Bishop's Resignation Letter

[_Madison54]

why me, I have refrained from commenting on your bizarre posts (mainly because others on here are doing a great job of proving you wrong on every point), but this one is astounding (if you mean what it appears you mean).

Please, please do not tell me that you believe Joseph Smith never consummated his more than 30 known "marriages" (And also, please tell me you know that he married more than just "two young girls")!!

If not, then you cannot possibly criticize Bishop Bloor for not knowing all about the true church history since you obviously have missed much of it yourself.

Bishop Bloor stated that the church hides its history based on him not knowing about the accounts of the first vision. I showed where these accounts are mentioned in the ensign. These accounts are not hidden. Second, someone mentioned 14 year old girls. To my knowledge there could have been two. And it these girls that remained faithful to the lds church all their lives. And yes, there is no proof that he had sex with them. That was my point. Why do you think that Joseph was sealed to so many women within a two year period? For sex? Joseph would often ask the relative of the women he was going to ask to be sealed to. He also explained he principle of plural marriage to the relatives. I don't think that he was in it for the sex.

You sound like a broken record (and it's getting quite old) with your statements regarding Bishop Bloor. I'm sure you must know that what he was referring to (and his brother has confirmed this) that of course, he knew about polygamy being practiced but what he didn't know was all the "dirty details" that the church without a doubt keeps hidden. No one is arguing the fact that you can find references to Joseph Smith's polygamy. So please stop reiterating that.

There are way too many witnesses (and documented journal entries) who saw Smith with his "wives" in compromising positions or who knew he spent the night in bed with numerous girls and women for this to even be in doubt anymore. Even those on FAIR and FARMS fully admit this. There are also numerous affidavits recorded by the women themselves stating the "marriages" were consummated.

By the way....why me....
Why would you have any trouble acknowledging that Joseph Smith had sex with his multiple wives? Do you have the same amount of trouble acknowledging that Brigham Young had sex with his multiple wives? Why would one be different from the other? They were both "commanded" to live polygamy and they were both "prophets of God".

You do fully acknowledge that Brigham Young had sex with his wives.....am I correct?

[_Will Schryver]

sick puppy:

Did she learn of girls as young as 14? Two sisters on the same afternoon? Did the seminary teacher explain how polyandry is somehow consistent with the Book of Mormon saying multiple wives will only be allowed when necessary to raise up a righteous seed? Did they tell her in seminary that JSJr married one of the wives of his Apostles that he'd sent away on a mission to the Holy Land?

I think it is worth noting that I have long been aware—since my early twenties—of the various details surrounding the implementation of plural marriage in the days of Joseph Smith. I’m quite familiar with all the primary sources—from all sides of the controversy.

Of course, so were Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, William Law, William Marks, Nancy Ridgon, Sarah Pratt, and many others who were there at the time. The so-called “facts” created a division among them just as it does in our day. And, just as it was back then, people view the same “facts” very differently, one from another. Law, Marks, Rigdon, and Sarah Pratt (among many others) were offended by these “facts” and lost their faith in the restored gospel and in the Prophet Joseph Smith--eventually seeking his overthrow as leader of the Church. Young, Kimball, Woodruff, Snow, Hyde, and Orson Pratt (among many others) were initially challenged by these things, but ultimately came to see God’s hand and purposes in them all.

It’s much the same today, only on a larger scale. God’s ways often come into conflict with man’s ways; his traditions; his prejudices; his pride.

One of the purposes of God is to expose men and women to His ways, and thereby compel them to use their own agency to side with Him or against Him.

I can’t number how many times I have heard one of the residents of the GSTP© say something along the lines of: “If God is for such things, then I am against Him.” Or, “If God actually commanded Joseph Smith to do everything he claimed he was commanded to do; if God sanctions those kinds of things … then I want nothing to do with such a God.”

Well, I think that is precisely the point!

God is very consciously and deliberately seeking to identify those whose sensibilities, desires, etc., are in alignment with His. Those who cannot wrap their minds around the principle that “what is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another” are not suitable for the eternal kingdom of the God who created this planet and who will eventually transform it as an eternal abode for those of His children whose minds and hearts are in harmony with His.

