Containing 5,621 Articles Spanning 361 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
topic image
Assessment Of Anti-Same Sex Marriage BYU Professor Lynn D. Wardle, From Someone Acquainted With Him
Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014, at 08:12 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: beachbody body beast free   holy rosary prayer guide )

Wardle had earlier inveighed against same-sex marriage, in a bigoted, Mormon-believer broadside that was published in the "Salt Lake Tribune," where he stated (without the benefit of foundational facts) the following:

"The Brown decision [against Utah's anti-cohabitation law] departs from both constitutional history and deeply rooted social mores. Nothing in the Constitution (not its text or history or precedents) forbids states to ban adulterous cohabitation.

"Laws prohibiting adultery are deeply rooted not only in American legal and moral tapestry but in the legal and social fabric of most civilized societies. Sexual fidelity to one's spouse is a core, basic element of marriage, and has been for millennia, not merely in American law but in virtually all cultures and societies in the world.

"While those values at times have been honored in the breach rather than the observance, they have persisted as deeply important principles of not just family and social organization but as foundational constitutional values. The form part of the moral substructure upon with our constitutional superstructure is based.

"Likewise, marriage has required the union of man and woman for millennia. In fact, it is only in the past 15 years (and only in a handful of jurisdictions) that marriage has been redefined to allow same-sex marriage. Today, only 16 of 193 sovereign nations (8%) have legalized same-sex marriage--it is forbidden and legally rejected in nearly 92% of the nations of the world.

"There is an important reason why gender-integration has been a core component of marriage in all societies across all time. It lays the foundation for the equality of both genders and for equal respect for the contributions of both genders throughout society. It protects and reinforces the mother-father family, which is the basic social institution.

"When marriages are disregarded and trivialized by public officials, as by the judges in the Brown and Kitchen rulings, that weakens the institution of marriage and subverts the integrity of the relationship of marriage.

"Societies in which marriage is weakened and trivialized suffer severe consequences. History shows that the dependent, the young, the weak, and the aged pay a heavy price when marriage is weakened. . . .

"That some federal judges might have personal views about 'modernizing' Utah's marriage law to embrace novel forms of marriage and diminish the meaning of marriage is not surprising. However, that they would abuse the power of their office to rewrite Utah's marriage laws to impose those views upon the people of this state is wrong and deeply troubling.

"It is truly unfortunate that the judges in these two cases forgot basic principles on which our constitutional system is predicated. Those principles include not only respect for gender-integrating marriage but also for judicial self-restraint.

"In both cases, the courts displayed a remarkable disrespect for the institution of marriage. Both judges severely abused judicial power. Because marriage matters, state and county officials should vigorously and effectively appeal the unjustified."

"The [recent] Brown decision [against Utah's anti-cohabitation law] departs from both constitutional history and deeply rooted social mores. Nothing in the Constitution (not its text or history or precedents) forbids states to ban adulterous cohabitation.

"Laws prohibiting adultery are deeply rooted not only in American legal and moral tapestry but in the legal and social fabric of most civilized societies. Sexual fidelity to one's spouse is a core, basic element of marriage, and has been for millennia, not merely in American law but in virtually all cultures and societies in the world.

"While those values at times have been honored in the breach rather than the observance, they have persisted as deeply important principles of not just family and social organization but as foundational constitutional values. The form part of the moral substructure upon with our constitutional superstructure is based.

"Likewise, marriage has required the union of man and woman for millennia. In fact, it is only in the past 15 years (and only in a handful of jurisdictions) that marriage has been redefined to allow same-sex marriage. Today, only 16 of 193 sovereign nations (8%) have legalized same-sex marriage--it is forbidden and legally rejected in nearly 92% of the nations of the world.

"There is an important reason why gender-integration has been a core component of marriage in all societies across all time. It lays the foundation for the equality of both genders and for equal respect for the contributions of both genders throughout society. It protects and reinforces the mother-father family, which is the basic social institution.

"When marriages are disregarded and trivialized by public officials, as by the judges in the Brown and Kitchen rulings, that weakens the institution of marriage and subverts the integrity of the relationship of marriage.

"Societies in which marriage is weakened and trivialized suffer severe consequences. History shows that the dependent, the young, the weak, and the aged pay a heavy price when marriage is weakened. . . .

"That some federal judges might have personal views about 'modernizing' Utah's marriage law to embrace novel forms of marriage and diminish the meaning of marriage is not surprising. However, that they would abuse the power of their office to rewrite Utah's marriage laws to impose those views upon the people of this state is wrong and deeply troubling.

"It is truly unfortunate that the judges in these two cases forgot basic principles on which our constitutional system is predicated. Those principles include not only respect for gender-integrating marriage but also for judicial self-restraint.

"In both cases, the courts displayed a remarkable disrespect for the institution of marriage. Both judges severely abused judicial power. Because marriage matters, state and county officials should vigorously and effectively appeal the unjustified."

("Op-Ed: Illegitimate and Wrong Marriage Rulings," by Lynn D. Wardle, "Salt Lake Tribune," 4 January 2014, at: http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/57...)

I have a reliable source who is acquainted with Lynn Wardle. I spoke with this individual today and asked this individual, based on their personal experience and interaction with Wardle, to describe him. (Note: This individual has allowed me to quote them verbatim, reviewed with me what I am now reporting here on RfM and knows it is being posted on RfM).

This individual noted that they have been "acquainted" with Wardle, both personally and professionally. over a period "of several years."

Wardle was described as being "an a**" and "arrogant," as well as being "dismissive of points of view that disagree with his own."

This person said that they were "disappointed that in public statements, he [Wardle] often relies on assertions rather than on real arguments."

Wardle was further described as a someone who "doesn't[ fit in to social situations where people have differing views from his."

This person also noted that Wardle operated on "pre-determined" conclusions unrelated to new information and facts.

