Post Mos vs. TBM - Physically at war?

[silverfox]

According to a current issue of the Ensign, Hinckley feels the church is being attacked. No doubt some of the reference is toward Post Mormons who are willing to talk about and expose the truth.

I believe this will be the new defense that will be used by the church to persuade TBMs to comply...to weed out the unloyal members.

My son made a comment a while back that didn't really hit me until now.

He is not TBM at all but ponders a lot on different scenarios and his old Mo upbringing lingers.

He asked how I would feel if my TBM daughter and her husband had to "fight" against me, an ex Mormon. Or yet hubby against me. He still cannot admit the church isn't true. He strongly feels 'the gospel' is true. He has issues with the church but that's it.

Interesting. As a TBM I always felt that I would have to one day physically fight for the church. That TBMs would be at war. I recall being asked if I would be valiant enough to be killed rather than say the church was not true. I always wondered why anyone would care if I thought a church was true or not?

What's your take on all these wars that are supposed to happen? I recall something about blood flowing through the streets of Salt Lake.

[miss taken]

According to a current issue of the Ensign, Hinckley feels the church is being attacked. No doubt some of the reference is toward Post Mormons who are willing to talk about and expose the truth.

I believe this will be the new defense that will be used by the church to persuade TBMs to comply...to weed out the unloyal members.

My son made a comment a while back that didn't really hit me until now.

He is not TBM at all but ponders a lot on different scenarios and his old Mo upbringing lingers.

He asked how I would feel if my TBM daughter and her husband had to "fight" against me, an ex Mormon. Or yet hubby against me. He still cannot admit the church isn't true. He strongly feels 'the gospel' is true. He has issues with the church but that's it.

Interesting. As a TBM I always felt that I would have to one day physically fight for the church. That TBMs would be at war. I recall being asked if I would be valiant enough to be killed rather than say the church was not true. I always wondered why anyone would care if I thought a church was true or not?

What's your take on all these wars that are supposed to happen? I recall something about blood flowing through the streets of Salt Lake.

Don't know about blood flowing through SLC, but what scared me most about the 'twin towers' was the absolute religious devotion that the group who killed themselves had. They were devout, devout, devout. They utterly thought that God was on their side. And as a former mormon, I feel I know what religious extremism can do. Remember mormons are told to follow the prophet, it doesn't take a big jump, as JS showed to indicate that people will do almost anything if they think and are being told they are justified by God.
Scary.
Mary

[Jeff_Ricks]

According to a current issue of the Ensign, Hinckley feels the church is being attacked. No doubt some of the reference is toward Post Mormons who are willing to talk about and expose the truth.

Of course it has nothing to do with being attacked. It's just the chickens coming home to roost. About all they can do is to whine about being picked on by the bad guys. But as I see it, they can paint post Mormons as bad guys and whine and kick up a fuss but can't do much more than that. If they try to then they only bring on more bad publicity. As I see it the Church is between a rock and a hard place. They can't do much more than whine and complain. Meanwhile, one by one more and more chickens keep flying home. There seems to be a steady flow of new books being published that the Church would rather not see the light of day. I say, cool! :D Serves 'em right.

I've been having fun with the letters to the editor in Logan. Last fall I and some others helped to keep the DNA issue a hot topic in the papers. I found that if I use just a touch of sarcasm when I write it really brings out the responses, which of course creates more opportunities to respond, keeping an issue going. Native American DNA was almost a daily issue in the papers for over three months. In one letter I was a little too sarcastic causing the manager of the restaurant where our post-Mormon group meets to call me and tell me that two Mormons called a day or two after that letter was published and said they would boycott the place if they kept serving to our group. It was implied that we should find another place to meet so after talking it over we decided we would. But one of our group members wrote to the head office and mentioned something about religious discrimination. I don't know exactly what happened after that but within days the local manager called me back and wanted me to meet with he and the regional manager. They bought me lunch. Long story short, now the restaurant treats us like kings! The local manger now even likes to sit with us and join the conversation when he has free time. He’s a jack Mormon – even went on a mission.

Back to the letters to the editor. A week ago someone published a letter in response to a letter I wrote last fall during the great DNA debate, so I have to respond. I’ll be sending it in today. The premise of his letter is that it should be no surprise that there’s no Hebrew DNA in Native Americans. It’s all been diluted out! For what it’s worth, here is my response. I wish there was space to say more but we're limited to 450 words. My letter is 447 words:

I want to thank Jesse Griffiths for his letter on March 27 because it’s given me an opportunity to again put the facts on the table about DNA, the Book of Mormon, and the Mormon Church (I almost never write when it’s not in response to someone else’s letter). It appears that Jesse, along with the Church’s best apologists, are finally coming around to accepting what the facts have been saying for years – that there is no detectable Israelite DNA in Native Americans. REGARDLESS OF THE REASON this conclusion creates a significant problem for the Mormon Church because it contradicts statements made by virtually every Mormon prophet, beginning with Joseph Smith. Consider the following sampling of many such statements made over the years:

- Book of Mormon itself states on its introductory page that Lehi and his family, who are direct descendents of Israel, “are the PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS.” Even the Mormon Church’s most loyal scholars are now admitting that the above statement is DEAD WRONG!

- Spencer Kimball stated, “With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi…LEHI AND HIS FAMILY BECAME THE ANCESTORS OF ALL INDIAN AND MESTIZO TRIBES IN NORTH AND SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA.” (Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign 1 (July 1971): 7-10.) DNA samples collected from Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America shows that Kimball’s claim is DEAD WRONG!

- Gordon Hinckley, made the following remark during the dedication of a temple in Guayaquil, Ecuador: “[I]t has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the temple. So very many of these PEOPLE HAVE THE BLOOD OF LEHI IN THEIR VEINS...” (GORDON B. HINCKLEY, Church News, August 7, 1999) DNA samples collected from the native population of Ecuador and surrounding regions shows that Hinckley’s claim is DEAD WRONG!

- The Doctrine and Covenants, authored by Joseph Smith, states: “And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the LAND OF MISSOURI, unto THE BORDERS OF THE LAMANITES.” (D&C 54:8) DNA testing shows that never were any Lamanites (who Joseph said are descendants of Israel) in Missouri. In this and many other similar statements even Joseph Smith is DEAD WRONG!

