Page 2 of 6

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:39 pm
by Serragon
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:41 pm
Serragon wrote: November 5th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: November 5th, 2021, 3:57 pm
People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.[/i]”
The first sentence is fine. Having a fetish or vice that you are trying to overcome or keep in check should not preclude you from full church activity.

The second sentence is where the church has jumped the shark. Identifying is homosexual behavior. It is entrenching and elevating the fetish instead of the opposite. This is the foot in the door that has been leveraged over the last decade by the queer proponents.

The church should be empathetic to those who have this fetish or vice and help them overcome it, but they should have never accepted it as an identity.
There is a difference (which for some reason modern individuals cannot seem to grasp) between internally having a struggle against lasciviousness and OPENLY proclaiming that one has that struggle.

If one is having problems controlling thoughts and feelings but is not openly broadcasting it to others, then while we might say that person has a "dirty" mind, the Church is not in the business of being thought/feeling police but in the business of instructing people how to control their passions.

If one is openly proclaiming that one has those thoughts and feelings, it is nothing less than an attempt to get everyone else to accept those thought/feelings as "no big deal". And apparently we have done that.

So, when do we start accepting homosexual couples as members?
I don't have a problem with people confessing their vices and weaknesses if it is done with the goal of overcoming that vice. For many, letting someone know what they are struggling with is an important step in facing it and mastering it.

The trouble here is that this is being done in a declarative way meant to instantiate and normalize the vice in church culture. And this can only lead to a normalization of the behaviors themselves. You can't tell someone that their sexual fetish is wonderful, normal, and their prime characteristic and then tell them that acting further on this wonderful, normal characteristic is evil. It makes no sense.

The church is actively encouraging people to elevate this fetish to an identity and giving them opportunities in worldwide broadcasts to encourage others to do the same. In the name of kindness and good global citizenry we are allowing our members with this fetish to be completely enslaved by their natural man. Far from helping them out of the chains Satan has carefully laid on them, we are actively assisting him.

It is awful.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:44 pm
by alurker
Serragon wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:39 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:41 pm
Serragon wrote: November 5th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: November 5th, 2021, 3:57 pm
People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.[/i]”
The first sentence is fine. Having a fetish or vice that you are trying to overcome or keep in check should not preclude you from full church activity.

The second sentence is where the church has jumped the shark. Identifying is homosexual behavior. It is entrenching and elevating the fetish instead of the opposite. This is the foot in the door that has been leveraged over the last decade by the queer proponents.

The church should be empathetic to those who have this fetish or vice and help them overcome it, but they should have never accepted it as an identity.
There is a difference (which for some reason modern individuals cannot seem to grasp) between internally having a struggle against lasciviousness and OPENLY proclaiming that one has that struggle.

If one is having problems controlling thoughts and feelings but is not openly broadcasting it to others, then while we might say that person has a "dirty" mind, the Church is not in the business of being thought/feeling police but in the business of instructing people how to control their passions.

If one is openly proclaiming that one has those thoughts and feelings, it is nothing less than an attempt to get everyone else to accept those thought/feelings as "no big deal". And apparently we have done that.

So, when do we start accepting homosexual couples as members?
I don't have a problem with people confessing their vices and weaknesses if it is done with the goal of overcoming that vice. For many, letting someone know what they are struggling with is an important step in facing it and mastering it.
Absolutely, confessing and working with someone to help overcome it is very helpful. That confession of vices and weaknesses should be done with an ecclesiastical leader, like a Bishop, an EQP, etc.

It should not be done in front of the world, nor to the RS class or EQ class or to the ward, etc. To do so in public is to push for acceptance not controlling of ones passions.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:45 pm
by alurker
Serragon wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:39 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:41 pm
Serragon wrote: November 5th, 2021, 4:17 pm
TrueFaith wrote: November 5th, 2021, 3:57 pm
People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.[/i]”
The first sentence is fine. Having a fetish or vice that you are trying to overcome or keep in check should not preclude you from full church activity.

The second sentence is where the church has jumped the shark. Identifying is homosexual behavior. It is entrenching and elevating the fetish instead of the opposite. This is the foot in the door that has been leveraged over the last decade by the queer proponents.

The church should be empathetic to those who have this fetish or vice and help them overcome it, but they should have never accepted it as an identity.
There is a difference (which for some reason modern individuals cannot seem to grasp) between internally having a struggle against lasciviousness and OPENLY proclaiming that one has that struggle.

If one is having problems controlling thoughts and feelings but is not openly broadcasting it to others, then while we might say that person has a "dirty" mind, the Church is not in the business of being thought/feeling police but in the business of instructing people how to control their passions.

If one is openly proclaiming that one has those thoughts and feelings, it is nothing less than an attempt to get everyone else to accept those thought/feelings as "no big deal". And apparently we have done that.

So, when do we start accepting homosexual couples as members?
The trouble here is that this is being done in a declarative way meant to instantiate and normalize the vice in church culture. And this can only lead to a normalization of the behaviors themselves. You can't tell someone that their sexual fetish is wonderful, normal, and their prime characteristic and then tell them that acting further on this wonderful, normal characteristic is evil. It makes no sense.

The church is actively encouraging people to elevate this fetish to an identity and giving them opportunities in worldwide broadcasts to encourage others to do the same. In the name of kindness and good global citizenry we are allowing our members with this fetish to be completely enslaved by their natural man. Far from helping them out of the chains Satan has carefully laid on them, we are actively assisting him.

It is awful.
I'm so glad that finally other people are beginning to see this; I saw this many years ago and it is somewhat comforting that others are seeing it too; it might be too late to do much about it though.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:46 pm
by SPIRIT
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:25 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways.
Joseph did nothing of the sort; all a bunch of lies from adulterers' like Brigham Young to gain acceptance for their wickedness among the members.

Not a single piece of contemporary evidence has ever surfaced about JS being a polygamist. With all the women he supposedly "married" you'd think there would be at least one contemporary journal entry, but there are none. They are all written decades after the fact.

Even the ones that are trotted out, when you dig and look at the actual sourcing, it is all a bunch of lies (sources rewritten, sources changed, documents written by known liars (like John C. Bennett), etc.). No shred of proof at all for Joseph actually doing what you claim.
I tend to agree with you on everything from your comments.
Thank you for standing up for Joseph and the truth.

just posting this - because the church had to finally come out and divulged this information.

Nov 14, 2014

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/i ... wives.html

It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives

By Laurie Goodstein

Nov. 10, 2014

Mormon leaders have acknowledged for the first time that the church’s founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, portrayed in church materials as a loyal partner to his loving spouse Emma, took as many as 40 wives, some already married and one only 14 years old.

