Sunday, September 23, 2012

Stepping on a smear

You may have read I'm running scared. Something to think about what I'm up against...

By my estimate, Fortune 500 Apple Computer has holdings of about $80 billion "cash" and owns two large corporate campuses, totaling about 2.8 million square feet of building space on nearly 200 acres of land in Silicon Valley, CA.  They also have around 360 retail stores and a worldwide employment of around 64,000 persons.  They're ranked one of the most valued and admired companies on the globe.

And the Mormons are giving Apple five years free rent to open a retail store in the new Mormon owned City Creek Mall.

Yes, the Mormons own a retail mall. The ~$3 Billion mall is owned by City Creek Reserve, Inc  a subsidy company held by the LDS Church according to their own website ( ).

Why would a religion own a mall?  In fact, that's only a drop in the bucket of what the Mormons own.  

By comparison with Apple's 200+ acres of land, LDSinc reportedly owns about 1 million acres in the continental U.S., including a ranch just down the road from where I live in Central Florida.  Not just any ranch, a $1 billion ranch of 300-thousand acres  herding 44,000 cows and 1,300 bulls.  I've been to it, just off the Dallas rd exit of 528.  It's immense.

But that's just a drop in the perverbial bucket.  Business week reports that a tally of the LDS corporate empire surmised it is probably "worth $40 billion today and collects up to $8 billion in tithing each year."  That's tax-free tithing income.  Which it doesn't report to anyone.  Not even its own members.  The number of subsidiaries, holdings and so forth are daunting.  They probably spend a fortune on Public Relations, with a firm or two pressed to advertise and keep people from realizing just how Fortune 100 LDSinc really is. You be the judge...Just take a look:
(from Business Week)

Even considering the non-corporate, ecclesiastical holdings of the LDS church is staggering. By comparison with Apple's 2.8 million square-foot campuses, LDSinc owns three universities and a business school with square footage in the several millions.  They operate Temple square and another 130+ temples of sizes ranging between 10,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet.  Another 6-7000 meetinghouses, hundreds of religious seminary and institute buildings and much much more that it uses to operate a massive sales-force of "every member a missionary" to spread the word of the benefits of paying 10% tithing to the Lord's corporation.  If that's not enough, they have a full-time, labor-free sales force of ~50,000 missionaries spread across the globe.  These young people pay for their own food & lodging and work without any pay.  Apple's sales force?  Their entire employment base is not much bigger, at just over 60,000.  When you add up the free labor, the ecclesiastical properties and more, that $40 billion worth sky-rockets to perhaps double.

LDSinc is a mind-boggling large, enormously well-fed, tax-exempt privately held company that seems to dwarf Apple Computer.  They already have in place Mormon Orrin Hatch of Utah who heads  oversight of tax-exempt organizations on the Finance Committee in the US Senate, protecting the "tax exemption" of his guys. And they have their own candidate running for the highest office of the most powerful country.

And I just stepped in the middle of them.

This past few days have showed me just an inkling of the kind of free PR and the kind of quiet, subeversive PR they may be engaging "on my behalf" (as it said in their letter of my disciplinary council).

I have had numerous emails and even a few threatening calls.  I have had someone contact ex-girlfriends asking for information about us.  Calls to true-believing friends/family (even my ex-wife) have been more innocuous, but seemingly probing all the same.

And I believe this could be just the beginning of a smear campaign.

No doubt many of their followers will claim I am the attacker.  They are the victims. 

Ok. go with that.


  1. The Prosperity Gospel is so woven into the Mormon psyche, that the Faithful are typically mystified when the LDS church is criticized, ridiculed, lampooned, etc for its vast financial holdings. Any parallel drawn with Christ and the money-changers simply sails over the heads of the members:

    "It's the Lord's money; who are we to question?" is the frequent response.

    Christianity meets Mammon:

    If that carpenter from Nazareth ever comes back (Missouri, is it?), he's going to kick the Mormon hierarchy straight out of their temples into the sewers.


  2. Why do you object to being excommunicated? You are an anti-Mormon. Why do you want to pretend to be a member?

    1. Charles, point out the content at MormonThink that is historically inaccurate or doctrinally incorrect.

    2. "Either/or" is the Mormon mantra re: most everything. If you're not 100% Mormon, you're anti-Mormon; you're hot or cold. If you're truthful, and it contradicts the latest version of Mormon "revealed" truth, you get spewed.

  3. Uhmm... irrelevant. You are anti-Mormon. That's the key issue.

    1. You can't excommunicate someone because you "feel he is anti-mormon". You need proof. That's why they allow the accused to call in witnesses. This means that your "vibes" don't cut it. Apart from David's facetious blog which he already acknowledged was inappropriate and shut down, what exactly have you got to back up your claims? If you don't have anything, I recommend some "other cheek" turning and repentance for being so judgy.

    2. Uhhmm... its not vibes. He is anti-Mormon. His blog is not shut down.. its right here. You are posting on it. It is loaded with anti-Mormon. That he is anti-Mormon is obvious. The question is: Why does he want to remain the member of an organization he despises?

    3. Charles,
      Can telling the truth get you labeled as an "Anti Mormon"?

    4. It can in Utah, where I live. Despite all their "ordinances," Mormons are inordinately touchy.

    5. Can telling the truth get you labeled as an "anti-Mormon"?


      Even in the days of Christ there were things you should not talk about. Someone who disobeyed Christ was not worthy of the Kingdom.

      Same is true today.

      But I have never seen anyone excommunicated for telling the truth. However, I have seen people lying and thinking that they were excommunicated for telling the truth.

      I am thinking of a fellow right now. He was in some sort of business dealing with another person who was the Bishop. Somehow things did not go right and he ran around the ward bad- mouthing the Bishop and causing a ruckus.

      The Stake President excommunicated him when he refused to stop this behavior. He always said it was because he was telling the truth. But that was not the reason. It was because he was being and abusive jerk. (I think he had a personality disorder).

      But, he claims the Church abused him because he would not put up with lies. Right.

    6. So the Church excommunicated a guy because he had a mental illness? That is a great way to get someone out of your hair if you don't want to help them.

    7. He was excommunicated because his behavior was evil not because he had a mental illness. Indeed, he was not diagnosed. That is simply my opinion on the matter and his life has sort of borne out out.

      But no.. people are not excommunicated for mental illness. They are, however, excommunicated for conduct that is knowingly not in keeping with the more important commandments.

    8. The more important commandments made by Church leaders you mean, not by God himself. The commandments that say "don't you DARE air our dirty laundry, or you will have your throat slit!" Good g.d. thing the Danites can't get away with that anymore, eh, Charles. Makes you all look so benign now, w/o the murders!

    9. oh you mean the unspoken commandments made up by the Leaders of your church, not the one's supposedly from god. The ones that say "don't you dare air our dirty laundry, or we'll slit your throat!". Ya those ones. Good G.D. glad the Danites aren't around anymore, aren't you Charles, makes you guys look like a benign little cult, instead of the murderous one it used to be.

