What the Mormons Know About Welfare

THX 1138

just a sample

link to a thread on an exmormon support group

talking about how their relatives are working in a cannery and the use of a "calling" to get free labor

http://www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3518&sid=d4e4122df20d757187cd4b68b24441c4&view=print

Wow, how many mis-statements and distortions can one make in a single post?

hello brother pole...how was priesthood meeting

for the mormons and gentiles who want the truth, its a mouse click away

for those who dont i am the mercenary faction of the antimormon conspiracy

but actually i am a refugee, what they drizzle is not rain, all exmormons will tell you the same~A.~

Personally, I don’t think we can take back the public schools. This has been an ongoing stealth enterprise for too long, and it’s been too successful. I think it’s up to the homeschoolers and the Christian schools.

30% of names still listed on church rolls are no longer active...t mormons these are all ‘jackass mormons” or ‘anti-mormon’ as the case may be

and the gentiles are all damned without posthumous proxy baptism of course

documentation doesn’t matter, to mormon the world is divided into morg and anti...a grey area leaves room for doubt and independent thinking

cant - have - that ...

research for yourself and don’t rely on me or him or a $multimillion$ lds soundbite with paid actors

google exmormon (no dash) and include welfare, “free labor” or “callings” and read for yourself

btw the first thing they train morgs to do if they encounter exes is to avoid discussion, say its a lie, failing that an error, failing that ‘it may happen at other wards not mine come visit”, failing that “oh thats ancient history we don’t do it anymore”

all lies...and while youre at it google exmormon, and include “lying for the lord” as a phrase...i posted documents about it yesterday, maybe someone will link as i’m out the door~A.~

What was incorrect?

The homeschoolers and the Christians schools are the only reason why we haven’t totally collapsed. There are some wonderful two parent families out there still after 100 years of the leftists taking over all the institutions who make sure their children are educated. Popular culture has a tight grip—but DOE has to be destroyed and all public textbooks. We do need a purge and this next President will have to do it or we will lose another generation.

Having spent my entire life volunteering and serving in the LDS Church, I can say that your Post reflects gross lies, distortions and blatant falsehoods too numerous to respond to with an iPhone.

It is one thing to disagree with doctrine, it is quite another to lie to deceive.

What is incorrect?

I can say that your Post reflects gross lies, distortions and blatant falsehoods too numerous to respond to with an iPhone.

LOL...best use of a EXCuse I've ever seen...so, either pick one or two "distortions and blatant falsehoods" that your iPhone can handle..or find a computer. And, furnish non-mormon links to source your talking points please.

It is one thing to disagree with doctrine, it is quite another to lie to deceive.

You might want to keep the "lying to deceive" in mind.

Some people on FR have learned their lessons well. very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zA-rZQB-xQ

CALLINGS

Total Articles: 10

In addition to regular church work Mormons are given what are called "Callings". These callings can be teaching the primary children, Elders Quorum President, Bishops, and even janitors. When particular positions are necessary to fill in the local Mormon Wards, Mormon authority figures meet and decide who will best fit that position. A calling is then extended to that Mormon member and the member may choose whether or not to accept the calling. Mormons are taught that rejecting callings is the same as rejecting Jesus Christ. In recent years the Mormon Church has been laying off paid workers who clean Mormon Ward Houses and Church Office Buildings - and replacing them with callings - a source of free labor.

Thursday, Jan 1, 2004, at 02:35 AM Is It Ok For Mormons To Not Accept Church Callings? Original Author(s): Deconstructor CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

Here's what an apostle said in a recent General Conference:

"I often hear about members who refuse Church callings or accept callings and fail to fulfill their responsibilities. Some are not committed and faithful. It has always been so. But this is not without consequence."

"The Savior spoke of the contrast between the faithful and the unfaithful in three great parables recorded in the 25th chapter of Matthew.... And when the Lord came in His glory, He separated the sheep, who had served Him and their fellowmen, from the goats, who had not. Only those who had "done it unto one of the least of these my brethren" were set on His right hand to inherit the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world."

"My brothers and sisters, if you are delinquent in commitment, please consider who it is you are refusing or neglecting to serve when you decline a calling or when you accept, promise, and fail to fulfill. I pray that each of us will follow this inspired declaration:"

"There's surely somewhere a lowly place In earth's harvest fields so wide Where I may labor through life's short day For Jesus, the Crucified. (Hymns, no. 270)"

Jesus showed the way. Even though He shrank from the bitter path that led through Gethsemane and Calvary, He submissively said to the Father, "Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done". "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" We need to remember the purpose of our service to one another. If it were only to accomplish some part of His work, God could dispatch "legions of angels," as Jesus taught on another occasion. But that would not achieve the purpose of the service He has prescribed. We serve God and our fellowmen in order to become the kind of children who can return to live with our heavenly parents.

- Dallin H. Oaks, "I'll Go Where You Want Me to Go," October 2002 General Conference, Ensign, Nov. 2002, Page 67

Now what is Dallin Oaks really saying here?

1. Refusing callings is not without "consequences." 2. Members who refuse callings are like the goats who do not inheret the kingdom. 3. Refusing callings is paramount to being unfaithful to "Jesus, the Crucified." 4. Members should just be submissive like Jesus and say "not my will, but thine, be done." 5. You could lose your soul for not accepting church callings. 6. Members serve in callings in order to be the kind of "children" who will return to heaven.

And they say Mormonism is not a manipulative cult?

Tuesday, Jan 4, 2005, at 02:57 AM Here Are Some Short Stories From Mormons Who Did Not Accept Callings. Original Author(s): Anonymous CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

- - - - - I have a funny story about my former bishop. He's the type of guy that wanted to be a bishop-to climb the priesthood ladder. A real jerk. He never wanted to look infallable so was always trying to cover his butt. Anyway, my DH was asked to be a scout leader and reluctantly accepted the calling. After about a month, he went to see the bishop to tell him that he just couldn't be a scout leader because of some really bad experiences he had as a boy in scouts. He was immediately released. A few months later I was in the bishop's office asking to be released from my callings and the bishop said, "You know Poopstone, when your husband asked to be released from his calling I immediately felt a comfirmation from the spirit that it was the right thing and with you I'm just not feeling that confirming spirit. I'm going to have to take it to the Lord." I'm sitting there thinking, "If you're so in tune with the spirit, why the hell did you call him in the first place!" He always acted like he was so righteous. He came across as the most fake person I'd met. - - - - - How's about the old 'ward greeters' calling? Was anyone else ever THAT highly esteemed? Then there was the nursery calling. My child was only about 10 months old or so. I told him I couldn't do it because I had to tend to my VERY ACTIVE child, and that DH couldn't watch him because of his calling teaching SS. He suggested that I let the 16 & 17 year olds watch him for me while I was in there. Yeah, I'm sure I'd do that with my first-born, as a still-nervous mom. I didn't even know any of them! I'm sure God had such a plan in mind. He was very pushy about it, and really angered me. I still turned it down. - - - - - After my first child was born, the bishopric decided that my wife and I should be teaching during the same hour of church. One of the counselors told me they were giving DH a calling in the primary while I was teaching in Sunday School. I looked at him and asked him who was supposed to be taking care of our new baby during that hour. He suggested my parents (who lived in the ward). I asked who was suppose to watch the baby when my parents were gone (about every six weeks). He suggested one of the primary presidency. I realized the hints weren't working so I said "Come on Doug. That isn't going to work." Now mind you, this is the ward I grew up in and he was the father of a girl that I grew up with. I kissed that daughter in a play as a teen. He scared me to death as a teen. He looked back at me and said "Yeah, you're right." - - - - - A few months back I had a conversation with a friend who was now the Stake YW pres. We were talking about this "Divine Insperation of callings". She shared with me that prior to her getting called as Stake YW Pres that she was "Called" to be her wards early morning seminary teacher. She went home and discussed this call with her husband. The next day she returned to talk to the stake pres about the calling and said that it would not work for her and her family. She shared with the SP that the reason why she couldn't do this was the following:

1. She had young children 4,8,15,17.

2. Her husband worked out of town during the week.

The stake president said that he was very dissapointed that she was turning this call down. He said that she needed to just "FIND A BABYSITTER" for her 8 and 4 year old or bring them to the church. AT 6am. NOT! Or leave them at home alone. It's only for an hour or so.

She was upset, however, this was not the icing on the cake yet. The next sunday, one of the high councillors came up to her and said how disgusted he was with the fact that she would turn down a calling from god. She looked at him and said that he had know clue on what the situation was like in the walls of her home. HC told her that he was impressed that she was the next seminary teacher and that his priesthood power was correct. (THE NERVE). - - - - - When I was called to be YW pres my kids were 5 and 2, dh works shiftwork so he wasn't around in the evenings to watch the kids. I hate to pay a babysitter if you do church stuff. Also, I just had my third child, I begged, threatened and finally ended up not being even able to do my calling because I had such a hard high risk pregnancy. The funny thing that the bishopbric said was, well, we know that you are in the hospital on bedrest, but you have a phone next to you. Just do your calling over the phone, plan camp... Was my blood ever boiling. DH finally exploded and that was that I was released. The ironic thing was that even though I had my baby 3 1/2 weeks early and I was released they still wanted me to drive 2 hours with my premie to camp to help out! Only a week after I delivered. What the hell?! - - - - - A couple of months back, the Bishop dropped by the house to call DW as the new YW president. He gave this whole dramatic speech about how he knew this is where the Lord wanted her to serve, how he'd been inspired to call her to the position, blah, blah, blah. After she accepted, he went to the stake president to request that DW be released from her rather minor calling as stake newspaper editor so she could serve as YW president. The stake president, despite much pleading and begging on the part of the Bish, absolutely refused to release her, claiming that it would be too difficult to find and train a replacement. So after his big speech, the Bishop had to come crawling back to DW and actually rescind the calling. The bish was completely rattled. DW was totally pissed. Meanwhile, I'm in the background with an evil glint in my eye, rubbing my hands together, and muttering "Eeexsellent" under my breath, because this little sequence of events really gave DW a big push along the path to partial NOMdom. - - - - - During my two years at the Lord's graduate business school, I was a studying maniac. I was valedictorian at my undergraduate college, and I would be damned if anyone else was going to do better than I in graduate school. For two years, I slept four hours a night, took NoDoz (no coffee because it would be against the WoW), and ran on adrenaline. During the last year my wife was pregnant with a very difficult pregnancy, throwing up on average a dozen times a day for the first six months, but being an insensitive slob (I've learned since then), I kept studying so I could graduate at the top of my class. My oldest child was born about two weeks before the end of the program. I got a job out of the area and got settled. Just as we were getting settled, I received a call from someone in the stake. He asked me to meet him at the church the next sunday. I did. Because the Lord told the stake president, whom I hadn't met, that I was the one to be a seminary teacher in our area, I was being called to be a seminary teacher. Oh, the best part was that they were going to pay me like $25 a week. I was of the mindset that I shouldn't be turning down callings, but I could not imagine why they would call me, a recent college grad at his first real job, with a little baby, to be a seminary teacher. I told him I would think about it. I went home and talked to my wife about it. I figured that it would cost me about four hours a day to do this. For me the calling would have been extremely stressful. My wife and I decided, that there was no way that this would work with our family situation. When I talked to the guy again, he asked me, "Are you going to serve the Lord or are you going to disappoint him?" Guilt trip.... I turned down the calling, gratefully.

I had an amazing meeting as SS pres with the primary pres and the bishop. The primary presidency had fasted and prayed about where to hold the sharing time portion of primary. They were concerned about it because we were the late ward and the kids would be extra fidgity late in the day. They all had received unanimous confirmation from the Holy Ghost that it should be in the chapel. Confidently she told the bishop that because the HG had directed them to have sharing time in the chapel, she wanted to work out the logistics for classrooms, etc. The bishop told her he had to think about it for a minute. He was quiet for a minute, then told her that the HG told him that wasn't correct. The PP started ranting about how his decision was a decision of a man and not inspired, blah, blah. He then went into defensive mode and started talking about how busy his law practice was (very relevant) as well as his calling as the bishop. She told him he was wrong, but if he wanted to decide something that was wrong based upon the wisdom of man, she would submit to his human decision. Then she got up and left. That was a very inspirational meeting.... As the crack in my TBM testimony grew larger and larger.... - - - - - This sounds very much like what happened with our ward's YW Pres. a few years back, when I was a counselor in the bishopric. Her husband was getting an MBA in night school. He was also the ward mission leader, which took him away on other nights. Anyhow, YW Pres. brought her toddler son to YW with her, and he sat with the YW as they did whatever it is they do. When she had her second child, she asked not to be released, and she assured us that she could bring both of her kids to YW with her. During the bishopric discussion of her request, I said, "well, this whole thing about her bringing the boys to young womens raises an obvious question." The bishop shot back that her husband was in school and couldn't be expected to watch the kids while she did church stuff. She stayed in YW, and she brought the kids.

Saturday, May 14, 2005, at 09:42 AM The Mormon Treadmill -- Female Style! Any Of This Sound Familiar Ladies? Original Author(s): Anonymous CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

As a "Mother in Zion" in Mormonism, the church kept me so busy with demands on my time that I always felt like I had a wet suit on and someone was timing me -- shouting to go faster, faster, faster!!

Between the callings, (for me it was usually three or more and for a time it was seven!),one of the major ones for many years was conducting music in Sunday School, Sacrament and Primary and pitch hitting in Relief Society, and producing, writing, and directing Road Shows, besides teaching classes, Ward Bulletin editor for years...then of course, there were the pregnancies - (and miscarriages) the children; thank goodness they came one at a time!

As a woman I was taught to: support the Priesthood (which meant getting the boys and men to their meetings properly dressed and on time) in addition to taking care of the house: doing the laundry, ironing, cleaning the house, fighting the battle to get the children to help with chores, shopping, (which included buying wheat, rice, powered milk, honey, peanut butter, jam and other items in bulk and attempting to keep a supply of food--never could manage a 1 year supply).... sewing (I made quilts with the children's help, dresses for the girls, and for myself and many other items) cooking three meals a day, mixing the milk with powered milk to make it go further, grinding my own wheat,(the children loved cracked wheat cereal) making whole wheat bread, making my own yogurt, making my own nine grain healthy cookies, reading the scriptures, preparing lessons, and music doing genealogy, writing in a journal, singing in the choir, doing Visiting Teaching, going the temple at least once a month (finding baby sitters!) making extra food to take to a member who was ill or for a funeral, doing "crafts" to decorate my home, making personalized cards, performing with my musical instrument, giving music lessons (for 25 years) setting the proper tone in the home - that was drilled into me, that it was my responsibility to be in a correct righteous frame of mind, family prayer morning and night, (Ok, we often could not get them all together for this one) Family Home Evenings, (the kids hated this one), but Family Council was a success, getting everyone to the dentist and doctor regularly, working in their required shots for school, getting the homework done and supervised teaching the children correct principles so they can govern themselves, (ya right!) dealing with the children's "free agency" growing up, which meant putting out fires constantly with the schools and sometimes the law~! eventually working part time and later for the Church, supporting the children in their sports, music, and school events..and on and on and on....! with very little time left get to know my non-member neighbors (every member a missionary!) or attend any non-Mormon event but it happened, all though in a very small scale. That role of women in Mormonism leaves you feeling there is never a time when you get the message that you are OK.

If you are OK, you have to instill it in yourself and fight like hell to keep it!

Fortunately, I came from a long line of very independent people, and was a quick study and could take a very liberal path through Mormonism and teach that kind of independence to my children.

The Mormon Treadmill kept me running constantly, and sleep deprived for over 15 years. All I ever wanted for gifts was 10 nights of uninterrupted sleep!

Amazingly I never got depressed, I just could not work it into my schedule or do it RIGHT!

I always felt like I was being told to do things better, longer and faster and in different clothes!

There was the constant contradiction of "family first" but in actuality, the church was first and the only way to rationalize that was to say your family is the church so therefore, it all comes first.

I certainly learned a lot of valuable skills and somehow managed to keep my sense of humor - well, most of the time anyway.

Now, in retrospect, I am grateful for the Mormon Treadmill and all that I learned. I developed skills I did not know I had, gained self respect and self confidence even though it was assaulted at every turn if you did not fit in perfectly. I have my family because of Mormonism.

I know I am not unique in my experiences as a mother in Zion, as we used to say!

Most of you women can make similar lists.

I made this list for myself because I needed to remember the "good" stuff, and remind myself to have an attitude of gratitude so I do not get caught up in being a victim; bitter, or hurt, or hateful about my life in Mormonism. I have much to be thankful for. Much that enriched my life, Much I learned.

But, I know why I left. And that is very simple. It was the truth, which is always simple, although, it was scary, and very weird when I began my trek out of Mormonism.

I saw the red flags for years, the things that did not make sense, did not add up, and eventually, interestingly enough, it was some very outrageous events, and out of order priesthood men who finally got me to STAY HOME long enough to disconnect from the programming! I know that was not their intent, but that is what happened.