Even the Church’s best, most loyal scholars are, one by one, finally admitting that Asians, not Israelites, are the principle ancestors of the American Indians. It’s only a matter of time before they also have to admit that the Mormon Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, can’t be prophets. In fact, it would appear that they’re not even very good guessers.

J. D. Ricks
Logan, Utah

[formermormon]

I vaguely remember something about Salt Lake becoming the most wicked city on the earth. I don't know where that was coming from.

As to the 9/11 fanaticism - yeah, the grandwork is there.

[miss taken]

Silverfox, I did a google and tried to find the article by President Hinkley. I couldn't find it.

Who is the church being attacked by? Did he mention that at all.

Personally, I have no wish to attack the church, or discourage any one from being in it, particularly if it leads them to be a better person, but I do wish to defend my position as to why I feel I can no longer be active LDS and talk about how I felt while I was in it - the good stuff, and the stuff that bothered me and which I couldn't work out, surely that is my right as a free citizen.

Mary

[noodle]

Of course it has nothing to do with being attacked. It's just the chickens coming home to roost. About all they can do is to whine about being picked on by the bad guys. But as I see it, they can paint post Mormons as bad guys and whine and kick up a fuss but can't do much more than that. If they try to then they only bring on more bad publicity. As I see it the Church is between a rock and a hard place. They can't do much more than whine and complain. Meanwhile, one by one more and more chickens keep flying home. There seems to be a steady flow of new books being published that the Church would rather not see the light of day. I say, cool! :D Serves 'em right.

I've been having fun with the letters to the editor in Logan. Last fall I and some others helped to keep the DNA issue a hot topic in the papers. I found that if I use just a touch of sarcasm when I write it really brings out the responses, which of course creates more opportunities to respond, keeping an issue going. Native American DNA was almost a daily issue in the papers for over three months. In one letter I was a little too sarcastic causing the manager of the restaurant where our post-Mormon group meets to call me and tell me that two Mormons called a day or two after that letter was published and said they would boycott the place if they kept serving to our group. It was implied that we should find another place to meet so after talking it over we decided we would. But one of our group members wrote to the head office and mentioned something about religious discrimination. I don't know exactly what happened after that but within days the local manager called me back and wanted me to meet with he and the regional manager. They bought me lunch. Long story short, now the restaurant treats us like kings! The local manger now even likes to sit with us and join the conversation when he has free time. He’s a jack Mormon – even went on a mission.

Back to the letters to the editor. A week ago someone published a letter in response to a letter I wrote last fall during the great DNA debate, so I have to respond. I’ll be sending it in today. The premise of his letter is that it should be no surprise that there’s no Hebrew DNA in Native Americans. It’s all been diluted out! For what it’s worth, here is my response. I wish there was space to say more but we're limited to 450 words. My letter is 447 words:

I want to thank Jesse Griffiths for his letter on March 27 because it’s given me an opportunity to again put the facts on the table about DNA, the Book of Mormon, and the Mormon Church (I almost never write when it’s not in response to someone else’s letter). It appears that Jesse, along with the Church’s best apologists, are finally coming around to accepting what the facts have been saying for years – that there is no detectable Israelite DNA in Native Americans. REGARDLESS OF THE REASON this conclusion creates a significant problem for the Mormon Church because it contradicts statements made by virtually every Mormon prophet, beginning with Joseph Smith. Consider the following sampling of many such statements made over the years:

- Book of Mormon itself states on its introductory page that Lehi and his family, who are direct descendents of Israel, “are the PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS.” Even the Mormon Church’s most loyal scholars are now admitting that the above statement is DEAD WRONG!

- Spencer Kimball stated, “With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi…LEHI AND HIS FAMILY BECAME THE ANCESTORS OF ALL INDIAN AND MESTIZO TRIBES IN NORTH AND SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA.” (Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign 1 (July 1971): 7-10.) DNA samples collected from Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America shows that Kimball’s claim is DEAD WRONG!

- Gordon Hinckley, made the following remark during the dedication of a temple in Guayaquil, Ecuador: “[I]t has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the temple. So very many of these PEOPLE HAVE THE BLOOD OF LEHI IN THEIR VEINS...” (GORDON B. HINCKLEY, Church News, August 7, 1999) DNA samples collected from the native population of Ecuador and surrounding regions shows that Hinckley’s claim is DEAD WRONG!

- The Doctrine and Covenants, authored by Joseph Smith, states: “And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the LAND OF MISSOURI, unto THE BORDERS OF THE LAMANITES.” (D&C 54:8) DNA testing shows that never were any Lamanites (who Joseph said are descendants of Israel) in Missouri. In this and many other similar statements even Joseph Smith is DEAD WRONG!

Even the Church’s best, most loyal scholars are, one by one, finally admitting that Asians, not Israelites, are the principle ancestors of the American Indians. It’s only a matter of time before they also have to admit that the Mormon Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, can’t be prophets. In fact, it would appear that they’re not even very good guessers.

J. D. Ricks
Logan, Utah
Jeff, can't wait to see this in print and the responses attempting to "debunk" it. I'll have to admit that I always enjoy reading your letters to the editor, but can hardly stomach :Puking (and often don't) the typical responses. Have you forgotten that god changes DNA?! Jeeeeezzzz....

mamajama

[SoUtSkeptic]

According to a current issue of the Ensign, Hinckley feels the church is being attacked. No doubt some of the reference is toward Post Mormons who are willing to talk about and expose the truth.

I believe this will be the new defense that will be used by the church to persuade TBMs to comply...to weed out the unloyal members.

My son made a comment a while back that didn't really hit me until now.

He is not TBM at all but ponders a lot on different scenarios and his old Mo upbringing lingers.

He asked how I would feel if my TBM daughter and her husband had to "fight" against me, an ex Mormon. Or yet hubby against me. He still cannot admit the church isn't true. He strongly feels 'the gospel' is true. He has issues with the church but that's it.

Interesting. As a TBM I always felt that I would have to one day physically fight for the church. That TBMs would be at war. I recall being asked if I would be valiant enough to be killed rather than say the church was not true. I always wondered why anyone would care if I thought a church was true or not?

What's your take on all these wars that are supposed to happen? I recall something about blood flowing through the streets of Salt Lake.
---------------------------------------------------
TBM wife tells me it will get so bad in the last days the church members will have to hold services in there homes. I guess she expects her PostMo husband to really make it tuff on her.

