photo-1421986527537-888d998adb74

A former friend and coworker who has long enjoyed shaming me online made a tweet about me today, declaring that he had discovered my “secret anti-Mormon website”. While he may have written said tweet with glee, excited at the possibility of showing me for my “true colors”, what he actually did was instill a grateful sense of pride in me.

Let me explain that better so no one gets the wrong idea.

As I have partly explained in other posts such as this one, leaving the church was freaking hard. It requires intense emotional strength, commitment to truth, and ultimately, a truckload full of courage. It requires humility and a willingness to be wrong that most humans are never forced to develop. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done, and I know others who have gone though a similar experience would say the same.

One way Mormons attempt to poison the well (aka dismiss or minimize negative information about the church and its history) is by using the term “anti-Mormon”. It immediately shuts members off from certain sources or people, and allows for the perpetuation of “the bubble” and false ideas.

Now, the dictionary definition of being “anti” just means “opposed to”. So most of us are “anti” a lot of things. I, for example, am anti-Hillary Clinton. But I don’t live my life wishing all Hillary Clinton supporters, or even Hillary herself, would be miserable. It’s the exact opposite—I just want everyone to be happy. I may not agree with Hillary’s political views, and I don’t think they are what America needs, but I’m not “out to get” any of her supporters. I just don’t think she should be the President of the United States, therefore I don’t believe people should vote for her.

If a Hillary Clinton supporter ever posted, say, an inaccurate idea on social media, I may choose to refute them. This would not be a personal attack. It’s just a matter of having beliefs and believing in them enough to stand up for them. It’s also about expecting the best in people, namely, believing that they are willing and open to always expanding their knowledge and understanding, and not assuming that they’re close-minded and too easily-offended to be disagreed with.

I feel the same way about Mormonism, the obvious difference being that I have actually been a Mormon, while I have never been a Hillary Clinton supporter. (Super pro-her pantsuits, though. Keep killing it, Chills.) One other difference is that I rarely refute people on their social media posts about the church, because I’m aware of how defensive it makes them. So I stick to my own platforms, specifically, this site. (Also, I’m not knowledgable enough about Hillary Clinton to start an anti-Hillary website, nor am I emotionally invested enough in the cause to care to.)

I do not believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at all what it claims, and I am confident that is a very provable belief. Any Mormon has the ability to research any claim I or anyone else ever makes about the church, and determine for him/herself if they think it’s true. (Shoutout to the CES Letter. 10/10. Would recommend.)

Because I am anti-people-believing-lies, I contribute to this, an “anti-Mormon” website. I want people to learn the truth about the LDS church for three main reasons:

  1. It’s simply not true, and I don’t believe anything which is false should be furthered. (To read more about why I can’t leave it alone, click here.)
  2. Many people are learning, and will continue to learn, that it is not true. As someone who has gone through that excruciatingly painful process, and watched others go through even MORE of an excruciating process due to their life circumstances, I would MUCH rather the people I love learn it now than in 20 years when it may result in more dire consequences such as divorce or greater alienation from people/the life they’ve built around the idea that Joseph was a prophet. (Take a breath. That was a huge run-on sentence. Let’s pretend it was a metaphor.)
  3. There are people suffering because of their belief in the LDS church, such as LGBT individuals, intellectuals, and those with basically any belief that is “too different” from what the organization teaches. The thought that this is all occurring because of something that is false is heartbreaking to me.

As much as it might be super comforting for Mormons to believe that anyone saying negative things about the church is just an anti-Mormon Satan worshipper who hates their mom and can’t stop lying, it’s simply not true. “Anti”, when attached to “-Mormon” has an extremely evil stigma attached to it in the LDS church, and it serves to poison the well effectively. But ask yourself a few questions, Mormons:

  1. Do you think Satan really gets hold of people enough to cause them to invent lies about the church for the sheer thrill of it? (Bearing in mind that the reason many people like me left is because we read things such as the Journal of Discourses and accounts from polygamist wives etc, who, according to you, must have been “deceived by Satan”.) Did he also hide all the evidence for the Book of Mormon and what would have been the biggest war in human history?
  2. Do you really think humans, particularly people who love you, who are now “anti-Mormon” really just want to make you unhappy and ruin your life?

I hope you have enough hope in humanity to realize that the answer to both of those questions is “no”.

To my Mormon friends—yes, I am an anti-Mormon. I am “anti” a lot of things in the world, as I’m sure you are too. But please understand that “anti” does not equate to “seeks for everyone who is pro-that to be unhappy”. That is absolutely not the case. It is the complete opposite. I care about honesty, I care about happiness, and I care about kindness, and I do not believe the LDS church, ultimately, is conducive to those things.

I am proud to be anti-Mormon because I am proud to no longer support the moral relativism of a self-proclaimed prophet marrying 14-year-old girls. I am proud that I no longer justify racism, sexism, gender inequality, and judgement of others because they don’t follow the ideas of an extremely niche worldview. I am proud to have used, and continue using the brain I’ve been blessed with to learn—not just in education, but in the areas of life that matter the most. I am proud that I have the courage to stand up for what I believe in, even when it’s hard, and when people judge me and hate me for it. I am proud to be anti-Mormon because my conscience is clear, my heart is open, and I am committed to truth.

Author’s after note: Some people have made the very valid point that saying “anti-Mormon” doesn’t translate similarly to “anti-certain political party”, because people take it more personally. Let me make it perfectly clear that my idea of the term “anti-Mormon” does NOT mean “anti-MormonS”. I used the term “anti-Mormon” in this post because that’s the label Mormons give to people who say negative things about the church and its history. 

I think Mormons are great people and I love (most of) them. 



Zina Jacobs-Smith-Young
Zina Jacobs-Smith-Young
Zina Jacobs-Smith-Young would have been a millennial blogger, but she died in 1901. The wife of Brigham Young, and prior to that Joseph Smith, and prior to that Henry Jacobs, who was sent on a mission by Brigham before he married her, Zina loves writing, long walks on the beach, and playing the field.
  • Seth L.

