DiscussMormonism.com

When I was a teenager I had a very brief exposure to some wierd anti-Mormon crap that asserted that the Mormons perform wierd sexual rituals in the temple. I didn't really believe it, but it nagged at me in the back of my mind, because of the secrecy we held everything having to do with the temple. Finally, when I went to the temple at age 19, prior to my mission, I got to see what all the fuss was about. I was quite relieved that the rumors and anti-Mormon crap weren't true. There was no sex on the altar, no wierd sexual rites, etc. Aside from pantomiming my own grisly death, nothing more bizarre than some eccentric costume drama occurred. The anti-Mormons were just plain wrong.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and along comes Warren Jeffs and his sex tapes. Now the entire country has heard (or read about) Warren Jeffs instructing his "quorums" of wives in the fine art of pleasing Warren Jeffs. He's recorded on tape damned a 12 year old girl in front of at least two of his other fake wives. He uses D&Cesque godspeak. He talks of quorums, and God, and annointings, and they have white robes they don for the orgy, etc. Oh yeah, and Warren Jeffs claims to be a Prophet, claims to follow Joseph Smith, and entered the entire Book of Mormon into the record during his trial, and read portions of it as part of his defense.

Is there anyone on this board who doesn't think that the general public isn't going to tell the difference between Warren Jeffs and the "mainstream" Mormons? Does anyone else see a lot more sexual-themed anti-Mormon literature coming out, where people try to claim that Mormons have sex on the altar and other things like that?

Is there anyone on this board who doesn't think that the general public isn't going to tell the difference between Warren Jeffs and the "mainstream" Mormons?

I have no doubt corrosive critics like yourself as well as certain apostates within the Church will do their best to blur the distinction.

bcspace wrote:I have no doubt corrosive critics like yourself as well as certain apostates within the Church will do their best to blur the distinction.

Oh geez. How long have you interacted with Sethbag on these forums? Do you honestly think that he'll resort to a lie when the truth will do perfectly well?

bcspace wrote:

Is there anyone on this board who doesn't think that the general public isn't going to tell the difference between Warren Jeffs and the "mainstream" Mormons?

I have no doubt corrosive critics like yourself as well as certain apostates within the Church will do their best to blur the distinction.

I know I will.

You have Joseph Smith lying to the world and most of his flock about polygamy.

You have prophets pretending to stop the practice and telling the gov they have stopped, yet secretly continue.

You have lie and after lie in the upper echelons of the LDS church.

So...

How does anyone know today's LDS leaders are still not doing all sorts of secret stuff?

How would anyone know if there were orgies in the temple, or if some chosen girls have been called to be the "wives" of the twelve?

Think of how well the second anointing is hidden and this is a well established, documented, and fairly common ritual.

Hmmm...

~td~

It's called Karma.

First off, BCSpace can bite me. Secondly, I'm not the type to make crap up about the church. I didn't leave the church for selfish reasons and have to make crap up to justify myself - I left because it's not really true, and I don't need to make anything up to recognize that fact.

I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true. That you believers can't understand that is not my fault. It's merely a symptom of the larger problems religion creates for people. If that still confuses you, let me just say that the obviousness to me of the LDS church's non-true nature is as crystal clear as the non-true nature of Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology or any other religion, and your inability to recognize that on the part of the LDS church is of a similar nature to the inability JWs and Scientologists suffer from in recognizing that on the part of their own churches.

Back to the OP, I agree that with the church being exceedingly secretive about things like Second Annointings, I suppose I must concede that anything's possible. That being said, for the record I will state that I know of no sexual act or rite, or sexually-oriented ritual, or anything overtly sexual in nature at all that occurs as part of LDS worship or rituals, be that in the temple or in any other environment. I also think the LDS leadership are far too prudish to engage in anything like this anyhow. I also do not know of any reason to believe that Joseph Smith was having sex with multiple women at the same time. In this Warren Jeffs has certainly surpassed his nominal master. The idea that Warren Jeffs has that God has given him all these women to enjoy certainly seems to have its historical precedent in the actions of Joseph Smith, however Warren Jeffs has taken that to new lows.

Sethbag wrote:I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true. That you believers can't understand that is not my fault. It's merely a symptom of the larger problems religion creates for people. If that still confuses you, let me just say that the obviousness to me of the LDS church's non-true nature is as crystal clear as the non-true nature of Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology or any other religion, and your inability to recognize that on the part of the LDS church is of a similar nature to the inability JWs and Scientologists suffer from in recognizing that on the part of their own churches.

Outstanding!

Now I got me somethin' to put in my signature line...

bcspace wrote:

Is there anyone on this board who doesn't think that the general public isn't going to tell the difference between Warren Jeffs and the "mainstream" Mormons?

I have no doubt corrosive critics like yourself as well as certain apostates within the Church will do their best to blur the distinction.

I don't think many of us would want to tarnish our own reputations by having ever been associated with that type of behavior.