Latter-day Pharisees & the Word of Wisdom
stanz
the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
D&C 89:
12. Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the
Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless
they are to be used sparingly;
13. And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in
times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
winter, cold or famine right? Yet when I go to an LDS picnic, potluck
or campout, there is nothing sparing about the meat consumption. And
typically we are not picnicing in the winter, cold or famine.
It would be interesting to know how many pigs and cows die in
celebration of pioneer day in Utah in the middle of the dog days of
summer.
Yet when it comes to something as harmless as drinking the occasional
caffeinated soda, many Mormons are under the mistaken impression that
it is definitely forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, which it is not, nor
has the church ever taken a stand on the issue. Isn't this absaining
from caffinated soft drinks, just a pharisaic tradition of men rather
than a real commandment from God? Especially considering that a normal
8oz. chocolate candy bar has more caffeine (48mg.) in it than a 12 oz.
Can of Coke (46 mg). Every woman in the LDS church would be ready to
string you up for herasy if you suggested that chocolate was forbidden
by the Word of Wisdom, but drink a coke & "Oh my! Heaven forbid!
You're going straight to hell in a handbasket!"
The positive benefits (increased energy, allertness, headache relief &
added adrenaline)of small quantities of Caffeine (50-200 mg. per day)
vastly outweigh any negative effects. Granted, large amounts (over 300
mg./day) of caffeine can be addictive and lead to insomnia, anxiety
and nervousness, but nobody recommends drinking 6 cans of Coke a day,
but what about a Coke every other day, or once or twice a day? Is that
such a bad thing?
The effects of caffeine on small kids is much more concentrated, since
they are much smaller and no good parent would let their small
children consume quantities of caffeine to the point where it had
adverse effects, but in moderation it is not a bad drug. It is sort of
like aspirin which is recommended daily for people at risk of heart
problems. Caffeine is actually used in large quantities in Excedrin
and other aspirins to increase the effect of constricting blood
vessels in the brain, thus more quickly relieving headaches.
It may sound like I am trying to justify an addiction to caffeine, but
I rarely drink caffinated soda myself, maybe once or twice a month,
certainly never enough for it to become a habit. I just think it is
one of those issues that people latch onto, like the Pharisees of old
and say, "If I am living this traditional interpretation of the law,
then I am really righteous and you are not if you do not subscribe to
my personal interpretation." Even though they are clearly not even
living the spirit of the law. I am quite certain that if Christ were
on the earth he would not hesitate to judge these people and call them
what they are......Latter-day Pharisees.
Don't get me wrong, I can see and have experienced the benefits that
come from living what really is in the Word of Wisdom by abstaining
from drugs, alcohol, and hot drinks (which we know now through latter
day revelation means, tea and coffee) and I know it is divinely
inspired, and I am sure I would benefit from moderating my intake of
meat, which I have attempted to do, but when it comes to people's
personal gospel hobbies and pharisical beliefs that are not even
addressed by the scriptures, it makes me think, "Aren't there much
larger issues to deal with in your life?"
I know there are in mine!
CommUnitarian
wrote:
>
>These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
>winter, cold or famine right?
One must read the verses in the context in which they were given.
For instance, some sects refuse all medical treatment, and insist that
patients be anointed with oil, and then prayed over. What this overlooks is
that anointing with oil was pretty much the sum total of modern medicine in
Bible times. The patient was given the best medical care, and the situation was
then turned over to God. For a modern cancer patient to reject radiation
therapy in favor of anointing with oil, and then expect God to take up the
slack is sadly misguided.
Notice that the injuction in D&C is to use meat during times of famine, and
times of cold. The cold part is simply because modern refrigeration was not
available in those days and meat could not be preserved without packing it with
a great deal of salt (which is definitely unhealthy.) Anyone who has read
descriptions of African trading marts, with exposed raw meat hanging the open
covered with flies would have some idea of the difference between the 1830's
and the modern U.S.
Moses wrote an injunction against eating pork, which was good advice to
folks who did not have giant electric ovens to roast their meat in and kill
swine parasites. It does not apply to us today.
Some day, when the emotions of men and women are different, and a woman
does not crave to have the sole attention of the man she is married to, even
the Book of Mormon injunction against polygamy may become obolete.
Perhaps the word of wisdom is deficient in not advising us to avoid potato
salad at picnics or cautioning us against trying to microwave uncooked meat.
Raleigh
Sarcasm is the recourse of a weak mind.
--Col. Zachary Smith, USAF, awol.
Xan Du
stanz <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
My favorite example from this year was on the lesson entitled "Be Not
Decieved but Continue in Steadfastness". The instructor wrote on the board:
A pint of cream.
A mispelled name.
A lack of seating.
And then had us guess what these all had in common. Someone who'd read
ahead answered, "They're all causes over which someone left the Church."
(The "apostates" in question were Thomas B. Marsh, Simonds Ryder, and
Frazier Eaton.)
Now, logic tells me that people have left the Church for far more legitimate
concerns. But the manual has zip to say about anyone with a real gripe
leaving the Church! C'mon Salt Lake! There are some of us out here who
resent being treated like imbeciles!!
> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
> D&C 89:
> 12. Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the
> Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless
> they are to be used sparingly;
> 13. And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in
> times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
Well, the WOW was given not by way of commandment, but as good advice.
Seems that more contemporary prophesy disagrees with Joseph's original
revelation. Perhaps the Saints in Joseph Jr.'s time weren't ready for the
higher law.
And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
non-alcoholic.
Even though the wine mentioned in Eph 5:18 "And be not drunk with wine,
wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" must have been potent.
Must be a mistranslation. Darn that inaccurate Bible anyway.
> These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
> winter, cold or famine right? Yet when I go to an LDS picnic, potluck
> or campout, there is nothing sparing about the meat consumption. And
> typically we are not picnicing in the winter, cold or famine.
> It would be interesting to know how many pigs and cows die in
> celebration of pioneer day in Utah in the middle of the dog days of
> summer.
I swear I've read this recently. You're not reposting, are you?
I must be off. Thanks for the diversion. Your points are well taken and I
feel you pain. You are right that there are much larger issues in life and
religion to be concerned with. You know, like not oppressing free speech,
and keeping religious belief systems out of politics.
-Xan
ForWhatItsWorth
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
>
> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
D&C 89:17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the
horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field,
and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.
Now, what "mild drink" do you suppose is made from barley, as also other
grain? Why, only that most ancient and honorable of uses for the humble
herb, the making of beer. Which, until Prohibition, wasn't even frowned
upon in the Church.....
Ah, well....
fwiw
<snip bis ende>
Fool Speck
> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
While there are many of these instances, what is even more interesting
is what has been deleted, changed, or replaced. For instance, the
first edition of the D&C, section 101:4 reads:
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication, and polygamy: We declare that we believe, that one
man should have one wife: and one woman, but one husband, except in
the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
The first edition was printed in 1835, and was included in every other
edition until 1876. At that time section 132 was inserted. The RLDS
still retain this section in their version of the D&C.
This section was often quoted (verbally as well as in print) as a
rebuttal to accusations of polygamy, even when those quoting it knew
it was a lie.
The LDS consider the D&C sacred scripture and thus from the mouth of
God. I cannot recall any other scriptures of any of the world's
population that was known by them to be an absolute lie. And not only
a lie, but used as a deception in proselyting the innocent where they
would not find out the truth until they were nearly penniless, having
traveled thousands of miles to an isolated section of the world.
With irrefutable evidence such as this, how can anyone believe that
Mormonism is anything but a tainted, man-made religion?
> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
While this is a matter of observance and not a reflection of the
source, there are plenty of other references that conflict. One is
the BoM's condemnation of David and Solomon's practice of plural
wives.
"Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which
thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord," Jacob 2:24. In
contrast to this, we read in Doc. & Cov. 132:1 that David and Solomon
were justified because of polygamy!
But as you mention, the WoW is really a logical morass when it comes
to interpretation:
It forbids hot drinks. How can iced tea or coffee ever be considered
"hot drinks"? Was the Lord unaware that technology was going to
progress to the point that ice was going to be available to anyone
year 'round?
If "hot drinks" meant all forms of tea and coffee, why didn't the Lord
just say "tea and coffee" instead of obfuscating a "plain and precious
truth"?
If the WoW were so important, why didn't Joseph himself observe it?
While residing in Nauvoo, there are many first hand accounts of his
violating the WoW. For instance he wrote in his journal that a
convert treated him to some old, excellent wine. He was observed
riding down main street Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Brigham Young quotes
Joseph as accusing Emma of poisoning his coffee.
In short, Joseph couldn't get a temple recommend today on any number
of points.
Mormonism has evolved into an entirely different religion, taking a
very convoluted path. It has changed from a rather liberal religion
into a very conservative religion, the leadership exercising just as
much control today as the membership will tolerate.
R. L. Measures
st...@mstar2.net (stanz) wrote:
> Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
>
> For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
> D&C 89:
> 12. Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the
> Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless
> they are to be used sparingly;
> 13. And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in
> times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
>
> These verses clearly say not to use meat, except during times of
> winter, cold or famine right?
€ In Africa, thousands of children starve to death daily. This is
undoubtedly a time of famine, so fire up the barbee. .
>Yet when I go to an LDS picnic, potluck
> or campout, there is nothing sparing about the meat consumption. And
> typically we are not picnicing in the winter, cold or famine.
> It would be interesting to know how many pigs and cows die in
> celebration of pioneer day in Utah in the middle of the dog days of
> summer.
> Yet when it comes to something as harmless as drinking the occasional
> caffeinated soda, many Mormons are under the mistaken impression that
> it is definitely forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, which it is not, nor
> has the church ever taken a stand on the issue. Isn't this absaining
> from caffinated soft drinks, just a pharisaic tradition of men rather
> than a real commandment from God?
€ Yes. Pharisaic tradition tells it like it is. There will always be
amoung us those who get-off on controlling others. Such persons were
pretty obvoiusly those who managed to get an itinerant preacher executed
19 centuries ago by the Romans.
> Especially considering that a normal
> 8oz. chocolate candy bar has more caffeine (48mg.) in it than a 12 oz.
> Can of Coke (46 mg). Every woman in the LDS church would be ready to
> string you up for herasy if you suggested that chocolate was forbidden
> by the Word of Wisdom, but drink a coke & "Oh my! Heaven forbid!
> You're going straight to hell in a handbasket!"
€ For a pregnant woman, caffiene is probably not a good thing. However,
for those who are not pregnant, caffiene is the diet reduces the occurence
of bladder stones.
> The positive benefits (increased energy, allertness, headache relief &
> added adrenaline)of small quantities of Caffeine (50-200 mg. per day)
> vastly outweigh any negative effects. Granted, large amounts (over 300
> mg./day) of caffeine can be addictive and lead to insomnia, anxiety
> and nervousness, but nobody recommends drinking 6 cans of Coke a day,
> but what about a Coke every other day, or once or twice a day? Is that
> such a bad thing?
> The effects of caffeine on small kids is much more concentrated, since
> they are much smaller and no good parent would let their small
> children consume quantities of caffeine to the point where it had
> adverse effects, but in moderation it is not a bad drug. It is sort of
> like aspirin which is recommended daily for people at risk of heart
> problems. Caffeine is actually used in large quantities in Excedrin
> and other aspirins to increase the effect of constricting blood
> vessels in the brain, thus more quickly relieving headaches.
> It may sound like I am trying to justify an addiction to caffeine, but
> I rarely drink caffinated soda myself, maybe once or twice a month,
> certainly never enough for it to become a habit.
€ RCC priestcrafters preach that rubber leads to the hot place. LDS
priestcrafters preach that coffee leads to the hot place. My guess is
that both get off on authoritarian teaching.
-- - at the risk of being boring, ³I know that most men, including those
who are at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom
accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would
oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they had delighted
in explaining to colleagues, which they had proudly taught to others, and
which they had woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.²
- L. Tolstoy
>I just think it is
> one of those issues that people latch onto, like the Pharisees of old
> and say, "If I am living this traditional interpretation of the law,
> then I am really righteous and you are not if you do not subscribe to
> my personal interpretation." Even though they are clearly not even
> living the spirit of the law. I am quite certain that if Christ were
> on the earth he would not hesitate to judge these people and call them
> what they are......Latter-day Pharisees.
€ I think see an excommunication on the horizon.
> Don't get me wrong, I can see and have experienced the benefits that
> come from living what really is in the Word of Wisdom by abstaining
> from drugs, alcohol, and hot drinks (which we know now through latter
> day revelation means, tea and coffee)
€ However, "hot drinks" also mean iced tea and iced coffee.
> and I know it is divinely
> inspired, and I am sure I would benefit from moderating my intake of
> meat, which I have attempted to do, but when it comes to people's
> personal gospel hobbies ...
€ RE: "gospel hobbies": delightsome.
> and pharisical beliefs that are not even
> addressed by the scriptures, it makes me think, "Aren't there much
> larger issues to deal with in your life?"
> I know there are in mine!
/
€ It is no surprise that the org. doesn't release infomation on the
bailout rate. / Did not someone say let no one judge you in eating or
drinking?
cheers, Mr. S.
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
€ Creation without fermentation? So when did God get around to creating
Yeast? How was it that the guests at the wedding feast in Cána came to
be falling down drunk?
> ...
cheers
Leigh Cowley
remember is that it is a call for obedience. It does not matter
whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
We are to use all things in moderation. As for the meat question, as
it was answered, back at the time when the commandment was given, they
did not have any way to keep it. When it says to use only in times of
famine or winter, it means that this can be the only time you eat meat
as the whole part of the meal. Why? Because there was usually nothing
else to eat. When you have access to fruits and vegetables then use
it sparingly. I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
Leigh
Mids
teach it at every ward? stake?
Thank you.
////////* * * * */////////
Mids
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I'll rise.
newguy
stanz wrote in message <81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com>...
I'm not sure stanz. When you get my age, 75, and having had to deal with
some serious medical problems that probably could have been passed had I
eaten better at a younger age. But your right about the church's fixation
with these 'hot drinks'. I don't think using tea and coffee is bad for one
if used with wisdom. Excess in anything, I think, will cause problems. As
for meat, my Dr. told me to eat red meat very sparingly after my heart
surgery, so, perhaps it is good advice coming from the WOW. I'm not a
Mormon, but health certainly is an important item in your life, along with
other isssues. I know they are mine. newguy
newguy
Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...
I don't remember reading that it was non-alcoholic. Perhaps you could
enlighten me? newguy
>
newguy
ForWhatItsWorth <2ce...@todaysrate.com> wrote in message
<3b7286e5$0$35...@wodc7nh0.news.uu.net>...
Now, it certainly is not frowned upon out of church! newguy
Bryce
Leigh Cowley wrote:
> It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
> remember is that it is a call for obedience.
A call to whom? Remember that Joseph Smith himself split a bottle of
wine with his fellow captives in Carthage. Was he disobeying the Word
of Wisdom? Or has the nature of the Word of Wisdom changed since the
good old days?
>It does not matter
> whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
> make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
> are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
> commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
> commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
> teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
> such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
> personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
> personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
> his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
Certainly, the Lord has allowed a lot of confusion to reign over the
subject of caffeine. Why doesn't He just give some "further revelation"
on the matter?
> We are to use all things in moderation. As for the meat question, as
> it was answered, back at the time when the commandment was given, they
> did not have any way to keep it.
Why is it that the same people who claim that "God's ways" are
unknowably higher than ours, yet also claim to be able to tell us
exactly what He was thinking in a given instance? Now Leigh claims,
without any evidence to back him up, that he knows God's reasoning
behind this commandment.
Contrary to Leigh's assertions, there was a way to preserve meat during
the summertime. It was called salting. So unless you can show me the
passage in the Word of Wisdom that exempts beef jerky, or explain how
dried meat is no longer meat, this is entirely your own speculation.
> When it says to use only in times of
> famine or winter, it means that this can be the only time you eat meat
> as the whole part of the meal. Why? Because there was usually nothing
> else to eat.
Yeah. It was certainly impossible to store grain through the winter.
When you have access to fruits and vegetables then use
> it sparingly. I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> Leigh
Funny how the Mormon Church seems to be softpedalling the "alcohol and
tobacco are evil" message in favor of the "it's a matter of obedience"
message. I asked a couple of missionaries about this a while back, and
got basically the same message Leigh is giving here.
