Friday, April 27, 2012

A Further Examination of Anti-"Mormon" Material Part 1

I have come across several sites that claim all these things that the church is supposed to be keeping a secret. It is entitled, "Things mormons won't tell you".

Much of it is half-truths, sensationalizing and plain nonsense. Yet I want to present how simple it is to answer these claims for any that are unsure.

I have split up the 33 claims into two sections to shorten the posts.

Here is what it presented _

1. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe your Church is wrong, your Christian creeds are an abomination to God, and your pastor or Priest is a hireling of Satan.

Firstly no truly Christian creed is an abomination to God nor its priests hired by Satan. The missionary discussions declare Christ's statement that the creeds professing Christ at the time of Joseph Smith were wrong, this isn't hidden. We taught this during the first principle in the first discussion when I was on my mission. Considering that anti-Mormons not long after this revelation (many of whom were church going "Christians") were raping, killing, bashing, burning and stealing in regard the Latter-Day Saints, and all this with the blessing and encouragement of Protestant ministers of the time, I don't see why that would be disputable. Christ saying this to Joseph Smith seems understandable to me. And certainly those churches weren't anything Christ would claim as "Christian." Today, while there are many Protestant people that are wonderful individuals, their church's doctrines contain many falsehoods. Some turning God into a monster in reality: Saving one lot above another purely by saying a name (or whatever simple method they include) turns God into a respecter of persons. Their God turns out to become an abomination. And this is only one of many false doctrines, sadly, being taught. However many good doctrines are still in the Bible and practised by genuine people from many different religions.

2. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that there is salvation only in their church - all others are wrong.

There are two statements here. In regard the first statement Christ came and saved all, who truly repent, from their past sins. This means they are saved from the suffering of hell. Christ also came and performed a salvation or "redemption" of the body by making the resurrection possible. Thus overcoming the transgression of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Doctrine and Covenants section 76 (part of our Standard Works of Scripture) explains that many truly repentant non-members are saved by the grace of Christ. In fact there will be far more non-members saved from their sins than true members. Only Telestials and Sons of Perdition will suffer hell. So that statement is false.

In regard the second statement. This is a bit of a blanket statement. It poses that all Protestant doctrines are false and implies that every doctrine being taught generally in the LDS church is the ultimate truth. Neither of those statements are correct. The church has more truths by having more Scripture and prophetic people. This obviously creates far more understanding than the Bible alone. Yet the Bible contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel on its own (as does the Book of Mormon). As Protestants are, hopefully, reading it, they will obtain these greatest of all teachings. so while many of the doctrines of Protestantism are incorrect, many are right. Great debate exists even within Protestantism as to what is right and what is wrong. As to the inference that the church is always correct, the church has gone through up and down periods, doctrinally, since the days of Adam, relative to the faithfulness of the members of the time. So it isn't correct to suppose its doctrines to be perfect until the members within it are all perfect. And even then this wouldn't allow for new members coming in to grow line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.

3. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that those who have been through their temples are wearing secret underwear to protect themselves from "evil". This "evil" includes non - Mormons like you.

Well, if we told people they wouldn't be secret underwear, would they?

In all seriousness, I have met members who believe this type of hocus pocus of a mysterious physical protection. And I don't doubt that those who have faith in Christ will benefit from a belief in his protecting hand. However neither the temple, nor the Scriptures nor reality support this idea. I was equally physically protected with or without a temple garment on. The temple garment provides an opportunity for a person undressing to consider their actions if they are about to commit adultery or fornication. This is a fair enough observation from that perspective. And obedience to the principles accepted as a wearer of the garment certainly will create spiritual protection from sin, because of their obedience to the commandments of God. Wearers are able to think upon these things whenever getting dressed.

4. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU about their secret temple rites at all. If they did, you would spot them as non Christians immediately.

Did this guy think about what he has written? He has said to a group of Protestants that they would realise a particular "Mormon" wasn't a Christian if he went around giving details of current temple ordinances. Thus implying that he would be a Christian by not giving such details out.

We don't actually keep their existence a secret, we keep the actual actions and words sacred.
The reason we keep them secret is because we regard them as sacred. We avoid casting pearls before those who may end up being the swine Christ referred to. And if these ordinances were untrue, as Protestantism presents, then what does it matter that we don't say what they are? That they feel they must attack them should send alarm bells into their heads. Satan makes them angry, and they are listening to him.

5. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they think "familiar spirits" are good, and that their Book of Mormon has a "familiar spirit". Leviticus 19:31 says familiar spirits defile one, and are to be avoided at all costs.

An example of what God commanded against is demonstrated in the Witch of En-dor situation with Samuel the prophet. The witch actually could see Samuel. Let me add that this "familiar spirit" is stated by the Bible to actually be Samuel the prophet. This Samuel prophesied in the name of the Lord and his prophesy occurred (1 Sam 28:5-20). Obviously God had sent him. So don't get too hung up on that as an absolute if God chooses to do otherwise. It was a commandment given to the Israelites to keep them from getting absorbed in speaking to the dead and evil spirits.

It must be remembered that if we are IN Christ then the Law given to Moses is fulfilled. If we are to continue to practice the Law given to Moses then if my brother dies and had no children I am to take his wife as my wife, in addition to my own, and produce a child for my brother. Apart from polygamy being illegal today, that isn't considered acceptable behavior in our society, and the church would want to excommunicate me for obedience to it.