    I love your blog. Seriously! Thank you for what you do. I am proud that I considered all the facts in front of me and made a decision that clears my conscience and moves me closer to what I see as truth.

  • Wes

    As I read this post, I definitely related to the sentiment. I believe I can be “anti-Mormon” as a church while still generally “pro-Mormons” as individuals.

  • Spicy_McHaggis

    Well truth is anti-mormon. I’m all for truth so I suppose I’m anti-mormon as well. Sounds like your friend is narrow minded.

  • csteve

    blake oakey is a Jackass

  • Right. You’re so “proud” of being an anti-Mormon that you’re (still) hiding behind a pseudonym.

    “Do you think Satan really gets hold of people enough to cause them to invent lies about the church for the sheer thrill of it?”

    Does the name Ed Decker mean anything to you?

    • TrevorH

      Samantha probably has to hide behind a pseudonym until this site brings in enough money to make up for what will be lost from her pro-Mormon site.

      • Zelph on the Shelf

        We use pseudonyms because we all work in marketing in Utah and don’t want to face employment problems because people google our names and associate us with exMormonism.
        Also, I don’t have a pro-Mormon site. I run Whatsoever Is Good which has just been about general goodness for a while now, and has only ever brought in pocket money. I have a regular job I don’t want to be affected by my out of work endeavors. Thanks for the concern though.

        • Jim

          Time to move

        • TrevorH

          OK, so Whatsoever is Good was a pro-Mormon site until you decided to leave the church. And I now see that you actually finally announced on that site that you have left (and used your real name – or at least your maiden name).

          But the only reasons you should be worried about employment in Utah are if you’re posting on company time or using company equipment. Or I guess if your postings reveal things about your character that would be relevant to your employment.

          • TrevorH

            …unless you happen to work for Dessert Book.

          • Yeah, because Mormons are never vindictive and nasty toward ex mormons. Oh, except for dozens that have already posted on this site.

        • Loran

          “We use pseudonyms because we all work in marketing in Utah and don’t want to face employment problems because people google our names and associate us with exMormonism.”

          As they say, “Yeah, right.”

          • Kevin

            Mormons claim to “follow Jesus” but when someone brings up legitimate concerns about their “religion” they attack like scientologists would, or any other cultmembers… interesting… What could this possibly mean I wonder?

          • Farmmaa

            And…’Loran’ is your full legal name is it ?

          • After seeing the vitriol Mormons post here, even in this discussion, I think it would be wise to use a pseudonym. Mormons are downright nasty to anyone they disagree with. Is it really a stretch for a potential employer to be just as nasty to someone here, considering how Mormons lose their minds on this blog?

      • JD

        I think if the author wanted to publicly use their identity, they would do so. And that is the author’s choice to make, not yours. There should be an article discussing the link between Mormonism and public shaming. I’d sure like further light and knowledge on that topic, for sure.

        • Zelph on the Shelf

          Yep. The fact that so many Mormons have made such cruel and heartless comments (you only have you check out the latest gem on our FB to see a really nice case study) shows exactly why we might have used pseudonyms. Because we didn’t want to be bullied and harassed. (something that has exactly happened since our identities became public.)

          • TrevorH

            Many of us have made that sacrifice.

          • Davey t

            Would you allow Gazelam or Pelagoram as acceptable pseudonyms..?

          • Farmmaa

            The fact that none of these holier than thou Mormons are using their real names is all that needs to be noted.

        • How we do.
    • Shem

      Why don’t you prove what parts of this article is untrue for starters.

      • What is there to “prove . . . untrue”? Samantha shared an opinion, and little more. It’s a highly misinformed and condescending opinion, to be sure, but merely an opinion nonetheless.

        Unless you mean claims of dubious factuality like Joseph Smith “marr[ied] 14-year-old girls” (note the plural). As far as the historical record is concerned (as explained by both Todd Compton and Brian Hales), Joseph Smith was sealed to *a* 14 year old girl (Helen Mar Kimball) in what was, for all intents and purposes, a non-sexual betrothal, and another *possible* (and most likely non-sexual) sealing to Nancy Maria Winchester when she was 14, but the evidence is lacking in that case and so there’s a big question mark. (There’s also a literal question mark that Compton puts next to her name in his book.)

        Do you mean something like that?

        • csteve

          wait, so you are admitting more than one girl?
          wait, so because he possibly didn’t have sex with them – “meh, it’s ok…”?
          wait, prove the claims are dubious

          did JS “marry” other men’s wives?
          Were you taught any of this in Sunday School as a youth?

          Does it matter?

          • There is so much ludicrousness in this comment I don’t even know where to begin.

            Try reading my comment a little more carefully.

          • csteve

            time out chachi – please inform me civilly were the ludicrousness lies?
            It is no secret and there are many sources that prove Helen Mar Kimball was indeed married to Joseph Smith

          • Okay, so:

            1. I am not “admitting more than one girl.” I am doing the exact opposite. It is Ms. Samantha that is claiming 14 year old wives (plural). The historical evidence is against this claim. Probably nothing nefarious on her part. It just shows an overall lack of care in how she relates the historical data, and that she’s wrapped up in sloganeering with catchy ex-Mormon sound bites.

            2. This comment, “wait, so because he possibly didn’t have sex with them – “meh, it’s ok…”?” is something of a caricature of my position. I am saying that in the absence of evidence for sexuality (and evidence that contradicts claims of sexuality) in JS’s sealing to Helen Mar Kimball, there’s no reason for people to condemn JS in this case and no reason for ex-Mormons like Samantha to get on some moral high horse.

            3. “wait, prove the claims are dubious” I gave you two references to pursue (Hales and Compton) on this. If you have a better formulation of the historical data surrounding Nancy’s possible sealing to JS, I’m all ears. (Please keep in mind that, according to Compton, “[Winchester] left as a historical legacy only a bare, enigmatic outline.” In other words, we know next to nothing about her relationship with JS beyond she was maybe sealed to him in either 1842 or 1843 [which would’ve made her 15, in that case].) Besides, the burden of proof is on Samantha to document JS was sealed to “14 year old wives” (PLURAL).

            4. “did JS “marry” other men’s wives?” Irrelevant to the discussion.