The church’s disclosures, in a series of essays online, are part of an effort to be transparent about its history at a time when church members are increasingly encountering disturbing claims about the faith on the Internet. Many Mormons, especially those with polygamous ancestors, say they were well aware that Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, practiced polygamy when he led the flock in Salt Lake City. But they did not know the full truth about Smith.

“Joseph Smith was presented to me as a practically perfect prophet, and this is true for a lot of people,” said Emily Jensen, a blogger and editor in Farmington, Utah, who often writes about Mormon issues.

She said the reaction of some Mormons to the church’s disclosures resembled the five stages of grief in which the first stage is denial, and the second is anger. Members are saying on blogs and social media, “This is not the church I grew up with, this is not the Joseph Smith I love,” Ms. Jensen said.

Smith probably did not have sexual relations with all of his wives, because some were “sealed” to him only for the next life, according to the essays posted by the church. But for his first wife, Emma, polygamy was “an excruciating ordeal.”

The four treatises on polygamy reflect a new resolve by a church long accused of secrecy to respond with openness to the kind of thorny historical and theological issues that are causing some to become disillusioned or even to abandon the faith.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is formally known, has quietly posted 12 essays on its website over the last year on contentious topics such as the ban on blacks in the priesthood, which was lifted in 1978, and accounts of how Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the church’s sacred scripture.

Elder Steven E. Snow, the church historian and a member of its senior leadership, said in an interview, “There is so much out there on the Internet that we felt we owed our members a safe place where they could go to get reliable, faith-promoting information that was true about some of these more difficult aspects of our history.

“We need to be truthful, and we need to understand our history,” Elder Snow said. “I believe our history is full of stories of faith and devotion and sacrifice, but these people weren’t perfect.”

The essay on “plural marriage” in the early days of the Mormon movement in Ohio and Illinois says polygamy was commanded by God, revealed to Smith and accepted by him and his followers only very reluctantly. Abraham and other Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives, and Smith preached that his church was the “restoration” of the early, true Christian church.

Most of Smith’s wives were between the ages of 20 and 40, the essay says, but he married Helen Mar Kimball, a daughter of two close friends, “several months before her 15th birthday.” A footnote says that according to “careful estimates,” Smith had 30 to 40 wives.

The biggest bombshell for some in the essays is that Smith married women who were already married, some to men who were Smith’s friends and followers.

The essays held nothing back, said Richard L. Bushman, emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and author of the book “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.”

Dr. Bushman said of church leaders: “Somewhere along the line they decided they were just going to tell the whole story, not to be defensive, not to try to hide anything. And there’s no single fact that’s more unsettling than Joseph Smith’s marriage to other men’s wives.

“It’s a recognition of maturity,” said Dr. Bushman, who is a Mormon. “There are lots of church leaders who say: ‘We can take anything, just let us know how it really happened. We’re a church that is secure.’ ”


The younger generation of Mormons will benefit from this step, said Samantha Shelley, co-founder of the website MillennialMormons.com in Provo, Utah.

She said she knew of Smith’s polygamous past, but “it’s so easy for people these days to stumble upon something on the Internet, and it rocks their world and they don’t know where to turn.”

In 1890, under pressure by the American government, the church issued a manifesto formally ending polygamy. The church’s essay on this phase admits that some members and even leaders did not abandon the practice for years.

But the church did renounce polygamy, and Mormons who refused to do the same eventually broke away and formed splinter churches, some that still exist. Warren Jeffs, the leader of one such group, was convicted in Texas in 2011 of child sexual assault.

There remains one way in which polygamy is still a part of Mormon belief: The church teaches that a man who was “sealed” in marriage to his wife in a temple ritual, then loses his wife to death or divorce, can be sealed to a second wife and would be married to both wives in the afterlife. However, women who have been divorced or widowed cannot be sealed to more than one man.

Kristine Haglund, the editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, said that while she found the church’s new transparency “really hopeful,” she and other women she had talked with were disturbed that the essays do not address the painful teaching about polygamy in eternity.

“These are real issues for Mormon women,” Ms. Haglund said. “And because the church has never said definitively that polygamy won’t be practiced in heaven, even very devout and quite conservative women are really troubled by it.”

The church historian, Elder Snow, said that the process of writing the essays began in May 2012. Each one was drafted by a scholar, often outside the church history department, then edited by church historians and leaders, and vetted by the church’s top authorities. They may issue one more essay, on women and the priesthood, an issue that has grown increasingly controversial as some Mormon women have mobilized to challenge the male-only priesthood.

The church has not publicly announced the posting of the essays, and many Mormons said in interviews that they were not even aware of them. They are not visible on the church’s home page; finding them requires a search or a link. Elder Snow said he anticipated that the contents would eventually be “woven into future curriculum” for adults and youths.

The church recently released an informational video about the distinctive Mormon underwear called “temple garments” — and it received far more attention among Mormons and in the news media than the essays on polygamy.

Sarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania, and a non-Mormon who has studied the Mormon Church, said it had dealt with transparency about its past before this, addressing Mormon leaders’ complicity in an attack on a wagon train crossing southern Utah in 1857, known as the Mountain Meadows massacre. But she said this recent emphasis on transparency by the church was both unprecedented and smart.

“What you want to do is get out ahead of the problem, and not have someone say, ‘Look at this damaging thing I found that you were trying to keep secret,’ ” she said.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:47 pm
by alurker
mahalanobis wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:37 pm They're pushing this stuff ad nauseum. Every Liahona/Ensign. Nonstop.

Possibilities:
* They have to fill a quota to qualify as a contestant in the upcoming UN Religion Pageant: The winner gets to be the one-world global religion in 2030. It's also the next big cable TV reality show!
* They're panicking about Millennials disengaging from the church, and this is their cringy campaign to persuade them to stay.
* This is their wink and a nod to the progMos. Between the lines they are saying "just wait until the Boomers die, and we promise we'll start doing gay sealings in the temple"
* They are preparing for a temple marriage "revelation" sooner rather than later, and this is the attempt to get everybody onboard before they drop the bomb.
But don't worry, I was just assured recently by several leaders in positions of power that the Church will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER allow homosexuals to "marry" or to at least be "sealed".

Yeah, your actions speak louder than your words guys.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:52 pm
by alurker
SPIRIT wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:46 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:25 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways.
Joseph did nothing of the sort; all a bunch of lies from adulterers' like Brigham Young to gain acceptance for their wickedness among the members.

Not a single piece of contemporary evidence has ever surfaced about JS being a polygamist. With all the women he supposedly "married" you'd think there would be at least one contemporary journal entry, but there are none. They are all written decades after the fact.

