Monday, February 27, 2006


Wellinton, Shropshire, surgeon J. F. Steedman was famed and highly regarded throughout the area of Wellington, Shropshire, for his skills as a surgeon. However in 1854 Mr Steedman caused a sensation in Wellington when he was on trial for attacking and severely beating a Mormon missionary.

The trial of Thomas Williams v J. F. Steedman took place in the County Court, under “that indefatigable” member of the judiciary, Uvedale Corbett, Esq., as the Welllintton Journal described him.

The case was brought against Mr Steedman by Thomas Williams, a “Mormonite” –as they were then often described- from Shrewsbury, the county town of Shropshire, some twelve or so miles from Wellington.

Due to the high feelings of people against the Mormons in Wellington and the popularity of Mr Steedman, the case had to be removed from the Wellington County Court to the picturesque medieval town hall of Newport, Shropshire.

On the day of the trial the courtroom was packed out with a large crowd of interested parties.

Mr Craig was the advocate for the plaintiff, T. S. Smallwood for the defence. The damages claimed were fixed at the then princely sum of £50.

After the jury was sworn in Mr Craig stated the case of his client, claiming that he had been the subject of an unprovoked attack by Mr Steedman. (In Britain surgeons are always addresses as Mr., never doctor, by tradition.)

He concluded his opening speech by questioning Williams as to his belief in the New Testament, which he professed to believe in.

Williams gave the following deposition to the court: “I am a thread-finisher in the employ of Marshalls of Shrewsbury, where I have been employed for 15 years.

On Sunday 1 January this year (1854) I was in Park Street, Wellington, in the company of a young man named Henry Shaw, going from house to house, distributing tracts belonging to my sect.

“I called at the house of Mr Steedman who is a surgeon, alone. Mr Steedman answered the door himself. (many employers in Victorian times gave their servants Sunday off) I presented a tract, and asked him if he would have the kindness to read it, and I would call on him on the next Sunday, and renew it if agreeable. He glanced over the outside of the tract and asked if I would walk in.

“I said I had no objection, and he shewed me into a room on the left side, There was no one in the room. He went to the window, opened it, looked up and down the street for a moment or so. And then shut the window.

He opened the tract, turned it leaf after leaf and said; “What does this tract contain?” I said; “It contains the initiatory principles into the sect of which I am a member of.” He said: “What is that?” I answered: “”Faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

He said: “You believe in miracles, don’t you?” I said I did. He said: “You believe in the gift of tongues?” I answered that we did. He said: “What reason have you for believing that?” I replied, “because I had received them myself.” He said: “You believe in the gift of healing, don’t you?” I said: “Yes, we do.”

He then rushed at me, gave me a blow with his clenched fist over my left eye and said, with an oath, “Get that healed!” The blow nearly stunned me, and caused me to kneel, but before I fell, he again struck me. That floored me.

He then commenced kicking me; the first kick was on the calf of my leg, the second was in the ribs. The room appeared to spin round, and I seemed to be losing my senses. His kicks took the breath out of me. When my senses returned he was standing over me, and again commenced kicking me.

With the assistance of a chair, I got into a half-standing position, and he then began striking me, about the head, face and shoulders with his fist. I called “murder,” and made for the door, which I got open about an inch. He rushed at me, put his foot against the door and shut it, and recommenced kicking and striking me. I shouted: “Oh, dear sir, have mercy upon me; or do you intend to kill me?”

He took no notice, but gave me a blow on the left temple that sent me bouncing against the wall. I felt myself going again. He then stepped back a yard or so, and I got the door open.

He rushed at me, and with a kick on my posteriors, sent me from the door to the causeway, and said: “There, _______, you devil, take that!” I went over the intermediate steps, clear. I saw no one but the defendant while in his house. I did not strike him, the first blow put me past striking. He is a much larger man than I am. While I was against the palisading (in front of the defendant’s house) Shaw came up. I saw also a man and a boy.

Shaw assisted me. We walked a few yards, and then I vomited three mouthfuls of blood. We went to Mrs Butler’s in New Street. Mrs Butler fomented my face with hot water for about half-an-hour, and gave me a glass of spirits.

“I lay on the sofa till about a quarter past seven. Mr Shaw assisted me upstairs and looked at my ribs. I had much difficulty in getting home that night by rail. My mother got me to bed and sent for Mr Pidduck, the surgeon. He could not come, but sent directions for my treatment. “On the next day, I went with my father to Wellington, and saw Mr Jones, the surgeon, there. On our return I fell fainting into my father’s arms.

“Mr Gill first saw me on Wednesday the 4. In the meantime I was fomented and poulticed, as Mr Pidduck directed, by my mother. Mr Gill attended me till the 28 or 29 of January, the day before I resumed my employment.

“During that time I was constantly attended by my mother. I could not dress or undress myself for a fortnight. I am now wearing a strengthening plaster on my side, by Mr Gill’s orders.

“I cannot work overtime as I formerly did, and now follow my employment with difficulty. Before the injuries I earned 15s a week, including overtime.”

He informed the court that he had been made overseer (“of the saints”) in the district and claimed that no tracts were delivered without his knowledge. “I never saw Mr Steedman before.”

In his cross-examination, he admitted that the dissemination of the doctrine of “plural marriage” had caused many disturbances in Wellington. He denied that he had offered religious instruction to Mr Steedman, or that he had claimed that the “gift of tongues” was “exclusive to Mormons.”

