Monday, January 14, 2013

Yea FAIRly, it came to pass...

As many have noticed, this blog changed names to Mormon Disclosures.  In keeping with that name comes this tidbit right from the secret archives at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR).  It appears they have been doing some digging and the movement they're bringing to pass may change the way we critics look at Mormonism.  Some of you may not like the topic in this blog, so I apologetically apologize up front.

Allegedly, FAIR has open the lid on Lamanite doings.  By doings, I mean poo. A document secured from deep in the bowels of FAIR archives shows that ancient fecal matter has surfaced which appears to belong to either the Lamanite king Lamoni (also spelled Lamoani) or the Jaredite Shiz.  The matter was uncovered in what was once believed to be an ancient baptismal font in central America, but is now thought to be a giant loo set in the middle of a notorious battlefield.  FAIR believes that there two verses in the Book of Mormon that reference the evidence of number two.  The first is in Alma 27:1.

"Now it came to pass that when those Lamanites who had gone to war against the Nephites had found, after their many struggles to destroy them, that it was in vain to seek their destruction..."
  The key words here are "and it came to pass" in the same sentence as "struggles".  The words "destroy them" seems to confuse readers and so FAIR has decided that these words must be the writers speaking as men and not for God.

FAIR encourages readers to remember the admonishment of Moroni in the Book of Mormon Title Page:

"If there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that thy undergarments may be found spotless at the throne of Christ."
  (Note, I believe they changed the wording slightly.)

The other verse referencing the matter in hand is Ether 15:31.

"And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died."
  Again the words "came to pass" and "struggle" are found in the same verse.  In this case, however, the struggling for breath is interpreted as a groan under strain.  FAIR also speculates that since Shiz died as he strained, he very probably voided his bowels, leaving them the evidence they currently sift through for more indication on Lamanite existence.  As a bonus, we critics offer to them the idea that it is not coincidence that his name is Shiz, which is the Reformed Egyptian root for "feces". 

Laboratory testing so far has shown the perpetrator of the evidence ate wheat, barley and horse meat.  Preliminary DNA testing shows that while the mtDNA (maternally linked) is of Asian descent, it is hopeful the Y-DNA will show Mideastern influences.

We encourage FAIR to get with the scientists who uncovered other ancient American, Viking and pre-historic Clovis human waste matter.


FAIR has emailed me to let me know that the entire episode turns out to be a prank of one apologist on another.  It's called "hide the poo" apparently.  I don't have any other details.

(I realize that some of you have no sense of humor and many won't appreciate this kind of levity, but I spent a bit of time looking through FAIR's website this past weekend, and this is the best response to Mormon Apologetics I can form.)


  1. You might think this is funny, but it's really not. Poo is actually a big deal in archaeology.

    Then absence of poo is one of the biggest pieces of evidence that the BOM is false.

    The BOM claims that the Nephites had a "horse culture". A horse culture necessarily generates a thousand types of artifacts and vast piles of crap of every kind, all based around horses and the human use of horses.

    Just for a few examples:

    Saddles, ropes, harness, buggies and wagons and yes, chariots!

    Horse paths, roads and highways for horse-drawn vehicles. Factories to make vehicles, and quarries and machines needed for road building.

    Smithies, forges, mining, smelting etc. for needed ores and alloys to manufacture durable tools and implements for horse care and management. Horse armor, and armories to make and store metal plate armor for war horses.

    Fields of horse feed in the farms, granaries for horse feed, troughs for feed and water. Hitching posts, stalls, barns, and even vast stables to house the stock of the powerful. Leathercraft, haircraft, tanneries, rendering plants, bone meal factories, to deal with the dead horses. And pits for horse burials, filled with horse remains!

    Cattle ranches, cuz the Nephites had cattle, and the horses needed to tend them. So there would have been vast cattle ranches, existing up until today, and the Nephites would have subsisted primarily upon beef and horse meat as their main protein source. Ergo, there would be every artifact needed for cattle ranching, meat processing, secondary cattle products, etc.. The entire landscape would be altered to practice the ranching culture, just as we see in Mexico today.

    Artworks (some made out of horse bone) of every kind depicting the horse, and man with horse.

    So intimate would the Nephites have been with the horse, that the bodies of the dead Nephites would yield evidences of horse parasites, and human diseases and deaths caused by breathing and drinking fine particles of horse dusts.

    And of course, the POO! There would be horse and cattle poo everywhere, covering the land of Mexico (or wherever Mos may think the Nephites hung out). In large, long-time stables, such as for the nobility and ruling classes, the remains of which themselves should still be evident upon the urban landscape, there would be layers and piles of poo so wide and deep, they would be easy to find by archaeologists today. And more poo would have filled the streets wherever horses passed by, and it would have been spread upon the agricultural fields in great quantities that would be easy to find in every farm even today.

    Etc. etc., you get the picture. The presence of a horse (and cattle) culture is such an all-pervasive phenomenon, one which changes a landscape so completely, that we should find massive piles of artifacts and evidences lying literally everywhere in Nephite country today.

    Is any such evidence of an Nephite-American pre-Columbian horse culture found upon the land today? All the people say, "Neeiigh!".