            5. “Were you taught any of this in Sunday School as a youth?” No. Again, irrelevant.

          • Shem

            >>It is Ms. Samantha that is claiming 14 year old wives (plural). The historical evidence is against this claim.

            Really, then who is Nancy Winchester? Bet you didn’t know that name. And please don’t say you did. Anyway, she was a 14-year-old wife of Joseph Smith. I bet the only one you were aware of was Helen Mar Kimball.

            Here’s my source.

            http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/

            Oh, and BTW, this site was posted well before the polygamy essay. The polygamy essay wouldn’t have existed if your church didn’t try to hide the facts for well over a 150 years. Your church makes videos and paintings of Joseph Smith running his hand across the golden plates when the true story was he put his head in a hat. He didn’t even need the golden plates. Which makes people wonder what the point of them was.

            Your church makes videos never mentioning Joseph Smith’s polygamy… portraying him as only married to Emma. Your church never shows why Smith went to Carthage in the first place or that he smuggled a gun in there and shot 3 people, 2 of them died.

            I can go on-and-on about the dishonesty of the LDS Church. Because that is what that church does. It’s only when it’s caught red-handed that they admit it, but in an apologetic way.

          • csteve

            again, Polygamy or whatever you want to call it was illegal in the United States at the time
            so much for the 12th Article of Faith

          • Again, irrelevant to what we’re discussing.

            Why is it so hard for ex-Mormons to stay focused on one topic?

            In any event, I’ve said my peace. I have much better things to do than argue with anonymous people on the Internet.

            Cheers!

          • csteve

            nice assumptions

          • csteve

            Chachi – just because you want the fact that it was illegal to be irrelevant to this discussion does not make it so. You took issue with the author stating “girls” instead of girl and tried to use this point to basically defend Joseph’s actions and discredit the author. If anything is bordering on ludicrous, this would be it in my opinion.

            The fact that polyandrous marriage was illegal is at all times relevant to any discussion regarding its practice by not only Joseph Smith but other early saints. They broke the law. It was and is wrong to break the law.

          • ma

            Stephen Smoot

            In your mind….

            What would it take to make the claim that the Mormon Church has the primary authority to speak on God’s behalf a lie?

          • Jeremiah Wolfenstasi

            The evidence suggesting that most if not all of JS’s marriages were sexual or intended to be is abundant. So much so that any reasonable person would assume it to be so. There is no persuasive evidence whatsoever that indicates that Joe’s polygamous and polyandrous marriages didn’t involve sexual relations. From the affidavits of Joe’s wives to the understanding of the people whom he taught to live this principle, even in the BOM itself, the inference is clearly that these marriages were no different than traditional marriage with the same expectations regarding the sexual aspect. Brian Hales plays fast and loose with his evidence and has had his clock cleaned for this many times in the internet community and is currently undergoing a beating from Grindael over on mormondiscussions.com. He preaches original sources and then famously uses ellipses to frame quotes out of context and wildly misinterpret them. Hales actually argues that JS didn’t commit adultery with Silvia Sessions because Joseph Smith himself didn’t BELIEVE it was adultery…..although factually it was. This is what apologetics consists of for people such as Hales and yourself. You want to focus on one topic and one topic only because when your explanation is contrasted with other problems and their apologetic explanations, the cognitive dissonance becomes palpable. The evidence for Joseph’s second 14 year old bride may be weak, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had no qualms about marrying a 14 year old which actually strengthens the evidence somewhat. Of course this is hardly the worst of what we know of Joe Smith and his behavior, much more disturbing than this is the fact that he took two orphan girls into his home and established a position of trust with them as their guardian while grooming them to be his wives much as a sexual predator would. This is one of the most despicable things that I can even imagine. We know for a fact that contrary to the specific instructions in D&C 132, he married many women in secret and hid it from his wife. Actions like these are simply indefensible for most people, yet you choose to defend him. The truth is, the fact that Joe Smith did these terrible things isn’t what bothers me the most, it’s that he did them and then convinced others to do likewise. He taught them that not only was it not wrong to behave this way, but God in fact commands it, effectively removing the blame from himself and assigning it to God.

        • Nathan Fife

          Read https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132 look at 58-66

          Once you do that, read the Church essay on polygamy.

          (Scripture and church sources only here)

          Did Joseph Smith break the rules revealed from God?

          The answer of course is YES… Weird though… Why would he do that?

          • I have read the verses in question. I have also read the Church’s essay “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.” What “rules revealed from God” is Joseph Smith supposed to have broken?

            Please be *very* specific and please don’t just give me slogans like Samantha has done.

          • Nathan Fife

            Marrying people who are already married, and marrying people who are not virgins. Honestly if you can read both of those things and not see any conflict whatsoever, then you’re just willfully ignoring it. You have a great day I hope that you enjoy your faith

          • Moroni Fielding Kimball

            Next, ask these amateur apologist where a scriptural license is given for the practice of polygamy outside of for the purpose of “raising up seed”?

          • But what does this passage really say? What does it mean when it says she cannot “be with another man” (v. 63)? Is that just marriage or does that also involve sexuality? The language is ambiguous, and Brian Hales has, I believe, convincingly argued sexual polyandry was not practiced by Joseph Smith. So *maybe* he broke the rule, but that’s only if we grant these verses are talking about anything less than sexual polyandry.

            In any event, you have a nice day as well.

          • velhoburrinho

            Apparently Mr. Hales didn’t convince the church history department about the polygamy and polyandry claims.

            So you seem to have a problem that you believe Mr. Hales more than the Church Historian, a sitting General Authority.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of7HNe3cbuo

          • I thought I was done with this nonsense, but I do want to ask you some questions, if only to demonstrate the folly of relying on sound bites.

            If Brian Hales isn’t taken seriously by the Church History Department, why do you suppose he’s cited EIGHT TIMES in the “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” essay that was prepared by the Church History Department (footnotes 9, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 40 )?

            Also, concerning polyandry, why, if Brian Hales isn’t taken seriously, does said essay read, “Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith’s sealings functioned in this way, and much evidence works against that view.” You do realize this is exactly what Brian has argued in his treatment of the topic, yes?