Henry Shaw, who was also employed as a thread-finisher at Messrs. Marshal’s, PC Smith of Wellington; Mary Butler of Wellington, formerly a Mormonite, but who was, she told the court, now a Roman Catholic (“I have not been a saint since last October”) and Mary Williams, the mother of the plaintiff; all gave evidence that corroborated some of the parts of the statement by Williams.

The controversial Mormon doctrine of polygamy, where one man could take as many wives as he wanted, did seem to influence the development of the case.

George P. Gill, who had examined Williams said; “I examined the plaintiff. The principal injury was merely a bruise, extending from the fourth to the seventh ribs. It was a good deal swollen and very tender. It might have been produced by a blow or a kick, most probably the latter.
He had complained of some difficulty in breathing. I did not see him spit blood. If the vomiting took place, it most likely proceeded from the rupture of a small blood vessel. I saw no reason to apprehend any bleeding had taken place.

There was a contusion on the left eye, not of any very serious extent. The plaintiff appeared to have had a good beating. A small enlargement of the gland took place about a fortnight after I was called in. During the first part of his illness, he appeared to suffer a great deal of pain. I saw him twice at his own house. He came to me about three weeks. During that time I think he was not able to work.

“He seems a poor, feeble, sickly person. From the nature of his constitution, the injuries may be felt for some time, but it is not very probable. The enlargement of the gland has almost subsided.

“The distance between my house and the plaintiff’s is about a mile and a half; he came to me three or four times. My attentions were so slight that I only charged a guinea.”

Mr Craig, for Williams told the court that the sole reason for the attack was personal animosity towards his client by Mr Steedman.

However, the defence advocate, T. C. Smallwood painted a wholly different picture. He scoffed at the idea that there was any personal animosity by Mr Steedman for Williams.

He told the jury that Mr Steedman had been affronted by having someone of the beliefs of the plaintiff promoting his religion in the town in which he, Mr Steedman, lived.

The words T. C. Smallwood used were reported thus: “Mr Steedman felt indignation at having the privacy of his home invaded by disseminators of doctrines of the horrible nature that had been disclosed.”

According to the local press, the speech was skilful at playing on the passions of the jury. He asked them, as husbands and fathers, to put themselves in the place of Mr Steedman.

Consider, he asked, if his resentment at the “lewd and blasphemous creed, which this sect propagates, was not pardonable?”

The impression he made on the jury was strong and the calm and clear summing up by Judge Corbett was unable to remove the effects from the minds of the jury members. After only a few moments consultation the jury rose and returned a unanimous verdict. Although they found in favour of the plaintiff (Mr Steedman had not after all, denied that he had assaulted Williams) in the sum of £5.

Mr Steedman was also known for his great work for Christ Church, Wellington. Whilst one can understand his animosity towards the “Mormonites” it is arguably a pity that someone in his position had been unable to show some “Christian” restraint in his dealing with Williams. Who, perhaps, should not have brought the case in the first place, on similar grounds.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Why are Mormons liars?

Mormons are taught not to lie. More specifically, they are taught “not to bear false witness.” How strange it is for us ex-Mormons to keep finding that Mormons descend on the ex-Mormon bulletin board ( with the express intention of lying and bearing false witness to us?

They use a variety of poses. The gentle seeker after truth. The ex-Mormon who has some sincere questions about the faith, the believing Mormon who is struggling with attending church, and there are even people who were born into Mormonism who pretend that they were converts from another faith when they visit

Why do Mormon feel it necessary to visit and lie? Do they not realise that, in the lies that they tell, they are condemning themselves?

Is it possible that they do not consider lying to “apostates” (sic) to be an actual, real lie? Do they consider that “being a liar for Jesus” is somehow justified in the arid and vacuous theology that appertains to Mormonism?

Do they really, honestly think that the people who use are so stupid and gullible that they will not be able to spot that they are not what they claim to be, but are, instead, nothing but filthy liars?

They attempt to re-convert ex-Mormons by trying to blind us by throwing dirt in our eyes. As a tactic, it is mind numbingly dense. Stupid, even. But when Daniel C. Peterson, a lecturer at BYU decides to use such subterfuge at, one realises that the “being a liar for Jesus” programme is one that is approved of at the very highest levels of the Mormon church. The Mormon church. Condemned out of its own mouth.

A rather amusing example of Mormon humour

This was posted at by Nephitehorsewoman. It made me laugh.

Utah Census Form1. _____________________ (Given name)
2. _____________________ (SURNAME)
3. Descendant of:A. Brigham Young _____
B. Heber C. Kimball _____
C. Laman and Lemuel _____
D. Cain _____
4. Tribe of Israel: _____________________
5. Number of occupants residing in home in each category:
(Listed in chronological order)
A. Nursery _____

B. Junior Primary _____
C. Senior Primary _____
D. Young Women's _____
E. Young Men's _____F. Relief Society _____
G. Elder _____
H. Dearly Departed _____
I. High Priest _____