Secondly Jesus Christ himself said he would send back this spirit (Holy Ghost) to be with any of his disciples as a constant gift to give them answers when standing before kings etc, prophesying, healing, praying etc. This spirit will lead them into more truth as they become ready to understand - a good "familiar spirit."

Jesus Christ said _
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Though when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you. All things that the Father has are mine: therefore I said, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it to you."  John 16:12-15

Here Jesus Christ is saying that he will send back that "familiar spirit" ("the Spirit of truth") that has our poor friend confused into thinking we shouldn't listen to the Holy Ghost.

6. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that women receive salvation only through their Mormon husbands, and must remain pregnant for all eternity.

Firstly I must state, in all fairness to the multitude of members who believe in magical invention, that many members don't believe the pregnancy part.

There we are back with the "salvation" word being used wildly. Salvation from sins comes through the atonement of Jesus Christ to each person individually. A person doesn't need to be married to be saved from their sins. What he should have said was that we know that men and women can't enjoy the ultimate of God's plan without having a spouse. The first commandment given to Adam and Eve (while they were still perfect) was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:27-28). Do you believe God's ways change? If not then it must still be his commandment and will remain so even when we are physically perfect again - after the resurrection.

In regard eternal pregnancy; we are talking about glorified and immortal women. We have a pregnant woman suffering neither morning sickness, back pains, cramps nor delivery pains? The challenge to women will be learning to be a perfect parent, not problems from painless pregnancies. Our happiness will come from service to others (these children). This is what Christ taught, and it doesn't change either.

7. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they intend to be gods themselves some day, and are helping to earn their exaltation to godhood by talking to you.

"Come follow me," said Jesus Christ. He taught and grew in stature and in favor with God and man (Lk 2:52). We do the same. Christ promises that if we do those things that he has taught we will reign upon the throne of the Father with him (Rev 3:21 - this is only one of many such Bible passages). Anyone telling you that we can't become a God is deceiving you, whether deliberately or in ignorance, as Christ has declared we can. This might sound glorious, but it is an eternity of blessings of happiness and joy that comes through constant hard work in service (Jn 5:16-17). God is our loving Father (Matt 7:9-11), not an egotistical ogre.

As to the reason I desire to help others, I do this out of love and concern for those individuals. I also do it out of love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, who love us enormously. It is true that I do realise that it is necessary for me to gain great love for me to become like my Father in Heaven, as he is full of an enormous love. And I know that through service to others and helping others to learn, I do gain love. But the latter is only a minor point to those two reasons first expressed in this paragraph.

8. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they intend to have many wives in heaven, carrying on multiple sex relations throughout eternity, until they have enough children to populate their own earth, so they can be "Heavenly Father" over their own planet!

Firstly, one reason I wouldn't say what he has said here would be in all fairness to the multitude of members who don't believe what his statement is based on. Secondly this is presenting some kind of endless sex - billions of times having sex for billions of children. Yet glorified women can store a huge collection of sperm without the sperm dying (unlike us mortals). What is more is that glorified men (like Heavenly Father) can produce far more sperm than the millions per sex session that us mortals produce. Obviously at least billions. Sorry people, no endless sex.

Can women enjoy the privilege of having children throughout eternity and bring such wonderful meaning to their existence? Can men have the honor of assisting women in this? The answer is a resounding YES.

I was raised a Protestant/Catholic with a possible best future of being in heaven playing harps and eating grapes, gardening or some other worthless pursuit. I'm glad to know that I wasn't just invented from thin air by a weird being that finally got bored one day(?) in the midst(?) of eternity and decided to make some toys. Fortunately this weird being happened to be all powerful relative to nothing (a total impossibility, as all power has to be relevant to something else - remembering that he was in the midst of nothing). What is more is that as he is omniscient the Protestant god knew long before that on that day(?) in the midst(?) of eternity he would suddenly get this urge through boredom. I'm happy to know the truth is that my eternity can be full of highly meaningful activity and that I'm here for a purpose, not for some strange being's entertainment.

9. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that you were once a spirit - child of their heavenly father, and one of his numerous wives before you were born on earth.

Once again we have 2 statements. One true. One false. We certainly were a child of Heavenly Father. And this is taught plainly in the missionary discussions. No secret. Yet females weren't their own mothers as this sad claim purports. In fact they weren't anyone's mothers until coming here to earth, getting a body and growing to adulthood.

The statement needs to have the comma after the word "father" removed and placed after the word "wives." Then it would be correct.

Even then I must, again, in all fairness to those members who don't accept this fact, state that it isn't a generally accepted doctrine that there was a need for parents. Many members have persisted with the Protestant idea of a magical God who just conjured up their inner being out of thin air.

10. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the Virgin Mary really wasn't a virgin at all but had sex relations with their heavenly father to produce the Mormon version of Jesus Christ.

It would be unfair to the extremely large majority of Latter-Day Saints to teach this, as they don't believe it, in spite of the Bible teaching it. I know it to be true, but that is just my personal knowledge. She was a "virgin" from the worldly perspective, as she had not known mortal man. To the outside world there was no visible father.