Then began the study and research and as soon as I realized that the core was rotten, Joseph Smith told a huge whopper, I started laughing! OH MY GOSH! That conniving little bugger! He was a real piece of work, plagiarizing everything he could get his hands on and claiming visions! What a hoot! And look what he started and Brigham Young took over! Amazing that people still join the church and stick to it. This is the funniest religion!

I had ditched the Holy Drawers-Joseph Jammies-regulation 24/7 skivvies earlier, now it was a matter of respecting my own thinking, my ability to be an independent thinker! Now I have a good laugh at the God of Regulation Skivvies!

No more silly rules, dogma, covenants (made on fraud and therefore not binding), commandments, scripture reading, prayer, lists of things to do to serve the Lord, etc. No wonder none of it worked! It was a fraud. When they talk about the fruit of the tree - well! Bingo! The fruit is rotten too!

Now I give back. I am passionate about FULL DISCLOSURE and informed choice and consent.

I have been away from day to day life as a Mormon for several years and nearly forgotten what that Mormon Treadmill was like, and I am grateful for forgetting !

Now,I chart my own course, plan my own day, use my time as I see fit, with no fear or guilt or regrets! I can look back and have a good laugh (and sometimes a good cry) and see that I did much the same things that religiously immersed other females did as mothers, and not feel alone.

Do I still think like a Mormon? Probably, sometimes, but it is less and less as each year passes. If I kept anything from my years as a Mormon, the adage to love one another still finds it's place at the top of my list of how to live my life.

I would be interested in how other women, now exMormons deal with the Mormon Treadmill and how they feel about it now?

Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005, at 08:08 AM Why Should I Clean Their Church? Original Author(s): Anonymous CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

As of yet, I have not resigned, because I didn't feel that it was my problem; however, after a phone call this weekend I am more resolved on pursuing that route.

I have lived in this new area for two years, and maybe attended church once 2 years ago after being tracked down by the missionaries (I'm sure my parents sent them). My husband is Catholic--as is his family. I was raised Mormon but left the church in my college years (rather they left me, and I chose to let them go). Enough history.

We have received what I feel to be mild forms of harassment culminating to what transpired this past weekend. My inlaws were babysitting for my husband and me (at our house), when the church called insisting that we come clean their building. My inlaws wanted to know what church would be calling our house telling us to come clean it for them. With not a small amount of humiliation I was left to explain to them the new policy on cleaning as I understand it (since my 60-something year old parents do it on a regular basis--filling in for people who don't show up). I feel mortified that they would feel it was their right to call my house and tell my inlaws what I should be doing with my spare time. Are the members so lazy that they are counting on inactives to do their sh*t work for them? Even if I were an active member, I would not agree on that policy. Growing up, those jobs were given to people in dire needs of the extra income...and with this new policy, I feel it's taking money away from those who really need it just so the church can further build up its wealth. I can only hope that these people feel resentful enough for being expected to now do for free what they were once paid for.

Thursday, Oct 13, 2005, at 09:24 AM The Dreaded Cannery Assignments Original Author(s): Anonymous CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

I've been thinking about the cannery assignments. You know, the monthly or semi-monthly trips out to the cannery to spend a few hours canning and packaging food as a consecration of your time and effort to the Empi-- er... Kingdom.

You sit in Elders' Quorum or High Priests Group and get guilt-tripped into taking valuable vacation or even sick time to go in the middle of the day to can wheat. You then spend hours doing the work with the idea that you're doing something to help the needy.

Then you get back and are presented with a cannery purchase sheet. The Stake is encouraging everyone to stock up on their food storage, so you dutifully sign up for giant, heavy boxfuls of stuff, about 30% (generously speaking) of which you'll ever actually use before it spoils. You then cut a check for your canned loot that exceeds your weekly grocery tab.

Sitting back, you realize that you are paying the Church for canned goods that they are getting assembled, shipped, and distributed for free. Follow the profit, indeed.

Continuing in this vein, I passed by the ward bulletin board last Sunday during Sunday School and saw a sheet of paper with requests for missionaries printed by the Church. In it, I saw missionary listings for places like the Church Office Building, Church Publications, and so forth. Furthermore, the "missionary" positions were actually jobs that would normally command healthy salaries. I realized that not only is the Church getting people to volunteer for jobs they could get paid very good money to do (and, most likely, were once held by people pulling Church salaries), but these "missionaries" are actually paying several hundred dollars a month at least for the privilege... and without the benefit of OHSA or HPPA protections or health benefits that employers usually have to provide by law.

It makes me sick to my stomach. Moreover, it makes me realize that consecration, as defined by the Mormon Church, is a carte blanche license for the few to profit off of the sweat and labor of the many in the name of divinity.

Monday, Oct 31, 2005, at 08:38 AM The Church Consumed Every Day Of The Week Original Author(s): Anonymous CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

When I was raising children several years ago, before the three hour Sunday stretch, The church consumed every single day of the week (early 70's).

Monday was Family Home evening --We didn't have it so we did other things and felt guilty all evening

Tuesday was Relief Society in the morning. This took the entire morning.

Wednesday was mutual (I taught)(now called young women's)

Thursday the children went to Primary.

Friday we were obliged to spend the entire evening at our ward helping with the chocolate project or be to some activity, or scout project or activity

Saturday was either Stake Leadership or we continued on with the chocolate project. Or go out and work on the church farm.

Sunday was church in the morning and church at night.

Once a month, homemaking meeting was an all day affair

There was also Seminary every morning and we always heard how we should be scripture reading every morning.

I also usually had at least two church callings and in-between all that I was supposed to do visiting teaching and have visiting teachers come to my house so they could go back and report that my dishes weren't done or that I was still in my nighty at 3:00 in the afternoon.

It was exhausting. It exhausts me just writing about it.

Anyone else remember the good ole days?

Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 08:12 AM It Seems That The Church Calls Very Rich And Successful Members To Be Stake Presidents Original Author(s): 100% Tithing Free CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

When I lived in the Rochester, New York area the stake president was CEO of Eastman Kodak. Our stake president in Denver, Colorado was a very weathly oil industrialist that loved to show off his $6 million home. Our other stake presidents in Boise, Idaho and Sandy, Utah were both successful medical proffessionals who made sevral hundred thousand a year.

What's interesting is the wards in these stakes were ran by some bishops who were practically starving. It's when I decided the bishop really wasn't a leadership position but a position the church would throw on any sucker who was willing to take the calling. I mean I saw a guy who just lost his job with five children made bishop. My dad who spent two years working in the Church Office Building as a volunteer missionary said he found out the church leaders don't even want to talk to bishops, it's the stake presidents who matter.

Now look at the new 70's they call. Most if not all are successful business men. I would say the lower tier of real church leadership is the stake president position and everybody below that is a nobody including the bishop. It's the stake presidents who are on the outer orbit of the inner circle of church power. They are mostly successful people who seem to like to have their egos stroked.

One trait of stake presidents I've noticed is they ask you what you do for a living and if it's an important well paid position, the warm up to you but if you are struggling they seem to blow you off. I remember when I first started my business the stake president didn't give me the time of day but 15 years later when I was making some good money, boy did I suddenly get treated different. Anyone who doesn't think money or position matters in the church has their head up you know where.

I think the church wants rich, successful leaders now. Why? You have to stroke the ego of rich people and give them a position of authority to make being in the church worth it. Make these people a Sunday school teacher and they are eventually going to bolt. So the church appeals to their narcasism. Many love their callings. Watch how much ass kissing the richest guy in the stake gets when he becomes Stake President. They guy is willing to donate a lot of money to the church just for the privelege of enjoying the power he holds over sevral thousand people.

The Mormon church really is nothing more than a inner club of narcomaniacs running masses of sheep. It's much like corporate America these days isn't it? Many are called but few are chosen is right.

Tuesday, Mar 17, 2009, at 08:36 AM Without Church Callings Original Author(s): Lost CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

I was wondering this Sunday what so many people in church would do if they didn't have their church callings.

Do members come to church to take the sacrament, attend meetings, learn about the gospel, and visit friends?

Well, not exactly.

Take the sacrament...Yes. But why? What covenants are they renewing? Who are they serving each week...god or themselves?

Attend meetings? Yes...infinite leadership meetings. Not their regular meetings. When is the last time you saw a member of the Bishopric in a Sunday School class? And when is the last time at a service project you actually saw a leader do any work? The last time we hard a yard cleanup for a sister in our ward, the leader spent the whole time talking to her and holding up his rake. He has set up the service project, so his work was done, you see.

Learning about the gospel? Well, no. The leaders are too busy administering it. Besides, they already know it all.

Visit friends? Well, no. Talking is now frowned upon, especially before and after sacrament.

So why are do people come to church? I think its because of their church callings. It is who they are. It defines them in the context of their church existance. It gives them something to do so they can say to themselves: "I worked hard this Sunday, so I'm know a little closer to making it to the Celestial Kingdom."

How many leaders have you seen would betruely happy as Sunday School teachers or primary workers? How often have you seen that ever happen? And if does, they are always "Bishop" or "President", right? But they will tell you from the pulpit these are the most important callings. Fine...why is it that you never see them doing these important callings??

Anyway, I would propose a test. There are no longer any church callings. The church hires a manager who simply collects tithing and sends it to Salt Lake and is responsible for building management. Of course this is ridiculous, but if it were possible...how many people do you suppose would still come to church?

It would at least stop the: Brother Johnson, 1st Counselor in the Sunday School Presidency, will now be our concluding speaker today. Brother Johnson is a bla bla bla.

Hmmmm. Nice to have dreams....

Friday, Aug 6, 2010, at 07:59 AM Why Do They Call It "Voluteer" When It Is An Assigned Duty? Original Author(s): JoD3:360 CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

Do people volunteer to teach Primary?

No.

Do people volunteer to be Bishop?

No.

Do people volunteer to be Relief Society President?

No.

ScoutMaster, Sunday School Teacher, Elders Quorum Secretary?

Nope.

But every one of these people will recieve a "calling" which really an assigned position where they will work for free.

A calling in the truest sense is where you feel that you have a calling, a purpose, a desire to do a certain thing and you prepare to become that person.

In mormondom, if you feel prompted to do ministerial labor you may have to wait years before being 'called' into something like that. Nobody applies to become Bishop. It is true that some are truly called and luckily get assigned to a position where they really shine.

If you were to feel prompted to become a minister in another church, you train for it, go to school and get a degree and eventually a congregation. Or you can volunteer to serve in some capacity in the vocation of your choice until you are able to train for higher duties in that field.

So when people talk about volunteer labors in the church, it is really fulfilling an assigned role. And you can tell whether someone has a 'calling' or if they are fulfilling an assigned role.

Wednesday, Aug 11, 2010, at 07:53 AM The Bishop Has The Mantle Of Discernment Original Author(s): JoD3:360 CALLINGS -Guid- ↑

The Bishop thought that assigning the new member to the Primary would be a good idea since he [according to him]had prayed for confirmation. The gentleman was soon released from Primary after several complaints about making girls sit in his lap.

Another Bishop said he was so happy to see the newlyweds and gave the wife a blessing of comfort and blessed her that her influence was good on the husband, and that they would go to the temple to become an eternal family. The hubby drained the bank account and disappeared.

The same Bishop was called by a grieving family to give a deathbed blessing to their loved one who was given only a few days to live after succumbing to a lengthy illness. He blessed the woman saying that she had led a good life and that there was nothing to fear, among other things. With tears in his eyes he shook hands with the family and left to make arrangements. Not long after the doctor arrived to say that they were going to begin Dialysis as an emergency procedure...three weeks later she was released from the hospital and lived another four years. (in GD class he openly took credit for giving her a blessing and voila here she is-- her Son in law had harsh words for him later)

When I was getting set apart as a councilor in the Bishopric, the SP had to be stopped and reminded that I was not yet a High Priest...without a vote of the conference and without the knowledge of any except us, I was ordained a HP and then set apart.

The new Bishop approached me after had been recently been released from the Bishopric, and said that he had submitted my name to the SP for a calling to be High Priest Group Leader, assuring me that they needed someone of my spiritual strength, and steadfastness. At that point it became necessary to tell my Bishop that I was struggling with my testimony and that it would have to be asssigned to someone else.

The same Bishop at a members funeral decided that it would be a good idea to spread the gospel by announcing that in order for the missionaries to come visit the people (mostly nonmembers) that they would be collecting names and addresses, and that they did, deeply offending many of the grieving family. Some went on to write to the Bishop stating their disgust at his use of their moment of weakness to further his church. Net gain- 0.

Why isn't the "father of the ward" any more inspired than us regular fathers?

www.mormoncurtain.com

“Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

Without a hint of irony, a well-to-do TBM asked, “Does any other church have a welfare program like ours?”

He then proceeded to buy the food that the church claims it gives to the poor. Most people don’t know that the church sells most of its welfare products to members for their “year’s food storage.” The church taught members to store food in order to secure a market for its welfare program products. Since the products are made with free labor, the church makes a killing.

The TBM in question than asked, “how can people think that this church is a cult?”

I wonder.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Mia ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 03:28PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

The church “welfare” farm my father ran, sold 100% of its product to smuckers.

They paid non member migrant workers to harvest the crop.

The rest of the work was done for free by the members.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 03:29PMAnswer: No, thank gawd. They do better. (n/t)

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: wittyname ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 03:32PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

I don’t know... do other churches send expired and/or tainted medical supplies and filthy, stained clothing and linens as contributions to relief missions?

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: caedmon ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 03:47PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

No. Many give more.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: helamonster ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 04:11PMCatholic Charities is the largest organization of its kind in the world.

Please note, I am NOT endorsing catholicism; I grew up in it, and was lucky to escape it, as I was lucky to escape mormonism.

But the catholic charity efforts are so much bigger and better than those of the mormons, comparing them is laughable.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Rebeckah ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 10:41PMI am curious about your experience with Catholicism that makes you say you were “lucky” to escape.

Granted, I’m not advocating the religion as it’s as false as all of the others but it’s not like it’s hard to leave — is it? I was baptized as an infant, went through catechism as a teenager and opted not to be confirmed. My father was disappointed and my grandmother still wishes I were in the “right” church but no one tried to force me to stay.

Just curious — no judgement intended.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: bignevermo ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 08:33AMyeah it is not like the priest will show

up at your doorstep or send others demanding an audience! it is real easy to “escape”...just stop showing up and you will hear nary a peep! maybe a parent sometimes or a sibling... but no one is gonna “lovebomb” ya... dangit i would have liked some free cookies! :)

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: helamonster ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 10:46AMThere’s a VERY STRONG cultural element to catholicism that is much more...

than anything you’ll find in the morg.

It’s not coincidental that Jesuits claim “give us a child before he is eight, and he’s ours for life”.

Let’s leave it at that.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Misfit ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 04:14PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

Red Cross International isn’t exactly a church, but they spend about $3 billion dollars every year giving aid, or about the same as what the LDS church spends on a shopping mall. And Red Cross publishes its financial information, so you know exactly where every dollar is being spent.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Carol Y. ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 04:21PMShow the TBM this site.

http://www.umcor.org It’s run by the Methodists.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: knotheadusc ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 06:39PMRe: Show the TBM this site.

I used to work with UMCOR when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer!

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Carol Y. ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 03:50AMThat’s cool! (n/t)

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 04:48PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

The Salvationists in their army do it better

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: helamonster ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 04:49PMWhy does the Salvation Navy never get any press?

You’d think with the work they do...

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: zeezrom ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 05:52PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

“”Does any other church have a welfare program like ours?”

The greatest welfare programme here in the UK is the British Welfare Social Security System funded by working people and administered by the Government.

The LDS welfare system doesn’t compare and will never compare on that scale.

This UK welfare system is so generous that some of my ward LDS members were on it and paid tithe to the LDS cult/church from it.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: blindmag ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 06:39PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

As I rely on it and my paratns do I would say thats defintly thye case. There were times as a child I didnt have enough to eat or good clothes(clothes without holes in or that wernt passed on sevral times and 40 years old) but thats more to do with the fact that my paratns paid tytheing before anything else.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: matt ( )
Date: December 19, 2011 06:01PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM “No, they do it far, far better.” (n/t)

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: fenodyree ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 05:55AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

e.g. my church is next to a mall which gives US money to support our lunch club.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: deco ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 06:59AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

It is my understanding that both Exxon and Walmart give more of their net worth, percentage wise, to charity every year than LDS Inc does.

Someday society will wake up and understand that LDS Inc is not only a greedy corporation, but also a dangerous one.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Jesus Smith ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 08:45AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

yes, see my links below for the Walmart/Exxon amounts.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: ladybug ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 07:10AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

AS I was on my way out church welfare becamea problem for me. A couple of things happened.

First, a lady in RS told a story about a neighbor who fell on hard times. Don’t remember the story but it might have been a house fire or such. Said she had went to the church to see if church could help them in some way and was told it was for members only.But, she could ask for donations and was doing that now.

Shortly after that (I was in RS presidency at the time) I had to get a food order for a couple on church welfare. Between my schedule and theirs, I ended up going to their house about 9:30pm. The next day my elderly neighbor asked where I was off to late at night.