6. Occupation [Please select all that apply.]
:A. Amway dealer _____
B. Shaklee dealer _____
C. Nonie juice dealer _____
D. NuSkin dealer _____
E. Melaleuca dealer _____
7. Automobile:
A. Station Wagon _____
B. Van _____
C. Suburban _____
D. School Bus _____
E. Double Decker _____
8. Favorite place to eat the night before Fast Sunday:
A. Chuck-A-Rama _____
B. Hometown Buffet _____
C. Sumo Sam's All You Can Eat Feeding Trough _____
9. Favorite Hero:
A. Nephi _____
B. Abinadi _____
C. Samuel the Lamanite_____
D. Steve Young _____
E. Johnny Lingo _____
10. Which of the following do you bring to church [check all that apply.]:
A. Scriptures _____
B. Franklin Planner/ Daytimer _____
C. Pen/Pencil _____
D. Lifesavers/ Cheerios _____
E. Tic Tacs _____
F. Game Boy _____
G. Big Gulp _____
H. Cooler _____
I. Sony Walkman _____
J. TV Watch _____
K. All of the above _____
11. Do you prepare your church lessons:
A. A month in advance _____
B. A week in advance _____
C. While in the bathtub _____
D. While on the toilet _____
E. During Sacrament Meeting _____
F. During the closing prayer of Sacrament Meeting
G. During the opening prayer of the class you're teaching ____H. Just wing it [according to the promptings of the Spirit] _____1
2. Do you think pews should be permanently equipped with big Gulp holders?:yes___ no ___
13. How many years has your family sat in the same place for Sacrament Meeting:
A. 10-20 years _____
B. 20-30 years _____
C. 30-40 years _____
D. Over 3 generations _____
14. How much time does it take for you to fall asleep during a high council talk:
A. 1/100,000,000th of a second _____
B. 1/999,999,999th of a second _____
C. 1/999,999,998th of a second _____
15. Which day of the month do you go home/visiting teaching:
A. 31st ______
B. 31st ______
C. 31st ______
D. 31st ______
16. How many church basketball fights were you in last year:
A. 1-10 _____
B. 10-20 _____
C. 20-30 _____
D. You'll have to ask my lawyer _____
17. Which of the following has been your most effective family Home Evening:
A. Arguing about getting along
B. Having an opening and closing prayer with dinner
C. Gathering around the television to watch, "Everybody Loves Raymond?"
18. How many times a year do you make:
A. Green Jell-O salad _____
B. Funeral potatoes _____
C. Cabbage and Top Ramen salad _____
D. Turkey, cashews and grape-stuffed croissants_____
19. How many water-filled two-liter bottles do you own:
A. 1-2 thousand _____
B. 2-3 thousand _____
C. 3-4 thousand _____
D. Enough to fill the Great Salt Lake _____
20. Which of the following do you feel is the most secure facility in the nation:
A. Alcatraz
B. Fort Knox
C. Ward Libraries
21. How many structural engineers do you hire annually to ensure you'll win the pinewood derby: _________
22. Keeping the Word of Wisdom in mind, how much of the following do you consume:
A. Chocolate:___pounds daily X 365 days annually= ____
B. Cola: ____gallons daily X 365 days annually = ____
23. If you had to choose between witnessing the Second Coming or attending a BYU/UofU football game, which would you choose?
A. Second Coming _____
B. Football game _____


Friday, February 24, 2006

Joseph Smith. Lunatic or Charlatan?

Mormonism is not true. Late one evening after many years of being a former -or ex-Mormon- I realised precisely why Mormonism is not true.

The reason that Mormonism, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true, is because it is not true. It really is as simple as that.

But there are many Indications as to how and why the Mormon Church, by its history and practices, proves itself to be untrue. Which is, of course, a different matter.

It may be helpful at this juncture to touch upon some of the points within my own personal journey from Mormonism. A journey that has taken me from the false doctrines of Mormonism to the true doctrines of Christianity.

There are a number of reasons why I decided I did not and will not- believe in Mormonism. I will take time to outline some of them.

So many church officials are self-serving, hypocritical and venal. Why is this important? For a church claiming to be the only true church, why does it select people to be bishops, branch presidents, etc., who are not merely flawed but in some instances, touching on evil?

The Mormon Church expects it's members to obey rules that are nonsensical at best and at worst, cruel. For example, it is now known that tea is beneficial to the heart and coffee (not merely caffeine, it must be pointed out) is more effective in dealing with the symptoms of ‘flu than aspirin. How can this be squared with the word of wisdom?

In the New Testament (through Paul) God tells us that "all things were clean" and fit to be eaten, where does the Word of Wisdom fit in here?

Then there is the rather more serious matter of the racism in much of the teaching of Brigham Young and more recent leaders. Why have some Mormon General Authorities (for example, Mark E. Petersen) made speeches that made them appear to be racist bigots? Are we to assume that perhaps they were racist bigots?

General Authorities have mocked and derided people who are trying to do good, but who are not Mormons. I have heard this at conferences, so have personal knowledge of this.

Mormonism arrests the development of young adults, possibly deliberately. When I was an official in the Young Adults I was supposed to direct young adults (I.E. over 18) to follow church approved cultural activities. These suggested buying as much candy as one could for a dollar, having a full dress dinner on a flatbed truck, blocking drains -likely to be an illegal act, one must realise- to play with paper boats. The other recommended activities all equally as childish.

Some people have been given carte blanche to “fleece” fellow Mormons by producing tapes, books and junk of no religious value, selling them at greatly inflated prices.

For example all Mormons must have heard the extremely low quality tapes of mediocre homilies passed off as great religious truths; all sold at extortionate prices. How many people would have bought the books and tapes by Paul H. Dunn, had they known that Mr. Dunn had been nothing all his life but a scheming, dishonest liar?

It is well known that every one of the stories that Mr Dunn told that showed how heroic or wonderful he was, were either greatly exaggerated or total inventions of his fertile imagination.

Although the first Mormon missionaries travelled to foreign lands in the early days of the church, it acts as if everywhere in the world (even those of vastly different cultures) were merely "downtown Salt Lake City." Some of the errors made were so breathtaking in their ability to cause gross offence that one must wonder at any claims to leadership, inspired or otherwise.

For example, in 1976 it was decided all Mormon congregations would celebrate the American Bicentennial. A puzzling combination of church and state, one might argue.