            Oh, and this too, also from the essay, “Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone.”

            So we have Brian Hales being cited eight times and we have Brian Hales’ arguments about the nature of Joseph Smith’s polyandry being followed in the Church History Department’s essay on plural marriage.

            Finally, speaking for firsthand knowledge, I know that Brian’s work is taken very seriously by many in the Church History Department.

            So there is no problem. Not for me, at least. There is a big problem for you and your chums here that like to base arguments on twenty second sound bites, however.

          • csteve

            OMG! Brian, is that you???

          • MTB

            Stephen, do YOU take Brian Hales seriously? Consider his defense of Joseph Smith regarding his “marriage” to Sylvia Sessions. Joseph Smith performs the legal marriage of Sylvia Sessions and Windsor Lyon in 1838. Sylvia and Windsor have 3 children together. Joseph excommunicates Windsor in 1842 due to Windsor taking William Marks (Commerce, then Nauvoo Stake President) to civil court over an unpaid debt of $3,000. The unpaid debt resulted in Windsor’s bankruptcy. While Windsor is excommunicated, Joseph, arguably, conceives a child (Josephine) with Sylvia in May of 1843. Remember, Sylvia and Windsor are still legally married at this point. Joseph possibly conceived a child (Sylvia, at least, thought it was Joseph’s child) with a woman that was legally married to another man (a man that Joseph had personally known for many years). This would mean that Joseph had sex with Sylvia (at least once) when Sylvia still had a 5 month old in her home (child #3).

            So, how does Hales spin this? Well, he calls Sylvia a “religious divorcee.” He speculates that maybe/possibly Windsor Lyon wasn’t living with Sylvia while he was excommunicated. As if this would make it OK for Joseph Smith to swoop in and have sex with his wife? People use the same type of mental/spiritual gymnastics to defend Warren Jeffs. At some point, you gotta just adhere to whatever moral and ethical code you try to live by and just flat-out state that this is wrong. It is adultery.

            And what about Windsor? Sylvia must have somehow been ok with Windsor. She had two more children with him after Joseph’s death.

          • Okay, let’s set the record straight here.

            You claim Brian is “speculating” that Sylvia wasn’t living with Windsor Lyon at the time of her sealing (and probably sexual union) with Joseph Smith.

            What do the facts say?

            Well, for one thing, we have none other than . . . wait for it . . . Sylvia’s daughter Josephine stating, “She [Sylvia] then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.” Windsor Lyon was excommunicated in November 1842, and the evidence from Andrew Jenson’s investigation places the time of the sealing “[w]hen [Windsor] left the Church” and in early 1843 (not 1842 as was previously supposed). Josephine was probably conceived in May 1843, and Windsor Lyon returned to the Church as late as January 1846. He then has two more sons by Sylvia in 1846 (when she rejoined him) and 1847.

            Also, you’re creating a straw man version of what Brian is actually arguing vis-a-vis the possible “religious divorce” between Sylvia and Windsor Lyon. Likewise, while it can’t positively be proven, “That Sylvia and Windsor were living together in the same household or sharing the same bed after his excommunication remains undocumented and seems to contradict the other available evidence.” Evidence which is carefully explored by Brian in volume one of his three-volume work.

            You see, unlike most of the material of that rank amateur Jeremy Runnells, Brian isn’t pulling this stuff out of his ass. There are legitimate reasons to be highly suspicious of sexual polyandry in the case of Joseph Smith’s sealing to Sylvia Sessions. And just to add for good measure, I know of one very reputable (this individual has published on plural marriage in a number of academic venues) family and Mormon historian who told me personally that he was convinced that sexual polyandry was a thing until he read the work of Brian Hales. He specifically mentioned Sylvia Sessions as someone he had always thought engaged in sexual polyandry with Joseph Smith until he encountered Brian’s work, which made him drastically rethink his position.

            So maybe, just maybe, Brian’s work isn’t as laughable as everyone here thinks.

            (Then again, I can appreciate that in order to assuage your ex-Mormon cognitive dissonance you need to delegitimize Brian and his work.)

            “People use the same type of mental/spiritual gymnastics to defend Warren Jeffs.”

            If I had a nickel for every time an ex-Mormon used the phrase “mental gymnastics” to describe careful historical analysis he or she simply didn’t understand, why, I’d have enough money to buy Kate Kelly that laptop she so badly wants.

            And now I’m turning off my notifications because I have actual work to do today, and don’t have time to argue with anonymous crackpots on some wholly inconsequential and forgettable anti-Mormon website. Although I do wish you and your chums here fun while you dog pile on me with your anti-Mormon spin, obfuscation, and, dare I say, mental gymnastics.

            Cheers!

          • Jeremiah Wolfenstasi

            Mental gymnastics indeed. Since when does not living with one’s wife, constitute divorce? This was at most a brief separation as there were children before and after. And how would Joseph Smith be justified to have sex with another man’s wife even during a brief separation given the explicit instructions given regarding plural marriage in D&C 132? What we have here is you and Hales attempting to justify despicable behavior in the name of God. Let’s just be charitable with your assertions for a moment. Let’s say that Sylvia left Windsor for a time because she was upset about his excommunication, you’re saying that during this time, God commanded Joseph Smith to hook up with Sylvia? Really? Of course, you can’t explain WHY God commanded it. Just that God is not only cool with this kind of thing, he in fact endorses it. By the way, what is your or Hales’ evidence that Windsor and Sylvia were divorced during this time? That’s right, there is none. You only suggest this to avoid the fact that JS committed adultery. I’m sure Windsor’s children were thrilled to hear that their mom was banging the prophet while their dad was away. It makes for great stories around the dinner table don’t you think? I’m sure it made Windsor feel like a man too……if he even knew, which is questionable. There’s so much good in mormonism and it’s history, it just oozes with faith promoting stories that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn’t it? By the way, sexual polyandry is a term that apologists have invented in order to imply it’s opposite, ‘non-sexual polyandry’. Both terms are idiotic on their face as polyandry by definition is a woman being married to more than one man and implies a sexual relationship along with all other rights associated with this type of union. The only way to assume or infer otherwise is with evidence that the relationships were NOT marital and by definition were NOT polyandrous. Joseph simply married whoever he wanted and did whatever he liked whether the women were married or not. Hales and yourself are just trying to compartmentalize uncomfortable truths and redefine terms in an attempt to rationalize despicable behavior. Nobody’s perfect and we all have our faults but there’s a line that JS crossed when he started teaching his immoral proclivities as commandments from God.