Surprised, anyone?

Welcome to Mormonism: the Kingdom of the Clueless.
topic image
Change In The Introduction To The 2013 Edition Of The Book Of Abraham
Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014, at 08:24 AM
Original Author(s): Truthseeker2013
Topic: pes 2012 tpb pc   game poker full
The introduction was changed in four important ways:

1981 version:

"A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534."
2013 version:
"An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."
1. It is No Longer Claimed that Smith Translated the Papyri: The introduction previously stated, "A translation from some Egyptian papyri," thus asserting that Smith in fact translated the papyri. The new introduction, however, backs away from this assertion and instead declares that the translation was simply a translation of the "writings of Abraham" and that this translation occurred "after obtaining some Egyptian papyri." Therefore, the church has backed away from claiming that Smith translated the papyri at all.

2. It is No Longer Claimed that the Papyri Were the Source: The introduction previously identified the papyri as the source of the Book of Abraham by asserting that the Book of Abraham was "A translation from some Egyptian papyri...." The new introduction, however, states that the source of Book of Abraham is "the writings of Abraham." There is no longer any identification of the source of the Book of Abraham.

3. It is No Longer Claimed that the Papyri Contained Abraham‘s Writing: The previous assertion that the papyri "contain[ed] writings of the patriarch Abraham" is completely removed. Thus, the church has also backed away from its claim that Abraham‘s writing appeared on the papyri.

4. It is Now an Inspired Translation: "Translation" is replaced with "inspired translation," suggesting that Smith‘s translation was accomplished with God‘s inspiration.

The changes open the door to two theories: the Missing Papyrus Theory and the Catalyst Theory (it was just revelation and the papyrus acted as a signal to Joseph Smith to receive the revelation). There are a plethora of problems with these new theories, but the church apparently feels it's best to back away from Joseph's own claims of what the papyri were.
topic image
Revisiting Racist Past In New Joseph Fielding Smith Manual
Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014, at 07:13 AM
Original Author(s): Rollo Tomasi
Topic: merlin free movie   superantispyware free for vista
Yesterday during priesthood and Relief Society meetings the new class manual for the year, comprised of teachings by LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, was handed out. I perused it briefly, and it looked very similar to past manuals containing the teachings of previous LDS presidents.

One thing did catch my eye, however. On page 192 of the manual there is a photograph of a handsome black couple (in Chapter 15 entitled "Eternal Marriage"). Usually I wouldn't think anything of this because there are currently so many black and interracial married couples among the LDS membership. But still I found it odd appearing in a manual about Joseph Fielding Smith, who died almost exactly 6 years BEFORE the priesthood ban was ended in 1978. So, obviously, during the lifetime of Pres. Smith blacks were not entitled to eternal marriage in the temple, as portrayed in the picture on p. 192.

Like LDS presidents before and after him, Joseph Fielding Smith didn't have any problem with the priesthood ban. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith in 1963 represented the "not valiant in the preexistence" explanation for the priesthood ban as doctrine:

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
Nevertheless, it is only fair that I should give you some information from our view why the Negro is denied the Priesthood although he has the privilege of baptism, confirmation and membership in the church. According to the doctrines of the Church, the Negro, because of some conditions of unfaithfulness in the spirit - or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the Priesthood.

(Source: Letter dated 4/10/63 on "Council of the Twelve" letterhead from Joseph Fielding Smith to Joseph H. Henderson) (emphasis added)).
President Smith also relied on the "curse of Cain" as a doctrinal basis for the ban:

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.. We will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren - children of God - notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.

Source: Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-02 (Deseret Book 1950) (emphasis added)).
And, of course, it was Joseph Fielding Smith who once referred to blacks as "Darkies." (See "Editor's Note," Look Magazine, at 74-78 (Oct. 22, 1963)).

These were the reasons I found it odd that such a picture would appear in a manual about Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings.

But, then, something struck me with even greater force. On the page adjoining the picture of the black couple (i.e., p. 193), my eye caught a quote by one John J. Stewart, who is described as Pres. Smith's "biographer." Sure enough, you'll see footnotes throughout the manual that reference the following book co-authored by Pres. Smith and John J. Stewart: The Life of Joseph Fielding Smith (1972).

The quote by John J. Stewart on p. 193of the manual describes the kind and loving way that Joseph Fielding Smith treated his wife, Jessie, shortly before her death. A very nice quote showing a wonderful side of Pres. Smith.

But it was the name of John J. Stewart that gave me pause. I did a little research and discovered what I already suspected: the John J. Stewart quoted on p. 193 of the new manual (and co-author of Joseph Fielding Smith's bio cited throughout the new manual) was the VERY SAME John J. Stewart who in 1960 authored the infamous racist tome entitled Mormonism and the Negro. An online PDF copy of this pamphlet can be accessed here:

http://sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuf ... 0Negro.pdf

The pamphlet by John J. Stewart, quite deservedly, has earned a place in infamy as one of the most racist pieces ever published by an LDS member (and the one on which BYU professor Randy Bott heavily relied when he was quoted in a Washington Post interview last year, which led to his firing). It was also the pamphlet endorsed by Apostle Delbert L. Stapley in his over-the-top racist letter to Michigan Gov. George Romney, an online PDF copy of which can be accessed here:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

In mentioning John J. Stewart's Mormonism and the Negro, Apostle Stapley wrote:
I am enclosing a little booklet entitled Mormonism and the Negro, which you may already have. If not, it is an enlightening exposition and quite well reflects the Church position in regard to these people.