The following is a conversation an angel had with Mary, from the book of Luke, in the New Testament.
"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David...Then Mary said to the angel, How will this be seeing I have not known a man? And the angel answered and said to her ... the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God."  Luke 1:32 & 34-35

Mary has asked how she can have a child since she has not had sexual relations with a man. In answer to how she could have the child the angel said that God the Father would lie on top of her; and because of the action, additionally, the child shall be called the Son of God.

Mary has regarded that this has answered her question of the missing father to the child. Additionally it declares that this action would mean he is even called the Son of God. Note also that Mary answers an acceptance of this occurring as though it was a request requiring her consent.

"And Mary said, See the handmaid of the Lord [meaning herself]; let it be to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her." Luke 1:38

In concluding let me again state that this fact is not accepted by the large majority of Latter-Day Saints. This is why it isn't taught.

11. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe Jesus had at least three wives and children while he was on this earth.

Firstly I must present that this was an opinion expressed by one LDS member only. I haven't heard any others present those 3 as being definitely his wives. I'm sure that a survey of members would disagree with it as a known fact, or anything like it. Thus, why would we teach it?

Marriage itself however was compulsory for any leader of the people by God's commandments to Moses. Particularly in the case of Christ he would also fit with the charge of marriage given to the absolute leader of the people. They had to have demonstrated an ability to keep a marriage together. Paul further presented this idea in regard Bishops and Deacons. He also presented that they must have the ability to have their children in subjection. They furthermore had to be 30 years old or over. Christ also fulfilled this requirement. The Jews would not have accepted Christ as a teacher had he not fulfilled all God's law's requirements, including marriage.

12. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the "heavenly father" they ask you to pray to with them, is really an exalted man that lives on a planet near the star base Kolob, and is not the Heavenly Father of the Bible at all.

Yes, I won't tell you that he is "not the Heavenly Father of the Bible," because he is.

What is the Heavenly Father of the Bible? He is an individual that has his special Son, Jesus Christ, SITTING on his RIGHT hand side (Acts 7:55). Genesis tells us that he looks like us as a mirror would see. And that he is as like us in the things we can't see also (Gen 1:26). His intelligence fills the universe. He sees and hears all the things we do. He perceives our thoughts and the intention of our hearts. Does the Protestant know where heaven actually is geographically? No. So Abraham was informed it is on a planet. Does the Bible oppose that idea? To the contrary, the Bible talks of the meek inheriting the earth (Matt 5:5) (a planet) and Christ sitting upon it in the midst of the righteous, with Heavenly Father there also (Rev 3:21).

13. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that Jesus was really Lucifer's brother in the spirit world, and it was only due to a "heavenly council" vote that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Satan!!

This is a little twisted. Additionally it is false that we don't teach the actual facts behind this distortion. We tell investigators that we were ALL one another's brothers and sisters. This, therefore, includes Jesus Christ and poor Lucifer [Satan]. The "heavenly council" was a discussion in which Jesus Christ presented that he was willing to perform the necessary function of a Savior, in order that we could be saved from our sins and move ahead to perfection. This is the only way that it could be done. Lucifer presented a plan of his own, which was impossible, as we must always have free choice or we cease to exist. But being the crack-pot he is this was beyond his comprehension. Satan never could have been our redeemer instead of Christ. If Heavenly Father could have come up with an alternate plan that would bring all to exultation he would have gladly embraced it, regardless of who got the glory. God IS love, not an egotistical nutcase.

Everybody "voted" in the sense that we all chose whether to follow Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ or to follow Satan. No one but Jesus Christ (Jehovah) could have been the Savior as it required perfect living, which is completely opposite to Satan's ways of viewing things. Jesus Christ was the only one who followed Heavenly Father perfectly in the pre-existence (that we are aware of). So he was the only one that God knew would follow him perfectly here.

14. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that there are over one hundred divisions in Mormonism. They conveniently "forget" this while criticizing the many denominations within the body of Christ

In regard the first statement, I have mentioned this many times in my discussions with non-members. This is only par for the course. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is by far the largest. It also had the majority of the twelve apostles within it when most splits occurred just after Joseph Smith's death. The Baptist church (for example) has at least tens of thousands of divisions within it. And so? The question still becomes which church is true? And the addition of 100 other churches doesn't change the simplicity of finding the truth by study, asking God and opening your hearts to the truth. As to the second part, we don't expose any church's doctrines that teach the true Christ, has his authority and practises the ordinances in the way he wants them practised.

15. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that all their so- called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official "Mormon Doctrine" statements contradict each other on MAJOR doctrinal points. The King James Bible is likewise contradicted.

Firstly "Mormon Doctrine" isn't part of our "Standard Works" and has NOT been sustained as Scripture by the general church membership. Thus its opinion is not that accepted by all church members. i.e. forget it as a standard of doctrines accepted as Scripture. It wouldn't matter if all the church authorities thought it was the most wonderful book in the world (which they don't). The other 4 books mentioned - Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are the ONLY Scriptures officially sustained by members as Scripture every conference.

As to contradictions in Scripture, there is always a degree of that when faced with people and limited understanding. For example Christ said that "the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgement to the Son" (John 5:22). Christ also said that he won't be the judge (John 12:47). It also says, the Saints shall judge everybody in the world (1 Cor 6:2). So we have Christ performing ALL judgement, but the Saints performing judgement of everyone, yet Christ not judging anyone because his words are all that is required.