Those whose minds cannot or will not be shaped by His hands—like the snappish clay on the potter’s wheel—will be cut off the wheel and returned to the mill. Heber C. Kimball spoke often of this principle:

[Suppose] I have a lump of clay which I put upon my wheel, out of which clay I want to make a jug; I have to turn it into as many as 50 or 100 shapes before I get it into a jug. How many shapes do you suppose you are put into before you become Saints, or before you become perfect and sanctified to enter into the celestial glory of God?

Do you not know that the Lord directed the Prophet anciently, to go down to the potter's house to see a miracle on the wheel? Suppose the potter takes a lump of clay, and putting it on the wheel, goes to work to form it into a vessel, and works it out this way, and that way, and the other way, but the clay is refractory and snappish; he still trys it, but it will break, and snap, and snarl, and thus the potter will work it and work it until he is satisfied he cannot bring it into the shape he wants, and it mars upon the wheel; he takes his tool, then, and cuts it off the wheel, and throws it into the mill to be ground over again, until it becomes passive, ... and after it is ground there so many days, and it becomes passive, he takes the same lump, and makes of it a vessel unto honor.

Now do you see into that, brethren? I know the potters can. I tell you, brethren, if you are not passive you will have to go into that mill, and perhaps have to grind there one thousand years, and then the Gospel will be offered to you again, and then if you will not accept of it, and become passive, you will have to go into the mill again, and thus you will have offers of salvation from time to time, until all the human family, except the sons of perdition, are redeemed.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.161, Heber C. Kimball, October 9, 1852

And so it is.

[_Themis]

My research has only involved studying church history and commentary, Mormon and Ex-Mormon Intellectual websites and not “evangelical Christian anti-Mormon lies.” I didn’t realise for instance that Joseph Smith practised polygamy,

The above is from the former bishop's letter. I stated that the youth learn about his polygamy and it is mentioned in a church history book that the young study. If seminary students know it, why didn't the bishop?

The reference is so short and give no real detail it is not surprising that many do not know that Joseph had more then one wife. Is the fault theirs? No. The church has to take the blame becuase they have made the choices on what they teach. The church has the right to teach what it wants, but it also has to accept the consequences that go with it. I may have known about Joseph polygamy, but like 99% of members I had no idea of the dirty details.

When people say if God is doing this I don't want anything to do with him, it does not means they believe God is really doing that. What they really mean is that they do not believe God would do certain things. I just look at Joseph behavior and compare it with other people we all condemn and see how he is any different. He does not fair well.

[_Infymus]

God is very consciously and deliberately seeking to identify those whose sensibilities, desires, etc., are in alignment with His.

And

One of the purposes of God is to expose men and women to His ways, and thereby compel them to use their own agency to side with Him or against Him.

Joseph was "compelled" by his own "agency" to side with God when an angel of God with a flaming sword commanded him into polygamy. The angel also instructed him to lie about it for a while too, at least, until he got caught with Fanny.

Willy here is doing nothing more than justifying Joseph and throwing this off track. The issue at hand isn't did God make it ok, is God looking for people that will marry teenage girls or the wives of other men - but does the Church teach that doing so is God's will.

Oh Will, you stripling warrior, you...

[_sock puppet]

sick puppy:

Did she learn of girls as young as 14? Two sisters on the same afternoon? Did the seminary teacher explain how polyandry is somehow consistent with the Book of Mormon saying multiple wives will only be allowed when necessary to raise up a righteous seed? Did they tell her in seminary that JSJr married one of the wives of his Apostles that he'd sent away on a mission to the Holy Land?

I think it is worth noting that I have long been aware—since my early twenties—of the various details surrounding the implementation of plural marriage in the days of Joseph Smith. I’m quite familiar with all the primary sources—from all sides of the controversy.