          • Michael Anderson

            Let’s take a step back. The fact that we’re even discussing polyandry and secret plural marriages/sealings–regardless of whether or not sex was involved–is disconcerting. Why should we believe that such a character as Joseph Smith was commanded by God to involve himself in such antics?

            Otherwise, I agree with your assumptions, Mr. Smoot. I, myself, always write about and try to leave as much evidence as I can about my sex life. If I were to have secret sexual relations, I would write about them too. It’s preposterous to assume that Joseph Smith had sex with anyone without him or someone else having written about it! My bedroom is always open to the world!

          • MTB

            “anonymous crackpots”…… well, that escalated quickly. No need to get testy about things. You’re in the wrong spot if you’re unable to have a rational, adult discussion about these matters. Your defensiveness seems to be causing you to get agitated. No need for name-calling.

            I read your response, and I’ve missed where you “set the record straight.” You indicate that you want to look at what the “facts say,” but then you don’t provide anything concrete that proves that Windsor Lyon and Sylvia Sessions didn’t live together while Windsor was excommunicated (which is why I stated that Hales “speculates” that they were not living together). You have a large build-up to the Josephine statement, as if this will prove that Windsor and Sylvia weren’t living together. Am I missing something? What about this statement, which you provided, proves that Windsor and Sylvia weren’t living together?

            “She [Sylvia] then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.”

            You stated that I’m creating a straw man of the “religious divorce” characterization from Hales. I’m simply using language from Hales’ site:

            “That Sylvia, essentially a religious divorcee at that time, might have chosen the Prophet as her husband in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage may seem strange.”
            http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/sylvia-sessions/

            So, please go on record, Stephen. You seem to be dodging the key issue. It sounds like you are in the Brian Hales camp, that any sex that Joseph had with Sylvia was acceptable because Windsor was excommunicated, at the time. Therefore, this isn’t considered “sexual polyandry.” Is this your position? Do you feel that even though Windsor and Sylvia were still legally married, that it was acceptable for Joseph to have sex with Sylvia? Are you using the excommunication loophole, like Hales does, to defend sex with a married woman? I just want to make sure I am clear on your position…… And I will also go on record with my position: I believe that Joseph Smith used his religious standing and authority to gain sexual access (in this case ,to another man’s legal wife). You can keep claiming that your “careful historical analysis” puts you on a higher level of understanding. That is your right. But I also have the right to consider your position morally bankrupt.

            “If I had a nickel” for every time an active church member defended Joseph Smith’s predatory sexual behavior, I’d be able to buy Kate Kelly a whole lotta laptops….. and speaking of defending Joseph Smith’s sexual behavior. You ever heard of Michael Travesser? Apparently, God commanded him to have sex with other men’s wives (including his son’s wife). Obvious fraud, right? Well, people still defend this dirt bag, as well (start at 6:45 minute mark):
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvytVhqiO6E

          • csteve

            Yeah, I am getting tired of his not so subtle insults. Nonsense, ludicrous, crackpots, misinformed etc.

            Also, why does the LDS Church need Brian Hales to defend them??

          • Jeremiah Wolfenstasi

            For those of you unfamiliar with the basics of Hales reasoning regarding Sylvia Sessions and Joseph Smith it can be easily summarized as this. Adultery is bad. God commanded Joseph Smith to do what he did, so what he did can’t be bad, therefore, it was not adultery. They do this because of the negative connotations associated with the word adultery. His relationship with Sylvia Sessions was in fact by DEFINITION adultery. They just want mormons to feel good about adultery……when it’s commanded by God….cognitive dissonance much?

          • velhoburrinho

            You scored a TEN for that mental gymnastics routine. You can now pull your leotard out of your ass.

          • velhoburrinho

            You are becoming quite the adept apologist, maybe a career in CES or law would fit.

            Answer to your questions-

            1) I don’t think it would have been prudent for the church to site some of the other books, by the Tanners, or say Tom Phillips, when they could get the same generic information and references out of “Brian’s” book, which would be much safer at least from the historical point of view and opinions that they are trying to encourage. Which book would they rather a questioning TBM to go to?

            2) The Church Historian called what went on Polyandry. He did not clarify what their definition included. But from the essays and what was shared at the Swedish rescue, it was a woman having multiple husbands. It did not include your expanded definition.

            I listened to every presentation I could find of Dr. Brian Hales. The research presented was good, and he is entertaining. But during many presentations and rebuttals to others presentations he kept saying he was just presenting the facts, and letting them speak for themselves, when in fact he was doing just the opposite, showing some facts and then trying to bend it to his beliefs. Which at least to me greatly weakened his arguments, and puts him in the apologist column. The arguments that you and Dr. Hales and others of the type, remind me of the side stepping speech and dishonesty that President Clinton exhibited when he said he didn’t inhale, or when he denied sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.

          • Shem

            >>What “rules revealed from God” is Joseph Smith supposed to have broken?

            Well, let’s look here:

            D&C 132

            61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another,and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

            62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they
            belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

            So they had to be virgins? So why did he married women whom were already married? Obviously they weren’t virgins.

            And there are many contradictions. For one, here is what the essay says that you read:

            >>Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of
            plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment.

            Here is what it says in D&C 132:8

            >>Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

            Also, what about this contradiction?

            Jacob 2:24:

            >>Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

            D&C 132:39:

            >>David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

            So what David did was an “abomination” before the Lord, but he gave him those wives?

            I can go on-and-on about the problems you refuse to acknowledge.

        • Loran

          No, he means all the half-digested suggestions, innuendo, and baseless pseudo-scholarship he’s imbibed on the Web on anti-Mormon spin sites and is now regurgitating here with the babes in arms around him.