  2. Someone once saw the Three Nephites walk into an LDS church, then the restroom.  As soon as FAIR heard about it, they got the church to start the "Let's be the first to clean the toilets!" campaign so they could have DNA.

    Someone let FAIR know that one cannot have their proof and eat it too.

  3. Who, pray tell, has actually attempted to excavate land throughout the United States to see if there is evidence buried? Evidence may be buried deep enough to not be found.

    Dave, just an aside you'd be a lot more credible or at least readable if you were to act mature and not use immature levity.

    1. Gettest thou a life! Or at least a sense of humour.

  4. concolor1, if nothing an apologist writes is worthy of addressing why are you addressing what I say at all? Why is there this blog and other blogs that find it necessary to go around attempting to prove the Mormon faith is wrong? I don't see people doing this for other religions.

    I'm reading the BofM for my second time, I'm not even past 1 Nephi and I can't help but wonder why Joseph Smith would make this up. At that time there couldn't have a lot of evidence if any of writings on any brass plates. The most widely known way of writing would have scrolls. If Joseph Smith was making up the BofM why wouldn't he have wrote in what he was familiar with? Why not find scrolls? Why the story of Nephi going back for brass plates? Why the Book of Moses? Would it be so he could give himself and other men permission to have several wives? Nope! That isn't in the BofM! Could it be to collect 10 tithe? Nope, that was already in the Bible! Could it be so he could make sure people follow the Word of Wisdom? Nope, if that were the case why not include that in the BofM? Why the BofM? What is in the BofM that there would be a point in having the BofM? That there were people on the American continent? So what! What difference would that make? Someone on here was pissed because the BofM talks about whites eventually owning American land. However, according to the BofM that won't happen for a very long time. LONG AFTER Joseph Smith died. So, why? No one can tell me why. They can attempt to explain all day long that there is no proof, but no one can come up with a logical explaination as to why Joseph Smith would have written the BofM!

    1. "I don't see people doing this for other religions. "
      Irish Catholics vs. Anglicans
      Shia vs. Sunni
      Hindus vs. Muslims
      Joseph Smith vs. creeds abomination & corrupt professors (JS-H v. 19)
      and so on, and so forth

      " but no one can come up with a logical explanation as to why Joseph Smith would have written the BofM!"
      For the women, the money and the glory. Read some actual history about the man. He screwed more women than most casual sex players today (probably close to 40 in his life). He was a court documented money digger. He was hailed as king over god's kingdom by the council of the fifty.

      Look these up and learn for yourself what a megalomaniac, money digging, pervert Joe Smith was and you will realize quickly why he and his buddies fabricated the whole church.

    2. "I can't help wondering why Joseph Smith would make this up"?

      Really? You've never heard the word "huckster" before?

  5. Apparently you are not capable of reading what I wrote. The BofM had NOTHING in it about having multiple wives. If he had wanted to do this with less uproar it would seem he would have included that in the BofM. If he was all into just the money and power, (Which is laughable considering all the crap that was done to him by people that hated him.) why not make it much more believable by including it in the BofM? Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered, run out of town, put in jail etc. Seems to me that there had to have been an much easier way of making money than this way. He was either incredibly dumb or incredibly brilliant, or he was real and therefore the BofM is real. You and other that think like you just can't wrap your mind around the whole picture. So, you pick and pick and pick.

    By the way, I've read more about Joseph Smiths negative history than I have the positive. No point in trying to shock or surprise me with his negative history.

    Google or search other religions and see what sort of hits you get, see how many websites talk about whether or not they are a cult, whether or not it is a true church, whether or not what they believe is crazy or not. I didn't say anything about vs. other religions.

    1. ” I've read more about Joseph Smiths negative history than I have the positive. ”

      Great! Since you're so knowledgeable, please list the errors in the Mormon think pages. What claims at MT are not factual?

  6. This is from the D&C header for section 132:

    Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

    Translation: within a year of the printing of the Book of Mormon, Joseph amassed enough followers to begin shopping around for additional wives, secretly for over 10 years before he was outed by William Law.

    Why, indeed, would a man professing to be God's servant steal the wives and daughters of his followers?

  7. Again, there is NOTHING in the BofM about having multiple wives. I know TONS of servants to God that are not perfect, dating all of the way back to the book of Gensis. You mean to say you have met a perfect man? I know about about this part of the D&C, I also know that Joseph did not have sexual relations with all of them. No doubt he was in persuit of something other than sex.

    @Dave T. You are publishing your truths! You were not there during that time. None of us were there during that time. You nor I can know what Joseph Smiths intentions were. You talk about evidences of various issues. What you don't bring up is man keeps correcting itself as they get better at what they do, as their instruments improve, as the seasons change, the weather changes, as their intelligence increases, the 100% "proof," gets rearranged. Even Emma till she died did not deny the BofM. I also found it odd that many of the men of whom it was said that Joseph Smith stole their wives still did not go against Joseph Smith. (Though I'm sure you'll claim they felt forced to go along.)

    It may be easy to sit back and have what you think are ah ha moments, but that doesn't mean you're right!