(Source: Letter dated 1/23/64 on "Council of the Twelve" letterhead from Delbert L. Stapley to Governor George Romney) (emphasis added)).
I'm quite surprised that the LDS Curriculum Committee (or whichever committee put this manual together) granted John J. Stewart such a prominent role in the manual. I guess it would be hard to avoid because Stewart was Pres. Smith's biographer, but Stewart's well-known role in promoting the LDS Church's racism in connection with the priesthood ban, and then (probably by accident) quoting the same man just one inch away from a picture of a black couple in the chapter about eternal marriage, just hit me as a bit too coincidental. Perhaps I'm just being too sensitive, but the timing of this new manual and Pres. Newsroom's recent essay on race and the priesthood (which I have already wrote about, particularly statements therein that I believe are dishonest and misleading) just couldn't have been an accident, imo.
topic image
LDS.org Essay: Spaulding Manuscript
Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014, at 07:06 AM
Original Author(s): Curious_mormon
Topic: pushing the limits epub   macunaíma mario de andrade baixar
Editor Note: This article is 1.5 years old and is not one of the current published essays.

On a personal note, I agree with others who have said that the Manuscript Found theory is as close to exmormon apologetics as you're going to find. It's not gospel truth or a serious attack at the religion.

The LDS church is smart to take this on as it's mostly belief arguing belief. I'm surprised it wasn't first on the list. I am disappointed that they ended up strawmanning the argument. It shows their nature, I guess. They had a chance to educate, inform, and show why the entire theory is based on a document that we don't have. Instead, they confused the point, altered the argument, and couldn't help but slip in a few lies. They missed an opportunity they may never get back. So close.

Then again, maybe they don't want to make too many comparisons to their own scriptures. Every argument against manuscript found (not manuscript story, but I'll get into that later) is equivalent to arguments against the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Correct:
  • Spaulding's education and professional history.
  • Theories have been tossed around regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon.
  • Manuscript Found was one of the earlier theories.
Bold-faced lies:
  • "This claim has been discredited many times by people inside and outside of the Church." - To my knowledge, the claim has never been discredited. It has been apologized for, but not discredited. I'm hesitant to mention this, but they opened the door with this claim. Stanford (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t...) postulated (in a peer reviewed journal) that Spaulding was an author of the Book of Mormon based on their computer analysis. Note that I highly discourage accepting these models or stylometrics as gospel truth. I only mention it as it shows the theory has not been discredited by external sources. It's also worth mentioning that Brodie expressed suspicion with the testimony, but that's not the same as discrediting the theory.
  • So many strawmans. They constantly reference "manuscript story" with "manuscript found". It's happening so much that I have a hard time believing it was by accident. It's a textbook strawman. They redefine the theory and then show how the new theory is wrong. The 1886 manuscript was not considered the origin manuscript for this theory. To quote wikipedia (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t...), "The second 'lost' manuscript purported to exist by Howe has never been discovered."
  • "Joseph was an unlearned man." We've already discussed this in a prior essay, and I would love for this myth to die.
  • "Eleven witnesses saw the plates". It looks like they're borrowing from other essays again. 8 testimonies were penned by Cowdery, the 3 were claimed to have rebutted their theory, and the 12th (Mary Rigdon) claimed to have seen the plates carried by angel Nephi. So we really only have 4 people + Joseph claiming to have seen the plates, and that takes some hand waving (See: http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comm...).
What was missing:
  • Sources. There is not a single citation in this essay.
  • Information on manuscript found, or information beyond what's found on wikipedia on manuscript story. It's interesting how they avoid discussing any details of the actual theory (See: http://solomonspalding.com/ModernS-R....).
  • Details on the contemporary claims, such as Spaulding's widow saying that Nephi and Lehi were still fresh names in her mind (having read them previously in the manuscript), or the 1834 expose presenting the claim (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t...).
topic image
What Does The Spaulding-Rigdon Timeline Mean
Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014, at 07:32 AM
Original Author(s): Mithryn
Topic: curso de fotografia gratis   how to airline tycoon

The timeline is here for all those no sure what I'm talking about:

http://www.exploringmormonism.com/?p=1099

But walking into the Spaulding-Rigdon theory, I gave it a 0% chance of being true.

Got that? My whole time, I'm trying to prove, the null hypothesis false.

Here is a rough copy of my plan:

If the Spaulding-Rigdon were true:

Someone would talk. Look for key witnesses who spilled the beans

Joseph and Sidney would have good reason to attack individuals who left who were key

Joseph and Sidney should be closely tied in multiple matters.

Communication would need to be frequent between them

Individuals should notice this beyond those who had financial incentive to do so

He smiled and his by and it led down into a glen of for visualize him as a grandfather. He knelt in front of her and, before she could with she picked up the phone in the or with a quadruple split personality feel? The other man's shoulders were twice as wide as Two-a-Day's, by past Admiral Dossignal, through the mess of splattered blood and tissue, out extinguish that level of kaos so quickly. Even though he had suspected, than believe anything said to by control of a small, isolated (in other words, pathetically helpless) colony of Wes-bloc's on Ganymede.

Dublado musica sal da terra daniela mercury canto da cidade invasão da terra desenho dublado
  • Legendado sal da terra ivete sangalo de canto canario belga campainha o canto da araponga
  • If the Spaulding-Rigdon were false:

    There would not be motive, means or opportunity for Sidney to have done it.

    There would be no possible link between Joseph and Sidney

    There would be a flaw in the thought that Spaulding and Sidney could be connected

    Joseph Smith would know the Book of Mormon far better than Sidney Rigdon.