Even the ones that are trotted out, when you dig and look at the actual sourcing, it is all a bunch of lies (sources rewritten, sources changed, documents written by known liars (like John C. Bennett), etc.). No shred of proof at all for Joseph actually doing what you claim.
I tend to agree with you on everything from your comments.
Thank you for standing up for Joseph and the truth.

just posting this - because the church had to finally come out and divulged this information.

Nov 14, 2014

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/i ... wives.html

It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives

By Laurie Goodstein

Nov. 10, 2014

Mormon leaders have acknowledged for the first time that the church’s founder and prophet, Joseph Smith, portrayed in church materials as a loyal partner to his loving spouse Emma, took as many as 40 wives, some already married and one only 14 years old.

The church’s disclosures, in a series of essays online, are part of an effort to be transparent about its history at a time when church members are increasingly encountering disturbing claims about the faith on the Internet. Many Mormons, especially those with polygamous ancestors, say they were well aware that Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, practiced polygamy when he led the flock in Salt Lake City. But they did not know the full truth about Smith.

“Joseph Smith was presented to me as a practically perfect prophet, and this is true for a lot of people,” said Emily Jensen, a blogger and editor in Farmington, Utah, who often writes about Mormon issues.

She said the reaction of some Mormons to the church’s disclosures resembled the five stages of grief in which the first stage is denial, and the second is anger. Members are saying on blogs and social media, “This is not the church I grew up with, this is not the Joseph Smith I love,” Ms. Jensen said.

Smith probably did not have sexual relations with all of his wives, because some were “sealed” to him only for the next life, according to the essays posted by the church. But for his first wife, Emma, polygamy was “an excruciating ordeal.”

The four treatises on polygamy reflect a new resolve by a church long accused of secrecy to respond with openness to the kind of thorny historical and theological issues that are causing some to become disillusioned or even to abandon the faith.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is formally known, has quietly posted 12 essays on its website over the last year on contentious topics such as the ban on blacks in the priesthood, which was lifted in 1978, and accounts of how Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the church’s sacred scripture.

Elder Steven E. Snow, the church historian and a member of its senior leadership, said in an interview, “There is so much out there on the Internet that we felt we owed our members a safe place where they could go to get reliable, faith-promoting information that was true about some of these more difficult aspects of our history.

“We need to be truthful, and we need to understand our history,” Elder Snow said. “I believe our history is full of stories of faith and devotion and sacrifice, but these people weren’t perfect.”

The essay on “plural marriage” in the early days of the Mormon movement in Ohio and Illinois says polygamy was commanded by God, revealed to Smith and accepted by him and his followers only very reluctantly. Abraham and other Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives, and Smith preached that his church was the “restoration” of the early, true Christian church.

Most of Smith’s wives were between the ages of 20 and 40, the essay says, but he married Helen Mar Kimball, a daughter of two close friends, “several months before her 15th birthday.” A footnote says that according to “careful estimates,” Smith had 30 to 40 wives.

The biggest bombshell for some in the essays is that Smith married women who were already married, some to men who were Smith’s friends and followers.

The essays held nothing back, said Richard L. Bushman, emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and author of the book “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.”

Dr. Bushman said of church leaders: “Somewhere along the line they decided they were just going to tell the whole story, not to be defensive, not to try to hide anything. And there’s no single fact that’s more unsettling than Joseph Smith’s marriage to other men’s wives.

“It’s a recognition of maturity,” said Dr. Bushman, who is a Mormon. “There are lots of church leaders who say: ‘We can take anything, just let us know how it really happened. We’re a church that is secure.’ ”


The younger generation of Mormons will benefit from this step, said Samantha Shelley, co-founder of the website MillennialMormons.com in Provo, Utah.

She said she knew of Smith’s polygamous past, but “it’s so easy for people these days to stumble upon something on the Internet, and it rocks their world and they don’t know where to turn.”

In 1890, under pressure by the American government, the church issued a manifesto formally ending polygamy. The church’s essay on this phase admits that some members and even leaders did not abandon the practice for years.

But the church did renounce polygamy, and Mormons who refused to do the same eventually broke away and formed splinter churches, some that still exist. Warren Jeffs, the leader of one such group, was convicted in Texas in 2011 of child sexual assault.

There remains one way in which polygamy is still a part of Mormon belief: The church teaches that a man who was “sealed” in marriage to his wife in a temple ritual, then loses his wife to death or divorce, can be sealed to a second wife and would be married to both wives in the afterlife. However, women who have been divorced or widowed cannot be sealed to more than one man.

Kristine Haglund, the editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, said that while she found the church’s new transparency “really hopeful,” she and other women she had talked with were disturbed that the essays do not address the painful teaching about polygamy in eternity.

“These are real issues for Mormon women,” Ms. Haglund said. “And because the church has never said definitively that polygamy won’t be practiced in heaven, even very devout and quite conservative women are really troubled by it.”

The church historian, Elder Snow, said that the process of writing the essays began in May 2012. Each one was drafted by a scholar, often outside the church history department, then edited by church historians and leaders, and vetted by the church’s top authorities. They may issue one more essay, on women and the priesthood, an issue that has grown increasingly controversial as some Mormon women have mobilized to challenge the male-only priesthood.

The church has not publicly announced the posting of the essays, and many Mormons said in interviews that they were not even aware of them. They are not visible on the church’s home page; finding them requires a search or a link. Elder Snow said he anticipated that the contents would eventually be “woven into future curriculum” for adults and youths.

The church recently released an informational video about the distinctive Mormon underwear called “temple garments” — and it received far more attention among Mormons and in the news media than the essays on polygamy.

Sarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania, and a non-Mormon who has studied the Mormon Church, said it had dealt with transparency about its past before this, addressing Mormon leaders’ complicity in an attack on a wagon train crossing southern Utah in 1857, known as the Mountain Meadows massacre. But she said this recent emphasis on transparency by the church was both unprecedented and smart.

“What you want to do is get out ahead of the problem, and not have someone say, ‘Look at this damaging thing I found that you were trying to keep secret,’ ” she said.
Well they have to pin polygamy on Joseph.

It's a house of cards. The Church is true because it's an unbroken line of succession with one "true" prophet after another and the current "true" prophet will never led the Church astray. If the Church doesn't pin polygamy on Joseph it has real egg on it's face because BY polygamy IS well document and in his polygamy it IS well documented that he took other men's wives even while they were married; WHILE JS was still alive.

So if JS didn't preach polygamy than BY was an apostate b/c he was doing it while JS was alive. The Church has no choice but to pin it all on JS, otherwise the whole house of cards of "the prophet will never led you astray" collapses b/c if JS wasn't teaching polygamy BY was a massive adulterer, effectively a whoremonger.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 6:58 pm
by Serragon
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:47 pm
mahalanobis wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:37 pm They're pushing this stuff ad nauseum. Every Liahona/Ensign. Nonstop.