The unfortunate side effect? Now, instead of being too weak to do
"what's right," investigators and inactive members are too weak to
follow a nearly arbitrary rule which some fellow claimed to be from God.
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
newguy
Fool Speck wrote in message
<9dcdb6ed.01080...@posting.google.com>...
Very interesting info, thanks. newguy
newguy
Mids wrote in message <20010809175129...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>Where does one go within the church to take a Gospel Doctrine Class. Do
they
>teach it at every ward? stake?
>
>Thank you.
It is taught in every ward during the second hour. The first hour is for
sacrament meeting. Then the Gospel Doctrine class. Finally, the women go
to Relief Society meetings and the men go to Priesthoofd meetings. newguy
newguy
Leigh Cowley wrote in message
<51ea418.01080...@posting.google.com>...
Apparently you are correct. newguy
R. L. Measures
<cerb...@saber.net> wrote:
> Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >stanz <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
> >news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...
> >> ... ... ...
> >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> >non-alcoholic.
>
> I don't remember reading that it was non-alcoholic. Perhaps you could
> enlighten me? newguy
>
// One of my Baptist neighbors told me that the type of alcohol produced
by fermentation 2000 years ago was not intoxicating. She also assured me
that the earth was really 6000 years old, just like the Bible says, and
that dinosaur fossils were artifically aged by God in order to convince
scientests that not every word in the Bible is true.
cheers, N.
R. L. Measures
> Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
> > It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
> > remember is that it is a call for obedience.
>
> A call to whom? Remember that Joseph Smith himself split a bottle of
> wine with his fellow captives in Carthage. Was he disobeying the Word
> of Wisdom? Or has the nature of the Word of Wisdom changed since the
> good old days?
>
>
> >It does not matter
> > whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
> > make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
> > are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
> > commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
> > commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
> > teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
> > such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
> > personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
> > personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
> > his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
>
> Certainly, the Lord has allowed a lot of confusion to reign over the
> subject of caffeine. Why doesn't He just give some "further revelation"
> on the matter?
>
>... ... ...
€ My guess is that LDS "revelations" are fabrications.
cheers
Tyler Waite
avid hunters? Eating meat is and has been in grained in them for
generations. Besides if you ruled out animal products they'd have to give
up JELLO!
The thing I think is strange is how so many mormons believe caffiene is the
offending chemical in coffee but if the caffiene is found in a soft drink or
like you point out in chocolate then all of the sudden caffiene isn't so
bad.
I agree with Bryce there needs to be further light and knowlege on this at
the very least a rebuke for not following the meat advice.
Fool Speck
<snip>
> I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> Leigh
Since Joseph Smith ignored the WoW, I guess he was culled from the
Church as well. But in my opinion, the irrefutable evidence which
comes from Church publications *proves* something much more nefarious
than his drinking coffee, using tobacco, and drinking alcohol.
While he was practicing polygamy,
1) he was breaking Illinois law,
2) he denied publicly he practiced polygamy,
3) he authorized publication of a section of the D&C which lied about
the official policy on polygamy while stating that polygamy was a
crime,
4) he ordered the destruction of a press that presented evidence that
he DID practice polygamy.
So much for honoring and sustaining the law.
The irrefutability of the above statements can be established by
references in LDS publications, with the exception of #1 which can be
established in Illinois statutes after 1833.
Do you have the courage to investigate this? I suspect not! Past
postings on this topic had the True Believing Mormons (TBMs) admitting
that the sources were valid. (After all, the citations were LDS
publications and were in context.) Their only recourse was then to
try to justify that a person can and should commit any sin if the Lord
commands it.
Steve
R. L. Measures
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote in message
news:<51ea418.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> > of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> > Leigh
>
> Since Joseph Smith ignored the WoW, I guess he was culled from the
> Church as well. But in my opinion, the irrefutable evidence which
> comes from Church publications *proves* something much more nefarious
> than his drinking coffee, using tobacco, and drinking alcohol.
>
> While he was practicing polygamy,
>
> 1) he was breaking Illinois law,
>
€ none of the "marriages" except the one to Emma Hale were legit. The
rest were mostly booty thangs. For example, from March to September of
1843, he "married" 7 teenbabes.
> 2) he denied publicly he practiced polygamy,
>
€ It was a commandment from "THE LORD" -- backed up by an angel swingin'
a flamin' sword - presumably in the direction of Smith's reproductive
equipment..
> 3) he authorized publication of a section of the D&C which lied about
> the official policy on polygamy while stating that polygamy was a
> crime,
>
> 4) he ordered the destruction of a press that presented evidence that
> he DID practice polygamy.
>
€ Worse yet, Emmons and Law had gotten wind of Joseph, Junior's covert
"Kingship" (4-11-1844). Would Americans be likely to vote for a Kingly
candidate for President?
> So much for honoring and sustaining the law.
>
€ Joseph, Junior's law was boink receptive young stuff.
> The irrefutability of the above statements can be established by
> references in LDS publications, with the exception of #1 which can be
> established in Illinois statutes after 1833.
>
> Do you have the courage to investigate this? I suspect not! Past
> postings on this topic had the True Believing Mormons (TBMs) admitting
> that the sources were valid. (After all, the citations were LDS
> publications and were in context.) Their only recourse was then to
> try to justify that a person can and should commit any sin if the Lord
> commands it.
>
€ Indeed, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
cheers, Steve
Leigh Cowley
interpret the way we want. Common sense tells us not to use these
substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
is given as revelation is a good standard to live by. But all this
means nothing if we do not obey. The purpose is to show obedience.
Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
what ever reason. The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
trying to be better then we were. Don't you think this is a worthy
goal? It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
further yourself. That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
commandment given. Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
task.
Leigh
stanz
> remember is that it is a call for obedience.
You contradict yourself if you say obedience to the Word of God and
then go wolf down a death tube. If you say the point is to be
obedient, then why do 99.9% of mormons wolf down meat like Trex's at a
BBQ when God has said, it is pleasing unto him that we not eat the
flesh of the beasts of the field or the fowls in the air, except in
times of winter, cold or famine? (Apparently he did not care about the
fish in the sea however, so fish on!)
> Those who
> are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
> commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
> commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
> teaches,
Time out, where's the part about the meat? Has the church come out and
said, "We have received a further revelation about the WOW. What God
really meant in D&C 89:12-13 is that it only applied to those without
refrigeration. Now that you have your freezer loaded with beef, go
ahead and wolf it down like a Trex at at BBQ?" or does the WOW still
apply to us? I am saying it does. The part about caffeine, since it is
not in the WOW, does not apply.
You are trying to give people a guilt complex about not following the
WOW or believing the way you do, when you don't even follow the
"commandment" yourself, unless you are a vegetarian.
> I personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
> personally.
How noble!
> I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
> his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
It has however told us not to partake of drinks that contain
ingredients that are harmfull to our body under circumstances that
would lead to a habit,(to become addicted)Which is wise advice.
Unfortunately for your son if he does not heed the advice, aside from
the addiction problem, large quantities of caffiene can be very
delliterious.
> We are to use all things in moderation.
Exaclty. But apparently you were not as successfull at teaching your
own son this principle as you are at preaching it to us.
> As for the meat question, as
> it was answered, back at the time when the commandment was given, they
> did not have any way to keep it.
It is amazing that the Jews have been able to keep their dietary laws
for thousands of years prior to the Mormons and to this day, yet the
Mormons find it too difficult to do without meat, especially when it
is open season on deer in Utah!
I remember going to visit my girlfriend's mormon family in American
Fork, Utah for the first time. After she introduced me the first words
out of her uncle's mouth were, "Do you hunt?"
What kind of a question is that to ask of a prospective family member,
especially coming from a good mormon, who is commanded not to eat
meat?
> I think the Lord stated it this way as to shake out some
> of the dead wood in the church. It looks like it is working.
> Leigh
What is that supposed to mean? He gave us a law that we would not keep
so that we would be dissobedient and feel self righteous enough to
ignore God's commandments? Better start looking for a fig leaf to
cover up your nakedness Leigh, he's coming! Either it is a law or it
is not. Until we hear otherwise, it seems like hypocracy to pick and
choose which asspects of it we will follow.
If the original sin was for Adam and Eve to disregarding God's
commandment to not partake of the fruit, then what is the difference
between that and us ignoring his commandment not to partake of the
meat?
This mumbo jumbo about refrigeration seems like a whole lot of
justification to me. Until I hear that the prophet has received modern
revelation that it is o.k. to eat meat whenever we want, now that we
have refrigeration, I am going to take the Lord at his word and not
dance around the issue. Looks like I am going veggetarian.
Stan
newguy
R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
<2-0908011...@port20.dial.vcnet.com>...
Amazing! Apparently the Bible is so true that we must change the real God
into the Bible God to support it. newguy
newguy
Bryce wrote in message <3B7310A3...@yahoo.com>...
>
>
>Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
>> It is really easy to pick apart any scripture. The important thing to
>> remember is that it is a call for obedience.
>
>A call to whom? Remember that Joseph Smith himself split a bottle of
>wine with his fellow captives in Carthage. Was he disobeying the Word
>of Wisdom? Or has the nature of the Word of Wisdom changed since the
>good old days?
>
>
>>It does not matter
>> whether you think it alright to drink coffee, tea or alcohol. You can
>> make fun of and jeer at what we believe to be a commandment. Those who
>> are not under the covenant to obey are not breaking any church
>> commandment. It is only for those who desire to believe that it is a
>> commandment. The church teaches us that we are to obey what it
>> teaches, and if there are things which we have a personal view on,
>> such as caffine in soda, then that is up to the individual. I
>> personally do not drink caffinated drinks for the effect it has on me
>> personally. I have a son who drinks Mountain Dew like water. That is
>> his choice, and the church does not ask us not to drink these things.
>
>Certainly, the Lord has allowed a lot of confusion to reign over the
>subject of caffeine. Why doesn't He just give some "further revelation"
>on the matter?
Better yet, why did He make the damn stuff and if caffeine is that bad, why
doesn't he get rid of it like He did all the sinners in the Bible? newguy
newguy
Tyler Waite wrote in message <9kviqu$ifj$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy
>
>
newguy
Leigh Cowley wrote in message
I could be more obedient if the Lord said to give up broccoli. newguy
newguy
stanz wrote in message <81c5f1d6.0108...@posting.google.com>...
Yes, would drink it if it had no effect on on you? newguy
I also keep the WOW because the Dr. told me after my heart surgery to eat
meat sparingly. Apparently you and I are very obedient people! :-)) newguy
Leigh Cowley
but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom? This is
something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?
Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
embellishing your point. It is always refutable. There are always
answers. You may not agree with it, but answers still the same. I use
to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
Smith take over the person of Brigham. Others could not. Many of those
who could not left the church. Those who did were ready to continue to
build the kingdom of God on earth. They went through some terrible
trials, and were blessed because they did. Those who left drifted and
eventually dropped from sight. This is just one example. There are
modern ones I could express, but suffice to say that even though we do
not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs. For
anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
Leigh
CharlesSWaters
"Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> Steve, when I read your last post, I had to giggle. I did not mean to,
> but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom?
This "giggling" reminds of the giggles that Joseph Smith may have got from
the teenagers he approached, married, and sent up to his bedroom. Of
course, I need to mention that one young lady refused to meet with Joseph
Smith because she didn't want to end up in his bed. She said, "I'd rather
be a virtuous women in hell than a whore in heaven". She later gave birth
to a future prophet of the church (Joseph was not the father), but I
digress.
> This is
> something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
> belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
> answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?
It wasn't answered well. The topic raises more questions than the Word of
Wisdom.
> Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
> embellishing your point. It is always refutable.
Yea, one can always refuse to open their eyes.
> There are always
> answers. You may not agree with it, but answers still the same.
Mirror, mirror on the wall....
The question is not the lack of *answers* but what are the truths?
> I use
> to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
> off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
> thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
> was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
> members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
> that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
> the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
> things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
> closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
> am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
> question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
> the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
> Smith take over the person of Brigham.
Did you answer the polygamy questions? Why not?
As to the Brigham sounding like Joseph, all writings on this are 50 years
after the fact, none contemporary. Even Woodruff who kept an extensive
journal said nothing about it. He, as prophet of the church, married again
polygamously in 1896 after the church had announced the end of polygamy in
1890. FYI. The story you vaguely recite appears to not have happened, but
was a later creation.
Sort of like the Elder Poelman talk in church conference in 1984. Some of
the other general authorities didn't care for it, so it was rewritten for
the Ensign publication without letting the membership know that this wasn't
the original talk. Not only that, but it was re-video taped with background
noises to simulate a conference event. The original recordings of the talk
that members have however still exist. In another 100 years when those
recording are no longer useable, anyone trying to substantiate what was
really said will be called an anti-Mormon and a liar. Isn't historical
revisionism fabulous? There is no contemporary evidence that the Smith
simulation in Young's talk occurred at all.
And, Brigham did lots of things to make sure he came to power, like ordain
all men he could to 70's so they would be taken out of the jurisdiction of
stake president Marks. Until Brigham, apostles had no authority over
stakes, only mission fields. Do you like doctrinal revisionism?
>Others could not.
Because it likely didn't happen.
> Many of those
> who could not left the church.
This is false.
> Those who did were ready to continue to
> build the kingdom of God on earth. They went through some terrible
> trials, and were blessed because they did.
>Those who left drifted and
> eventually dropped from sight.
This is false.
> This is just one example. There are
> modern ones I could express, but suffice to say that even though we do
> not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs.
One day, you will learn that the truth is more important than fabricating
justifications.
> For
> anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
> surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
> Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
> Leigh
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Question with boldness even the very existence of a God; because if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a
blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
CharlesSWaters
Evolution gave a brain over 4 billion years of time.
>He gave us a commandment to
> interpret the way we want.
Really. Your references are?
> Common sense tells us not to use these
> substances today.
"Common sense" is ofteines irrelevant in matters of science and truth.
Your *bad* substances have many positive uses.
> If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.
No, the Word of Wisdom will someday be as *DEAD* as the heath code of the
Law Of Moses. Sooner rather than later.
> But all this
> means nothing if we do not obey.
Obey *you're* interpretation and rationalization?
> The purpose is to show obedience.
Illogical obedience is still illogical. If the church president were to
come to me, as a matter of *OBEDIENCE*, and told me that polygamy was to be
practiced again and I was to give my wife to him, I would decline the
immorality. Unconditional obedience to church leaders is satanic.
> Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> what ever reason.
As would be wise.
> The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
> trying to be better then we were.
We need more rational members who would wisely drink wine if it were
necessary to survive or improve health.
> Don't you think this is a worthy
> goal?
There is no positive morality in unconditional obedience.
>It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
> further yourself.
Why did you find it necessary to add this unnecessary point? Were you
accusing someone of something?
> That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
> follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
> commandment given.
NO one follows every command ever given. The happiest people do what's
right irregardless of commandments.
>Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
> do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
> prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
> task.
I am. But I might now or someday be your church leader, so be wise.
> Leigh
--
Cheerio,
Charles
And in the beginning there was nothing.
And God said, Let there be light.
And there was still nothing but now you could see it!
-- Anon
R. L. Measures
Xan Du
I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement. Inane statements
like that made it harder rather than easier to have faith in my religion
when I was growing up.
-Xan
Xan Du
newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
Indeed, newgy, indeed.
It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
-Xan
>
>
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-0908011...@port20.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <tn63qpl...@corp.supernews.com>, "newguy"
> > <cerb...@saber.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...
> > > >
> > > >stanz <st...@mstar2.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com...
> > > >> ... ... ...
> > > >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> > > >non-alcoholic.
> > >
> > > I don't remember reading that it was non-alcoholic. Perhaps you could
> > > enlighten me? newguy
> > >
> > // One of my Baptist neighbors told me that the type of alcohol produced
> > by fermentation 2000 years ago was not intoxicating. She also assured me
> > that the earth was really 6000 years old, just like the Bible says, and
> > that dinosaur fossils were artifically aged by God in order to convince
> > scientests that not every word in the Bible is true.
>
> I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement.
€ One of us did not.
> Inane statements
> like that made it harder rather than easier to have faith in my religion
> when I was growing up.
>
cheers, Xan
Xan Du
Fool Speck <SRLo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dcdb6ed.01081...@posting.google.com...
Feeling a little bitter lately, Steve? I feel your pain.
-Xan
>
> Steve
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
€ One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against "darkies".
cheers, Xan
Xan Du
> interpret the way we want.