Use of the Holy Ghost makes these types of apparent disagreements plain, where there isn't an error made through ignorance or deliberate intension, by transcribing or alterations. Yet it looks like contradictions in the Bible. The more Scripture you have the more such apparent contradictions arise. Thus by us having 3 additional sets of Scripture there is obviously more apparent contradictions.

16. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!

LOL. At the beginning of the book there is a statement in regard what the book is. It says that it was "translated" by Joseph Smith. It used to have to say "written" by Joseph Smith. But because it was proven in a court of law to be an authentic history of the ancient Americas it can now declare itself as a translation. This was because of the overwhelming collection of archaeological and other evidence for it. This was opposed by Protestantism, and the LDS church won. The Protestants appealed and lost the appeal. The evidence for this can now be seen in the title page of any copy of the Book of Mormon, in that it is declared a translation.

The reason there are no maps is because the church would have to convince every single member that it had chosen the right places to make such an official map. The church, unlike Protestant churches, is a Theocratic Democracy ([Theocratic] - The Church of Jesus Christ [Democracy] - of Latter-Day Saints) , not a dictatorship with one group saying what all will believe.

17. MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that the state of Utah, which is predominately Mormon, has a higher than the national average of wife-beating, child abuse, and teenage suicide.

In regard suicides the percentage of Mormons to non-Mormons in Utah has been decreasing over several decades (due to increases in people coming to Utah for work) while the numbers of suicides have increased. So that doesn't look good for those trying to blame members for this statistic.

The same can also be said of child abuse cases. Again showing a significant percentage rise in Utah, while the percentage of numbers of LDS to non-members in Utah is on the decrease.

The same applies to wife/partner physical abuse.

Also it should be noted that of the statistics for women, having their first baby, that claimed abuse occurring before pregnancy, the numbers were significantly higher in those unmarried couples. Only 2.1% of married women claimed abuse. While 9.2% of unmarried women claimed abuse by partners. This statistic again demonstrates that Mormons (who are far more likely to be married) aren't the perpetrators of this statistic.

Considering the great blessings that God has poured out on the LDS in Utah, many people come to Utah for work. It is most likely that many of the people coming to Utah for work are already in financial difficulties. This weighs heavily in spouse arguments, violence and suicide.


yeti said...

This website you cite really ccannot back up any of their claims, that much it true.

however regarding the first claim, from personal experience,I have a number of times heard the missionaries share about/recite the first vision. they however always stop at "this is my son, listen to him." They never go on to say what Jesus said, even when I ask, they skip the part about abominations and say that he was told not to join any of the current churches. Also, Some churches at that time were horribly unchrist like, but not all of them. some are much the same as some today. some creeds that some churches use today they used 200 years ago, and even 1500 years ago.
do you think this creed is an abomination?

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.

yeti said...

further thoughts:

I think you contradict yourself in 5 and 6. first you talk about the fulfillment of the old law (God's laws being different now than they were before) and then you say that God does not change so his commands do not change.

9- is this mostly your idea (the idea that there will not be endless sex?) DO you think sex is somehow immoral, or wrong for gods to do? Also, you did not answer the multipul spouces part.

10- you say "this fact is not accepted by the large majority of Latter-Day Saints. This is why it isn't taught." but then shouldn't it be taught (by those who have authority) so that others believe it?

11-was that one LDS member an Authority? was he speaking with authority when he said it?

14- I have heard it said (and maybe even with reference to a recent conference talk) that like two dots on a piece of paper are the Book of Mormon and the Bible. and there is only one way to draw a line between the two, and thus the LDS Church has a corner on the truth. I find that odd since there are many who use the Bible and BoM but come to different conclusions. Recently the missionaries could not accept that if I found the BoM to be true that I would not quickly join the LDS Church. the BoM being true does not mean that the LDS church is true.

16- can you inform me about some of this archeological evidence? I have heard that there are 60-some proposed locations for the Book of Mormon lands, and heard talks given to support two different ideas. But a general Map in the Book of Mormon (even if it was not based on any land masses today) would be nice as it would give clarity to the stories within. (you know, help me to picture their travels, journies and wars.) also, I think there are maps in my triple combo, but maybe just of the states and there the Gold Plates were found.

17- rich people beat their wives as well...

Doug Towers said...


In regard number 1, I didn't state that we tell people that the creeds of the time were an abomination. What said was that we tell them that they were wrong. The writer used the word "wrong" in his initial claim, stating that we don't tell people this. I was declaring that we do.

You've quoted a Catholic Creed that sounds alright without consideration of its exact meaning.

I won't get into who actually did the work of creation as it was a bit of a joint effort.
Firstly I have to declare that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of the Holy Ghost, but the son Of God the Father.
Secondly I would want to qualify that Jesus spent 3 days in the earth.
Thirdly I don't believe in a universal church.
Fourthly I don't believe in forgiveness of sins through going to a priest.
Fifthly I believe in a resurrection of our physical body, with us retaining all of our memories.
Sixthly I believe in an everlasting life within (not a magical feeling placed upon us).

Doug Towers said...


In regard your point about 5 and 6 being in conflict. Christ stated that the law doesn't exactly come to an end of itself. But it does come to an end in regard living it when a person is effectively living the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Secondly the law given to Adam and Eve was given to two perfect people living long before the inferior law was given to Moses, for the wicked Israelites.

