Whatever happens to Warren Jeff -- the media Is already guilty

My question is why isn’t the “regular” LDS church screaming it’s condemnation of this? Salt Lake City is awfully quiet
____________________________________________________

Well it like this

This morning one of the mormon reporters at the mormon religion owned Deseret News in SLC...

(They fired all their non-mormon reporters a couple of years ago)

put this article in the online version...

“Expert: Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs wasn’t legally married”

and it had a very eye opening article that was WOW look at that

(that guy got fired by lunchtime and his article taken down)

I didnt think to capture what the article said Silly Nana so we dont had it any more...

So now when I go to the same link I had this morning there is a different article with a different headline

“Texas jury hears tape of polygamist Warren Jeffs discussing sex”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700167816/Texas-jury-hears-tape-of-polygamist-Warren-Jeffs-discussing-sex.html

It seems that Jeffs saying the same things to little girls that Joey Smith said is OK

101 posted on 08/02/2011 4:34:31 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana

My question is why isn’t the “regular” LDS church screaming it’s condemnation of this?

- - - - - -
Very good question.

When this hit (and even before) SLC was screaming “there are no such things as ‘fundamentalist’ Mormons” and “We abandoned polygamy over 100 years ago”. They try to distance themselves from polygamy but they cannot completely renounce the practice.

These groups base the requirement for polygamy on a revelation given by Joseph Smith (posted above in thread) that is referred to as Doctrine and Covenants 132. For SLC to denoucne polygamy too forcefully would be to admit that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and that the subsequent leaders and apostles were also false prophets. In 1890, a statement was made (not actually a revelation) that states the prophet agreed to abide by US laws (to get statehood for Utah) but didn’t renounce the doctrine (this statement is referred to as Official Declaration #1). Many SLC LDS refused to abide it and another, more forceful statement was given around 1902. Again, many refused to follow it and polygamous marriages occurred in the mainstream Mormon church until about 1930. Even today, there are still elderly LDS who are children of polygamous unions.

The other problem for SLC, is that although OFFICIALLY polygamy is grounds for excommunication, many turn a blind eye to it. I know a few families (and the ex-mormon boards are full of stories) in the Mainstream LDS church that are quiet polygamists, one was even a Bishop (pastor).

Finally, some of their leaders and apostles taught, clear up until the 1980’s, that polygamy will be brought back during the “Millennium” (when Christ reigns from Independence Missouri). An outright condemnation would be confusing to many rank and file LDS who look forward to the re-institution of polygamy.

Polygamy is an issue that most LDS ignore or make excuses for rather than outright renouncing the practice.

102 posted on 08/02/2011 4:44:14 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")

Thanks for the info. You are obviously well informed on the matter.

My wife’s family is mormon. My wife grew up going to the church sporadically. She will tell you today that she “resigned from the club”.

I will tell you something that was strange. Back in 1990 two “missionaries” knocked on the door. My wife told them she used to be a mormon but didn’t want anything to do with it anymore. The young men were shocked and asked “Are you saying you want your name taken off the roll?” She told them she didn’t care one way or the other.

A few days later she actually got a call from someone in Salt Lake City. We have no idea how they even found out her name. Much less our phone number. Again they wanted to confirm she wanted her name removed from the “rolls”. She told them Jesus had written her name in a much bigger book so she really didn’t care about their “rolls”. hee hee

103 posted on 08/02/2011 6:58:43 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

Back in the 60s, I believe it was, the folks in Salt Lake City got a “revelation” that blacks should be allowed to hold the priesthood. However, that revelation also gave them a good twenty years to get started. Totally bogus.

What I don’t understand is when men work their way up to the top they have to KNOW at some point that its crap. The paragraph above proves they knew it wasn’t a revelation. I mean, at some point are they sat down and told “This is all a bunch of bs. But you’re in too deep now. So, you can now get all the benefits we’ve been telling you about.”

104 posted on 08/02/2011 7:51:36 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

Joseph Smith’s “legal” problems were solved when the Carthage, Illinois sheriff left the jail open and some good men of the community came in the middle of the night and took care of things.

105 posted on 08/02/2011 7:55:19 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

A friend was sitting in his office one day when the secretary came in and told him a man was outside and sad God had told him to come see my friend. My friend said he thought, “Wow. What a spiritual giant I must me that God will send people to me.”