But whilst it was conceited to expect the rest of the world to mark this anniversary, it was highly insensitive, or a “calculated insult” to make the congregations of British Mormons sing a song praising the British defeat in the American War of Independence. Especially as the song used the same tune as the British National Anthem! No explanation was made for this extraordinary action. Nor any apology ever offered for this cynical assault on the sensibilities on British Mormons.

The Mormon Church propounded many articles of faith and “laws of God” that it openly flouts. If the Mormon Church does not even bother to follow it's own teachings, so why should anyone else?

Incidentally, there is a curious fact about the Mormon Church that no faithful Mormon seems to have even considered or addressed in any serious degree.

Nobody who has a testimony of the Book of Mormon being the Word of God could be a member of the Mormon Church. In the Book of Mormon it clearly preaches against bigamous marriages and against “secret combinations”. It would seem that this would forbid "plural marriage" and the Mormon temple ceremonies.

Mormons believe that "plural marriage" and blood sacrifices of living animals will be re-introduced. With the Mormon Presidential habit of suddenly changing established fundamental principals, it could be any time in the future.

Some Mormons view the prospect of the re-introduction of plural marriage with something like joy. I will never forget the disgust I felt when a Mormon “husband” was talking with obvious glee about the re-introduction of plural marriage.”

Whilst he was talking about this in an extremely insensitive fashion in front of his wife, I looked at her. I remember the expression of utter, abject misery on the face of his poor, downtrodden wife. She was still a young woman, but the strain of having six children in very rapid succession had left her physically and mentally worn out and aged far beyond her tender years.

Being a “good Mormon” her husband spent more of his time in pointless church meetings, rather than being at home with his wife and young family. I began to consider the possibility that some Mormons use the excuse of church meetings as ways to avoid dealing with their family responsibilities.

Many Mormons say: "It is the people, not the church. Besides, bad things happen in other churches, too.” That may well be so. But how could they happen in the only true church? How could these abuses have become institutionalised? In many cases a part of the fabric of that church?

Presumably if Mormons use this defence: “The same thing happens in other churches”- they are acknowledging that the Mormon Church is no better, or worse, than other churches! Therefore, they deny the very special, sacred roots the founders of the Mormon Church claimed for the church they created.

Thus, some Mormons who seem to be faithful, by their actions, appear to doubt the special claims their church makes for itself. How many of these, we must wonder, are actually in high leadership positions in the Mormon Church?

Why, when church officials break church laws, it is the whistleblowers who are punished?

Mormon leaders have chosen to break laws of the land in order to protect the reputation of the church. Paradoxically the cover-ups have often been discovered and made a bad situation worse. I will deal with a specific example later.

The Mormon Church does not like bad news about itself. The situation is, when they hear a knocking at the door, they open the door, take the message, read it and then shoot the messenger and shut the door on the corpse. If anyone inside the building says: "Who was that?" they are told; "Doesn't matter. Message couldn't have been for us. We are perfect and we are God’s chosen people."

Let us re-examine this canard, "It's not the church, it's the people."

That is not true! It would appear some of the people (the chosen) are allowed to do what they want. They are the leadership. Everyone else must follow the rules.

For example, Smith was known to drink alcohol whilst preaching a doctrine of abstinence to his faithful followers. The introduction of the Word of Wisdom must be seen in context. Many sects and non-sectarian organisations at that time were putting forward a number of “food fad” bans, edicts and warnings. Originally, the Mormon Church used wine in the sacrament ceremony. This was replaced by water due to the agitation by temperance fanatics such as (according to Fawn M. Brodie) Sidney Rigdon.

Coffee and tea were fulminated against long before Smith introduced the Word of Wisdom. The introduction of the Word of Wisdom was, in all probability, merely an example of his “Jackdaw tendencies” being given full reign.

From being a rather open and friendly organisation, the Mormon Church re-invented itself as a fanatical temperance church in order to fit in with prevailing social conditions.

This is not the only time the Mormon Church has launched a fundamental re-invention. I will deal with this subject later.

There are always a number of stories "doing the rounds" in the Mormon Church. Some are about terrible punishments rained down on Mormons who inadvertently transgressed the laws of the church. Others involved stories of miraculous events, etc. I recall one story which claims the Book of Mormon had been proven beyond doubt by the fact that places in South America still bore Book of Mormon names.

These are known by the sobriquet “Faith Promoting Rumour.”

I prefer a term of my own: “Faith Promoting Lie.” Because it transpires that all of the stories were, without exception outright lies. They seem to have a parallel with the more ridiculous stories involving Mediaeval saints. However, the Mormon Church was the true church, the Mediaeval church "apostate" and therefore, untrue…

Church authorities must be aware these stories were lies. Yet they are happy to allow these lies to continue to be told and re-told as if they were true. Some of them are used in Sacrament meetings and church lessons all over the world.

By a general attitude of calculated indifference, the leadership Mormon Church encourages an air of hypocrisy in the membership.

For example, if a Catholic said to a Mormon; "I am no longer a Catholic, due to the fact that a priest abused a child" I expect the Mormon might say; "Quite right, too."

However, if a fellow Mormon told him he was no longer a Mormon because a Mormon bishop had abused a child the reaction would be; "Your own faith should be stronger. Are you going to allow what one person did to damage your future in the Celestial Kingdom? Etc., Etc."

Several years ago in Britain, a Mormon bishop was told by some distraught Mormon parents that their child, had been subjected to “serious and persistent” sexual abuse by a leading and prominent member of the ward.

