If Joseph Smith kicked a dog, stole a horse, threw a plate against the wall, cheated on a school test, picked his nose, put a flaming bag of shit on his ex-girlfriend's doorstep, gave an old lady the bird for riding her horse too slow, or any other manner of tomfoolery, I would give him the pass TSCC asks us to afford his "just a man" foibles. Despite all this, he could still be God's spokesman. The problem is, he lied about the BOM, the First Vision, speaking to God, and sleeping with married women and teenage girls. When he holds himself out as God's only true prophet based solely on these lies, that I cannot overlook. Put differently, if my doctor lied about her softball batting average, I'd still let her treat my illness. But if she lied about going to medical school....
latExMo · 19 points · Posted at 21:08:17 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Exactly! Same about the church and the BOM. I have no problems with stuff that can't be explained due to lack of information, but when the evidence is sooo overwhelmingly strong against what they claim then I have a problem with that.
[deleted] · 8 points · Posted at 23:53:52 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yes. The last time I checked, the truth matters. This is the fundamental problem with Mormonism and its history. Spin all you want, but you can't run from the truth.
[deleted] · 9 points · Posted at 02:01:18 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
This also goes for when the church asks us to remember that the church is run by imperfect people. It is, but that's in no way an excuse for us to look over terrible things that they do. It's that sort of insane mentality that leads to things like all the sexual abuse by church leaders.
The subject/verb combination on that quote grates on my English major nerves.
(Not that I've never made the same error, generally one made in editing rather than writing.)
[deleted] · 42 points · Posted at 18:43:55 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Accurate re-writing:
The Church History Department has been working incredibly hard to publish sanitize, whitewash and lock in the vault as much information as possible about the early history of our church and church leaders.
Perhaps there is no other religion today trying to be as transparent dishonest with their past as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or as encouraging discouraging to its members to study their own personal ancestry and history.
Basically, take every verb and flip it and you have the truth.
Seriously, is there some secret message in this article where this guy is asking for help or something? It's really alarming.
Exactly. I kept waiting for the title of the biography and....nothing. In other words, believe me and all my verbal diarrhea but I don't trust you enough to read the actual source and not fall away from the church. Sounds like certain churches back in the days that preach from the Bible but don't let the members have a copy for themselves.
[deleted] · 7 points · Posted at 21:57:39 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
This.
[deleted] · 9 points · Posted at 00:57:49 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Original article OP...blink twice if you're writing bullshit against your will.
Didn't have the balls to name the 1 biography of JS he claims to have read.
Extols the virtues of understanding context for multiple paragraphs, but used an example from Washington's life to illustrate it instead of Joseph Smith.
There are other points of contention I have, but I don't have time to list them all, I'm sure you glorious heathens will cover them.
What confuses me about the understanding the time argument is that to me understanding the time is one of the big reasons it doesn't hold up because for one thing, JS was persecuted for polygamy and had to keep it a secret because people at the time thought what he was doing was terrible!
Understanding the time makes you see how many of the women were suffering greatly because of lots of deaths etc which would make them more likely to follow someone giving them hope they could be reunited with their dead babies. It could also explain women's visions and Angel visitations, because hallucinations are not uncommon after terrible tragedies like many of these lived through.
Understanding the time makes you see how what Joseph was doing wasn't that unique, that there were many going through similar things and he was making a patchwork of contemporary teachings and philosophies.
And so on...
I feel like tbm's versions of "understanding the times" means shelving anything difficult and writing it off as "it was a different time" without actually understanding anything.
(I do think the gold digging is easier to accept when "understanding the times", but other than that most of the other stuff basically gets worse)
WWEnos · 2 points · Posted at 09:53:43 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Great points.
On the gold digging piece -- I agree that context helps to understand what Joseph and his family were doing, but in this case the context makes it worse than it seemed before.
As a believer, I just thought the gold digging was weird, but ultimately irrelevant. The more I learned about it, the more clear it is that gold digging was a scam, 100% of the time, and Joseph was knowingly scamming people, not naively believing in magical thinking.
Joseph met Emma while on one of these scamming trips in 1826, for which he was brought up on charges as an "imposter" and a "disorderly person." In 1827, he then claims to have found golden plates, and started "translating" them into a book using the same peep stone that he used in his gold digging. He then tried to sell the book..
The context for his gold digging makes it pretty clear what he was up to.
Yeah he just rambles on and on about context and how we dont understand that. This guy has his head stuck so far up his own ass...
[deleted] · 9 points · Posted at 20:31:31 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
My wife does the same.
Plz explain what context makes a guy sleeping with orphan girls and others their wife takes in acceptable. How about hooking up with someone in nearly every home you stay at for a while?