    1. You "know" he did not have sex with all them? How have you come by this knowledge. Because Joseph say he didn't? It is interesting that you try to use his victims' willingness to comply with polygamy, polyandry, bank scandals, as evidence it was right. That's not just a slippery slope, it's a clumsy cliff anyone falls off of who subjects there autonomy to an abuser.

      You don't seem ready to view these issues with a critical eye becuase you want to believe that the church is true, instead of finding the truth, and thats ok. just don't try to sell that here.

  8. Oh and matejoh,

    I realize you have been reading what I write, but you really know little about me. If you actually knew me you would never say I don't eye things with a critical eye. Too funny!

  9. I understand that you feel superior, you're entitled to that belief, but you didn't say how you know. What are your sources? Have they been peer reviewed and validated? Or are you talking about a whispering of the Spirit telling you Joseph Smith Jr, did not have sexual relations with anyone except Emma Smith? I don't know that he did, but there is evidence that he probably did. There is evidence that he used his title of prophet to manipulate people out of their property, money, wives, and daughters. Speaking in terms of logical arguments, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative.

    I frankly don't care who you are or what experiences you've had because you come across as someone who doesn't listen or review. Now, if your tone changes to one of "I believe this because of that. What do you think?" Then we could habe a civil conversation.

  10. matejoh, I have went to and read a lot of the websites you have referenced. You say I don't listen or review. I'm telling you that I have listened to and reviewed much or more than the things on this website, and other websites. I have read and understood arguments on both sides. If I were to believe the American history of the American Indians I would have believed they were savages, without intelligence. You not only want to believe the worst about the LDS faith, you apparently HAVE to believe the worst.

    When it comes to intimacy I can't imagine anyone would know for a fact. You use words like, "probably," but that isn't proof either. There is a very good chance that whomever said these things about Joseph Smith they had a bone to pick him. You can't know, you weren't there. Just as I can't know.

    Let me ask you something. Do you believe that somone could be an instrument for the Lord and be a sinner? Do you believe the Lord could call an imperfect person to lead people in the right direction? Or, do you believe that if the Lord is calling them they must be prefect and do everything perfectly?

    I know this church is true because the Holy Spirit has witnessed this to me in many different ways. This isn't something I can hand to you, for you to witness. It isn't tangible, it isn't somthing you, I or anyone else can prove. But, I know all of this is true. Out of all the people my family knows I'd be the last person my family would have thought would have converted to being Mormon. In fact that is what my mom said, that I was the only child that she never would have imagined would have converted. Why? Because I question too many things. I had TON's of questions when I was in the mainstream Christian religion TON's that no one could answer. Now at least 98% of my questions are answered. Everything makes a whole lot more sense than other religions or the big bang theory, or evolution.

  11. President Uchtdorf also reminded listeners that just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers does not make it true.

    "Now what is this truth?" he asked. "It is His gospel. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ — He is the way, the truth and the life."

  12. "Who Really Wrote The Book Of Mormon?" Cowdery, Davis And Vanick

    "An American Fraud" Kay Burningham. Read especially the chapter on Cognitive Dissonance

  13. The Rev Jim Jones who told his followers to commit mass suicide in Guyana in the 70s, was he called of God? He was imperfect and a sinner, in fact, he was a murderer in encouraging his people to kill themselves. So was he also called of God?

    If Mr. Anonymous above claims by the Spirit that God calls sinners to lead his people, then why should anyone accept Joseph Smith while rejecting Jim Jones? Every nutcase that comes along should be accepted. After all, everyone is a sinner too.

    But if we're to accept some while reject others, then clearly there's a criteria involved in the choice. What then is the criteria? The promptings of the Spirit?

    Don't you Mr. Anonymous think that those who killed themselves in Guyana heard the promptings of the Spirit too?

  14. Too late matejoh, I'm already laughing! Hilarious!

    Hey Orwell, do you think before you write/talk? Clearly, everyone should follow the teachings of Christ. That may even mean not always following a prophet, if that prophet is not following the teachings of the scriptures. If what someone teaches departs largely by the Bible or other scriptures. Committing suicide is departs hugely from what the Lord teaches. However, other churches teach if someone were to commit suicide they will end up in hell. The Mormon teaches correctly that this may not be so. And it exactly for this sort of reason. The people that followed Jim Jones were wrong to follow him, however, I'm sure the Lord would not hold that against them and sentence them to hell. Oh, and yes the promptings play a huge part, but only if you are doing your work. The spirit will not talk if you are not studying and seeking the Lord. Note: Seeking the Lord, not other things.

  15. I typed that quickly, so now let me re-type saing what I meant to say.

    Hey Orwell, do you think before you write/talk? Clearly, everyone should follow the teachings of Christ. That may even mean not always following a prophet, if that prophet is not following the teachings of Christ. If what someone teaches departs largely from the scriptures/teachings of Christ you shouldn't follow that person. Committing suicide departs hugely from what the Lord teaches. So those folks shouldn't have followed Jim Jones. Keeping that in mind, other churches teach if someone were to commit suicide they will end up in hell. The Mormon teach, correctly, that this may not be so. And it is exactly for this sort of reason. The people that followed Jim Jones were wrong to follow him, however, I'm sure the Lord would not hold that against them and sentence them to hell. Oh, and yes the promptings of the Holy Spirit play a huge part, but only if you are doing your work. The spirit will not talk if you are not studying and seeking the Lord. If you're familiar with the scriptures you'd know committing suicide is wrong. Note: Seeking the Lord, and his plan, not your own glory, so to speak.