He has the secretary show the man in and the man told my friend “God sent me to you and told me you would give me a hundred dollars.”

My friend replied, “I have no doubt God told you that. But he has not confirmed it with me yet.”

106 posted on 08/02/2011 7:57:58 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

By putting an “F” in front of the LDS gives the SLC LDS an “out”. And authorities keep falling for it.

107 posted on 08/02/2011 8:01:16 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

This motion looks like it was written by Joseph Smith.

108 posted on 08/02/2011 8:03:39 PM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

The revelation on blacks and the priesthood was 1978 (Offical Declaration #2) and only came after the LDS was threatened with lawsuits and had some records subpoenaed.

109 posted on 08/02/2011 9:52:57 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")

To: Tennessee Nana

“Warren Jeffs: God demands judge’s removal”

That MORMON god DEMANDS a lot of stuff that Temple Worthy MORMONs do NOT even do!

Why should a mere earthly judge pay any attention to it?

110 posted on 08/03/2011 5:18:04 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

Joseph Smith’s “legal” problems were solved when the Carthage, Illinois sheriff left the jail open and some good men of the community came in the middle of the night and took care of things.

"Joseph; I advise you not to go to that jail."

"Darn gnats!!"

"Joseph; I'm telling you to not to go to that jail."

"Flies are BAD today!!"

"Joseph; It ain't gonna be pretty if you ignore me and go to that jail!"

"Crummy mosquitos are EVERYWHERE!!!"

"Joseph! Do NOT go to that jail!"

"And those bedbugs really savaged me last night, too!"

"JOSEPH!! Wake up boy! Do Not Go To That JAIL!!!"

"All right Sheriff - here I am, so give me a nice room while my Lawyer, my Advocate, my Comforter presents the LAW to the Judge and I am VINDICATED!!!"

111 posted on 08/03/2011 5:21:15 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

Joseph Smith’s “legal” problems were solved when the Carthage, Illinois sheriff left the jail open and some good men of the community came in the middle of the night and took care of things.

JESUS: Hey Smith! Remember that boast you made about doing more than even I had done to hold the 'church' together?

JOSEPH SMITH: Where am I?

JESUS: Don't you remember? A few seconds ago you were in that jail.

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah; but where am I NOW?

JESUS: Don't you remember? Does bang - bang ring a bell?

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah - that crummy gun I had was about USELESS!

JESUS: I hope you left instructions on how to hold your church together.

JOSEPH SMITH: Dang! I knew there was SOMETHING I was forgetting!

JESUS: Looks like there's a power struggle going on down there.

JOSEPH SMITH: Yeah; there was always SOMEone who wanted the power that I held - especially over the LADIES - wink wink.

JESUS: No need to worry about that now; remember what my friend Matthew wrote down?

JOSEPH SMITH: This? “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)

JESUS: That's it.

JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.

JESUS: Nah - it was right.

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh well; it was fun while it lasted. My buds will still get it on with the girls.

JESUS: Uh; I'm sorry; in just a few more years; your followers will cavein to the United States government and abandon the 'Eternal Covenant' that you came up with.

JOSEPH SMITH: ME!? YOU are the one that told me to do that!

JESUS: Sorry; but you must have mistranslated what I told you. What part of Do NOT commit ADULTERY did you not understand?

JOSEPH SMITH: mumble....

JESUS: What did you say?

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, nothing.

JESUS: Well; it was interesting talking to you; but now I must get back to perparing a place for those who believe in Me.

JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, yeah; the Celestial Kingdom.

JESUS: No...

JOSEPH SMITH: The Telestial one?

JESUS: Nope.

JOSEPH SMITH: SUREly not the TERRESTRIAL one!!

JESUS: Nope. Didn't you read that the mind of man had NOT conceived of it? Paul wrote it down in 1 Corinthians 2:9.

JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.

JESUS: No; it wasn't.

JOSEPH SMITH: You SURE?

JESUS: Yes. Now I must be going: what did you say your name was again?

JOSEPH SMITH: Joseph Smith.

JESUS: Hmmmm. According to my Heavenly FAITHbook, you didn't sign in as one of my friends - sorry, I never knew you.

JOSEPH SMITH: But....

112 posted on 08/03/2011 5:22:28 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

By putting an “F” in front of the LDS gives the SLC LDS an “out”. And authorities keep falling for it.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group

113 posted on 08/03/2011 5:23:37 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

The revelation on blacks and the priesthood was 1978 (Offical Declaration #2) and only came after the LDS was threatened with lawsuits and had some records subpoenaed.