The Bishop interviewed him and he tearfully confessed, "repented" and promised not to sexually abuse children again. The bishop decided the only action required was to ensure he would not be involved in activities with children in the future. He ordered the parents not to go to the police as he, their Bishop, had dealt with it.

In effect the Mormon Bishop had created a licensed pederast.

The man was a “ticking bomb” waiting to explode! The inevitable happened. He sexually assaulted other Mormon children. Thank God the parents of one child decided not to heed the orders of their bishop. They went to the police.

During the trial the conniving guile and duplicity of the Mormon Bishop became known. The judge was heavily critical of him, wondering how he could square his duty as a religious leader to the fact that he had, by his actions, allowed this child molester to go free to sexually abuse and harm more children. The media was equally scathing. With justice, it has to be added.

With sickening irony the Mormon bishop was revealed to be a police sergeant in the force that investigated the abuse of the children. So much for his oath to “uphold the laws of the Queen” and his promises to “obey the laws of the land in the "Articles of Faith."”

In his overwhelming desire to protect the good name of the Mormon church, he took upon himself the right to decide who should be punished or, as in this case, not punished. He took the decision to put the lives of young children at risk. All for the good of his beloved church. In so doing, he proved himself to be a “wicked” man.

How strange that this Bishop chose to ignore the remarks of Jesus Christ about people who abuse Children. (Please see references to this in Matt. 18.6. This was also copied in the Doctrine and Covenants, 121: 19-22, although here the meaning seems to have been twisted to suit another purpose of Smith.)

His actions caused the ruin of more young lives. I know of cases in which people have been excommunicated for reporting serious transgressions of leaders of the church (shoot the messenger, ignore the message) yet paedophiles are allowed to go unpunished.

I know of Mormons who were excommunicated for having sex whilst not married. Yet a Bishop kept a paedophile safe from prosecution! By his actions he connived at allowing the paedophile to abuse more children.

How can this be? “Motes and beams” are covered by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. It seems a perversion that an organisation that boasts of using the name of Jesus Christ to assume that such warnings only apply to other churches and not them.

Whilst I was a Mormon I began to realise that there were far too many Mormons in the Mormon Church. But not nearly enough Christians.

Whilst there are good points in having an entirely voluntary unpaid ministry in a church, the fact that the hierarchy of the Mormon church being home to many men who have serious flaws (such as the above Bishop) points to problems with this.

Some pronouncements by "General Authorities" I heard, have been mind numbingly stupid, irreligious, offensive and morally unsupportable.

The LDS church is very controlling. In the United Kingdom the welfare programme banned Bishops from allowing those members participating in the church welfare system from being allowed to have Kellogg’s Corn Flakes supplied to them.

Apparently the General Authority in charge of the programme decreed that, because corn flakes contained added vitamins they were not to be eaten by the “saints”.

When the church realised it had introduced the welfare programme in a period of a particularly vicious recession and that it was costing more to operate than it had been expected, the welfare programme in Britain (introduced with much publicity in the UK press and media was very quickly and ruthlessly dismantled.

However, this was undertaken with no notification to the UK press and media. Unlike when they had introduced that programme not long before.

Members who had relied on the church for food and help with bills (in return for substantial work commitments, it has to be noted) were ordered to approach the state for benefits, instead.

The church welfare system in Britain since that time is a rump service and nothing like the service boasted of in church publications and apparently only available to the “saints” in the USA.

The Mormon Church claims (or certainly claimed at one time) to be the only Church to used the name of Jesus Christ. This was a canard. Not even close to the truth. This made me realise all was not right with the Mormon church when I was about 16 years old.

Strange though this point may seem, the Mormon Church is too pragmatic to be true.

"You don't like our bigamous marriages? We'll stop them!"

"We are racist? We'll stop our racist policies straight away! And we will ensure the racist rantings -sorry! Writings- of dearly beloved leaders and General Authorities such as Brigham Young and Mark E. Petersen are buried very, very deep in church archives so that members will not have to bother their pretty little heads about these teachings.”

The Mormon Church, aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is reportedly trying to re-brand itself. A suggestion, apparently from within their bureaucracy, is that the church could re-name itself The Church of Christ.

Apparently this is being vigorously opposed by The Church of Christ which has been using this name for many years. One might presume that many “traditional” Mormons also oppose this.

Is the mainstream Mormon church trying to follow in the footsteps of the Restored Church that has tried to disassociate itself from the worse excesses of their founder?

Incidentally, as the Mormon Church (mainstream) has a worse early history to deal with, the re-branding and re-inventing in this case would take a lot more work.

What will the next major volt face will be?

Some Mormons openly sneer at those who leave their church, alleging they are only leaving, so they can sin. Or is this a Mormon comfort blanket?

However, as Mormons believe it possible to sin by merely drinking a single cup of tea, sinning by their fanciful definition is remarkably easy. However, the D & C states that barley drinks are to be used. In the 19 century barley drinks meant beer.

"Man is that he might have joy" seems, in the Mormon Church, to have been replaced with; "Man is that he might obey."

Let us examine the claims of Smith. He claimed to have been called as a prophet of the Lord when he was at an age between 14 to 15 years of age.

However, his behaviour (both reported by others and circumspectly acknowledged by Smith) over the next 10 years, is a tale of drunkenness, wild living and evil “black” witchcraft practices which included the sacrificing of animals in the most barbaric and inhumane fashion.

The Mormon Church claims to rely on logic. Let us apply logic to the above paragraph. Does it look like the activities of a young man, chosen of the Lord to lead the church of Jesus Christ (more on this later) to re-establish the “true” church of Christ on the Earth? There is “something very wrong with this picture.”