But if you interpret it the wrong way, you don't get a Temple recommend.
>Common sense tells us not to use these
> substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.
Fantastic. Then let my punishment be liver cirrhosis instead of denial of
the ability to serve in the Temple.
>But all this
> means nothing if we do not obey. The purpose is to show obedience.
> Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> what ever reason. The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
> trying to be better then we were. Don't you think this is a worthy
> goal?
A very worthy goal. But adults shouldn't punish other adults for not living
up to goals. Let God have his/her/its/their vengance for my sins. If God
exists.
>It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
> further yourself. That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
> follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
> commandment given.
No one follows EVERY commandment given.
>Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
> do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
> prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
> task.
It is not a statement in judgement of Mormons who don't always follow their
own moral code. It is a statement about the ridiculous and damaging methods
LDS leadership uses to enforce the moral code.
-Xan
> Leigh
Bryce
CharlesSWaters wrote:
> "Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
[snip]
>> I use
>> to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
>> off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
>> thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
>> was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
>> members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
>> that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
>> the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
>> the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
>> things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
>> closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
>> am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
>> question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
>> the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
>> Smith take over the person of Brigham.
>
>
> Did you answer the polygamy questions? Why not?
>
> As to the Brigham sounding like Joseph, all writings on this are 50 years
> after the fact, none contemporary. Even Woodruff who kept an extensive
> journal said nothing about it. He, as prophet of the church, married again
> polygamously in 1896 after the church had announced the end of polygamy in
> 1890. FYI. The story you vaguely recite appears to not have happened, but
> was a later creation.
Wasn't it Orson Hyde who later wrote that he had seen the transformation
with his own eyes, even though he didn't get back to Nauvoo for at
least another week after the fateful meeting? I recall reading
something like that in Richard VanWagoner's "Sidney Rigdon."
It should also be pointed out that this entire episode destroys the
biblical inerrantist claim that legends cannot develop around a
historical event while the witnesses and participants were still alive
to refute the inaccuracies. In this case, it was the witnesses who
most eagerly developed the legend. If you've never read Elizabeth
Loftus' "The Myth of Repressed Memory," I would suggest it. It's an
enlightening look at how memory functions. Most people think it's like
having a video camera in your head, but really memory is a lot more
pliant than that.
> Sort of like the Elder Poelman talk in church conference in 1984. Some of
> the other general authorities didn't care for it, so it was rewritten for
> the Ensign publication without letting the membership know that this wasn't
> the original talk. Not only that, but it was re-video taped with background
> noises to simulate a conference event. The original recordings of the talk
> that members have however still exist. In another 100 years when those
> recording are no longer useable, anyone trying to substantiate what was
> really said will be called an anti-Mormon and a liar. Isn't historical
> revisionism fabulous? There is no contemporary evidence that the Smith
> simulation in Young's talk occurred at all.
I've never heard of this Poelman episode before. Sounds fascinating. I
found both the original and revised texts at:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
[snip to end]
Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.
Bryce
Leigh Cowley wrote:
> Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.
Technically, it would be more correct to say, "The Lord has given us
brains," or "the Lord has given each of us a brain." I steadfastly
refuse to adopt your brainsharing program, and believe it to be
unworkable in practice.
> He gave us a commandment to
> interpret the way we want.
I just read a fascinating talk given in 1984 by Elder Ronald Poelman of
the First Quorum of the Seventy. He gave advice uncannily similar to
yours, saying that it was necessary for people to interpret the
commandments for themselves, and to critically examine which ones were
true commandments and which ones were simply artifacts of culture
unrelated to the Gospel.
It was great advice, and I can't imagine why the Brethren made him
revideotape a modified version which cut all those parts out. Oh,
wait. Yes I can.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
> Common sense tells us not to use these
> substances today.
Common sense tells us only that these substances can be very bad if used
to excess.
> If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> is given as revelation is a good standard to live by. But all this
> means nothing if we do not obey. The purpose is to show obedience.
> Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> what ever reason.
What are you claiming here? While your attitude is a respectable and a
common-sense one, it sounds to me like you're implying that such was
the case with Joseph Smith at Carthage. If you didn't intend to imply
such, then I apologize. But Smith did not drink wine at Carthage
because there was nothing else available. He drank it simply because he
wanted to.
> The LDS people are not a perfect people, but we are
> trying to be better then we were. Don't you think this is a worthy
> goal? It is better than teaching to take advantage of others to
> further yourself.
<morality style="cartoon" intent="sarcasm">That's where you're wrong.
We live in an entropic universe, and therefore your only moral
imperative is to grab as much for yourself as you can. In order to do
that, you have to be willing to step over or on anything that gets in
your way.</morality>
Everyone and their dog believes in self-improvement, at least in
theory. You seem to be claiming that Mormonism is unique in that
regard. In truth, the big difference between Mormonism and more
positive religions is this: Within Mormonism, the ideal that members
are supposed to shoot for comes from the heirarchy, not from within.
> That is not to mean that there are not LDS who
> follow this. But it teaches us to be good. Not everyone follows every
> commandment given. Give us the same respect for being imperfect as you
> do others. OR do you expect this of every group? If so then be
> prepared to be judged as you have judged others. Hope your up to the
> task.
> Leigh
Please, Leigh. I'm pretty sure that I've never criticized anyone in
the LDS faith simply for being "imperfect." If anything, I criticize
them for abdicating their own sense of moral reasoning, and replacing
it with "Morality from authority." Follow the Prophet and trust the
Brethren, for they cannot lead you astray. If the Brethren tell you
not to drink whiskey, then that's the thing to do. If the Brethren
tell you to take a second wife, then that's the only proper course of
action. If the Brethren tell you to wear red shoes during daylight
hours and walk backwards with your finger up your nose, then it is
immoral to do otherwise.
Mormonism, like Christian fundamentalism, is great for those who
require threats of damnation in order to bring them up to a generally
recognized minimum standard of morality. But for everyone else, it's
just a blinder that keeps them from seeing the world as it really is.
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Leigh Cowley <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain. He gave us a commandment to
> > interpret the way we want.
>
> But if you interpret it the wrong way, you don't get a Temple recommend.
>
> >Common sense tells us not to use these
> > substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> > is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.
>
> Fantastic. Then let my punishment be liver cirrhosis instead of denial of
> the ability to serve in the Temple.
>
€ By faithfully following the WoW, one increases the chance:
1. of strokes beyond the age of 50 by 80% (Finnish study of long-time
tea imbibers)
2. of bladder stones by c. 60%. (caffein tends to dissolve the minerals
that comprise bladder stones)
3. of coronary artery deposits by not drinking ethyl alcohol. However,
for those who cannot stop after One drink, not drinking is clearly a
better choice than cirrhosis.
cheers
R. L. Measures
> Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
> > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.
>
> Technically, it would be more correct to say, "The Lord has given us
> brains," or "the Lord has given each of us a brain." I steadfastly
> refuse to adopt your brainsharing program, and believe it to be
> unworkable in practice.
>
>
> > He gave us a commandment to
> > interpret the way we want.
>
> I just read a fascinating talk given in 1984 by Elder Ronald Poelman of
> the First Quorum of the Seventy. He gave advice uncannily similar to
> yours, saying that it was necessary for people to interpret the
> commandments for themselves, and to critically examine which ones were
> true commandments and which ones were simply artifacts of culture
> unrelated to the Gospel.
>
> It was great advice, and I can't imagine why the Brethren made him
> revideotape a modified version which cut all those parts out. Oh,
> wait. Yes I can.
>
> http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
>
>
>
> > Common sense tells us not to use these
> > substances today.
>
> Common sense tells us only that these substances can be very bad if used
> to excess.
>
€ My guess is that mormonites are at a somewhat higher risk of
overimbibing due to the org's shame and guilt inculcation of children.
Thus, staying away from wine, beer, et cetera is the safest choice. The
RCC has the problem as well. I know two local priests who can't have one
drink unless it's the last one in the bottle. Alas.
cheers
Tyler Waite
> The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy
It was clarified later to be that. Similarly David OMckay said decafinated
coffee was not against the WOW. Thus if coffee with caffiene is bad but
coffee without caffiene is not it seems clear that it is the caffiene that
is bad not the coffee. Other prophets back to JFS I think have counceled
against caffiene. So why not follow their advice?
Jeff Shirton
news:9l2evd$79k9f$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1@ID-
> > > >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> > > >non-alcoholic.
> I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement.
> Inane statements like that made it harder rather than
> easier to have faith in my religion when I was growing up.
I too almost posted a reply to correct you, asking how you think they
kept it from fermenting. But then I recognized the sarcasm.
I was about to say it was "subtle", but that's not quite true. Most of
us didn't realize it was sarcastic because far too many people actually
*believe* such things. I note as examples a number of LDS and I believe
the entire Seventh-day Adventist faith.
> -Xan
--
Jeff Shirton
------------------
Pray thee, take care, that tak'st my book in hand,
To read it well: that is, to understand.
-- Ben Jonson
Hertzdonut
Xan Du wrote:
>
> It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
> growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
>
I find the similarities between Baptists and Mormons quite striking. BTW, I was
raised Baptist. Perhaps that is why I find Mormonism so fascinating.
Xan Du
Verily. I was a little fuzzy when I wrote that. I apologize.
-Xan
Xan Du
> In article <9l2irq$78n1h$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Leigh Cowley <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> > news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain. He gave us a commandment to
> > > interpret the way we want.
> >
> > But if you interpret it the wrong way, you don't get a Temple recommend.
> >
> > >Common sense tells us not to use these
> > > substances today. If you want to be as healthy as you can be then what
> > > is given as revelation is a good standard to live by.
> >
> > Fantastic. Then let my punishment be liver cirrhosis instead of denial
of
> > the ability to serve in the Temple.
> >
> 1. of strokes beyond the age of 50 by 80% (Finnish study of long-time
> tea imbibers)
> 2. of bladder stones by c. 60%. (caffein tends to dissolve the minerals
> that comprise bladder stones)
> 3. of coronary artery deposits by not drinking ethyl alcohol. However,
> for those who cannot stop after One drink, not drinking is clearly a
> better choice than cirrhosis.
I think the spirit of the WoW is that certain foods, like meats, spirits,
and stimulants, are best used in moderation, and that other foods like
vegetables, fruits, and grains are the staples of a healthy diet. This is
really just common sense.
Coversion of the WoW into a commandment has ruined the spirit of good advice
in which it was given.
-Xan
Xan Du
"darkies".
That is a Baptist teaching as well?
-Xan
Xan Du
Jeff Shirton <jshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:eYed7.36248$O8.54...@news1.busy1.on.home.com...
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9l2evd$79k9f$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > > Xan Du wrote in message <9kss3p$6g53d$1@ID-
>
> > > > >And of course, let's not forget that wine in Christ's time was
> > > > >non-alcoholic.
>
> > I think you both missed the sarcasm of my above statement.
> > Inane statements like that made it harder rather than
> > easier to have faith in my religion when I was growing up.
>
> I too almost posted a reply to correct you, asking how you think they
> kept it from fermenting.
It must be special fermentation.
>But then I recognized the sarcasm.
I really try to stay away from sarcasm, since anger is usually what drives
me to that mode of communication.
> I was about to say it was "subtle", but that's not quite true. Most of
> us didn't realize it was sarcastic because far too many people actually
> *believe* such things. I note as examples a number of LDS and I believe
> the entire Seventh-day Adventist faith.
Interesting.
Thanks, Jeff.
-Xan
Xan Du
Hertzdonut <hertz...@nomail.ooo> wrote in message
news:3B7583FD...@nomail.ooo...
I met a Baptist at a bus stop once. We had an enjoyable conversation, even
after I told him I was LDS. :) We swapped a lot of common beliefs. It was
a very fine conversation, and I felt good knowing that there were "good"
Baptists in the world, despite the reaming I got from the Baptist minister
while I was on my mission.
Pleasant ecumenical experiences hinges upon the ability to build on common
belief and common goals. The LDS Church has failed to become part of the
mainstream Christian culture in this country because it is preoccupied with
taking control away from the "corrupt professors" of other Christian sects.
I find it interesting that the BoM teaches the story of Ammon, a faithful
son of Alma, who offered his *services* to the Lamanite king Lamoni before
he attempted to preach the Gospel to him. And yet, community service was
not an official component of the missionary program until the 1990s.
The LDS Church today still stands in isolation from its Christian brethren.
Our phenomenal growth rate (second only to the Jehovah's Witnesses in
percentages) can't make us popular. But our cultural superiority complex,
and isolationist mentality are probably key factors.
-Xan
Xan Du
Tyler Waite <twa...@informationinplace.com> wrote in message
news:9l3hq6$umj$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> > The WOW makes no mention of caffeine. newguy
> The WOW makes no mention of coffee or tea
> It was clarified later to be that. Similarly David OMckay said
decafinated
> coffee was not against the WOW.
Ooh. I'd love to read that quote. Where'd you get it? Popular doctrine in
my house growing up was that unleaded was just as evil as regular.
> Thus if coffee with caffiene is bad but
> coffee without caffiene is not it seems clear that it is the caffiene that
> is bad not the coffee. Other prophets back to JFS I think have counceled
> against caffiene. So why not follow their advice?
Free agency?
-Xan
>
>
Wu Siu Yan
consider them devilish.
(Polygamy in the name of "Principle of Celestial Marriage", Priests (only
LORD may say this), elders (youth an elder), ...)
If the members of LDS would have listened to brother David Whitmer's word in
"An Address to All
Believers in Christ" (
http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htm ), throwing away the
devilish things in DC, LDS would be much welcome by all Christians.
Wu Siu Yan
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >...
> > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
> > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
> > >
> > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> "darkies".
>
> That is a Baptist teaching as well?
>
€ Yea, verily, Xan. In the 19th century, the Baptists and the
Mormonites preached such feculence.
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
€ Verily, I say unto you that there are those who get-off on controlling
others.
cheers, Xan
R. L. Measures
<sy...@pacific.net.hk> wrote:
> No. It is mainly the practices of LDS. Nearly all Chinese Christians would
> consider them devilish.
> (Polygamy in the name of "Principle of Celestial Marriage", Priests (only
> LORD may say this), elders (youth an elder), ...)
> If the members of LDS would have listened to brother David Whitmer's word in
> "An Address to All
> Believers in Christ" (
> http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/DavidWhitmer.htm ), throwing away the
> devilish things in DC, LDS would be much welcome by all Christians.
>
€ Mormonites love bashing as much as they love green jello made with
walnuts, celery, fruit cocktail, and whipped cream topping. Throwing out
the devilish stuff would deprive the faithful of tasty bashing.
cheers, Wu Siu Yan
>
>
>
>
> > The LDS Church today still stands in isolation from its Christian
> brethren.
> > Our phenomenal growth rate (second only to the Jehovah's Witnesses in
> > percentages) can't make us popular. But our cultural superiority complex,
> > and isolationist mentality are probably key factors.
> >
> > -Xan
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
stanz
> Similarly David OMckay said decafinated
> coffee was not against the WOW.
Source Please?
Did they even have decaf coffee back in his day?
> Thus if coffee with caffiene is bad but
> coffee without caffiene is not it seems clear that it is the caffiene that
> is bad not the coffee.
> Other prophets back to JFS I think have counceled
> against caffiene.
Source Please? I think you think wrong. More Mormon Myth. I have read
that the church has taken no position on the consumption of caffiene.
I have searched this issue out on the church website and there are no
mention of caffeine in conference talks as far as I can tell. Until I
read otherwise from a GA, diet Dr. Pepper is the softdrink of my
choice.
>So why not follow their advice?
Right, why not? Show me where a prophet said, "Don't drink caffeine"
and I will follow that advice. Until then why don't we follow the
advice that comes directly from God and become vegetarians, except
during the winter, cold or famine? D&C 89: 12-13
STan
Tyler Waite
"Bryce" <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B7533B8...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Leigh Cowley wrote:
>
> > Bryce, the Lord has given us a brain.
>
> Technically, it would be more correct to say, "The Lord has given us
> brains," or "the Lord has given each of us a brain." I steadfastly
> refuse to adopt your brainsharing program, and believe it to be
> unworkable in practice.
No Leigh is correct. As you have noted yourself Bryce:
Once the prophet has spoken the thinking is done. Thus the Lord has given
us A brain. That brain is the one in the head of the current prophet.
Perhaps the song should be changed to we thank thee of God for A brain?