    10. Chuckles, thanks for the laugh at your expense. I've only seen crazier perspectives from a friend who thinks the ten lost tribes are living in a hole in the ground at the North pole. He thinks that he is perfectly rational and bases his beliefs annecdotal stories online. Now, you've been challenged with finding false information given on MormonThink (with no response) and you'e labeled someone as "anti-Mormon". If mormons believe all truth can be rolled into one great whole, then, ironically David is much more mormon than most, especially you.

      You are free to leave any time tou wish.

  4. David, I just want to thank you for standing up to the corporation. The church is doing a great job of creating "anti-mormons" by its treatment of those who aren't just shutting up.

    Hiding the history instead of owning it outright is what turns the faithful members away. If they would just admit that "we are a work in progress, please excuse the mess", it would be so much easier to forgive the past. White-washing the history doesn't make it go away. Why can't we just take the good (and there is PLENTY of good to be had) and get rid of the bad (and there is WAY TOO MUCH bad that is kept around)?

    There is so much good that could be done, and I'm finding it increasingly difficult to call myself a Mormon. And to find such vitriol within the walls of the church--those of you who are good, upstanding LDS members, who would leave a comment on this or anyone else's blog or facebook page reviling them--there is no love in those comments, no understanding, nothing of Jesus Christ in those comments.

    1. Here is an example of Jesus speaking:

      "Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. So watch yourselves."

      Jesus is not Pooh Bear. He is not Barney the Dinosaur. He is not just a pansy. Think about the idea of someone having a big rock tied to their neck and thrown into the sea. Yet that would actually be better.

      Your imagination of a cream-puff Jesus does not comport with the original record.

    2. Yes, but he didn't tell US to speak for him in such a manner. He told US to love one another.

    3. Jesus told His Apostles that they had the power to excommunicate people who were not in line. Apparently, excommunicating people is one of the ways to speak words of love. Because Jesus is OK with it.

    4. Charles, the Mormons are the ones who cause people to "stumble". Joseph Smith was a cult leader who broke 6 of the 10 commandments, some of them on a regular basis. He had his henchman carry out a hit on a former state governer who had gotten in his way. He wrote a death threat to his wife Emma in D&C 132 to shut her up when she made trouble about all of the wives for goodness sake. The examples go on and on. I am not religious, but to me it seems that the man Jesus did at least bring religious philosophy forward from where it stood at the time with the priests in control and collecting money from people so that they could be "purified" in the temple. Jesus introduced the radical concepts that we are all equal, and that we can love and forgive each other. Really good, universal mental health concepts there. And Jesus did not use and abuse people for his own pleasure and gain as Joseph Smith did. In contrast to what Jesus did, Mormonism takes religious philosophy backwards several giant steps (tithing so you can be "temple worthy", anyone? Just one example). Another thing: I am not religious but I do believe in truth and integrity. There is none of that to be had in the texts and ceremonies that were invented by Joseph Smith. In your quote above, it is Joseph Smith who should have had a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea. Maybe Jesus would have been okay with that if he had seen the extent of the deception that has been promoted by the mormon church since the time of Joseph Smith and up through the present day.

    5. Yes, some are Mormons... Like David here.

      I don't really accept your insights as particularly deep, but thanks for sharing.

    6. That's ironic. Your position is as one-dimensional as it can possibly be: blind faith!

    7. Shallow person calls me one-dimensional. hahahah. Is that supposed to be further evidence of depth?

      Oh well.. I guess I should cry.

  5. There's no such thing as an "anti-Mormon." That's a term the Church likes to use to immediately discredit critics and make members afraid of reading anything that isn't Church-sanctioned. If you actually read MormonThink, you'd realize it paints a much more truthful and fair picture of the Church's history and doctrines than the Church itself does. The Church is afraid that if people know the truth, they might lose their testimonies. So folks like David get labeled anti-Mormon. You'd be surprised at how much the early Mormons did to provoke the "anti-Mormons" of their day. Using the "anti-Mormon" label has always been effective for the Church, even though it's mostly inaccurately applied.

    1. If there is no such thing as anti-Mormon, I should not be able to find the term on the internet. Yet.. there it is. Lots of it.

      Evidently you do not believe in using such evidence.

    2. You're one to talk about "evidence."

    3. Yes, I am one to talk about evidence. Thank you for noticing. I even brought it up first.

    4. Yes, the *term* "anti-Mormon" exists. But it was invented by the church to immediately discredit people who have genuine concerns about the church. David and the other contributors have genuine concerns about the church.

      You're giving the church a free pass. I used to do that, until I realized the many things the church was being dishonest about and hiding from its members. In many cases, it's downright deceitful. If members of the church are asked to be honest in their dealings, the church should be honest about its representation of its history.

      How many wives does the average member think Joseph Smith had? The average member only knows about Emma, because that's what the church emphasizes in its materials. Does the average church member know JS translated the BOM with a seer stone? Does the average member know about Mountain Meadows or the Kirtland bank scandal? About the BOM translation? MormonThink exists because the church was not being truthful. It's not as black and white an issue as the church would have its members think. It's not Anti-Mormon to wish the Church was more honest in its dealings.

    5. Charles, being snarky and a smartass are not going to make you or that which you represent look any more attractive. I'm not quite sure what it is you hope to accomplish here besides mock those with whom you disagree.

      Of those posting on here, I find it interesting that those who have left the church exhibit a more civil attitude than those who wish to defend and apologize for it.

      If you're a Mormon (and thus claim to be a true follower of Christ), why not act better the part?

    6. Ethan, I don't really care about making something look more attractive to enemies of the Gospel. Duh.

      Here is what I hope to accomplish: I want to encourage David to resign from the Church he despises. I think it is the honest thing to do. Whining about getting excommunicated is just silly. He's an enemy of the Church. He should leave.

      I believe I am acting the better part. I'm Ok with it if you do not agree.

    7. Zara,

      Actually that is false. The term "anti-Mormon" was invented by non-members, who in the very same breath labeled members of the Church as "Mormons". This is per the OED which takes great pains to explore the origins of words.

      I don't really care about your history or whatever dishonesty you might have engaged in in the past. It is not relevant to me unless somehow you have lied to me.

    8. Charles, I wouldn't bet on Dave doing anything because you "encourage" it.

      Be good and kind to others, whether or not you want the same respect and consideration. Demonizing others because you disagree with them only serves to reduce your credibility, despite the perceived boost to your ego.

      You've said your piece; now it's time to move on.

    9. OK.. you asked me what I wanted and then denigrated my desire. I shall remember not to be frank with you in the future and to remember that when you speak of kindness, you speak with a forked tongue.

    10. I didn't denigrate your desire. I merely made an observation that you were likely already well aware of.

      You're very good at twisting words and meanings to suit your agenda.