SoUtSkeptic :rolleyes:

[Born Free]

According to a current issue of the Ensign, Hinckley feels the church is being attacked. No doubt some of the reference is toward Post Mormons who are willing to talk about and expose the truth.

I believe this will be the new defense that will be used by the church to persuade TBMs to comply...to weed out the unloyal members.

My son made a comment a while back that didn't really hit me until now.

He is not TBM at all but ponders a lot on different scenarios and his old Mo upbringing lingers.

He asked how I would feel if my TBM daughter and her husband had to "fight" against me, an ex Mormon. Or yet hubby against me. He still cannot admit the church isn't true. He strongly feels 'the gospel' is true. He has issues with the church but that's it.

Interesting. As a TBM I always felt that I would have to one day physically fight for the church. That TBMs would be at war. I recall being asked if I would be valiant enough to be killed rather than say the church was not true. I always wondered why anyone would care if I thought a church was true or not?

What's your take on all these wars that are supposed to happen? I recall something about blood flowing through the streets of Salt Lake.

Have you ever looked at the history/pedigree of Judeo/Christian Apocolyptic thinking?

From what I have read, it goes all the way back to when the Old Testament was first written down, in Babylon, when Israel had been taken into captivity.

I recall one doco on SBS, probably a PBS internationally funded program, that really assisted me to get into the particular head space the Jews were in then and have revisited several times since.

They had been telling themselves they are God's Chosen People (have they ever stopped?), BUT they had just had their arses whopped in war, and been taken off captives into a civilisation, the likes of which they had never imagined. Remember this was teh world first city state.

Now that is likely to screw with your head, and need some serious explaining away. So how is that done? It goes something like this:

"This is just a trial to refine us, and for those of us who pass this test will be ready when God will come down and seriously fixes up these Gentiles/Babylonians, and really punishes them for what they have done to us.

And then we will be proven superiour! So there".

Sound familiar? And that exact same process has gone on for thousands of years, reused in the same pathetic way to salve the ego of the underclass, and keep them in line and subservient to their power elite.

And guess what?

God has never turned up yet to whop arse! Not once.

This is the oldest lie 'leaders' can offer their powerless followers. "You are special. They are stupid/bad/evil/Gentiles, and our God is coming to wreak retribution" Ho, hum!

Daryl

[silverfox]

Silverfox, I did a google and tried to find the article by President Hinkley. I couldn't find it.

Who is the church being attacked by? Did he mention that at all.

Personally, I have no wish to attack the church, or discourage any one from being in it, particularly if it leads them to be a better person, but I do wish to defend my position as to why I feel I can no longer be active LDS and talk about how I felt while I was in it - the good stuff, and the stuff that bothered me and which I couldn't work out, surely that is my right as a free citizen.

Mary

I believe I read it here in this forum in one of the threads. I will search for it.

[silverfox]

Silverfox, I did a google and tried to find the article by President Hinkley. I couldn't find it.

Who is the church being attacked by? Did he mention that at all.

Personally, I have no wish to attack the church, or discourage any one from being in it, particularly if it leads them to be a better person, but I do wish to defend my position as to why I feel I can no longer be active LDS and talk about how I felt while I was in it - the good stuff, and the stuff that bothered me and which I couldn't work out, surely that is my right as a free citizen.

Mary

Read the thread here

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=118&highlight=ensign

I had a chance to peruse the January, 2005 Ensign, and read two things of note (my stomach lining couldn't take much more than the little I read, so there may be more in there, but I'll never know). First, Gordon Hinckley spends the whole first presidency message discussing the need to "pursue a steady course" in the face of criticism and objection. He speaks of the best defense being the quiet allegience to the Church leadership. Above all, the tenor of the message, though controlled, is a recognition and even admission that the Church is under attack, and he's trying to strengthen the resolve of the faithful to "stay loyal" during the seige. Only this time, I have to wonder if the Church is playing role of "Mormonees" or the "Fancher Party?" (Remember in the movie the Princess Bride when Wesley, Fesick and Inigo are attacking the front gates of the castle, and the Seargent is yelling, "Stand your ground, men, stand your ground!" and everyone is running away except him? Makes me wonder if we won't see that one day in Salt Lake City...)

[free thinker]

Well Jeff

As a TBM, when you have your back against the wall, you are instructed to , ATTACK BOTH WAYS!! :D


I love watching TBM,S bang their heads against the wall!! Good Stuff!!

When you are TBM you have to go through all these mental apologist gyrations. As a post-mo you just look at the scientific evidance, accept it, and move on! So simple!

The truth is not only patient, but also powerful!! Hence the frenetic editorial activity!!

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

Well Jeff

As a TBM, when you have your back against the wall, you are instructed to , ATTACK BOTH WAYS!! :D


I love watching TBM,S bang their heads against the wall!! Good Stuff!!

When you are TBM you have to go through all these mental apologist gyrations. As a post-mo you just look at the scientific evidance, accept it, and move on! So simple!

The truth is not only patient, but also powerful!! Hence the frenetic editorial activity!!

Free Thinker
free thinker,

I see a fairly simple choice between:

Getting your beliefs in line with reality or

Getting reality in line with your beliefs
I see the above as a bit of a Good New/Bad News story.

The bad news of Option 1 is that you don't get a ready, off-the-shelf belief system: you have to study it out and work it through for yourself, but then the system is low maintenance because it has a foundation being reality-based.

The good news for Option 2 is that like MacDonalds, you can pretty much sign up for this instantly - Fast Religion. Just find a pair of MoMissionaries, and they will happily dunk you quick, but the price is that for the rest of your life you have to work hard to keep the whole mess together, spend lots of time with your head in the sand, given that it is based upon making reality fit your beliefs. It is not just the Gentiles beseiging you, but accursed 'reality'.

Daryl

[helemon]

According to a current issue of the Ensign, Hinckley feels the church is being attacked. No doubt some of the reference is toward Post Mormons who are willing to talk about and expose the truth.


Well it's about time. The church has been seriously needing to feel persecuted for some time now. I for one was getting tired of them needing to trot out the pioneers every time they needed a shot of righteous indignation. ;) With polygamy and the priesthood issue straightened out the world doesn't give them much crap. Now its the members turn with the help of science and the internet to start chanllenging the past and current belief structure and foundations of the church! :D Is the church built on rock or sand? We shall see.