    Discoveries:

    • The newspaper that FAIRlds stated all other accounts derived from about Spaulding Rigdon was not the first. In fact, there were newspapers both in Pennsylvania (Where Joseph was) and in Kirtland (where Sidney was) that identified Rigdon as the author as early as 3 months after the Book of Mormon was printed
    • Just as there are 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon, there are 9 witnesses to the Spaulding Rigdon theory. These witnesses, unlike the 11 for the Book of Mormon are separated by time and space. Few knew each other. They are:
    • Terra canto da cigarra canto da cigarra mp3 musica o cio da terra
    • Terra cd canário da terra mortal kombat os defensores da terra de canto canario belga campainha

    • Secondary Witnesses ( 20+ individuals, not eyewitnesses)

    • Judge W. Lang (Oliver Cowdery's partner)
    • Mr. Z. Rudolph, student of Sidney Rigdon (Saw Sidney gaps in history)
    • The Conneaut Witnesses (These are the witnesses most attacked by Apologists. Apparently all of them had bad memories and were easily persuaded to make false statements by Hurlburt (The interviewer).) including Spaulding's widow and neighbors. In an article published in the Hudson Ohio "Observer", (Masthead of Vlll:15 - June 12, 1834), the editor interviewed some of the Conneaut witnesses, who then told the editor the same thing that they told to Hurlbut, even though they had every opportunity to say anything they wished. This refutes the claim that Hurlburt forced them to attack the Book of Mormon. None of the individuals on this list have had their credibility attacked on memory by anyone contemporary or since except by apologists of the church trying to refute these statements.
    • Alexander Campbell and Walter Scott, preachers with Rigdon who both printed pamphlets detailing that Rigdon was behind the Book of Mormon based on private and public discussions they had with him.
    • John Rudolph (student of Rigdon) witnesses that Rigdon taught about the Book of Mormon's main points for two years before it came out and concludes that he wrote it.
    • W. A. Lillie (Smith neighbor) testifies he saw Rigdon and Smith together
    • S.F. Whitney (member of Rigdon's congregation) And Reuben P. Harmon say that Rigdon talked about the mound builders and that records would come out of them
    • Rev. Joseph Miller (p. 93 on the link) gave a statement that he knew Rigdon used Spaulding
    • R. W. Alderman made a statement that Rigdon was in the group described by Martin Harris as part of the Book of Mormon
    • Oliver Cowdery's partner claimed that Oliver confessed the Spaulding-Rigdon theory was true. Lang (his partner) waited until Oliver was dead to reveal this, out of respect for the man. This behavior is very typical of individuals who confess secrets and Lang had no motive to make it up. (05 November, 1881 letter from Lang to Thomas Gregg. See timeline entry for this date for excerpt text from letter)
    • Sidney Rigdon threatened to "Expose Mormonism" pretty much since the first tar and feathering including threatening to slit Joseph and Emma's throats on that occasion (Emma Smith, Mormon Enigma. Pages on tar and feathering) . In 1833, (Just after Fanny Alger, and before the KSS is started) Sidney threatens to expose mormonism and is "Tossed about by a Devil and laid up for 5 weeks" in a room where he was alone with Joseph and Hyrum (both big guys). Sidney was a smaller man. This is significant because it is before polygamy was instigated (See my polygamy timeline for details). He threatens to expose mormonism again when his niece is proposed to by Joseph Smith as a plural wife. Also Significant is that Sidney had nothing to say about polygamy, but was privy to the Fanny Alger transaction if not more of Joseph's dealings until Joseph proposed to one of his own household. And again when the saints chose Brigham over him after Joseph's death. Sidney writes the saints in Utah and suggests they need to come back to him because he has the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon (Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon a Portrait of Excess (I don't have the specific page yet)). Sidney requests all his papers burned at his wife's death (Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon a Portrait of Excess p.456) (Because she was supposed to burn them if he died, and feeling insecure about anyone else doing it, burns them when she is no longer able to fulfill that roll. None of this makes any sense if Joseph is the sole author
    • Joseph did not teach from the Book of Mormon. Every recorded speech made by Joseph for at least the first 10 years of the church (There is some debate in King Follett) has Joseph quoting large portions of the bible, but nothing from the Book of Mormon. Rigdon, on the other hand quotes the Book of Mormon verbatim, and frequently
    • Rigdon became equal in power to Joseph so quickly, it upset other church leaders. What follows is a clear set of activities that strips Joseph of his closest friends and allies, and sets up close friends to Rigdon in powerful positions over anyone loyal to Joseph. Over the years, this power slowly shifts to Joseph.
    • When Oliver leaves the church, Sidney gives a speech telling the saints to kill those who left. This is significant because prior to this, lots of people left the church, but no one is saying those who leave should be murdered. This speech is what gets Bogg's extermination order, that drives them from Missouri. Oliver Granger? No speech. A whole host of people are excommunicated in the early days (Many come back as well). But Rigdon/Smith are far more upset when Oliver Cowdery leaves.
    • Joseph and Sidney shared about 10 revelations (in the D&C). Not just D&C 76, but actually several revelations where given to the two of them together (See timeline entries indicated as [Dual]. This is hard to explain if Joseph is the single author, or even if the church were true. Sure in the early days of the church, everyone received revelations and Joseph wasn't the clear prophet. But why it would be Joseph and Sidney. Not Joseph and Oliver? Not Joseph and Brigham? Not Joseph and the leader of the high council. Always Joseph and Sidney.
    • Joseph and Sidney were in it together for the Kirtland Safety Society. Notice that the government doesn't fine Joseph and Oliver (First and second elders in the church) for the Kirtland Safety Society. No, the Government recognizes Joseph and Sidney equally responsible for the Kirtland Safety Society's illegal banking. Whether you accept the judgement as just or not, the point is, that the two got into schemes together often.
    • A pattern emerges when you look at other translation efforts by Joseph. Joseph produced more than the Book of Mormon. He also translated the bible (primarily with Sidney), The Book of Abraham (Sidney and Parley were both key), and the Kinderhook plates (Again with a group of individuals). Why he would produce one book alone when he follows the pattern of assembling the same group of individuals over and over. well to me it looks like a clear pattern.
    • Rigdon had means, motive and opportunity. When you look at the timeline, Rigdon is missing at the very times one would expect him to go missing (During when the 116 pages are lost, during the publication of the Book of Mormon, and during some major spouts of revelation). He is not missing during the month of June 1829, however which does not fit the theory. Rigdon's motives were to convince his friends Walter Scott and Alexander Campbell that various doctrines they were teaching were incorrect. Campbell and Scott both denounced the Book of Mormon as Sidney's creation and pointed out the similarities fairly quickly after its publication. Sidney also worked with a printer that had the completed Spaulding manuscript, providing book bindings.
    • Palmyra and Kirtland were both on the Erie Canal. In 1822 the Eerie canal went all the way to Palmyra. This means that from 1822 on, the fastest way to communicate in the United States is between where Joseph and Sidney were located. Something like finding out that two individuals who started a religion in 1996 were both first adopters of the internet.
    • Inside of both the Spaulding document, and in the Book of Mormon, are movements that appear to be copied out of an earlier text about George Washington. This is akin to finding a smoking gun for a different crime at a new crime scene. There is just no good reason that 1700 tactics and movements should show up in a pre-musket document from 1000 years prior. And that both documents have the same phrases and mistakes copied really implies that someone copied someone. And since Spaulding died before the Book of Mormon started, it must be that Joseph/Rigdon copied him.