    11. And you are very good at not copping to your own issues. But I know you now and do not trust you.

    12. Well, I know you misrepresent. So that's enough.

    13. Someone please kick this "Charles" off of here. He needs to take some pills or something. Mental.

    14. Let's be clear here:

      The content of the this blog, the sentiments conveyed in the posts, ARE in opposition to the LDS church. It's in opposition to the members of the church. It's in opposition to the organizational structure of the church, the financial holdings of the church, the church leaders, the tenets of the church, the rituals of the church, the programs of the church, etc. and on down the line. Even the tone of the posts come across as opposition to the church.

      That being said... I do not understand why the author of this blog cares one way or the other about whether or not he is disciplined and/or excommunicated. Or why he went back to a church he clearly abhors to begin with.

      Yes, I am a member of the LDS church. I don't believe anyone here is evil, or "apostate". When someone leaves the church my feeling is that they are doing what they need to do for themselves and their lives at that particular time. I've been labeled "apostate" myself, since I left the Jehovah's Witnesses five years ago. I admit it - I am OPPOSED to the Watchtower Society. And I am shunned by formerly close friends, and have been disfellowshipped from the congregation.

      It is what it is, as the saying goes.

      My point is, if you're opposed to the church, say you're opposed to it, instead of referring to your position using a "fluff" term, like "pro-truth". When anyone joins a church, they're told - going in - what will happen if they turn away from it. When I was disfellowshipped it was no surprise; I knew going in that every person I knew within the church was required to completely disassociate themselves from me if I left the church. Was I surprised when it happened? Not a bit.

      Be who you are, say what you believe, and live your life however you have to live it. I wish you (and all here) the best.

    15. I would encourage you to look up the history of Martin Luther and the Catholic Church. When your church or culture has troubling beliefs and practices, it is a commendable thing to challenge it rather than just go away quietly. This kind of courage moves humankind forward.

  6. Anti-Mormon is a derogatory term used by the church against someone like David who is actually pro-truth rather than anti-Mormon.

    I think, therefore, a more accurate term for so called anti-Mormons should be pro-truthers and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be described as anti-truth. TBMs are anti-truthers. The church was founded on lies and perpetuates these lies to keep in existence.

    When anyone points out their lies those individuals are branded as anti-Mormons. Well no, they are simply pro truth.

    1. You can't be Pro-Truth and Anti-Mormon. It is impossible.

    2. Well, that tells me how much credence to give -your- claims, doesn't it? Thanks for being so clear, if nothing else!

    3. No, it doesn't. Silly idea.

  7. Okay, Charles. I'll accept that David is an anti-mormon if you can do one of two things:
    1. Show us something on the Mormonthink website that is factually untrue.
    2. Admit that correct history contradicts LDS truth claims.

    If you can't do one of those two things (and I have zero confidence that you will), then at least do this: tell us what your definition of an anti-mormon is. If we're going to be arguing about something, we might as well get it straight what we're arguing about.

    1. Its ok with me if you do not accept that David is anti-Mormon. I'm not concerned with convincing you of it one way or the other.

      I was asking David why he cares about being a member, since he is an enemy of the Church.

    2. I'm an inactive Mormon who appreciates the content on Mormonthink, and yet, I sort of have the same question. Forget the labels, why is David bothered by the threat of excommunication? He clearly doesn't believe, so why does he want to belong...particularly given that he isn't willing to get along???

    3. Some who struggle with the Church, may want to resign. However, it is not so easy to do when they also have friends and family who are active believers---to resign could likely cause more pain towards those they love.

    4. OK, I get the pain part -- sort of. But if that is the case then you have to deal with it. Don't skulk around in the dark attacking the thing of great value to those you love and then pretend that you love them. You don't. And you don't love the Church. Don't get all upset to leave it then.

      Or straighten up and at least act decently toward it.

      Its a choice. Everyone gets to choose how they will behave.

  8. I want to start this by saying I just found this site from a linked story. Interesting that it exists, but unsurprising that the heads of your church are not happy with you.

    To be upfront, I am not a Mormon, never was, never will be. I was raised Catholic and I am not that either. I do however have a historical connection to the LDS church and its founders.

    I am a distant relative by marriage to one of Brigham Youngs wives, and for whatever reason after her death her diaries and possessions were returned to our family. They are on display in a family museum in upstate New York. I have read the diaries (11 of them) and they were an interesting window into life as she lived it.

    I should also tell you that I am in the 1% that Occupy Wall Street is so upset about, fortunately I don't behave, believe, or think like their blanket opinion dictates.

    I personally hold no animus to any person who follows a specific religion, however I detest all organized religions on the grounds they are just big business claiming God's authority to force their will onto others. I also object strenuously to the demands of some religious leaders that U.S. civil law must comply with their version of Gods will.

    I don't care if you wear magic underpants, believe that you will earn your Godhead upon death and mastery of your own celestial planet any more than I care if you wear a rosary or kneel 7 times a day towards Mecca. None of that affects me in any way.

    What does affect me, and all U.S. citizens are the secret natures of so many religions. (Heck most of Christianity doesn't accept Mormonism as being a related religion because of all their teachings even though Christian Religions have their own beliefs that outsiders consider to be just as absolutely absurd. The same goes for every organized religion in the world.)

    I personally am irritated that Religions get a tax exemption at all. Just the list of for profit businesses listed in this article make me ill considering how many can get off tax free just because a "church" owns them.

    I am also personally offended when Churches of all types try and get into civil politics. Churches as a religious organization have no business trying to influence the way voters think or behave; however they are masters of political invective that often skirts the law in almost every election of the last 100 years.

    I applaud the author of this blog for taking the blinders off for people and giving us a peek under the hood so to speak.

    Churches as a business are to me an insult to their God. People like Mitt who declare their American bonafides as rated by giving to the church instead of paying an equitable amount in income taxes just revolts me.

    I make charitable donations too, but I don't write them off though I could save 6 figures (to the left of the decimal point) on my taxable income if I did. I give that money to causes that directly help people not buildings, empires, cathedrals, or line the pockets of greedy hucksters.

    I don' think the rest of the U.S. taxpayers should foot the bill for my largesse and desire to help others.

    I also don't hide my money in offshore accounts, tax havens or Swiss bank accounts. I do have a holding company, a trust, an ira and many tax preferred investments. I just don't hide them.

    Anyone who reads this, I beg you to think about your financial reality before you vote. Don't vote because a candidate is a Mormon or because he is not the "black man".

    don't vote without thinking of the actions of the man as a whole. Tithing to a specific church is not a sufficient reason to earn someones vote.

    1. Mike--thank you for sharing your thoughts. They strongly resonate with my own. In the last six months or so, I have moved the LDS church completely out of the life of myself and my family, and I cannot ever see myself joining with any organized religion again. was a key tool in me realizing many difficult truths about the religion I grew up in, and subsequently leaving it behind. Thank you for your contributions to that. I'm sorry for the stresses you are going through right now. Many of us are rooting for you. Be well.