[miss taken]

Well it's about time. The church has been seriously needing to feel persecuted for some time now. I for one was getting tired of them needing to trot out the pioneers every time they needed a shot of righteous indignation. ;) With polygamy and the priesthood issue straightened out the world doesn't give them much crap. Now its the members turn with the help of science and the internet to start chanllenging the past and current belief structure and foundations of the church! :D Is the church built on rock or sand? We shall see.


When I was studying CH at church they would always talk about how the church was attacked and persecuted for their beliefs etc. It was so black and white. They don't tell you about the many things that the church leadership did to provoke and incite violence themselves particularly when they were living in the east.

IMO the church really must be more honest about its history. Surely they would be respected more. They are not doing themselves any favours imo.

Mary

[why me]

When I was studying CH at church they would always talk about how the church was attacked and persecuted for their beliefs etc. It was so black and white. They don't tell you about the many things that the church leadership did to provoke and incite violence themselves particularly when they were living in the east.

IMO the church really must be more honest about its history. Surely they would be respected more. They are not doing themselves any favours imo.

Mary

The church is persecuted. I remember when I did my first internet search a few months ago about the church I came across tons of sights that verged on persecution. I think that we all need to admit that there are many out there who persecute the church for numerous reasons. And of course the more the church is attacked the more active members will claim that it is satan trying to undo the lord's work. I think that what originally attracted me this website was its stated goals and purposes as stated in the home page. I didn't see any mormon bashing in the stated aims. The LDS church has been persecuted from its very beginning. I don't know if persecution is ever justified, regardless of the reasoning etc. But I think that there is a difference between honest and reflective criticism and persecution. I would not want to see this community focus its attention on persecution but what is the boundary to be crossed between persecutions and critical reflections?

PS: I remember viewing a video showing demonstrators dragging a Book of Mormon on the ground ourside Temple Square during a General Conference. I thought: What if that book was the Koran or a Torah...would it be considered a hate crime if the demonstration was in front of a mosque or synogue and would the demonstrators have lived another day?

[miss taken]

The church is persecuted. I remember when I did my first internet search a few months ago about the church I came across tons of sights that verged on persecution. I think that we all need to admit that there are many out there who persecute the church for numerous reasons. And of course the more the church is attacked the more active members will claim that it is satan trying to undo the lord's work. I think that what originally attracted me this website was its stated goals and purposes as stated in the home page. I didn't see any mormon bashing in the stated aims. The LDS church has been persecuted from its very beginning. I don't know if persecution is ever justified, regardless of the reasoning etc. But I think that there is a difference between honest and reflective criticism and persecution. I would not want to see this community focus its attention on persecution but what is the boundary to be crossed between persecutions and critical reflections?

PS: I remember viewing a video showing demonstrators dragging a Book of Mormon on the ground ourside Temple Square during a General Conference. I thought: What if that book was the Koran or a Torah...would it be considered a hate crime if the demonstration was in front of a mosque or synogue and would the demonstrators have lived another day?

Apologies if I made it sound like the church wasn't persecuted Why me. It most certainly was. I just meant to indicate that they also persecuted others, and incited a lot of trouble themselves. I meant to argue that it was a two way street.

Mary

[silverfox]

The church is persecuted. I remember when I did my first internet search a few months ago about the church I came across tons of sights that verged on persecution. I think that we all need to admit that there are many out there who persecute the church for numerous reasons. And of course the more the church is attacked the more active members will claim that it is satan trying to undo the lord's work. I think that what originally attracted me this website was its stated goals and purposes as stated in the home page. I didn't see any mormon bashing in the stated aims. The LDS church has been persecuted from its very beginning. I don't know if persecution is ever justified, regardless of the reasoning etc. But I think that there is a difference between honest and reflective criticism and persecution. I would not want to see this community focus its attention on persecution but what is the boundary to be crossed between persecutions and critical reflections?

PS: I remember viewing a video showing demonstrators dragging a Book of Mormon on the ground ourside Temple Square during a General Conference. I thought: What if that book was the Koran or a Torah...would it be considered a hate crime if the demonstration was in front of a mosque or synogue and would the demonstrators have lived another day?

I think it's important to look at the reasons why in the early days of the church that it was persecuted. Joseph was breaking laws, stealing women, polygamy, etc, etc, etc - doing all kinds of things to upset people. Dishonest things, breaking the law. And people reacted and it was called "persecution".

In those days groups of people (including the Mormons, they were NOT innocent) could get away with running people out of town, killing, stealing, fighting, burning homes, etc. IMO, that fits more into the description of "persecution". Joe and Brig did their own share even against their own members.

These days, we aren't going to see this. Some may try but we aren't going to see mobs of Anti Mormons climbing the temple gates trying to burn it down and running people out of town.

(I am not saying I have no issues with those downtown preachers...I think they are a$$e$ and could spend their time elsewhere doing more productive things if they are truly Christians)

[miss taken]

I think it's important to look at the reasons why in the early days of the church that it was persecuted. Joseph was breaking laws, stealing women, polygamy, etc, etc, etc - doing all kinds of things to upset people. Dishonest things, breaking the law. And people reacted and it was called "persecution".

In those days groups of people (including the Mormons, they were NOT innocent) could get away with running people out of town, killing, stealing, fighting, burning homes, etc. IMO, that fits more into the description of "persecution". Joe and Brig did their own share even against their own members.

These days, we aren't going to see this. Some may try but we aren't going to see mobs of Anti Mormons climbing the temple gates trying to burn it down and running people out of town.

(I am not saying I have no issues with those downtown preachers...I think they are a$$e$ and could spend their time elsewhere doing more productive things if they are truly Christians)


Hi Silverfox. In a way those guys are all as bad as each other, each brings to the table their own brand of bigotry, intolerance, and superiority. (I notice it on the FAIR boards all the time - I don't think the LDS people there realise (with maybe a few exceptions) just how arrogant and unchristian they sound.

Don't want to put words into Why me's mouth, but I believe he is saying, we should be above all that???

Correct me if I am wrong Why me!

Mary

[silverfox]

Hi Silverfox. In a way those guys are all as bad as each other, each brings to the table their own brand of bigotry, intolerance, and superiority. (I notice it on the FAIR boards all the time - I don't think the LDS people there realise (with maybe a few exceptions) just how arrogant and unchristian they sound.

Don't want to put words into Why me's mouth, but I believe he is saying, we should be above all that???

Correct me if I am wrong Why me!