Meh, he was just a man with proclivities that were different than ours. It's not like he was doing it as a prophet. I mean, it WAS 170 years ago. Give Brother Joseph a break. /s
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 00:59:49 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Oh FFS, who hasn't ever made THAT mistake even as an ordinary fallible man?
Historical context is what did my testimony in. I'm sitting there reading Rough Stone Rolling about all religious revival and it became so obvious that Joseph Smith and early members were just backwater religious nuts like everyone else around them.
When studying any history it is so important to recognize the context of what you are reading.
Okay.
The context of the Book of Mormon is that it's a book written by a 19th century American in 16th century King's English depicting a 2500-3500 year old civilization rivaling the Roman Empire for which there is no archeological, geological, genealogical, geographical, historical or linguistic evidence.
[deleted] · 3 points · Posted at 23:55:12 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yes, here's the context: Mormonism is a ridiculous, transparent 3rd rate fraud, wrapped in a 1st rate MLM. If understanding this context, EVERYTHING makes sense!
Also don't forget that this civilization supposedly held 18th century ideals which would eventually form the constitution instead of the ideals and philosophical tradition that comes out when one actually examines the aforementioned civilization.
church propaganda disguised as an independent blog
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 20:30:59 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Perfectly said
Slamb73 · 13 points · Posted at 18:40:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Once the church is no longer "True/False". Once it's no longer created by God especially for me. It has to stand on what it is now. And what it is now is damaging. I choose not to submit myself to their authoritarian control narrative anymore.
Yes it has good things. And there are good people. But the "Truth" narrative is what kept me going. It's not the people, it's the bones of the church that makes me no longer want to be a member. Deep down it gives men power and dominion over eachother.
It was said best by somebody else, this article is like getting gaslighted by a narcissist.
I posted this last night as well. It's ridiculous. I hate how they say "PERHAPS there is no other religion today trying to be as transparent with their past as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..." You know that they know it's BS, with that word PERHAPS
Pope John Paul II, who didn't have the holy spook at his side at all times like mormon prophets did/do led such a life that one can't say anything wrong about how he treated others or how he lived, even before becoming a priest. No crazy sex shit, no financial fraud, no real estate speculation, just serving others. He inspired the Poles to stand up to communism, which eventually led to communist collapse in Europe and eventually the USSR (thank the gods or whatever).
I'm not Catholic, but I know Karol Wojtyla's history and it reflects what one would think of as a man devoted to his God. Smith led the life of a narcissistic con man horn dog.
That's right, Mr. Context. Don't judge a person by a single quote or a single action. I couldn't agree more. So please ready and study everything, and I mean everything, that you can find that Joseph Smith said and wrote and did, and then see if you still think Jospeh Smith is the greatest American in history.
I no longer believe that. I was once you. As I am, you will become.
"'We tend to view our history as an inevitable chain of events leading to a sure and certain conclusion,' but forget that the people living through it didn't see it that way."
If only we had some magical person who could tell us exactly what was going to happen. Oh wait, we do OH WAIT WE DON'T
Who finances ldsliving? I hate it with a passion, and can barely make it through some articles. This one is especially bad. yes, I understand how history is so very difficult to understand because we don't have all the "context". But, some few simple "fruits" of JS are what I have concluded are unacceptable to any "contextual" time or place. They are this: Even if it were true and God commanded JS to practice polygamy by threatening JS's life (flaming sword shit and all that), is that the type of God anyone wants to worship? The BoM that JS produced (by whatever means, even if it is the most correct book on earth or even only partly the most correct book or even only tiny parts of it true), the one part where God curses people with dark skin, marks them as it were, why worship such a shithead God?
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 23:28:04 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
From their About page.
LDS Living Magazine is a division of Deseret Book and is published on a bi-monthly schedule.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 23:44:04 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 23:57:58 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
So it's just another Mormon Church owned, for-profit PR rag. Consider that it's not enough for them to engage in PR, disinformation, spin doctoring, they own a large for-profit media empire where they literally SELL their PR to their gullible followers, enabling them to generate more revenues and PR.
Perhaps there is no other religion today trying to be as transparent with their past as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or as encouraging to its members to study their own personal ancestry and history.
Oh, really? Did you even check before you made this claim? I'm out and this is only the first paragraph.
Oh, wait - I see you used the term "perhaps" to cover your ass, I'm back in now. /s
I wonder if Joseph's hamfisted "angel-with-sword forcing him to bang 14-year olds" goes on the old "faith and empathy" shelf.
I don't care in what historical context that happened. If a guy in his late thirties grooms and bangs a 14-year old girl, that guy doesn't represent me or any god I believe in. Period.
