 2008 05:42 PM: Part 1 of 2

Joe, I agree that this isn’t the ideal forum for our discussion, and I apologize to anyone who’s been irritated by it. I’m not here to “bash,” only to correct mistakes in facts and logic in your posts. Anyone seeking more information should contact me personally.

“Young's Journal of Discourses quotes him as saying that the ONLY way ANY man can attain the Celestial Kingdom…is through plural marriage, and that this will ALWAYS be so.”

You’re probably referring to this speech: http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_11/refJDvol11-41.html

Note, however, that Young was telling people that they should sustain polygamy as a policy of the church, not that everyone needed to have plural marriages themselves (again, only a small fraction of church members were ever told to do it, which would be odd if everybody had to do it to be saved.)

Earlier in that talk, Young said, “If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.”

Later in the same talk, he again says that polygamy might be taken away by God. Young was teaching the overall principle of obedience--obedience to whatever God says, not any specific practice. He said that when God ended polygamy, he’d obey that, too.

Regarding commandments called “everlasting” being unchangeable by God, note that God called circumcision an “everlasting” token of a covenant, but the Apostle Peter later told the church, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, that they no longer had to do that (Acts 15:1-11).

justice wrote on April 25, 2008 05:12 PM: DWC, They have no rights. They have the right to do what the United States of America tells you to do. And if they say a 50 year old man is guilty of raping a teenage girl and impregnating her, then it is so. If Warren Jeffs really thought he was innocent, then why did he run and get caught in Las Vegas. Innocents never run, only the guilty. The FLSDS is a cult scam and needs to be brought down. We don't need separtists. We need everyone to be a part of society and pay their share. Be a true American. (or get the bleep out!)

dwc wrote on April 25, 2008 03:46 PM: With any luck FLDS lawyers will be able to bankrupt the state of Texas for its infringement on their constitutional rights. While I believe that pedophilia is reprehensible in every sense imaginable, WORSE is the reprehensibility of a violation of a persons' civil rights by an overzealous, unmitigable authoritarian entity. But, I guess they think they're doing what's right. At least they left the flamethrowers at home this time.

Evangelic Al wrote on April 25, 2008 03:37 PM: mormon dudes, fret not! Scientology is moving up to be the next mormons, and you're on pace to be the next jews. It's getting better!

Always remember to subjugate your most intimate relationship with the singularity, creator, god, whatever, to some "authority!"

al wrote on April 25, 2008 03:20 PM: I am not concerned that the Mormons want to use their First Ammendment right. I am very concerned the the government lawyers foundation for the removal of the children was that "the young males were unable to learn how to make good decisions in a polygamist environment". Ok so what does that say about children raised in single parent homes and children raised in inner-city low income high gang, high crime areas. There does not seem to be many good decision makers coming from those areas either. I am looking for the Government shock troops to raid the Ghetto and liberate those children as well. We all know the foster care system is just a bright shining star of Govenment intervention. By the way have they found the 16 year old whistle blower yet? Does she exist??

joe wrote on April 25, 2008 02:51 PM: Huston,

This will be my last post as I hate debating spiritual thoughts and feelings vs. facts. You can go to the official LDS website to access the History of the Church and Journal of Discourses as they are large books and expensive to purchase.

You can also go to a great website called "Mormons in Transistion" at www.irr.org/mit/. This has several stories and accounts by current and former members of their struggles with the church. I'm sure if you have complete faith in the LDS church then there would be no harm in looking up this site and educating yourself as to why others have questions.

One other thing, if the honor of plural marriage was bestowed by God upon only a few select men then why does this official LDS site not mention any of the plural wives of the prophets? Notice how NONE of Brigham Young or John Taylor's wives are mentioned, yet Joseph Smith's first wife (he never publicly admitted to having multiple wives, so we'll sweep the others under the rug) is mentioned and all of the other prophets who had monogamous marriages have a wife listed: www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp Looks like typical LDS church coverup and whitewash to me.

I just can't accept the words of anyone who lies and is a fraud as Joseph Smith was. The TRUE history of Joseph Smith proves him to be so, therefore Smith's churches (LDS, FLDS, RLDS) are based on fraud. This is where it's important to read more than just the B of M and designated lesson materials from the church, you'll NEVER discover the true history. Oh by the way Huston, the American Indians and the native peoples of South or Central America are not Lamanite descendants, they are of Asian descent (via DNA). Smith proven wrong again.

Read All Comments