Explained about church welfare and had to get order in on Tues or they would not get their food on Fri. so, had to get it done. She said to me, “If that ever does happen where they can’t get their food send them (or you can go for them) to xyz (local churh here in town)church. They have a food pantry and they give out food to all in need.I asked if you had to be
a member and she said no, just need food!

Hmmmm....

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Greyfort ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 07:28AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

When I worked for the LDS Church, I was constantly embarrassed when I had to turn away hungry people. I just stammered and said, we weren’t set up to help the public. Then I’d send them to the Salvation Army.

One said, “Oh, I see. You just help your own, right?” I honestly just nodded and said, “Yes.”

One guy looked so hungry, I was afraid he was going to faint right in my office. He said he was sick and he wasn’t leaving until he got some money.

I didn’t have any with me, so I gave him the change from the sanitary napkins dispensers. It had been sitting in the drawer for years, from before they stopped charging for those things. I think it came to about $5.

When my boss came back, I told him what had happened and said I’d put the money back. He angrily replied, “Yes, you will!”

After that, he just locked the door, so that people couldn’t wander in. They’d be knocking on the door, seeing me just sitting there, ignoring them. It was embarrassing.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Soft Machine ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 08:05AMIn France, where I live, the largest charity is... secular

which means atheist.

It’s called “Le Secours Populaire”, meaning “the People’s Assistance”.

No, you DON’T have to be religious to be good.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: anon for this ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 08:21AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

The pride that Mormons have of the welfare program is about promoting independence and making people self reliant. These are noble ideals but how things really work can be shocking.

My mother is TBM and loyal to the church. She paid tithing from her childhood and added fast offerings to her donations as an adult. All of her life she has been giving her money to the church. When my parents divorced she was self reliant. She went to college, got a degree and went to work to finish raising my younger siblings.

She became a middle-aged single mother with a college degree and post graduate classes and training but she was new in the workforce. Her income was not high enough so she was working two, sometimes three jobs.

In her 50s the blood pressure problems began. Her doctor told her that she had to quit the extra jobs to reduce the risk of stroke or death. She could not make enough income at that point to pay all of her bills and put food on the table. So she went to the bishop for food. Her situation was temporary because she was rising on the pay scale in her main job but needed assistance until the pay raises came.

The bishop insisted that if she got help with food she must work at the cannery to earn it. She made it clear that the only reason she came to him was because her doctor told her she could not work so much. The bishop did not care. “Self reliance” was more important than having a stroke or dying. She was self reliant until the blood pressure problems. She would be self reliant in a few months when the pay raises came. The bishop did not care, could not see beyond the “noble ideals” of the LDS welfare program. Do other churches have untrained clergy that do this to their most faithful members?

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Jesus Smith ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 08:43AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

Check out this:
http://providentliving.org/welfare/pdf/WelfareFactSheet.pdf
listing LDS as giving about $330Million over 25 years to humanitarian aid.

Now compare, run of the mill consumer corporation giving:

http://philanthropy.com/article/Interactive-Tracking-Big/128359/

Walmart even beats out LDSinc in donations. They gave avgs of ~$300M each year from 2007-2009. That’s just a little short of the amount LDSinc gave for all 25 years from 1985 to 2010 for humanitarian aid.

Here are companies that are smaller than the size of LDSinc and gave more in charity percent than LDSinc.

http://philanthropy.com/article/Chart-Companies-That-in-2010/128358/

I’d rather give my money to Target or Walmart. At least they use more of their profits for charity than the LDS church.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2011 08:44AM by Jesus Smith.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Twinker ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 09:01AMThe math has been done several times. Their $300,000,000

Their $300,000,000 over twenty five years for 13,000,000 members amounts to less that $5.00 per person per year.

It’s possible that TSCC church assumes that members don’t know the difference between a million and a billion. And they surely have no idea what TSCC takes in in a year in tithing.

In the 1920s my widowed grandmother was raising two children. The Church made a show of turning down govt. aid saying that the Church helped its members. My Grandmother wasn’t a member. At the same time when she applied for a schoolhouse janitor’s job so that she might feed her children, one of the people on the deciding board was known to have said, “A woman shouldn’t be out working. Her place is in the home.”

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Twinker ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 09:08AMLDS Charity - an oxymoron! (n/t)

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Stray Mutt ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 08:47AMAnd there we have it, ladies and gentlemen...

...proof that a person can be wealthy and ignorant at the same time.

Becoming wealthy requires expertise in a rather limited area of knowledge, which doesn’t necessarily require the first clue about how things work outside that area of expertise. Combine that with a blinding devotion to an information-controlling cult, and, voila, captainmoroni’s TBM acquaintance.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2011 08:48AM by Stray Mutt.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: anagrammy ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 09:17AMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

This is an excellent topic to bring up.

When I was an investigator, I was a single mother with four little boys. I had just purchased a house and was struggling financially. The missionaries OFFERED me financial help paying my bills and they coughed up almost $1,000.

So when they tell people they only help members, they are not telling the truth (surprise!)

The LDS church uses their money to promote themselves. It is a reward to steady tithepayers, provided they need it for short term AND WILL SOON BE TITHEPAYERS again. They must be fairly young to have this pencil out.

This principle can be seen in the refusal of the church to help old destitute members no matter how long they have been tithepayers. The church is only willing to take their service and their assets (free estate planning!)

I’ll never forget the former stake president who died? in Heber sick, alone and lonely back in the seventies. He wrote a letter saying that he devoted his life to the church, blah, blah, blah, to the exclusion of his family and now he hardly knew his grandchildren and no one comes to visit. No one to take him to the doctor or to help him buy groceries. He said the LDS church sucked him dry and threw him away and he bitterly regretted that he chose an organization before his family.

If you are reading this and are an LDS member lurking, think twice about making “the gospel” the center of your life. We are not here to live for a better “hereafter,” we are here to help one another live a better today, and that starts at home with your TIME.

Best

Anagrammy

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Anon for this one ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 12:48PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

I brought this up with my relative who works in the COB just to see what he would say, and he never said a word about the commercial aspect of the ranches and orchards; he basically implied that it was ALL for helping members and said that they had to do “something, maybe helping to clean the church” as a token of their thanks.

So there you have it, from a guy working in the COB; I would count that as being an official statement from the church.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: Stray Mutt ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 01:18PMThe Good Samaritan vs. helping “those worthy of it”

The LDS church rarely just gives without conditions. Does the person seeking help deserve it? Can they pay it back or do something in return? And so forth. Meanwhile, the Good Samaritan just helped the stranger in need, without asking questions, without expecting anything in return — because it was the decent, humane thing to do.

ChurchCo posted signs at the entrance to their Main Street Land Grab Plaza of Exclusion saying not to give to panhandlers, but to give to established charities instead. (Hint hint, to the LDS church). Meanwhile, a few buildings away, my sister worked as the receptionist at the church welfare department. Her main function was to turn people away, to refer them to their bishop, who we all know make up their own terms of aid — with it being very rare for one to use the Good Samaritan’s standards.

Options: Reply•Quote
Posted by: kmackie ( )
Date: December 20, 2011 02:01PMRe: “Do other churches help the poor like we do?” asks TBM

I now work in a poor community,have been exmo for almost 4 years now and was always aware that tssc only helped their own in this area,I now get help for people in straightened circumstances from the local evangelical church,salvation army and episcopalians,would’nt dream of asking tssc as I know what the answer would be,we had a young mum with 4 kids abandoned by her husband ( both polish living in scotland) and it was these churches along with people in the community that helped out,i was overwhelmed by the donations for this wee family,truly christlike charity,they also follow up on teh family by ringing me sometimes,this christmas they will have a food hamper and a voucher for tesco.

Options: Reply•Quote
Go to Topic: Previous•NextGo to: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log In

Go to: Forum List•Message List•Search•Log InSorry, you can’t reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.

(exmormon.org)

When Reagan was president several pastors of Christian churches got awards for feeding the poor and needy...

Unfortunately the Mormons do not feed the poor ...

they have conditions on help and even their own members have to pay back any type of aid...

Agreed——as another Freeper posted yesterday, we don’t need a placeholder in the White House this time around.

“Lying for the Lord”

The following was written by Ken Clark for MormonThink.com. Ken worked full time for the LDS Church Education System (CES) for 27 years. He also served as a bishop; a calling he enjoyed as much as full time instructor and Coordinator for the Church Education System. He loved (and still loves) the students and the ward members. His story can be found here.

Ken gave an excellent presentation on Lying for the Lord at the 2008 ExMormon Foundation Conference in Salt Lake City. Lying for the Lord on You Tube.

“The right to lie in the service of your own interests is highly valued and frequently exercised”-Nero Wolfe
I began this list when I was a full time employee of the LDS Church Education System (CES). I worked as a Seminary Principal/teacher, Institute teacher/Director, and Stake CES Coordinator from 1975 - 2002. My last assignment was brief. I signed a Letter of Agreement with CES to serve as the Director of the Pullman, Washington LDS Institute of Religion adjacent to Washington State University in July 2002. I resigned from CES a month later. I carry fond memories of the students, ward leaders and others I grew to respect in the LDS Church. I started this list in an effort to defend the church from its detractors. I was insulted that critics accused LDS church leaders of dishonesty. I “knew” the criticisms could not be true.

As an informal defender, I discovered that those accusing the church leaders of being dishonest sometimes had the facts on their side (when I took the time to check). I dealt with the cognitive dissonance by pointing out that (1) all organizations are run by humans and if you search hard enough, of course you’ll find a few isolated examples of deception; and (2) since the leaders are human, they will err on occasion. I guessed there may have been occasional isolated examples of premeditated deception but it was not a pattern or standard practice.

Sometimes I caught myself revealing less than the whole truth, or embellishing in order to defend the church. I noticed that other members often did the same thing. I gave myself permission to be slightly dishonest because I was defending God’s one true church; or so I reasoned. Eventually I decided to let the lives and sermons of the church leaders speak for themselves. If detractors were right some of the time, the church and I would deal with it.

I believed a list of prevarications presented in the proper context would prove that lying wasn’t actually lying. Instead the list would prove that a perceived lie was probably a misunderstanding, a remark out of context or a deliberate misinterpretation of historical events. My belief was that those who accused church leaders with deception were deceivers themselves; they twisted words and took remarks out of context. But as I read more church history my list grew, and at some point it occurred to me that a pattern of institutionalized deception had been established by Joseph Smith. Subsequent church leaders, including those who serve currently, followed Smith’s example of lying to protect the church. The growing evidence pointed to a standard practice.

Evidence presented in this essay establishes that when the church image or its leaders needed protection it was and is, okay to fib, deceive, distort, inflate, minimize, exaggerate, prevaricate or lie. You will read quotations by church leaders who admitted that deception is a useful tool to protect the church and its leaders “when they are in tight spot,” or “to beat the devil at his own game.” They admit engaging in moral gymnastics; that God approves of deception - if it’s done to protect the “Lord’s Church” or “the brethren” as the leaders are called.

I was stunned after I learned these uncomfortable truths. I had naively believed that when church leaders transgressed, they followed the required steps of repentance, as taught to members and investigators. I believed they had the courage to face their mistakes and confess their shortcomings, no matter what the consequences; to live the same standards they set for the members. I believed they were completely honest.

D. Michael Quinn called the use of deception by LDS church leaders, “theocratic ethics.” (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 112) Smith lied to protect himself or the church; which was an extension of himself. Dan Vogel in his excellent work, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, described Smith’s viewpoint; he was a pious deceiver. Smith used deception if in his mind; it resulted in a good outcome. Smith had Moroni, an ancient American prophet and custodian of the gold plates declare, “And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. ( Moroni 4:11-12). Translation: if deception was necessary to do good, or bring a soul to Christ, then it was worth it, as long as God approves. Smith believed he knew when God approved of lying.

Smith believed God also approved of murder if it was for a good cause. He wrote in the Book of Mormon that Nephi was inspired by God (1 Nephi 4:6) to deceive and capture a servant; and then murder another man in order to secure an ancient historical record on brass plates. And in Missouri, Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon threatened to kill Mormon’s who disagreed with Smith’s policies and initiatives (Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 3, “Theocratic Beginnings,” 79-103).

Smith re-wrote scripture to demonstrate that God had ordered the prophet Abraham to lie to protect himself and his wife Sarah from harm (Abraham 2:23-25).

Before becoming a prophet, Smith’s chosen profession relied on deception to earn a living. He assured clients that he could see underground treasure using a magic stone in the bottom of his hat and clients paid him to locate hidden gold using this method. He never did of course. Smith’s arrest, trial and conviction in Bainbridge, NY for fraud in 1826 documented his activity. He was found guilty of glass looking. The modern term for Smith would be a con artist. (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 82-86). Modern scams operate on a similar principle Smith used to separate people from their money.

Joseph Smith was comfortable using deception when it suited him. He wove it into the fabric of Mormonism as a way of dealing with those who questioned his authority or who reported his deception or tasteless behavior. Excellent historical works record Smith’s deception and the deception of other LDS leaders. A list of good authors and their work, who are nevertheless charitable to Smith are: Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady”, Polygamy’s Foe. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2004. Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, Second Edition, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1989. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1994. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997. Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, Vintage Books, NY, 1995. B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992. (The essay on Lying for the Lord in Hardy’s appendix is masterful and yet compassionate.) Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK 2002, offers insight into the minds of other church leaders who used deception effectively too. An excellent online list is the online book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism at www.utlm.org/onlinebooks; and Richard Packham’s excellent piece entitled, “Mormon Lying.” http://home.teleport.com/~packham/lying.htm)

Below is a list of notable prevarications by church leaders. Some rate higher on the “deceit-scale” than others. The list is not exhaustive, and offers only a sample of some of the well known incidents of deception on the part of LDS church leaders. Since well over one hundred examples are included, it is not a comprehensive list, and because lying began with Joseph Smith and continues today (2007), I concluded that lying is standard operating procedure for church leaders. I referenced each of the incidents with the secondary source. It’s easier for the normal reader to locate information in a secondary source. The footnotes provided in the secondary sources will provide you with the references for primary sources if you wish to review them.

At the end of the list is a brief review of recent research on lying.

1. The official version of the First Vision by Joseph Smith, fashioned in 1838, nearly 20 years after the event, was unknown to church members living in the 1830s. It evolved after years of refining and modifying. It describes a more spectacular and miraculous event than earlier versions of the same event. The 1832 account is the original handwritten version and not as dramatic as the 1838 version. The 1832 version does not mention God the Father one who appeared to Smith, or the religious excitement causing Smith to pray, persecution by enemies, being attacked by the devil, being told not to join any apostate Christian Churches by Jesus; and he was not called to restore a church and serve as its prophet. The 1832 “vision” resembles a common Christian epiphany where he imagined Jesus forgiving his sins. Church leaders suppressed the contradictory and less impressive version for over a century. (James B. Allen, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45. See also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp.24-25; and The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 148-166)

2. The LDS church consistently describes in sermons and paintings, the visitation of an angel named Moroni to Joseph Smith on September 21, 1823. Moroni is pictured floating above Joseph or next to his bed, alone in his bedroom. The pictures do not portray Joseph’s five brothers that slept in the same room with him. A restored Smith house is used for LDS tours showing the small room and only two beds for six brothers. Nothing resembling the actual sleeping arrangement is hinted at in the church’s official literature and pictorial recreations of the scene. It would seem inconceivable to most investigators (and perhaps many members) that Joseph’s brothers sleeping in the same room and bed would not have been awakened by the events as described by Joseph. The inaccurate depictions and lesson manuals tell a different story to make the event seem more believable. This is an example of the deceptive “milk before meat” principle used to excuse the suppression of questionable historical stories about Mormon origins. Moroni’s Visitation

3. The LDS Church permits members and others to believe that the History of the Church was written by Joseph Smith. Smith dictated the history of the church to a scribe but was killed before completing the project. The Joseph Smith History was completed in August 1856 by historians who attempted to make the official history appear as if it was written by Joseph. Brigham Young required the historians to use this method. Sixty percent of the history was written after his death. The church failed to inform its members of this fact, preferring to let them believe that the official history was written by Joseph Smith. (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp.466, 469, 470, 472). In the middle of the 20th century, after the deception was pointed out by critics, the church admitted it. When something in History of the Church proved embarrassing, such as the Kinderhook Plates hoax (where Joseph was tricked by pranksters who created fake metal plates - Joseph claimed they were ancient Egyptian plates), which is written in the first person by Smith, the practice was/is for LDS apologists to claim that a scribe or someone else must have written the embarrassing section instead of Joseph Smith. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Shadow or Reality? Chapter 7, “Changes in the Joseph Smith History,” pages 126-142)

4. The famous Rocky Mountain Prophecy was a later addition to the official church history and not uttered by Joseph Smith as a prediction that the Mormons would inhabit the Salt Lake Valley. Despite the fact it is not authentic; the church presented it as such for more than a century. The ‘Rocky Mountain Prophecy’ was added after the Mormons arrived in Utah. (The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 406) The church had no intentions of giving this information to members, in order to make their history appear more faith promoting.