[deleted] · 3 points · Posted at 23:26:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I pity the person who’s religious or patriotic beliefs all rest on the perfect behavior or perfect life of any one man. No man–save Christ–could ever uphold the mantle of such a responsibility.
It’s so easy to isolate one man in history and obsess over his flaws and shortcomings to the point of wanting to rid our history of him completely. The danger of that line of thinking is that if you do that to any one good man, you must do that to every good man if you judge them by the same standards.
Good thing the men in history being discussed (primarily Joe Smith and Brigham Young) weren't good people, then.
[deleted] · 3 points · Posted at 01:40:09 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
This is INFURIATING. "Perhaps there is no church trying to expose their history more than the Mormon church." What in the actual FUCK.
WFT! So if someone loses faith in the church because of historical issues, they are"abandoning their principles". Seems kinda backwards. It's precisely because of their principles that they are compelled to leave the church after learning the history.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 02:58:39 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Lol. Yep. Mother fuckers making us appear to be the weakest and shittiest people on earth; of course after black people whom the cult abhors and uses only as a token with the Boye's they have sprinkled in their midst. (Heavy heavy sarcasm)
This article is the most off-putting and disrespectful piece of blogging shit I have read!! If reading church history strengthened the testimony more than the scriptures, why is the church not teaching it every week?! The title of this post is precisely what I felt when reading it 😡
For such a very long article about studying church history, the author amazingly manages to avoid any actual example of church history.
By all means, show us how (in context of the times, of course) it was considered completely normal and moral to marry 30-40 women in secret. We're all waiting...
Ulivan · 3 points · Posted at 05:17:12 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
I remember that one time I had a bad day and coerced a 14- year old into having sex with me.
Wait a minute...
Vin my man I'm with you on this, reading this article made me lose my shit. It's the fact that I do have context that I'm leaving, not that I picked some random stupid quotes from JS and BY here and there. These guys were wrong over and over and over. This guy seriously aggrandizes himself because he doubted his doubts?
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 05:31:24 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
I am currently working through Dehlin's newest podcast w Palmer. Grant talks about Joe and how crazy he really was.
You're spot on. They're wrong every single time. They were crazy. I think they really were. Nothing else makes more sense than this.
My mom sent me this. She's on her way out and I think sent me this because it was triggering to her. Here was my response:
The things that came to my mind were:
1st paragraph: Why are they being so transparent now? They've had this information for decades (minimum). When (if ever) will any of this "transparent" history be integrated into our lesson manuals?
2nd paragraph: Now that members have access to the whole story, they're going to focus on the part our lesson manuals conveniently left out. The church has dredged the depths of its history for faith promoting stories for the entirety of its history. Now it's time for members to learn the other 85%.
3rd/4th paragraph: A reinforcement of manifest destiny, which is pretty obviously racist. Sets up idea that other historical heroes weren't perfect either.
5th paragraph: Tells us he read "an incredibly detailed exploration" of J.S.'s life, but doesn't tell us which one. Is it Rough Stone Rolling? No Man Knows My History? etc? The fact that he hides this information is pretty telling. Like the church (which owns lds living), they just want members to know that there are answers to the questions that are out there, but they don't want to even share the questions in case someone reading says, "hmm . . . that is a good question."
If this biography was so faith building for him, then he'd be confident in sharing the title with others. But he's not.
I've also said "Doubt your doubts" is completely manipulative. We praise Joseph Smith for his doubts because they led to the truth of the restored gospel in the latter days. We praise converts who doubted the faith they left to join the LDS church.
We also live in an age where larger and larger groups of people believe in silly conspiracy theories; the illuminati, flat earth society, 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers. This sort of message of "doubt your doubts" is one where they ask people who know about a very troubling history, inconsistent saving ordinances, and changing doctrine to throw away obvious truths for much less believable excuses.
Paragraph 6: Context is important. He's right about that. Context of Joseph Smith's dying words, "O Lord, My God . . ." would be helpful in a Sunday School lesson, but it's never going to happen. This is also the start of a common double standard apologists have for church leaders. To know why leaders were racist and implemented racist ~doctrine~ policy, I need to understand that everyone was racist in the mid 1800s.
But the difference between church leaders and notable men of American history is that we're also told that these men have a direct line to God, that "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over."
I guess in that regard it would make sense for a member of the LDS church to believe the moon landing was a hoax . . . https://mormonculture87.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/jfs-quote-copy.jpg?w=1000
Oops.