MORMONism and BLACKS: the Prequel

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.

Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 5: 21 'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."
"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."
"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."

(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)

1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."

We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.

According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.

Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.
The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."
(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).

When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:

"...if the negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)

Yeah; Native Americans are althroughout the Book of MORMON; too.

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather.... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.

One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). (p. 209)

114 posted on 08/03/2011 5:26:14 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

Media Letter

26 June 2008 — Salt Lake City (http://newsroom.lds.org/additional-resource/media-letter)

*The following is a letter from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines. It was sent out on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.

Recent events have focused the media spotlight on a polygamous sect near San Angelo, Texas, calling itself the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” As you probably know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has absolutely no affiliation with this polygamous sect. Decades ago, the founders of that sect rejected the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were excommunicated, and then started their own religion. To the best of our knowledge, no one at the Texas compound has ever been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, however, some of the media coverage of the recent events in Texas has caused members of the public to confuse the doctrines and members of that group and our church. We have received numerous inquiries from confused members of the public who, by listening to less than careful media reports, have come to a grave misunderstanding about our respective doctrines and faith. Based on these media reports many have erroneously concluded that there is some affiliation between the two – or even worse, that they are one and the same.

Over the years, in a careful effort to distinguish itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters. Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.

We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above. Accordingly, we respectfully request the following:

As reflected in the AP Style Guide, we ask that you and your organization refrain from referring to members of that polygamous sect as “fundamentalist Mormons” or “fundamentalist” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We ask that, when reporting about this Texas-based polygamous sect or any other polygamous group, you avoid either explicitly or implicitly any inference that these groups are affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
On those occasions when it may be necessary in your reporting to refer to the historical practice of plural marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that you make very clear that the Church does not condone the practice of polygamy and that it has been forbidden in the Church for over one hundred years. Moreover, we absolutely condemn arranged or forced “marriages” of underage girls to anyone under any circumstances.

Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for whom we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.

We thank you for your consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

Lance B. Wickman

General Counsel

115 posted on 08/03/2011 5:49:34 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)

I read that they actually came up with it earlier but didn’t make the “declaration” until years later. Bottom line is it was not a “REVELATION” as has been reported. They knew that eventually they’d have to allow it.

I know mormons who are still some of the biggest racists you’ll ever meet. I also know a few who say it’s okay to drink caffiene in a coke because soft drinks weren’t available with Smith was around. I think it falls into the “More will be revealed later” category.

116 posted on 08/03/2011 8:03:09 AM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

Let’s look at some statements that are in the press release:

“People have the right to worship as they choose, and we aren’t interested in attacking someone else’s beliefs,” Elder Cook said.

“Mormons have nothing whatsoever to do with this polygamous sect in Texas,” he said.

“Polygamy was a part of the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some Church members followed the practice for about a 50-year period until 1890, when it was OFFICIALLY stopped.”

But something you don’t see in the press release is:

“Those people in Texas are a bunch of perverts and they should all go to jail.”

The SLC LDS is doing what it always does. Trot out a few doctors, a lawyer, a “Houston Oilers Quarterback”, a cop and a few politicians and say “These people are mormons who are members of the community”. But I don’t see these “members of the community” condemning the FLDS and their like.

SLC LDS members should be on the cable talk shows agreeing with the former FLDS members. Instead, all they do is send a letter to all the major news outlets reminding everyone that the FLDS is a fringe group.

117 posted on 08/03/2011 9:00:43 AM PDT by Terry Mross (I'll only vote for a SECOND party.)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The Mormons condemn the monogamous Christians “in the strongest terms” calling one man one woman type marriage “prostitution” and then they want to be called “christians”

118 posted on 08/03/2011 9:14:11 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana

Moreover, we absolutely condemn arranged or forced “marriages” of underage girls to anyone under any circumstances
__________________________________________________

This i8s not the way to get a temple recommend

a little question about sustaining the profit

119 posted on 08/03/2011 9:16:22 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana

The LDS uses quite a few of them in their “I am Mormon” ad campaign. AKA the Mitt Romney election ads.

120 posted on 08/03/2011 9:22:52 AM PDT by MizSterious (Apparently, there's no honor when it comes to someone else's retirement funds.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794