5. Related to changes in the history of the church, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the following in The Changing World of Mormonism, “One of the most interesting changes in the history is the name of the angel who was supposed to have appeared in Joseph Smith’s bedroom. In the history as it was first published by Joseph Smith, we learn that the angel’s name was Nephi: “He called me by name and said ... that his name was Nephi” (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p.753). “In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read “ Moroni”: “He called me by name, and said ... that his name was Moroni ...” (History of the Church, vol. 1, p.11).

“The original handwritten manuscript shows that the name was originally written as “Nephi,” but that someone at a later date wrote the word “Moroni” above the line (see photograph in Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? p.136). In the book Falsification of Joseph Smith’s History, page 13, Tanners showed that this change was made after Joseph Smith’s death. An examination of the duplicate copy of the handwritten manuscript, Book A-2, provides additional evidence that the change was not made during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. This manuscript was not begun until about a year after Smith’s death. Like the other manuscript (Book A-1), it has the name “Nephi” with the name “ Moroni” interpolated above the line.

“It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name “Nephi” was printed in Times and Seasons and never published a retraction or revision. In August, 1842, the Millennial Star, printed in England , also published Joseph Smith’s story stating that the angel’s name was “Nephi” (see Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53). On page 71 of the same volume it reads that the message of the angel Nephi ... opened a new dispensation to man....” “The name was also published in the 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price as “Nephi.” Walter L. Whipple, in his thesis written at BYU, stated that Orson Pratt “published The Pearl of Great Price in 1878, and removed the name of Nephi from the text entirely and inserted the name Moroni in its place (reprinted in The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 13, pages 409-410).

6. Official Mormon histories have omitted references to Joseph Smith’s drinking and use of tobacco in order to create a more inspiring impression of their prophet, who if living today (2007) would be unable to pass a worthiness interview and earn a temple recommend in the church he founded. (Changing World of Mormonism, pages 413-414 and Chapter 18 of the same online book). “Joseph tested the Saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman, of the First presidency, related: ‘Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time, he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter, he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. Some of the brethren were tried as was Abraham of old’” (”Joseph Smith as an Administrator,” Master’s Thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, p.161. Quotation found in The Changing World of Mormonism, page 31).

7. Leonard Arrington, the official LDS Church Historian for nearly a decade (1972-1982) lamented the suppression of real Mormon history in favor of a faith promoting version. Six years previous to his appointment as church historian, Dr. Arrington wrote: “it is unfortunate for the cause of Mormon history that the Church Historian’s Library, which is in the possession of virtually all of the diaries of leading Mormons, has not seen fit to publish these diaries or to permit qualified historians to use them without restriction.” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1966, p.26). Leonard Arrington was demoted in 1982 transferred from the church historians office to BYU because of his refreshing honesty; he was a threat to the faith promoting history the church insisted he support (Deseret News, Church Section, July 5, 1980; http://library.usu.edu/Specol/manuscript/Arrington/LJAHA1/bio.html). The church does not report accurate unflattering historical facts about its origins and leaders to the membership or the world, unless forced to by published disclosures of deception.

8. Joseph Smith claimed that God revealed truth to him. He declared that God, Jesus and angels appeared in person. Sometimes they spoke in an audible voice, and sometimes they spoke in a quiet voice or feeling in his mind and heart - D&C 8:2; 9:7-9. He made arrangements to publish a collection of revealed truths in the Book of Commandments but Missourians destroyed the printing press in 1833 before the venture was completed. A few copies were saved. Two years later he published another version with original revelations revised and more revelations added and called it the Doctrine and Covenants. Apologists claim that added material was only to make the revelation seem clearer to the reader. (Melvin J. Petersen “A Study of the Nature of and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants,” Master’s thesis, BYU, 1955, typed copy, p.147). Those close to Joseph make a different claim.

David Whitmer, a close associate of Smith’s, was perhaps the most vocal opponent to the revisions. He considered the original revelations to be God-inspired. He questioned the revised revelations which granted all power and authority to Smith. (Letter written by David Whitmer, published in the Saints’ Herald, February 5, 1887). Current LDS members are unaware of the significant revisions. They do not know that the meaning of some of the “revelations” was reversed. David Whitmer and others raise the question of whether Joseph Smith received revelations from God or whether they originated in his own mind, for his own gain. If Mormons continue to insist that JS was inspired by God, critics might ask, “Which God? - the one who revealed the first revelations, or the one who revealed the later ones that contradicted the first?” (David Whitmer see An Address To All Believers in Christ. Also The Changing World of Mormonism, online book, Chapter 3, http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech3.htm)

9. Joseph made a career of retrofitting earlier revelations to make it appear as if church doctrines and practices were revealed by God incrementally, logically and sequentially, as described by the faith promoting histories of the LDS church. He referred to this process of revising God’s written word as continuing revelation. Others call it theological innovation, revelations of convenience, or creative imagination.

10. Joseph Smith created the Mormon priesthood after organizing the church, though faithful followers are unaware of this historical development. His priesthood innovations were an extension of the practice of revising revelations to match his evolving theological ideas. La Mar Peterson explained, “The important details that are missing from the “full history” [of priesthood restoration] of 1834 are likewise missing from the Book of Commandments in 1833. The student would expect to find all the particulars of the Restoration in this first treasured set of 65 revelations, the dates of which encompassed the bestowals of the two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent.... The notable revelations on Priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 2 and 13, are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the Restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years.”

“More than four hundred words were added to this revelation [on priesthood] of August 1829 (Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants). The new material added the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments listed the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph’s apostolic calling but there is no mention of Melchizedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, Seventies, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on Church organization and government of April, 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date. But they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments three years later. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations known as Sections 42 and 68” (Problems In Mormon Text, by LaMar Petersen, pp.7-8. See also Gregory A. Prince, Power on High: The Development of the Mormon Priesthood. Signature Books, 1995. D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Chapter 1, “The Evolution of Authority.” The Changing Story of Mormonism, Chapter 16).

11. Joseph Smith and the Mormons’ official publications remove all references to Joseph Smith’s activities as a professional con man. Documents discovered in 1971 by Dr. Wesley Walters in Norwich, New York, verify that Joseph Smith was a “glass looker” and that he was arrested, tried and found guilty by a justice of the peace in Bainbridge, New York, in 1826.

LDS historian Dr. Francis W. Kirkham, refused to believe that Joseph Smith was a con man, who bilked people out of money with promises to find buried treasure through the use of a peep stone in a hat. He wrote, “if such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him.... How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been the superstitious fraud which ‘the pages from a book’ declared he confessed to be? (A New Witness For Christ In America , vol. 1, pp.385-87 and pp.486-87; and The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 4, “Joseph Smith and Money Digging. See also Shadow or Reality? pp 35-36).

Hugh Nibley, famous dissembling LDS apologist also stated, “”...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.” Dr. Nibley’s book also states that if the authenticity of the court record could be established it would be “the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered” (Hugh Nibley, The Mythmakers p. 142. See also The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 4, “Joseph Smith and Money Digging”).

In the court record Joseph Smith confessed that “for three years” prior to 1826 he had used a magic stone placed in his hat to find treasures or lost property, placing his money-digging activities from 1823 to 1826. Mormon histories indicate that a heavenly messenger revealed the presence of gold plates on September 21, 1823. Joseph Smith was conning overly optimistic treasure seekers out of their money at the very time he claimed that an angel revealed to him that gold plates lay buried near his home. He continued these deceptive practices for at least three of the four years after God was supposedly preparing him to receive the gold plates. These facts undermine the credibility of Mormonism’s first prophet and founder. (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, 2004, pp. 80-86)

12. Members and investigators to Mormonism are not offered details of Smith’s deception or the court records convicting him. Church leaders contend that “some [historical] truths are not very useful” and undermine attempts to create a faith promoting history of Mormonism (versus an accurate and objective history). (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect”, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271) LDS Historians are fired and sometimes excommunicated if they publish an objective history rather than a faith promoting version (if they are employed for the church). Packer cited above, referred to objective histories of Mormonism as “disease germs.” Most ethical historians regard deliberately inaccurate histories to be disease germs instead.

13. Joseph Smith claimed that he discovered gold plates with strange engravings, and special spectacles called “Interpreters.” The LDS Church teaches members and investigators that the “Interpreters” were actually a Urim and Thummim used to translate the golden plates. This claim is not true. In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, the editor of the RLDS Saints’ Herald, asked David Whitmer if Joseph Smith had used his peep stone to translate the plates. Whitmer, who offered his home to Smith and acted as a scribe for part of the translation of the Book of Mormon, replied that Smith gave the Interpreters back to an angel and used a peep stone or “Seers Stone” to translate the Book of Mormon; one that he had found while digging a well. It looked like an ordinary rock but Smith claimed it gave him the ability to see buried treasure, receive revelations, and translate ancient records. (The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 80-83)

Martin Harris, who also acted as a scribe, lost the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation. He also said that Smith claimed that the angel Moroni took back both the plates and the Interpreters. He claimed that the angel later returned the gold plates, but not the Interpreters. Harris confirmed that Smith used his special rock placed in a hat to produce the present-day Book of Mormon. (The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 80-83) To see actual photographs of Smith’s favorite, magical stones, see pages 324-325 of D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised and Enlarged, Signature Books, SLC, 1998.)

William W. Phelps first suggested in 1833 that perhaps the seer stones were the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament ( The Evening and Morning Star , Jan. 1833). This lent more credibility to Smith’s story. Historians for the church rewrote the historical accounts to make it appear that from the beginning the Interpreters or Smith’s peep stone was referred to as the Urim and Thummim. This is more tasteful in the minds of some than referring to the instruments used to translate the Book of Mormon as “the peep stone Joseph found while digging a well.” (The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 80-83. See also comment by BH Roberts in Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 1, page 129)

14. Official Mormon histories are not forthcoming about the statement by the three and eight witnesses respectively, who claim to have seen Smith’s gold plates and handled them. The faith promoting histories fail to inform interested students of Mormon origins that in both cases, their experience was one that took place in their imaginations or as they called it, “spiritual eyes,” “eyes of our understanding,” “a supernatural vision,” or “visions of the mind.” To say that the witnesses handled a literal, physical object is more impressive than admitting that they merely imagined that they handled literal, physical objects.

Martin Harris (one of the 3 witnesses) testified publicly on March 25, 1838 that none of the signatories to the Book of Mormon saw or handled the actual physical plates.” He also indicated that Joseph had prepared an affidavit beforehand and asked the witnesses to sign it, but because they had not seen a physical object, only a vision of them, some hesitated to sign; but were finally persuaded by Joseph. David Whitmer also told Zenas Gurley Jr. on January 14, 1885 when asked if the witnesses actually touched “the real metal,” “We did not.” The witnesses handled “the plates” in a vision only, according to Whitmer. Such is the power of imagination. (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Chapter 6) There are other significant problems with the story of the 3 and 8 witnesses described by Palmer, for those interested in reading more.

The 8 witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time as the church leads people to believe either. The plates were seen in two groups of four not all 8 together as popularized in church paintings. (Deseret Evening News, 6 August 1878, Letter to the editor from P. Wilhelm Poulson, M.D., typed transcript, p. 2) Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until some three days later. (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Chapter 6. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71) Info From: http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm )

The LDS Church misrepresents the method by which Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon. Quite unlike the explanations and images offered to members in official church publications, Joseph Smith never had gold plates in view when “translating,” nor did he use an Old Testament instrument called the Urim and Thummim. (The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 84-85)

15. Smith’s “translation” method was the same used to earn money to locate subterranean treasure for money. He put his favorite magic rock in a hat, pulled the hat over his face, and rested his elbows on his knees, to read the English words and sentences that God caused to appear on the stone, according to Smith’s faithful scribes. The imaginary plates were never in view, in the same room, or often never in the house. (Emma Smith, The Saints’ Herald, May 19, 1888, p.310; and Saints’ Herald, November 15, 1962, p.16. Martin Harris, Historical Record, by Andrew Jensen, p.216. David Whitmer, An Address To All Believers In Christ, p.12. Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins)

16. This may explain why nothing ancient appears in a book that is supposed to be of ancient origin, despite claims by the LDS Church to the contrary. It may also explain why large sections of faulty King James texts are plentiful, and why virtually nothing Smith described about the life of ancient inhabitants of America is correct. Despite Apostle Russell M. Nelson’s talk to a select group admitting that Joseph used the stone-in-the-hat method to translate the Book of Mormon, he failed to give sufficient salient details such as the fact that the plates were often never in the same room as Smith; and he never consulted the plates during his supposed translation. This begs the question which the church avoids: Why all the fuss about a set of golden plates and magic peep stones - including the threat of death to anyone who saw the plates without permission - if they were not in view and he did not use them as a reference? (Russell M. Nelson, “Adapted from an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah”, can be found at http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_russellmnelson.html#pub_-777766216)

The next section deals primarily with purposeful deception by church leaders to protect the practice of polygamy. The practice instigated an almost constant stream of untruths, lies, or prevarications. It also introduced the practice of systematic character assassination. Some apologists have excused the leaders’ dishonesty, and praised them instead for their extreme dedication to a principle they believed was revealed by God. This kind of apologetic logic would also praise those who strap bombs to their bodies or fly airplanes into skyscrapers driven by fanatical dedication to their particular religious beliefs.

17. One of Joseph Smith’s first experiments with adultery began with a teen-age girl named Fanny Ward Alger who worked in the Smith home as a maidservant. William E. McLellin, Mormon apostle, indicated that Emma Smith “looked through a crack and saw the transaction” in the barn. (Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd Edition, Signature Books, 1989, pages 4-11) The affair led to a severe rift between loyal follower Oliver Cowdery and Joseph. Cowdery referred to Smith’s indulgences with Fanny Alger as “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” Church leaders and loyal defenders avoid linking Smith with his adultery by calling it an authorized “plural marriage.” Todd Compton, author of, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 2nd edition, notes that in February or March of 1833, when Joseph was 27 and Fanny Alger 17, he had sexual relations with her. After Emma found out about Joseph’s secret love affair, she turned Fanny out of their house, where she had been working as a servant. (In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 34-36) It has been noted that calling it a marriage instead of an affair raises more questions. Polygamous marriages were not legal in Ohio, the man who married Ms. Alger and Smith had no authority to perform the illegal marriage, nor had God authorized Smith to enter into polygamous arrangements in 1833-1835.

18. The LDS Church canonized monogamy as God’s marriage arrangement and then later did an about-face, adopting polygamy as God’s recommended mode of marriage (D&C 42:22-24). Rumors about the Fanny Alger affair and rumors of another affair with Vienna Jacques, led to the development of an “Article on Marriage.” LDS leaders presented it to the general assembly of the church on August 17, 1835. The article was canonized as scripture and placed in the Doctrine and Covenants where it remained until 1876. It acknowledged that the church [Joseph Smith] had been “reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy” and declared that “we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband...” (Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe, Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NY, 1984, p. 67) The question arises again after Smith revised revelations from God: Which of God’s revelations was “inspired”; the one recommending monogamy or the one recommending polygamy?

19. Joseph Smith institutionalized the practice of lying, so church leaders could deny the practice of taking multiple wives and keep Smith out of legal trouble. Straight-faced lies permitted leaders to deceive with a clear conscience; believing that God permitted and even encouraged lying to protect the principle.

An article from the 1886 Deseret News listed the code words and the rationale for their use. When accused of practicing “polygamy” Joseph and Hyrum denied it because it was different than “celestial marriage” and “a plurality of wives.” Polygamy was after all, a doctrine of men and the devil. “Celestial marriage” was different Smith reasoned, because it was a holy doctrine revealed by God. Joseph wanted followers to believe that the two terms were completely dissimilar. Other code words were, “eternal marriage,” “the divine order of marriage,” “Holy order of marriage,” “living up to your privileges,” “new and everlasting covenant,” and “a different view of things.”

If accusers did not frame their allegations using precisely the right terms, the leaders felt justified in prevaricating. Even if the accusers framed their words perfectly, the leaders lied anyway. Their view was that it was more important to live the higher law - loyalty to the Prophet - than to expose the truth to Gentiles. A prominent feature of Mormonism is that loyalty trumps honesty. (Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, p. 113. See also B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 365. For an excellent treatment of loyalty and obedience vs. honesty see http://i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm and http://i4m.com/think/leaders/come_clean.htm)

20. Vienna Jacques of Nauvoo heard rumors about “spiritual wifery.” She wanted Emma to ask Joseph if the rumors were true. Was “spiritual wifery” a doctrine of the church?” Emma asked and relayed Joseph’s answer. Vienna reported, “he, [Joseph] had told her [Emma] to tell the sisters of the society ... “the whole idea was absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing.” Joseph was secretly practicing plural marriage at the time. (Mormon Enigma, p. 114) Joseph prevaricated. He was actively practicing and teaching the principle.