These "prophets" are supposed to speak to God, so in almost every way they should be held to a higher standard than other men of history. They should be at the forefront of human equality and liberal social views, because they represent a God who (supposedly) loves all of his children equally. So if Jefferson had slaves he gets a pass for being a product of his time, but when we're taught that we're judged for our sins and not Adam's transgression, then how am I supposed to swallow the teaching that Blacks were denied the priesthood and blessings of the temple because they're descended from Ham? Or that they were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence? (<-- doctrine, not a "pet theory" or "folk tale.")
Paragraph 7: Back to context. Here's another obvious double standard. Let's get some context for the Word of Wisdom. Sounds like we shouldn't drink anything hot, including hot soups and hot chocolate. The context of the day was that it was commonly believed that hot things were bad for the body. How about tithing? D&C 119:4 says it's 1/10th of your interest annually, which in the biblical and 1840s context is not your income, but your excess after your needs are met. Here's an article on the history of tithing from LDS.org: https://history.lds.org/article/the-tithing-of-my-people?lang=eng
Great, so transparent, except that the church will run highly optimized SEO for most of the pages on LDS.org, but not the ones that are damning to the church's current teachings.
We're never told context about these things, so why should I go out of my way to make excuses based on context for everything that makes the church look as untrue as it obviously is?
Skipping down a bit . . . He says that every one of these great figures of history have a mixed past, some good, some bad. He says that they all acted out of fear at times, sometimes courage, sometimes sacrificing the principled ideal to make political compromises. Sure, I can buy that.
But he doesn't say that the fear Joseph supposedly had was getting cut down by an angel if he didn't sleep with a 14 year old girl. Or that the political move that compromised his moral ideal was destroying the printing press that was publishing about his polygamy in an attempt to silence the truth, and that it was this act that sent him to Carthage. It doesn't say that when Governor Boggs issued the extermination order it was because he was acting in retaliation and fear to Sidney Rigdon's oration telling the saints that they were going to exterminate all non-mormons in Jackson Country.
Oops!
I'm sure that all men and women have parts of their history that they're not proud of. But there's a difference between most men and Joseph Smith. Joseph taught his most egregious sins as doctrine. He was predatory and groomed girls into sleeping with him. He abused the power of his position to hide his actions, justify his actions, and to enable himself to do it more.
Why would God call such a man to do these things? And if Joseph only did them because God told him to, then why are any of us worshiping this God?
Saved comment
Six_Four_Two · 185 points · Posted at 19:11:49 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
If Joseph Smith kicked a dog, stole a horse, threw a plate against the wall, cheated on a school test, picked his nose, put a flaming bag of shit on his ex-girlfriend's doorstep, gave an old lady the bird for riding her horse too slow, or any other manner of tomfoolery, I would give him the pass TSCC asks us to afford his "just a man" foibles. Despite all this, he could still be God's spokesman. The problem is, he lied about the BOM, the First Vision, speaking to God, and sleeping with married women and teenage girls. When he holds himself out as God's only true prophet based solely on these lies, that I cannot overlook. Put differently, if my doctor lied about her softball batting average, I'd still let her treat my illness. But if she lied about going to medical school....
jbridegan · 26 points · Posted at 19:26:12 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Well said...slow clap!
latExMo · 19 points · Posted at 21:08:17 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Exactly! Same about the church and the BOM. I have no problems with stuff that can't be explained due to lack of information, but when the evidence is sooo overwhelmingly strong against what they claim then I have a problem with that.
[deleted] · 8 points · Posted at 23:53:52 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yes. The last time I checked, the truth matters. This is the fundamental problem with Mormonism and its history. Spin all you want, but you can't run from the truth.
[deleted] · 9 points · Posted at 02:01:18 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
This also goes for when the church asks us to remember that the church is run by imperfect people. It is, but that's in no way an excuse for us to look over terrible things that they do. It's that sort of insane mentality that leads to things like all the sexual abuse by church leaders.
ProphetOnandagus · 2 points · Posted at 03:51:46 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
My only regret is that I have but one upvote to give.
Fuji8355 · 41 points · Posted at 18:21:03 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Meaning "we've doctored them so not to look bad"
[deleted] · 11 points · Posted at 00:56:21 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Frick you and your lies. Let me tell you about a Mormon missionary from Idaho that God put in the path of his Hells Angels brother...
deirdresm · 2 points · Posted at 03:28:50 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
The subject/verb combination on that quote grates on my English major nerves.
(Not that I've never made the same error, generally one made in editing rather than writing.)
[deleted] · 42 points · Posted at 18:43:55 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Accurate re-writing:
Basically, take every verb and flip it and you have the truth.
Seriously, is there some secret message in this article where this guy is asking for help or something? It's really alarming.
70_middle_initials · 13 points · Posted at 01:14:11 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
I like how there are zero details about the history or where to find these publications. He doesn't even give the title of the Joseph Smith biography.