  16. Matejoh,

    Do you not understand how much I know about this church?

  17. I guess to fully understand what I meant I should have said that I probably read more negative things about this church than the positive, including the negative about Joseph Smith.

    I view this issue sort of like I view what we used to say to prove we were telling the truth when we were children. Cross my heart and hope to die stick a needle in my eye. Of course I never hoped to die, so I never said it, if I knew I was lying.

  18. Ms. Anonymous,

    Before Jim Jones called his people to kill themselves, we have Mormons who died in Winter Quarters because they obeyed Brigham Young. How is this suicidal crossing any different than what Jim Jones promised his followers?

    Then we have Mormon leaders who killed innocent people in Mountain Meadows.

    And we have prophets like Hinckley who honors war criminals like Cheney in BYU, presenting him as an example for young Mormons.

    We can cite tons of examples that show your leaders don't follow Jesus' teachings about truly loving other people. So please, don't use the teachings of Jesus to show that they do, because they really don't.

    Think of another excuse...

  19. Orwell, was it just the Mormons that died coming west? No! Are the Mormons the only religion that has killed in the name of religion? No! All of you must be leading pristine live considering how you seem all too willing to judge church authority.

  20. Joseph wrote the book of Mormon with full intent to sell the book or sell the copy right to the book. He sent two men to Canada to try to sell the copyright before it was even done. By saying he was given the golden plates empowered Joseph, anyone could say they were called of god but this gave him one up on his competition. Even though there have been over 4,000 corrections, it is still flawed.

  21. "Are the Mormons the only religion that has killed in the name of religion?"

    When you ask a question like that, you do concede that Mormons have indeed killed in religion's name. It's like asking if Mormons are the only people who ever practiced polygamy. And being another religion that has murdered in the name of ideology does nothing to support your claim of being the only true church.

    By their fruits ye shall know them. A baker bakes bread. A shoemaker makes shoes. A poet writes poems. A prophet prophesies prophecies.

    And yet, your prophets have never come up with any credible prophecies. Not in the entire existence of your church. Brigham Young never saw the disaster coming in Winter Quarters. Hinckley never saw the disaster he supported in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. When it comes to prophesying national calamities, Ron Paul has called probably out more disasters that came true than Hinckley ever did as a GA, and Paul doesn't even claim to be a prophet at all.

  22. I don't have to live a "pristine life" to point out that your church makes some very fantastic claims about itself that are not true. I only have to bring out the facts.

    And the fact is... your prophets are not even following the teachings of Christ, contrary to what you said above:

    "Clearly, everyone should follow the teachings of Christ. That may even mean not always following a prophet, if that prophet is not following the teachings of the scriptures..."

    Now you concede that Mormons have indeed murdered in the name of religion. Is murder a teaching of Jesus? Does he condone the shedding of innocent blood? I'm sure you know the answer.

    Perhaps it's about time you follow your own teaching about not following prophets who don't follow Jesus.

  23. Orwell,

    Unless we were there during the time that people were killed in/on Mountain Meadows we have no way of knowing the knowledge, intentions or paranoia that was taking place during that time. I know that church has appologized for that event. But, you are talking about throwing out the whole bucket with the baby. Even if the reason for Brigham Young for killing those people were not inspired by the Lord. That doesn't mean that all of his teachings were wrong or worent inspired from the Lord. If you were the one that killed someone on that mountain and you clearly knew and/or felt deep down it was wrong, that individual will be held accountable for killing someone knowing in their heart it was wrong.

    Do you know anyone that is following the teachings perfectly? You are talking extremes, like the Jim Jones fiasco. I'm saying in general the prophets follow the teachings. If they were to turn extremely away from the Lords teachings, I would continue to follow the Lords teachings. Tell me what has the church required of its followers that has taken its people away from the teachings of the Lord?

  24. "Even if the reason for Brigham Young for killing those people were not inspired by the Lord. That doesn't mean that all of his teachings were wrong or worent inspired from the Lord."

    So... do we wait until all his teachings are wrong, and then we reject him? Unfortunately, that day may never come, not as long as he has fans like you who defend murderers like him.

    Brigham Young is a liar and a murderer, and you are defending him just as Hinckley defended Cheney's murderous spirit by honoring him in BYU. Mormons don't have a sense of right and wrong; they only know which person they should follow. That's why it's called a cult.

    Yet consider this: How many teachings by Brigham Young have Mormons today rejected? Polygamy? Rejected. Negroes as Cain's descendants? Rejected. Adam as God? Rejected. Blood atonement? Rejected. Maybe it's time to disown him altogether. Emma Smith rejected him and his evil teachings, and now Utah Mormons honor her as a special woman.