In regard point 9. I know there won't be endless sex through several revelations I've had in regard how Celestial sex is conducted, and storage of sperm. Celestial sex is an extremely loving part of the relationship between Gods and Godesses that is done without using physical attraction or itches and scratches. It is done for the purpose of producing children and raising them together in love. Nothing immoral about it.

Oversite of mine on the plural marriage bit. Good that you are keeping me in line. Yet, once again, I have to say that teaching such a doctrine to investigators runs into problems with those members who don't accept it. What I want to say on my site is up to me. But to be teaching investigators my own opinion is crossing the line, unless I plainly declare it as such.

10. When a person is being taught the basics it isn't going to change their perspective of life to know Mary's personal details. This is the sort of thing that people can come to as they are ready to discuss it with the Father.

11. Yes, to the first question (one of the twelve), and no, to the second.

14. The bit with the 2 lines always seemed flawed to me, as someone could use the same argument using the Old Testament and New Testament. we could just use Matthew and Mark, for that matter.

In regard the BofM and the LDS church. It wasn't a problem for me because I felt the Spirit when reading the Bible, and no church had that Spirit in it. After a long time of searching I came to the church and there the Spirit was. I would also have to say that I've felt the wonderful feelings and truths in the Doctrine and Covenants, and even the Pearl of Great Price contains amazing truths. You have to work that out yourself. But it would seem obvious that Joseph Smith couldn't have written that book himself, or even a collection of people at the time.

16. I have refrained from the temptation of working out where those places were. You asked the wrong person there.

In regard evidences. I have to say that it has been many years since I looked at those documents. But such things as the BofM claiming elephants and tigers existed in the Americas seemed absolute nonsense at the time. Yet remains of mammoth elephants and sabre-tooth tigers were discovered in California. Two common names from the BofM were used for a mountain and river in South America. Shakespeare was considered a genius for coming up with 16 new grammatically correct names. The BofM has somewhere around 268 grammatically correct new names. Murals have been found showing a white bearded person being prayed to by Indians. Murals of wars between light and dark skinned races. Similarities between the Old and New worlds leave us with questions of connections.

As I said it is a long time since I read parts of that stuff.

17. Rich people can avoid each other far easier.

Anonymous said...

As far as polygamy goes, Joseph Smith clearly taught that it is a whoredom, in every case in history. It is not an eternal principle but an extremely abusive abomination against women.

Joseph Smith never preached or practiced polygamy, despite all the vile hearsay that so many spread that he did to Emma & other women. Joseph, like any righteous man or prophet, was ever faithful & true to only his one wife Emma.

Husbands & wives are completely equal and both are required to have unconditional true & exclusive love for each other, and none else.

Christ even taught that polygamy was adultery also, as did so many prophets, including Joseph Smith.

Thus, there is no plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom.

It is not even right that people should remarry when their spouse dies, but they are still commanded to have the 'true love' they promised to have & remain single and not date, but faithfully wait to be reunited with their deceased spouse in heaven, just like their deceased spouse is waiting faithfully for them. It would hurt their deceased spouse to see them date or remarry, just as if they were still here on earth and witnessed it.

But it's very rare for anyone to have such true love for their spouse & thus preserve their marriage for all eternity.

There is no remarriage after divorce either, for it would in most all cases by adultery, as Christ taught. The righteous abandoned spouse would again, maintain 'true unconditional love' for their errant spouse who divorced them, and faithfully wait until their spouse returned to them & repented, even if it didn't happen until the next life. For only true love can save a marriage or a soul. We must have this unconditional love for our spouse no matter what they do, is we expect to ever be exalted. A righteous spouse who was abandoned & divorced by their spouse would never date or remarry, or even desire to. They would keep their covenants to their spouse and save them if need be by their true love. For a righteous spouse can save a wicked spouse & bring them to the Celestial Kingdom after they finally repent in Spirit Prison.

That is the greatest purpose of marriage on this earth, to save our wicked spouse if they need saving by the power of our everlasting love.

No righteous person would ever break their covenants to their spouse or divorce them, or remarry after the divorce or death of their spouse. Righteous men & women have possess 'true love' as Christ has for us, that's how we know they are truly righteous.

yeti said...

I don't think that the missionaries even told me that the creeds were wrong. I know of one denomination the began about the same time a the LDS Church whose claim was, "no creed but the Bible." using the Bible as a backing for belief sounds like a good idea to me.

"Firstly I have to declare that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of the Holy Ghost, but the son Of God the Father." i supose you would. do you believe the Holy Ghost played any role in this?
"Secondly I would want to qualify that Jesus spent 3 days in the earth." -not spirit prison?
"Thirdly I don't believe in a universal church." really? that is sad. do you believe that Christ's church is in many places and it can be accessed by any who so desire in any of those lands? That there is one church that is the same church everywhere? cause that is what universal means to me. but what does it mean to you?
"Fourthly I don't believe in forgiveness of sins through going to a priest." Me neither. and the creed doesn't say that either. (do you believe that one must go to a bishop for full repentance regarding certain behaviours?)
"Fifthly I believe in a resurrection of our physical body, with us retaining all of our memories." -It could be, the creed does not speak against that. and I think memories are stored in our mind, and that would be prat of a physical ressurection.
"Sixthly I believe in an everlasting life within (not a magical feeling placed upon us)." I don't know what you mean by "an everlasting life within" within what? within us? the creed though doesn't say anything about magical feelings being placed upon us. do you mean like feeling the Spirit?

yeti said...

regarding procreation:
do you think people who are gay should get married anyways and make babies?