Of course, so were Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, William Law, William Marks, Nancy Ridgon, Sarah Pratt, and many others who were there at the time. The so-called “facts” created a division among them just as it does in our day. And, just as it was back then, people view the same “facts” very differently, one from another. Law, Marks, Rigdon, and Sarah Pratt (among many others) were offended by these “facts” and lost their faith in the restored gospel and in the Prophet Joseph Smith--eventually seeking his overthrow as leader of the Church. Young, Kimball, Woodruff, Snow, Hyde, and Orson Pratt (among many others) were initially challenged by these things, but ultimately came to see God’s hand and purposes in them all.

It’s much the same today, only on a larger scale. God’s ways often come into conflict with man’s ways; his traditions; his prejudices; his pride.

One of the purposes of God is to expose men and women to His ways, and thereby compel them to use their own agency to side with Him or against Him.

I can’t number how many times I have heard one of the residents of the GSTP© say something along the lines of: “If God is for such things, then I am against Him.” Or, “If God actually commanded Joseph Smith to do everything he claimed he was commanded to do; if God sanctions those kinds of things … then I want nothing to do with such a God.”

Well, I think that is precisely the point!

God is very consciously and deliberately seeking to identify those whose sensibilities, desires, etc., are in alignment with His. Those who cannot wrap their minds around the principle that “what is wrong under one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another” are not suitable for the eternal kingdom of the God who created this planet and who will eventually transform it as an eternal abode for those of His children whose minds and hearts are in harmony with His.

Those whose minds cannot or will not be shaped by His hands—like the snappish clay on the potter’s wheel—will be cut off the wheel and returned to the mill. Heber C. Kimball spoke often of this principle:

[Suppose] I have a lump of clay which I put upon my wheel, out of which clay I want to make a jug; I have to turn it into as many as 50 or 100 shapes before I get it into a jug. How many shapes do you suppose you are put into before you become Saints, or before you become perfect and sanctified to enter into the celestial glory of God?

Do you not know that the Lord directed the Prophet anciently, to go down to the potter's house to see a miracle on the wheel? Suppose the potter takes a lump of clay, and putting it on the wheel, goes to work to form it into a vessel, and works it out this way, and that way, and the other way, but the clay is refractory and snappish; he still trys it, but it will break, and snap, and snarl, and thus the potter will work it and work it until he is satisfied he cannot bring it into the shape he wants, and it mars upon the wheel; he takes his tool, then, and cuts it off the wheel, and throws it into the mill to be ground over again, until it becomes passive, ... and after it is ground there so many days, and it becomes passive, he takes the same lump, and makes of it a vessel unto honor.

Now do you see into that, brethren? I know the potters can. I tell you, brethren, if you are not passive you will have to go into that mill, and perhaps have to grind there one thousand years, and then the Gospel will be offered to you again, and then if you will not accept of it, and become passive, you will have to go into the mill again, and thus you will have offers of salvation from time to time, until all the human family, except the sons of perdition, are redeemed.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.161, Heber C. Kimball, October 9, 1852

And so it is.

Well, you can read it now one more time, if the all powerful god you hope exists has the idiosyncracies that you describe, I'll happily live outside of his presence. I find it quite incredible that in each dispensation of time, god is different, has different sets of idiosyncracies. At least Moses' god supposedly taught the Children of Israel to honor their fathers and mothers. At least Jesus (the dispensation of the meridian of time) taught benevolence and charity, ahead of the general thought process of that time.

This LDS elohim, he's very backwards. Blood atonement, vengeance, etc. and according to you wanting JSJr to get his ya-yas out with young girls, a set of sisters, and even one of his absent apostle's wives. Who does he want TSM to get his ya-yas out with? What, the current "prophet" can only have his one wife? Isn't it the new and everlasting covenant, part of the fullness of the restored gospel, that to get into Big Heaven you got to get your ya-yas out with multiple women? How will TSM do it on judgment day, having had sex in the flesh with but one woman? I guess he'll have to just be one of those eunich type servants in the Celestial Kingdom, but not exalted. Poor TSM.