Mary

I absolutely agree we should be above that. I am sure we will have our days but I hope it continues with the same "tone" that it has. Everyone is bringing such good things to the table to nibble on. It's refreshing. Thanks,all.

[peter_mary]

...is this simple truth: We teach people how to treat us. If the Church has been persecuted, and it has, it would be wise to evaluate why, and the first place to begin is with itself.

The same is true for each of us. If I find that nobody likes me or gets along with me, or that I don't like anyone else, then it would behoove me to check the common denominator in all those relationships...which would be me.

No, the purpose of this forum is not to persecute the Church, not that we could even if we wanted to, but it is fair game to evaluate the reasons why the persecution existed in the first place. The way the Church has spun their early persecutions is in fact endemic to the problems we have with the institution in the first place...it continues to be dishonest in that it only tells a very one-sided story. It plays up the victimhood side, and denies the victimizing side, making everything the fault of the citizens of New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, the entire United States...hmm, what would be the common denominator in all those relationships? Satan? I don't think so...

Ironically, that's the apologists' loudest complaint to books like Palmer's..."It's so biased and one sided!" Well, duh. :duh If the Church represented itself in a fair and balanced manner, there would be no market for books whose role it is to balance the scorecard.

Peter_Mary

[why me]

Hi Silverfox. In a way those guys are all as bad as each other, each brings to the table their own brand of bigotry, intolerance, and superiority. (I notice it on the FAIR boards all the time - I don't think the LDS people there realise (with maybe a few exceptions) just how arrogant and unchristian they sound.

Don't want to put words into Why me's mouth, but I believe he is saying, we should be above all that???

Correct me if I am wrong Why me!

Mary

This is exactly what I meant. We should rise above the Mormon bashing that is found in the other forums. I remember when I was reading all that mormon bashing I wanted to throw up :Puking on what was being said. I suppose that many people have agendas for posting their comments on the more vicious sites. Most are 'christians' who see the church as corrupt, misled and following the dictates of the devil. I have no sympathy for these people. And of course there are the bitter ex-mo's who have internalized their experience. Hopefully this group can leave the anger and bitterness of 'wasting their lives' and other more dramatic experiences behind and move on into calmer waters. In terms of our forum, it will be the job of the moderator (free thinker :cool: ?) to control the tone and sound of the posts. Lets hope the members of this forum will rise above all the mormon bashing etc that is out there :), so that we will continue to develop a well-proportioned constructive dialogue.

[helemon]

Apologies if I made it sound like the church wasn't persecuted Why me. It most certainly was. I just meant to indicate that they also persecuted others, and incited a lot of trouble themselves. I meant to argue that it was a two way street.

Mary

And the church acts like it is persecuting no one even though it dumps millions into anti gay marriage campaigns.

[silverfox]

This is exactly what I meant. We should rise above the Mormon bashing that is found in the other forums. I remember when I was reading all that mormon bashing I wanted to throw up :Puking on what was being said. I suppose that many people have agendas for posting their comments on the more vicious sites. Most are 'christians' who see the church as corrupt, misled and following the dictates of the devil. I have no sympathy for these people. And of course there are the bitter ex-mo's who have internalized their experience. Hopefully this group can leave the anger and bitterness of 'wasting their lives' and other more dramatic experiences behind and move on into calmer waters. In terms of our forum, it will be the job of the moderator (free thinker :cool: ?) to control the tone and sound of the posts. Lets hope the members of this forum will rise above all the mormon bashing etc that is out there :), so that we will continue to develop a well-proportioned constructive dialogue.

We need to remember also, though, that this board is to serve as a support mechanism for those ex Mormons or Mormons who are finding their way out of the church. There will be times that anger and angst and all kinds of emotions will be unloaded here and need validation from those of us who have been there, done that. We welcome those who need to work through that bitterness and anger.

So that Free Thinker and I can better serve this community, I would like to hear what the community member's ideas of bashing are. FT and I are working on creating official forum rules that will be posted and your feedback will be helpful.

[why me]

We need to remember also, though, that this board is to serve as a support mechanism for those ex Mormons or Mormons who are finding their way out of the church. There will be times that anger and angst and all kinds of emotions will be unloaded here and need validation from those of us who have been there, done that. We welcome those who need to work through that bitterness and anger.

So that Free Thinker and I can better serve this community, I would like to hear what the community member's ideas of bashing are. FT and I are working on creating official forum rules that will be posted and your feedback will be helpful.

You are both right in my opinion. I have nothing against the angst and the spleen of bitter members posting in the forum. This is normal. But there would need to be a good balance of posts to off set the bitter posts. I don't know how it can be done. Perhaps it comes with the tone of the posts but I really don't know.

Helemon, I know what you mean. The church operates according to their own set of moral standards based on the bible. They are not alone among Christian faiths in attitude and opinion but I still think that we need to rise above it all. The monkey see---monkey do---idea might not be constructive but then again I don't know. I am only putting thoughts to 'paper'.

Silverfox,
Why don't you start an official thread about it? This would be the best idea to get some beginning feedback. And then the board can decide, from such a thread and private messaging, what to do. :)

[nate]

Of course it has nothing to do with being attacked. It's just the chickens coming home to roost. About all they can do is to whine about being picked on by the bad guys. But as I see it, they can paint post Mormons as bad guys and whine and kick up a fuss but can't do much more than that. If they try to then they only bring on more bad publicity. As I see it the Church is between a rock and a hard place. They can't do much more than whine and complain. Meanwhile, one by one more and more chickens keep flying home. There seems to be a steady flow of new books being published that the Church would rather not see the light of day. I say, cool! :D Serves 'em right.

I've been having fun with the letters to the editor in Logan. Last fall I and some others helped to keep the DNA issue a hot topic in the papers. I found that if I use just a touch of sarcasm when I write it really brings out the responses, which of course creates more opportunities to respond, keeping an issue going. Native American DNA was almost a daily issue in the papers for over three months. In one letter I was a little too sarcastic causing the manager of the restaurant where our post-Mormon group meets to call me and tell me that two Mormons called a day or two after that letter was published and said they would boycott the place if they kept serving to our group. It was implied that we should find another place to meet so after talking it over we decided we would. But one of our group members wrote to the head office and mentioned something about religious discrimination. I don't know exactly what happened after that but within days the local manager called me back and wanted me to meet with he and the regional manager. They bought me lunch. Long story short, now the restaurant treats us like kings! The local manger now even likes to sit with us and join the conversation when he has free time. He’s a jack Mormon – even went on a mission.