Possibilities:
* They have to fill a quota to qualify as a contestant in the upcoming UN Religion Pageant: The winner gets to be the one-world global religion in 2030. It's also the next big cable TV reality show!
* They're panicking about Millennials disengaging from the church, and this is their cringy campaign to persuade them to stay.
* This is their wink and a nod to the progMos. Between the lines they are saying "just wait until the Boomers die, and we promise we'll start doing gay sealings in the temple"
* They are preparing for a temple marriage "revelation" sooner rather than later, and this is the attempt to get everybody onboard before they drop the bomb.
But don't worry, I was just assured recently by several leaders in positions of power that the Church will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER allow homosexuals to "marry" or to at least be "sealed".

Yeah, your actions speak louder than your words guys.
It is coming.

With their current stance, there is no longer any rational or theological basis for not allowing it.

They are currently teach that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality itself, but the Lord will not currently allow marriage or sealings of same sex couples. Since they cannot be married, they are committing fornication in the same way an unmarried hetero couple would. It is only sinful because the Lord won't allow them to form a union, but there is nothing wrong with the act itself.

This is an untenable position. And when the policies inevitably change and same sex marriage is allowed, these folks will be treated as long-suffering heroes and true examples of Christian patience.

I hope I'm wrong, but I really can't see any other way this plays out.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 7:13 pm
by Fred
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:50 pm
tribrac wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:47 pm Just what is sinful?
Whatever the world tells you is bad.

That's all the Church is today, just modernity with religion wrapped around it.

CRT-check
BLM-check
LGBTQ+-check
Vax-check.

What the hell do I need a church for if it tells me to be exactly like the world?
So you have a place to spend the10% that you don't need.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:25 pm
by Aprhys
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:25 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways.
Joseph did nothing of the sort; all a bunch of lies from adulterers' like Brigham Young to gain acceptance for their wickedness among the members.

Not a single piece of contemporary evidence has ever surfaced about JS being a polygamist. With all the women he supposedly "married" you'd think there would be at least one contemporary journal entry, but there are none. They are all written decades after the fact.

Even the ones that are trotted out, when you dig and look at the actual sourcing, it is all a bunch of lies (sources rewritten, sources changed, documents written by known liars (like John C. Bennett), etc.). No shred of proof at all for Joseph actually doing what you claim.
So Oliver Cowdrys claim of "I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy scrape of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth on the matter." was a lie? It seems that anytime someone wrote something about Joes perversions they are lies. Right? So your telling me that Joe was commanded to institute polygamy by the "angel with a flaming sword," yet never participated in the practice? C'mon man. Really? That's like saying he restored the gospel but never really was that involved in it.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm
by Aprhys
Mamabear wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm I have to play devil's advocate here. I have a nephew who is gay. Flaming gay. You could tell this kid was gay when he was eight. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Now with that being said. He holds a temple recommend. He has never acted out on his physical desires. How is this any different than my son who is straight. Likes girls. Has also kept his physical desires within the appropriate bounds. Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways. So please tell me who is more worthy to enter the temple. A. Gay guy who lives the law of chastity B. Straight guy who lives the law of chastity or C. Sex fiend and perverted con man.
Ummmmmmm. How do I put this. If you hate Joseph and think he was a pervert how do you defend entering temples for various people? He’s the one who restored them. Also he was not a sex fiend. That is warped.
Well according to Oliver Cowdry he was a perv. He was there and witnessed J.S. actions.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:37 pm
by alurker
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:25 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:25 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways.
Joseph did nothing of the sort; all a bunch of lies from adulterers' like Brigham Young to gain acceptance for their wickedness among the members.

Not a single piece of contemporary evidence has ever surfaced about JS being a polygamist. With all the women he supposedly "married" you'd think there would be at least one contemporary journal entry, but there are none. They are all written decades after the fact.

Even the ones that are trotted out, when you dig and look at the actual sourcing, it is all a bunch of lies (sources rewritten, sources changed, documents written by known liars (like John C. Bennett), etc.). No shred of proof at all for Joseph actually doing what you claim.
So Oliver Cowdrys claim of "I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy scrape of his and Fanny Alger’s was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth on the matter." was a lie? It seems that anytime someone wrote something about Joes perversions they are lies. Right? So your telling me that Joe was commanded to institute polygamy by the "angel with a flaming sword," yet never participated in the practice? C'mon man. Really? That's like saying he restored the gospel but never really was that involved in it.
The flaming sword story was and is a lie. It didn't happen. It was "recorded" decades after it supposedly happened. Absolutely 0 contemporaneous evidence.

As far as Fanny Alger goes, it is just as likely that this scrape was an argument of some kind between Fanny and Emma and Joseph, nothing to do with sex but how she was maintaining the household. Oliver Cowdry also testified that JS did not engage in any improprieties too.

No, I'm saying Joseph was never commanded to institute polygamy and never did institute polygamy. I'm saying the Brigham Young (and a few others) were adulterers who back-filled everything they wanted onto Joseph.

Go look for the original sources, go look at the actual documents, go read the full transcripts. They don't say what the Church wants it to say about polygamy.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:38 pm
by Bronco73idi
Ever since 1890 when they made a covenant with death and hell, like Joseph F. Smith said after Wilford Woodruff signed.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
by alurker
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm
Mamabear wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm I have to play devil's advocate here. I have a nephew who is gay. Flaming gay. You could tell this kid was gay when he was eight. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Now with that being said. He holds a temple recommend. He has never acted out on his physical desires. How is this any different than my son who is straight. Likes girls. Has also kept his physical desires within the appropriate bounds. Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways. So please tell me who is more worthy to enter the temple. A. Gay guy who lives the law of chastity B. Straight guy who lives the law of chastity or C. Sex fiend and perverted con man.
Ummmmmmm. How do I put this. If you hate Joseph and think he was a pervert how do you defend entering temples for various people? He’s the one who restored them. Also he was not a sex fiend. That is warped.
Well according to Oliver Cowdry he was a perv. He was there and witnessed J.S. actions.
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:48 pm
by kirtland r.m.
Please pardon me for posting this on two different threads, but it oh so fits both of them.

