Why so many LDS threads?

08-May-2008 | Grig

[Grig]

I am posting this on behalf of many LDS freepers. They will post their own 'signature' to this in the comments below. --- Some of you have noticed lately a lot of LDS (ie: Mormon) threads here on FR. I'm going to tell you why.

For many years there have been several active LDS freepers here. We post to all the forums on relevant issues, and were happy to have a site where conservative values were so openly welcomed.

Those conservative values include faith in God, and freedom of religion. We fully respect the rights of all posters to express their opinions and views on religious matters, even when people choose to use those rights to express criticism of our own faith. We also support the ideas embodied in FR rules against religion bashing. There is no need for hostility and there should be no room for bigotry on FR. Every religion has it's miracles and mysteries. Every faith has things in it that are not or can not be proven, and things that run contrary to what secular science would have us believe. Someone mature and confident in their own faith generally doesn't feel the need to belittle the faith of others.

We have, to the best of our ability, conducted ourselves with civility and dignity. We do not feel that that respect has been returned by some posters (putting it mildly).

When Mormon missionaries were murdered, the moderators were kept busy pulling jubilant posts off the thread. When Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her home, we contended for months with posters who appeared to be motivated by religious bigotry doing all they could to smear the family and accuse the father. Several posters openly admitted their religious motivation in opposing Mitt Romney and confessed that no matter how conservative any Mormon was, they would never vote for one for President of the USA. When the Pope died, I don't think any Mormon poster posted anything unkind, yet the thread about the passing of our President recently needed many comments removed.

Nearly every thread having any connection with Mormons, or Utah winds up being hijacked by anti-Mormon activists who copy and paste the same false accusations over and over even when it has been clearly and factually pointed out to them on multiple occasions that they are bearing false witness against our faith. Everything possible is done by these activists to make FR a hostile place for Mormons, and for at least some of them, bashing Mormonism is all they do here. Their most recent project is trying to blur the fact that the polygamous FLDS is a separate and distinct religion from ours, just as Lutherans are a separate and distinct religion from Catholicism.

In our opinion, such poster do a great disservice to FR and to their fellow freepers by spreading disinformation and promoting hostility towards a people known for walking the walk of conservative values.

Why the moderators here don't see the behavior of these anti-Mormon activists as religion bashing is a mystery to us, but it is the moderators call to make and we respect their right to do so. That doesn't mean we have to be passive however. We have all spent many hours refuting the accusations leveled at our faith, but these wind up buried deep in a flood of comments, effectively shouting us down.

Recently some of us have decided to take a more proactive approach. Rather than try to wrestle the pig into taking a bath, we are just going to hose it down. We will actively define our faith here rather than just respond to accusations.

So expect to see lots of Mormon threads, now and for as long as we see fit to keep posting them (although probably not as many as there are Catholic threads). They will be about our basic doctrines and responses to common accusations. If you want to know what our faith is about, read the articles we post. We will post them as open threads and I encourage you to compare the difference in tone and spirit between what we post and what our critics say.

[MHGinTN]

They came as a cardboard put-together. Rich friend got one. He also got one of those baking soda subs. His mother was a ‘single mom’ so he played her for everything he wanted. I think he was the illegitimate son of a congressman in DC.

[Godzilla]

I remember the cost too - $7 seemed to be a lot then, now it doesn’t even hardly cover a happy meal.

[MHGinTN]

My favorite was the cardboard Sherman Tank, with a cardboard tube cannon barrel you made by rolling up cardstock and taping it. It was all a profile you got behind to pretend you were in a tank.

[MHGinTN]

Now that I think about it, the sub my friend got wasn’t a Polaris, didn’t shoot ‘missles’ only torpedoes. I wonder ... yikes! I’m showing my age!

[Tennessee Nana]

I am still trying to get tickets for a tour of the Nephite ruins and see the Jewish Indians...
________________________________________

That’s a Travelin’ Medicine Show..