> > Even though back at that time it was just a word of Wisdom. And if I
> > was locked up in a jail with only wine to drink, I would drink for
> > what ever reason.
Joseph gave the jailer money to go buy the wine to lift the mens spirits.
It was not given to them by the jailer. Read your church history! Also
when Porter set up the bar in the Nauvoo house the only one that got really
upset was Emma. Several of the apostles had a glass of wine at that bar a
few days(sorry don't remember the exact day just remeber it was during the
first few days when they were still trying to figure out what to do) after
the prophets death as well.
>He drank it simply because he
> wanted to.
and because he and the others were feeling a little low about their
situation.
Tyler Waite
in
> my house growing up was that unleaded was just as evil as regular.
it and when I asked others they also didn't believe it. I believe it can be
found on Info Base. I don't have my copies installed at the moment though.
I don't think it was an official from the pulpit statement.
I just found it on the web! Ain't the internet great!!
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/dispute/caffltr.html
August 28, 1968
Dear President J----:
Enclosed herewith is a copy of a postal card from Brother D---- inquiring
about the use of Sanka coffee. Instead of answering Brother Davis' card
direct, we are sending the answer to you that you may give him the correct
information on the subject.
The terms and specifications as found in the Word of Wisdom, Section 89 of
the Doctrine and Covenants, remain as stated in that section. There has been
no other official interpretation of that Word of Wisdom except that which
was given by the Brethren in the very early days of the Church when it was
declared that "hot drinks" meant tea and coffee.
The Church has not officially taken any other attitude on this matter.
Leaders of the Church have advised against the use of any beverage
containing harmful, habit-forming drugs or ingredients under the
circumstances that would result in the acquiring of the habit.
The use of a beverage from which the deleterious ingredients have been
removed would not be considered as breaking the Word of Wisdom. This would
include Sanka coffee.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ D. O. McKay, H. B. Brown, N. E. Tanner
The First Presidency
CharlesSWaters
> In article <9l42ft$7d7qo$3...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> > > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >...
> > > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I
learned
> > > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
> > > >
> > > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> > "darkies".
> >
> > That is a Baptist teaching as well?
> >
> Mormonites preached such feculence.
Another day, another dirty word learned. :-)
--
Cheerio,
Charles
"Question with boldness even the very existence of a God; because if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of a
blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson
Fool Speck
> Steve, when I read your last post, I had to giggle. I did not mean to,
> but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom? This is
> something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
> belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
> answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?
You are right, I did go off topic. The segue was the hypocrisy of
Joseph Smith in both the WoW and in being honest publically. I guess
this subject is special to me, as it was my last straw. It was the
watershed moment when I stopped having to juggle the various tenets of
Mormonism by admitting it simply was not true.
> Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
> embellishing your point. It is always refutable.
While I agree that "irrefutable" may be overused, it is not in this
case. Section 101 verse 4 is irrefutable because it was published by
the Church (many, many Church publications confirm this by quoting it)
and we know irrefutably that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders
practiced polygamy during the time it was part of canonized scripture.
How can it possibly be refuted? Many Mormons will angrily deny it,
but it simply is as irrefutable as the existence of the Doctrine and
Covenants itself.
I am actually very careful in using the word "irrefutable", as I am
keenly aware of the difference between the concept of "evidence"
(which can vary in quality) and the concept of "proof" (which is
absolute).
Leigh, in that you say it is always refutable, may I take it that you
will offer evidence to refute it? I would be very grateful if you did
refute it, and I would always be in your debt, because it is a very
bitter pill for me. I would love nothing more than to shout greatful
praises to your name if you could but refute it for me. I am quite
sincere about this, as it would solve some severe family problems for
me. I could repent, return to activity, and be back in the good
graces of my family again. I know I sound much too effusive when I
say this, but I would raise a monument to you if you would let me.
In my trying to express my intensity, I can see how you may think I am
being sarcastic. Believe me, I really am not!
<snip>
> Those who hate
> the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> the good that was done.
I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
environment.
> On the other hand, the church portrays many
> things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
> closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say.
Actually it does not take much searching, and in fact is
disappointingly easy to find things in the Church's own publications.
I discovered for myself how members used to practice glossaglia and
that women would give blessings even to men by the laying on of hands.
A woman could be excommunicated for this today. (See my posting on
the subject.)
Then there are the *irrefutable* teachings of the Adam-God and Blood
Atonement (Voluntary Human Sacrifice) doctrines of Brigham Young as
contained in the Journal of Discourses. If you need references about
this, I would be pleased to furnish citations to double-check
contextual accuracy.
<snip>
> ... but suffice to say that even though we do
> not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs. For
> anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
> surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
> Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
> Leigh
Thank you for the good nature of your post, Leigh. If you do a search
on my posts, you will see that I do at times defend the LDS church,
especially when it is attacked with bad arguments. I detest
misrepresentation, and will criticize it on either side. I welcome
correction as well.
Good post, Leigh.
Steve Lowther
clif...@netdoor.com
Come down to Mississippi and you'll still see a decidely
monochromatic congregation in most Southern (White) Baptist
franchises.
Fool Speck
> Feeling a little bitter lately, Steve? I feel your pain.
>
> -Xan
I did come off sounding rather bitter, didn't I? I meant to convey
adamancy rather than bitterness. Discovering this canonized lie was a
bitter pill for me, however. I wish someone could refute the
publication of the polygamy denial, but I am not holding my breath.
R. L. Measures
srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote in message
news:<51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com>...
> > Steve, when I read your last post, I had to giggle. I did not mean to,
> > but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom? This is
> > something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
> > belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
> > answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?
>
> You are right, I did go off topic. The segue was the hypocrisy of
> Joseph Smith in both the WoW and in being honest publically. I guess
> this subject is special to me, as it was my last straw. It was the
> watershed moment when I stopped having to juggle the various tenets of
> Mormonism by admitting it simply was not true.
> ... ...
€ The hypocrite's name was not Joseph Smith. His name was Joseph Smith,
Junior. / Leaving the "one True church" takes 'mucho pelotas'. .
> > Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
> > embellishing your point. It is always refutable.
>
> While I agree that "irrefutable" may be overused, it is not in this
> case. Section 101 verse 4 is irrefutable because it was published by
> the Church (many, many Church publications confirm this by quoting it)
> and we know irrefutably that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders
> practiced polygamy during the time it was part of canonized scripture.
> How can it possibly be refuted? Many Mormons will angrily deny it,
€ There's a tender nerve behind the bull's-eye.
> but it simply is as irrefutable as the existence of the Doctrine and
> Covenants itself.
>
> I am actually very careful in using the word "irrefutable", as I am
> keenly aware of the difference between the concept of "evidence"
> (which can vary in quality) and the concept of "proof" (which is
> absolute).
>
> Leigh, in that you say it is always refutable, may I take it that you
> will offer evidence to refute it?
€ chortle
> I would be very grateful if you did
> refute it, and I would always be in your debt, because it is a very
> bitter pill for me. I would love nothing more than to shout greatful
> praises to your name if you could but refute it for me. I am quite
> sincere about this, as it would solve some severe family problems for
> me.
€ Prevarication by one's family is a profoundly hurtful thing. It
happened to me. Three out of our six family members are somewhat less
than truthful. The problem appears to be getting worse with age since,
like prophet Joseph Smith, Junior, they have trouble remembering the last
version they fabricated.
>I could repent, return to activity, and be back in the good
> graces of my family again. I know I sound much too effusive when I
> say this, but I would raise a monument to you if you would let me.
>
€ guffaw
> In my trying to express my intensity, I can see how you may think I am
> being sarcastic. Believe me, I really am not!
>
€ Your problem seems to be that you have started to do your own thinking
-- which is undoubtedly a major no-no.
>
> > Those who hate
> > the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> > the good that was done.
€ No amount of good works can negate what was done at Mountain Meadows on
the 11th day of September, 1857.
>
> I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
€ as have I.
> Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
> environment.
>
€ The seemingly high suicide rate amoung teen guys and women of child
bearing age is hardly good news. In this area, Mormonism beats
Catholicism by a mile when it comes to suicide rate.
> > On the other hand, the church portrays many
> > things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
> > closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say.
>
€ In my experiences "real" history seldom is.
> Actually it does not take much searching, and in fact is
> disappointingly easy to find things in the Church's own publications.
> I discovered for myself how members used to practice glossaglia
€ word not in my dictionary. Means?
> and that women would give blessings even to men by the laying on of hands.
> A woman could be excommunicated for this today. (See my posting on
> the subject.)
>
> Then there are the *irrefutable* teachings of the Adam-God and Blood
> Atonement (Voluntary Human Sacrifice) doctrines of Brigham Young as
> contained in the Journal of Discourses. If you need references about
> this, I would be pleased to furnish citations to double-check
> contextual accuracy.
>
> <snip>
> > ... but suffice to say that even though we do
> > not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs. For
> > anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
> > surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
> > Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
> > Leigh
>
€ For the wild animals of Africa, HIV is a good thing since it is
providing them with more habitat than would otherwise be the case.
> Thank you for the good nature of your post, Leigh. If you do a search
> on my posts, you will see that I do at times defend the LDS church,
> especially when it is attacked with bad arguments. I detest
> misrepresentation, and will criticize it on either side. I welcome
> correction as well.
>
€ congrats, Steve
R. L. Measures
// Amen to that. Two of my cousins are white Baptist preachers and they
have congregations to match.
cheers, Clifford.
Leigh Cowley
> > embellishing your point. It is always refutable.
>
> While I agree that "irrefutable" may be overused, it is not in this
> case. Section 101 verse 4 is irrefutable because it was published by
> the Church (many, many Church publications confirm this by quoting it)
> and we know irrefutably that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders
> practiced polygamy during the time it was part of canonized scripture.
> How can it possibly be refuted? Many Mormons will angrily deny it,
> but it simply is as irrefutable as the existence of the Doctrine and
> Covenants itself.
Dear Steve
I am glad to see you express some of your beliefs in a more
positive way. This will help in undestanding one another with fewer
walls to break down or look over.
First off Steve, you can not put todays values on what was in the
past. They thought differently. The church has progressed for the
better from that time. This was the way it was intended. From the
beginnings of the church, many truths were revealed. Because we are
imperfect, and have imperfect understanding, we have to understand
Gods word through this vehical. The D&C is filled with mistakes Joseph
Smith made, and the Lord corrected him. It is no different than trying
to explain to your children to do something, and they hear something
else. Example. Last week I told my 16 year old son to spray a ditch we
irrigate from to kill the weeds so the water will not be restricted. I
told him in terms I thought he understood. Today I turned the water
in, thinking my ditch was clean. After the ditch is wet, you can not
use a tractor to clean it because it would be to wet, and make a mess.
My son had sprayed a ditch, but the wrong one. So he and I, this
morning cleaned a ditch with a shovel and his sickle a little over 1/4
mile. So many times when each of us receive revelation, sometimes we
do the right thing the wrong way. So comes the time of correction. As
it did with Joseph Smith. The problem many people have is allowing
Joseph Smith to be a mortal man. One who made some whopper mistakes.
But you have many of these mistakes in Black and white, written in the
D&C. That takes quite a strong character to show this to the world.
In section 101, I believe that Joseph Smith thought that the
church as a whole would not have to live this law. This is just my
opinion, but I think he had a hard time living this law. He knew if he
had a hard time living it, that there would be many others leave, or
discard what had been restored. I also believe that since this was a
restored law, and in his time, there had not been any teaching of it,
I think he had to learn as he went. He made mistakes, and eventually
as he learned more about it through more revelations, things changed.
It continued to change through Brigham Youngs era, and become better
understood was to what and how.
Steve the church is still changing and refining. As we grow and
expand, not only in numbers but in knowledge, it will continune to
change. Not the doctrines but the understanding of them. It may seem
like the church is changing, and many have left because of it, but
maybe they were not ready for the more refined part of the church. Who
knows?
>
> I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
> Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
> environment.
Steve, if you do not believe in the good fruit analogy, then
you don't understand what it is trying to say. Have you ever grown
fruit? Usually bad fruit on a good tree is the result of abuse, or
outside influences, such as insects or wind, etc. The tree, if give a
chance to be nourished properly, and cared for, and protected, will
always produce good fruit. Where as a tree which produces bad fruit,
will never produce good fruit, whether or not it is cared for or
protected. If its nature is to produce bad fruit, it can do nothing
else. So it is with Satan. He was a liar from the beginning. God knew
this.
>
> Actually it does not take much searching, and in fact is
> disappointingly easy to find things in the Church's own publications.
> I discovered for myself how members used to practice glossaglia and
> that women would give blessings even to men by the laying on of hands.
> A woman could be excommunicated for this today. (See my posting on
> the subject.)
Steve, I don't know what glossaglia is, and I will look it up. But if
my wife and I were on a camping trip in the middle of nowhere, and I
got critically hurt, would I not accept my wife laying her hands on my
head and giving me a blessing? It could not be through the priesthood,
but it sure could be through her faith as a member, and my wife. It
could be through the priesthood I hold. This is just my opinion, but I
see nothing wrong with it if there is no one else. If I am wrong, I am
sure someone will correct me.
So see many things you take out of context and build a wall to
protect your path. I don't know if you accept my understanding of
these things, but I have been studying these things for a long time.
Not as long as newguy, but I am getting up there.
Leigh
>
Jeff Shirton
news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
> First off Steve, you can not put todays values on what was in the
> past. They thought differently. The church has progressed for the
> better from that time. This was the way it was intended. From the
> beginnings of the church, many truths were revealed. Because we are
> imperfect, and have imperfect understanding, we have to understand
> Gods word through this vehical. The D&C is filled with mistakes Joseph
> Smith made, and the Lord corrected him.
So the LDS didn't teach "true" doctrine back then?
How do we know it's teaching "true' doctrine now?!
And how can we reasonably believe it's the "True Church", if it
continually teaches error?
Or why didn't Joseph Smith just use the same "logic" as you do here, and
instead of inventing his own church, stay in one of the churches that
was "filled with mistakes" but was still "progressing"?
> It is no different than trying to explain to your children
> to do something, and they hear something else.
Sorry, but if you want to use that excuse to explain Smith's "errors",
then you have to admit that he wasn't a prophet of God:
2Pe 1:19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is
altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive
to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until
day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
2Pe 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy
of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy ever came through human will; but
rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke
under the influence of God.
But what you seem to be arguing is that Smith's scriptures were
*UN*-reliable, because of his "personal interpretation" which screwed up
the message.
God tells us that that doesn't happen with His true prophets.
> Example. Last week I told my 16 year old son to spray a ditch
> we irrigate from to kill the weeds so the water will not
> be restricted. I told him in terms I thought he understood.
Yet, the message was screwed up due to your son's "personal
interpretation", which God promises us doesn't happen with His prophets.
> The problem many people have is allowing Joseph Smith to be
> a mortal man. One who made some whopper mistakes.
> But you have many of these mistakes in Black and white,
> written in the D&C.
A prophet, even a man, doesn't make "mistakes" when he's receiving
revelation.
> That takes quite a strong character to show this to the world.
Of course, that assumes that he thinks it *shows* mistakes.
It doesn't take any character at all to show blunders he's not aware of,
or doesn't think to be blunders.
Do you have any quotes of Smith admitting his revelations were wrong?
> Steve the church is still changing and refining. As we
> grow and expand, not only in numbers but in knowledge, it
> will continune to change. Not the doctrines but the
> understanding of them. It may seem like the church is changing,
> and many have left because of it, but maybe they were not
> ready for the more refined part of the church. Who knows?
That seems to be nothing more than rationalization.
You are simply speculating, with the limitation that the LDS church is
"true", so you can't admit otherwise, and have to twist all the rest of
reality to conform to that idea.
It's like in another thread when there was talk about a prophecy of an
LDS temple being built "in this generation", so that at least one person
would have to still be alive until it was built. This lead to
rationalizations of an existing 189-year-old man (that nobody knows
about, or knows the whereabouts of, or otherwise even knows of the
existence of), it lead to the rationalization that the temple *was*
built, only it's "invisible", or "spiritual".
Anything to avoid admitting that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, with
false prophecies.
> Steve, if you do not believe in the good fruit analogy, then
> you don't understand what it is trying to say.
Now *this* kind of rationalization is simply uncharitable.
You have to implicitly accuse steve of stupidity and ignornace, simply
because you don't accept his position.