The need to buttress faith in the restored Gospel through study and prayer is necessitated by a sustained history of both sectarian and secular attacks on LDS beliefs and practices. Those bent on destroying the faith of the Saints, or at least trying to morph their faith into something totally alien to the foundational tenets of Mormonism, have long been engaged in a crusade against Mormonism from both the pulpit and the press. Others have been subtler in their subterfuge, and have, like wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15), attempted to undermine the faith of the Saints “from within.”2  Their goal has been, and remains, to prove that the ground and content of LDS faith is untenable, outrageous, or even a dangerous deception.3 The goal of these critics is frequently to convince Church members to totally abandon Mormonism, or to radically remold Mormonism into a meaningless pastiche of moral relativism and benign atheism that denies the existence of God, divine nature and Atonement of Christ, and the historicity of the [Page 108]founding claims of Joseph Smith, including the First Vision, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and the restoration of priesthood.
Shaken Faith Syndrome and the Case for Faith
Stephen O. Smoot https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... for-faith/

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 8:52 pm
by alurker
kirtland r.m. wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:48 pm sustained history of both sectarian and secular attacks on LDS beliefs and practices.
If there hadn't been a power grab by conniving men after JS's death and a complete retrofitting of the history to fit the narrative of Brigham Young's whoredoms, than yeah the history would be a lot cleaner.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
by Aprhys
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm
Mamabear wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 5:54 pm I have to play devil's advocate here. I have a nephew who is gay. Flaming gay. You could tell this kid was gay when he was eight. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Now with that being said. He holds a temple recommend. He has never acted out on his physical desires. How is this any different than my son who is straight. Likes girls. Has also kept his physical desires within the appropriate bounds. Now let's look at the revered prophet J.S. Gets caught diddlin' all sorts of women who weren't his legal wives, makes up some b.s. about an angel with a flaming sword threatening to kill him if he didn't marry lots of women then cons many church members to follow his perverted ways. So please tell me who is more worthy to enter the temple. A. Gay guy who lives the law of chastity B. Straight guy who lives the law of chastity or C. Sex fiend and perverted con man.
Ummmmmmm. How do I put this. If you hate Joseph and think he was a pervert how do you defend entering temples for various people? He’s the one who restored them. Also he was not a sex fiend. That is warped.
Well according to Oliver Cowdry he was a perv. He was there and witnessed J.S. actions.
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 9:19 pm
by alurker
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm
Mamabear wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Ummmmmmm. How do I put this. If you hate Joseph and think he was a pervert how do you defend entering temples for various people? He’s the one who restored them. Also he was not a sex fiend. That is warped.
Well according to Oliver Cowdry he was a perv. He was there and witnessed J.S. actions.
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?
It's not history, it's a bunch of lies.

I've looked at the original source documents (whatever little exist) and found that there are no original documents about it with JS. It's all a bunch of lies. John C. Bennet said this, William Law said this, Brigham Young said this.

You won't find a single journal entry from any woman that Joseph Smith supposedly "married" from that time period. It doesn't exist.
For someone who supposedly married 33 women, you know at least one of them would have written in their journal "last night Joseph Smith proposed to me".

Doesn't exist. Have you read the original source documentation?

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 9:36 pm
by alurker
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm
Mamabear wrote: November 5th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Ummmmmmm. How do I put this. If you hate Joseph and think he was a pervert how do you defend entering temples for various people? He’s the one who restored them. Also he was not a sex fiend. That is warped.
Well according to Oliver Cowdry he was a perv. He was there and witnessed J.S. actions.
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?
Let's take Nancy Rigdon for example. Supposedly JS propositioned her (which is where the "design of our happiness" letter comes from). It really becomes a he said/she said where Bennet claims JS propositioned her-with the typewritten letter printed in a newspaper as proof (again no original source). Sidney later publishes a letter where he says he is authorized on behalf of Nancy to state categorically that JS did not do what the letter states. When you look at other people's journal's contemporary with the time, it appears that Nancy was running around with several men and the Joseph Smith had a talking to her about doing so. Bennet was attempting to gain favor with Nancy and she spurned him after JS talked to her (which is why it is written that he visited her at her house). Maybe JS wrote her a letter, maybe not, but whatever happened Bennet was a liar and a con-man and would have twisted whatever JS said or didn't say for his gain.

Let's look at William Law, William Law's wife wanted to be sealed to her husband; JS knew of WL affairs with other women (learned from Bennett) and denied the sealing. Law's wife then tells Joseph to seal her to him if she can't be sealed to her husband. Joseph Smith denies it and kicks WL out.

The actual sordid tale if you actually believe JS was practicing polygamy is the following: Emma was actually upset with Joseph marrying all these women and she told JS that if he could have a spiritual wife she could have a spiritual husband.

The part in DC 132:51 talking about "Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

Is actually in reference to this; that Emma requested or was required to give herself to another man as a spiritual wife; that other man was William Law. The spiritual wife that Joseph was to take was William Law's wife. Effectively a wife swapping.

According to William Law, he refused to wife swap with Joseph Smith (that is where JS taking WL's wife comes from) and DC 132:51 is written after this wife-swapping arrangement failed. Supposedly this whole wife-swapping sordid tale was written in William Law's Navoo Diary. Which you can find this Diary in the BYU's library-except there is one catch.

This "diary" is in type-written format; i.e. a typewritter copy. The original manuscript for this diary is in the possession of William Law's descendants who gave permission to a single man to transcribe the diary from manuscript to typewritter copy. . . except the original manuscript is not available to ensure the copy was written accurately.

However, if the copy IS written accurately and if the journal IS contempary, then that would be a very, very damning piece of evidence and one which IMO would sink Joseph Smith as a prophet during for that time-i.e. he would be a fallen one. Except again, no original manuscript and that manuscript is being kept hidden away by the family. Awfully convenient for something which would absolutely destroy JS.

And this wife-swapping tale was not unknown in the 1870s, one of BY's wives wrote a book Wife #19, where she wrote about this sordid story, she is the one who mentions that DC 132:51 is referring to this wife swapping arraignment-IIRC. She is very adamant that JS practiced polygamy and all sorts of horrible things----except her parents didn't practice polygamy until BY told them them must and she was born after JS died.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 10:27 pm
by Aprhys
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:36 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:27 pm

Well according to Oliver Cowdry he was a perv. He was there and witnessed J.S. actions.
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?
Let's take Nancy Rigdon for example. Supposedly JS propositioned her (which is where the "design of our happiness" letter comes from). It really becomes a he said/she said where Bennet claims JS propositioned her-with the typewritten letter printed in a newspaper as proof (again no original source). Sidney later publishes a letter where he says he is authorized on behalf of Nancy to state categorically that JS did not do what the letter states. When you look at other people's journal's contemporary with the time, it appears that Nancy was running around with several men and the Joseph Smith had a talking to her about doing so. Bennet was attempting to gain favor with Nancy and she spurned him after JS talked to her (which is why it is written that he visited her at her house). Maybe JS wrote her a letter, maybe not, but whatever happened Bennet was a liar and a con-man and would have twisted whatever JS said or didn't say for his gain.