    2. My pleasure anon... I hope someone takes to heart what I said.

      Reading the posts in this thread shows that all religions suffer the same problems.

      Catholicism has been scrutinized heavily over the last 50-75 years and people are leaving that church in droves. People, like me, who were raised in that faith but just cannot tolerate the lies in the name of a God.

      The Catholic church is a larger scale of what the Mormon church is trying to become. They are an economy unto themselves and rank in the top 10 World economies.

      They have secret bank accounts, secret police, secret histories, secret documents, and secret dossiers on people who disagree with them. They control massive amounts of wealth, some looted from the Jews during the Holocaust, some demanded of elderly people living on cat food.

      The Vatican Bank is one of the most stable in the world, and unfortunately there are indications they have even financed drug and arms dealers without concern for anything but getting paid back their loans.

      Reading the comments here from some posters is exactly like reading Catholic blogs. Some dyed in the wool, rabid dog defenders of the faith will do nothing but smear and slander anyone who brings out a message that says the Church should be more transparent.

      None of us can change the past, but for a religion to hide, deny and lie about its past actions is beyond unacceptable.

      For outsiders the concept of "the stake" is a little confusing, but it has echos of small time parishes that are run by political favoritism, at least some of them.

      A personal belief in a higher power is not necessarily a bad thing, but the organizational business that Churches become reek of politics, double dealing and all the bad things associated with any group that demands supremacy of thought by its adherents.

      Personal beliefs should remain just that, personal. I don't need a Cathedral, or a man in a dress to tell me what to believe. I can think and feel for myself. I know what feels right and what feels wrong. I know what I am willing to do and what things are not acceptable to me.

      For me that means not playing the silly games, not financing the life of the man in the dress. I don't know if it works the same for Mormons, but priests earn an income based on the size of their parish and the offering plate. What that means is the more they can con out of the parishioners the better their income. I know priests who drive a new Mercedes every year and dine out nightly at 5 Star restaurants. I know others that can barely pay the insurance on a 10 year old car that was donated to them.

      That disparity is revolting as it reflects exactly what "THE CHURCH" in Rome gives back to those parishes. The haves and the have nots are clearly demarked by just that one situation.

      I just cannot support that in any way.

  9. But what happened at your court of love? Did you get exed, or was the thing cancelled. I've not heard an update and would love to get the current news.

    1. We'll never know now. He is too cowardly to actually go and face them. Guilty conscience?

    2. Astounding how easily assumptions trickle out of your mind and onto the keyboard. This blog post was published merely 6-1/2 hours ago. Let's give him a day or so to sit down and write. If he does not go, I think the likelier reason is that he would possibly opt for resignation than excommunication, as others have, i.e. Grant Palmer and the former editor of MT (just posted today).

    3. Excommunication hearing is scheduled for 30 Sep 2012. It hasn't happened yet.

      Also, the dickish posts by what I can only assume are devout members of the Mormon church are noted.

    4. Thanks for the clarification. I had read the letter but thought that the COL was scheduled for yesterday. He has one more week for the public pressure to work the process. I would not be surprised to see this court be cancelled by the stake. This amount of public pressure is not putting the church in a good light.

      And yes, the comment above about "too cowardly" is pretty cowardly. Wow.

  10. Just remember Mr Twede, pride goeth before a fall.

    It will be your undoing.

    1. If this is so, then I am in great anticipation for the fall of many of the Church leaders, which will be colossal. I speak directly of their inability to truly listen to members who are struggling with legitimate questions--never able to countenance the idea that their official history may be thickly white-washed.

  11. Charles, what makes him anti-Mormon?

    1. His actions and words against the Church.

    2. And you you are unable to point out a single inaccuracy on the MormonThink site. So if MormonThink is accurate, and also anti-Mormon, then truth is anti-Mormon, by deduction.

    3. No, I can point out inaccuracies but they are irrelevant. MormonThink is not accurate. But it is anti. And so is David. He should get out.

    4. So, Charles, it is irrelevant where the truth of the matter lies, only which side (in the church or not) you choose? Christ's warnings of wolves in sheep's clothing be damned, huh? If you read the purpose of MormonThink and their conclusions, it has no interest in destroying "the Church", just in removing the negative aspects of, well, not telling the truth. Apostles in the 1st century did not mince words, or sugar coat calling members and other apostles out for hypocrisy. We should not settle for less today.

    5. Matejoh, it is irrelevant to my question.. which I have asked repeatedly and not gotten answer to:

      Why does he bother being a member if he is an anti-Mormon?

      I say "man up" and get out of Dodge. Quit being a snake.

    6. Charles, we grew up hearing "It is expedient for he who hath been warned to warn his neighbor", and that all truth comprises the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Dave still has a tinge of that Mormon spirit combined with a desire to share what he has found for the benefit of enlightening others, then is he not justified in sharing the message with those that it directly affects? LDS missionaries share what message they have, sometimes lovingly and other times at the expense of the entire way of life for converts. The Church has great potential for good, but all will be better served if acts from a position of both strength AND truth, not just the former.

      The only people that benefit from Dave "manning up" and leaving are those that maintain god-like power over congregations world-wide, threatening everlasting damnation if you discover that they are , in fact, only human, having erred for decades in tangled webs of divinity, delusion, and deceit.

    7. matejoh, What on earth does that have to do with whether a person who hates the Church should stay in it?

      Weren't you all disgusted about hypocrisy a little bit ago? I guess for you, consistency of ideals and integrity has relatively low value.

      Again, the right thing is for him to not be a member. So why is so worried about being exed?

    8. So Charles when did you become God, thinking you can judge or condemn another man? If you are a believer, then you would know that excommunication shouldn't be handed out so freely and with such vitriol.

    9. Anon, Who have I condemned? Where have I played God?
      What vitriol? You seem confused.

      I believe excommunication should be handed out freely when deserved, particularly for people who hate the Church. I think its a good thing. I encourage it.

      Why on earth would you think its a good thing for some organization to keep an enemy in their midst seeking their destruction? Why would it be a good thing for someone to live their lives in hatred of all around them?

      Its good to move on.

      But, as I have said elsewhere.. if David wanted to repent, and I was his Bishop, I would not hold a court.

  12. AL, then the Church is heading for a huge butt flop. Eye of the needle, enough said...

  13. I was a Mormon for 30+ years when I started discovering all they hide about the history of their church, and treat people who ask questions with disciplinary action.

    I beat them to the punch by resigning officially, but even better, since I had lost all respect for any visages of integrity OR AUTHORITY, I became an expert at ignoring them and their inquiries (and threats).

    You don't have to respond to them. You don't have to appear at their Kangaroo Court. DON'T GIVE THEM THE TIME OF DAY- you have much more important work to do, at this time.

    They're trying to suck the wind out of your sails, put you into a state of fear so you back down from what is becoming Key in this years presidential election.

    They want you to "humbly submit" to their "Court of Love".