Doug Towers said...


Many claim Joseph Smith did practise plural marriage and some claim he didn't. As usual, as we don't have the people here to represent their feelings on the matter it is pointless argument. We have to stick to known facts. Thus we'll put aside Joseph Smith's opinion as it cannot be proven either way without at least hearing him.

Now we come to your unscriptural claim that husbands and wives are equal. My Bible tells me that GOD said that because of sin it is required that the husband RULE over the wife (Gen 3:16, Moses 4:22). Do I believe my God or do I believe you? The book of Moses tells me the same thing. In addition to this Peter qualifies this situation and points out how Sarah referred to Abraham as "Lord" (1 Pet 3:6). Peter is presenting that this was appropriate.

Additionally to this we have _

1 Pet 3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands..."
1 Tim 2:12-13 "But I suffer a woman not to teach, nor to asurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
Eph 5:24 "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject unto their own husbands in every thing."

How many scriptural texts does it take for people to quit hearing Women's Lib. nonsense and start hearing God again?

Christ taught that it would be adultery to divorce one wife and then to marry another. He didn't teach against being married to two or more women at once. There is a vast difference between the two. In one case I'm rejecting to accept my responsibility for a woman and then just replacing her. In the other case I'm keeping my obligation toward the first and accepting ADDITIONAL responsibility.

To try to make this as plain as possible, it is like if I had a child. And then finding my wife to be pregnant I decide that two is too many so I reject to look after my first child and hand them out to someone else. And then keep the second child only. Obviously this isn't the thing to do. Once taking on the responsibility for a wife I must fulfil my first obligation regardless of additional obligations.

I have posted a response to your concerns expressed on my Answers site, that you may wish to read.

Doug Towers said...


From memory I think the exact words were, "Joseph Smith was told to join none of the churches, as they were all wrong."

Lots of religions talk about just using the Bible. But then you have to sew it together. Such circumstances as thou shalt not kill, but what of nonbelievers? Samuel cut up Agag in the street. Do we just open the door and allow theives to take of our goods freely? Many statements need qualifying. And this requires more than just the Bible. The Bible itself makes it plain that a person MUST have the Holy Spirit to guide them if they are in Christ.

The Holy Ghost was required to come upon anyone in dealing with Deity, to raise their spiritual level. Thus Mary needed its presence upon her.

In regard the "spirit prison" this is a state of mind rather than an actual physical place. Thus you can't exactly go into the prison to preach to them. You are preaching to those in spirit prison themselves.

In regard Catholic doctrine (as they are the writers of that which you quote) I have studied it through correspondence from the Roman Catholic Church itself. Therefore I am telling you the meaning of the statements, rather than how you may interpret them. I am using that interpretation in regard fourth, fifth and sixth.

No, I certainly don't believe the Roman Catholic Church to be representative of the teachings and desires of Christ. Nor do I with the multitude of Protestant churches that I was raised in. That there are some very nice people that have learned to listen to Christ by their reading of the Bible, it is true. But this is the Bible that has done that. Yes, some ministers are teaching their congregations to live reasonable lifestyles. But the majority of Protestant's version of living righteously is not breaking the ten commandments. In other words they haven't robbed a bank lately. Nor have they killed anyone. And if they have committed adultery, well, God will forgive them. I won't go any further on the subject unless you insist.

The only purpose in going to the bishop, in regard certain serious sins, is to help a person find faith to believe that they can be forgiven. By going through some course of demonstrating change they come to this acceptance.

In regard resurrection the creeds writers are referring to being raised as an entirely different creature with no memory of family or anything that happened before then. Therefore I qualify what I actually believe in.

Everlasting life springs up within our spirit like a well of living water. It is life and light. As we open our hearts and allow the Holy Spirit to come into us and reside there, we have that fire that cleanses. We become Godlike inside through changing our hearts to be like Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father.

Doug Towers said...


In regard homosexual marriages, the following is the opinion I expressed in a survey of ideas being looked for _

Males have a greater tendency to using logic, while women have the tendency toward using their heart feelings. This creates a wider diversity in upbringing for children.

Women will be more likely to demonstrate care and compassion when a child is hurt than a man. Thus the child learns love and compassion for others. Men are more likely to demonstrate cold logic when faced with a problem. This teaches a child to be strong in facing problems.

A child growing up needs to learn love and respect for both men and women equally. This is only available where a child has parents of both genders.

An acceptance of couples marrying of the same gender will eventually lead to a legal position where the couple can't be denied the right to adopt children.

Secondly _

We are left to ask, "what is the purpose of a marriage?" After all plenty of people are living together without a marriage. The purpose of a marriage is to provide a security for children, in being raised, to be assured of having a mother and father that are his or her real parents: That those people brought them into the world. And while that ideal isn't always achieved, because of death or parents splitting, the idea is to try our best to provide the child with that perfect scenario. Same sex marriages can never achieve this.

For those reasons listed above this isn't the right upbringing for the child. And the rights of the children must always be foremost.

Anonymous said...


I believe it is your 'interpretation' of the Bible that causes you to believe in women's inequality. Eve did not sin if that's what you are referring to. She actually made the more valiant choice & led Adam to do the same & progress with her. God praised & blessed her for her righteousness.