> Steve, I don't know what glossaglia is, and I will look it up.
It's speaking in tongues.
> So see many things you take out of context and build a wall to
> protect your path.
With all due respect, Leigh, it appears to be *you* who is building
walls to protect your faith, by all the rationalizations you do (even if
they mean being uncharitable towards others), and I have no doubt that
Steve sees it just as clearly as I do.
> Leigh
Horobiru
> Now, what "mild drink" do you suppose is made from barley, as also other
> grain? Why, only that most ancient and honorable of uses for the humble
> herb, the making of beer. Which, until Prohibition, wasn't even frowned
> upon in the Church.....
---------------------
This is among my favorite questions for Mormons when I want to cause a
little trouble. By the way, I don't believe anyone out there has
answered the question.
What is the mild drink spoken of? It's not beer is it?
R. L. Measures
Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
> "Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> news:51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > First off Steve, you can not put todays values on what was in the
> > past. They thought differently. The church has progressed for the
> > better from that time. This was the way it was intended. From the
> > beginnings of the church, many truths were revealed. Because we are
> > imperfect, and have imperfect understanding, we have to understand
> > Gods word through this vehical. The D&C is filled with mistakes Joseph
> > Smith made, and the Lord corrected him.
>
> So the LDS didn't teach "true" doctrine back then?
> How do we know it's teaching "true' doctrine now?!
>
€ The Lord can't be held responsible for Smith's bum dope in the area of
dietary advice because the stroke vs. tea, the ethanol vs. coronnsry
artery deposits, and the caffiene vs. bladder stones medical studies were
not done until over 150-years after Smith died in the Carthage Jail
gunfight.
> ... ...
cheers, Jeff
Xan Du
<clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:3bc6c887...@news.netdoor.com...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:30:55 GMT, 2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <9l42ft$7d7qo$3...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> ><xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> >> > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> >> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> >> > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > >...
> >> > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I
learned
> >> > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little
spooky.
> >> > >
> >> > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> >> "darkies".
> >>
> >> That is a Baptist teaching as well?
> >>
> >Mormonites preached such feculence.
>
> Come down to Mississippi and you'll still see a decidely
> monochromatic congregation in most Southern (White) Baptist
> franchises.
Well, that's an interesting point. However, even in the Northern states
"auto-segregation" still takes place. I can remember sitting in many a
high-school classroom where clumps of kids tended to spontaneously form
along ethnic boundaries. Whether this phenomenon occurs in churches along
doctrinal lines first, and then cultural, or by the reverse is not clear to
me.
-Xan
Xan Du
> others.
On a global level, that is most assuredly true. On a local level, such is
not necessarily the case. Most of the Bishops I've had over the years were
not control freaks, but compassionate servants. There have been some
notable exceptions in my experience as well, but they are the minority.
I will agree that the higher up on the food chain one is, the greater the
tendency -- the greater the temptation -- to exercise "unrighteous dominion"
becomes.
Formalization of the WoW follows a pattern established in the OT. Some
simple advice is given: Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20). The
people to whom the advice is given bend the rules, the prohpet gets mad.
More advice is given: Thou shalt not lie with a beast, man shall not lie
with man, nor woman lie with woman, and if so, thou shalt burn the one and
kill the other and kick out the thrid, etc. (Leviticus 20).
Cohesion of a large organization requires legislation. Or so some seem to
think.
-Xan
Xan Du
Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01081...@posting.google.com...
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<9l2ib6$6vidc$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> > Feeling a little bitter lately, Steve? I feel your pain.
> >
> > -Xan
>
> I did come off sounding rather bitter, didn't I? I meant to convey
> adamancy rather than bitterness.
A fine line to walk, I am discovering. Especially since the typical TBM
response to anything remotely critical of "The Church" is that the
motivation behind the criticism must be bitterness, or some unresolved sin,
or a combination thereof.
> Discovering this canonized lie was a
> bitter pill for me, however.
Truly. My challenge to you was given in empathy, not criticism.
> I wish someone could refute the
> publication of the polygamy denial, but I am not holding my breath.
Indeed.
-Xan
Xan Du
> In article <3bc6c887...@news.netdoor.com>, clif...@netdoor.com
wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:30:55 GMT, 2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <9l42ft$7d7qo$3...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > ><xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> > >> > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > >> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> > >...
> > >> > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I
> learned
> > >> > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little
spooky.
> > >> > >
> > >> > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> > >> "darkies".
> > >>
> > >> That is a Baptist teaching as well?
> > >>
> > >Mormonites preached such feculence.
> >
> > Come down to Mississippi and you'll still see a decidely
> > monochromatic congregation in most Southern (White) Baptist
> > franchises.
>
> // Amen to that. Two of my cousins are white Baptist preachers and they
> have congregations to match.
> cheers, Clifford.
See my comments on "auto-segregation" elsewhere in this thread.
-Xan
Xan Du
> > Ooh. I'd love to read that quote. Where'd you get it? Popular
doctrine
> in
> > my house growing up was that unleaded was just as evil as regular.
> Mine too. I first heard about it from a member on my mission. I
dismissed
> it and when I asked others they also didn't believe it. I believe it can
be
> found on Info Base. I don't have my copies installed at the moment
though.
> I don't think it was an official from the pulpit statement.
>
> I just found it on the web! Ain't the internet great!!
> http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/dispute/caffltr.html
Thanks!
This would seem to strengthen arguments that Coke consumption is in
violation of the WoW.
I have heard many missionaries argue that decaf is also bad due to the
staining nature of the oils, and that decaf black and green teas are harmful
because of the tannins.
Yet sugar causes tooth decay, which even 7-Up contains unhealthy quantities
of.
I've argued for a while that a few cups a day of black or green tea are a
heck of a lot less harmful than a few non-caffeinated sodas. I think it
should be a matter of personal choice, but apparently Free Agency is less
important than obesience to nonsensical doctrine.
-Xan
Xan Du
My father found it in him to serve in a Bishopric, despite his decided lack
of faith in all the claims of the organization. He and the Bishop made a
deal that his services were to be largely administrative and logistical, not
spiritual. I regard this as one of the most positve examples my father has
ever been for me. And no one ever thought to call him a hypocrite or
unrepentant. He is warmly regarded in my ward, and his service is fondly
remembered.
He is one of the most sarcastic, critcical naysayers that has ever walked
the planet, but he found a way to do it. His main motivation? To stay
married to a woman he loves with all his mind and heart.
> I know I sound much too effusive when I
> say this, but I would raise a monument to you if you would let me.
>
> In my trying to express my intensity, I can see how you may think I am
> being sarcastic. Believe me, I really am not!
>
> <snip>
>
> > Those who hate
> > the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> > the good that was done.
>
> I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
> Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
> environment.
This is the most eloquent and effective defense I have ever seen to this
nettlesome issue. Thank you ever so much.
> > On the other hand, the church portrays many
> > things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
> > closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say.
>
> Actually it does not take much searching, and in fact is
> disappointingly easy to find things in the Church's own publications.
The advent of a searchable Ensign archive on www.lds.org dating back to 1971
has been most eye-opening to me. Bill William's excellent site,
www.concordance.com with full text search capabilities on the JOD and other
Church publications has also been a ready, indispensible, source for
unfiltered, pre-Correlation Department, LDS rhetoric and teaching.
> I discovered for myself how members used to practice glossaglia and
> that women would give blessings even to men by the laying on of hands.
> A woman could be excommunicated for this today. (See my posting on
> the subject.)
>
> Then there are the *irrefutable* teachings of the Adam-God and Blood
> Atonement (Voluntary Human Sacrifice) doctrines of Brigham Young as
> contained in the Journal of Discourses. If you need references about
> this, I would be pleased to furnish citations to double-check
> contextual accuracy.
I still can't get over the fact that BY preached that the Sun and Moon must
have human life, and that missionary work must go forth to those orbs as
well as on this Earth.
> <snip>
> > ... but suffice to say that even though we do
> > not agree, we should learn more about the good of ones beliefs. For
> > anyones belief. I would love to hear about what many of you believe. I
> > surely know what you don't believe. Anything that is good is of God.
> > Whether you are LDS, or bahi.
> > Leigh
>
> Thank you for the good nature of your post, Leigh. If you do a search
> on my posts, you will see that I do at times defend the LDS church,
> especially when it is attacked with bad arguments. I detest
> misrepresentation, and will criticize it on either side. I welcome
> correction as well.
Such a difficult line to walk. And I respect you for your efforts to do it.
I have a lot of fun emulating you emulating me emulating you. :)
I'm enlightened and entertained by your words, as usual.
-Xan
Xan Du
> srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
> > cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote in message
> news:<51ea418.01081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Steve, when I read your last post, I had to giggle. I did not mean to,
> > > but what does polygamy have to do with the Word of Wisdom? This is
> > > something that I really don't understand about those who attack any
> > > belief system, not just mormonism. I would like to ask if the WofW was
> > > answered well enough for you that you jumped to another topic?
> >
> > You are right, I did go off topic. The segue was the hypocrisy of
> > Joseph Smith in both the WoW and in being honest publically. I guess
> > this subject is special to me, as it was my last straw. It was the
> > watershed moment when I stopped having to juggle the various tenets of
> > Mormonism by admitting it simply was not true.
> > ... ...
> Junior. / Leaving the "one True church" takes 'mucho pelotas'. .
You will note, Rich, that I now always attempt to use the proper apellation
when refering to the founder of the LDS Church. But dammit man, everyone
knows what is meant when "Joseph Smith" is written. When not referring to
"Junior", the customary protocol is to write, "Joseph Smith, Sr." to clear
up the ambiguity.
> > > Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
> > > embellishing your point. It is always refutable.
> >
> > While I agree that "irrefutable" may be overused, it is not in this
> > case. Section 101 verse 4 is irrefutable because it was published by
> > the Church (many, many Church publications confirm this by quoting it)
> > and we know irrefutably that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders
> > practiced polygamy during the time it was part of canonized scripture.
> > How can it possibly be refuted? Many Mormons will angrily deny it,
>
> ? There's a tender nerve behind the bull's-eye.
That nerve appears to connect directly to the "persecution of my belief =
truth of my belief" centers of the brain.
> > but it simply is as irrefutable as the existence of the Doctrine and
> > Covenants itself.
> >
> > I am actually very careful in using the word "irrefutable", as I am
> > keenly aware of the difference between the concept of "evidence"
> > (which can vary in quality) and the concept of "proof" (which is
> > absolute).
> >
> > Leigh, in that you say it is always refutable, may I take it that you
> > will offer evidence to refute it?
>
> ? chortle
>
> > I would be very grateful if you did
> > refute it, and I would always be in your debt, because it is a very
> > bitter pill for me. I would love nothing more than to shout greatful
> > praises to your name if you could but refute it for me. I am quite
> > sincere about this, as it would solve some severe family problems for
> > me.
>
> ? Prevarication by one's family is a profoundly hurtful thing. It
> happened to me. Three out of our six family members are somewhat less
> than truthful. The problem appears to be getting worse with age since,
> like prophet Joseph Smith, Junior, they have trouble remembering the last
> version they fabricated.
Indeed. The mind does have an interesting tendency to justify it's own
misbehavior. I notice myself doing it all the time.
> >I could repent, return to activity, and be back in the good
> > graces of my family again. I know I sound much too effusive when I
> > say this, but I would raise a monument to you if you would let me.
> >
> ? guffaw
>
> > In my trying to express my intensity, I can see how you may think I am
> > being sarcastic. Believe me, I really am not!
> >
> ? Your problem seems to be that you have started to do your own thinking
> -- which is undoubtedly a major no-no.
As fully evidenced by the very common thinking that the blessings of the WoW
come more from following the Prophet's counsel rather than actually
observing a moderated, balanced diet.
> > > Those who hate
> > > the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> > > the good that was done.
>
> ? No amount of good works can negate what was done at Mountain Meadows on
> the 11th day of September, 1857.
But a formal admission and apology would do, yes?
> > I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> > plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
>
> ? as have I.
>
> > Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> > simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> > positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> > better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
> > environment.
> >
> ? The seemingly high suicide rate amoung teen guys and women of child
> bearing age is hardly good news. In this area, Mormonism beats
> Catholicism by a mile when it comes to suicide rate.
Mmm, good point. Observing a healthy lifestyle is much different than
adhering to a faith-based belief system. The stress caused by constant
failure to live up to the "worthiness" criteria of the latter is most
obviously deleterious to a postive self-image.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Xan Du
The beauty of human progression is that, now more than ever, everyone has an
opportunity to have a voice. Advances in theology, philosophy, and science
are no longer limited to a few powerful elite. The LDS Church acts a lot
like a Theocracy, a throwback to darker times. This seems to me to be
anti-progressive, not a good thing, and I do not like it. No amount of
quoting any scripture will deter me from thinking that way. Since you
tacitly admit that scripture is full of error, and that mistakes by Church
leaders are not uncommon, surely you understand why I would not want to be
fully beholden to them.
Not being ready for a more "refined" Gospel sounds suspiciously manipulative
to me. Why woldn't we be ready for pure, unadulterated Truth, direct from
God, given with no errors? Why can't God speak more directly and accurately
through prophets? Why bother with the prophet at all?
That accurate, consistent, perfect revelation does not appear to exist tells
me that God, if God exists, is not concerned so much by having us follow the
words of some supposed prophet, but rather he/she/it/they seem to be more
concerned about what we learn through using our OWN INTELLECT to puzzle
through the darkness ourself, that we may learn for ourselves what works and
what doesn't.
Why wouldn't her faith in Christ alone be enough? Why would her status as a
member of some organization have anything at all to do with it? If her
faith alone is enough, why bother with Priesthood offices, keys, callings,
and the like? Does a truly merciful God, interested in Divine intervention,
really need such human trappings to hand out blessings?
-Xan
Tyler Waite
extensive and unbiased or uncensored information about past teachings. I am
not sure of the exact date but it seems that it was early to mid 20th
century. From what I remeber there was a researcher at the U that told the
apostles about an addictive substance in soft drinks and they gave advice to
avoid these drinks.
Tyler Waite
> As to the Brigham sounding like Joseph, all writings on this are 50 years
> after the fact, none contemporary. Even Woodruff who kept an extensive
> journal said nothing about it. He, as prophet of the church, married
again
> polygamously in 1896 after the church had announced the end of polygamy in
> 1890. FYI. The story you vaguely recite appears to not have happened,
but
> was a later creation.
The statement I always thought was interesting was that BY was known as a
consumate mimic. Is it then suprising that he could make himself sound
similar to Joseph?
clif...@netdoor.com
Down here it seems that cultural lines determine doctrine.
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
// So it seems. Prof. J.H. von Döllinger called it the "lust of dominion".
> Formalization of the WoW follows a pattern established in the OT. Some
> simple advice is given: Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20). The
> people to whom the advice is given bend the rules, the prohpet gets mad.
> More advice is given: Thou shalt not lie with a beast, man shall not lie
> with man, nor woman lie with woman, and if so, thou shalt burn the one and
> kill the other and kick out the thrid, etc. (Leviticus 20).
>
// The good book also says let no man judge you in eating and drinking.
I have a sister in law who relishes fish eyes.
> ...
later, Xan
donm
> st...@mstar2.net (stanz) wrote in message news:<81c5f1d6.01080...@posting.google.com>...
> > Sometimes omissions are more interesting than what is being taught for
> > the umpteenth time. For instance, while studying the Doctrine and
> > Covenants this year in Gospel Doctrine Class, the lesson material just
> > completely skips over certain, controversial sections of the D&C and
> > nobody stops to question the glaring ommissions.
>
> While there are many of these instances, what is even more interesting
> is what has been deleted, changed, or replaced. For instance, the
> first edition of the D&C, section 101:4 reads:
>
> "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
> of fornication, and polygamy: We declare that we believe, that one
> man should have one wife: and one woman, but one husband, except in
> the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
>
> The first edition was printed in 1835, and was included in every other
> edition until 1876. At that time section 132 was inserted. The RLDS
> still retain this section in their version of the D&C.
>
> This section was often quoted (verbally as well as in print) as a
> rebuttal to accusations of polygamy, even when those quoting it knew
> it was a lie.
>
> The LDS consider the D&C sacred scripture and thus from the mouth of
> God. I cannot recall any other scriptures of any of the world's
> population that was known by them to be an absolute lie. And not only
> a lie, but used as a deception in proselyting the innocent where they
> would not find out the truth until they were nearly penniless, having
> traveled thousands of miles to an isolated section of the world.