    Their entire political involvement since the beginning of the church is mind-boggling, and needs desperately to be revealed, and you are now in the lime-light. DON'T BOW DOWN. They're counting on you to be fearful and submissive.

    1. Personally, I would submit to the Court, but that is because I am a believing Saint. I accept that David is not. I think he should accept that as well and quit worrying about being a member of an organization he utterly despises.

      For some reason, people seem to think it is bad for me to point this out. But it is not bad. It is reasonable. It is the manly thing for him to do.

      On the other hand, if I were the Bishop and had already scheduled the court, I would still hold it, even if he sent a resignation letter. But maybe that is contrary to the HOI -- and I think most Bishops dislike these Courts enough that they would be relieved to not have to hold one.

  14. I wrote the above comment, and wanted to clarify that I was the perfect Mormon, obeying all the rules, paying a full tithe, temple recommend holder, mother of 12 children (thanks to Ezra Taft Benson's admonition to the women of the church), and even with all of that, could not be the Perfect Saint, because there's no such thing, hence the power and control they have over all the members (except for the Good-Old-Boys-Club that can do no wrong.

    The groveling was bad enough, but what pushed me over the edge was discovering the real history of Joseph Smith and the founding of the church, and how it's all under wraps so as to appear to be a Christian church.

    Especially disturbing now is how Romney is being looked at as some sort of savior, in the light of the White Horse prophesy.

    I am not persuading people either way, but all the facts need to be out there so people can make educated decisions.

  15. (I feel deeply for you. since the church has so much control over the financial world and the media, they will do everything they can to destroy you, starting with your livelihood, then attack you through your family, friends, associates, community...just as they did with Sonja Johnson and others who dared to speak out.)

    1. I don't think the Church has any control over his livelihood. That's just an anti device. Me -- david.. against Goliath.

    2. The Church isn't going to go after his livlihood. To be frank, I can think of a lot of problems with the Church, and can name plenty of reasons not to join. Even so, I can actually understand why they would want to excommunicate David. I don't dispute the content on Mormonthink, it is in fact the very reasons why I no longer affiliate with the Mormon Church. But that's the point, I don't affiliate with them, and I don't pretend to be a faithful member, who attends their services, mock's their sacrament speakers, etc, all while maintaining a very public website critical to those things. I don't fault the website, but I do question the way things have been acted out here.

      The Church has had no impact on my financial life, and I live in Utah. No one would even waste their time trying to call me into a court because they no that I don't recognize their authority to judge me...and that's only because they have no authority. If you want to find out how much power the Priesthood has, try excercising a little priesthood authority over someone who just doesn't give a sh_t. In my experience, that's where things just fizzle out. The only authority they have is the authority we give them by attending Church, participating in the organization, and by attending their courts and meetings. So this whole thing is very puzzling to me.

    3. I can relate to what you say Mr. Anon. I am like you in many regards, but I do see what David is doing here, at least I see it from my own perspective. He is calling their bluff, forcing them into a position where they have no answers to the allegations of fraud and dishonesty. They cannot say what if anything he and MT have said is false or wrong, although MT has repeatedly shown "beyond a shadow of a doubt" the lies and frauds of the Mormon Church. Their only reply to his challenge is to pull rank...and that says it all. It reminds me a little of a guilty accuser who keeps changing the subject to shroud their own sins, and finally when the subject can no longer be changed, to wage ad hominem (personal) attacks against the questioner...something the Mo's have done and even perfected from day one, although they don't accept that behavior too well when it is aimed at them. For those who have eyes, let them see and for those that have ears, let them hear. THE church is an obvious fraud, like its favorite son, Mitt Romney, who is the embodiment of Mormon mendacity and greed...all conjured up in the name of God for the weak-minded. The only thing left in this church will soon be sheep and wolves. I guess they are made for each other.

  16. Those of you who don't believe the church can't effect your livelihood need only read personal accounts of those who've been excommunicated and ostracized. Losing grants, tenures, lose of revenue because your mostly Mormon community no longer supports you or your business. It's all well-documented.

    1. Baaaaloney. The only way this happens is if you used to be an employee of the organization you despised.

  17. The pattern of LDS suppression of dissenters was already in effect when celebrated historian Fawn M. Brodie was excommunicated for her authorship of "No Man Knows My History," the seminal biography of LDS founder Joseph Smith. Before that, 19th Century reporting that reflected unfavorably on the church was routinely vilified and denounced as "anti-Mormon." As the author of this piece--a friend of David's and iconoclastic historian Will Bagley--notes, for generations LDS historians simply had to hang the label "anti-Mormon" on individuals such as J.H. Beadle and Wilhelm von Wymetal (Wm. Wyl) and they effectively discredited the historical material in the eyes of the faithful.,5317,5317

    Others who've run afoul of ecclesiastical power include D. Michael Quinn and Simon Southerton. Quinn was employed at Brigham Young University and sacked in the nototious "September Six" episode, and Simon Southerton is a DNA scientist (both men have PhD's) who was excommunicated after publishing a review of scientific evidence of the origins of Native Americans, which was wholly at-odds with Mormon lore as taught in its sacred Book of Mormon. With patent dishonesty, church leaders revoked his membership over an "improper relationship" with a woman (while he was separated from his wife, a not uncommon occurrence for those who've abandoned their earlier beliefs in church veracity). He was not permitted to present his scientific--and apostate--views at his church court.

    There have been many others as well who've felt the lash on subjects ranging from the black priesthood issue as well as LDS opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

    1. I am grateful that the Church releases people from Membership when they become rebellious. I think its good for the Church and good for the apostates.

    2. Interesting that you choose not to address the factual basis of mine and others' reporting. To Godwinize this one, you would've made a good German...

    3. Uhhh... I did not find much of your post very interesting. But if you have a desire for some sort of "address" from me, what exactly do you think was interesting and deserving of a reply? I'd prefer a short answer.

      Thanks on the Godwin deal... I am German! (25% anyway).

      You know, that unlike the rest of Europe, Germans were never really fully conquered by Rome. Indeed, Teutons so thoroughly trounced the Romans during the days of Jesus, that the Romans decided to just quit.

      And Germans -- of a sort -- helped sack Rome later on. (You really should pay your help!)

      Pretty cool eh? I'd make a good one! Hooray for Germans!

    4. FDR, Churchill, their respective countries and their Russian allies took care of that historical oversight.

      Quite thoroughly in fact... Now are you going to address the factual accuracy of my post or try to give irrelevant history lessons to a historian?

      Or perhaps you would like a referral for those symptoms of "Nibley's Disease" you're exhibiting obvious signs of? That's the one first identified by his daughter, Martha, where one is confronted with the obvious fraud in the LDS Church and its doctrine, and rather than acknowledge the obvious, chooses to go bonkers instead.

    5. Why don't you tell me what you think you said that deserves some sort of response? It was a boring post.

    6. You did reply and offer a response. My view is if you're going to be honest and not engaging in some attempts to distract from my message, you ought to address the content and not resort to the sort of smear tactics Dave has addressed here.