Back to the letters to the editor. A week ago someone published a letter in response to a letter I wrote last fall during the great DNA debate, so I have to respond. I’ll be sending it in today. The premise of his letter is that it should be no surprise that there’s no Hebrew DNA in Native Americans. It’s all been diluted out! For what it’s worth, here is my response. I wish there was space to say more but we're limited to 450 words. My letter is 447 words:

I want to thank Jesse Griffiths for his letter on March 27 because it’s given me an opportunity to again put the facts on the table about DNA, the Book of Mormon, and the Mormon Church (I almost never write when it’s not in response to someone else’s letter). It appears that Jesse, along with the Church’s best apologists, are finally coming around to accepting what the facts have been saying for years – that there is no detectable Israelite DNA in Native Americans. REGARDLESS OF THE REASON this conclusion creates a significant problem for the Mormon Church because it contradicts statements made by virtually every Mormon prophet, beginning with Joseph Smith. Consider the following sampling of many such statements made over the years:

- Book of Mormon itself states on its introductory page that Lehi and his family, who are direct descendents of Israel, “are the PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS.” Even the Mormon Church’s most loyal scholars are now admitting that the above statement is DEAD WRONG!

- Spencer Kimball stated, “With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi…LEHI AND HIS FAMILY BECAME THE ANCESTORS OF ALL INDIAN AND MESTIZO TRIBES IN NORTH AND SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA.” (Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign 1 (July 1971): 7-10.) DNA samples collected from Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America shows that Kimball’s claim is DEAD WRONG!

- Gordon Hinckley, made the following remark during the dedication of a temple in Guayaquil, Ecuador: “[I]t has been a very interesting thing to see the descendants of Father Lehi in the congregations that have gathered in the temple. So very many of these PEOPLE HAVE THE BLOOD OF LEHI IN THEIR VEINS...” (GORDON B. HINCKLEY, Church News, August 7, 1999) DNA samples collected from the native population of Ecuador and surrounding regions shows that Hinckley’s claim is DEAD WRONG!

- The Doctrine and Covenants, authored by Joseph Smith, states: “And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the LAND OF MISSOURI, unto THE BORDERS OF THE LAMANITES.” (D&C 54:8) DNA testing shows that never were any Lamanites (who Joseph said are descendants of Israel) in Missouri. In this and many other similar statements even Joseph Smith is DEAD WRONG!

Even the Church’s best, most loyal scholars are, one by one, finally admitting that Asians, not Israelites, are the principle ancestors of the American Indians. It’s only a matter of time before they also have to admit that the Mormon Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, can’t be prophets. In fact, it would appear that they’re not even very good guessers.

J. D. Ricks
Logan, Utah

Just saw this response to Jeff's letter in today's Herald Journal. Funny, the point that Dark brought up in another post rings true here, yet again. In order for this person's claims to be valid, you have to believe that God can and would turn a peoples' skin dark, as an act of punishment.
------------------
Book of Mormon unassailable

To the editor:

The Book of Mormon is true. The Ricks claim that DNA proves it false is groundless. He did bring to light the following trivia that in no way affects B of M credibility: (1) There is enough, generally accepted (including by BYU Ph.Ds), scientific evidence to prove Indians do have significant North Asian DNA with which, incidentally, the B of M is compatible; (2) DNA cannot identify individual relationship more than five generations back, and courts agree; and (3) DNA cannot identify historical ethnic minorities unless that group has been substantially isolated from other groups.

Apparently, Ricks, with his post-Mormon obsession for degrading Mormonism and faced with the DNA limitations above that invalidate his original claims, switched his attack in his last letter to Mormon Prophets Joseph Smith, Gordon B. Hinckley, et al, accusing them of claiming Indians have only Israelite ancestry per the foreword of the B of M. But that foreword says only that the Indian principle lineage was from the Lamanite Nation. Does Ricks believe that proving Asian ancestry for Indians proves that it is their sole and entire lineage? Nonsense!

The Lamanite name came from Lehi's rebellious son, Laman. They were American immigrants (600 BC) per the B of M. On arrival, logically, they would be far out-numbered by natives for a proportional bias in the DNAs in future generations. Two additional B of M events would dilute Lamanite Israelite DNAs even more: First, because of Lamanite rebelliousness, the Lord made their skins darker to set them apart from the descendants of Laman's sibling (called Nephites) to discourage inter-marrying between the two groups and, secondly, at the end (400 AD) the Nephites became so wicked that the Lord allowed them to be completely obliterated in a war with the Lamanite Nation. That was 1,600 years ago and it left only the dark-skinned people to become ancestors of Indians. Thus, the B of M explains the reason for present-day dominance of the Indian's Asian DNA and the near elimination of Nephite DNAs whose Israelite heritage had been less diluted.

Obviously then, surviving descendants of Lehi's immigration did not remain an isolated group for the past 2,600 years to retain their original DNA, the very least that the original Ricks DNA conclusions would require and, also, there is no record of any Mormon prophet ever saying or writing that American Indians are exclusively of Israelitish heritage as Ricks claims. Don't fault The Book of Mormon for not referring to natives in the Western Hemisphere when B of M immigrants arrived. That book is only an abridgement of pertinent religious material from voluminous ancient records. It is a Second Witness of Jesus Christ and not an all-encompassing history of ancient America!

Jesse Griffiths
Logan, UT

[helemon]

------------------
Book of Mormon unassailable

Apparently, Ricks, with his post-Mormon obsession for degrading Mormonism and faced with the DNA limitations above that invalidate his original claims, switched his attack in his last letter to Mormon Prophets Joseph Smith, Gordon B. Hinckley, et al, accusing them of claiming Indians have only Israelite ancestry per the foreword of the B of M. But that foreword says only that the Indian principle lineage was from the Lamanite Nation. Does Ricks believe that proving Asian ancestry for Indians proves that it is their sole and entire lineage? Nonsense!


Would it be correct to say yeast is the principal component of bread? I think this person needs a dictionary.