Joffrey_R_Holland · 2 points · Posted at 14:05:22 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Exactly. I kept waiting for the title of the biography and....nothing. In other words, believe me and all my verbal diarrhea but I don't trust you enough to read the actual source and not fall away from the church. Sounds like certain churches back in the days that preach from the Bible but don't let the members have a copy for themselves.
[deleted] · 7 points · Posted at 21:57:39 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
This.
[deleted] · 9 points · Posted at 00:57:49 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Original article OP...blink twice if you're writing bullshit against your will.
theholytapir · 29 points · Posted at 18:26:31 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Dumbass.
Didn't have the balls to name the 1 biography of JS he claims to have read.
Extols the virtues of understanding context for multiple paragraphs, but used an example from Washington's life to illustrate it instead of Joseph Smith.
There are other points of contention I have, but I don't have time to list them all, I'm sure you glorious heathens will cover them.
FTC
letmylightshine · 6 points · Posted at 00:10:09 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
What confuses me about the understanding the time argument is that to me understanding the time is one of the big reasons it doesn't hold up because for one thing, JS was persecuted for polygamy and had to keep it a secret because people at the time thought what he was doing was terrible! Understanding the time makes you see how many of the women were suffering greatly because of lots of deaths etc which would make them more likely to follow someone giving them hope they could be reunited with their dead babies. It could also explain women's visions and Angel visitations, because hallucinations are not uncommon after terrible tragedies like many of these lived through.
Understanding the time makes you see how what Joseph was doing wasn't that unique, that there were many going through similar things and he was making a patchwork of contemporary teachings and philosophies. And so on...
I feel like tbm's versions of "understanding the times" means shelving anything difficult and writing it off as "it was a different time" without actually understanding anything.
(I do think the gold digging is easier to accept when "understanding the times", but other than that most of the other stuff basically gets worse)
WWEnos · 2 points · Posted at 09:53:43 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Great points.
On the gold digging piece -- I agree that context helps to understand what Joseph and his family were doing, but in this case the context makes it worse than it seemed before.
As a believer, I just thought the gold digging was weird, but ultimately irrelevant. The more I learned about it, the more clear it is that gold digging was a scam, 100% of the time, and Joseph was knowingly scamming people, not naively believing in magical thinking.
Joseph met Emma while on one of these scamming trips in 1826, for which he was brought up on charges as an "imposter" and a "disorderly person." In 1827, he then claims to have found golden plates, and started "translating" them into a book using the same peep stone that he used in his gold digging. He then tried to sell the book..
The context for his gold digging makes it pretty clear what he was up to.
WeaverFan420 · 2 points · Posted at 19:20:35 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Was it rough stone rolling? I noticed the same thing. They didnt name it.
superjordo · 2 points · Posted at 22:01:34 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Rough Stone Rolling was written by a member. Probably No Man Knows My History?
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 01:03:56 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
NMKs, Mormon Enigma, CES Letter, and many more...all written by members.
[deleted] · 21 points · Posted at 18:38:06 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
[deleted]
theholytapir · 20 points · Posted at 18:41:24 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Basically, but he never climaxes
WeaverFan420 · 4 points · Posted at 19:20:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yeah he just rambles on and on about context and how we dont understand that. This guy has his head stuck so far up his own ass...
[deleted] · 9 points · Posted at 20:31:31 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
My wife does the same.
Plz explain what context makes a guy sleeping with orphan girls and others their wife takes in acceptable. How about hooking up with someone in nearly every home you stay at for a while?
WeaverFan420 · 4 points · Posted at 20:36:11 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Meh, he was just a man with proclivities that were different than ours. It's not like he was doing it as a prophet. I mean, it WAS 170 years ago. Give Brother Joseph a break. /s
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 00:59:49 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Oh FFS, who hasn't ever made THAT mistake even as an ordinary fallible man?
Stuboysrevenge · 3 points · Posted at 02:27:17 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Came to post this. There is NO CONTEXT in which marring teenagers as a 30+ year old behind your wife's back is OK. None.
Roger_Rabbithole · 5 points · Posted at 05:11:18 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Historical context is what did my testimony in. I'm sitting there reading Rough Stone Rolling about all religious revival and it became so obvious that Joseph Smith and early members were just backwater religious nuts like everyone else around them.
bednar-donedat · 2 points · Posted at 19:12:16 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yes. It symbolizes what TSCC is force feeding the members.
They also mention "doubt your doubts" as though it's a good thing.
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 01:01:08 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Kim Jong Un
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 20:21:38 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yes it is. An imaginary Mormon cock.
Manungal · 18 points · Posted at 18:47:01 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Okay.