          • ma

            Loran.

            What if I pray with real intent and God tells me that the Mormon Church isn’t in charge?

            Are my “real intent” and prayer worth less than your “real intent” and prayer?

        • Kevin

          Joseph Smith = Warren Jeffs. End of story.

          • Zelph on the Shelf

            Moral relativism at its finest!

        • ma

          Stephen Smoot.

          Assuming the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fiction, did Peter, James and John visit Joseph and give him the God’s Priesthood anyway?

        • Even if you were trying to correct it and say “it was only ONE 14 year old girl”, does that somehow make it better?

    • Here’s a short bio if anyone is unfamiliar with who Ed Decker is.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Decker

  • Jim

    Hide all the evidence for the Book of Mormon and what would have been the biggest war in human history? Huh? WW2 resulted in over 15 million military-related deaths, over 45 million civilian deaths. I don’t remember anything in the BOM even remotely on this scale.

    • MTB

      Jim, I’m guessing that “Zina” was referring to a particular “battle,” not a “war” (certainly correct me, Zina, if I’m wrong). The heading to Ether 15 states that “Millions of the Jaredites are slain in battle.” Based on the wording in verse 2, total slain would be significantly greater than 2M, once wives and children were accounted for. We’re talking hand-to-hand combat, crawling over millions of corpses to continue to fight, for a number of days. We’re talking wives and children “armed with weapons of war.” The necessary human support, food, weaponry and battlefield for a battle of this magnitude is absolutely staggering (John Larsen of Mormon Expression has some insightful commentary on this topic, if you’re interested).

      By comparison, when you consider the known “formation battles” with the most casualties (which includes injured AND dead), then you can see why the Jaredite battle seems a bit far-fetched:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties

      Speaking of the final Jaredite battle, Shiz “raised up on his hands” after he was decapitated? Really? And this final Jaredite battle took place at the Hill Cumorah. Any guesses on where that might be? There’s got to be 2M+ “shields, and breastplates, and head-plates” (Ether 15:15) laying around somewhere. And horses. We should also expect to see some horse bones on this battlefield as the book of Ether states that the Jaredites had horses.

      • Jim

        Gotcha. In terms of a battle that makes more sense. I guess I’d have to go back and re-read Ether to get a real sense of things. At a quick glance the passage doesn’t give a sense of the timeline. Two million is a pretty far-fetched number though regardless. Even with rifles and many long months that would rival battles like Stalingrad, suggesting something truly insane for a hand to hand conflict. I would say in terms of battles/wars prior to the invention of gunpowder this would probably surpass anything else out there.

      • Zelph on the Shelf

        You’re correct, yes! Sorry for the confusion there, Jim!

  • Loran

    I haven’t found a serious critical thinker or interlocutor at the Zelph
    site yet, and most of them are anonymous Internet cowards who won’t sign
    their names to any of their usually blistering essays.

    Deep shades of the Trailerpark at the End of the Universe and those who drop bowling balls from the overpass and run away.

    Most, indeed virtually all, of the material on this site is emotive and
    polemical in nature. No attempt is made at serious thinking or
    analysis. The first paragraph is one great red flag:

    “As I have partly explained in other posts such as this one, leaving the
    church was freaking hard. It requires intense emotional strength,
    commitment to truth, and ultimately, a truckload full of courage. It
    requires humility and a willingness to be wrong that most humans are
    never forced to develop. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done, and I
    know others who have gone though a similar experience would say the
    same.”

    The author sets up the rest of the piece by pointing to herself as a
    paragon of emotional strength, intellectual integrity, and a rock of
    fortitude and courage – a heroic figure amidst a maelstrom of churning
    bedlam – in the face of the dreaded Morg; the concentrated Darth
    Vaderian forces of oppression, deceit, and political incorrectness

    And when apologists say “Oh please” to this unalloyed narcissism in the
    service of poisoning the well before any arguments have even been made,
    the volume increases.

    • ma

      Loran.

      Your words…

      “Most, indeed virtually all, of the material on this site is emotive….”

      This stated in defense of the need to use “serious thinking” and “analysis” when dealing with issues as weighty as whether the mormon church holds the sole authority to speak in God’s name to the human race.

      and yet…

      “Real” knowledge of this claim, the claim that the LDS church has that “authority”, can only be found in the emotional experience. It can’t be proven objectively.

      I’m certain you agree.

      This is because when all things are considered objectively, it’s impossible to prove the idea using human standards of logic and proof.

      So you will eventually resort to the argument that real knowledge can only be gained via emotional connection with God’s spirit, as all mormons do and as all mormons must.

      An example from God’s perfect book.

      “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

      You send out thousands of missionaries who tell people this very thing. They tell people to ignore what stands right in front of them, and ask God to send his spirit to speak to them about whether it is true or not.

      About whether the mormon church is “true” or not. It’s an emotional claim.

      Given that…are you in a position to lecture people about analysis and serious thought, when your own argument(s) will eventually break down around the edges, and run back under an emotional blankie?

    • Shem

      >>I haven’t found a serious critical thinker or interlocutor at the Zelph
      site yet, and most of them are anonymous Internet cowards who won’t sign
      their names to any of their usually blistering essays

      I’m so glad you said this Loran. I really am. Here’s why. Those LDS “Essays” on the Gospel Topics section at LDS.org never signed their essays nor date them. Apparently nobody wants to take credit for them. Instead, they hide them in the back of LDS.org in hopes nobody sees them.

      So before criticizing the author of this site for such a thing, why don’t you ask the same thing from your church. Because now that I have pointed this out and now aware of it, if you don’t retract or ask the same thing from your church leaders, you’re being a hypocrite. Pure and simple!!!

      • Ryan Bailey

        Ha, you aren’t going to get a response because this Loran is a troll.

        • Shem

          I’m not going to get a response because I burned Loran’s ass and Loran walked away with their tail between their legs.