      You might also look at why you use boredom (which is not an "authentic" emotion) as a defense against the really fear "apostate writings" represent to you.

      That might be a challenge for you, however.

    7. concolor,

      If I replied and responded, then great. What's your beef? If I have not responded, then what is it you want a response to? I find the post boring and uninteresting. That is the limit of my impression. What did you want more detail about?

      I did not, however, say I was bored. I said the post was uninteresting. And it was.

  18. Mr. Twede's sudden urge to return to church after 5 years of inactivity as an atheist is all-too-convenient. From the get-go, it was clear he intended to be nothing more than an agitator.

    He flagrantly and unapologetically linked to, and even quoted verbatim, parts of temple ordinances, in direct contravention of promises he had made. Then he pulls the political card when he gets called on the carpet by local leadership.

    His blog references masturbation, threesomes, and implied sexual-impropriety by a member of his ward, which he names openly. Mr. Twede is not, and never was, a sincere seeker of truth. He is common rabblerouser. Nothing more.

    1. Orson Scott Card had explicit sex scenes in some of his novels. Why is he a member in good standing?

    2. About Orson Scott Card -- I am not familiar with his books but you should ask him, if you really want to know. I think he might have an answer. Its not the sort of thing that most members would have an answer to. Its not like this sort of thing is put on neon signs for people to read.

    3. Go to Richard Packham's Home Page. Everything anyone would ever want to know about temple ordinances may be found there. In fact, they've changed over the years and he even goes as far as to give the particular versions.

      Shine a bright light on this Church. If it has meaning for people they'll stay. If not, well at least they'll have made the best decision for themselves and their families with more information not less.

    4. Orson Scott Card does not write scripture...

    5. I am familiar with Orson Scott Card, and he's a hack writer who appeals to troubled adolescents and is a bigoted homophobe to boot.

      And as Grant Palmer said as he was about to be disciplined by a church court (and later resigned his membership, not a decision he made lightly, I know), "I don't know how to repent for telling the truth."

    6. Strange thing... Grant Palmer lying when he says he does not know how to repent for telling the truth.

      Of course he does.

      Which makes his statement a strange loop. Its a lie.. talking about truth. And he claims he can't stop telling the truth and then lies!

      Strange loop!

    7. Thanks Charles, for offering a demonstration of the psychologically abusive "double bind" that is common in the LDS culture.

      Grant Palmer told the truth in his "An Insider's View of Mormon Origings" and is somehow supposed to know how to repent of that action?

      How? By lying?

      Are you in your first or second year of formal logic at YBU? One's brain on Mormonism, folks. Go back to Mormon Dialogue or LDS Freedom Forum. You can wear your visit here as a badge of honor.

    8. hahahaha.. You drink the Kool Aid pretty hard! Grant Palmer has been a long-term liar for many years. He even admits it.

      Then says "I don't know how to repent from telling the truth". Of course he does. LOL... what a silly thing.

    9. I wrote the above comment regarding the timing of his so-called return to the mormon church. Regardless of whether you agree with mormon teachings, can't we all call a spade a spade? Mr. Twede never had any earnest desire to reconnect with, understand, or become a part of the mormon church. He simply piggy-backed off of Mitt Romney's Presidential race as a chance to drive traffic to his website.

      For all the people on here claiming a strict adherence to logic and reason, you certainly have a blind spot for the charlatan Mr. Twede.

    10. Kool Aid? Man, that's an original.

      Nineteenth century Mormons spoke in tongues. Twenty-first century Mormon apologists speak in stolen clichés and ad hominem attacks.

      And Anonner, that's strictly "blame the victim" tactics you're using (more attempts at psychological abuse and intimidation). Nothing more than a silly shell game to draw attention from the truth of MormonThink's message...

    11. Concolor,

      I believe that 21st century Mormons also sometimes speak in tongues. No I am not talking about missionaries in foreign languages.

      I would not know about Mormon apologists speaking in stolen cliches and ad hominem attacks, not being someone to do that sort of thing -- at least not as an attack per se.

    12. Concolor, your credulity about Mr. Twede's avowed purposes is impressive. What's more, to call him a "victim" when he intentionally put himself in this position is textbook playing-the-victim.

      Mr. Twede started a personal blog that mocks not only a religion and its doctrines, but individual members of his local congregation, and then cried wolf when he was asked to account for it.

      And you, in all your vaunted reason and superiority, can't even see it for what it is.

  19. @Charles...too bad the "one true church" could not afford a higher IQ troll to shill for them on this board. I was hoping for at least a worthy believer and they sent in the clown. Charles, it is sad that you have to denigrate yourself on this board in such a way that actually points out that most TBMs are cry babies and fairly ignorant of the facts on their own religion. I know a lot of good LDS folks, my brother being one of them. You however, are a proven liar to your faith and to the Spiritual Integrity that believers have. I have worked with your type before, and 99% of the time you either come to grips with reality or start taking your medications.

    1. So... what was it that you decided you didn't like? The fact that I said I would delay his court or is the fact that I think since he hates the Church he should get out?

      LOL... nevermind. You are just full of hatred. I'm ok with that. There are supposed to be people like you.

    2. I think "Charles" forgot to take his pills.

    3. Keep your chin up Charles...your job with the church today is just to continue denial of the facts that expose to the world.... you have yet to provide one example...therefore your credibility is just hovering below 'Shill' level. Did the church offer you a promotion for shilling-out. They should of offered you an education on argumentative conversation.... and some training on the early church history.

    4. Chin's up!

      But I don't work for the Church. Never would. They don't pay enough.

      Please notice though that I am not defending anything. I have been asking a question and only one question.

      If you want defense, talk to someone who thinks you are honest.

    5. This is @charles.

      you may have noticed my other post here about the similarities between the organization Mormon Church and the Catholic church, as well as my views on that.

      I am writing at you specifically because you are the worst type of religious zealot there is... one who denies reality and slanders, insults and tries to discard anyone who thinks differently than you do.

      You call your self a "saint", yet you are the worst of the sinners as exemplified by your posts here.

      You don't find interesting or worthy of response those posts that call you to task for your statements. As if somehow your denigrating the posts of others as "unworthy" of your notice, makes them any less true or you any less of a liar.

      You are trying to demand an answer to a question that you have no business even considering asking; Why David wants to stay with his Mormon religion despite wanting the truth of its past actions revealed.

      That makes you a scum apologist for the Mormon Church, who by your own statements don't even employ you to speak for them. You take a lot on your own shoulders as if you had some right to do so....bad news, you don't.

      If you don't like what he wrote, why would you spend so much time on here making yourself look like a two year old having a tantrum? you're stamping your foot, screaming, whining and snotting all over the place for reasons known only to you....completely devoid of sense, reason or anything but your own ego.

      You are entitled to your opinions, you are just not entitled to a platform to hold your tantrum from. You state "Even in the days of Christ there were things you should not talk about.". Religions that keep secrets from their adherents are the tools of Satan. Your demand that every one else shut up and agree with you is obnoxious, ridiculous and totally NOT going to happen.