Let's look at William Law, William Law's wife wanted to be sealed to her husband; JS knew of WL affairs with other women (learned from Bennett) and denied the sealing. Law's wife then tells Joseph to seal her to him if she can't be sealed to her husband. Joseph Smith denies it and kicks WL out.

The actual sordid tale if you actually believe JS was practicing polygamy is the following: Emma was actually upset with Joseph marrying all these women and she told JS that if he could have a spiritual wife she could have a spiritual husband.

The part in DC 132:51 talking about "Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

Is actually in reference to this; that Emma requested or was required to give herself to another man as a spiritual wife; that other man was William Law. The spiritual wife that Joseph was to take was William Law's wife. Effectively a wife swapping.

According to William Law, he refused to wife swap with Joseph Smith (that is where JS taking WL's wife comes from) and DC 132:51 is written after this wife-swapping arrangement failed. Supposedly this whole wife-swapping sordid tale was written in William Law's Navoo Diary. Which you can find this Diary in the BYU's library-except there is one catch.

This "diary" is in type-written format; i.e. a typewritter copy. The original manuscript for this diary is in the possession of William Law's descendants who gave permission to a single man to transcribe the diary from manuscript to typewritter copy. . . except the original manuscript is not available to ensure the copy was written accurately.

However, if the copy IS written accurately and if the journal IS contempary, then that would be a very, very damning piece of evidence and one which IMO would sink Joseph Smith as a prophet during for that time-i.e. he would be a fallen one. Except again, no original manuscript and that manuscript is being kept hidden away by the family. Awfully convenient for something which would absolutely destroy JS.

And this wife-swapping tale was not unknown in the 1870s, one of BY's wives wrote a book Wife #19, where she wrote about this sordid story, she is the one who mentions that DC 132:51 is referring to this wife swapping arraignment-IIRC. She is very adamant that JS practiced polygamy and all sorts of horrible things----except her parents didn't practice polygamy until BY told them them must and she was born after JS died.
Back to the original question I posed to you. We can argue about JS until the end of time. No one can say for sure he was a polyg or if he practiced any immorality since neither of us was there. You can find quote for both sides. I could argue that religious leaders through the ages have done vulgar things and their followers have kept the secrets. Look at the FLDS. The members continue to deny the charges against Jeff's despite the evidence. So here's my questions. Do you believe that a gay man or woman who lives well within the parameters of the law of chastity is unworthy to enter the temple? Are they less worthy than a straight man of woman who also keeps the law of chastity? Are they worse than a straight LDS individual who violates the law of chastity?

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 5th, 2021, 11:12 pm
by farmerchick
This always comes back to polygamy which we as mainstream lds people do not practice at this time in mortality...smh....polygamy existed and now it's not suppose to within the mainstream church. I could care less about the plurality of wives in pioneer times or now for that matter....not my cup of tea ...watch sisterwives to see how grand it is in practice.....and be glad it's not required now........whether it was approved by the Lord is not my problem......the problem I have is that teenage girls or unmarried women who perhaps perpetrated unchaste situations or not, who become pregnant or not, are vilified at the ward level beyond description, disciplined and sometimes ostracized and that's all good. I'm personally sick of it.....if gays can have those desires but not act upon it and it's all good, quit treating hetero sexual(normal) transgression as the worst thing ever. It's disgusting...next we will allow pedophiles and those who want to practice beastiality or cannibalism but don't (although it's their nature ) to also be all good as long as they don't act on it?... If that's ok than your husband who may be the bishop continually comments on the hot chicks in the ward as long as he doesn't act on it and that's going to be good?? Or a married sister who goes to the gym 5 days a week to lust after the gym rats and then write blogs about it? Ummm I don't think that's going to fly and if it does it shouldn't.....but gays somehow have super powers to put their sexuality on blast but don't engage and that's cool.....hypocrites....not OK.....chaste thoughts don't include deviant thoughts/behavior and are not becoming of someone with a temple recommend......equality not equity.....no matter who you are....if the bretheren still want to preach that hetero sexual sin without marriage is next to murder then stop coddling homosexuals who want to talk incessantly about their sexuality to anyone who will listen.....but just don't act on it....please....sickening IMHO...as A man thinketh he is.....and to the gays who quietly endure without public broadcast and just go about living the gospel bearing your own personal cross, more power to you.....nothing wrong with that.....we don't need to embrace homosexuality...we teach the ideal and then hope for the best hetero sexual behavior within the bounds of marriage and when transgressions happen according to their nature all should be treated the same.....no extra high fives for being queer and screaming about it on every social network out there....or teaching the ward members about understanding and tolerance for people who want to mutilate their bodies, project a gender to the public that they are not or enjoy lustful behavior with the same sex......and want to tell you about it at church....this is insanity in action....

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 6th, 2021, 2:00 am
by Peeps
There is homosexual Manifesto that was read into the Congressional record. This website reports:
http://www.blessedcause.org/protest/Gay%20Manifesto.htm

"Michael Swift's Gay Manifesto was first published in February 1987 and was titled "Gay Revolutionary." It was reprinted in the Congressional Record without the opening line describing it as an "eruption of inner rage on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

The opening line is included below. The rest is public record. Knowing that this is a "desperate dream" and printed in one of the largest homosexual publishing circulations in 1987, hardly supports the defense that this is a satire, especially when one considers how much has come to pass since it was published."

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry @#$%@!, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.


So I do not take this as a "joke" as the San Francisco choir said it was.
Pastor Stephen Darby predicted this.
Revelation 22:20 - He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 6th, 2021, 7:14 am
by alurker
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 10:27 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:36 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?
Let's take Nancy Rigdon for example. Supposedly JS propositioned her (which is where the "design of our happiness" letter comes from). It really becomes a he said/she said where Bennet claims JS propositioned her-with the typewritten letter printed in a newspaper as proof (again no original source). Sidney later publishes a letter where he says he is authorized on behalf of Nancy to state categorically that JS did not do what the letter states. When you look at other people's journal's contemporary with the time, it appears that Nancy was running around with several men and the Joseph Smith had a talking to her about doing so. Bennet was attempting to gain favor with Nancy and she spurned him after JS talked to her (which is why it is written that he visited her at her house). Maybe JS wrote her a letter, maybe not, but whatever happened Bennet was a liar and a con-man and would have twisted whatever JS said or didn't say for his gain.

Let's look at William Law, William Law's wife wanted to be sealed to her husband; JS knew of WL affairs with other women (learned from Bennett) and denied the sealing. Law's wife then tells Joseph to seal her to him if she can't be sealed to her husband. Joseph Smith denies it and kicks WL out.