          • Ryan Bailey

            That was a great point about the anonymous essays. 20 years from now they don’t want people googling talks like SWK’s “Of Royal Blood” from 1971 or Mark E. Peterson’s CES “Race Problems – As They Affect The Church” from 1954 and being able to pin them down for teaching what the current leadership consider ‘false’ or ‘anti’ doctrine.

            What’s interesting is that you can still find the SWK talk on lds.org but you can’t find Peterson’s. It’s amazing what has been brought back out of the ‘memory hole’ since the age of the internet.

    • Zelph on the Shelf

      Hey, Loran. Tweet me @thesamspo anytime, k? 🙂

    • Davey t

      So what , other than ’emotive’ and ‘polemical’ statements, are you bringing to the discussion?
      Have you been labelled an anti-Mormon before? Do you know what that experience is like? Do you find people act differently to you because of it? Do you have any advice for those going through it? I used to be a Mormon – a good one (well that’s what my temple recommend said 😉 – I left and yes people reacted differently. Many Mormons were great about it and to their credit haven’t changed towards me and my family. Many weren’t.

      Having a shared space to discuss varying experiences and fostering understanding of perceptions and clarifications of meaning is vital. I’m sure lots of members find things I point out about the church as obnoxious as I find some things they say to and about me. It is much easier for both sides to change if a dialogue exists. This site has that potential if you can dial back the defence and protect instinct (I get it, the church and your worldview are under heavy, intense intellectual assault) and engage in honest discussion.

    • Zack Tacorin

      Loran,

      You wrote:
      “I haven’t found a serious critical thinker or interlocutor at the Zelph site yet, and most of them are anonymous Internet cowards.”

      Ad hominem fallacy: “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/10-ad-hominem-abusive ).

      Do you see any irony in in this? Or, is calling others “anonymous Internet cowards” a form of logical syllogism I’m not familiar with?

      My best,
      Zack

  • I know what I have started to say myself is, I’m not anti-Mormon. I’m anti-Mormonism.

    Although there are assholes who are Mormon. Those who preach and yell “Why can’t you just leave us alone?” All the while they come to your door unannounced and tell you what you are doing wrong. And that you need to come back to the fold to be safe.

    And then of course you have comments on here that show just how “loving” they are.

  • Loran

    “One way Mormons attempt to poison the well (aka dismiss or minimize
    negative information about the church and its history) is by using the
    term “anti-Mormon”.”

    One way anti-Mormons (people are active, open, and unambiguous enemies/critics of the Church, not just who don’t accept its teachings) poison the well is to deny that they are anti-Mormon (anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), a kind
    of reverse well-poisoning that seeks to pee in the pool before the opposition. Quite interesting.

    “It immediately shuts members off from certain sources or people, and allows for the perpetuation of “thebubble” and false ideas.”

    More well-poisoning and question begging, and this essay is just beginning.

    “I do not believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at
    all what it claims, and I am confident that is a very provable belief.”

    But that’s not why you would be understood as “anti-Mormon.” This
    essay, and the venue in which it is published, is prima facie evidence
    that there is much to in the mix there than mere disbelief. The tone
    and approach of the essays in this forum are the clearest basis upon
    which to make that claim.

    “Any Mormon has the ability to research any claim I or anyone else ever makes about the church, and determine for him/herself if they think it’s true. (Shoutout to the CES Letter. 10/10. Would recommend.)”

    Many of us have, “Zina,” for many years (and decades) and found such claims to be far less than advertized.

    “Because I am anti-people-believing-lies, I contribute to this, an
    “anti-Mormon” website. I want people to learn the truth about the LDS
    church for three main reasons:”

    OK, so you are an anti-Mormon – or are opposed to the Church and its teachings, and actively engaged in promoting a contrary view, which brings us back to where we began. Thanks.

    “It’s simply not true, and I don’t believe anything which is false should be furthered.”

    More emotional strength, courage, and fortitude here…

    We now learn that Zina’s opposition is, as almost always it the case in our modern world, ideological in nature:

    “There are people suffering because of their belief in the LDS
    church, such as LGBT individuals, intellectuals, and those with
    basically any belief that is “too different” from what the organization
    teaches. The thought that this is all occurring because of something
    that is false is heartbreaking to me.”

    The church is loaded with intellectuals, and always has been. No, by this I do not the “the” intellectuals (as Dr. Sowell et al have used the term), but certainly
    intellectuals (Truman Madsen was not an intellectual? Neal A Maxwell?
    Hugh Nibley? Sidney B. Sperry?)

    “But ask yourself a few questions, Mormons:

    Do you think Satan really gets hold of people enough to cause them
    to invent lies about the church for the sheer thrill of it?”

    Yup. Its called “evil,” and so not discount the sheer thrill of wallowing and reveling in evil.

    “(Bearing in mind that the reason many people like me left is because
    we read things such as the Journal of Discourses and accounts from
    polygamist wives etc, who, according to you, must have been “deceived by
    Satan”.)”

    I’ve read much of the JoD too, but, as I understand the nature of the origin and status of doctrine, and that every word coming from the mouth of a Church leader does not meet or even necessarily approach that standard (and the standard can be known and known to be true with certainty), I have chosen to undergo no “faith
    crisis” (and make no mistake, it is a choice).

    “Did he also hide all the evidence for the Book of Mormon and what would have been the biggest war in human history?”

    Astounding.

    “Do you really think humans, particularly people who love you, who are
    now “anti-Mormon” really just want to make you unhappy and ruin your
    life?”

    They want to destroy your faith and testimony, which would
    be tantamount, in the end of ruining your eternity, a far heavier
    price.

    “To my Mormon friends—yes, I am an anti-Mormon. I am
    “anti” a lot of things in the world, as I’m sure you are too. But please
    understand that “anti” does not equate to “seeks for everyone who is
    pro-that to be unhappy”.”

    Very crafty but transparent straw man here. Nice try, but no deal.

    “That is absolutely not the case. It is the complete opposite. I care
    about honesty, I care about happiness, and I care about kindness, and I
    do not believe the LDS church, ultimately, is conducive to those
    things.”

    Really? I want to say, “CFR,” but for what? The church is immersed in dishonesty, unhappiness, and cruelty, and teaches this to its members? Zina is either mad (unlikely) or is herself not being intellectually honest, or ingenuous.