>
> With irrefutable evidence such as this, how can anyone believe that
> Mormonism is anything but a tainted, man-made religion?
>
> > For instance I would love to stop the Gospel Doctrine Teacher someday
> > as they are plowing through the D&C for the hundreth time, just to
> > make class a little more memorable, "Why is it that we tend to ignore
> > some parts of the Word of Wisdom, like D&C 89: 12-13, yet many of us
> > obsess on others that are not even addressed, like caffeine?
>
> While this is a matter of observance and not a reflection of the
> source, there are plenty of other references that conflict. One is
> the BoM's condemnation of David and Solomon's practice of plural
> wives.
>
> "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which
> thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord," Jacob 2:24. In
> contrast to this, we read in Doc. & Cov. 132:1 that David and Solomon
> were justified because of polygamy!
>
> But as you mention, the WoW is really a logical morass when it comes
> to interpretation:
>
> It forbids hot drinks. How can iced tea or coffee ever be considered
> "hot drinks"? Was the Lord unaware that technology was going to
> progress to the point that ice was going to be available to anyone
> year 'round?
>
> If "hot drinks" meant all forms of tea and coffee, why didn't the Lord
> just say "tea and coffee" instead of obfuscating a "plain and precious
> truth"?
>
> If the WoW were so important, why didn't Joseph himself observe it?
> While residing in Nauvoo, there are many first hand accounts of his
> violating the WoW. For instance he wrote in his journal that a
> convert treated him to some old, excellent wine. He was observed
> riding down main street Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Brigham Young quotes
> Joseph as accusing Emma of poisoning his coffee.
>
> In short, Joseph couldn't get a temple recommend today on any number
> of points.
>
> Mormonism has evolved into an entirely different religion, taking a
> very convoluted path. It has changed from a rather liberal religion
> into a very conservative religion, the leadership exercising just as
> much control today as the membership will tolerate.
you're going to really piss woody off.
dangerous1
Think global, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>
R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
// Martin Luther King, Junior is still referred to as such. I came
scarily close to being named Lloyd Measures, Junior. If this had been the
case, I would have changed my name a.s.a.p.
> > > > Steve, again, when you say unrefutable evidence, you are
> > > > embellishing your point. It is always refutable.
> > >
> > > While I agree that "irrefutable" may be overused, it is not in this
> > > case. Section 101 verse 4 is irrefutable because it was published by
> > > the Church (many, many Church publications confirm this by quoting it)
> > > and we know irrefutably that Joseph Smith and other Church leaders
> > > practiced polygamy during the time it was part of canonized scripture.
> > > How can it possibly be refuted? Many Mormons will angrily deny it,
> >
> > ? There's a tender nerve behind the bull's-eye.
>
> That nerve appears to connect directly to the "persecution of my belief =
> truth of my belief" centers of the brain.
>
// persecution is the mother's milk of faith.
// Indeed. But few realize the hazards around us - such as hydrogenated
oil. This stuff sticks to human arteries like glue. Hydrogenated oil is
used in virtually all fast food that is fried, snack chips, margerine,
shortning and many other products. According to two studies, hydrogenated
oil kills c. 80,000 people per year in this country. Pork lard and real
butter are better choices.
> > > > Those who hate
> > > > the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> > > > the good that was done.
> >
> > ? No amount of good works can negate what was done at Mountain Meadows on
> > the 11th day of September, 1857.
>
> But a formal admission and apology would do, yes?
>
// Indeed, indeed. If Nixon had been up-front and said that he ordered
the Watergate breakin because of national security concerns, he would have
come out of the White House as a winner instead of a loser. Denial is
the worst toxin known.
> > > I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> > > plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
> >
> > ? as have I.
> >
> > > Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> > > simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> > > positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> > > better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
> > > environment.
> > >
> > ? The seemingly high suicide rate amoung teen guys and women of child
> > bearing age is hardly good news. In this area, Mormonism beats
> > Catholicism by a mile when it comes to suicide rate.
>
> Mmm, good point. Observing a healthy lifestyle is much different than
> adhering to a faith-based belief system. The stress caused by constant
> failure to live up to the "worthiness" criteria of the latter is most
> obviously deleterious to a postive self-image.
>
amen, Xan
donm
> CharlesSWaters wrote:
>
> > "Leigh Cowley" <cow...@sisna.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
> >> I use
> >> to think like this, only on the other side, but got my neck chopped
> >> off to many times. I found out there were answers, but not the ones I
> >> thought they were. But they were just as good. Once I understood what
> >> was going on; that is environment, tempermants of the people, both
> >> members and non, you get a different type of understanding. This means
> >> that what both sides teach paint differing conclusions. Those who hate
> >> the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking at
> >> the good that was done. On the other hand, the church portrays many
> >> things that are good, but some bad things. So I believe the church is
> >> closer to the real history, than those who have nothing good to say. I
> >> am not saying it is 100% correct, because nothing is. Point in
> >> question might be when Brigham Young took over the leadership after
> >> the martyrdom. Many said that they could see the spirit of Joseph
> >> Smith take over the person of Brigham.
> >
> >
> > Did you answer the polygamy questions? Why not?
> >
> > As to the Brigham sounding like Joseph, all writings on this are 50 years
> > after the fact, none contemporary. Even Woodruff who kept an extensive
> > journal said nothing about it. He, as prophet of the church, married again
> > polygamously in 1896 after the church had announced the end of polygamy in
> > 1890. FYI. The story you vaguely recite appears to not have happened, but
> > was a later creation.
>
> Wasn't it Orson Hyde who later wrote that he had seen the transformation
> with his own eyes, even though he didn't get back to Nauvoo for at
> least another week after the fateful meeting? I recall reading
> something like that in Richard VanWagoner's "Sidney Rigdon."
>
> It should also be pointed out that this entire episode destroys the
> biblical inerrantist claim that legends cannot develop around a
> historical event while the witnesses and participants were still alive
> to refute the inaccuracies. In this case, it was the witnesses who
> most eagerly developed the legend. If you've never read Elizabeth
> Loftus' "The Myth of Repressed Memory," I would suggest it. It's an
> enlightening look at how memory functions. Most people think it's like
> having a video camera in your head, but really memory is a lot more
> pliant than that.
>
>
> > Sort of like the Elder Poelman talk in church conference in 1984. Some of
> > the other general authorities didn't care for it, so it was rewritten for
> > the Ensign publication without letting the membership know that this wasn't
> > the original talk. Not only that, but it was re-video taped with background
> > noises to simulate a conference event. The original recordings of the talk
> > that members have however still exist. In another 100 years when those
> > recording are no longer useable, anyone trying to substantiate what was
> > really said will be called an anti-Mormon and a liar. Isn't historical
> > revisionism fabulous? There is no contemporary evidence that the Smith
> > simulation in Young's talk occurred at all.
>
> I've never heard of this Poelman episode before. Sounds fascinating. I
> found both the original and revised texts at:
>
> http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml
lies abound, and the faithful lap them up. some people love being lied to as long
as they get a burning in their bosom over it.
Lee Paulson
> Xan Du wrote:
>
> >
> > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
> > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
> >
>
> raised Baptist. Perhaps that is why I find Mormonism so fascinating.
Oh, I think it's not just the Baptists (and I presume you don't mean
all the Baptist groups; some are vastly different from others). It's
any fundamentalist religion that bears remarkable similarity to the
LDS.
E.g., on Smith Island down on the Chesapeake, where my folks live part
of the year, almost everyone is fundamentalist Methodist. My poor
parents have to disguise their alcoholic beverages as other beverages
just ot get them on the island.
It is one of the interesting things that Fawn doesn't get--she says
almost the same things as the LDS but calls it Christianity.
Lee
Lee Paulson
>
> >In article <9l42ft$7d7qo$3...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> ><xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> >> news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> >> > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> >> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> >> > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > >...
> >> > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I learned
> >> > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
> >> > >
> >> > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> >> "darkies".
> >>
> >> That is a Baptist teaching as well?
> >>
> >Mormonites preached such feculence.
>
> Come down to Mississippi and you'll still see a decidely
> monochromatic congregation in most Southern (White) Baptist
> franchises.
Of course, that is true in most places in most churches, don't you think?
Lee
Lee Paulson
> In article <3bc6c887...@news.netdoor.com>, clif...@netdoor.com wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:30:55 GMT, 2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <9l42ft$7d7qo$3...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > ><xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:2-1008012...@port202.dial.vcnet.com...
> > >> > In article <9l2evk$79k9f$4...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > >> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > newguy <cerb...@saber.net> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:tn82m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >> > >...
> > >> > > It never ceases to amaze me how all the faith-promoting rumors I
> learned
> > >> > > growing up are shared with the Baptists. I find it a little spooky.
> > >> > >
> > >> > ? One of the spookiest has gotta be the scriptural bias against
> > >> "darkies".
> > >>
> > >> That is a Baptist teaching as well?
> > >>
> > >Mormonites preached such feculence.
> >
> > Come down to Mississippi and you'll still see a decidely
> > monochromatic congregation in most Southern (White) Baptist
> > franchises.
>
> // Amen to that. Two of my cousins are white Baptist preachers and they
> have congregations to match.
> cheers, Clifford.
There's a great Baptist church over in Knoxville, MD, that has an
entirely black congregation. I go there occasionally--the place
ROCKS. It's much more gospel oriented in preaching and music, and the
congregation is lovely. I, however, am distinctly out of place when I
attend. I've thought about the disparity across the country in many
churches, which to me seem to be ethnically uniform as a rule. I
think there might be a large cultural component at work, regardless of
origin of form of worship.
We also seem to have a large number of strictly Asian Christian
churches springing up. I'd guess most Causcasians and blacks would be
out of place there too.
Lee
Leigh Cowley
Truth is there, it is what we are ready to accept. You don't want
to put your entire faith in the leaders of the church. We are not
suppose to. But there are people who do. That does not make the ones
who don't less or more that those who don't. If there is a God, and he
is a kind and loving Father, and wants what is best for us, then he
would want us to know truth. Many people who post here do not have the
receptive spirit for truth. So much negative thoughts, and being
closed minded will do that. The funny thing is, that many who thing
they are open minded, are usually the ones with the most closed mind.
They become unteachable. I have read for several years some of those
who post here. There spirit is dark with bitterness, and this
bitterness turns to hate. The bitterness comes from anger, and the
anger comes from guilt. As I read the many posts from Ex members, this
comes through loud and clear. When I make a statement about why a
person would leave the church, I got several emails from people who
stated I was wrong, yet their bitterness shone as bright as the sun.
The whole truth has not yet been revealed. Even the truths that
have been revealed are not complete. Yet the fulness of the gospel has
been revealed. The fulness meaning that all the truth necessary for
our returning back to the Father has been revealed. All the priesthood
authority, necessary to carry out this rite has also been revealed. To
many times people get caught up the "either it is perfect or it is
false syndrom". It is no more or less a weakness than making money
your God. Some people get over these weakness, but many do not. The
hurtful thing comes when you express your views to those who have a
shakey testimony and turn from the truth. That is their weakness. I am
sure that many people who are members believe that the church is
absolute. It is not, because all the truth has not been revealed. It
will in time, and much truth is being revealed as the church
progresses. If you feel that the progression is something you can not
accept, then perhaps you have made the right decision to leave. The
problem is that there is no way for those who leave to know it is
right.
As I said before I have receive some emails from comments on
another post. This person testified to me that he did as James
directed and asked God if there was a true church. HIs answer was
none. He said not even the LDS church, the told him especially not
that one. Then I have to wonder in what form this took place. For if
he had a burning in his bosom, was Joseph Smith correct in what the
Lord revealed to him? Or was it a still small voice, which also was
revealed to Joseph Smith? Just how was it he knew? Haven't heard back
from him. So I pose the same question to those who claim the same
knowledge. How do you know it is false. If your knowledge comes from
anti material, then you are relying on the arm of man for your
spiritual decisions. If God answered you in the same form as Joseph
Smith, then why condemn a person doing the same, but having different
conclusions. I personally have prayed, and not being a great man have
received my answer. I have no doubt about the restored gospel. None. I
did not always have this knowledge, but it has grown into what it is
today. Through the continual spiritual experiences, I gain more
knowledge, and become more sure that the restored gospel has been
given to us. The beauty of it is that the very fact that you are here
gives you the right to have part of the wonderful reward that God
wants all of us to have.
Leigh
R. L. Measures
lrpa...@earthlink.net (Lee Paulson) wrote:
€ Amen. Organized religions are seemingly the prefered habitat of True
Believer hypocrites.
> We also seem to have a large number of strictly Asian Christian
> churches springing up. I'd guess most Causcasians and blacks would be
> out of place there too.
>
€ Indeed, Lee
cheers
R. L. Measures
cow...@sisna.com (Leigh Cowley) wrote:
> Dear Xan
> Truth is there, it is what we are ready to accept. You don't want
> to put your entire faith in the leaders of the church. We are not
> suppose to. But there are people who do. That does not make the ones
> who don't less or more that those who don't. If there is a God, and he
> is a kind and loving Father, and wants what is best for us, then he
> would want us to know truth. Many people who post here do not have the
> receptive spirit for truth. So much negative thoughts, and being
> closed minded will do that. The funny thing is, that many who thing
> they are open minded, are usually the ones with the most closed mind.
> They become unteachable. I have read for several years some of those
> who post here. There spirit is dark with bitterness, and this
> bitterness turns to hate. The bitterness comes from anger, and the
> anger comes from guilt. As I read the many posts from Ex members, this
> comes through loud and clear. When I make a statement about why a
> person would leave the church, I got several emails from people who
> stated I was wrong, yet their bitterness shone as bright as the sun.
> The whole truth has not yet been revealed. Even the truths that
> have been revealed are not complete. ...
€ Behold the prophet.
newguy
Lee Paulson wrote in message ...
If one accepts the Bible, even though others that accept the Bible disagree
with you, your still a Christian Amazing! newguy
Fool Speck
> Dear Steve
> I am glad to see you express some of your beliefs in a more
> positive way. This will help in undestanding one another with fewer
> walls to break down or look over.
> First off Steve, you can not put todays values on what was in the
> past. They thought differently. The church has progressed for the
> better from that time. This was the way it was intended.
I can absolutely agree with you about the concept of applying today's
values to years past. In fact, I coined a term for it:
"chronocentrism". Anyway, I thought I did, but have found the term
used prior to when I used it. It's not in the dictionary, anyway.
> From the
> beginnings of the church, many truths were revealed. Because we are
> imperfect, and have imperfect understanding, we have to understand
> Gods word through this vehical.
This is the approach I had taken for so many decades, so I am very
familiar with the view. However, when investigation brings attention
to criminal activity involving not only deceit and fraud, but evidence
that may lead one to worse issues.
I guess my problem was that I was willing to accept Smith's failings,
but I reached a point when I felt enough is enough. How could a
prophet of God be such a con man? This disappointing conclusion is
not based on poor quality evidence like the Hurlburt affidavits, but
things that were obviously suppressed but brought to light by LDS
Church historians (who have since been excommunicated.)
Yet Joseph Smith was an extraordinary man. As he said on May 26,
1844, about a month before he was murdered: "...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 a work as I. The
followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never
ran away from me yet."
It is interesting what D&C 3:4 says. "For although a man may have many
revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts
in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and
follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must
fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him."
When he made this boast, he was secretly and illegally married
polygamously to over 40 women. Some of them were wives of men still
living! Many who knew of these secret marriages accused him of
changing the doctrine of the church to satisfy his own carnal desires.
Is it any wonder that so many of the people closest to him, his first
presidency, forsook the adoration of thousands of Latter-day Saints
and turned against him? This happened time after time. The LDS are
repeatedly told that Satan had entered their hearts, but that is
brushed aside as so much pap when one reads WHY they gave up so much
to come out against him!
Now there could be a biological reason for Smith's hypersexuality, a
problem that directly led to his murder. But just how much can a
prophet sin and still be a prophet?
The problem with that view is that you would also have to explain why
it remained in the D&C until 1876, and why it was used by missionaries
to deny polygamy. Even John Taylor in a debate in 1850 published the
rebuttal to a minisher's accusation to a charge the church was
practicing polygamy. He said, "We are accused here of polygamy, and
actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting.... These things
are too outrageous to admit of belief." He then answered his opponents
by reading D&C 101:4.