21. Contrary to the traditional LDS claim that a first wife had to give her consent in order for her husband to take another wife, Emma Smith was unaware of nearly all of Joseph’s “marriages” to other women. Eliza Snow, secretary to Emma in the Relief Society organization, as well as Sarah Cleveland, Emma’s counselor, who was legally married to John Cleveland, were secretly married to Joseph, and Emma knew nothing about the marriages. According to Newell and Avery, “To live as a secret wife to a friend’s husband demanded evasion, subterfuge, and deception.” (Mormon Enigma, p. 119)

22. Joseph Smith secretly married 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney in August 1842 without Emma’s knowledge or consent. He had no intention of confessing his conduct to Emma. He wrote to Sarah and her parents who approved of the marriage, “The only thing to be careful of is to find out when Emma comes, then you can not be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety... Burn this letter as soon as you read it.” (Mormon Enigma, p. 125)

23. The Times and Seasons, August 1842 published an article defending Joseph. It quoted church scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants. “ ... We declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband. We know of no other rule or system of marriage.” The purpose of the article was to deny that Joseph had taught John C. Bennett the concept of spiritual wifery, after Bennett seduced several women in Nauvoo under the guise of God-inspired polygamy. The fact is that many of those who signed the declaration on monogamy were secretly practicing polygamy. Joseph had taught Bennett the principle, and the signatories knew it. (Mormon Enigma, p. 128) Mormons used the term spiritual wifery (the ungodly form of plural marriage) as an excuse to deny the charges. But they used the term themselves to describe the “right” version of polygamy before and after their exodus to Salt Lake. By denying that Bennett had been taught the concept of false practice of spiritual wifery, but not the true concept of eternal marriage church leaders felt justified. (B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 365)

24. Joseph deceived Emma again when he married two other women (probably Martha McBride Knight and Ruth Vose Sayers) without her knowledge or consent in the winter of 1842-43. (Mormon Enigma, p. 134 and note 13)

25. Joseph secretly proposed to 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon in Nauvoo in 1842 (Smith was 36). He wanted her as a plural wife. She declined, so Joseph recruited another LDS woman to convince Nancy. She rejected that attempt too and insisted that she be permitted to leave. Smith dictated a letter and sent it to her. In it he tried to convince her that God revealed the practice to Joseph and ordered him to take multiple wives. Part of the letter read, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another ... . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” Nancy showed the letter to her father, Sydney Rigdon. When Sydney questioned Joseph about it, he denied the whole affair. Joseph admitted to it only when Sydney showed Joseph the letter he had dictated and sent to Nancy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 119, and Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 2nd edition p. 32-33)

26. Martha Brotherton, an 18 year old convert from England in 1842, emigrated to Nauvoo, Illinois with her parents. Brigham Young approached Joseph Smith to ask if he could add Martha as another plural wife. Smith agreed and called a meeting with Young and Martha. She knew nothing of the agreement between them beforehand. And her parents were not invited, though she was a dependent minor. After Smith and Young tried to persuade her, Martha refused the offer of marriage. They encouraged her to lie to her parents and keep their proposal a secret and tried again and again to persuade her to accept Brigham’s proposal. Martha finally appealed to them through tears and pleading that she be given time to think about the offer.

After being sworn to secrecy and permitted to leave the room, Martha revealed everything to her parents and wrote it down while the important details were fresh in her mind. She told others in Nauvoo about the episode before the family boarded a steamboat bound for St. Louis. She published her account in a St. Louis newspaper (St. Louis Bulletin, July 15, 1842, p. 2). Smith, stung by the article, immediately denied that the events Martha described took place. He went further. He issued false affidavits and statements that called Martha not only a liar, but also an apostate and “mean harlot.” Smith used character assassination when he thought the situation warranted it; no matter how young his victim was. (Arza Evans, The Keystone of Mormonism, Keystone Books Inc., 2003, St. George Utah, pp. 20-21.)

27. Smith circulated false, lurid stories designed to blacken the character of those considered enemies when necessary. Character assassination convinced loyal followers that Smith’s character was unimpeachable and rumors of his adultery were unfounded. In an article in the Messenger and Advocate (June 18, 1845 ) Sidney Rigdon acknowledged that Parley P. Pratt, advised church leaders how to support Smith, and advised that “we must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.” Sarah Pratt, Martha Brotherton, and Nancy Rigdon are a few whose reputation was stained by Smith and his close associates.

28. Zeruiah Goddard, signed a false statement against Sarah Pratt. It was added to other slanderous and libelous statements as part of a smear campaign against Sarah; orchestrated by Smith. Goddard confessed to Sarah years later that Hyrum Smith (Joseph’s brother), “came to our house with affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. Joseph and the Church must be saved, said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers.” Church leaders felt comfortable breaking civil laws to promote polygamy, were willing to lie to protect polygamy, and willing to resort to character assassination in the form of slander and libel, of any who exposed Joseph’s secret, illicit behavior. (Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd edition, p. 34 and Footnote 12, p. 38)

29. On March 4, 1843 Joseph deceived Emma when he secretly married 19 year old Emily Partridge. Emily was urged to keep the marriage a secret and said, “Of course I would keep his secret.” At some point, Emma weakened and gave Joseph, Emily and Eliza Partridge as plural wives. She may have misunderstood, and believed that Joseph would not consummate the marriages. Joseph participated in the fake ceremony, but neglected to tell Emma that he had already secretly married the two sisters some time before. (Mormon Enigma, p. 138)

30. On May 1, 1843, Joseph deceived Emma and others when he married 17 year old Lucy Walker while Emma was in St. Louis. Lucy admitted that Emma was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; “she did not know anything about it at all.” (Mormon Enigma, p.139)

31. Without Emma’s knowledge or consent, Joseph secretly “slept” with young Emily Partridge according to her own testimony under oath. She testified that she “roomed” with Joseph while Emma was somewhere else in the house on the night of their second marriage. It is likely that Emma did not understand that Joseph would have sexual relations with the two sisters Emma presented to him. (Mormon Enigma, p. 144) For information indicating that Joseph consummated his multiple marriages see http://i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm

32. According to Benjamin F. Johnson, living in Ramus, Illinois, on May 16, 1843 Joseph shared a room with the “daughter [Eliza] of the late Bishop Partridge.” This was without the knowledge or consent of Emma. (Mormon Enigma, p. 145)

33. Joseph deceived Emma when he proposed to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball as a plural wife. She agreed to marry Joseph because he told her that it “will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that ... of your fathers household and all of your kindred.” She remarked, “I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” She later admitted that she may have been deceived by her parents as well as Joseph. She stated, “I would have never been sealed to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than a ceremony.” It is mind-boggling that Joseph Smith placed the responsibility for Helen’s salvation, but also the salvation of her family squarely on Helen; in order to persuade (coerce?) her to submit to his proposal of marriage. She was 14 years and 11 months old. One is reminded of the modern Fundamentalists who use identical tactics. (Mormon Enigma, pp. 146-147; In Sacred Loneliness, p. 499)

34. Joseph Smith persuaded some women and girls to marry him by testifying that he had been commanded by and angel with a drawn sword to take multiple wives. “Joseph was commanded to take more wives and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him.”
- Hyrum Smith , Elder Benjamin F. Johnson’s Letter to George S. Gibbs, 1903 (link can be found at http://i4m.com/think/history/angel_sword.htm)

35. Joseph’s polygamous activities were unknown to the vast majority of the saints in Nauvoo. He publicly denied that he practiced plural marriage, showing the ability to consciously mislead his devoted followers without remorse. (Mormon Enigma, p. 147, and Mormon Polygamy, pp. 20-21) When Joseph was confronted about being married to other wives in Nauvoo he protested, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” In fact, he was sealed to dozens of women at the time. (Solemn Covenant, p. 365)

36. Cyrus Walker defended Joseph in court after a particular arrest. In exchange, Joseph promised to deliver “the Mormon vote” to Cyrus (a Whig) when he ran for Congress. Later however, Joseph reneged on his promise by stating that Hyrum had received a revelation to vote for the opposition party (Mr. Hoge, a Democrat). Joseph stated that Hyrum had never received a false revelation, and in essence directed the church to vote for the candidate that Hyrum supported instead of Cyrus Walker. Joseph betrayed Cyrus and he did not forget it. Cyrus and others in the party (the Whigs) vowed to drive the Mormons out of the state. (Mormon Enigma, p. 148, 151. also An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, George D. Smith editor, Signature Books, 1995, p. 114)

37. Joseph privately told William Clayton to keep a particular plural wife but that some of the membership would be troubled about it if they found out, since most of the saints believed Joseph’s repeated denials about polygamy. Joseph cautioned Clayton that if “they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 122) Fake church discipline and excommunication were effective modes of deception. Smith used deception to shape public perception, and maintain control of the flock.

38. Official Mormon histories fail to inform readers of the competition to get as many plural wives as one could. William Clayton, close associate of Joseph Smith wrote on August 11, 1843 that with regard to marrying additional wives, Joseph told him, “You have a right to get all you can.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 115) Those who accuse Smith of treating women like chattel use this incident as evidence. Other examples exist in the speeches of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, made after the saints migrated to the West.

39. After receiving a promise from Joseph that he would stop the practice of polygamy (a lie), Emma Smith publicly announced that Joseph supported only the traditional standards of Christian marriage-one husband and one wife-as stated in the Doctrine & Covenants. Joseph secretly confided to some that he had no intention of keeping his promise to Emma. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175) William Clayton recorded in his journal that “Joseph told me that since E[mma] came back from St. Louis she had resisted the P[riesthood] in toto and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake... .He however told me he should not relinquish anything.” (An Intimate Chronicle p. 117; Emma had apparently threatened Joseph with divorce and in order to prevent it, Joseph lied.

40. In August 1843, Emma discovered that sixteen-year-old Flora Woodworth possessed a gold watch given to her by Joseph. She realized the implications and demanded that Flora give the watch back. Smith reprimanded her, but Emma refused to be quiet in the carriage ride home. William Clayton said that Joseph had to employ “harsh measures” to stop her complaining. (Mormon Enigma, p. 159) It also raises the question of whether or not Joseph used both physical force and lies to avoid divorce. (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 118)

41. The official history of the church states that the Relief Society was officially disbanded in 1844 shortly after being organized, “due to the various calamities that befell the saints.” Those writing the official history as well as the leaders of the church knew it was actually disbanded because Emma Smith was an outspoken opponent of polygamy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175) Joseph’s public discourses and written ones (a letter from the presidency and an article entitled, “The Voice of Innocence,” written by W. W. Phelps with Joseph’s supervision, denied that polygamy was part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints. These documents were read in Relief Society meetings in Nauvoo and recommended as the standard by which saints should conduct themselves. Joseph needed to silence Emma and take away her forum. She quoted his denials as evidence that polygamy was not an inspired principle and not practiced by Smith. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175)

42. Official Mormon histories aware of the marital arrangements, withheld information about Joseph’s polygamous marriages-namely that nearly a dozen of his first polygamous wives were legally married to other men at the time of their marriage to Joseph (polyandry). They have never admitted that Joseph practiced polyandry. (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Signature Books, 1997 Introduction. See also http://i4m.com/think/history/Joseph_Smth_mens_wives.htm)Church instructional manuals often portray early church leaders as monogamists, and certainly do not disclose their penchant for deception.

43. Official Mormon histories deceive readers by failing to point out that Joseph exercised poor judgment, to say it most kindly, in choosing his friends and other church leaders. William Clayton’s journal entry for May 16, 1843 records the following: “President J[oseph] said that the way he knew in whom to confide, God told him in whom he might place confidence.” Many of Joseph’s closest associates and those he trusted most brought damage to him and the church. John C. Bennett of Nauvoo was a classic example, yet Mormon histories reject the opportunity to fully investigate these inconsistencies, choosing instead to portray Joseph as the noble prophet who could discern the intentions of peoples’ hearts. (Intimate Chronicle p. 102)

44. Official Mormon histories have publicized plural marriages as being as normal and as affectionate as monogamous marriages. Some may have been. However, Zina Diantha Huntington, when interviewed by a journalist from the New York World, in 1869, drew a distinction between romantic love and plural marriage. Commenting on women who were unhappy in their polygamous marriages, she said they “expect too much attention from the husband and ... become sullen and morose...” She insisted that the successful polygamous wife, “must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy.” Lucy Walker, who had been sealed for time to Heber C. Kimball, after the death of Joseph Smith said, “There was not any love in the union between myself and Kimball, and it is my business entirely whether there was any courtship or not... It was the principle of plural marriage that we were trying to establish, a great and glorious true principle.” (In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 108, 466-467)

45. Joseph lied about lying when the Expositor was published in Nauvoo, accusing him of lying. During the city council debate over some allegations made in the Expositor, Joseph declared that he had not kept the doctrine of polygamy secret but had taught it openly. William Clayton recorded however, that Emma Smith told him “it was the secret things which had cost Joseph and Hyrum their lives.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)

46. Smith practiced polyandry but this fact is not published in official church instructional manuals. Brigham Young continued the practice after the martyrdom of Smith. In a particularly compelling example, which the church would understandably wish to suppress, Young desired Zina D. Huntington Jacobs. Smith had taken her as a plural wife with her husband Jacob’s consent while six months pregnant in October 1841. Henry Jacobs believed that “whatever the Prophet did was right.” Zina and Henry continued to live together as husband and wife though she would belong to Joseph Smith in eternity. (Mormon Polygamy, p. 45) It gets more bizarre.

During the trek west, at Mt. Pisgah, Iowa Brigham declared to Henry Jacobs, “the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children are my property. You can go where you please, and get another but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.” (Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History 2nd Edition, p. 44) Young ordered Jacobs to serve a mission in England . Henry was sick and his low spirits robbed him of his health. He loved Zina and wrote letters expressing his love for her. Astonishingly he also remained faithful to Brigham Young. In a letter he wrote, “I do not blame any person or person, no- May the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham and all purtains unto him forever...tell him for me I have no feelings against him nor never had... .” (Mormon Polygamy: A History, p. 45)

47. Lying became such an integral practice with the Latter-day Saints, church leaders instructed members how to lie about polygamy, according to the testimony of members given under oath. (Solemn Covenant, p. 365)

48. Loyalty was more important than honesty in the early church. Joseph’s instruction to the Twelve in 1839 was that above all else, “do not betray your Friend.” He frequently reminded members that they should honor friendships above all else even to death.

While the Danites (a Mormon vigilante group) were active in Missouri (1838) Justus Morse described how he and others were directed to help out a friend by lying-to “do it with such positiveness and assurance that no one would question our testimony.” The greatest of evils according to Joseph in an 1839 address to the 12 were “sinning against the Holy Ghost and proving a traitor to the brethren.” Smith confided that he deceived the saints by keeping secrets from them because they were “little children” unable to “bear all things now.” Joseph counseled the Relief Society Sisters not to be overzealous in their search for wrongdoing and to be charitable toward the accused, after counseling them to seek out evil-doers months earlier. Stories about adultery and spiritual wifery especially aggravated him. (Solemn Covenant, pp.365-366)

49. In a well-publicized debate between John Taylor and a Protestant minister in 1850, John Taylor denied that the church practiced polygamy. At the time, he was the husband of multiple wives. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367) In a public discussion in Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France , he claimed, “ ... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. Doctrine and Covenants, page 330 ... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus 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 case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again (Tract published by John Taylor in 1850, p.8; found in Orson Pratt’s Works, 1851 edition. Found in The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 261-262). Taylor knew that the real revelation on marriage was the one on plural marriage, but failed to admit it to his audience.

50. Orson Pratt admitted that when called upon to defend the practice of polygamy, he deliberately misled his listeners regarding the practice of polygamy. He did not consider this to be lying. It was done to protect a law higher than man’s misguided laws. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)

51. Charles W. Penrose, Apostle and Counselor to two Presidents of the Church, admitted that after Joseph’s death, certain facts about him were purposely withheld from church publications “for prudential reasons.” Expediency became more important than honesty; deception was accepted as a necessary tool, while grass roots members were commanded to be honest and disciplined for dishonesty. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)

52. At the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, 120 innocent men, women and children as young as eight years old, in an Arkansas wagon train party were murdered by Mormons. Amasa Lyman and George A. Smith, Mormon apostles, accused members who wanted to honestly testify to the facts of the case of seeking “to betray and expose their brethren into the hands of their enemies.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 367) Members were threatened if they “betrayed” those who took part in the murders. To Mormon leaders, anyone who cooperated with law enforcement authorities investigating the murders was guilty of the sin of betrayal. Betrayal was worse than the massacre of 120 innocent men, women and children in the minds of Apostles Smith and Lyman. The events of 9-11-2001 are eerily similar to 9-11-1857, in the minds of some. Both acts of senseless murder were the result of fanatical and unquestioning obedience to religious authority. (Will Bagley, The Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, pp. 157, 176-177)

53. Lying was so prevalent as an institutionalized scheme among church members during the 1860’s-1880’s, that John D. Hicks alleged that when “polygamists were prohibited from voting, the Mormons promptly swore that they were not polygamists; when those who taught or practiced polygamy were discriminated against, everybody immediately became silent on the subject; and when members of organizations which advocated polygamy were denied the ballot, they withdrew... from the Mormon Church” to become eligible to vote (Solemn Covenant, p. 368) This is reminiscent of the fake excommunication Joseph proposed to William Clayton in Nauvoo mentioned above.