    “I am proud to be anti-Mormon because I am proud to no longer support the moral relativism of a self-proclaimed prophet marrying 14-year-old girls. I am proud
    that I no longer justify racism, sexism, gender inequality, and
    judgement of others because they don’t follow the ideas of an extremely
    niche worldview. I am proud to have used, and continue using the brain
    I’ve been blessed with to learn—not just in education, but in the areas
    of life that matter the most. I am proud that I have the courage to
    stand up for what I believe in, even when it’s hard, and when people
    judge me and hate me for it. I am proud to be anti-Mormon because my
    conscience is clear, my heart is open, and I am committed to truth.”

    Translation: Zina is a leftist, and wholly dedicated to that religion, and one cannot serve two masters.

    • Michael Anderson

      Nice analysis Loran! So very thorough and well thought out. You truly have a dizzying intellect, sir.

    • Kevin

      If you were born a Scientologist, you’d be fighting “anti-Scientologists” right now. Lol. “L. Ron Hubbard was not an intellectual?! yeah right!”. Try and think objectively. Realize the only reason you give “the church” the extreme benefit of the doubt is that you were born into it. That’s it. No other reason.

    • Zelph on the Shelf

      I hate to ruin what was clearly a beautiful debunking of my article, but I’m actually not a leftist. Some great thoughts though! 🙂

      • Moroni Fielding Kimball

        Loran does not know how to detach religious discussion from political. For him it is impossible to be a good member and a democrat, and all politics can be categorized via the American left-right dichotomy. Remember – Jesus votes republican.

    • Zack Tacorin

      Loran,

      I apologize in advance for being a little slow on the pickup here. There were a lot of things in your comment I didn’t understand. I’m just going to ask you about some of the things that seemed most confusing to me.

      You accuse anti-Mormons of well-poisoning for denying they are anti-Mormons. Here’s what I understand well-poisoning to be:
      “To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable, or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim” (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/141-poisoning-the-well ).
      How is denying an attack on one’s self attacking another preemptively? What definition of “well-poisoning” are you referring to?

      You wrote:
      “I have chosen to undergo no “faith crisis” (and make no mistake, it is a choice).”
      By “faith crisis” do you mean a shift in belief? If so, what beliefs do you shift by choice? For example, are you able to choose to believe the sky is purple with yellow polka dots just because you want to?

      You wrote:
      “They [‘anti-Mormons’] want to destroy your faith and testimony, which would be tantamount, in the end of ruining your eternity, a far heavier price.”
      Are you aware that former Scientologists and former JWs engage in the same anti-TheirFormerReligion activity as “anti-Mormons”? Do you suppose it’s Satan influencing them too, or could it be they’re upset about the deception perpetrated by their former religions and they could be trying to help those currently deceived?

      In response to Zina’s “But please understand that ‘anti’ does not equate to ‘seeks for everyone who is
      pro-that to be unhappy’”, you responded:
      “Very crafty but transparent straw man here.”
      A strawman fallacy is described as “Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument” (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/170-strawman-fallacy ). Yet you are the one that just prior to this wrote, “”They [‘anti-Mormons’] want to destroy your faith and testimony, which would be tantamount, in the end of ruining your eternity, a far heavier price.” Since it appears she’s refuting the gist of your assertion here, what precisely did you mean by “straw man”?

      Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide,
      Zack

      • wrapture

        Oh, now you’ve gone and done it. Driven Loran from the conversation, you have, with accuracy and fact – the two things that he hates most.

        Just as well, I suppose. His schtick was getting a bit stale, anyway.

  • Kim Littlejohn

    I really appreciate this article! I wish members could be as tolerant to us as we are to them.

  • As you know, we obviously have different views on the validity of the Church, but I like your definition of anti-Mormon. I was a missionary for two years, and somewhat zealously promote my faith still today, so I can allow others that same kind of passion for their ideals, even if I think they’re incorrect. Us Mormons don’t get to have a monopoly on sharing deeply held beliefs, and in my opinion the Gospel stands for itself when put into practice. I don’t have any feelings of needing to “protect” myself from “anti” information or people; we’re not in some kind of two-sided battle, with each opposing team taking turns hurling shots at the other. Everybody is just trying to make it through life the best they can with the knowledge and experiences they have. We can help others out by sharing with each other whats helped us, and then politely afford that same opportunity to those with opposing ideas. Good article by a good person. 🙂

    • Zelph on the Shelf

      AMEN! It’s not about dividing. It’s about uniting. 🙂 ALWAYS LOVING YOU, CHRIS(T-LIKE).

    • Michael Anderson

      It’s great to see a believer on here who doesn’t try to disqualify honest feelings and experiences. Thank you for being awesome Chris!

    • Richard R. Lyman

      This is one of the most refreshing comments I’ve ever read. I think I’m just going to stop here. Much love brother!

  • Yup, you got me. I’m just an anti-intellectual, sexist, women-hating, bigot of a person who thinks that anything remotely relating to “anti-Mormon” material is merely written by people who are “Satan worshipper[s] who hates their mom and can’t stop lying.” You’ve revealed my tactics completely. Bravo.

    • Michael Anderson

      Wait, who are you?

  • ponderer

    not-anti Mormon but pro-truth. not my fault that truth and reality happened to be anti-mormon.

  • Joseph Knight

    In the Book of Mormon, the immortal Jesus descends from the sky and teaches an American people the Lord’s Prayer. But Jesus misquotes himself. The Lord’s prayer in the Book of Mormon is different than the Lord’s Prayer in the Bible. The Mormon version leaves out the line “Give us this day our daily bread”. compare 3 Nephi 13:9-13 to Matthew 6:9-13

  • Pingback: steroids for sale()

  • Robert Henely

    Nice article and glad you shared your thoughts. I am anti mormon because of the way they act and stick for another mormon over other folks Especially when they are running a government office. Shame on all of them . they should not have tax exempt anything as the mormon run outfit is a business ! a cult for sure . shameful people , have taken over states .


google-site-verification: google2cac8eb5ff86e577.html