Second Thoughts

[_Runtu]

Haggard did have very strong spiritual experiences, so he would claim that "God spoke" to him. In the sense that he was the leader of 30 million Evangelicals, I am sure many considered him a prophet, among his congregation. No, he gave no new revelation, but he taught that homosexuality was wrong, sinful, and would lead to hell - while he was visiting a gay man.

So by your definition Haggard was a fraud. Agreed, or not?

I don't think so - in the same sense that I don't think Hinckley is a fraud. Hinkley probably truly believes what he's doing, and I don't think he's claimed to have any personal visits with God, nor received something tangible from god. So I don't think he's a fraud.

Joseph Smith on the other hand is a totally different story.

Hinckley has made a living at fraud. He was the first major spin doctor that they hired. Many of the media crap we grew up with came from his sick little mind.

He never saw any proof of divinity, yet he continued to promote it. That is out right fraud in my book.

You know, I don't know that Hinckley is a conscious fraud. I think he's so immersed in the church that he feels he has to protect it at all costs, even if that means covering up the unpleasant truths about it. Yeah, that ultimately makes him an accessory to fraud, but I'm not so sure he isn't a true believer.

[Nomomo]

But I'm afraid that I feel no different about him if he genuinely believed he was guided to bed young women, be a crook and lie about his perversions.

Okay let me take one point at a time.

Question: How many young women did Joseph Smith "bed"? I would like a figure, and I would like to know who they are. If you don't have a figure, and you don't know who they are, you don't have a case. It may be necessary to go back to many sources to establish this, so you can take all the time you want on this question. I can wait. I want to see the historical evidence, and if there's no evidence, it's nothing but hearsay. Rumour.

Well, if you've studied all the evidence and don't think there is any supporting his involvement with young women, then I guess you're dismissing Compton's research. What do you want, Ray, a video? So, if Compton's work doesn't confirm it, what do you conclude from his marrying dozens of women -- some young? Pious fraud?

Unless he was incapable of having sex with them only the very naïve would think he didn't.

if you're prepared to provide me with the hard evidence.

I doubt you want hard evidence -- I don't think you'd accept any evidence except Joseph's signed confession with witnesses. I'll see if Oliver, David and Martin are free.

[_Polygamy Porter]

What about the persecution? The tarring and feathering. The apostasies, the betrayals. What about him saying thanks to God that the burden of the work was off his shoulders when he commissioned the Twelve? What about him saying thanks to God that others had received a witness and he didn't need to carry the full burden anymore? What about him shedding tears of thanks for his parents finding the truth? What about him crying in a corner of a room and asking God to help his persecutors see the truth? Have you read his personal journals?

And finally, he's dead at 38. Is this what you call gain? Like the Bakers, the Swaggarts, the Haggards, all of whom were millionaires? Like Billy Graham, now retired to his wealth? None of them even had to face angry mobs, betrayals, persecution, and finally ending up riddled with bullets.

Is this what you call gain?

Stop it Ray. You sound like an eight year old bearing your rote testimony.

Stop with the persecution validating his divinity. Look at Warren Jeffs you FOOL. Is the work Jeffs is involved with divine because he is on the FBI's top 10?

Smith ended up riddled with bullets for the same reason the general public cannot stand Jeffs. If you love and admire Smith but do not have the same devotion to Jeffs then you my friend are a HYPOCRITE.

[_Ray A]

Do you think that Warren Jeffs knows he is being deceitful for personal gain or do you feel he believes it himself?

I don't follow FLDS issues much at all, but from my reading of it there has been physical abuse, incest, and forced sex. Sorry, but that's my weak area, FLDS issues. However, I can give an appropriate example from Muhammah, who married a nine year old girl, Aisha. Some Muslim scholars believe she was older, and that Muhammah may not have had sex with her until she was about 12. I think that the issue of Muhammad being a fraud is an entirely different question, just as I do with Joseph Smith, in this regard. The issue of polygamy had little to do with sex, and more to do with power, and the patriarchal order of Mormon society then. Polygamy has always been on earth, though not practised by the majority, and in most societies it was also a patriarchal issue. Will you brand all of them frauds? I look at all of this from sociological perspectives and not black and white, either/or judgements. Nineteenth century Mormon women were not as dumb, blind, and masochistic, or as stupid as some seem to feel. It was not a good thing, and I have never supported polygamy, and there was undoubtedly emotional manipulation. But again, nothing to do with the fraud issue.

You state that you believe the Book of Mormon came to Joe through "automatic writing". So the gold plates have no significance to you? Why would you accept in the divinity of his automatic writing of the Book of Mormon but not others, like the Book of Abraham or Moses?