53. Mormon “children in theocratic, territorial and polygamous Utah were taught to lie about family relationships, their parents’ whereabouts, and even their own last names.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 368) Mormon parents are conscientious about teaching their children to be honest and to obey the LDS prophets.

54. In a letter to President John Taylor in 1887, Charles W. Penrose expressed concern that “the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose ... threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)

55. While lobbying on behalf of the First Presidency in Washington, in 1887, for statehood for Utah, Franklin S. Richards and John T. Caine prevaricated stating that polygamy was a “dead issue” in Utah and that it wouldn’t be revived. They attempted to explain away the church’s position on polygamy by saying that plurality was not a commandment and that “celestial” and “plural” marriages were not the same thing. This was wholly untrue yet their conduct received approval from the First Presidency. Apostle John Taylor admitted to church members in Nephi, Utah that the statements made in Washington were a “d——d lie.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 369)

56. When explaining whether recommends were being issued to members to marry polygamously, one church authority said that “he no longer gave recommends for marrying plural wives but gave them for obtaining whatever blessings the Lord might bestow.” He used these code words to subtly affirm that indeed recommends for plural marriage were still being issued, after assuring the American public that they weren’t. (Solemn Covenant, p. 370)

57. The Manifesto of 1890 prohibiting polygamy, was in fact another attempt to dupe the U.S. government and to some extent, the church members into believing that the LDS church intended to comply with the mandate of the government to abandon polygamy. Members at that time generally fell into two groups: those who believed that the leaders only pretended to give in to government pressure to obtain statehood, and those who believed that the Manifesto was necessary as a hedge against discovery of the true facts about polygamy in Utah. Church leaders believed that if once given statehood, polygamy could be legalized by creating a provision for it in the new state constitution. A fervent belief in a strict interpretation of states’ rights, fed their illusion. (Solemn Covenant, p. 370)

58. Thomas J. Rosser was a missionary in Wales in 1908. He asked his mission president Charles W. Penrose, if the 1890 Manifesto banning plural marriage was a revelation from God. Making “no” into a long answer, Penrose replied, “Brethren, I will answer that question, if you will keep it under your hats. I Charles W. Penrose wrote the manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White... Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the devil at his own game.” The Manifesto, authored by Penrose, was submitted to a committee - Judges Charles S. Zane, C.S. Varian, and O.W. Powers, (nonmembers). The wording was changed slightly and the document was recopied by a clerk named Green. (Samuel Taylor, The Rocky Mountain Empire, New York, NY, MacMillan, 1978, p. 35) Current members are led to believe that the Manifesto was a sacred communication from God to church president Wilford Woodruff. Ample documentation exists to prove that the 1890 Manifesto was one more trick to beat the devil (federal government), as Penrose suggested. (D. Michael Quinn, LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1985.)

59. In 1903 Wiley Nebeker of Afton, Wyoming wrote to apostle John Henry Smith complaining that the church made use of deceit and duplicity to further the practice of polygamy, while assuring the federal government that church leaders no longer condoned the practice. He wrote, “To be plain, while I am fully converted to the belief that this is a true principle, I am not converted to the idea that the Lord justifies deceit and falsehood.” He did not believe saints ought to be forced into “apologizing to our own consciences.” In response, apostle Smith perpetuated the dishonesty by spreading more disinformation. Rather than address the central issue of lying, Smith told Nebeker that the doctrine was true but no longer being practiced. This was a calculated lie. (Solemn Covenant, p. 371)

60. Florence, a daughter of Anthony W. Ivins asked her mother why her father seemed so upset following a meeting of the apostles and the First Presidency. Her mother told her that President Smith had said something in the meeting that greatly disturbed her father. President Smith said, he “would lie any day to save [his] ... brother.” Florence said that it was her opinion that her father was troubled over the remark for the rest of his life. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372)

61. The practice of deception was frequently discussed in the leading councils of the church so leaders were counseled not to record notes from meetings in their personal diaries. President Joseph F. Smith was afraid that someone might read the diaries of George Q. Cannon and Abraham H. Cannon and use the information against the church. To this day, the church steadfastly refuses to allow researchers to examine the unabridged, uncensored diary of George Q. Cannon because of damaging evidence, indicating that Church leaders did engage in institutionalized, systematic deceit. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372)

62. After the 1890 Manifesto banning plural marriage, it appears that at least 250 plural marriages were performed despite repeated denials on the part of the church leadership that plural marriage was an official doctrine and practice. The church’s current misinformation policy is effective because church members today and the media are still more likely than not, to believe that the Manifesto was a good faith effort on the part of church leaders to terminate the practice of polygamy. John Henry Smith is alleged to have remarked that the Manifesto was only “a trick to beat the devil at his own game.” (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, p.13. Solemn Covenant, p. 392)

63. During the 1890s the church tried to answer the criticism of opponents that a theocracy existed in Utah and church leaders controlled all elections. Leaders instructed members to pretend to align with different political parties. George Q. Cannon was asked about the degree of honesty in this strategy. He said that the potential political gains that could be achieved made sincerity irrelevant in this case. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372) The church motto seems to have been, “act sincere even if you don’t mean it.”

64. Matthias F. Cowley stated in a hearing before the Quorum of the Twleve in 1911 that he had been chastised for asking for permission to pre-date post-1890 plural marriages to make them appear to have occurred before the Manifesto. He said he was trying to illustrate the “training I have had from those over me,” which was to act with duplicity without asking for permission, in order to preserve the image of plausible deniability for the church hierarchy. (Solemn Covenant, p. 373)

65. Ironically, after claiming that he had been taught to lie by previous leaders, Matthias F. Cowley also claimed “I am not dishonest and not a liar and have always been true to the work and to the brethren... We have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 373) The ability to compartmentalize reached its peak in the minds of church leaders who idolized Joseph Smith and who jousted with the federal government over polygamy.

66. Related to the above quote, Cowley quoted a member of the First Presidency who he said had taught him that “he [the member of the First Presidency] would lie like hell to help the brethren.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 373)

67. Despite consistent denials that church leaders demanded complete and blind obedience, as well as the cloak of infallibility, members were told that when confronted with doubt, they should always subordinate their judgment to that of their priesthood leaders. Leaders indeed dictated matters from the most trivial to the most profound and far reaching. In fact, men refusing to go on missions were once told that they should anticipate relinquishing their wives for refusing to obey the Brethren. This is at odds with the claim by modern leaders and apologists that members of the LDS Church have always been admonished to exercise their own agency and think for themselves. (Solemn Covenant, p. 373) The same tension exists currently between one’s individual agency and the church’s demands for obedience, loyalty and conformity.

68. Though members were occasionally told to exercise their individual moral conscience and beware of blind obedience to their leaders, most often in common practice they were ordered not to question the judgment of their leaders. Brigham Young put it this way, “sheep must follow the Shepherd, not the shepherd the sheep.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 374)

69. Modern leaders of the church have used general conference as a platform to condemn the practice of situational ethics. Yet Joseph Smith’s letter to Nancy Rigdon sent to convince her to become a plural wife is the epitome of situational ethics. It said, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another .... Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire .... But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted.” Mormons often translate teachings about unquestioning obedience, and treating leaders as infallible into: “You don’t question things. If the church says it, you don’t say yes or no, you go along.” This principle and practice tends to relegate honesty to a lower priority than blind obedience and conformity to Church leaders. (Solemn Covenant, p. 374. Mormon Polygamy, p. 32. See also for an excellent treatment: http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm)

70. Henry S. Tanner explained that when he was forced to lie to protect himself or the church then the word he spoke (lies he told to civil authorities under oath) had no binding power. He believed that the Mormons would be regarded by God as having made no promises nor be accountable for lies told to protect the church. Tanner and others blamed the government for making them lie. Lying was elevated from duplicity and degraded communication to a religious duty. (Solemn Covenant, p. 374-375)

71. Carl A. Badger, who was not a church member, acted as a friend and counselor to the church during the Smoot hearings. During those hearings it was discovered that the church leaders had lied and deceived the federal government about its intentions to rid the church of polygamy. He concluded that the church had decided that some things were more important than honesty. He said that the result was moral confusion. George D. Kirby, writing in the Improvement Era in 1910, admitted as much when he answered charges that Mormons were deceitful. He wrote that there might be “truth in the charges.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 376)

72. United States Senators participating in the Smoot hearings where church leaders repeatedly and systematically lied under oath, determined that the decision to lie to protect polygamy and church leaders’ practice of it, ultimately led to charges of casuistry, secrecy, and moral contradiction. Many concluded that Mormon leaders consistently stood for honesty as long as their own affairs were not involved - when it was convenient. A gentile expressed it this way, “When any of us [non-members] sin ... we sin for our own sakes.” But when a saint lied, it was done “for Christ’s sake.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 376)

73. The Salt Lake Tribune was at odds with the church in the late 19th century because of polygamy and the Church’s control of civil government. Adding to the disgust of Tribune editors was that the church claimed to be the Lord’s special vessel of truth, but so often refused to live up to the honor. Tribune editors rejected the claim that institutionalized lying and deception was necessary to protect the Lord’s church. The paper claimed something hard to refute; that it was impossible “for a Mormon Elder to be a new polygamist without at the same time being a liar.” Church leaders, compounded the problem by claiming that they had always been honest. (Solemn Covenant, p. 377)

74. Mormons were inventive in their ability to distort the truth to and at the same time, convince themselves that they were honest. B. Carmon Hardy has written, “In addition to semantic usages such as union and sealing, thus permitting denials of plural marriage, reference has also been made to instances involving the marrying of two wives on the same day; reliance on the fact that women were always sealed to men, allowing their husbands to deny that they had married polygamously; use of proxies; marrying a new wife legally, after the death of a prior legal spouse, while maintaining relationships with earlier plurals; the performance of ceremonies at sea or in foreign countries; and resort to concubinage. The variety of ruses employed will never fully be numbered.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 377)

75. John Taylor received a revelation in 1886 said God revealed to him that those wishing to inherit the highest degree of the celestial kingdom must continue to live the principle of plural marriage, no matter what pressure was brought to bear against them. Ironically, modern polygamists point to the same divine revelation as their commission to carry out the dictate of the Lord’s anointed, in order to keep plural marriage alive until the millennium. They also use lies, deception and codes to mislead law officers. Dorothy Allred Solomon confessed, “Although we were reared to treasure truth and cling to the light, our way of life was filled with secrets.” This readiness to deceive has been referred to as “Mormon logic.” Sometimes they “disobey a lesser law to keep a higher one.” Another irony is that modern members are highly critical of the tactics of the modern polygamists, who borrowed the tactics from Mormon polygamists in the 1800’s. (Solemn Covenant, p. 378)

76. One subtle way of deceiving government agents was for church members to say that the church had abandoned polygamy. The idea was that the church was an organization that had abandoned the practice. But individual priesthood leaders might still take new wives. Thus the idea was that though the church had abandoned the practice, the priesthood had not. This allowed church leaders to act in a dual role-either as corporate spokesman or individual priesthood holder. At least as far back as President John Taylor, it was understood that the responsibility for encouraging plural marriage had been taken from the church and extended to everybody “upon his own responsibility.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 378-379)

77. Apostle John W. Taylor married Janet Maria Wooley as his third wife only four days after the Manifesto was presented and accepted in general conference. They married in a carriage in Liberty Park at night in Salt Lake City. The family intentionally backdated the marriage date to 10 October 1889. Apostle John W. Taylor married Rhoda and Roxie Welling on 29 August 1901 (11 years after the Manifesto). The ceremony was performed at the Taylor home in Farmington, Utah. Joseph F. Smith, who was acting as a counselor in the First Presidency, gave permission. The subterfuge was regarded as virtuous by church leaders. (Solemn Covenant 206-207)

78. Apostle Brigham Young Jr. took a plural wife the year before the 1890 Manifesto was published and another in August 1901, despite President Woodruff’s insistence (in the Manifesto) that no such marriages had been solemnized prior to its publication. He must have known better, because Young was president of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles. Later, during the debate over B.H. Roberts attempt to take his seat as an elected representative to the House of Representatives, B. Young Jr. publicly asserted that President Snow’s denials regarding the continued practice of polygamy in the church after the Manifesto were true.

79. Brigham Young Jr. was quoted as teaching that he had “naught but contempt for all forms of hypocrisy or deceit.” His half-sister said of him, “He can keep still but must not deceive.” Mormon leaders developed a blind spot when it came to their own dishonesty. (Solemn Covenant, pp. 207-208)

80. Apostle Marriner W. Merrill took a plural wife in the Logan Temple in 1901, well after the Manifesto was accepted as binding upon the church. He denied under oath in front of the Senate committee investigating Reed Smoot that he had married Hilda after 1890. Though the committee possessed solid evidence that he was lying he continued to insist that he was telling the truth. (Solemn Covenant, p. 208)

81. The son of Wilford Woodruff, Abraham Owen Woodruff married 18 year-old Eliza Avery Clark as a plural wife in 1901 (11 years after his father presented the Manifesto). She was previously engaged to a young man living in Wyoming where she resided with her family. After apostle Matthias F. Cowley persuaded her to marry Woodruff, she broke her engagement and consented to marry Woodruff. Cowley performed the ceremony in Preston, Idaho. (Solemn Covenant, pp. 208-209) Modern church members might be stunned to learn of the disregard for the law demonstrated by church leaders. In a modern members’ mind it would conflict with the covenant to obey the laws of the land. (D&C 134:1 “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them... .”)

82. Apostle Rudger Clawson married a plural wife in 1904 (14 years after the Manifesto had been accepted as binding on the church). He married Pearl Udall as a second wife with his wife’s consent. Apostle Marriner W. Merril spoke directly to younger members of the Quorum of the Twelve and advised them not to neglect the opportunity to build up a kingdom for themselves (a euphemism for polygamy). Clawson took the command from his superior seriously, though it meant contradicting the Manifesto. After the marriage, Merrill counseled young Clawson to mislead those looking for evidence of post-Manifesto plural marriages by writing misleading entries in a diary, or simply neglecting to record them. (Solemn Covenant, p. 211)

83. Abraham Hoagland Cannon (an LDS apostle) married Annie Cannon after President Woodruff gave him consent to do so, in 1894, four years after the Manifesto declared an end to all plural marriages. What adds interest to this form of deceit is that Annie was taken as a concubine. Apparently church leaders had considered this practice from 1843 on when the revelation to Joseph about plural marriage mentioned that the Lord approved concubinage.