But the good part is that Monson's wife can go up to Big Heaven and be another squeeze for JSJr and Brigham. Since her body will be perfected as part of the resurrection, she should be hot enough to attract their eyes.

[_RockSlider]

Is it a demand/requirement that one MUST continue to hold the same exact beliefs as you in order to:

Offer campassion to?
Allow for mutual understanding of?
Extend a hand of friendship toward?
Retain a relationship with?
Continue to care for?
Feel the pain of?
Assist/help?
Simply hug?

Our fellow human beings.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo, another aspect of this, which I fell into headlong, is the elitist aspect of Mormonism. If another falls short, and I continue to remain true and faithful, then the truthfulness of one of the church’s main claim holds true. I’m special; I’m part of the tiny minority of those that are chosen. I shine all the brighter is God’s eyes as remaining faithful. The more that fall, the better. The more elite, the more special, the more Godlike I become.

I think this is the single most offensive thing that there is in Mormonism, its elitism. The worst culprit is it’s Temple center piece. From the youngest ages of singing “I love to see the temple”, to the actual leaving of loved ones in the parking lot that are deemed not worthy.

As a friend used to tell me, the only thing Mormons have to repent of is their self-righteousness.
This is just another shining example.

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo, another aspect of this, which I fell into headlong, is the elitist aspect of Mormonism. If another falls short, and I continue to remain true and faithful, then the truthfulness of one of the church’s main claim holds true. I’m special; I’m part of the tiny minority of those that are chosen. I shine all the brighter is God’s eyes as remaining faithful. The more that fall, the better. The more elite, the more special, the more Godlike I become.

I think this is the single most offensive thing that there is in Mormonism, its elitism. The worst culprit is it’s Temple center piece. From the youngest ages of singing “I love to see the temple”, to the actual leaving of loved ones in the parking lot that are deemed not worthy.

As a friend used to tell me, the only thing Mormons have to repent of is their self-righteousness.
This is just another shining example.

Hey Rock,

Because this is a public board, I will simply and only suggest that my experiences (at least in part) would indeed lend support to your above contributions.


Anyhooo, great to hear from you, friend!
Hope all is well with you and yours.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

sick puppy

Hey, you said it. I'm not the one who's worshiping him, though.

[_Will Schryver]

I’ve got a collection of a few hundred songs to which I very often listen. They’re songs that, for whatever reason, have spoken to me; formed the soundtrack of my life. I know many of you can relate to that kind of thing: having a body of music that constitutes, in many ways, the subtext of your life experiences.

Anyway, I’m not sure why, but when the following song played a while ago as I was driving, I related it, in some ways, to my feelings concerning this thread:

Nautical Disaster
- The Tragically Hip

I had this dream, where I relished the fray
And the screaming filled my head all day
It was as though I'd been spit here
Settled in, into the pocket
Of a lighthouse on some rocky socket
Off the coast of France, dear

One afternoon, four thousand men
Died in the water here
And five hundred more were thrashing madly
As parasites might, in your blood

I was in a lifeboat
Designed for ten—ten only
Anything that systematic
Would get you hated
It's not a deal nor a test
Nor a love of something fated
Death
The selection was quick
The crew was picked, in order
And those left in the water
Were kicked off our pant leg
And we headed for home

Then the dream ends when the phone rings
You doing alright?
He said it's out there
Most days and nights
But only a fool would complain
Anyway, Susan
If you like, our conversation
Is as faint a sound in my memory
As those fingernails scratching on my hull …

[_Runtu]

Hey, you said it. I'm not the one who's worshiping him, though.

It's a very strange argument Will is making:

1. God gave us our conscience, the light of Christ, to know right from wrong.
2. We know that sleeping around and lying to your wife about it are wrong because the light of Christ tells us it is wrong.
3. The great test of life is to ignore the light of Christ and accept as righteous that which the light of Christ tells us is wrong.

This isn't about allowing God to shape our minds but rather our willingness to sear our own consciences in order to support an institution. If God were behind this rather abominable practice, He would not have given us a conscience.