By this date in 1850, John Taylor had married twelve polygamous wives
who had already borne him eight children.
The Millineal Star, an LDS publication in England finalized an article
on the lies against the Mormons.
"12th Lie—Joseph Smith taught a system of polygamy.
"12th Refutation—The Revelations given through Joseph Smith,
state the following . . . "We believe that one man should have one
wife."
"Doctrine and Covenants, page 331.61
The editor of the Star at this time was Apostle Orson Pratt, who had
temporarily left the Church in 1842 because his wife claimed that
Joseph Smith had proposed spiritual marriage to her; subsequently
converted to polygamy, Pratt, at the time of this 1850 denial, had
already married four plural wives and fathered two polygamous
children.
Both of these apostles were perpetuating a fraud on their converts,
who had little choice but to accept it by the time they arrived in
isolated Salt Lake City.
> > Steve the church is still changing and refining. As we grow and
> expand, not only in numbers but in knowledge, it will continune to
> change. Not the doctrines but the understanding of them. It may seem
> like the church is changing, and many have left because of it, but
> maybe they were not ready for the more refined part of the church. Who
> knows?
> >
> > I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> > plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
> > Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> > simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> > positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> > better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any other
> > environment.
>
> Steve, if you do not believe in the good fruit analogy, then
> you don't understand what it is trying to say. Have you ever grown
> fruit? Usually bad fruit on a good tree is the result of abuse, or
> outside influences, such as insects or wind, etc. The tree, if give a
> chance to be nourished properly, and cared for, and protected, will
> always produce good fruit. Where as a tree which produces bad fruit,
> will never produce good fruit, whether or not it is cared for or
> protected. If its nature is to produce bad fruit, it can do nothing
> else. So it is with Satan. He was a liar from the beginning. God knew
> this.
You have enlightened me on a flaw I had in my understanding. It is
true that a bad tree produces NO good fruit. But I do have a half
dozen citrus trees on my property. These good trees will produce
fruit that is inexplicably dry and pulpy while sweet, juicy fruit are
growning on the same limb.
If we extend the parable from real life observations, then the good
trees (the Church) can bear bad fruit. However something that is
completely corrupt will bear only bad fruit. From that analogy we
would have to even label the Third Reich as a good tree, as it did
indeed improve the lives of the Germans. Patton even admired it, and
wanted to keep the system while getting rid of the corrupt leaders.
> >
> > Actually it does not take much searching, and in fact is
> > disappointingly easy to find things in the Church's own publications.
> > I discovered for myself how members used to practice glossaglia and
> > that women would give blessings even to men by the laying on of hands.
> > A woman could be excommunicated for this today. (See my posting on
> > the subject.)
>
>
> Steve, I don't know what glossaglia is, and I will look it up.
It is a twenty-dollar word meaning "speaking in tongues", often
practiced by those in the charismatic Christian movement. They are
also assigned the derogatory term "Holy Rollers".
> But if
> my wife and I were on a camping trip in the middle of nowhere, and I
> got critically hurt, would I not accept my wife laying her hands on my
> head and giving me a blessing? It could not be through the priesthood,
> but it sure could be through her faith as a member, and my wife. It
> could be through the priesthood I hold. This is just my opinion, but I
> see nothing wrong with it if there is no one else. If I am wrong, I am
> sure someone will correct me.
The excerpt from Joseph Hovey's is not an isolated instance. Women
practice laying on of hands previously in Nauvoo and elsewhere.
Brigham Young's introduction to Joseph Smith was also a demonstration
of glossalgia.
> So see many things you take out of context and build a wall to
> protect your path.
I try very hard to not misrepresent things contextually. I feel I
have seen too much dishonesty from the LDS side (as illustrated by D&C
101:4) to feel I should resort to the same base tactics. I will
gladly provide any references to anything you may think I have been
quoting out of context so you may check for yourself. I understand
the knee-jerk "out-of-context" reaction you are having. I often made
that accusation myself. Then I looked up the references, most of them
published by the Church. It was devastating.
> I don't know if you accept my understanding of
> these things, but I have been studying these things for a long time.
> Not as long as newguy, but I am getting up there.
> Leigh
> >
These exchanges with you are very good, and I respect what you are
writing very much. You are a thinker, and I admire that. From what I
can tell Leigh, you and I are about the same ages, or perhaps I may be
a decade or so older. I celebrated my 51th birthday this month, and
joined the Church when I was 18. So I have been studying for awhile
as well. It is not comfortable being on this side of the debate, and
I would love nothing more than to be shown a thing or two. I am quite
familiar with the flavor of pride, as I have had to swallow mine more
than once.
I appreciate the clarification on the Good Tree parable. Thank you.
Steve
Leigh Cowley
Dear Rich
I am not sure whether you meant this as a compliment, or you were
being sarcastic. What am I talking about. Of course it is sarcastic. I
really don't think you can come forward with a compliment. I am just
thankful you did not add your vulgar mind as well. In this I thank
you. Maybe your changing. Maturing maybe? It is nice to read some of
your posts, and not have to edit them. Although many times your posts
are one liners. But you are improving. At least I think you are. Many
times I see your name as the poster, and I don't read them. I know
this may be rude, but many times I just don't care for the language
you write. I am sure you have important thoughts, and some I miss
because I do not want to be exposed to some of your language and
thoughts. Oh well just a thought.
Leigh
Fool Speck
> > disappointingly easy to find things in the Church's own publications.
> > I discovered for myself how members used to practice glossaglia
>
I blew it. Glossalgia acutally mean painful tongue. (glossa =
tongue; algia = pain)
What I meant to say was glossalalia -- the ecstatic speaking in an
unknown tongue. (gibberish to most of us)
http://www.latter-rain.com/theology/gloss.htm
Steve (Red-in-the-face) Lowther
R. L. Measures
> > € Behold the prophet.
>
> Dear Rich
> I am not sure whether you meant this as a compliment, or you were
> being sarcastic. What am I talking about. Of course it is sarcastic. I
> really don't think you can come forward with a compliment.
€ There were c. three last week.
> I am just thankful you did not add your vulgar mind as well. In this I thank
> you. Maybe your changing. Maturing maybe?
€ I will change if I contract alzheimers.
> It is nice to read some of
> your posts, and not have to edit them. Although many times your posts
> are one liners.
€ mo' words are not mo' betta.
>But you are improving. At least I think you are.
€ I am on the JW and the LDS black lists.
>Many times I see your name as the poster, and I don't read them. I know
> this may be rude, but many times I just don't care for the language
> you write.
€ I write mainly for the silent majority -- i.e., third parties that LDS
proselytizers will attempt to deceive.
>I am sure you have important thoughts, and some I miss
> because I do not want to be exposed to some of your language and
> thoughts. Oh well just a thought.
€ thoughts could be a Satanic act in a church that proscribes thinking
for one's self.
cheers, Leigh
R. L. Measures
SRLo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
Thanks, Steve.
TheJordan6
>My favorite example from this year was on the lesson entitled "Be Not
Decieved but Continue in Steadfastness". The instructor wrote on the board:
>A pint of cream.
A misspelled name.
A lack of seating.
>And then had us guess what these all had in common. Someone who'd read
ahead answered, "They're all causes over which someone left the Church."
(The "apostates" in question were Thomas B. Marsh, Simonds Ryder, and
Frazier Eaton.)
>Now, logic tells me that people have left the Church for far more legitimate
concerns. But the manual has zip to say about anyone with a real gripe
leaving the Church! C'mon Salt Lake! There are some of us out here who
resent being treated like imbeciles!!
Xan, you have provided two examples of how LDS writers whitewash Mormon
history. I'm not familiar with the Frazier Eaton incident you cite, but there
is far more to the Rider and Marsh incidents than trivial issues like a
misspelled name or "milk strippings." LDS writers provide only the portion of
historical incidents that endeavor to show that the person who "apostasized"
was the party in the wrong. They fail to provide the "rest of the story" that
reveals the "real gripes" that people such as Rider and Marsh had.
I wrote some comments on the Rider incident some time ago. To save time, I'll
simply repeat them:
Most Mormons believe that Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's tarring in
February 1832 was done by an "anti-Mormon mob". To the contrary, they were
tarred not by "anti-Mormon mobs," but by their own followers, for two primary
reasons. First was their plan to have all of their church members sign over
all of their assets and properties to the "United Order" communal experiment.
Some members saw this as Smith and Rigdon's scheme to fleece them, and rightly
so; the financial disaster that was the United Order, which culminated in the
Kirtland Bank scandal, caused many Mormons to lose their life savings, and
about half of all church members abandoned the faith over the incident,
including most of the original twelve apostles. The proof that it was his own
church members who did the tarring was Smith's own statement that he recognized
the perpetrators in church the morning after the incident, primarily one
Symonds Rider and the sons of John Johnson. Smith, Emma, and Rigdon had been
boarding with the Johnson clan 35 miles from Kirtland at Hiram, Ohio. They
weren't subjecting themselves to the communal lifestyle that they demanded of
their followers at Kirtland. It was alleged that Smith made a pass at
Johnson's teenage daughter, Nancy Marinda, and that that was her brothers'
motivation for attacking Smith. "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" supports this
idea, but in his "In Sacred Loneliness" Todd Compton doubts it for lack of
convincing evidence. I personally believe that it's likely true that Smith
made the pass at Marinda for four reasons:
First, Smith had already hinted at his "plural marriage" concept in his 1831
"revelation" commanding his men to "take ye wives from among the Lamanites" in
1831 (the tarring occurred in February 1832). This indicates that he had
extra-marital relations on his mind during that period.
Second, Marinda later married Orson Hyde; Smith sent Hyde on a mission, and
secretly "plural married" Marinda in Hyde's absence, in April of 1842. Thus,
it's likely that Smith had had his eye on Marinda since he had met the
15-year-old at Hiram in 1831, and that his 1842 "plural marriage" to her was
his formalization of a long-existing desire for her (as it was also in the
cases of Mary Rollins and Sarah Ann Whitney). The essence of Smith's
"spiritual wifery" concept was that people knew each other in the
"pre-existence," and that part of their earthly mission was to find their "soul
mates" (Remember "Saturday's Warrior?") Once Smith had designated a female as
one of his "soul mates," or "spiritual wives," they were to be "his" for
eternity, even if they were already married to someone else; in this case,
Orson Hyde.
Third, Smith's "plural" relationship with the 16-year-old Fanny Alger began in
1833, according to various bits of evidence. Since the 1832 tarring incident
was sandwiched in between the 1831 "Lamanite revelation" and the 1833 beginning
of his affair with Fanny, it's entirely likely that the tarring was at least
partly because of Smith's budding unorthodox sexual concepts, which he tried
out on Marinda.
Fourth, it seems more likely that the Johnson brothers would want to castrate a
man because of a sexual advance on their teenage sister, rather than over an
issue of money.
Here's a little of Compton's views on the subject:
"According to Luke Johnson, Smth was stretched on a board, then 'they tore off
the night clothes that he had on, for the purpose of emasculating him, and had
Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation. But when the Dr. saw the prophet
stripped and stretched on the plank, his heart failed him, and he refused to
operate.'
"The motivation for this mobbing has been debated. Clark Braden, a late,
antagonastic, secondhand witness, alleged in a polemic public debate that
Marinda's brother Eli led a mob against Smith because the prophet had been too
intimate with Marinda. This tradition suggests that Smith may have married
Marinda at this early time, and some circumstantial factors support such a
possibility. The castration attempt might be taken as evidence that the mob
felt that Joseph had committed a sexual impropriety; since the attempt is
reported by Luke Johnson, there is no reason to doubt it. Also, they had
planned the operation in advance, as they brought along a doctor to perform it.
The first revelations on polygamy had been received in 1831, by historian
Daniel Bachman's dating. Also, Joseph Smith did tend to marry women who had
stayed at his house or in whose house he had stayed.
"Many other factors, however, argue against this theory. First, Marinda had no
brother named Eli, which suggests that Braden's accusation, late as it is, is
garbled and unreliable. In addition, two antagonistic accounts by Hayden and
S. F. Whitney give an entirely different reason for the mobbing, with an
entirely different leader, Simonds Ryder, an ex-Mormon, though the Johnson
brothers are still participants. In these accounts the reason for the violence
is economic: the Johnson boys were in the mob because of 'the horrid fact that
a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it in the control of
Smith.' The castration, in this scenario, may have only been a threat, meant
to intimidate Smith and cause him to leave Hiram.....While it is not impossible
that Marinda became Smith's first plural wife in 1831, the evidence for such a
marriage, resting chiefly on the late, unreliable Braden, is not compelling.
Unless more credible evidence is found, it is best to proceed under the
assumption that Joseph and Marinda did not marry or have a relationship in
1831."
("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," 231-232.)
Of course, Braden's recollection of an "Eli" could possibly have referred to a
nickname for one of Marinda's brothers.
Here's what "Mormon Enigma" says about it:
"Evidence suggests that although Joseph believed he was commanded by God
through revelation to establish plural marriage as part of the 'restoration of
all things,' questions undoubtedly arose. For example, who would perform the
marriages? Could Joseph officiate in his own behalf? Who should be told of
the doctrine? How would Emma and others react to such an unorthodox practice?
There is no record that Joseph received immeditate instructions in these
matters, making his early attempts to instigate plural marriage most difficult
for Emma when she encountered them.
Mary Elizabeth Rollins claimed that Joseph had a private conversation with her
in 1831; she was then twelve years old. She said Joseph 'told me about his
great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to
take as a plural wife.' (Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner to Emmeline B. Wells,
summer 1905, LDS Archives)
Within six months of Joseph's conversation with Mary Elizabeth Rollins, he and
Emma had moved into the John Johnson home. Orson Pratt later quoted Lyman
Johnson as saying that 'Joseph had made known to him\ \as early as 1831 that
plural marriage was a correct principle,' but remarked also that 'the time had
not yet come to teach and practice it.' (Orson Pratt, "Latter-day Saints
Millennial Star (Liverpool England), 40 (16 Dec. 1878):788) Perhaps Joseph
was not discreet in his discussions about plural marriage, because rumor and
insinuation fed the fury of the mob that tarred and feathered him. When the
Johnson boys joined the mob that entered their own home, they clearly suspected
an improper association between Joseph and their sixteen-year-old sister, Nancy
Marinda." (as quoted from Donna Hill, "Joseph Smith: the First Mormon",
p.146).
The point being that there is much more to Symonds Rider's case than a simple
misspelled name; but LDS authors don't want you to know the full facts, because
the true facts expose Joseph Smith's deviousness more than they do any failings
of Rider.
On the Marsh incident, Gordon B. Hinckley offered the following comments in the
April 1984 General Conference:
"According to the account given by George A. Smith, while the Saints were in
Far West, Missouri, 'the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, who was then President of the
Twelve Apostles, and Sister Harris concluded they would exchange milk, in order
to make a little larger cheese than they otherwise could. To be sure to have
justice done, it was agreed that they should not save the strippings (to
themselves), but that the milk and strippings should go all together.....Mrs.
Harris, it appeared, was faithful to the agreement and carried to Mrs. Marsh
the milk and strippings, but Mrs. Marsh, wishing to make some extra good
cheese, saved a pint of strippings from each cow and sent Mrs. Harris the milk
without the strippings. A quarrel arose, and the matter was referred to the
home teachers. They found Mrs. Marsh guilty of failure to keep her agreement.
She and her husband were upset and, 'an appeal was taken from the teacher to
the bishop, and a regular church trial was held. President Marsh did not
consider that the bishop had done him and his lady justice for they (that is,
the bishop's court) decided that the strippings were wrongfully saved, and that
the woman had violated her covenant.
'Marsh immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the
question with much patience, and,' says George A. Smith, .....'Marsh.....made
a desperate defence, but the High Council finally confirmed the bishop's
decision.....This little affair,' Brother Smith continues, 'kicked up a
considerable breeze, and Thomas B. Marsh then declared that he would sustain
the character of his wife even if he had to go to hell for it. The then
President of the Twelve Apostles, the man who should have been the first to do
justice and cause reparation to be made for wrong.....went before a magistrate
and swore that the 'Mormons' were hostile towards the state of MIssouri. That
affidavit brought from the government of Missouri an exterminating order, which
drove some 15,000 Saints from their homes and habitations.....
What a very small and trivial thing--a little cream over which two women
quarreled. But it led to, or at least was a factor in, Governor Boggs' cruel
exterminating order which drove the Saints from the state of Missouri."