The context of the Book of Mormon is that it's a book written by a 19th century American in 16th century King's English depicting a 2500-3500 year old civilization rivaling the Roman Empire for which there is no archeological, geological, genealogical, geographical, historical or linguistic evidence.
[deleted] · 3 points · Posted at 23:55:12 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Yes, here's the context: Mormonism is a ridiculous, transparent 3rd rate fraud, wrapped in a 1st rate MLM. If understanding this context, EVERYTHING makes sense!
cronos844 · 2 points · Posted at 23:00:05 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Also don't forget that this civilization supposedly held 18th century ideals which would eventually form the constitution instead of the ideals and philosophical tradition that comes out when one actually examines the aforementioned civilization.
recovering_condvert · 15 points · Posted at 18:23:45 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Transparent...that's a funny one. The church really does think we are all a bunch of dumb arses.
superjordo · 1 points · Posted at 22:04:17 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Definitely an amateur apologist.
abrahamicmummy · 14 points · Posted at 19:39:34 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
church propaganda disguised as an independent blog
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 20:30:59 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Perfectly said
Slamb73 · 13 points · Posted at 18:40:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Once the church is no longer "True/False". Once it's no longer created by God especially for me. It has to stand on what it is now. And what it is now is damaging. I choose not to submit myself to their authoritarian control narrative anymore.
Yes it has good things. And there are good people. But the "Truth" narrative is what kept me going. It's not the people, it's the bones of the church that makes me no longer want to be a member. Deep down it gives men power and dominion over eachother.
It was said best by somebody else, this article is like getting gaslighted by a narcissist.
dooglesnoogle · 11 points · Posted at 19:23:48 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I posted this last night as well. It's ridiculous. I hate how they say "PERHAPS there is no other religion today trying to be as transparent with their past as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints..." You know that they know it's BS, with that word PERHAPS
superjordo · 3 points · Posted at 22:04:48 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Weasel words
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 20:30:12 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I'm sorry Doogles. I didn't notice it was already posted. Sorry to copy.
dooglesnoogle · 1 points · Posted at 21:43:57 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
No worries!
DamnedLDSCult · 12 points · Posted at 19:38:06 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Pope John Paul II, who didn't have the holy spook at his side at all times like mormon prophets did/do led such a life that one can't say anything wrong about how he treated others or how he lived, even before becoming a priest. No crazy sex shit, no financial fraud, no real estate speculation, just serving others. He inspired the Poles to stand up to communism, which eventually led to communist collapse in Europe and eventually the USSR (thank the gods or whatever). I'm not Catholic, but I know Karol Wojtyla's history and it reflects what one would think of as a man devoted to his God. Smith led the life of a narcissistic con man horn dog.
LegalisticMormonGod · 9 points · Posted at 22:18:16 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Comments turned off on the article. Excellent. I am well pleased.
I am the Lord thy God. Your ways are not my ways.
Christopher_Layton · 6 points · Posted at 19:03:20 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
That's right, Mr. Context. Don't judge a person by a single quote or a single action. I couldn't agree more. So please ready and study everything, and I mean everything, that you can find that Joseph Smith said and wrote and did, and then see if you still think Jospeh Smith is the greatest American in history.
I no longer believe that. I was once you. As I am, you will become.
InGehenna · 8 points · Posted at 23:42:26 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
"'We tend to view our history as an inevitable chain of events leading to a sure and certain conclusion,' but forget that the people living through it didn't see it that way."
If only we had some magical person who could tell us exactly what was going to happen. Oh wait, we do OH WAIT WE DON'T
kevinrex · 6 points · Posted at 21:14:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Who finances ldsliving? I hate it with a passion, and can barely make it through some articles. This one is especially bad. yes, I understand how history is so very difficult to understand because we don't have all the "context". But, some few simple "fruits" of JS are what I have concluded are unacceptable to any "contextual" time or place. They are this: Even if it were true and God commanded JS to practice polygamy by threatening JS's life (flaming sword shit and all that), is that the type of God anyone wants to worship? The BoM that JS produced (by whatever means, even if it is the most correct book on earth or even only partly the most correct book or even only tiny parts of it true), the one part where God curses people with dark skin, marks them as it were, why worship such a shithead God?
[deleted] · 4 points · Posted at 23:28:04 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
From their About page.
kevinrex · 2 points · Posted at 23:37:42 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Thanks. Deseret book. It figures.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 23:44:04 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 23:57:58 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
So it's just another Mormon Church owned, for-profit PR rag. Consider that it's not enough for them to engage in PR, disinformation, spin doctoring, they own a large for-profit media empire where they literally SELL their PR to their gullible followers, enabling them to generate more revenues and PR.