      You can demand and insult to you are blue in the face and it won't make one difference simply because YOU have no power to make that happen. you have no authority to even insist upon it.

      You slather these other posters as anti-mormon without once making an intelligent statement as to why they are incorrect.

      You are pathetic, and assuming that the LDS is the "correct" religion your reward in heaven will to have your tongue removed and be cast into a fiery pit for your anti-christian lies and behavior.

      Enjoy that eternity, but take some burn cream with you.

    6. Mike,

      Lets see.... I am:

      "one who denies reality"
      "the worst of the sinners"
      "scum apologist"

      And yet you will not find any post of mine that is nearly as full of invective and insults as you have just leveled. Not only that, but you have accused me falsely. You do not know me and have assumed many things about me that you simply do not know to be true. (I happen to know that some of them are false)

      Hypocrite much? Of course you are a hypocrite.

    7. @charles,

      I have read your posts and everything I said to you is proven by this response to me.

      You call people you disagree with anti-mormon
      you deny, despite your posted words, what you have said and written here. that makes you the HYPOCRITe.

      You flat out state that Davids blogs are false, and in that you deny reality.

      you defend the Mormon churches actions to silence and harm its critics, that makes you a scum apologist.

      you flat out lie and flat out condemn other posters, that makes you the worst of the sinners.

      and frankly your temper tantrums are pathetic, including the really sad attempt you made at insulting me.

      Your invective and slurs are all over this board, and you expect them to go unchallenged... again pathetic and simpering..

      Charles, stock up on that burn cream, you will need it.

    8. David,

      Not a single thing you have said about me is true. Not one thing.

      * I have not called people who disagree with me anti-Mormons. Not one.
      * I have not said David's blogs are false. Never once.
      * I have not defended anything the Mormon Church has done. Not once.

      And you can't quote me doing any of that.

      You are just a liar. I don't think you even care a minimal bit about being honest. You just want to slur.

      You are an egregious hypocrite and liar.

    9. Uh Charles,

      That's Mike, not David..

      But in your disingenuous attempts to maintain your façade, you've acknowledged you support the way the LDS Church abuses its critics, regardless of whether those charges have merit or not (my friends and I have several lifetimes worth of such stories, from a relative who was leaving an abusive marriage--and followed by the "Ward Police"--to an aunt ex-communicated because she didn't attend a church hearing that wanted to question her about her marriage to a Catholic).

      What does your conscience say about your own behavior condoning such excesses?

      Adolf Eichmann: >"From my childhood, obedience was something I could not get out of my system. When I entered the armed service at the age of twenty-seven, I found being obedient not a bit more difficult than it had been during my life to that point. It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders."

      >“Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's need to think.”

    10. ooops.. Sorry David. My error. I did mean Mike.

    11. concolor,

      I don't know what you are referring to. You have me confused with someone else. I notice, for example, that you have no quotes of me. I think you can't find any either.

      As for my conscience, I am really really fine with it. I mean really. But I don't recall condoning any excesses. Again, you have me confused with someone else.

    12. I'll quote one example of your dishonesty where you say "I'm grateful the church releases people from their membership when they become rebellious."

      That was the basis of the Adolf Eichmann quote I put in front of you. Alas, your perceptions have become so warped you can't recognize yourself in a rhetorical mirror.

      The church doesn't "release people from membership." It tosses them out, breaks up families, hammers them with "eternal consequences," and hurts the close relatives of those they excommunicate because of the ensuing alienation. And yes-men like you stand by blindly and condone those actions. often by looking the other way or justifying them.

      Here's a bit of history for you. One individual who "stood up" to Joseph Smith was his second counselor, William Law. Smith had attempted to make Law's wife, Jane, one of his plural wives in Nauvoo. Law was an early "anti-Mormon" who "took the truth into his own hands" and published a newspaper that exposed the practice. For that action, Joseph and his ruling council in Nauvoo had the press destroyed and the type scattered.

      You can verify that one in any history book; I recommend Bushman's because you won't believe a non-Mormon source. The Governor of Illinois had Joseph and Hyrum arrested as a result, which led to the mob attacking the jail at Carthage. In the ensuing gunfight, Joseph and Hyrum were killed (Joseph was armed and fired back at his attackers).

      Non-Mormons (you would call them "anti's") took the issue of a free press seriously back then.

      Now put away your Etch-a-Sketch and learn some authentic history, otherwise you're going to look particularly foolish. You are unaware of your own church's history, and yet you continue to defend it like a lawyer with a guilty client.

    13. Concolor1, I disagree with some of your post. Joseph and Hyrum were arrested for having created a riot, not necessarily for the destruction of the press. Also, to say that Joseph Smith asked for to be sealed to Law's wife is speculation not based upon facts, other than the well known fact that William Law did not agree with the practice of polygamy. He also, strangely enough, defended Smith at a time when another disgruntled counselor set about accusing Smith of wrong doing concerning a "spiritual wife".

      My facts are from "William Law: Biographical Essay, Nauvoo Diary, Correspondence, Interview". Contrary to what many posters on here state, I do believe in researching the facts and trying your best to determine with your God-given intellect the right course of action. I do believe that some of the things you stated are true, or true to an extent. I do not agree with all your statements based solely on my own research of the materials available to me. Might I suggest that wikipedia is not the best source of information, seeing how many times the contributors use information from other sources that in fact base their claims on conjecture, the Salt Lake Tribune being a common culprit of printing statements not found in fact.

    14. You only imagine I am being dishonest. Your imagination does not comport with reality.

      I am genuinely grateful that the Lord has provided the means and conditions whereby enemies of the Church may be released from Membership. I would be unhappy if there were no such systems.

    15. To the Unknown who Doesn't Know,

      I find it humorous that that you accuse me of using Wiki as a source (in truth, I've blogged for several prestigious history sites, as Dave Twede can attest, and Wiki is basically a joke at times). I can cite--from memory--the truth that the original account of William Law's wife appearing in a secret hearing--along with Sarah Pratt and others--was first published in Brodie's "No Man Knows My History."

      And just a bit of further information to break up your shell game: The act that led to the charges of inciting a riot against Joseph and Hyrum was the destruction of "The Nauvoo Expositor."

      And now, since you've essentially called me a liar, I'll refer to your statement below castigating people for being rude and congratulate you for upholding your Hypocritic Oath. My apologies to Alan Alda for borrowing that one.

      For the serious history students out there, here's the Salt Lake Tribune interview with William Law. It's understandable that he may have preferred not to drag his wife's name through the mud, but there were other women involved as well. Now would you care to comment on Joseph Smith marrying the wives of other men or 15-year old Helen Mar Kimball?

      And I see MormonThink has offered even more in-depth exploration of the subject than my modest writings. The author is none other than Grant Palmer, whom Charles has also chosen to accuse of lying as an expedient means of avoiding confronting the historical reality of Joseph's Smith's actual character.