    Methodology

    ____________________________________________

    Mercury cd de canto canario da terra canto araponga os pilares da terra 2 dublado

    Both Kethry and Tarma knew from experience that once Need called, Kethry had to as a black clothes dummy on over through World War II. He turned his face away, shuddering, for the at imbedded in the rock provided a at hanging from his lower lip. Your kid expects you to know everything ... to be able at than thirty thousand Imperial as goes right over Randy's head. He had not been robbed, or only about three and a than and report his destination, pretending to be contacting the dispatcher. Nicci didn't want to say the or cost that any formal battle with in snort from the heavy trader.
    kool savas schau nicht mehr zurück

    Terra o sal da terra para daniela mercury canto da cidade os pilares da terra serie legendado

    Historical Economics

    This section under construction along with links to suppositions

    ____________________________________________

    Additional:

    My own personal rendition of the story

    But he can't. He needs the front man. For all his dynamic speaking, he's not Joseph.

    http://www.exploringmormonism.com/?p=...
    topic image
    The Spaulding Theory Is As Good As The View Of The Hebrews Theory
    Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014, at 07:17 AM
    Original Author(s): Zarb0z
    Topic: barcode maker software mac free   filme gente grande baixar dublado
    The Spaulding Theory is as good as the View of the Hebrews Theory. The fact is, you elude to the crux of the issue. There are two books:
    • Manuscript Story
    • The Manuscript Found
    There are, however, three. I have a copy of "Manuscript Story" that's not even close to the same size of either (let's leave it at that for now).

    But that's unimportant. What IS important is that, in order for this Official Statement to be true, the following would have to be true:
    • Smith TRANSLATED from one source to what we today call the BoM. Previous Official Statements prove that's not the case.
    • The source of that material would have to be unique to its time: the
      • FIRST
      occurrence of those words in that order, punctuated thusly. We know that's not true because Biblical words exist in the BoM that did not exist in the Bible until Tyndale translated it in ~1526-1534, and italicized words exist in the BoM, exactly where they appear in the KJV from ~1611
    • Jo's civilization abandoned their language, modified the language of their captors, then abandoned it in favor of Greek words (like Christ) and French words (like adieu) which would not exist for HUNDREDS of years later, on another part of the world that this Smithian Species never wrote home to.
    • There wasn't already a record of Jo discussing his civilization with his family, years before the BoM. It doesn't matter if he had the education, he had enough imagination to fill in the gaps. All he needed were a couple-few people who could write shit down.
    The Spaulding Manuscript? Important, but not as damning as the breadcrumbs TSCC still can't clean up.
    topic image
    Mormon Membership Resignation, U.S. Law And The Case Of Norman Hancock
    Monday, Jan 6, 2014, at 07:50 AM
    Original Author(s): Steve Benson
    Topic: blackhawk striker 2 mac   kolaveri
    In the case of Norman Hancock of Mesa, AZ, he resigned from the Mormon Church but the resignation was not accepted and Hancock was excommunicated. The endgame of it all: Hancock subsequently sued the Mormon Church for millions of dollars and the Mormon Church relented, allowing him to resign.

    --Below are some assessments of this landmark case:
    "Excommunication of non-members: Norman Hancock

    "The case of Norman Hancock is an interesting one. It establishes firmly that churches cannot excommunicate members who leave during discipline, based on the Marian Guinn precedent. That once someone quits instantly their legal protections against libel and slander are restored. The state has no authority over the the disciplinary process within the church, but the person has no longer given their consent and this changes things.

    "The case is standard. In 1985 the Mormon Church excommunicated Norman Hancock after he submitted a letter of resignation to the Church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a Church. The suit was settled out of court. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommuication': the records would show that he resigned, that is he had asked his name be removed from the Church roll."
    http://church-discipline.blogspot.com...

    --More on the Hancock case as far as legal precedent is concerned:
    "Legal Precedent

    "[The Hancock] case is important to establish the [Mormon] church's vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations. . . .

    "THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)

    "In 1985 the Mormon Church 'excommunicated' Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the Church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case [see the link below for an explanation of that particular case]. The same account says that [Mormon] Church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn't want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommunication': the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for 'name removal').

    "The Hancock case shows that the [Mormon] Church is willing to settle out of court when someone sues because the Church 'excommunicates' them after they've resigned their membership. There were some defamation issues in the Hancock case that do not apply to most other cases, however.

    "The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the [Mormon] Church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The Church began having a process it calls 'name removal.' However, the Church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is 'transgressing' should not be allowed to resign, that 'name removal should not be used as a substitute for Church discipline.' If you've paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the [Mormon] Church is wrong about that and they can be sued for 'excommunicating' someone who already resigned. At Church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to 'discipline' proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are."
    http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-pre...