Christians rightly condemn Mormonism for the implication that our saviour, Jesus the Christ, son of the Lord, was a failure. Jesus told his disciples the church he had founded would not falter, but would continue against all opposition.

But the very central tenet of Mormonism is that Jesus failed. And Smith succeeded. In the cannon of Mormonism, therefore, Smith is considered more important that Christ himself. This view has a basis not only in the doctrines of Mormonism, but also in statements made by Smith himself.

Smith is quoted as making the following utterances: “God is my right hand man.” God is his right hand man?

"I have more to boast about than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of *Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409 (1844)

(*Despite Smith’s claim to the contrary there was no church at the time of Adam, which rather tends to negate this boastful claim.)

Was he mentally ill? To believe one is Christ or God is one thing. But to believe you are higher than God is of a different order. As far as Christians are concerned, can there be a more wicked blasphemy? I doubt it.

Thus we can see Mormonism was founded by a wicked wastrel who blasphemed against Jesus and God. Hardly, one might argue, a good, solid foundation for the creation of a sect that styles itself to be “Christian.”

There are other issues of contention. For example, a challenge issued by the Mormon Church is to request doubters to write a book similar to the book of Mormon.

Why is this a challenge? Because everyone knows that Smith was an “ignorant farm boy” and that he wrote the Book of Mormon “single-handed” in a very short period of time.

How do we know this? How do we know he was the only person who wrote the Book of Mormon? -Why, because Smith told us!

It is disingenuous to describe Smith as an “ignorant farm boy.” In this context, Mormons seem to intend the term “ignorant” and “stupid” to be, by implication, interchangeable.

They are, of course, nothing of the kind. If Smith had been ignorant, how could he learn Hebrew, as he did, after founding his church? How could he have been such a skilled leader? Does anyone really think a State governor would make Smith the ipso facto legal dictator of an independent city-state within the United States of America and to make him an officer in the State Militia, if he were clearly “stupid?” Of course not!

He was clever. In fact his obvious intelligence was commented on by a number of non-Mormons at the time. The problem is that Smith had been educated by parents that were venal and if not actually wicked, certainly completely amoral.

It is, however, possible to argue that Smith did what he did because he had been taught to be that way by his parents, who also corrupted the rest of their family.

This point bears repeating. Smith was not stupid. Far from it. But for an explanation as to why Smith sacrificed animals, hunted for gold and tried to raise devilish spirits, please consider the following analogies.

What if George Washington had been taught to be a horse thief by his family? If Einstein had been trained by his family to be a forger? Or if Stephen Hawking’s family had taught him to steal cars? They would have been just as clever, just as intelligent but their great intellects would have been wasted.

Am I claiming Smith was as intelligent as Washington, Einstein or Hawking?

Perhaps not. But we will never know for sure. However, it is possible to argue Smith had the makings of a fine, personable and highly intelligent person who could have made a significant and valuable contribution to the 19 century society of the United States of America, and perhaps the whole world.

But because his parents were intent on enriching themselves by whatever methods they could, they arguably used Satanic practices to do this. They corrupted their children and caused untold misery to millions of people, even down to this very time.

Smith thirsted for knowledge. He is credited by Mormons with writing: “The Glory of God is intelligence.” But, perhaps paradoxically, it was this thirst for knowledge that helped to lead to his downfall.

It is interesting to note that, in fact, Smith borrowed or Stole this aphorism from Cardinal Wolsey.

For example, someone mentioned to him the maxim: “Man is as God once was, God is as man may become.” Smith seized on this and used it -with his very powerful imagination- to create an entire doctrine which has ensured that Mormonism is viewed as a fraudulent outsider by mainstream Christianity ever since.

But far worse -one might argue- was the way Smith allowed Doctor John Bennett to insinuate himself into the higher echelons of the leadership of Mormonism.

It was, arguably Bennett who introduced Smith to the concept of sexual licence and debauchery cloaked by the fiction of “plural marriage” aka “Celestial Marriage.”

From examining contemporary accounts, authors such as Fawn Brodie have been able to establish that Bennett was a highly dangerous, predatory sexual libertine, who cared nothing for the damage he caused -mental and physical- to the women he sexually used and abused. It is thought his abortions caused some of his “wives” to become infertile or to die.

That Smith allowed Bennett to become so influential in the early days of Mormonism shows that Smith, in common with many people who use trickery, was a very gullible person in his own right. This gullibility, combined with his pride, self-confidence and his thirst for knowledge ultimately helped destroy him.

The entire basis of the concept of plural marriage which has lead to the prevalence of certain genetic diseases in Utah and in other enclaves of Mormonism in America and the persecution of many Mormons and the murder of Mormons (by other Mormons) who opposed it, was the desire of Bennett to have sexual intercourse with as many different women as possible, but who required some trickery to cloak his evil ways in a measure of bogus respectability.

We can also see Smith’s desire to learn behind his decision to take the Masonic ceremony and to change and corrupt this into a major platform within the Mormon church.

Many Mormons who believe the Masonic ceremonies date back to the time of Solomon’s temple, would be surprised to know the Masonic ceremonies aped by Smith, in reality only date back to the late 18th century.

They were the invention of members of the gentry who had inveigled themselves introductions to join the moribund Masonic lodges, a vestigial remain of the once proud and powerful exclusive organisation of Master Masons, started in Mediaeval times to look after the interests of Master Masons.

So the ceremonies “appropriated” by Smith were really only 150 years old at the very most when he decided to steal them -as a Jackdaw steals something bright and shiny for the nest.