All wives have the same calling as Eve did, to lead their husbands to live righteously & progress with them. Sometimes it is the man who leads his wife, but more often the wife has to lead her husband to be righteous.

We actually do have 'proof' that Joseph public & published testimony & scriptures against polygamy. But we have no proof of the hearsay & claims that he ever lived it secretly.

God expects us to go by the scriptures that Joseph Smith brought forth & his public preaching, not some vile rumors that contradict everything Joseph ever taught. D&C 132 was added by BY, many years later, & was completely contrary to Joseph's 'proven' teachings.

We will be held accountable to believing doctrine or hearsay that goes against the scriptures & what Joseph taught publicly.

Any righteous man or woman would know that a true prophets could never have lived polygamy & treated his wife the way so many say Joseph treated Emma. True Prophets respect & protect women, they don't abuse them in the most vile ways as polygamy does.

Christ was conveying the fact that divorce means nothing & that the couple is still married in God's eyes. See multiple prophet's quotes for more on that. Thus, Christ was teaching that it is adultery for a man or woman to marry a 2nd, 3rd, person etc., because they are 'already' & still married to the 1st. Thus no matter how many people they married, even if they never divorced any of them, remarriage or additional marriages would all still be adultery.

Joseph Smith & many ancient prophets all confirmed Christ's teachings that polygamy is adultery & a whoredom.

I know that I will not change your mindset on these things, you obviously like the thought of polygamy & inequality of women, as is the disposition & desire of nearly all men. True love is very rare for men to have or believe in.

I only add these things to give others who cross this way, a knowledge of what Christ, Joseph Smith & other prophets really taught.

Doug Towers said...


It is interesting to read your perspective of things.

You have said _

"Eve did not sin ...She actually made the more valiant choice & led Adam to do the same & progress with her. God praised & blessed her for her righteousness."

Yet the Bible says _

"To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you. And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life." Genesis 3:16-17

Eve actually transgressed in trying to shortcut the system. It was fortunate that she did. But this was a decision they made that caused them to fall. Why did they fall spiritually so much that they would be able to die, if no incorrect motive was demonstrated? Had she been all thoughly righteous, as you are proposing, she would not have become subject to death. And had he been all righteous in following his wife he would not have become subject to death either. God doesn't make eternal rules, he just informs us of them.

You have said _

"We actually do have 'proof' that Joseph public & published testimony & scriptures against polygamy. But we have no proof of the hearsay & claims that he ever lived it secretly."

As Emma Smith received all of Joseph's documents, and she denied the existence of polygamy, we could hardly have any documents still in existence with him preaching it (supposing there had been any).

You have said _

"Christ was teaching that it is adultery for a man or woman to marry a 2nd, 3rd, person etc., because they are 'already' & still married to the 1st."

False. Christ has said nothing in the slightest like that. He has made no mention of a man marrying additional wives. His comment (as I stated last time) is that you don't abandon one and replace her with another.

You have said _

"Joseph Smith & many ancient prophets all confirmed Christ's teachings that polygamy is adultery & a whoredom."

SHOW me the text! As far as retoric goes you'd make a great politician. But show the evidence.

You have said _

"I know that I will not change your mindset on these things, you obviously like the thought of polygamy & inequality of women, as is the disposition & desire of nearly all men. True love is very rare for men to have or believe in."

You have absolutely no idea. By the love I have for a particular woman have had the clouds part from my mind and have seen up into heaven. Stop making assumptions about my opinion of women. You are failing miserably.

You feel that I believe in women as being inferior to men because men are given a governing role that covers a broader level. My 20 years of marriage to my first wife demonstrated to me the wisdom in what God has said. She had very little understanding of the complex activities that I could see in the street and suburb that affected our family's safety. Her world was her children and husband (as you have said yourself). God giving men priesthood was to further demand of men that they accept their true role of a more universal leadership as regard the family and society.

A wise husband will have his wife feel the freedom of decision making within the area that she serves best in. He will have the patience to see her make mistakes and wait for her to realise this or try to subtly assist her to see it. This is what our wise Father in heaven does. Yet he still has to preside in order for things to go the best way.

yeti said...

as for my question regarding homosexuality.
let me rephrase it.
do you think someone who is homosexual should enter into a hetrosexual relationship for the sake of procreation?

Secondly. you make me feel like I could not be a good mother as I am more logic than heart based, so I guess I wouldn't have well rounded children?

but say if I raise children with another woman, then could not that child be taught to respect people (or both genders)even if the only have say one parent? They can interact with people outside of the home too... right? or even inside the home, like their grandparents.

Anonymous said...

I believe that you are reading that scriptures about Adam & Eve wrong.

It was God's desire that Adam & Eve partake of the fruit & fall, so they could progress. They were both very righteous to do what they did. If they had not been righteous they would have probably not partaken of the fruit.

Many Church leaders have talked about how Eve was so valiant & did not commit a sin. They said it was something that had to be done in order to progress.

Eve was anxious to progress & learn good for evil & to have posterity & thus fulfill the other commandment God had given them, to multiply.

God was actually telling Eve about the blessings he would bestow upon her for her progression & because of her righteous & valiant choice in eating the fruit. He promised her posterity & even sorrow, which is a good thing that will teach her good from evil, cause she was strong enough to handle it. God also was assuring her that Adam would 'rule with' her (the correct translation), so she wouldn't have to do her high calling of 'Motherhood' all alone, but that he would be there to serve her every need & wish & protect & provide for her in every way.