Think. about. that.
Byreenie · 4 points · Posted at 20:33:09 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
That "doubt your doubts" quote made me laugh. Too used to seeing it equated as satire in this sub.
ThidwickTBHM · 6 points · Posted at 20:55:45 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
...aaaaand LDSLiving.com removed their comment section.
Nice.
theholytapir · 1 points · Posted at 21:02:53 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Was there anything interesting in the comments? Or we're they just whitewashing out all the exmos?
ThidwickTBHM · 3 points · Posted at 21:19:38 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I'm sure they were tired of policing all the dissent in the comments.
twilightaflutter · 5 points · Posted at 21:38:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Oh, really? Did you even check before you made this claim? I'm out and this is only the first paragraph.
Oh, wait - I see you used the term "perhaps" to cover your ass, I'm back in now. /s
superjordo · 4 points · Posted at 22:10:36 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I wonder if Joseph's hamfisted "angel-with-sword forcing him to bang 14-year olds" goes on the old "faith and empathy" shelf.
I don't care in what historical context that happened. If a guy in his late thirties grooms and bangs a 14-year old girl, that guy doesn't represent me or any god I believe in. Period.
[deleted] · 3 points · Posted at 23:26:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Fuck. You.
theholytapir · 1 points · Posted at 02:22:26 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
If no man can hold up that mantle, there should be all kinds of blackmail material on the modern prophets. Hmmmmmm...
suresignofthenail · 3 points · Posted at 00:13:40 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
The guy pictured at the top of the article has facial hair. So we already know he's got a weak testimony.
bloodshotgay · 4 points · Posted at 01:06:03 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Good thing the men in history being discussed (primarily Joe Smith and Brigham Young) weren't good people, then.
[deleted] · 3 points · Posted at 01:40:09 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
This is INFURIATING. "Perhaps there is no church trying to expose their history more than the Mormon church." What in the actual FUCK.
superjordo · 1 points · Posted at 01:56:46 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Cogdis. Imagine saying that, and then literally taking about your shelf without realizing what a shelf actually is...
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 02:56:00 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Couldn't be more different huh
Mossblossom · 4 points · Posted at 02:24:46 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
WFT! So if someone loses faith in the church because of historical issues, they are"abandoning their principles". Seems kinda backwards. It's precisely because of their principles that they are compelled to leave the church after learning the history.
[deleted] · 1 points · Posted at 02:58:39 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Lol. Yep. Mother fuckers making us appear to be the weakest and shittiest people on earth; of course after black people whom the cult abhors and uses only as a token with the Boye's they have sprinkled in their midst. (Heavy heavy sarcasm)
twice-sealed · 3 points · Posted at 01:52:04 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
This article is the most off-putting and disrespectful piece of blogging shit I have read!! If reading church history strengthened the testimony more than the scriptures, why is the church not teaching it every week?! The title of this post is precisely what I felt when reading it 😡
truth_matters_to_me · 3 points · Posted at 03:09:45 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
For such a very long article about studying church history, the author amazingly manages to avoid any actual example of church history.
By all means, show us how (in context of the times, of course) it was considered completely normal and moral to marry 30-40 women in secret. We're all waiting...
Ulivan · 3 points · Posted at 05:17:12 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
I remember that one time I had a bad day and coerced a 14- year old into having sex with me. Wait a minute...
skimed07 · 3 points · Posted at 05:21:49 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Vin my man I'm with you on this, reading this article made me lose my shit. It's the fact that I do have context that I'm leaving, not that I picked some random stupid quotes from JS and BY here and there. These guys were wrong over and over and over. This guy seriously aggrandizes himself because he doubted his doubts?
[deleted] · 2 points · Posted at 05:31:24 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
I am currently working through Dehlin's newest podcast w Palmer. Grant talks about Joe and how crazy he really was.
You're spot on. They're wrong every single time. They were crazy. I think they really were. Nothing else makes more sense than this.
DanAliveandDead · 3 points · Posted at 06:09:20 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
My mom sent me this. She's on her way out and I think sent me this because it was triggering to her. Here was my response:
The things that came to my mind were:
1st paragraph: Why are they being so transparent now? They've had this information for decades (minimum). When (if ever) will any of this "transparent" history be integrated into our lesson manuals?
2nd paragraph: Now that members have access to the whole story, they're going to focus on the part our lesson manuals conveniently left out. The church has dredged the depths of its history for faith promoting stories for the entirety of its history. Now it's time for members to learn the other 85%.
3rd/4th paragraph: A reinforcement of manifest destiny, which is pretty obviously racist. Sets up idea that other historical heroes weren't perfect either.