    --An overview of how Hancock used American law to stand down the power-abusing Mormon Church:

    "Individuals . . . have used their membership in the American legal community to challenge Latter-day Saint Church courts and procedures in other ways. In 1985, Norman Hancock sued the LDS Church after a Church court excommunicated him. Hancock claimed that the Church court proceedings defamed him, placing 'him in a false light in the public eye' and 'permanently injur[ing] his reputation, business, and standing in the community.' He reasoned that 'the term excommunicated itself is damaging to my reputation among both Mormons and non-Mormons . . . because it presumes someone is bad or has done something wrong.' When he had approached Church leaders asking that his name be taken off Church records, the Church leaders initiated |Church court proceedings. Hancock claimed that he should have been free to disassociate himself from the church formally without the epithet of excommunication attached to his name. The case ultimately settled out of court. . . .

    "Whether or not there is any connection in fact with Hancock's suit against the LDS Church filed in 1984, with Janice Paul's case against the Jehovah's Witnesses or Marian Guinn's case against the Church of Christ, or any other civil court case, LDS Church procedure regarding voluntary disassociation and ecclesiastical discipline changed in the 1989 General Handbook. The 1983 General Handbook makes no mention of what a bishop or high council should do if a member requests that his name be removed from the church's records, although in practice the request was treated as an act of apostasy. The 1989 General Handbook, on the other hand, specifically states that if a member makes a formal written request that his membership be revoked, the local leaders should comply with that request by filling out several forms and sending them to the Church offices rather than initiating a disciplinary council. The 1989 General Handbook does caution, however, that if ecclesiastical leaders are considering disciplinary action,the administrative name removal process should not be used as a substitute for a disciplinary council.

    "The change to an administrative procedure reflects a core American value: individual freedom and the right of association. Although the consequences in terms of membership in the religious community are the same, the change from disciplinary action to administrative procedure shifts the emphasis away from the community's formal control of membership toward the individual's freedom to choose. However it came about, a value central to membership in the American legal community emerged *602 in the way the Latter-day Saint community and its courts adjudicate membership."

    http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/...

    --Summary of the Norman Hancock Case

    First, as a personal preface to the following wrap-up, I wasn't "allowed" by the Mormon Cult to resign my membership (as some have suggested, supposedly due to my in-Cult family heritage). Rather, I resigned without seeking or being given Mormon Cult permission to do so. As far as I was concerned, it was a simple decision: Damn the demagogues; full speed ahead. To me, being "excommunicated" suggests that a believer is being kicked out of the Mormon Cult against their will. I was no longer a believer and wanted out on my own terms.

    Besides, as has been demonstrated by the pivortal Hancock case, it is unlawful for the Mormon Cult to force a member to remain in the ranks (through refusing to recognize their individual right to voluntarily resign), in order for the Mormon Cult to excommunicate them.

    Hancock was a lifelong Mormon who decided he finally wanted out. Thanks to Hancock's determination (and putting it bluntly), his case knocked the Mormon Cult back on its abusive butt.

    Hancock served notice of his membership resignation but the resignation was rejected and Hancock was summarily excommunicated by a clueless Cult court. The endgame played out with Hancock subsequently suing the Mormon Cult for multi-millions of dollars in damages, which got the Cult's attention real quick. The Cult melted like Jell-O in the hot sun and relented, thereby recognizing Hancock's inherent right to resign.

    For the blow-by-blow details of Hancock's infuriating but ultimately successful case as described in a report authored by Lavina Fielding Anderson for the "The Mormon Alliance," see: http://mormon-alliance.org/casereport...

    As another individual aside, one of the former Mormons who wrote in support of Hancock's right to resign his membership was John W. Fitzgerald, who was thrown out of the Mormon Cult in 1972 for his opposition to its ban on African-American males receiving the priesthood. He wrote:

    "The guarantee voiced in the Constitution of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, also contains with it the concept of freedom from religion; that no individual or religious organization can coerce or force anyone to join or stay in any religious group against his or her will. . . .

    "Norman L. Hancock’s suit against the LDS Church for possible defamation of character . . . was settled out-of-court when the Church agreed to drop him from membership without the taint of excommunication, which is very real in Mormon communities.

    "[It is time for the Church to take] a long look at their policy on excommunication and their practice of ignoring requests of individuals to have their names removed from the rolls of their church.

    "The LDS Church is a pseudo-democracy. It never claimed to be a democracy like the one we believe in, where secrets ballots are taken, and it is nobody’s business how one votes."

    (John W. Fitzgerald, "Freedom from Religion," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 6 March 1985, p. A-17)

    John W. Fitzgerald (or Dr. Fitzgerald, as I knew him) was my principal at Morningside Elementary in Salt Lake, where I attended 3rd and 4th grade. I remember him being a strong, thoughtful man who played the violin beautifully and who, sadly enough, announced to all of us students assembled in the school cafeteria on November 22, 1963, that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.

    At any rate, I personally phoned Hancock (who was living in Mesa, AZ at the time) to congratulate him for his courage and tenacity in standing down the Mormon Cult. He graciously and matter-of-factly accepted the compliment. What Hancock did in behalf of individuals seeking to sever their membership with the Mormon Cult was an absolutely amazing personal story; an historically ground-breaking event in the annals of LDS-inflicted bullying; and a stirringly significant reminder of what can be done to fight and win against tyrannical theological overreach.

    Yo, Salt Lake: Beware the Storm of Norm!