[why me]

Just saw this response to Jeff's letter in today's Herald Journal. Funny, the point that Dark brought up in another post rings true here, yet again. In order for this person's claims to be valid, you have to believe that God can and would turn a peoples' skin dark, as an act of punishment.
------------------
Book of Mormon unassailable

To the editor:

The Book of Mormon is true. The Ricks claim that DNA proves it false is groundless. He did bring to light the following trivia that in no way affects B of M credibility: (1) There is enough, generally accepted (including by BYU Ph.Ds), scientific evidence to prove Indians do have significant North Asian DNA with which, incidentally, the B of M is compatible; (2) DNA cannot identify individual relationship more than five generations back, and courts agree; and (3) DNA cannot identify historical ethnic minorities unless that group has been substantially isolated from other groups.

Apparently, Ricks, with his post-Mormon obsession for degrading Mormonism and faced with the DNA limitations above that invalidate his original claims, switched his attack in his last letter to Mormon Prophets Joseph Smith, Gordon B. Hinckley, et al, accusing them of claiming Indians have only Israelite ancestry per the foreword of the B of M. But that foreword says only that the Indian principle lineage was from the Lamanite Nation. Does Ricks believe that proving Asian ancestry for Indians proves that it is their sole and entire lineage? Nonsense!

The Lamanite name came from Lehi's rebellious son, Laman. They were American immigrants (600 BC) per the B of M. On arrival, logically, they would be far out-numbered by natives for a proportional bias in the DNAs in future generations. Two additional B of M events would dilute Lamanite Israelite DNAs even more: First, because of Lamanite rebelliousness, the Lord made their skins darker to set them apart from the descendants of Laman's sibling (called Nephites) to discourage inter-marrying between the two groups and, secondly, at the end (400 AD) the Nephites became so wicked that the Lord allowed them to be completely obliterated in a war with the Lamanite Nation. That was 1,600 years ago and it left only the dark-skinned people to become ancestors of Indians. Thus, the B of M explains the reason for present-day dominance of the Indian's Asian DNA and the near elimination of Nephite DNAs whose Israelite heritage had been less diluted.

Obviously then, surviving descendants of Lehi's immigration did not remain an isolated group for the past 2,600 years to retain their original DNA, the very least that the original Ricks DNA conclusions would require and, also, there is no record of any Mormon prophet ever saying or writing that American Indians are exclusively of Israelitish heritage as Ricks claims. Don't fault The Book of Mormon for not referring to natives in the Western Hemisphere when B of M immigrants arrived. That book is only an abridgement of pertinent religious material from voluminous ancient records. It is a Second Witness of Jesus Christ and not an all-encompassing history of ancient America!

Jesse Griffiths
Logan, UT


I remember my first reaction to the DNA material. I just discovered the material in January. It did create very conflicting emotions inside me. But after awhile I had a simple thought: What if DNA did prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the indians were related to the lamanites? Where would I be now? In fact where would we all be at this moment? Would we be here at postmormon.org or back in church---active little bees in the beehive. It would probably force me to go back and try to be active because there must be some truth in it. Then I thought: the book of mormon will never be proven by science because the whole idea of faith cannot be destroyed. Religion depends on faith and not science. I realize that this all might sound dumb and studpid but this is how I rationalized it away. But where would we now be if DNA did prove lamanite ancestry? I would be in church trying to be active and not very happy or because it was proven, I would no longer fear death and live the most righteous life imaginable, but still not being the real me. :( Please forgive my ramblings...maybe I need to rest now... :o

[miss taken]

I remember my first reaction to the DNA material. I just discovered the material in January. It did create very conflicting emotions inside me. But after awhile I had a simple thought: What if DNA did prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the indians were related to the lamanites? Where would I be now? In fact where would we all be at this moment? Would we be here at postmormon.org or back in church---active little bees in the beehive. It would probably force me to go back and try to be active because there must be some truth in it. Then I thought: the book of mormon will never be proven by science because the whole idea of faith cannot be destroyed. Religion depends on faith and not science. I realize that this all might sound dumb and studpid but this is how I rationalized it away. But where would we now be if DNA did prove lamanite ancestry? I would be in church trying to be active and not very happy or because it was proven, I would no longer fear death and live the most righteous life imaginable, but still not being the real me. :( Please forgive my ramblings...maybe I need to rest now... :o

I think it is probably reasonable to suggest that humans and other hominids have been walking this earth for millennia, and some genetic mixing would be inevitable. Neanderthals were once a distinct sub-group who seemed to have had enough 'human characteristics' about them, to bury their dead, and use fire. I think a dwarf group of hominids have just been found somewhere (one skeleton).

I wouldn't be surprised (though I am absolutely no expert) if there were traces of middle eastern dna in modern day South American and North American Indians.

Some non-mormon scholars accept that there may have been some contact - via certain spices, drugs etc, and there are certainly similarities between early middle-eastern cultures and Ancient American ones in terms of Ziggaruts and pyramids.

Does it mean the BOM is truly a history of real people. No, I really don't think so. So, even if they had found traces of middle-eastern DNA in modern American Indians, I am afraid it would not have sent me back to the pews of the church.

The DNA issue is only one of many, many issues for me.

Mary

[dogzilla]

I'm sorry, I have trouble accepting anything about this person's response to Jeff's letter. The initial premise assumes the belief that there were cultures of people called "Lamanites" and "Nephites" for which there is zero archeological or historical evidence. We can show evidence of Viking communities in Greenland and in what is now Newfoundland several hundred years prior to Christopher Columbus, but somehow, any evidence of these supposed North American, Isrealite-descended cultures has completely disappeared. I believe there's more substantial and corroborative evidence that aliens from another planet landed in New Mexico in the 1950's.

:Crazy:

[miss taken]

I'm sorry, I have trouble accepting anything about this person's response to Jeff's letter. The initial premise assumes the belief that there were cultures of people called "Lamanites" and "Nephites" for which there is zero archeological or historical evidence. We can show evidence of Viking communities in Greenland and in what is now Newfoundland several hundred years prior to Christopher Columbus, but somehow, any evidence of these supposed North American, Isrealite-descended cultures has completely disappeared. I believe there's more substantial and corroborative evidence that aliens from another planet landed in New Mexico in the 1950's.