The ruins are in Yemen this year...

Check with Warren Ashton...

“We were exceedingly rejoiced when we came to the seashore; and we called the place Bountiful because of its much fruit” (1 Nephi 17:6)

http://www.bountifultours.com/tour.html

“His next tour in October 2008 has been promoted in Meridium Magazine 2008 Tour - “In Lehi & Sariah’s Footsteps” 13 days exploring Israel, Jordan and Oman”

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/gospeldoctrine/080116nephi.html

[Tennessee Nana]

That is one yummy looking Yellow Submarine...

Got milk ?????

[Godzilla]

Nope, need Jolt Cola for that one LOL

[Godzilla]

Just found out that I can subscribe to this guy via iTunes - free either podcast of videopod cast.

[ejonesie22]

Interesting, but confusing, I thought Jesus came to North America, he was already near Arabia...

If they can keep their own story straight, how do they expect us to keep track...

[SkyPilot]

Once again, making my point today.

Really?

How?

Defend your comparison of the man Jospeh Smith with Jesus Christ again.

And just to show how disingenuous your post could be perceived, I'll make a challenge to you on just one of your points. You claim that Joseph Smith had sex w/ over 29 women. Please provide links w/ irrefutable evidence that Joseph Smith had SEX w/ over 29 women. If you can provide irrefutable evidence that that is so, i.e. babies, DNA, etc., I will leave the board never to return. However, if you cannot, you agree to leave the board never to return. Deal?

Ouuuugh! A CHALLENGE! You want DNA proof that your "prophet" didn't diddle women?

Before I give you ample evidence via links that document what Joe did (which you will ignore or change the subject regarding thereof); I predict you will then change the subject about about Joe Smith's rape of women - is there anything else I can provide?

Would you like photos of his sexually abusing girls under the age of 16?

Would you like video of his performing rape?

Anything else you want to demand?

The sad fact is that your "prophet" raped these women and girls. I'll provide links to document it - and you will deny them.

[ejonesie22]

If he can just get me a tour of the Nephite ruins, or introduce me to those Israelite Native Americans, I'd be happy ;)

[MHGinTN]

Oh, it's a lot worse than that, their own BofM contradicts their specious claims. But don't expect the fanatical apologists for Smithism to recant their false claims or consider the actual facts. [The link is 23 minutes of concentrated proof that the mormonism claims of authenticity are wishful conjecture refuted by the actual facts. The 'fable' status of mormonism shows the spirit of this cult. We cannot give up on these poor deluded souls and walk away from them regardless of the spittled condescension, the arrogant insults, or the twisting of the Bible they try. They are souls in peril.]

[MHGinTN]

Have you found the doctor who ‘took care’ of some of Joe's illegitimate impregnations? It is a most ghastly footnote on the origins of this Christian wannabe cult.

[Tennessee Nana]

WOW that link has lots of info...

[Tennessee Nana]

That was Doctor Bennett...

[Tennessee Nana]

In addition to marrying already-pregnant women, there is some evidence that abortion was practiced in Nauvoo...

LDS Elder Ebenezer Robinson testified that Hyrum Smith “instructed me in Nov or Dec 1843 to make a selection of some young woman and he would seal her to me, and I should take her home,” he recalled, “and if she should have an offspring give out word that she had a husband, an Elder, who had gone on a foreign mission.” Possibly referring to a secluded birthplace, or conceivably to abortion, Robinson spoke of “a place appointed in Iowa, 12 or 18 miles from Nauvoo to send female victims to his polygamous births.”
- Ebenezer Robinson to Jason W. Briggs, Jan. 28, 1880, LDS archives. On December 29, 1873, Ebenezer and Angeline Robinson signed an affidavit saying that Hyrum Smith had come to their house in the fall of 1843 to teach them the doctrine of polygamy.