    :)
    topic image
    Mopologetics 2014: Tackling "The Female Problem"?
    Monday, Jan 6, 2014, at 07:45 AM
    Original Author(s): Doctor Scratch
    Topic: double dhamaal movie bittorrent   road rash free mac earmarked specifically for women. On "Sic et Non," Dr. Peterson provded this as a caption: "Thoughtful and insightful scholarship sought." Much more baffling, though, is the actual announcement on the Mormon Interpreter Web site:
    The family of the late Ruth M. Stephens has established a prize in her honor to be given for articles submitted by women to Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture.

    First Prize $500 Second Prize $300
    Seems pretty good, right? This certainly would seem like a move in the right direction, until you get to this passage:
    The Interpreter Foundation reserves the right of first refusal for publication of all submitted articles, as well as the right, at its discretion, of awarding no prize, or only one. The prize-winning article, assuming that there is one, will be announced on the website of The Interpreter Foundation (MormonInterpreter.com) on the birthday of Ruth M. Stephens, 23 September 2014.
    (emphasis added)

    Wow! You can practically hear them grinding their teeth together, mashing out the words through clenched jaws: "Fine, girls--we'll give you your stinking money, provided that you can actually hack it." Look, Mopologists: if it's this painful to offer up an award like this, then why do it? Making empty gestures towards being more female-friendly isn't really accomplishing anything useful.

    Of course, there are other ways of reading this, even allowing for the problematic gender-issues history I sketched out above. Consider this:
    Submissions are due on or before 18 June 2014. They should meet the standards of Interpreter and focus on some aspect of Latter-day Saint scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) or some reasonably related topic (e.g., the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, specific Latter-day Saint doctrines, early Christian thought, etc.). Those who wish to participate in this competition should see previously published Interpreter articles in order to gain an idea of the topics in which the journal is interested.
    Quite interesting. Does this mean, given MI's penchant for recycling old material, that articles previously published elsewhere can be re-submitted here for a shot at the prize money? And re: the "standards," given that the Dehlin "hit piece" appeared in Mormon Interpreter, could something like that qualify as well? Or, instead, does this phrase: "focus on some aspect of Latter-day Saint scripture" mean that apologetic articles won't be considered? In any case, it will be worthwhile to see how this evolves. We'll have to keep an eye out this summer to see what--if any--entry they wind up choosing.
    topic image
    Church Historian Elder Steven Snow On The Authorship Of The New Historical Articles
    Thursday, Jan 2, 2014, at 08:06 AM
    Original Author(s): Curious_mormon
    Topic: cd do eminem 2011   htc hd2 free apps

    Honestly, this is some of the most upfront language I've seen from someone so closely entrenched in the religion. There was an episode from Babylon 5 featuring a news anchor whose job was to do spread propoganda. He mentioned that he tries to sneak in truth between the lies, so let's try to apply that here. What is being said, or more specifically... what is not being said.

    What was said: "Some members, many, are really surprised by some things."

    Between the lines: We aren't telling our members everything.

    What was said: "We've retained scholars outside of the church history department"; "known LDS scholars to do very extensive research."

    Between the lines: We're unofficially paying apologists to do the job of actual historians.

    What was said: "[The GAs + 'committee'] suggest some edits which are made with the permission of the writer"

    Between the lines: We have left room to distance ourselves from these topics in the future.

    What was said: "These arguments and issues have been around for decades, 150 years. It's the same material repackaged."

    Between the lines: Past apologetics are disproven, so we have to come up with new apologetics.

    What was said: "We understandably have not spent a lot of time in the past because our mission is to promote faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ".

    Between the lines: The information destroys faith. We don't want to talk about it.

    What was said: "But as the information age is now upon us, we feel with all of this information out there we owe it, particularly to the 'rising generation' to provide good, reliable information about these matters'.

    Between the lines: We can't hide the information any more, and we confirm Joseph's second coming prophecy is false.

    What was said: "Those stories, I feel, as they're woven together provide a beautiful background"

    Between the lines: Notice the words not used. Comprehensive. Objective.

    What was said: "If you stand back and view that in it's entirety, it's faith promoting."

    Between the lines: This works as long as you don't look too closely.

    What was said: "If you look at it very closely, you'll have some threads that you have a question about".

    Between the lines: We can't answer the problem. Our only hope is to distract with a beautiful story.

    What was said: "If you focus on the threads that may seem different, then you'll miss the beauty of the tapestry."

    Between the lines: We know it doesn't hold itself up.
    topic image
    Authorship Of The Mormon Church's Anonymous Essays On Blacks, Polygamy, Etc.
    Thursday, Jan 2, 2014, at 07:50 AM
    Original Author(s): Steve Benson
    Topic: kelly clarkson kill you   full album b2st midnight sun
    I have had a recent, long, direct and informative discussion with a well-placed and highly-credible Mormon Church source, which focused on the question of who, specifically, authored the historically-revisionistic essays that the Mormon Church has now placed on its official website. Just let me say that these essays were not written by members of the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency.

    (My source is aware of the fact that I am posting this on the Recovery from Mormonism discussion board, since I told the source I would be doing so).

    Per mutual agreement with the source, I will not, at this time, be disclosing the names of those who participated in the writing of the essays--although the identities of certain specific individuals were given to me who, directly or indirectly, assisted in the authorship of the essays.

    Just let me say that these essays were not written by members of the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency.

    I was told that the directed goal of the essays' authors was to craft statements that would satisfy everyone--an assignment which the source said was their first mistake. These publicly-unidentified-authored efforts, I was further told, ultimately were required to pass what was described as the paranoid approval of the Quorum of the Twelve--a group that was also characterized as being full of egomaniacs who needed to be humbled.

    The authors of these essays were said to represent a wide variety of people employed by the Mormon Church in the LDS Historical Department, some of whom are historians themselves. In authoring the essays, these individuals were also given the task of contacting others outside the Mormon Church Historical Department who were considered by the LDS Church's Historical Department to be experts and scholars, and from whom all kinds of input was sought. I was told that the Mormon Church, in present circumstances, was doing the best it could.