This disproves that Mormonism has links between King Solomon and modern times. The blunt truth is that the Mormon temple ceremonies were the creation of a clique of aristocrats who simply wanted something a little more interesting to do other than just gathering together and drinking Port wine all evening.

The gullibility of Smith also shows through when he was deluded into attempting to translate the so-called Kinderhook plates, or when he convinced himself that he could translate Egyptian. Either that or he was of the opinion that the Egyptian language would never be translated and he would be safe from discovery.

Exactly what was Smith? A deluded person who thought he was a prophet of God? Or a sophisticated shyster who, with an equally corrupt and venal family, were able to set up a scam that still operates today?

For a more complete knowledge of who or what Joseph Smith might have been, including a list of some of the many women that he married (including some who were already married to friends of his) I can highly recommend the book “No Man Knows my History, the life of Joseph Smith.”

The second edition -revised and enlarged- published in paperback by Vintage Books (a division of Random House) is available, the ISBN is 679-73054-0 at $17.00 US or $23.00 Canadian.

The book can be bought at larger bookshops and from most online book retailers such as Amazon.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

What is it about Mormonism? And the first part of a play about Joseph Smith

Should you challenge a Mormon about some particularly nauseous aspect of his or her church they will smugly say: “Yes! But they have yada, yada, yada in the Catholic Church!”

So, let us get this straight. Your average Mormon knows that his or her church is wrong. But they are willing to ignore this fact because… tada!! There are other churches that are just as bad!

But surely this must mean that your average Book of Mormon wielding TBM really knows that his or her church is not what it claims to be. That it is not the one true restored church of Jesus, but is a fake.

But how can you prove to someone that what they already know to be a fake is, actually, a fake?

How can someone one the one hand know that something is a fake, yet, on the other hand, still believe in it?

That is because TBMs have been brainwashed, just as surely as those UN service personnel who were captured by the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War were made to think what was contrary to what they really knew. They were brainwashed, or if you, will, mentally conditioned.

This is a perfect example of what author and social commentator Georg Orwell described as “Double think” or the ability to hold at the same time two mutually exclusive or in deed totally hostile ideas at the same time. And still be able to believe both of them.

The following is the first part of an uncompleted play about Joseph Smith. I hope you enjoy it.

Joseph Smith a play

NARRATOR: Exactly who was Joseph Smith? More to the point, WHAT was he? Was he a saint? Or a sinner? A prophet of God, or a con man? Sane? Or mentally ill? After 175 years, it is very hard to say. Or is it? For a whole wealth of evidence still exists to this day that tells the real story of Joseph Smith. And it is not the sugar-sweet tale of heroism, martyrdom and religious piety that is the official story of Joseph Smith as told by the Mormon Church. Joseph Smith's life was complex. The Smith family had grand ideas, but did not seem to have the will to work to raise the funds they needed. So the family decided to employ what is delicately described as "Earth magic" or witchcraft.
Joseph Smith's story began, according to official Mormon church history when Joseph saw God and Jesus."
JOSEPH SMITH: "I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont. My father, Joseph Smith, Senior, left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father's arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario-
His family consisting of eleven souls, namely, my father, Joseph Smith; my mother, Lucy Smith (whose name, previous to her marriage, was Mack, daughter of Solomon Mack); my brothers, Alvin (who died November 19th, 1823, in the 26th year of his age), Hyrum, myself, Samuel Harrison, William, Don Carlos; and my sisters, Sophronia, Catherine, and Lucy.
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, "Lo, here!" and others, "Lo, there!" Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued-priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.
I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavouring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?
While I was labouring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.
So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction-not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvellous power as I had never before felt in any being-just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other-This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)-and which I should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.”
NARRATOR: “So, there we have it. Straight from the prophet’s mouth. So to speak. Or do we have it? For there is one thing that the Mormon Church does not seem keen on the world knowing. That the foregoing was not the first version of that story that Joseph Smith told. In fact, the above somewhat touching version of the first vision was only told many years after the event. And the original versions make no mention of god or Jesus Christ at all. A somewhat startling omission, because who would be able to see God and Jesus Christ and then seemingly miss out that highly important detail? The original story that Joseph Smith told was dramatically different.
METHODIST MINISTER: “Yes, Joseph Smith joined the Methodist congregation here in Harmony, Pennsylvania in the June of 1828. Funny, seeing as how he claimed to have been told eight years earlier not to join any church! He never was on our membership rolls for long though! The minister did not suspect that there was anything wrong. He was soon put right, though, by someone who was not far off Smith’s own age and knew a good deal of the true character of Joseph Smith. They thought it was an utter disgrace to the Methodist Church to have as a member a man who was known to be a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, as a member. We asked Joseph Smith if he would repudiate all that he had done, previously. He would not, so we had his name stricken from the class book records, at his own request.”
NARRATOR: “So, despite God warning him not to join any church, Joseph decided to join the Methodist Church. Either Joseph Smith was the stupidest prophet ever to be born, inconveniently forgot a direct order from God… or he made the whole thing up in the first place.”
JOSEPH SMITH: “I did not! I did see God and Jesus Christ! I did!”
NARRATOR: “Oh? How do you explain why you attempted to join the Methodist Church, then, Joseph?”
JOSEPH SMITH: “I don’t know. Maybe I forgot what God had told me. Look, it was a long time, eight years, so maybe I did forget what God had told me…”
NARRATOR: “You are a liar, Joseph Smith! You never even saw God or Jesus, did you?”
NARRATOR: Isn’t it true that you told Erastus Holmes that you received a visitation of Angels when you were 14 years old? So, how come you failed to mention that you saw God and Jesus Christ, to him?”
JOSEPH SMITH: “You don’t know what it was like at home! We had to bring in money for the family, but my farming skills were pitiful! I decided to follow in my father’s footsteps and use a scrying stone to see if I could have some success in digging for buried treasure or for water.”
NARRATOR: “What’s that got to do with anything to do with your so-called first vision?”
JOSEPH SMITH: “My father was a man of dreams and a man of visions. He’d have a damned dream or a vision at the drop of a hat! I wanted to impress him, show him I could be as good as him at having visions. Perhaps I went too far, I tried to impress him and I did, it has to be said.”
NARRATOR: “You claimed that the Book of Mormon was written on golden plates in a curious writing known as ‘Reformed Egyptian’. A written language which seems not to exist anywhere save on those plates.”
JOSEPH SMITH: “That is correct, sir.”
NARRATOR: “You claim they were translated by using the Urrim and Thummim, which you describe as some type of pair of giant spectacles, with crystal lenses, set in a bow. Is that true? Is that how you translated the Book of Mormon?”
JOSEPH SMITH: “If that is what I said sir, then that was how it occurred.”
NARRATOR: “Can you please explain his discrepancy in the description of the translation of the Book of Mormon by David Whitmer, one of your scribes?”
DAVID WHITMER: “I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English."
JOSEPH SMITH: “Oh, yes! I must have forgotten! Sometimes I would not use the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon! Sometimes I would use the hat and my seer stone!”
NARRATOR: “The same seer stone you used when you were found guilty of fraudulently pretending to be able to find buried treasure?”
JOSEPH SMITH: “That case… it was never proved against me!”
NARRATOR: “Oh, yes it was, Joseph!”
JOSEPH SMITH: "Oh. I must have forgot..."
NARATOR: “Joseph, now, why don’t you tell us something about polygamy?”
JOSEPH SMITH: “I don’t know what you mean. I never practiced polygamy.”
WILLIAM LAW: “You are a liar, Joseph Smith! I, William Law, helped expose your dirty secret! Soon after my arrival in Nauvoo, the two Lawrence girls came to Nauvoo, they were very young girls, only 15 and 17 years of age. Like me, they were Canadians and they had been converted in Canada. They were orphans, and they were worth some $8,000 in English gold. A fortune in those days. Joseph managed to have himself appointed as their guardian. Emma Smith, Joseph’s wife, complained about Joseph living with those two girls, but I didn’t think complained violently. She would complain to me about Joseph’s escapades whenever she met me on the streets of Nauvoo.”