Because he didn't produce the other scriptures like the Book of Mormon was produced. It is unique in the way it was done, and that's why in my opinion it has higher status. In regard to the plates, maybe you should ask Oliver Cowdery that question, if he was still alive, since he was foremost in expressing surprise at how the "translation" was being done, ie., without the plates. I could speculate on why the plates were used, but it's only my speculation. If you have another theory by the way, let's see it. Even Dale Broadhurst admits that the Rigdon/Spalding theory is not conclusive.

[_Ray A]

Well, if you've studied all the evidence and don't think there is any supporting his involvement with young women, then I guess you're dismissing Compton's research. What do you want, Ray, a video? So, if Compton's work doesn't confirm it, what do you conclude from his marrying dozens of women -- some young? Pious fraud?

Compton's work is not foolproof. It's the best we have to date, but maybe you should read the critical reviews. Have you read them? Do you know what the weaknesses in his book are? Have you read replies to Compton? Have you read the reply from Anderson and Faulring? I do not just read one book and say, "that's it", this is the conclusion of the matter. Compton's book has weaknesses, so sorry, I'm not setting it up as the Fifth Gospel to worship his conclusions.

Unless he was incapable of having sex with them only the very naïve would think he didn't.

I never said he didn't have sex with some, I asked who, and when, and what is the historical evidence? When it comes to things like this you cannot make assumptions, unless you want to rumour-monger. When you say things like "all those young women", who? How many? How old were they? What did they have to say about it? He married anywhere between 23 and 48 wives. Compton's analysis covers 33 for which he has more detailed information.

I doubt you want hard evidence -- I don't think you'd accept any evidence except Joseph's signed confession with witnesses. I'll see if Oliver, David and Martin are free.

Do all the mind-reading you want.

[_Ray A]

Stop it Ray. You sound like an eight year old bearing your rote testimony.

Perhaps it's your hypersensitivity to Mormon subjects. Are you getting counselling?

Stop with the persecution validating his divinity. Look at Warren Jeffs you FOOL. Is the work Jeffs is involved with divine because he is on the FBI's top 10?

I explained about Jeffs above. Your ad hominem comments will make this a non-issue for me.

Smith ended up riddled with bullets for the same reason the general public cannot stand Jeffs. If you love and admire Smith but do not have the same devotion to Jeffs then you my friend are a HYPOCRITE.

Jeffs will go the way of all the LDS polygamous splinter groups. FLDS polygamy has been riddled with real abuse, physical and sexual, and unfortunately it is a break off from 19th century Mormonism. Now if they had followed the church at the turn of the century, none of this would have happened.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Thanks again Ray for your replies.

It all makes sense to me now, you were an adult convert.

'nuff said.

[_Ray A]

Thanks again Ray for your replies.

It all makes sense to me now, you were an adult convert.

'nuff said.

Well that doesn't mean I don't want to understand your POV. Just hold off on the ad hominems a touch. No, I really find it difficult to associate with the anger. There are many exmos who don't feel this anger, even when born and raised Mormon. Can you tell me why? Why are some angry, and others not? I have an exmo friend here in Australia I frequently communicate with, and he has little or no anger, even though most of his family are Mormon and he has felt alienation. Must be an individual thing?

What I don't undertand is this: Leaving Mormonism made me much freer, and despite all the subsequent turmoil, like Dan Vogel I feel even grateful for my Mormon experience. Maybe it has something to do with issues you're still battling, as in Vegas' case with his TBM wife. Anger isn't going to solve anything. Lashing out isn't going to either. The more you curse and condemn Mormonism, the less people will listen.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Thanks again Ray for your replies.

It all makes sense to me now, you were an adult convert.

'nuff said.

Well that doesn't mean I don't want to understand your POV. Just hold off on the ad hominems a touch. No, I really find it difficult to associate with the anger. There are many exmos who don't feel this anger, even when born and raised Mormon. Can you tell me why? Why are some angry, and others not? I have an exmo friend here in Australia I frequently communicate with, and he has little or no anger, even though most of his family are Mormon and he has felt alienation. Must be an individual thing?

What I don't undertand is this: Leaving Mormonism made me much freer, and despite all the subsequent turmoil, like Dan Vogel I feel even grateful for my Mormon experience. Maybe it has something to do with issues you're still battling, as in Vegas' case with his TBM wife. Anger isn't going to solve anything. Lashing out isn't going to either. The more you curse and condemn Mormonism, the less people will listen.

No anger. I was just puzzled with your beliefs in the Book of Mormon only.. understanding that you were an adult when you converted helped understand.

So then in a nutshell, you are here defending only the Book of Mormon and really nothing else related to Mormonism?

Also, the gold plates don't really matter to you, since you don't believe he translated them?