84. Church members deny that the LDS church condoned or practiced concubinage (carrying on a relationship with a woman outside the bonds of marriage - adultery), and insist that LDS men always married honorably. George M. Cannon suggested the concubinage method to Abraham Cannon (his son) and said, “I believe in concubinage, or some plan whereby men and women can live together under sacred ordinances and vows until they can be married.” He insisted that such relationships must be kept secret until the government changed its laws. He added that concubinage would open up a way to take care of “our surplus girls” as well as fulfill the command to multiply and replenish the earth. Despite protests by contemporary Mormons that polygamy established high standards of decency and morality, and was different than adultery or keeping mistresses, Cannon’s behavior proves otherwise. Fifteen lines are cut out of his diary for October 1894, three days after his visit with Annie and Uncle George Q. Cannon, where the suggestion regarding concubinage was made. Though Annie lived to be 79 years of age, there is no record of her having been married. She is said to have accompanied Abraham Cannon on numerous excursions and she refused a proposal for marriage from prominent LDS member, Heber Bennion. (Solemn Covenant, pp. 214-215)

85. President George Q. Cannon appears to have entered into a concubinage-like relationship with Amelia Madsen one year before his death and well after the Manifesto was presented. She was past child-bearing age. (Solemn Covenant, p. 215)

86. Joseph F. Smith performed a secret marriage for Abraham H. Cannon and Lilian Hamlin. The four; Abraham and Lilian, and Joseph F. and a wife, traveled by train to California. On the way to Catalina Island by boat, the marriage was solemnized on the vessel. LDS Leaders believed that solemnizing marriages on water permitted them to say they had not performed marriages “in” the U.S. - or “on U.S. soil.” Abraham contracted an ear infection on the trip and after returning home to Salt Lake died. Before expiring he confessed to Wilhelmina, his first wife that he had married Lilian Hamlin and she presumed that Joseph F. Smith had performed the ceremony since he was the only authority of the church present. Nevertheless, during the Smoot hearings Joseph F. Smith consistently denied having performed the marriage. Those who have investigated the facts have little trouble dismissing Joseph F. Smith’s denials as pure prevarications. To further confuse those who might be interested in the marriage, Joseph F. Smith traveled under the assumed name Orson Smith, a code name for his own person. It allowed Smith to deny that he (Joseph F. Smith) performed the ceremony. (Solemn Covenant, 219-220)

87. Apostle George Teasdale married a plural wife, Marion Scoles secretly in October of 1897. His diary entries for the 23rd to the 28th are missing. These are the dates when the couple traveled together and were married. He later married another wife, Letitia Dolly Thomas on 17 May 1900. Teasdale divorced Lillias Hook, a former wife to try avoid scandal, because the Salt Lake Tribune had begun to investigate the matter. President Joseph F. Smith told the Smoot committee that Lillias had never been a real wife to Teasdale-only an elderly housekeeper. She had been sealed to Teasdale in name only as a favor to her, Smith told the committee. To the contrary, Lillias was only 35 when she was married to Teasdale, hardly elderly. She was 8 years younger than Teasdale. Teasdale’s divorce complaint from Lillias stated that she was unable to have sexual intercourse. Yet he remained married to her for decades before divorcing her. Incongruously, the records of the Twentieth Ward in SLC where Lillias lived, list one George Vivian Teasdale, born on 11 June 1896, and name George and Lillias Teasdale as the parents. (Solemn Covenant, 221-226)

88. Bogus divorce in order to mislead authorities was a ploy sometimes used in Mormon polygamous families. The logic was that if a fake divorce was necessary to live the higher law of polygamy it was acceptable. Also, Mormons believed that earthly divorce was not binding in heaven anyway. In the eyes of the Lord, the couple was still married. (Solemn Covenant, 226-227)

89. Ninety year-old President Wilford Woodruff took a new plural wife in 1897 one year before his death. He married Lydia Mamreoff von Finkelstein Mountford who was a 49 year-old. She was a guest lecturer in Salt Lake City, having been invited by James E. Talmage. President Woodruff was captivated by her. She was baptized in February 1897. They traveled together to California and used assumed names when registering in a hotel in Portland, Oregon. Between 20 and 22 September 1897, they were married while sailing back to Portland from California. Mountford was the legal wife of Charles Edwin Mountford. This would not be the first instance of plural marriage to a woman still legally married. Joseph Smith practiced that concept at least 11 times (In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 15-23). It has always been postulated that whatever others did after the Manifesto, President Woodruff had honored the “revelation.” The marriage was later solemnized by proxy in the Salt Lake Temple in 1920. (Solemn Covenant, 228-232)

90. The LDS leaders’ constant use of prevarication turned friends against them. Theodore Schroeder, once friendly to the Mormons became a bitter enemy when he discovered the extent of the deceit used by church leaders and members alike. In 1897 he wrote essays exposing the continued practice of polygamy, despite denials issued by the church. He set out to prove that the church had consistently lied about its involvement with polygamy since the Nauvoo period. (Solemn Covenant, 246)

91. B. H. Roberts admitted taking plural wives as late as April 1890 during the Smoot Hearings, contradicting President Woodruff’s statement in the Manifesto that no such marriages had taken place in the year preceding the Manifesto. Roberts was probably lying about the year he married his last plural wife, Dr. Milford Shipp. She was still legally married and lived with her husband until 1892. The marriage to Roberts most likely occurred in 1894. Roberts managed to expose both he and President Woodruff as deceivers at the same time. (Solemn Covenant, 247)

92. When B.H. Roberts was elected to the House of Representatives after Utah became a state, the House voted to exclude him because an investigation revealed that Roberts was engaged in polygamous marriage and that one of his wives had married him after the Manifesto. Since it was a clear violation of the law of the land, and he and the LDS leadership had ignored society’s legal code, he was declared unfit for office. A petition was circulated demanding that B.H. Roberts be denied a seat in Congress. Seven million citizens signed it and it was presented to Congress. Those considered enemies by church leaders were provided a national platform to advertise abundant evidence of dishonesty on the part of Mormon church leaders and members. (Solemn Covenant, 249, 250)

93. Reed Smoot was elected to the United States Senate in 1902 and federal lawmakers protested immediately. He was sworn into office in March 1903. But government authorities feared that Smoot was a polygamous sympathizer, though he was not a polygamist himself. It was also a well established fact that the church had engaged in deception for decades to evade the law. Because of the church’s reputation for dishonesty, the Smoot investigation lasted more than 3 years (1904-1907) and resulted in over 3,000 pages of sworn testimony. The scope of the inquiry broadened to include the history, theology and culture of Mormonism itself. If the citizens of the U.S. doubted the honesty and veracity of the Mormon leaders and their people before the hearings, afterward they did not doubt due to mountains of testimony and documented evidence. The Mormons were guilty of unending prevarication. (Solemn Covenant, 251)

94. President Joseph F. Smith was the first witness called and placed under oath to tell the whole truth before the Smoot investigation. His testimony may have been the most damaging. He pled incredible ignorance concerning the polygamous activities that he personally permitted and encouraged. Yet he admitted to fathering children by 5 wives since 1890, after the Manifesto had been issued. He categorically denied that Presidents Woodruff and Snow had authorized polygamous marriages after the Manifesto. He knew that to be false. He went on to say that he had not heard anyone “advocate, encourage or recommend” plural marriages since the Manifesto. This was false. U.S. leaders and citizens joined with the LDS members in disbelief that President Smith would blatantly lie under oath-denying what others plainly knew to be true. One witness suggested tongue in cheek that President Smith was using his words differently than the way most people use them. (Solemn Covenant, 253)

95. Mormon apologist histories complain about the “persecution” heaped upon President Smith at the hearings, and praise his dignified responses. The truth is the constant stream of duplicity and lies increased the hostility toward Mormons. Most were disgusted with the Mormon Prophet, Seer, and Revelator who refused to come forth with a degree of honesty while under oath before the Senate hearings. (Solemn Covenant, 253-254)

96. George Reynolds antagonized hearing participants when he lied about knowing that his own daughter had married Benjamin Cluff (president of the Brigham Young academy) as a plural wife. He made the fantastic claim that since the Manifesto was issued 13 years prior, he had never spoken to anyone either for or against the practice. Reynolds had to be persuaded by Smoot to refrain from testifying that though his daughter was married, he knew nothing about it. (Solemn Covenant, 253-254)

97. Under oath at the Smoot hearings, Hyrum M. Smith, son of President Joseph F. Smith testified that he had no recollection of the subject of polygamy being discussed in any of the meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve. Then he contradicted himself by assuring the committee that if the subject was discussed, the Twelve were urged to stamp out the practice. Both statements were lies. (Solemn Covenant, 254)

98. Francis M. Lyman lied under oath when he told investigators that although everyone else in Utah was aware of continued cohabitation with plural wives, Senator Smoot was unaware of the practice. The interrogator followed that response and inquired if Smoot was uninformed about the state he was supposed to represent. Lyman contradicted himself by stating that Smoot was probably better informed than anyone else about domestic practices in the state he represented. To make matters worse, Lyman claimed that he was being guided by the Spirit of the Lord in his responses. When the interrogator asked Lyman if he was blaming the Lord for the contradictions (lies) within his testimony, Lyman had no reply. He added later that polygamy was a mystery of the kingdom. (Solemn Covenant, 254)

99. Under oath, Apostle John Henry Smith testified that he couldn’t remember his own birth date, as well as other easily recalled facts about his life that he claimed he could not recollect. (Solemn Covenant, 254)

100. Apostle Marriner W. Merrill swore that he had taken no plural wives since the Manifesto, though it was widely known that he had taken one in 1901 (eleven years after the Manifesto). (Solemn Covenant, 254)

101. Senator-to-be Reed Smoot, testified that he had no knowledge that “any apostle or any member of the Presidency” had taken a plural wife since 1890, except for the cases he learned of at the hearings. This was demonstrably false as later testimony by Smoot illustrated, when he contradicted himself. (Solemn Covenant, 255)

102. Under oath at the Smoot hearings, President Joseph F. Smith testified that church inquiries into polygamous marriages or the arrangement of plural marriages by church leaders in Salt Lake was an issue delegated to the local units to investigate. He did this despite being one of those, along with other church leaders, who orchestrated the marriages. (Solemn Covenant, 255)

103. President Smith promised under oath to arrange for church leaders from Salt Lake to cooperate and appear before the Smoot hearings to testify about the issue of polygamy in Utah. Yet, after returning to Salt Lake, he wrote to Senator Burrows that several apostles could not travel to the hearings on account of ill health. He wrote that he could not persuade apostles Taylor and Cowley to appear. These excuses qualify as pre-meditated deceit. President Smith had the power to require the apostles to appear. To compound the deception, Teasdale and others who supposed to be suffering from fragile health took several long journeys ( Mexico , Arizona and Canada ), and the trips had no ill effects on their health. In fact, Teasdale traveled to Mexico and Canada to run beyond the grasp of the interrogators at the Smoot hearings. (Solemn Covenant, 256-257)

104. Church leaders attempted to persuade Anthony W. Ivins to sign an affidavit that they knew to be categorically untrue. Being a rare LDS man of conscience, Ivins refused to sign it. The purpose of the document was to certify that no plural marriages occurred in Mexico after the Manifesto. Most members are unaware that church leaders pressured others to lie. (Solemn Covenant, 257)

105. Because of the damaging testimony at the Smoot hearings, public perception of the Mormons was that they and their leaders were liars. Mountains of false testimony supported this perception. Smoot wanted the leaders to take steps to repair the damage they had caused at the hearings. Consequently, President Smith read a statement that compounded the problem of negative perception. The statement denied that plural marriages had been performed in the church after the Manifesto, and denied that new plural marriages were being performed currently. Both statements were false. In fact, he had sanctioned many marriages since the Manifesto. He also stated that those who had had marriages solemnized since the Manifesto were subject to excommunication from the church. This was also a lie. Finally, Smith blasted the committee for accusing church leaders of being dishonest. (Solemn Covenant, 259-260)

106. Apostle Francis M. Lyman sent a message to Apostle Teasdale and admitted that plural marriages performed after the Manifesto (supposedly bringing a stop to the practice) had shaken the confidence of the members in their leaders. He also admitted to Teasdale that church leaders were perceived to be dishonest and untrustworthy because of their deception in the Smoot hearings. (Solemn Covenant, 261) Current LDS apologists are reluctant to admit dishonesty on the part of their leaders, or they find creative ways to characterize their behavior as noble and praiseworthy; as if they had no choice. Prophets who claim to commune with God, and direct the only true church on earth, are placed on pedestals as models of virtue. Current church members assume that LDS leaders are men of principle.

107. After the statement (1904) denying that plural marriages were being performed currently, and that those participating in them would be excommunicated, church leaders ordered Anthony W. Ivins in Mexico , to quickly marry at least two couples who had intended to marry polygamously before word of the statement was officially taken personally to outlying Mormon settlements. This action contradicted the letter as well as the spirit of the statement read by President Smith in the April 1904 conference. (Solemn Covenant, 261)

108. When many in the federal government became weary of the church’s lies, deception and cover-up of the true facts involving polygamy, Democrats considered placing an anti-polygamy plank in the 1904 national platform; to propose an amendment to the constitution prohibiting polygamy. Church leaders entered a damage control mode and scurried to placate the leaders of the nation. It was suggested that apostles John Taylor and Matthias Cowley be offered as sacrificial lambs, to create the idea in Washington that the church was serious about stamping out the practice of polygamy. When in doubt, resort to deception seemed to be their guiding principle.

109. Both men were assured that the action was only a temporary separation from the quorum of the Twelve, in order to appease lawmakers in Washington. After being told President Smith himself would quickly reinstate them, they finally agreed to be cut off and were separated from the quorum on October 28, 1905. The two apostles were not the only two leaders who had participated in the practice after the Manifesto. The sacrificial brethren and the church leaders were both losers because of the deceptive maneuvering. The leaders miscalculated, never intending to: (1) abandon polygamy, or (2) cut off those actively practicing polygamy.

110. The leaders did not keep their word to apostles Taylor and Cowley. They were never reinstated due to the public pressure to convince lawmakers that their punishment was real. Both were cut off from the church in 1911, because church leaders made up their minds to abandon polygamy. Some church members thought that the authorities had gone too far to placate the government while others were relieved. Lies and deception about polygamy caused church members to contend for one side or the other: (1) maintain the practice despite government penalties, or (2) rid the church of the practice. (Solemn Covenant, 261-266)

111. After the Smoot hearings, and after dropping Elders Taylor and Cowley from the Quorum of the Twelve and the church, LDS leaders became serious about putting an end to the practice of polygamy. When members were caught, the church councils began to discipline them (as they claimed they had been doing decades earlier). Joseph W. Summerhays was apprehended and charged with illegally entering the practice. He identified President Joseph F. Smith as the church leader who gave him permission to practice polygamy. President Smith denied the charge. Those leaders eager to excommunicate Summerhays were stunned that President Smith likely gave his consent so it was decided to drop Summerhays from his church position rather than excommunicate him. Smith refused to admit his considerable role in keeping the practice alive. (Solemn Covenant, 291)

112. President Smith addressed the practice of polygamy in the April 1911 conference and once again affirmed that the church was keeping its word regarding the cessation of plural marriages, including the punishment of those found practicing it. Senator Reed Smoot knew differently however. He tried to persuade President Smith to actually do what the church told the government it was doing-take action against those who were engaging in the practice. He sensed what President Smith didn’t. Americans would not tolerate polygamy any longer. He wrote, “If there is another investigation I do not know how [our] present position will be justified .... We are in a bad position for an examination or investigation.” Contrary to what the leaders were telling the government, they were still reluctant to stop the practice or bring action against those who engaged in it. (Solemn Covenant, 294)

113. Church leaders did not hesitate to deceive when they engaged in Post-Manifesto marriages well after 1904. While members resided in Mexico , their leaders promised them eternal rewards for taking other wives and refusing to be intimidated by government threats. When they moved to the United States , they were treated with humiliation and disgust by fellow members who were embarrassed to be associated with those breaking the law. One member took his wives into New Mexico from Texas and was accused of white slavery. Another member attended a church meeting in the states with his plural wives and quickly became the object of scorn. The double tongued approach to plural marriage on the part of church leaders led to confusion and disillusionment among its members. Practicing polygamous fundamentalists learned from LDS leaders that deception is no sin if you’re protecting polygamy. (Solemn Covenant, 296-297)

114. Church leaders deceived its members when they redefined the term “celestial marriage.” Until the 1880’s it had referred exclusively to plural marriage. To mislead government authorities, leaders claimed that “celestial marriage” meant only a marriage that survived death; though they never subscribed to this meaning themselves. During the Smoot hearings leaders used this deceptive maneuver to mislead investigators. This deception proved helpful in Idaho where the constitution prohibited those practicing or teaching “celestial marriage” from voting. Yet, as late as 1904, leaders privately used the term “celestial marriage” to refer to polygamy. In order to distance itself from polygamy, the church finally adopted the new meaning of “celestial marriage.” Modern members in the mainstream of the church do not understand that “celestial marriage” originally referred to polygamy alone. Current church leaders perpetuate the deception. (Solemn Covenant, 297-298)

115. A member of the First Presidency organized a legislative strategy committee to influence legislation in 1896. It informed member legislators that the committee’s action “must be obeyed.” Newspapers later informed its readers that the committee was operational. Ed Ivins, reporter for the Salt Lake Herald, questioned each member of the committee, trying to confirm the existence of the committee. “Every Mormon General Authority told partial truths and downright misrepresentations” during this episode. In other words, they denied the existence of a committee that they knew existed. (Edward Leo Lyman: Mormon Leaders in Politics, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 24, No. 2, Fall 1998, pp. 46-49)

116. The church’s official position on blacks and the priesthood was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. Missionaries issued this standard message when answering investigators’ questions. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever received a revelation denying black Africans the priesthood. On the contrary, Elijah Abel, a black man, was ordained a Seventy, and Joseph likely permitted the ordination of at least one other black member to the Mormon priesthood. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)

117. Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood. In an address before the territorial legislature on January 16, 1852, Wilford Woodruff recorded that Brigham said that persons having “one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now...” Young also went further and declared that if a white person should marry a black person, they would both be required to give their lives in blood atonement (including any offspring that resulted in the union) in order to be forgiven by God for their sin (equal to murder in seriousness). (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973 and Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss Editors, Neither White nor Black, `”Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Signature Books, Midvale, UT, 1984: 68, 89-90) The church has never admitted that Brigham Young invented the policy based on Young and others’ personal prejudices, common to that era.

118. The church’s doctrine and practice of denying those with African blood the priesthood until 1978 resulted in a negative public image for the church and its members. To defend themselves, church leaders claimed that the doctrine was never the result of racial prejudice. This is contradicted by numerous statements of its leaders. Brigham Young taught that blacks were created to be slaves, they “were naturally designed for that purpose, and [their] capacities are more befitting that, than any other station in society.” He reiterated that they “are naturally designed to occupy the position of ‘servant of servants’.” He cautioned that members should not “elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those who Nature and Nature’s God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors ...” Brigham Young signed into law acts legalizing Negro and Indian slavery, in his capacity as Territorial governor. While it can be argued that many whites felt this way during the 1800s, one is reminded that the Mormons claim that God engages in direct communication and inspires their leaders. Brigham Young’s statements do not reflect God-inspired ideals that are more compassionate than the ignorant, prejudice demonstrated by other ordinary 19th century humans. In fact Young’s statements do not rise to the level of the enlightened few who sought equal rights and social justice for all.