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Professional help for people helping those in recovery

The U.S. Journal Training (USJT) in association with the National Association for Children of Alcoholics (NACoA) have teamed together to bring you yet another extraordinary celebration and honoring of adult children & recovery.

This 4-day enlightening and empowering event allows participants to explore contemporary issues as well as share personal stories regarding experiences in recovery.

People in recovery and helping professionals will not want to miss this rare opportunity to connect with the leaders of the adult children movement including: Robert Ackerman, PH.D, John Bradshaw, M.A., Stephanie Brown, Ph.D., Tian Dayton, Ph.D., Rokell Lerner, David Mee0Lee, M.D., Jane Middelton Moz, M.S., Jerry Moe, M.A.

Participants will learn:-To examine current clinical science based intervention and treatment strategies for helping adult children of addiction and other trauma.

To discuss the importance of spirituality, resilience, and forgiveness in the recovery process.

To interpret how anger, shame, grief, loss, depression, and low-self esteem inhibit the recovery process.

To discuss current clinical approaches to counseling co-occurring disorders, family systems treatment, and understanding the role of cultural consideration in recovery.

To demonstrate experiential techniques for identifying the impact of family dysfunction on human development from childhood through adulthood.

Day rates are available for those not able to attend the entire conference. Continuing Education Credits are available for psychologists. For more information, conference rates and/or registration, contact: US Journal Training: or (800) 441-5569.

Rev. slates Mormonism as "not Christian"

The Rev. Stuart Payne of Fayetteville will clearly take a lot of convincing that Mormon = Christian.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Some more bits on the Mormon Church

Mormonism is a cult religion.

Scientology is a religion based on junk science.

Mormonism is a religion based on junk theology.

Both are, in their own way, equally dangerous.

Do you ever wonder if Joseph Smith might have been having a laugh when he invented Mormonism?

The land of Moron? Yeah. I think Joe Smith might have been having some fun...

I found this. It is a link to a debate between Matt (no, not me! :) ) and TBM called Craig. The score was Matt 3 TBM 0.

And here is a link I found on racism in Utah Mormonism. It aint nice.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Here it is! Matt's Ex-Mormon blog

I would like to thank a poster called Anon for giving me the idea of starting up an ex-Mormon blog.

There will be my posts, ramblings and rumblings about Mormonism.

I hope you wil lbe able to enjoy them, and I hope that I will be able to enjoy them, too!

Let's try some news about Mormonism for a start, shall we?
Is America ready for a Mormon president?By Alec Russell in Salt Lake City

Oh, fetch! Dutcher's film gets less than glowing review

The Mormon church is against politicking? It IS? Wow? When did THIS change happen? (sarcasm mode on)

Mormon missionary guilty of sex crimes

A blog on the Big Love TV programme that says: "I’m glad that the Mormon Church and the people of Utah will once again be shamed on the international stage for the disgusting and degrading practice of polygamy." Yeah!

I think that's enough for the first post.