    Nothing wrong with throwing out the baby along with the bucket if the baby is "Rosemary's Baby".

  25. Orwell, you are assuming the intent of Brigham Young. You are assuming he had a murderous intent. I don't feel it is my job or business to judge the intentions of Brigham Young. I follow the teachings of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. It is nice to have modern day authority, however, if you are keeping your eye on Christ, you should do fine.

    I was talking to my visiting teaching companion and one of the women we visit teach. I was telling them how there are blogs that are devoted to downing the church and its teachings. And I talked about how there are people that are followers of those blogs that also make negative comments about the church. I was saying that when I left the Baptist type belief church I was in I never felt compelled to start a blog about why they are wrong. I've never felt the need to comment on blogs about why they are wrong. But, then I don't believe there are blogs like that out there. Though I do know that people leave these churches and either stop going to church, or they join other religions. I believe that deep down people that believe this church deep down know this church is true. So, they feel a constant need to prove to themselves it is wrong. It is really sad.

  26. That's a terrible, illogical way to form an argument. "The church must be true becuase there are so many plausible, evidence-backed reasons to refute its claims. Since no one is perfect, past leaders can be exonerated of any malicious intentions because only God knows what they were thinking when they executed immoral orders upon their followers and detractors."

    I don't hate the church, but I do refuse to compromise my integrity and conscience in a way that would subject my autonomy (or "agency") to te whim of another very flawed individual.

  27. Matejoh,

    The church teachings are more logical than any other religion. You are going on and on about past church authority. Church authority that isn't ever going to be perfect. You think they need to shout from a mountain top what they have done that was wrong. I've given this some thought in the past. In the churches I come from it is almost the "in," thing to do to admit you've done something wrong or a lot of somethings wrong, and to ask for forgiveness. Their belief is you can sin as long as you ask forgiveness. You can even committ the same sin over and over and the Lord will just keep right on forgiving you. At least that is their thought process, or belief. Here is what I saw coming from that. The sin tended to spread like a disease. People either would committ that same sin, and tell themselves that so and so did it, so can I. Or, they'd committ what they considered a lesser sin, and then told themselves that what they did wasn't as bad as so and so's sin.

    The same could be said of church authority, if they admit that something was wrong, they did something wrong. Will there be church members that would then walk away, saying that they don't want to be a part of a church that did something wrong? Or, would they stay and committ other sins and excuse themselves by telling themselves if the church authority can make mistakes why can I?

    How much do you tell your children? If you had sex before marriage do you tell your children you did? Do you tell them and say that it was a mistake you don't want them to make? Or, do you choose not to say anything? If you stole from a store on a dare from a friend. Do you voluntarily tell your children that? Or, do you not say anything.

    That is on a smaller scale but with similiar thought process.

  28. "Orwell, you are assuming the intent of Brigham Young. You are assuming he had a murderous intent. I don't feel it is my job or business to judge the intentions of Brigham Young. I follow the teachings of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. It is nice to have modern day authority, however, if you are keeping your eye on Christ, you should do fine."

    Men are judged, not according to their intentions, but their actions. You can always intend to follow the truth, but if your actions show the opposite, your intentions are meaningless.

    Brigham Young's actions before and after, even years after the massacre showed that he acted like a murderer. A murderer covers up his tracks. Will Bagley has shown how BY did that. And of the many Mormon priesthood leaders involved, only one was actually made to answer for the crime. That alone shows how much BY approved the actions of the murderers.

    He didn't have to shoot the victims himself, he only had to prevent justice from reaching the guilty. And even you, by helping defend BY's actions, are in one way or another condoning the murders. Like Saul who held the robes of those who stoned Stephen the Martyr, you don't have to do the stoning yourself.

    So let's go back to Jesus... does he condone murder? Don't say it isn't your duty to find out whether BY followed the teachings of Jesus. Jesus himself warned of false prophets to come. By refusing to measure Brigham Young to the standard set by Jesus is to reject Jesus.

  29. Orwell, have you not read the Bible and all of the killings that took place there? What about Sodom and Gomorrah? The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah! What about the flood? The Lord has said his ways are not your ways. You cannot presume to know his intentions, including why a lot of bad things happen. Including wars! I went online right now and refreshed my memory regarding this incident. And I was reminded again that there wasn't 100% proof of what exactly happened. It is certain that there are some men, that regardless of who ordered these people killed, or even IF someone ordered them killed, that these individuals had the agency to refuse to take part in the massacre. They will answer to the Lord for this. If Brigham Young did indeed order this massacre he too will answer to this massacre.

    However, if you believe that all prophets acted perfectly think again. Look at Jonah! He ran and ran and ran rather than do what the Lord was telling him to do. And what about Abraham, he allowed a King to lay with his wife rather than let him know that she was his wife. Again, people are not perfect. That is why we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

  30. You've mentioned a lot of Old Testament prophets to excuse Brigham Young's murdering of innocent people. Haven't you heard of Jesus in the New Testament? Don't you even want to talk about him?

    Why don't you tell me if Jesus condones murder? After all, you earlier said that we should follow his teachings. I've asked you this question several times, but you refuse to answer. Mormons pay lip service to Jesus, and claim to follow his teachings, but they really don't.