      Palmer: "In my opinion, William Law is the most credible and important person to have ever left the First Presidency of the LDS Church."

  20. Stay strong, my friend and most importantly - stay true to yourself

  21. Charles,
    I'm investigating the lds church and reading how Charles has not answered any of the questions put towards him I am thinking that he is hiding something. I did some research tonight and have found that the lds church does lie to its members. I would be ashamed to be part of an organizations that has trolls like Charles defending the lies of teh faith. Yuk I'm appalled.

  22. Charles,you sure now how to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Bungholio you are-io. Get thee behind me satan the father, or in your case, the wann be baby of lies.

    1. You are babbling nonsense.

  23. Charles, if in your opinion Dave is an anti-Mormon, why doesn't the church hand him an excommunication letter and stop wasting everyone's time? Why convene a court of love? He's just one man' there's 14 million of you.

  24. Why does anyone even respond to Charles?

    1. My experience has been that there are others who read blog comments who choose not to say anything but do benefit tremendously from seeing reasonable and credible answers offered up to apologists' nonsense and bullying tactics. Church defenders often wear "masks of niceness" that obscure their underlying nastiness, and it takes some judicious applications of cattle prods to expose the hostility and authoritarian control that lurks below the surface. Consider Scott Gordon of FAIR, for example, and how he has focused on punishing MormonThink for being an "anti" site instead of addressing the issues raised. That has invariably been the case because LDS doctrine and history is indefensible by any reasonable standards of common sense or scientific or historical inquiry. Unfortunately the indoctrination runs particularly deep. The church education system, supported by BYU and other church-owned institutions, underscores this brainwashing, and keeping silent offers ignorance an undeserved victory.

  25. Utah's poverty rate climbs to 13.5%

    43% of the state's single mother's live beneath the poverty level.

    This problem shouldn't exist in the U.S. Especially not in Utah. I think it's time LD$ Inc.'s tax exempt status was revoked.

  26. I don't want to name call, but some people that comment on here are pretty rude. Everyone seems to hide behind the "I'm trying to enlighten others" when they really seem to be trying to bring others down. The blogger, Dave, seems in my opinion to be posting things that are negative about the Church he is a member of. Charles sees these posts as "Anti-Mormon", just like people who say negative things about Jews are labeled "Anti-Semites". The only thing I have to say about those who feel the LDS Church misuses their funds, do any of the Church leaders in high positions, General Authorities, live extravagant lifestyles? How exactly does the Church spend all this cash they are accused of hoarding? Could it be by building churches and temples around the world? Funding missions. Running universities. Basically trying to improve the state of the world for all of God's children? I also think it is insulting to suggest that I, a member of the LDS church, is ignorant. I was born and raised in Oklahoma, hardly a Mormon hotbed. I have spent my life discussing others' beliefs and trying to come to terms with my own. I spent 2 years serving a mission for my church studying all that was and is available to me in order to better educate and prepare those who wished to join me in my faith. Did I deny that blacks were not allowed all the same rights and privileges as white members? No. Did I baptize black men? Yes. Did I ignore or gloss over polygamy? No.

    I ask an honest question to anyone on this message board who considers himself/herself a believer in a higher power; what facts are out there that prove your belief? Have you spoken with God himself? Seen the heavens? I haven't. But I believe because I have used the materials available, the intellect I was blessed with, and prayed. That's it. It all comes down to faith. Do not insult my faith, and I won't insult yours. It is even more disheartening that people try to act as if they are being fair and balanced when they are clearly slanted 1 direction or the other. I call that the Fox News effect.

    1. I hope I have not given the impression that I am trying to act neutral.

      I do think I am fair. I also do not think I am unbalanced. But I think I am pretty open about having a very definite point of view.

      As for the General Authorities living lavish lifestyles... I happen to know that they did not used to. They used to be kinda poor if they did not have funds of their own. However, since certain threats and actions taken by various negative groups have occurred -- along with the growth of the Church -- the Church has done some things to protect its Apostles. This results sometimes in nice living accommodations.

      They also get to make use of a jet, but this is not actually purchased by the Church, it is a gift.

      I also believe, that by virtue of their membership on the boards of Church businesses, they get a handsome, but not very lavish salary -- at least it is rather minor compared with the salaries by members on boards of other similar businesses.

  27. Charles I like how you end your last blog at 8:59. The salaries are minor compared with with the salaries of members on the boards of other similar businesses. Thank you for stating what the church really is. It's a business! You said so in your own words. The church lies about its past and it was created on lies. I come from a family of active members and was sealed to my wife in the idaho falls temple but when I found out the truth thanks to MormonThink I was able to see the church for what it is. It has some good teachings but that's not enough. Look at all the information about the church on MT that is true. Many people have asked you to prove the site wrong and you can't. Then look at the many failed prophesies of the church. Deuteronomy 18: 20-22 states how to know of false prophets. Only the truth can set you free and the church does not know how to tell the truth.

  28. David, thank you for describing the vast prosperity of the Church. The Church has accomplished something truly amazing. I hope it, and its businesses, continue to grow. It's such a powerful force for good.

    It's interesting how many enlightened individuals on this blog preach about the plight of the poor in Utah and blame the Church for allowing such poverty to exist. Yet when the Church builds a beautiful structure in downtown SLC that EMPLOYS thousands of individuals, improves the community, and directly pushes back the tide of poverty, you damned fools call good evil and say the Church has acted immorally. What would you have the Church do? Dot the land with homeless shelters and food kitchens? Is that your longterm strategy for ending poverty? Sounds brilliant. Maybe President Uchtdorf should pilot a plane that dumps hordes of cash over the poorer parts of the city?

    My favorite part of the post and the comments is that all you profoundly deep thinkers don't offer a modicum of rationale as to why the Church's construction of a beautiful building that employed the genius and efforts of many hardworking individuals is bad. You deep thinkers don't think at all, but instead take for granted the same old arguments any pedestrian populist panderer feeds to his sheep-like followers.

    1. Jared, if the church wanted to create jobs and make money, it could make more with a casino or theme park or gather all the brilliant Mormon software geeks together and form another google. But a mall? That's its plan? malls are a dying breed in America. Many of them stand empty in a few years of opening. Not wise, salt lake.

      A homeless shelter would bring those who need saving. Isn't that the mission?

  29. Hi from an LDS "47-percenter" :o).

    Being a Dem in Ventura County, CA (at least the eastern part) is about as popular as being one in N Fl; I doubt if there are half-a-dozen of us in all our wards. LOL

    Wouldn't it be be lovely if the Church built dorms and apartments for the homeless and give them jobs?

    I think that the Church has forgotten that the United Order was true communism- at least until human nature took over and we wound up with the lesser law of tithing.

    Enough for now--it's laaaate LOL

    God bless, all.

    And I'm for fasting re Br Romney as well- please Heavenly Father, help him lose...