God was also praising Eve, if you read it correctly, for her natural 'true love' that she (and most women) would have towards her husband. (Men usually have to work harder to have 'true love' & have their desires always be towards their wife.

God was also blessing Adam & commending him on his valancy for listening to his wife, & humbly following her courageous & righteous example. He blessed Adam with things that would be for his benefit & progression, since he made the choice to progress with his wife.

You must have not studied Joseph's teachings & warnings & testimonies against polygamy that he published in the 1835 edition of the D&C & his many talks & testimonies published in the Nauvoo Newspaper the Times & Seasons, which can be read & studied online. Both are strong proof that that he did not believe in polygamy.

Where as, all anyone else has to the contrary, is hearsay, usually by those who had fallen polygamy.

Of course Emma testified that Joseph never lived polygamy, for he didn't. But most people would rather believe whoredoms instead of the truth.

I'm sorry but I disagree about Christ teaching against polygamy. While he doesn't come out & say the word polygamy, if you read his words carefully, you will see that he covered polygamy as adultery as well as divorce & remarriage.

Have you really not read Jacob Chapter 2 & 3, in the Book of Mormon, about how he declares polygamy as a vile whoredom?

Not to mention all of Joseph's teachings on the subject, including the D&C verses against polygamy.

These things are easy to find if one really wants to know the truth

I'm sorry but believe the way you describe marriage is a classic example of 'unrighteous dominion' & severe 'wife abuse', the typical mindset & attitude of controlling men, which most all men have a tendency for.

I have talked to alot of men & women about these issues & what righteous marriage looks like & I don't know any righteous women or men in the Church who would agree with you. They all understand the complete equality of husbands & wives as I have explained it.

Doug Towers said...


There is no such thing as a homosexual. There are people who practise homosexual activity.

If a person has homosexual or any other sexual perversion problems they should overcome those problems before moving onto a marriage.

God doesn't make mistakes yeti. I can tell by the way you write that you are female. It is like the Anonymous writing. In spite of his enormous indoctrination toward females as the superior, he is plainly a man.

As to raising children. My mother and father were divorced when I was one year old. I was raised by my mother. Although there were males who attempted to make up for this it couldn't be done. I had to work hard to overcome the things that were missing from my upbringing - with all due respect to my lovely mother.

Doug Towers said...


Adam and Eve transgressed. Because of that transgression their bodies began to decay and death was brought into the world.

They could not have created this circumstance had all their feelings been righteous. That is just impossible. God couldn't produce fallen children as he and his wives are physically perfect. Thus it required them to do what was wrong and make it come about.

Those curses weren't given as a blessing and neither was Adam commended for following his wife. Show me your scriptural support.

Jacob mentions that because of whoredoms that can be practised in the process of practising polygamy God demanded that they don't practise it. If you read it again you will see that he mentions that monogamy was practised in order that the whoredoms couldn't be practised. It doesn't declare polygamy as the actual whoredom. It refers to Solomon (for example) who had 1,000 women, as being the whoredom being practised. Have a good read.

How many church members who believe something doesn't mean anything. After all there are a billion Catholics. That doesn't make them right. Let's stick to Scripture, not man's opinions.

In regard what you are claiming Christ said quote the scripture text and disect it to demonstrate your point.

Quote your verses from the D&C where God says that he hates polygamy.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Doug Towers said...


I warned you that if you continued to make claims with absolutely no backing I would remove them. It is the first time I have had to do so. If you are going to slander these people you must prove that you are right to do so.

Anon E. Mouse said...


Fairmormon has some things on the 1835 D&C edition about polygamy. It gives this quote from section 101 of that edition.

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

It then gives more information about the quote.

"This section was not a revelation given to Joseph Smith—it was written by Oliver Cowdery and introduced to a conference of the priesthood at Kirtland on 17 August 1835. Cowdery also wrote a statement of belief on government that has been retained in our current edition of the D&C as section 134. Both were sustained at the conference and included in the 1835 D&C, which was already at the press and ready to be published. Joseph Smith was preaching in Michigan at the time Oliver introduced these two articles to the conference; it is not known if he approved of their addition to the D&C at the time, although he did retain them in the 1844 Nauvoo edition."

Any thoughts?

Doug Towers said...

Anon E. Mouse

This is an increadibly well structured statement. Oliver would have made a good politician. It is no wonder Joseph kept it in the next edition due to the continued pressure.

Firstly he has mentioned the pressure that was being put upon them. Then he makes a declaration to put off the pressure by denial. Yet what has he actually said?

"...that one man should have one wife..." Then he says, "... and one woman, but one husband..." Note the adition of the word "but" when it speaks of the woman. A man should have one wife. Note it doesn't say that he should only have one wife. It just says that he should have one. However a woman should have but one husband.

I know this sounds like splitting hairs. But at times in life, when death faces, we must be wise in our statements.

We have an example of this kind of careful statement in the case of Abraham, where he said he was Sarah's brother (hiding the fact that Terah was his father, yet her grandfather). He was being very technical in saying they had the same father.

Note also that it doesn't present some doctrine that a man or woman would be committing adultery by re-marrying after a spouse's death.