119. Further evidence of Mormon prejudice against African Americans can be found in the Utah legislature’s refusal to pass public accommodation and fair employment bills on at least four occasions between 1945 and 1951. Utah joined the nation in discriminating against blacks in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters and bowling alleys-they were not allowed to associate with whites. In Washington DC some Relief Society sisters objected to sitting beside “two colored sisters who are apparently faithful members of the church.” The First Presidency responded to the situation by suggesting that the two “colored sisters” be “discretely approached” and told to sit in the rear of the chapel or far on the other side away from others. (Neither White nor Black, edited by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, 68, 89-90)

120. Apostle Mark E. Petersen made these racist statements. “It isn’t that he [the Negro] 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 feeling 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.” (Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954. Found in Shadow or Reality? page 279.) LDS apologists insist that Petersen was not offering official views of the LDS leadership. LDS leaders have never offered an official repudiation of Petersen’s statement.

121. Telling the truth in the church’s official histories has been branded as disloyal by more than one LDS leader. In 1976 Elder Ezra Taft Benson defined true historical accuracy as “slander and defamation.” He warned CES employees and historians about trying to “inordinately humanize the prophets of God.” He further commanded CES employees, “If you feel you must write for the scholarly journals, you always defend the faith.” The same employees were instructed not to buy journals and books and periodicals from “known apostates, or other liberal sources.” Finally, he commanded CES employees to keep those same materials off their office bookshelves. (Lavina Fielding Anderson, “The LDS Intellectual Community and Church Leadership: A Contemporary Chronology.” Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 11) When Mormons declare that all members may freely express their views about Mormon leadership and history, they may be ignorant of the facts or trying to deceive their audience. Views not in keeping with a faith promoting theme are not welcome.

122. On February 26, 1980, Apostle Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk at BYU entitled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.” In it, he taught that the prophet “is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything,” and “the living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works,” and The prophet will never lead the church astray,” etc. When asked if Elder Benson’s speech was an accurate reflection of church doctrine, public communications spokesman, Don LeFevre, said that it was accurate. Yet, he denied a newspaper report that stated that the president of the Church “is God’s prophet and his word is law on all issues-including politics.”

123. Members and leaders use standard denials when asked if the LDS Prophet is infallible. But President N. Eldon Tanner of the First Presidency wrote a message in the August 1979 Ensign that stated emphatically, “When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” The editors of the Ensign neglected to mention that when a church magazine made a similar statement in the late 1940’s, President George Albert Smith denied that it was a true statement (in a private letter to a Protestant minister). (Lavina Fielding Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 11, 13) In practice, LDS prophets are treated as if they are infallible. Temple recommend interviews inquire of members: “Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?” (http://www.lds-mormon.com/new_temple_questions.shtml) To “sustain” in LDS parlance means to do what they say. This kind of regular interrogation is non existent in mainline denominations.

124. Boyd Kirkland wrote Building the Kingdom with Total Honesty. It’s found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Volume 31, Number 3, Fall 1998 “Letters to the Editor.” In it he recounted his experience with deception about the Adam-God doctrine when Spencer W. Kimball was the church president. He learned that lying was the method the church used as standard operating procedure to keep from losing its members. After discovering that the leaders of the church were deliberately deceiving him he asked, “Wasn’t there concern that some might be dismayed and disillusioned by their church leaders’ lack of candor? ... .they said, in essence, ‘If a few people lose their testimonies over this, so be it; it’s better than letting the true facts be known, and dealing with the probable wider negative consequences to the mission of the church.” (http://www.lds-mormon.com/boyd.shtml)

125. D. Michael Quinn published an article that documented approximately 250 plural marriages that occurred after the Manifesto, with the authorization of the leaders of the church (”LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages,” 1890-1904), Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1985, pages 9-105). A stake president confiscated Quinn’s temple recommend as a result of the article. He admitted to Quinn that he had been told to say that it was a local decision, though Elder Paramore (a Seventy), who gave the instructions to the stake president, was acting on instructions from several apostles. He also warned Quinn that it probably was a first step to having him fired for not holding a valid temple recommend. A valid temple recommend is a condition of employment for those who teach for BYU and the Church Education System. (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 25)

126. After publishing their award winning book about Emma Smith, Valeen Tippetts Avery and Linda King Newell were blacklisted from speaking in church meetings. The instructions to local leaders came by telephone from church headquarters. Many misrepresentations include the charge that the authors were peddling their book at sacrament meetings and firesides. In fact, only one author had spoken at one sacrament meeting after the publication of the book and never sold a book herself. She even asked those introducing her NOT to introduce her as the co-author of the new book. The charges though untrue were never recanted. (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 25)

127. Former BYU professor David Knowlton, in a television interview airing August 16, 1992, (KXVS, Channel 4) in Salt Lake, said, “I’m ashamed, frankly, of a church that doesn’t want to tell the truth. I’m ashamed of institutional lying.” His comments stemmed from the church’s denial, then admission that a committee existed within the church that keeps files on the activities on its members. It sends the files to local church leaders with instructions to interrogate them about their commitment to the church. The committee is active currently (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 46-47).

128. Despite assurance from Elders James E. Faust and Russell M. Nelson that files kept on members of the church are not secret, requests by several members to see their own files are denied. (Anderson, Vol. 26 No. 1 Spring 1993, Dialogue, 50) This is an example of dissembling General Authority Mormon-speak.

129. Current LDS apostles are refreshingly honest about ordering church members to be dishonest. They have ordered those who employed by the church to suppress the truth about Mormon history.

—Boyd Packer declared, “There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.”

“Some things that are true are not very useful.” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect”, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271) He threatened and warned Church Education System Employees to suppress historical information when teaching LDS students.

—Dallin Oaks said, it’s one thing to criticize the head of a corporation of person in government but “It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. “ (Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, “Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders,” quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B) This was another salvo fired over the bows of Church Education System employees, warning them not to teach LDS students the whole truth about Mormon history.

—Oaks also wrote this in the church’s official magazine. “A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.” (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68)

—Apostle Russell M. Nelson said, “ “Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid... .Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up “facts” with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:” He then quoted from the Romans 1:17-18 - a threat to the ungodly to beware of the wrath of God. (Russell M. Nelson, “Truth-and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69)

The message from current leaders is clear. Pretend that the LDS leaders are infallible, obey and conform. For easy access to these and other statements see http://i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm)

130. President Gordon B. Hinckley stated to journalist and authors, Richard and Joan Ostling that he didn’t know very much about God existing once as a mortal; and “I don’t know that we teach it.” He stated that his remarks to the reporters, which appeared in print, were taken out of context and that he was misquoted. Richard and Joan Ostler wrote Mormon America, and included in their book Hinckley’s denials as well as the transcripts of the interview with President Hinckley. The taped transcripts clearly indicated that President Hinckley’s remarks were not taken out of context nor was he misquoted. (Richard and Joan Ostling, Mormon America : The Power and the Promise, Harper One, Revised Edition, 2007, p. 301. Also http://www.irr.org/MIT/hinckley.html; for a partial transcript of the Time Magazine, Aug 4, 1997 article and letter to the prophet’s office to ask if Hinckley was misquoted. A similar remark can be found in San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1; ) This is reminiscent of denials offered by professional athletes and politicians who regret making statements to the press.

131. Many doctrines which were once taught by the LDS church, and held to be fundamental, essential and “eternal”, have been abandoned: (a) plural marriage, (b) Adam-God doctrine, (c) The Law of Consecration, (d) Africans cursed and denied the Mormon priesthood, and (e) blood atonement. (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/tract.htm) When asked about plural marriage, by talk show host Larry King, Gordon Hinckley said “I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal...” (Larry King Live on September 8, 1998 see http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm) The Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 is LDS canon and proves that polygamy is a doctrine, though not currently practiced. The doctrine has never been rescinded, though the practice has been temporarily suspended. Hinckley and apologists fail to point out that Joseph F. Smith stated unequivocally, “I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. (Journal of Discourses 20:28-31.) A host of other church presidents and apostles bore equally strong testimonies.

132. Hinckley and others continue to perpetuate another myth connected to Mormon polygamy. Knowing otherwise, Hinckley and other apologists state that only 2, 3 or maybe 5 percent of Mormons ever participated in the practice (Larry King Live on September 8, 1998 see http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm). It is more likely that the number is closer to 20 - 30 percent. It’s difficult to measure because in order to retain one’s status as a leader in the church, polygamy was a requirement. For the members in general, the number practicing polygamy varied according to location. (http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/mormonpolygamy.htm)

133. In a press conference referring to the newly constructed monument at Mountain Meadows in October 1999, President Hinckley made the following statement regarding the tragedy: “Indians and white settlers accompanied by a few Mormons participated in a massacre of the Fancher Wagon Train.” He also mentioned that the truth about the massacre may never be fully uncovered. His remarks failed to accurately summarize the events; a transgression of omission. Mormon settlers led the attack and murdered 120 men, women and older children by shooting them at point blank range after deceiving them, disarming them and promising them safe passage. There were no non-Mormon white settlers, as Hinckley’s nebulous statement led his audience to believe.

134. Hinckley also failed to mention that Brigham Young and others organized a massive cover-up to evade prosecution. They destroyed or hid documents that would undoubtedly have led to the truth. They ordered members who had knowledge of the gruesome affair upon pain of death, to keep quiet and not cooperate with investigations of the murders. Church leaders and archivists to this day reserve the right to deny access to records they consider embarrassing because they reveal too much.

Juanita Brooks authored the seminal work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a biography of John D. Lee, the man who ultimately was convicted of murder and shot by firing squad for participating in the massacre. Brooks offered Bishop Philip Klingensmith’s account of the oath that participants took to cover up the murders. He said the oath was “to the effect that each of them promised before God, angels, and their companions in this circle, that they would never under any conditions speak of this action to anyone else or to each other, and if any did so, he would suffer his life to be taken. This was done in the name of God and for His glory.” (Juanita Brooks, John D. Lee, p. 221. See also Arza Evans, Keystone of Mormonism, Chapter 18)

Hand wringing and statements by church leaders expressing regret because, “we will never know what really happened here [at Mountain Meadows],” are not credible. We will never know the whole truth because the church will never permit free access to the historical records.

135. Helen Radkey is a genealogical researcher devoted to issues associated with LDS Church. She is also an author. “Since 1999, Ms. Radkey has reported on the failure of the agreement signed by LDS leaders and Jewish organizations in which the Church promised to halt its proxy baptisms for deceased Jews. The practice continues, despite denials by the Mormon leadership... In 1995 the Mormon Church signed an agreement to cease its practice of baptizing deceased Jews who were not “direct ancestors” of members of their faith and listing them in the IGI. Despite the agreement, Ms. Radkey learned in 2005 that the LDS church had not kept its word. LDS leaders indicated that they were trying to define the term, “direct ancestor.” (http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_helenradkey.html)

136. The LDS church continues to deceive the public about vicarious baptisms performed in behalf of Adolf Hitler and Eve Braun. “ Current IGI TM Addendum temple ordinance entries for Mr. [Adolf] Hiedler (Hitler) show that Hitler was “baptized” by Mormons on September 30, 1993, and “endowed” on April 27, 1994, in the Jordan River Temple, Utah..... Eva Anna Paula Braun, born in Munich, Bavaria, Germany , on February 7, 1912, was “baptized” by Mormons on October 16, 1964, and “endowed” on February 5, 1965, in the Los Angeles Temple. She had been “sealed” to her parents some time prior to 1970. This information is current and is easily accessible in the IGI TM Addendum, in which file Ashton stated that no information was available for either Hitler or Braun.” (http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_helenradkey.html)

More examples of deception could be added to the list. But it already meets the definition of overkill. This is due to the artful dodges and denial of Mormon polemicists. It’s necessary to paint an unmistakably clear picture, which leaves one open to the charge of being insensitive. You can’t win. Either you don’t present enough facts to establish your case, or you present too many and your documentation constitutes cruelty. It’s a fine line. The LDS Church engages in deceit and dishonesty when it feels the need to protect its image, but complains when their deceit is made public. For another superb site on lying see Richard Packham’s excellent essay on Lying for the Lord http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm)

Do I mean to imply that a “fibs list” indicates that the Mormon Church is the only religious institution who has engaged in lies and deceit? No. History tells us a different story. However, not many other religious organizations claim to be Christ’s only true and restored church on the face of the earth, with God-chosen living prophets, seers, and revelators who will never lead the church astray. And some religious denominations admit wrong doing after the fact. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n9_v59/ai_17292781)

Research on lying indicates that everybody fibs. University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert Feldman researches lying. He has found that lying “boils down to the shifting sands of the self and trying to look good both to ourselves and others. Feldman says, “It’s tied in with self esteem. ... . We find that as soon as people feel that their self-esteem is threatened, they immediately begin to lie at higher levels.” (Robin Loyd, “Why We Lie.” Live Science, Posted 15 May 2006. http://www.livescience.com/health/060515_why_lie.html)

Those who describe themselves as the most moral, lie too. A new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. “In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people. In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.” ( Jeanna Bryner , “Oddly, Hypocrisy Rooted in High Morals,” LiveScience Staff Writer, LiveScience.com , Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007, 7:55 am EST)

The purpose of this exercise is to point out the pretense of LDS leaders and members who sometimes insist, probably as a result of overzealousness, that Mormons are more moral than the rest of “the world.” Contrast the moral indignation expressed by Mormons about dishonesty and immorality in “the world,” with the behavior of their leaders. It places them neatly in the “pot calling the kettle black” category. When the Mormon Church portrays itself as “the” moral authority because it is the “only true church on the face of the earth,” then it will be monitored closely to see if it lives up to its claims. Mormons might be better off to admit that their church is a man-made institution and their leaders are merely mortals doing the best they can - flying by the seat of their pants like the rest of us. Sometimes we lie to avoid uncomfortable situations or maybe we just want to look good. This includes LDS leaders and members. The rest of us admit to it.

Excuses such as, “the church leaders are only human,” will be ignored because we will recall Church President Gordon B. Hinckley’s article for the October1990 Ensign, entitled, “We Believe in Being Honest.” In it he warns readers that lies can spread “like a disease that is endemic” even when one uses deception for a worthy cause. Hinckley proclaimed, “How cheaply some men and women sell their good names!” He is included on this list as a member of the “Deceivers Club” (as are the rest of us in the human race). He authored the book called, Standing for Something. I used to joke about a book that should have been written titled, Sitting for Nothing. If you condemn those who lie, and then lie to LDS members and the public at large, it opens you up to this kind of sophomoric amusement.

Noted LDS historians D. Michael Quinn and B. Carmon Hardy have written compassionately and humanely as they describe the history of Mormonism, and the use of deception as a useful tool to manage the minds of its adherents and public perception.

Hardy, recognizing that LDS public discourse routinely used fake denials and deception called it “pretzled language.” He quoted Apostle Matthias Cowley who said, “I am not dishonest and not a liar and have always been true to the work and to the brethren.” Cowley later admitted, “We have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.” (Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 373,374)

In my effort to defend the church from detractors I learned that ironically, members get excommunicated precisely because they publish the truth, and refuse to adopt lying, deception, or suppression of facts as an ethical standard. Loyalty is more important in the LDS church than honesty. I found this out the hard way while teaching for the Church Education System. Honesty was referred to as undermining the testimonies of the youth, or undermining the authority of the prophets.

D. Michael Quinn, excommunicated in 1993 said, “The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials. Elder [Boyd K.] Packer and others would justify this because “we are at war with the adversary” and must also protect any Latter-day Saint whose “testimony [is] in seedling stage.” But such a public-relations defense of the Church is actually a Maginot Line of sandy fortifications which “the enemy” can easily breach and which has been built up by digging lethal pits into which the Saints will stumble. A so-called “faith-promoting” Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of Latter- day Saints who eventually learn about the problems from other sources.” (On Being a Mormon Historian, A Lecture by D. Michael Quinn, Associate Professor of History at Brigham Young University, Before the Student History Association, Fall 1981; Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History . Edited by George D. Smith.1992.) See also http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/onbeingamormonhistorian_ub057.htm)

Good posts

It is one thing to disagree with doctrine, it is quite another to lie to deceive.

Okay, please show us where the lies and how we deceived are? We're anxious to know. If you can post with an Iphone/whatever surely you have access to a computer like maybe even at a library(?)

its okay ive been where hes at

confront a morg w truth and its like slappin his mama

youre dissing his only source of emotional security

as well as the ‘becummin a god’ payoff that he invested all the years on the plantation for

by the way im doin all this w two thumbs and a cellphone...live on a sailboat...pc is impractical

and now ive come back from a four mile trot and im starvin

i bid you all adieu...for the nonce ~A.~