("Ensign" Magazine, May 1984, p. 83.)
Note how Hinckley asserts that the "milk strippings" incident (if it even
occurred at all) was a major factor in Marsh's defection, and the resulting
Extermination Order. But were Hinckley's remarks (via George A. Smith)
anywhere close to the truth? Let's compare Hinckley's assertions with the
documented facts of history:
A "revelation" Smith produced, and published in his 1833 "Book of
Commandments," read as follows:
"For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets
shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles, unto my
people which are of the house of Israel." (BOC 44:32.)
In Smith's 1835 revision of the BOC, re-titled the "Doctrine and Covenants,"
Smith altered this verse to read:
"for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the
Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel." (D&C
42:39.)
David Whitmer explained why the original version of this "revelation" had
enraged Missourians against the Mormon immigrants in 1833:
"In the spring of 1832, in Hiram, Ohio, Brothers Joseph and Sidney, and others,
concluded that the revelations should be printed in a book. A few of the
brethren -- including myself --objected to it seriously. We told them that if
the revelations were
published, the world would get the books, and it would not do; that it was not
the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published. But Brothers
Joseph and Sidney would not listen to us, and said they were going to send them
to Independence to be published. I objected to it and withstood Brothers Joseph
and Sidney to the face. Brother Joseph said as follows: "Any man who objects to
having these revelations published, shall have his part taken out of the Tree
of Life and out of the Holy City." The Spirit of God came upon me and I
prophesied to them in the name of the Lord: "That if they sent those
revelations to Independence to be published in a book, the people would come
upon them and tear down the printing press, and the church would be driven out
of Jackson county." Brothers Joseph and Sidney laughed at me. Early in the
spring of 1833, at Independence, Mo., the revelations were printed in the Book
of Commandments. Many of the books were finished and distributed among the
members of the church, and through some of the unwise brethren, the world got
hold of some of them. From that time the ill-feeling toward us began to
increase; and in the summer of 1833 the mob came upon us, tore down the
printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." ("An Address to
all Believers in Christ")
It's obvious that Smith altered the verse which called for the "consecration of
the riches of the Gentiles unto the house of Israel" because the publication of
such a policy had gotten the Mormons booted out of Jackson County.
Nonetheless, he and Rigdon secretly continued their advocacy of "consecrating"
the personal property of non-Mormons, as well as those of Mormon dissenters,
into his "kingdom," and that was the ultimate cause of the Mormons' final
expulsion from Missouri in 1838.
To today's Mormons, "consecration" means giving of their money or goods to the
church. In 1838, upon the failure of their Kirtland Bank and "United Order,"
Smith and Rigdon went to Missouri and again tried to institute an economic
commune. The Missouri Mormons, who had been expelled from Jackson County in
1834, were living in relative (albeit temporary) peace in Clay County, buying
land and starting farms. But the arrival of Smith and Rigdon in the spring of
1838 brought an influx of thousands more Mormons from Kirtland as well,
spilling them over into "Gentile" areas, causing new tensions. Mormon
population increased from 1,200 to 15,000 in just a few months. Having been
stung by the Kirtland failure, Smith and Rigdon implemented new policies that
they hoped would make the new commune succeed. The policy mandated that all
Mormons sign their lands over to the church, and then the church
would lease the land back to them as "stewardships." The Mormons who had
bought and developed
their lands and farms balked at the idea---among them being Cowdery, the
Whitmers, Phelps, Lyman Johnson, etc. They correctly perceived that the new
"consecration" policy was nothing more than Smith and Rigdon's latest scheme to
fleece the flock. Their refusal to sign lands over to the church prompted
Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" (which was heartily endorsed by Smith), and Rigdon's
resulting letter informing the dissenters that they must "depart before a more
fatal calamity" befell them. While the dissenters had gone to procure legal
aid to prevent Smith and Rigdon from taking their land (or their lives), the
"Danites" invaded and plundered their homes and property. So, for those
Mormons, "consecration" meant having their goods taken away by force, upon the
order of church leaders.
"A proposition was made and supported by some as being the best policy to kill
these men that they would not be capable of injuring the church. All their
measures were strenuously opposed by John Corrill and T. B. Marsh one of the
twelve apostles of the church and in consequence nothing could be effected
until the matter was taken up publicly BY THE PRESIDENCY the following (June
17th) in a large congregation..." ("Reed Peck Manuscript")
Thus, according to Peck, Marsh was already opposing Smith's and Rigdon's
heinous policies as early as June 17----four months before Marsh swore his
affidavit. That fact alone destroys the "milk strippings" business.
As many witnesses (including Thomas B. Marsh) testified in court, Smith's
intention was to "take this State,...the United States and ultimately the whole
world" for his theocratic empire. The swelling Mormon population disturbed
the non-Mormons, who had heard that the "Gentiles" were to be evicted and the
land become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem." One Missourian, William Peniston,
remarked in August that the Mormons "are a set of horse thieves, liars, and
counterfeiters. They'll swear a false oath on any occasion to save another
Mormon....no property is safe in Daviess County if they continue to pour into
this area." Tensions soon erupted into violence, with beatings, lootings and
burnings being committed on both sides. By October, believing that they had
enough manpower to "take the state," Smith and Rigdon then sent their "Danite"
forces to begin "consecrating"
from the "Gentiles" as well as the dissident "Saints," with the loot going to
support their war effort. Church historian John Whitmer reported that the
Mormon leaders claimed the stealing was justified because they were the "chosen
people":
"After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in
Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn
houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) call sweet oil, and
hogs which they call bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they
would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things
are God's; therefore, they are ours." (John Whitmer's "History of the Church")
John Whitmer's remarks revealed Smith's and Rigdon's true attitude: they viewed
their organization as the literal "House of Israel," and "the Kingdom of God on
Earth"; they taught the imminent return and millenial reign of Christ, wherein
all the "enemies" of the "true church" would be defeated. Since, in the
"millenium," all things on earth would be theirs, they haughtily taught their
subordinates to appropriate the property of the "Gentiles."
Mormon historian Leland Gentry admits to Mormon thefts: "The Danites were
taught to take from the Gentiles and consecrate to the Church. Nearly every
person who testified at the trial against the Mormon leaders made mention of
this fact. John Clemenson stated that 'it was frequently observed among the
troops at Diahman that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should
be consecrated to the Saints.' Jeremiah Myers testified that 'the consecrated
property...was dealt out to those in need' by Bishop Vinson Knight." (A
History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, p. 385-387.)
"Danites struck at Gallatin and two other towns, Millport and Grinding Fork.
The three onslaughts occurred simultaneously and had a crushing impact on the
Missourians who were unaccustomed to Mormon resistance. When Captains Lyman
Wight, David W. Patten, and Seymour Brunson rode into Far West at the head of
their companies, the sight of wagonloads of plunder was offensive to a number
of less aggressively inclined Saints. That night they gathered their families
together and abandoned the settlement. Among the defectors were two of
Joseph's most trusted followers, Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde, both members
of the Council of Twelve Apostles. The two men fled to nearby Richmond and
blurted out everything they knew." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler,
p. 54.)
"The Mormons were two hundred and fifty men by the time they reached Daviess
County...The bulk of the forces went out in search of the gentile opposition.
They marched through three settlements, including Gallatin, repaying the
Missourians in kind, looting and firing stores, homes, and barns, before their
anger spent itself.....When they returned with their loot, many of their own
people were appalled and frightened. Thomas B. Marsh, Brigham Young's superior
as President of the Twelve, let it be known that he did not approve such
retaliation, and he left the church." ("Kingdom of the Saints", Ray B. West, p.
86.)
"There was much mysterious conversation in camps, as to plundering, and
house-burning; so much so, that I had my own notions about it; and, on one
occasion, I spoke to Mr. Smith, Jr., in the house, and told him that this
course of burning houses and plundering, by the Mormon troops, would ruin us;
that it could not be kept hid, and would bring the force of the state upon us;
that houses would be searched, and stolen property found. Smith replied to me,
in a pretty rough manner, to keep still; that I should say nothing about it;
that it would discourage the men...I saw a great deal of plunder and bee-steads
brought into camp; and I saw many persons, for many days, taking the honey out
of them; I understood this property and plunder were placed into the hands of
the bishop at Diahmon....The general teachings of the presidency were, that the
kingdom they were setting up was a temporal kingdom...that the time had come
when this kingdom was to be set up by
forcible means, if necessary. It was taught, that the time had come when the
riches of the Gentiles were to be consecrated to the true Israel."
(Testimony of George M. Hinkle, "Senate Document 189".)
"Smith replied, the time had come when he should resist all law...I heard J.
Smith remark, there was a store at Gallatin, and a grocery at Millport; and in
the morning after the conversation between Smith and Wight about resisting the
law, a plan of operations was agreed on, which was: that Captain Fearnaught,
who was present, should take a company of 100 men, or more, and go to Gallatin,
and take it that day; to take the goods out of Gallatin, bring them to Diahmon,
and burn the store...On the same day, in the evening, I saw both these
companies return; the foot company had some plunder..." (Testimony of WW
Phelps, "Senate Document 189").
From Marsh's own sworn legal affidavit of October 24, 1838:
"At the request of citizens of Ray County, I make the following
statement...Joseph Smith, the prophet, had preached a sermon in which he said
that all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary, in the
difficulties with the citizens, should be shot or otherwise put to death; and
as I was there with my family, I thought it most prudent to go and did go with
my wagon as the driver. We marched to Adam-ondi-Ahman and found no troops or
mob in Davies County....a company of about eighty Mormons, commanded by a man
fictitiously named Captain Fearnaught [apostle and Danite David Patten],
marched to Gallatin...I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burnt
Gallatin and that it was done by the aforesaid company
that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the
goods from the store in Gallatin and deposited them at the Bishop's storehouse
at Diahmon. On the same day, [apostle and Danite] Lyman Wight marched about
eighty horsemen for Millport...The same evening a number of footmen came up
from the direction of Millport laden with property which I was informed
consisted of beds, clocks, and other household furniture...During the same
time, a company called the Fur Company were sent out to bring in fat hogs and
cattle, calling the hogs 'bears', and the cattle 'buffaloes.' They have among
them a company consisting of all that are considered true Mormons, called the
Danites, who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all
things that they say or do, whether right or wrong.....The plan of said Smith,
the prophet, is to take this State, and he professed to his people to intend
taking the United States, and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief
of the church, and my own opinion of the prophet's plans and intentions.....The
prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that
Smith's prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the
prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead
bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this
generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky
Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean....."
I don't find anything about "milk strippings" in Marsh's, or any other
eyewitnesses' testimony of those events; and I have failed to find even one
mention of the alleged "milk strippings" incident in any history on the subject
by any reputable scholar. To the contrary, they all concur that the reason the
Mormons were booted out of Missouri was because of Smith and Rigdon's haughty,
belligerent attitudes and teachings; their calls for violence, their
"revelations" that "justified" their followers stealing from their nieghbors;
and their boasts that their organization had a "divine right" to take the state
of Missouri for themselves, by any means necessary, including force.
Late LDS author Harold Schindler recounted the series of events that cause
Governor Boggs to issue his "Extermination Order," which came the day after the
skirmish between Missouri militiamen and Mormon "Danites" at Crooked River:
"Twenty-four hours after the Crooked River fight, Boggs, armed with the
affidavits of Marsh and Hyde plus complaints from frightened settlers
describing a wholesale Mormon rebellion, ordered two thousand militiamen from
five divisions into the field...Then Boggs received a message confirming an
earlier report of Bogart's defeat but compounding the rumors of a
massacre...this report prompted Boggs to issue his infamous 'Extermination
Order' of October 27 to General John B. Clark. In effect, the order challenged
Sidney Rigdon's Fourth of July address in which he defied the Gentiles and
threatened a 'war of extermination.' It was more than coincidence that Boggs
chose that particular word in his instruction to General Clark."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
56-58.)
Thus we see that the major incident which spurred Boggs to issue his
"Extermination Order" was the Crooked River skirmish, wherein several men on
both sides were killed. That event made Boggs realize that the Mormons would
not peacefully cohabit the state with non-Mormons, and since many Mormons had
taken a secret oath to obey Smith's every order, even those which called on
them to commit crimes, Boggs was forced to evict all of the Mormons from the
state.
So, in view of the documented facts, can anyone honestly believe that Thomas B.
Marsh's "real gripe" was a fight between two women over "milk strippings"?
And, was Gordon B. Hinckley being "honest with his fellow man" by using George
A. Smith's "faith-promoting" version of events, rather than objectively
relating the numerous testimonies of first-hand eyewitnesses and participants?
Of course he wasn't. Hinckley, as well as most other LDS leaders and
apologists, are not interested in relating the actual history of Mormonism;
their agenda is to spin "faith-promoting" tales that attempt to "teach a
lesson," while simultaneously obfuscating the actual facts. The average
rank-and-file Mormon, upon learning that the first president of the Q12 had
"apostasized," would naturally inquire as to the reasons for his "apostasy";
the "milk strippings" story is propagated to conceal the actual reasons, and to
provide an "object lesson" for Mormons sitting in Sunday School class.
So, Xan, when you say that "logic tells me that people have left the church for
more legitimate concerns" than misspelled names and "milk strippings," you're
right; Simonds Ryder's and Thomas B. Marsh's true "concerns" were a thousand
times greater than the trivial "faith-promoting" smokescreens dispensed by LDS
Inc.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Mon, Aug 13, 2001 00:57 EDT
>Message-id: <9l7fdf$96g$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>
You've got that wrong. He was actually a "consummating maniac."
Randy J.
Xan Du
<clif...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:3bc7b6e7...@news.netdoor.com...
The scariest story I'd ever heard was second-hand. Seems a relative of a
friend of mine, a devout Christian, learned just enough about Evolution to
be dangerous. This person then decided that since humanity had originated
in Africa, that Blacks were less evolved than Caucasians. This made the
rest of the worldview fit justifiably into place.
-Xan
Xan Du
The phrase, "getting on top of things" can have so many meanings, can it
not?
> > Formalization of the WoW follows a pattern established in the OT. Some
> > simple advice is given: Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20).
The
> > people to whom the advice is given bend the rules, the prohpet gets mad.
> > More advice is given: Thou shalt not lie with a beast, man shall not
lie
> > with man, nor woman lie with woman, and if so, thou shalt burn the one
and
> > kill the other and kick out the thrid, etc. (Leviticus 20).
> >
> // The good book also says let no man judge you in eating and drinking.
> I have a sister in law who relishes fish eyes.
More power to her.
-Xan
Xan Du
Because it is *popular* to refer to him as such. It is *not* popular to
refer to the founder of the LDS Church as Joseph Smith, Jr. as a matter of
course. Your recalcitrance here is similar to Fawn's on the newsreader
issue. (The magnitude of your sin here is far far less, but there is a
marked similarity, you must admit.)
Stop it, you're making me get the munchies.
> > > > > Those who hate
> > > > > the church will look at every negative thing done. Never looking
at
> > > > > the good that was done.
> > >
> > > ? No amount of good works can negate what was done at Mountain
Meadows on
> > > the 11th day of September, 1857.
> >
> > But a formal admission and apology would do, yes?
> >
> // Indeed, indeed. If Nixon had been up-front and said that he ordered
> the Watergate breakin because of national security concerns, he would have
> come out of the White House as a winner instead of a loser.
He would have still been lying.
> Denial is the worst toxin known.
>
> > > > I do not believe in the good tree, good fruit analogy. I have had
> > > > plenty of fruit trees that have born both good and bad fruit.
> > >
> > > ? as have I.
> > >
> > > > Therefore, I do believe sincerely that the Church is not evil, just
> > > > simply based on a lie. Its leadership have come up with some very
> > > > positive teachings that enhance its peoples lives. Its youth have a
> > > > better chance of surviving life's pitfalls than probably in any
other
> > > > environment.
> > > >
> > > ? The seemingly high suicide rate amoung teen guys and women of child
> > > bearing age is hardly good news. In this area, Mormonism beats
> > > Catholicism by a mile when it comes to suicide rate.
> >
> > Mmm, good point. Observing a healthy lifestyle is much different than
> > adhering to a faith-based belief system. The stress caused by constant
> > failure to live up to the "worthiness" criteria of the latter is most
> > obviously deleterious to a postive self-image.
> >
> amen, Xan
Thanks.
-Xan