Hyrum Smith also documented Nauvoo abortions, and interestingly enough, blamed it on a doctor and close associate of Joseph Smith. Hyrum testified that Dr. Bennett was propositioning women in a similar fashion to Joseph Smith. “[Dr. Bennett] endeavored to seduce them, and accomplished his designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God, which was to be revealed when the people was strong enough in faith to bear such mysteries—that it was perfectly right to have illicit intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves, vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing witnesses of his own clan to testify that there were such revelations and such commandments, and that they were of God; also stating that he would be responsible for their sins, if there were any, and that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, provided they should become pregnant.”
- Affidavit of Hyrum Smith. Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.71

Pretend Marriages in Case of Pregnancy
According to church historian Andrew Jenson, Sarah Ann Whitney became the seventh plural wife of Joseph Smith, and the story of his marriage to her illustrates another strategy. She disguised her relationship to the prophet by pretending to marry Joseph Corodon Kingsbury on April 29, 1843. In his autobiography Kingsbury wrote: “I according to Pres. Joseph Smith & Council & others agreed to stand by Sarah Ann Whitney as though I was supposed to be her husband and [participated in] a pretended marriage for the purpose of . . . Bringing about the purposes of God in these last days . . .”
- Elder Joseph Kingsbury, “History of Joseph Kingsbury Written by His Own Hand,” page 5, Utah State Historical Society

If Not Sex, What Was Joseph Smith Doing?

Most of Smith’s plural wives boarded with other families, whom he visited periodically. His secretary, William Clayton, recorded one such visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: “Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep.” Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera “as man and wife” and “occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife.” Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: “I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F.”

While in hiding, Joseph Smith wrote a revealing letter which he addressed to her parents, Newel and Elizabeth Whitney, inviting them to bring their daughter to visit him “just back of Brother Hyrums farm.” He advised Brother Whitney to “come a little a head and knock at the south East corner of the house at the window.” He assured them, especially Sarah Ann, that “it is the will of God that you should comfort me now.” He stressed the need for care “to find out when Emma comes,” but “when she is not here, there is the most perfect saftey.” The prophet warned them to “burn this letter as soon as you read it” and “keep all locked up in your breasts.” In closing he admonished, “I think Emma won’t come to night if she dont, dont fail to come tonight.”
- http://www.xmission.com/%7Eresearch/family/strange.htm

Joseph Smith Promised to Cover for Polgamy Pregnancies

Joseph Smith taught the “Law of Celestial Marriage” to his close friend and secretary, William Clayton. When the pregnancy of William Clayton’s first plural wife threatened to expose them, the prophet Joseph Smith advised Clayton to “just keep her at home and brook it and 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.”
- William Clayton journal, Oct. 19, 1843.

Read more here:

http://www.i4m.com/think/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm

[Godzilla]

there are a lot of related videos there too that have very interesting information.

[MHGinTN]

Yes, and I was particularly struck by Ballards urging that 'only' by a feeling when reading the BM can one know it is scripture from God! How many times has a mormonism apologist told us that when backed into a corner with the evidence contrary to the claims in the BM?
Yet the apologists do their best to twist evidence to read it as if it doesn't show the fallacies claimed by the BM.
Or twist a finding to be a 'proof that Joeseph Smith translated golden plates using a peepstone in a hat' or alternately 'the Urim and Thummim of Old Testament' (which plates and Urim and Thummim are never going to be in evidence according to Ballard, but which apologists work feverishly to fabricate look-a-likes of).
Or work overtime to make juvenile connections to poetic techniques or educational similies or long passages lifted from the King James Bible supposedly hundreds of years before the King James Bible even existed ... it gets amusing if it weren't for the dire eternal consequences of the deceptions!

Several months ago, I was astonished to have one of the infamous apologists claim the BofM was translated using ther Urim and Thummim, and when I showed him the quote from Smith's 'scribe' stating Joe used his 'peepstone in the hat' trick with absolutely no plates in front of him, the apologist blighthly skipped on into some other foolishness in an effort to distract from the blatant fabrications, gross lies, and insidious heresies at the heart of mrmonism!