[_Ray A]

No anger. I was just puzzled with your beliefs in the Book of Mormon only.. understanding that you were an adult when you converted helped understand.

So then in a nutshell, you are here defending only the Book of Mormon and really nothing else related to Mormonism?

Also, the gold plates don't really matter to you, since you don't believe he translated them?

The Book of Mormon is my last link to Mormonism. It is the only reason I have maintained my interest in Mormonism. If I agreed with everything else "related to Mormonism" I would be an active Mormon. I tried five times in 11 years to "make it work", and every time the cog diss. was too much. Especially where Brigham talks about "Lost Tribes" breaking down the ice, or people living at the North Pole. I also do not accept section 76 of the D&C because it does not square with what I have studied from numerous other sources. The Book of Mormon itself is hyperbolic in some parts, but it also has stories and teachings which inspire me. That is what I have held on to. As I said, PP, this is not a black and white situation. If it will be of any help to you, I will post my 1988 resignation letter, and bear in mind that at that time you couldn't just remove your name, you had to front a church court:

23rd January 1988

Dear President:


After many months of reflection I have decided that I want my name removed from the records of the church.

I can no longer consider myself a "faithful" Mormon and do not wish to have the stigma of church membership associated with any of my words or actions, which may also offend the sensivities of practicing Mormons, and make me somewhat of a hypocrite in the eyes of both Mormons and non-Mormons.

My experiences of Mormonism in general, and particularly over the last several months, have convinced me that the vast majority of Mormons are bigoted, biased, prejudiced and extremely narrowminded. I also intensely dislike the strong anti-intellectual trend that has been and still is gaining great momentum within the church. I do not necessarily lay blame upon individuals for this condition, but see it as a reflection of a church dedicated to rigid conformity, which I view as destructive to the creativity and true freedom of the individual.

After studying Mormon history over the last several years I am alarmed and disturbed at inconsistencies which I find irreconcilable, many of which destroy the bases of contemporary Mormon practices and beliefs and which church authorities have taken great measures to prevent average members access to such information (despite recent protestations to the contrary) for fear that such information may damage the faith of simplistic Mormons.

With this knowledge I find it impossible to generate the naïve faith necessary to be a Mormon, especially in the realm of the thousands of do's and don'ts that I feel are anthetical to the teachings of Christ, not that I claim to be a Christian, for I abhor conventional (especially "born-again") Christianity even more than Mormonism.

Since it is not my purpose here to make justification, or give specific reasons for leaving the church, I shall dispense with verbosity and simply request that you proceed with my excommunication.


Sincerely,

Ray A

Remember, I was speaking of the church. I said nothing about the Book of Mormon. And since that time I have softened in my views. If you see anger there, it is because I was confronted by several Mormons who called me an "evil man". Why? Because I was questioning. And challenging conventional views. Maybe your "anger" (?) is similarly directed?

Another clarification: The church "preventing access" never absolved individual responsibility to search.

Yet after all this I went back periodically to try to resolve my differences, but as I said, the cog diss. was too much. It was, for me, like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. But I could still see the value of Mormonism to so many people. But for me, it just didn't work. But I did not want to hurt these people or destroy their belief, because I could see how much it benefitted so many of them, even if I didn't believe it. You know what Joseph Campbell said? "Follow your bliss."
And Mormons are following their bliss. So do I see any validity in Mormonism? None whatsoever in the literal claims, but plenty in the way it makes them better people. You might see this as a double standard, and you might feel I should be tryng to get them out. But I don't. Why? They don't want to "get out"!! They are happy. When they are ready to question, they will. And they know where to do this, but only when they are ready, if ever. If they really develop a deep desire, they will search. They will not be coerced by anti or ex-Mormons. More likely the defenses will increase, the more you attack them.

I treasure my Mormon experience, because it taught me what real freedom is. I still celebrate 1987, my 20th anniversary is next year (LOL). That is the year I broke free from church dogma, yet in the end could still appreciate the good things in Mormonism. And of course, like you, I'm just a horrible apostate sinner who got darkened in mind and "can't see the truth". I don't have to fight anything, PP. And if I did, it might represent some lingering belief (or uncertainty) I have about "chapel Mormonism". I have none, and I see Joseph Smith as one link in our quest for meaning. A seeker who made some dumb mistakes, yet paradoxically at the same time tried to advance our "quest for meaning". The "pious fraud".

I'm not trying to justify myself. I welcome your critical comments. If there are problems in my thinking, point them out. But I will never square a belief in one "saviour" for the whole universe living in Galilee, and one prophet who tells us "ultimate truth". This is pure mythology. But that's what humans thrive on. Anything that will bring them certainty. The atheist who will never consider the possibility of God is in the same boat. I reject dogma, no matter where it comes from.