:Crazy:

A guy called Dr Shades who has just been banned over on fair (I have NO idea why) was saying, I think! that his litmus test, was the 'Would you believe it if the JW's said it' If the answer is no, then it is unbelievable literally, and probably untrue.
Mary

[helemon]

A guy called Dr Shades who has just been banned over on fair (I have NO idea why) was saying, I think! that his litmus test, was the 'Would you believe it if the JW's said it' If the answer is no, then it is unbelievable literally, and probably untrue.
Mary
Excellent rule!! :D
Yes I think there are so many things in the church that members would laugh about if it was part of someone elses religion. Mormons love to point out the flaws in the theology of other religions while failing to recognize any in their own. But that is probably true of most major religions.

[silverfox]

I remember my first reaction to the DNA material. I just discovered the material in January. It did create very conflicting emotions inside me. But after awhile I had a simple thought: What if DNA did prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the indians were related to the lamanites? Where would I be now? In fact where would we all be at this moment? Would we be here at postmormon.org or back in church---active little bees in the beehive. It would probably force me to go back and try to be active because there must be some truth in it. Then I thought: the book of mormon will never be proven by science because the whole idea of faith cannot be destroyed. Religion depends on faith and not science. I realize that this all might sound dumb and studpid but this is how I rationalized it away. But where would we now be if DNA did prove lamanite ancestry? I would be in church trying to be active and not very happy or because it was proven, I would no longer fear death and live the most righteous life imaginable, but still not being the real me. :( Please forgive my ramblings...maybe I need to rest now... :o

Those are some good thoughts, why_me.

Even if the DNA proved the lamanite ancestry valid it wouldn't change, for me, the many other issues within the church history. (first visions, book of abraham, gay issues, women's roles, polygamy, MMM, etc, etc, etc)

I would not be back in church. I would say, "Oh, hey, look! I guess there were lamanites after all" but that wouldn't prove to me that the BoM was accurate or that the church was true, or the D&C, etc, etc. Just like the scientific evidence supporting the Bible doesn't prove to me that the recordings regarding Jesus or any other person during that time is accurate.

I had many issues with the church before I stumbled on the DNA info - it was just the icing on the cake.

mmmm cake, doesn't that sound good?????

[why me]

A guy called Dr Shades who has just been banned over on fair (I have NO idea why) was saying, I think! that his litmus test, was the 'Would you believe it if the JW's said it' If the answer is no, then it is unbelievable literally, and probably untrue.
Mary


This Dr. Shades is is actually Free Thinker in desguise! :cool: I am almost sure of it...it must be Free Thinker...who else could it be!!! :cool: :p

Sorry Free Thinker for blowing your cover!! :eek:

[miss taken]

This Dr. Shades is is actually Free Thinker in desguise! :cool: I am almost sure of it...it must be Free Thinker...who else could it be!!! :cool: :p

Sorry Free Thinker for blowing your cover!! :eek:


Free THinker!!!!!! Was it you!!!!!!!! (If it was, your posts were really good!!!!)
Mary

[cactus_jack]

Really gets you to wonder to what extreme it will go to.

Having been a former elder, I remember how much I believed in the church. Would I have gotten physical over it? I think so.

I would not put it past the LDS to participate in a holocaust-style event. I would not put it past them to participate in "rounding up" people, and deciding who lives and who dies. And I would not put it past them to go on a large scale movement such as what Hitler did. There will be dissent within, no doubt. But if you recall what it says in the AoF about honoring the president/king/whoever's in charge, and looking at how intent manyof the LDS are today, maybe you'd understand what I'm thinking.

I just hope I'm wrong.

[free thinker]

Free THinker!!!!!! Was it you!!!!!!!! (If it was, your posts were really good!!!!)
Mary


Too bad for me I can't take credit. :o I have only been over to the FAIR site once. I could see it was just apologetics and therefore of no interest to me!! ;) At least they have the courage to label it correctly!!


Alas no , I am just a post-mo!! :cool:

Free Thinker

[silverfox]

Really gets you to wonder to what extreme it will go to.

Having been a former elder, I remember how much I believed in the church. Would I have gotten physical over it? I think so.

I would not put it past the LDS to participate in a holocaust-style event. I would not put it past them to participate in "rounding up" people, and deciding who lives and who dies. And I would not put it past them to go on a large scale movement such as what Hitler did. There will be dissent within, no doubt. But if you recall what it says in the AoF about honoring the president/king/whoever's in charge, and looking at how intent manyof the LDS are today, maybe you'd understand what I'm thinking.

I just hope I'm wrong.

I can see this happening, too, and all the while the "profit" sitting in his office with his expensive cufflinks exclaiming..."I don't know that we teach that". :Puking

Welcome, Cactus Jack :)

[papa]

This is a great thread, fine comments all.

Cactus Jack says:

"Really gets you to wonder to what extreme it will go to.

Having been a former elder, I remember how much I believed in the church. Would I have gotten physical over it? I think so.

I would not put it past the LDS to participate in a holocaust-style event. I would not put it past them to participate in "rounding up" people, and deciding who lives and who dies. And I would not put it past them to go on a large scale movement such as what Hitler did. There will be dissent within, no doubt. But if you recall what it says in the AoF about honoring the president/king/whoever's in charge, and looking at how intent manyof the LDS are today, maybe you'd understand what I'm thinking."

I agree. The LDS church is uniquely set up to facilitate such activities as you mention here, with its secrecy and top down org. and fanatacism. We all know LDS have a "circle the wagons, shoot to kill" pioneer mentality that persists today. Now that Hinckley has given public support for Bush and his New World Order and wars, the neo-cons in the church are feeling bold. It shows in the very militant and ethnocentric prayers offered in Sac Mtgs., and the pushy "we're tops now" attitude of the almost uniformly Republican church leadership. I term this phenomenon the "brownshirting" of America and the LDS church. Would today's church have supported the Third Reich in '30's Germany? I have no doubt it would have. And they would have supported with great energy.

I recall how some young German LDS elders who opposed Hitler's government were dobbed in by their church leaders, and imprisoned and worse because of it. This could EASILY happen again, if such conditions were to reoccur. And my friends, we are today not far off from the Third Reich. In fact, we are witnessing the rise of the Fourth Reich, right here in the good old USA.

[cactus jack]

I used to know a couple that grew up in Nazi Germany. Very unique, that's for sure. They told me how some of the most vocal of Hitler's supporters were-you guessed it-mormon.

AFAIC I think the actions taken against the mormons in the 1800's were totally justified. Maybe they didn't understand a lot of the ins and outs of the LDS and American rights, but they understood what Jesus wanted. A lot better than we do today, I think.

Thank you for the welcome silverfox!