    Jesus once asked "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?" Yet you insist in following Brigham Young when it's clear that he mislead Mormons, teaching abominable doctrines.

    He also warned: "Beware of false prophets" and "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". How do you exactly beware of false prophets by following a murderer?

    "By their fruits ye shall know them". I only have to look at how you excuse a murderer, I already have enough fruits to say that Mormons are blind followers of a murderous false prophet.

    Brigham Young shed innocent blood. The Mormons who died at Winter Quarters lost their lives by following a Mormon Jim Jones. The victims at Mountain Meadows were killed by a mob who believed in a Mormon Charles Manson. How can you be so blind to this?

    As Matejoh pointed out to you, even the Masonic death oaths in the pre-1990 temple endowment taught Mormons how to consent to their own murders. This is clearly insane. Not even the laws of the land will uphold any contract to kill, not even if the victim is willing. Yet until 1990 your church teaches this abomination.

    Jesus does not condone murder. Open your eyes Anonymous, you've been blinded by a murderer.

  31. Orwell, it isn't me that refuses to see, it is you. You insist that you know for a fact that Brigham Young ordered those people murdered. But, you don't know that for a fact. You insist that I'm following Brigham Young, and I'm telling you I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who by the way is the same God in the Old Testament. Your definition, like your thinking, is skewed. You refuse to see that no prophet is perfect. You refuse to see that nothing on this earth is perfect. You refuse to see that there were people traveling west from EVERYWHERE for various reasons. In fact look at the people that were in the party that were killed on Mountain Meadows...they were traveling west! Many of those people traveling west lost their lives. They knew the risk before they left their homes to travel west. In fact wouldn't that make them guilty of murder via suicide? So, are all of the people that traveled west, for various reasons, in hell now?

    What about people that have sworn death oaths for other reason? Oh wait, I bet you believe that it was only Mormons that made death oaths, right?

    How sick and twisted is your thinking that you'd elude, no accuse the church of murder because they encouraged people to move west???!!! And then you accuse me of being the blind one!?

    Define murder and I'll answer your question as to whether or not Jesus condones murder. Because from what you have written your definition of murder is completely different than mine!

    What is so twisted in that you and others that have turned from this church is it you that have been blinded by your anger, and bitterness so much that you no longer know what truth is!

  32. I don't claim prophets should be perfect. That's just you putting words in my mouth.

    But murder? Shouldn't there be a line here that one can never cross? Of course there is! You already drew that line by saying that we should follow the teachings of Jesus. So where does Jesus say that killing innocent people is okay? Where?

    You refuse to answer that simple question because you know deep down inside you that he doesn't. You know well that Jesus doesn't condone violence of any kind. But your love for Brigham Young keeps you in a state of denial. So you conveniently go back thousands of years to the Old testament times to rationalize murder by pretending that Jesus doesn't exist.

    Gordon Hinckley kept a portrait of Brigham Young in his office. He says it's there to inspire him during times when he gets stumped with church problems. He gets his inspiration from a mass murderer.

    No wonder he never had issues honoring Cheney in BYU. Cheney aggressively promoted the Iraq War using the most damnable lies ever heard. That war killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. Not only that, Cheney promoted the torture of innocent people.

    When you have a mass murderer like Brigham Young to serve as your inspiration, it's not unusual that you'd honor another mass murderer like Cheney and not ever regret it.

    And if you've been a Gordon B. Hinckley fan, chances you're also inspired by his inspiration. So never ever tell me you're not following Brigham Young when Hinckley himself does. You are; you're just too embarrassed to admit it.

  33. Orwell,

    You are totally ignoring what I'm saying. Which is fine, if that makes you feel good about yourself and makes you feel right, have at it. However, regardless of your rant, I have said that we don't and can't know the role that Brigham Young played in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Plus, no one is held accountable for someone elses sins. If Brigham Young wished someone dead in his mind, if he lusted after someone in his mind and I listen to his teachings about Jesus and why I should follow Jesus teachings, I'm not going to be held accountable for his sins of lust or murder.

    What makes you think that Jesus doesn't condone violence? He certainly kindly ask the money changers to pick up their things and leave now did he?

    You must be one super important person to have knowledge regarding the Iraq war and Cheney's involvement and intentions! Or, do you have insider information? Wow, talk about crazy!

  34. What do you mean no one can't know what Brigham Young did in the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Entire books have been written on the subject. That you don't know them means you haven't really investigated your church. When it comes to crimes, actions reveal the intentions. Let me give you two evidences:

    1. Brigham Young was present when the cross marking the victims' graves was destroyed in 1861, as recounted by Wilford Woodruff. If he didn't approve of the murders why would he desecrate the victims' graves?

    2. He conducted an investigation and laid the blame on the Indians. This is false. Mormon priesthood leaders were involved. A later investigation revealed this. If he didn't condone the crime, why cover up for the real criminals?

    Jesus himself taught that lying and murdering go hand in hand (John 8:44). So when Brigham Young lied to protect the murderers and desecrated their victims' graves, are you saying we don't or can't know his intentions? Honestly, I'd rather believe Jesus than you.