5th paragraph: Tells us he read "an incredibly detailed exploration" of J.S.'s life, but doesn't tell us which one. Is it Rough Stone Rolling? No Man Knows My History? etc? The fact that he hides this information is pretty telling. Like the church (which owns lds living), they just want members to know that there are answers to the questions that are out there, but they don't want to even share the questions in case someone reading says, "hmm . . . that is a good question."
If this biography was so faith building for him, then he'd be confident in sharing the title with others. But he's not.
I've also said "Doubt your doubts" is completely manipulative. We praise Joseph Smith for his doubts because they led to the truth of the restored gospel in the latter days. We praise converts who doubted the faith they left to join the LDS church.
We also live in an age where larger and larger groups of people believe in silly conspiracy theories; the illuminati, flat earth society, 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers. This sort of message of "doubt your doubts" is one where they ask people who know about a very troubling history, inconsistent saving ordinances, and changing doctrine to throw away obvious truths for much less believable excuses.
Paragraph 6: Context is important. He's right about that. Context of Joseph Smith's dying words, "O Lord, My God . . ." would be helpful in a Sunday School lesson, but it's never going to happen. This is also the start of a common double standard apologists have for church leaders. To know why leaders were racist and implemented racist ~doctrine~ policy, I need to understand that everyone was racist in the mid 1800s. But the difference between church leaders and notable men of American history is that we're also told that these men have a direct line to God, that "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." I guess in that regard it would make sense for a member of the LDS church to believe the moon landing was a hoax . . . https://mormonculture87.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/jfs-quote-copy.jpg?w=1000
Oops.
These "prophets" are supposed to speak to God, so in almost every way they should be held to a higher standard than other men of history. They should be at the forefront of human equality and liberal social views, because they represent a God who (supposedly) loves all of his children equally. So if Jefferson had slaves he gets a pass for being a product of his time, but when we're taught that we're judged for our sins and not Adam's transgression, then how am I supposed to swallow the teaching that Blacks were denied the priesthood and blessings of the temple because they're descended from Ham? Or that they were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence? (<-- doctrine, not a "pet theory" or "folk tale.")
Paragraph 7: Back to context. Here's another obvious double standard. Let's get some context for the Word of Wisdom. Sounds like we shouldn't drink anything hot, including hot soups and hot chocolate. The context of the day was that it was commonly believed that hot things were bad for the body. How about tithing? D&C 119:4 says it's 1/10th of your interest annually, which in the biblical and 1840s context is not your income, but your excess after your needs are met. Here's an article on the history of tithing from LDS.org: https://history.lds.org/article/the-tithing-of-my-people?lang=eng
Great, so transparent, except that the church will run highly optimized SEO for most of the pages on LDS.org, but not the ones that are damning to the church's current teachings.
We're never told context about these things, so why should I go out of my way to make excuses based on context for everything that makes the church look as untrue as it obviously is?
Skipping down a bit . . . He says that every one of these great figures of history have a mixed past, some good, some bad. He says that they all acted out of fear at times, sometimes courage, sometimes sacrificing the principled ideal to make political compromises. Sure, I can buy that.
But he doesn't say that the fear Joseph supposedly had was getting cut down by an angel if he didn't sleep with a 14 year old girl. Or that the political move that compromised his moral ideal was destroying the printing press that was publishing about his polygamy in an attempt to silence the truth, and that it was this act that sent him to Carthage. It doesn't say that when Governor Boggs issued the extermination order it was because he was acting in retaliation and fear to Sidney Rigdon's oration telling the saints that they were going to exterminate all non-mormons in Jackson Country.
Oops!
I'm sure that all men and women have parts of their history that they're not proud of. But there's a difference between most men and Joseph Smith. Joseph taught his most egregious sins as doctrine. He was predatory and groomed girls into sleeping with him. He abused the power of his position to hide his actions, justify his actions, and to enable himself to do it more.
Why would God call such a man to do these things? And if Joseph only did them because God told him to, then why are any of us worshiping this God?
No thanks.
MrMoreGood · 2 points · Posted at 19:11:02 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Daryl is from Eagle Mountain
RocketRac · 2 points · Posted at 19:36:10 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
Belief persistence vs. Counter-explanation.
wardslut · 2 points · Posted at 20:52:01 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
White wash. White and "delightsome" wash.
haz000 · 2 points · Posted at 21:49:04 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
I read the first paragraph. It was enough...
mushbo · 2 points · Posted at 22:58:03 on August 17, 2017 · (Permalink)
We're telling you this so you don't have to go looking, trust us, we know.
anytime_i_walk · 2 points · Posted at 00:14:33 on August 18, 2017 · (Permalink)
Spin, spin, spin faster!