The actual sordid tale if you actually believe JS was practicing polygamy is the following: Emma was actually upset with Joseph marrying all these women and she told JS that if he could have a spiritual wife she could have a spiritual husband.

The part in DC 132:51 talking about "Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

Is actually in reference to this; that Emma requested or was required to give herself to another man as a spiritual wife; that other man was William Law. The spiritual wife that Joseph was to take was William Law's wife. Effectively a wife swapping.

According to William Law, he refused to wife swap with Joseph Smith (that is where JS taking WL's wife comes from) and DC 132:51 is written after this wife-swapping arrangement failed. Supposedly this whole wife-swapping sordid tale was written in William Law's Navoo Diary. Which you can find this Diary in the BYU's library-except there is one catch.

This "diary" is in type-written format; i.e. a typewritter copy. The original manuscript for this diary is in the possession of William Law's descendants who gave permission to a single man to transcribe the diary from manuscript to typewritter copy. . . except the original manuscript is not available to ensure the copy was written accurately.

However, if the copy IS written accurately and if the journal IS contempary, then that would be a very, very damning piece of evidence and one which IMO would sink Joseph Smith as a prophet during for that time-i.e. he would be a fallen one. Except again, no original manuscript and that manuscript is being kept hidden away by the family. Awfully convenient for something which would absolutely destroy JS.

And this wife-swapping tale was not unknown in the 1870s, one of BY's wives wrote a book Wife #19, where she wrote about this sordid story, she is the one who mentions that DC 132:51 is referring to this wife swapping arraignment-IIRC. She is very adamant that JS practiced polygamy and all sorts of horrible things----except her parents didn't practice polygamy until BY told them them must and she was born after JS died.
Back to the original question I posed to you. We can argue about JS until the end of time. No one can say for sure he was a polyg or if he practiced any immorality since neither of us was there. You can find quote for both sides. I could argue that religious leaders through the ages have done vulgar things and their followers have kept the secrets. Look at the FLDS. The members continue to deny the charges against Jeff's despite the evidence. So here's my questions. Do you believe that a gay man or woman who lives well within the parameters of the law of chastity is unworthy to enter the temple? Are they less worthy than a straight man of woman who also keeps the law of chastity? Are they worse than a straight LDS individual who violates the law of chastity?
"We can argue about JS until the end of time."

In other words when presented with overwhelming evidence that the stories you believe about JS and polygamy were promoted by the most wretched of proven liars (people who say one thing and then another-i.e. are you lying to me then or now or both??), you fall back to "we can argue about it"

In other words you fail. You fail to prove convincingly that JS practiced polygamy nor had anything to do with it.

Another brick in the wall that most people don't think about with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Emma Smith. What did BY do with all the women JS supposedly "married"; BY actually did marry them. So what do you think BY would have done with ES?

What happens when the old pride lion/king is dead and the new lion/king takes over; he takes the old kings wife(wives) to establish legitimacy. BY could not have allowed ES to remained widowed to JS; he would have had to married her to help establish legitimacy. If BY is ruling and ES is single but with the body of the Saints, plenty of people would have gone to Emma and said, BY says this and didn't JS say this and who is right? It would have created a power division and BY couldn't have had that at all! However, if ES was BY wife, then that solves the problem.

ES didn't go west b/c she wasn't about to marry BY and partake of his whoredoms.

BY was a power hungry man and very good at it too. Did you realize that the Navoo Stake President (William Marks, one of the more religiously powerful men in the Church) voted against BY? Shortly after BY held the vote he took the Quorum of the 70, which was 1 quorum with 7 presidents and 63 men and split that quorum into 9 quorum and took all the men in the 1st quorum and dispersed them as the 7 presidents of each of the other quorums. He then took all the High Priests, Elders, etc. in Navoo and called them into the quorums of the 70, i.e. 567 men called into the 70s. He evicerated the Stake High Councils. He then had William Marks brought up on charges of apostasy for no voting for him; the SHC barely decided not to excommunicate him but he was removed from being SP and has BY put it was "whittled and whistled" out of town (i.e. railroaded out of Nauvoo).

Within several months of the vote BY had consolidated power and created loyalty to him. He created loyalty by taking those men who voted for him who were Elders, High Priests, etc. and put them into the 70s-which was seen as a higher position than an Elder.

This horrific power play was finally corrected 120 years later when they did away with the quorums of the 70s (i.e. the traveling 70s) and put the 70s back where they belong. And you will find that today with 16 million members none of the quorum of the 70s at the top are actually filled.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 6th, 2021, 7:16 am
by alurker
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 10:27 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:36 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 8:42 pm
Except he testified that Joseph Smith did not have any sexual relations with Fanny Alger. So you're going to have to find another explanation for what OC meant when he called it a dirty, filthy, scrape.

http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/scrape
http://www.webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affair

"scrape" and "affair" did not in 1828 mean anything sexual. It actually meant a business problem. Fanny was hired as a helper, it's easy to see she was not doing a good job and Joseph had some words with her, probably very harsh words (a nasty, filthy scrape).

Seriously, according to those who promote this idea, Emma must have been the most docile, idiotic, doormat of a woman. You realize that Emma kept multiple young women around in the house all the time for help (especially when their homes were used as hostel/hotels). So Emma "burnt the letter", yet she also knew of Josephs escapades (by Fanny) and yet she still had young women around to help her out?

Emma must have been one really, really dumb woman.
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?
Let's take Nancy Rigdon for example. Supposedly JS propositioned her (which is where the "design of our happiness" letter comes from). It really becomes a he said/she said where Bennet claims JS propositioned her-with the typewritten letter printed in a newspaper as proof (again no original source). Sidney later publishes a letter where he says he is authorized on behalf of Nancy to state categorically that JS did not do what the letter states. When you look at other people's journal's contemporary with the time, it appears that Nancy was running around with several men and the Joseph Smith had a talking to her about doing so. Bennet was attempting to gain favor with Nancy and she spurned him after JS talked to her (which is why it is written that he visited her at her house). Maybe JS wrote her a letter, maybe not, but whatever happened Bennet was a liar and a con-man and would have twisted whatever JS said or didn't say for his gain.

Let's look at William Law, William Law's wife wanted to be sealed to her husband; JS knew of WL affairs with other women (learned from Bennett) and denied the sealing. Law's wife then tells Joseph to seal her to him if she can't be sealed to her husband. Joseph Smith denies it and kicks WL out.

The actual sordid tale if you actually believe JS was practicing polygamy is the following: Emma was actually upset with Joseph marrying all these women and she told JS that if he could have a spiritual wife she could have a spiritual husband.