    Interestingly also, those priesthood leader/murderers still managed to partake of the sacrament year in and year out without any qualms. As an LDS scholar pointed out, these murderers were not violent people before the massacre. I guess they just happened to be believers in blood atonement. I could add that they probably didn't have a conscience too.

    The same thing could be said about Mormon Judge Jay Bybee who wrote the legal justification for the use of torture by the Bush-Cheney administration. He was an active Sunday School teacher but that didn't stop him from using his lawyerly skills to justify a known war crime. If he had a conscience, why would he help promote torture?

    Or what about Bishop Bruce Jessop, the Mormon psychologist who used his medical skills to create enhanced torture techniques for Cheney's use. He didn't think he was unworthy to be Bishop. His congregation in Seattle WA had no problem accepting his nomination as to that position.

    And what about the thousands of young Mormon soldiers engaged in the killings in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries who were never guilty of the crimes they're accused of. They don't seem to have problems killing Muslims there don't they?

    How many of these Mormons would've reversed their thinking about violence, war, and torture had Hinckley set a better example by following Jesus instead of Brigham Young? By their fruits ye shall know them. And Hinckley's fruits as a false prophet led those Mormons to that moral ditch. The blind cannot lead the blind.

    Mormonism is a religion of violence rooted in magic and the occult. You just don't know that because you haven't really done your homework. Until you thoroughly exorcise the demonic spirit of Brigham Young from yourself, you will forever be wrestling with it. It will be a terrible yoke and a burden.

    PS: Brigham Young aggressively promoted violence in his blood-atonement doctrine. Jesus taught no such thing in the New Testament. His act of cleansing the temple by driving away thieves is an act of defense, so the violence involved was justified. Not so with the Mountain Meadows Massacre which has been a source of embarrassment for your church.

  35. The guilty will always act guilty. A criminal will try to cover up his crime to avoid arrest. That's why the cover-up is just as damning as the crime. Crime investigators understand this too well.

    Here's the murderer John D. Lee's letter to Brigham Young (presented as evidence during the trial against Lee), his report that laid the blame on the Indians:

    Only the truly ignorant will say this massacre's account is just based on newspaper reports. Or maybe it's not ignorance, but blind faith in murderers. Or maybe it's like a pigeon playing chess...

    As someone claiming to be prophet, Brigham should have discerned by the spirit that Lee had shot in the heads some hundred innocent people, and was lying to him. Tough luck, no such discernment.

    Same with Hinckley, who gets his inspiration from Brigham, and couldn't discern when Mark Hoffman had just murdered two people.

    Murder and lying go hand-in-hand. When a military officer submitted the first report to the investigation, that started to debunk whatever John Lee fabricated. Here is the report:

    When the Mormon version of the massacre eventually collapsed, it revealed the extent of lying by Mormon leaders to cover up their crime. To say that the preacher of blood atonement had nothing to do with the lying is of course stretching the imagination too much.

    Mormons like to repeat the meme that Brigham Young didn't order the killings. That's only true because as Will Bagley pointed out "the documentary record of the massacre is full of missing critical letters, unwritten orders, and journals with the entire year of 1857 torn out."

    But as Andrew Hamilton argued at the trial of Peter Zenger in 1735, “the suppressing of evidence ought always to be taken for the strongest evidence.”

    Has your church suppressed important documents and kept them from researchers? When Hoffmann sold Hinckley some incriminating but forged documents, the church bought them at any price to make sure they never see the light of day.

    And you still say we can never know their intentions?

  36. @Orwell,

    Just so you know, I've went to the links you posted and read most of each link if not all. I've said it before, and I'll say it again no one has 100% proof of what really happened on Mountain Meadows. It is obvious from the writings of James Henry Carleton that he hated Mormons. Not just the Mormons that he thought committed this crime, he and others hated Mormons. Because of that obvious hate his report cannot be trusted. And yes, I can still say we can never know their intentions. We weren't there to see, feel and smell what life was like back then. We didn't experience their struggles.

    We can't even know what Hinkley was thinking in regards to the purchase that was made at that time. (And they weren't bought at any cost.)

    I don't allow myself to get caught up in the minutia, because it has little to nothing to do with the Lords plan for me, and for this world in general.

    You are so focussed on other's supposed sin you can't see your own sins. Motes and planks come to mind. Speaking of minds, why would or should Brigham have "discerned by the spirit?" At what point does anyone get to say or choose when someoen receives divine inspiration?

    Here, I'll post this again for you to read and maybe this time you'll actually understand it: However, regardless of your rant, I have said that we don't and can't know the role that Brigham Young played in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Plus, no one is held accountable for someone elses sins. If Brigham Young wished someone dead in his mind, if he lusted after someone in his mind and I listen to his teachings about Jesus and why I should follow Jesus teachings, I'm not going to be held accountable for his sins of lust or murder.

  37. By the way Orwell, yes, I still say we an never know their intentions. The church has taken hits for a long time. When I was at the bookstore last night I asked what sort of books they had regarding the Islamic religion. She did a search and came up with very little. I knew without even asking, that if I'd asked her to do that same search on Mormonism there would have been a ton of hits.