A similar thing happened with accusations from the BM apologists that God gave Saul's wives to David while Saul was still alive thus polyandry/polygamy was directly justified by God! When the corrected timeline was shown to the poster from the OT (that Saul's household was placed in David's after Saul was dead), the issue miraculously shifted to polygamy is not specifically spoken against in the OT, ignoring completely the fact that the BM expressly prohibits polygamy and polyandry!

It is no wonder some have said discussing mormonism vagaries with mormon apologists is like trying to nail jell-o to a wall. Yet the apologists whine that we don't want reasoned debate!

[Godzilla]

Yes, and I was particularly struck by Ballards urging that 'only' by a feeling when reading the BM can one know it is scripture from God! How many times has a mormonism apologist told us that when backed into a corner with the evidence contrary to the claims in the BM?

On another thread here Elder D. Todd Christofferson states:

This witness often comes in feelings—a burning, a peace, a feeling of assurance, a sense of enlightenment.

Former Mormon Bishop Simon G. Southerton, now arch villain of DNA proof of bom falseness states from his first hand experience:

Many Mormons have a firm belief that Native Americans are largely descended from Israelites as a consequence of believing the Book of Mormon. Feeling-based beliefs are far less reliable than Mormons would care to admit, and science has proven that these beliefs have no basis in fact. Joseph Smith is the source of the Book of Mormon, as well as the source of the miraculous feeling-based formula that is supposed to prove beyond a doubt it is true. If the Book of Mormon has no place in reality, could there also be a flaw in Smith’s feeling-based truth formula?

People have been waiting for 175 years for credible scientific evidence of any description to support the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. How long do we need to wait to prove we are patient? With each passing year, new information sheds more light on the colonization of the Americas, and with each year we find the claims of the Book of Mormon being shrunk by LDS apologists.

I believe that faith can flourish when people are told the truth from whatever and all available sources. It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. There is an important difference here. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I, like many Mormons, had been bombarded with the widespread urban legends in the church. BYU scholars always seemed to be finding archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon and I was informed that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the American Indians or Polynesians.

One can read the testimonies of many other former mormons - all saying very similar things - it is the feeling that is important, not any truth to the contrary.

[DelphiUser]

U Said: Come on DU. Stop with your games.

No games, well I did really like Baulder's Gate, but that is beside the point.

U Said: The man is an ex-Mormon who was in the Bishopric, wed in the Los Angeles temple, went to BYU (along with his wife), did a stint as a Mormon missionary, served as a home teacher in the LDS church, also served as an elder's quorum president, and the Stake High Council.

Sounds a lot like Mark Hoffman, or Ed Decker to me, only without the forgery skills, and the Murder, but he seems to have the need to make money bashing the LDS church like those two.

Pay some attention to what Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Bob Passantino have said about Ed Decker "his writings grossly misrepresent Mormonism, and thereby dilute his message and offend Mormons without attracting them to evangelical Christianity."

U Said: He isn't "mistaken" or a "liar."

Anyone who holds the priesthood, and understands it, then says you can ordain someone to an office in the priesthood and not be talking about the priesthood is one, or the other.

If you said you were driving down the street, I would be either mistaken or a liar if I said that does not mean you had a car, "you back filled that later...".

U Said: The 3rd alternative (which perhaps you don't want to face) is that he is telling the truth about the LDS church, and the truth about his new relationship with Jesus Christ.

I don't know and quite frankly don't care what his relationship with Jesus Christ is, it's none of my business, however, when he testifies of Jesus, I'll be yelling "Amen!" along with the rest of you. When it comes to the LDS church however, when he strays from the truth he has less excuse than most Anti's on this forum. I'm giving him the Benefit of the doubt by saying he's forgotten a lot, and is just mistaken, capisce?