The part in DC 132:51 talking about "Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

Is actually in reference to this; that Emma requested or was required to give herself to another man as a spiritual wife; that other man was William Law. The spiritual wife that Joseph was to take was William Law's wife. Effectively a wife swapping.

According to William Law, he refused to wife swap with Joseph Smith (that is where JS taking WL's wife comes from) and DC 132:51 is written after this wife-swapping arrangement failed. Supposedly this whole wife-swapping sordid tale was written in William Law's Navoo Diary. Which you can find this Diary in the BYU's library-except there is one catch.

This "diary" is in type-written format; i.e. a typewritter copy. The original manuscript for this diary is in the possession of William Law's descendants who gave permission to a single man to transcribe the diary from manuscript to typewritter copy. . . except the original manuscript is not available to ensure the copy was written accurately.

However, if the copy IS written accurately and if the journal IS contempary, then that would be a very, very damning piece of evidence and one which IMO would sink Joseph Smith as a prophet during for that time-i.e. he would be a fallen one. Except again, no original manuscript and that manuscript is being kept hidden away by the family. Awfully convenient for something which would absolutely destroy JS.

And this wife-swapping tale was not unknown in the 1870s, one of BY's wives wrote a book Wife #19, where she wrote about this sordid story, she is the one who mentions that DC 132:51 is referring to this wife swapping arraignment-IIRC. She is very adamant that JS practiced polygamy and all sorts of horrible things----except her parents didn't practice polygamy until BY told them them must and she was born after JS died.
Do you believe that a gay man or woman who lives well within the parameters of the law of chastity is unworthy to enter the temple? Are they less worthy than a straight man of woman who also keeps the law of chastity? Are they worse than a straight LDS individual who violates the law of chastity?
Do you believe that a pedophilic or bestalic man or woman who lives well within the parameters of the law of chastity is unworthy to enter the temple?
Are they less worthy than a straight man of woman who also keeps the law of chastity?
Are they worse than a straight LDS individual who violates the law of chastity?

Do you believe that a man or woman who openly proclaims and identifies that they have sexual attraction to children or to animals is worthy to enter the temple?

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 6th, 2021, 8:20 am
by Aprhys
alurker wrote: November 6th, 2021, 7:16 am
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 10:27 pm
alurker wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:36 pm
Aprhys wrote: November 5th, 2021, 9:11 pm
So your denying the history that Joe had wives as young as 14?
Let's take Nancy Rigdon for example. Supposedly JS propositioned her (which is where the "design of our happiness" letter comes from). It really becomes a he said/she said where Bennet claims JS propositioned her-with the typewritten letter printed in a newspaper as proof (again no original source). Sidney later publishes a letter where he says he is authorized on behalf of Nancy to state categorically that JS did not do what the letter states. When you look at other people's journal's contemporary with the time, it appears that Nancy was running around with several men and the Joseph Smith had a talking to her about doing so. Bennet was attempting to gain favor with Nancy and she spurned him after JS talked to her (which is why it is written that he visited her at her house). Maybe JS wrote her a letter, maybe not, but whatever happened Bennet was a liar and a con-man and would have twisted whatever JS said or didn't say for his gain.

Let's look at William Law, William Law's wife wanted to be sealed to her husband; JS knew of WL affairs with other women (learned from Bennett) and denied the sealing. Law's wife then tells Joseph to seal her to him if she can't be sealed to her husband. Joseph Smith denies it and kicks WL out.

The actual sordid tale if you actually believe JS was practicing polygamy is the following: Emma was actually upset with Joseph marrying all these women and she told JS that if he could have a spiritual wife she could have a spiritual husband.

The part in DC 132:51 talking about "Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice."

Is actually in reference to this; that Emma requested or was required to give herself to another man as a spiritual wife; that other man was William Law. The spiritual wife that Joseph was to take was William Law's wife. Effectively a wife swapping.

According to William Law, he refused to wife swap with Joseph Smith (that is where JS taking WL's wife comes from) and DC 132:51 is written after this wife-swapping arrangement failed. Supposedly this whole wife-swapping sordid tale was written in William Law's Navoo Diary. Which you can find this Diary in the BYU's library-except there is one catch.

This "diary" is in type-written format; i.e. a typewritter copy. The original manuscript for this diary is in the possession of William Law's descendants who gave permission to a single man to transcribe the diary from manuscript to typewritter copy. . . except the original manuscript is not available to ensure the copy was written accurately.

However, if the copy IS written accurately and if the journal IS contempary, then that would be a very, very damning piece of evidence and one which IMO would sink Joseph Smith as a prophet during for that time-i.e. he would be a fallen one. Except again, no original manuscript and that manuscript is being kept hidden away by the family. Awfully convenient for something which would absolutely destroy JS.

And this wife-swapping tale was not unknown in the 1870s, one of BY's wives wrote a book Wife #19, where she wrote about this sordid story, she is the one who mentions that DC 132:51 is referring to this wife swapping arraignment-IIRC. She is very adamant that JS practiced polygamy and all sorts of horrible things----except her parents didn't practice polygamy until BY told them them must and she was born after JS died.
Do you believe that a gay man or woman who lives well within the parameters of the law of chastity is unworthy to enter the temple? Are they less worthy than a straight man of woman who also keeps the law of chastity? Are they worse than a straight LDS individual who violates the law of chastity?
Do you believe that a pedophilic or bestalic man or woman who lives well within the parameters of the law of chastity is unworthy to enter the temple?
Are they less worthy than a straight man of woman who also keeps the law of chastity?
Are they worse than a straight LDS individual who violates the law of chastity?

Do you believe that a man or woman who openly proclaims and identifies that they have sexual attraction to children or to animals is worthy to enter the temple?
So your deflecting rather than answering.

Re: The Church of Liar Day Saints

Posted: November 6th, 2021, 8:40 am
by Aprhys
And to answer your question, I believe all people who want to follow the Savior and participate in the ordinances thereof are worthy to enter the temple if they repent. Are you perfect? Am I? Is anyone? We all make mistakes. We all have things we are dealing with. I spent 13 months and three days in the Reidsville, GA state prison for bashing a guy with a two-foot piece of rebar when I was younger. Got out. Changed my life. Spent a year applying for a waiver and joined the military. Got a degree, a wife and four kids. Should I be denied entering the temple for hatreds I used to have? If anything you are the one who should be denied entering the temple. You have hatreds and bigotries in your heart and you openly embrace them rather than trying to defeat them. If someone has abnormalities in their minds but they control them, don't ever act of them and do their best to overcome them then YES, those are the exact people the Savior wants in his temple.