    I don't know for a fact why Hinckley bought those papers. I can suppose or guess like you, however my guess would be that Hinckley thought it better to keep these papers away from the public, whether they were true or not. Again, prophets aren't perfect, as I'm sure Hinckley was well aware of.

  38. Orwell,

    You are a prime example of what and whom I refer to about skewed truths, and omitting to slant. The first link clearly states that there were family members of Mountain Meadows that agreed with Leavitt to have the bones re-interred. They felt it was too painful to continue digging. However, anyone just reading what you wrote would assume it was some HUGE conspiracy on the part of Leavitt. You along with others are making assumptions, many assumptions. Who is to say that Indians did not have guns? If someone was scalped it would not have been apparent after the bodies had be buried for a long period of time. Yes, something horrible happened on Mountain Meadows. Yes, men no matter what race did something horrible. And yes, people in general were treating Mormons horrible as well. In fact I am guessing many of those men involved witnessed horrible things constantly happening to the men of the church. There is no, "good," excuse for man to be unkind to each other, to hurt or kill each other. However, it happens and continues to happen. It happened during Biblical times as well.

    And again, you are caught up in the sins of men. You are caught up in something that happened a very, very, very long time ago. You are sitting in judgement of the Lords church and plans, over an imperfect man/men!

    I don't rely on man to guide me I rely on Heavenly Father. Recently I've been reading about the Islamic religion. There are so many sect of this religion it is hard to keep up. And there are that many sects because so many people decide to put their own spin on what the Koran means. The differences can be minute, or a huge chasm. In fact if you and Dave are really interested in finding and imperfect prophet check out Mohammed.

  39. LOL ROFL LMAO so, finally throwing all politeness to the wind, OMG Ms Anon, keep your responses coming! You are making a great study for all of us who want to see brainwashing at its best. You dont realize you are the butt of some huge joke. Oh, boy...

  40. Why is it wrong to dwell on the sins of Brigham Young and the rest of your leaders?

    Jesus warned us about false prophets. How can we reject these impostors unless we examine their actions closely and judge them?

    Jesus also warned about blind followers following their blind leaders. Both will fall into the ditch. How do we avoid falling there unless we open our own eyes first and examine closely the leaders we follow?

    Again, Jesus warned us of the leaven of the Pharisees, of bad fruits coming from evil trees. There's no way you can do any of these things unless you examine closely the kind of fruits the pharisees in your church produce.

    To listen to your complaint about us judging the actions of your leaders is to reject Jesus teachings' on who or what to follow. I hope you realize the gravity of the sin that you're asking people to do.

    Do Indians have guns? Of course, they do. But are they the same caliber as what the Mormons had when they killed those emigrants? That's what alarmed Leavitt. The skeleton remains showed they were shot in close range with guns Indians didn't have.

    And if you knew how the siege ended at Mountain Meadows, you'd know that it was the Mormons who finished off their victims at close range. This fact had been established more than a hundred years ago by the court that investigated the massacre. Even Mormon scholars don't dispute this the way you do.

    That you remain ignorant of these things show that you haven't really investigated your church deep enough. Nor do you really have the genuine desire to follow Jesus by avoiding murderous prophets.

    Instead, you read books on Islam, and complain about how it splintered. Why not read more books about the splintering of your own Mormon church? Emma Smith rejected Brigham Young who claimed to be the living prophet after Joseph. She rejected polygamy, which is now the present church policy of those who followed Brigham Young. No one blames her splinter group for the the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Why not read more about her and find out why she was right all along about that scoundrel Brigham?

    And before you embark on the futile business of defending the church, why not read "The Confessions of John D Lee"? He obeyed everything that Brigham Young taught, and defended him against all enemies for 30 years. In the end, he was made the lone scapegoat for the crime of killing 120 people. On the day of his execution, he had nice things to say about that scoundrel Brigham.

    Read his book so you understand the kind of scoundrels you're really trying to defend.

  41. @Lol, rofl lmao,

    Guess what? I'm old enough not to care if I'm the butt of anyone's joke. In fact I hope I am, because at least your talking. I already know I'm going to have the first, middle and last laugh.

  42. Orwell,

    Brigham Young was not and isn't the only prophet of this church. Brigham Young was not the only imperfect prophet. I follow the teachings of Heavenly Father. You make claims about what I'm supposedly am doing but that doesn't make it so. I am looking at the fruits of this church and they are good fruits. It is only the fruits that fall away, that are all messed up.

  43. Also, Orwell you forget I've already read a ton of things regarding this church that I've joined. I know that Emma left the church, I also she has never denied the Book of Mormon. You can't have it both ways. If the Book of Mormon is true, if it really exists and is true then all the other minutia doesn't matter. If we examine any prophet/human we will discover that not even one will be perfect. Imagine that! I've examined my church to my satisfaction. I've examined it enough to know that I need to follow the Lords teachings and examples. I've examined it enough to know that the Lord has left his mark on everything in this universe and all I need to do is seek him and I can and do find him.