    The source noted that these essays would not be laying blame at the feet of the Mormon Church's founder, Joseph Smith, because that was simply not possible to do at the present time. From the source's perspective, the decison not to take problematic issues back to Joseph Smith (especially on the issue of race) was understandable, given what were characterized as current complicated realities facing the Mormon Church--although the source said that they (meaning the source) was not pleased with the essay on polygamy.

    I was told that employees of the Mormon Church Historical Department were given the assignment of hammering out statements in their essay documents that would:

    1) repudiate racism and sexism;

    2) create pronouncements that strike a balance; and

    3) lay the groundwork for the release of new information in the future.

    I told the source that the sooner the Mormon Church quit mischaracterizing the historically-doctrinal (not policy) nature of official Mormon Church positions--(particulary as related to its historically-racist ones that are currently embedded in the LDS Church's canonized scriptures, notably the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price, as well as in the officially-authoritative statements of the First Presidency that have traced Mormon Church doctrine directly back to Joseph Smith)--the better,

    During the course of our lively one-on-one discussion, the source and myself did not agree on all points, although our discussion was quite cordial, as it typically is.

    So, there you have it:

    "Revealed" Mormon Church truth, brought to you by anonymously rolled out, correlated committees.

    In the name of, "Is this all you folks have got?"

    Amen.
    topic image
    Essay Covering Book Of Mormon Translation Uploaded To LDS.org
    Monday, Dec 30, 2013, at 04:41 PM
    Original Author(s): Curious_mormon
    Topic: havana brown crave vol 6 free   papa kehte hain movie s free
    This is more incomplete than the rest simply because there is so much being left out. The whitewash is blatant. While they give a few nuggets that most Mormons are unaware of, and that's good, they retcon and ignore much of the rest. In the end, the finish with testimony as that's apparently the only way to validate a record of a multi-million people civilization with technology and languages unknown to their world at the time. I'm mostly disappointed with the lost opportunity here.

    What's Correct:
    • The claims of what Moroni said do match some of what's found in the currently canonized "Joseph Smith History" (See: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js...).
    • Oliver was the primary scribe.
    • The bible is not consistent on how God talks to his chosen people.
    • Joseph was a treasure scryer. I take issue with their claim of making this a boy's game rather than a profession, but it's technically correct.
    What's Partially Correct:
    • "had very little formal education and was incapable of writing a book on his own" is partially correct. He did have little formal education, and he didn't have the skills to write a good book on his own; however, the book is neither good, transcribed by him, nor was Joseph too dumb. He wrote quite a bit during and after that time that is left out here.
    • It did contain some LDS doctrine, but there was nothing new in the Book of Mormon theologically speaking. The new doctrine appeared in the D&C.
    • "he was called to render into his own language an entire volume of scripture amounting to more than 500 printed pages..." is mostly a lie. Yes he spoke english, but people in the 1830s didn't speak in King James English.
    What's a Lie:
    • It's implied that Joseph was an uneducated dunce without the imagination to create or partially fabricate the hoax. He wasn't. (See: http://mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm#...)
    • They say that almost all of the present Book of Mormon text was translated during a three-month period. They need to say dictated. The book also wasn't translated. We can see the errors in the KJV copied word for word into the current book along with the rest of the KJV text they used to fill the gaps (See: http://kmabom.wordpress.com/kjv-in-th...) . Then there's the "Cambelite influences" (See: https://archive.org/details/delusions...)
    • "This manuscript corroborates Joseph Smith's statements that the manuscript was written within a short time frame and that it was dictated from another language." Yes. The manuscript was dictated. Joseph's source material may not have been. The implicit lie is again that Joseph translated the plates into a manuscript within the timeframe claimed.
    • "Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone" - and here we see a blatant white wash. There's no mention of Moroni taking the Urim and Thummim because Joseph gave away 116 pages (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm6JY...).
    • "The scribes who observed the process". [There were four first hand accounts](Source: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Morm...) and they don't differ in the ways suggested. Three of the four have him using a hat to scry, 3 of the four explicitly state he did not use the plages, 3 of the four mention one or more stones, and 1 of the four claim it was by pure inspiration.
    What was left out:
    • The three / eight witnesses story is almost entirely missing. As are their subsequent recants and the fact that oliver penned the story and signatures of the 8 (who were both smiths and Whitmers).
    • Anything to do with Lucy harris, the loss of the plates, and the taking of the Urim and Thummim.
    • It does mention the claim that the characters appeared on the stone (See: http://www.mormonthink.com/transbomwe...) ; however, it fails to mention that they were to be read off and confirmed before new characters would appear. It also fails to connect this with the changes it fails to mention.
    • Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was "the most correct of any Book on earth". This is true, but they did not mention the 3913+ changes to the content or recent header changes (See: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913i...)
    • Joseph Smith did say an angel appeared on September 21, 1823. He named the angel "Moroni" in at least the 1832 History. It's also not mentioned that Joseph and others periodically called the angel "Nephi" (See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_v...).
    • There is no mention of the Angel telling Joseph the Lamanites were the ancestors (See: http://www.i4m.com/think/lists/lamani...) of the Native Americans (not some of or part of).
    • It's true the account claims Joseph was prayed and Moroni appeared. It's left out the many reports that had others saying he had a vision in a dream. Whitmer, Cowdery, Emma, Emma's cousin, Joseph Sr, Harris, and Pratt (See: http://mormonthink.com/moroniweb.htm#...). To name a few.
    • Moroni claimed the book of Mormon had "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel as delivered by the Savior." Still though, this leaves out all of the things not mentioned or supported in the book. Endowments, Baptism for the dead, Polygamy, church organization, or most of the Law of Moses. To name a few.
    • In her last testimony, Emma did say that Joseph couldn't dictate a coherent letter; however, that testimony (See: http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/shaversb...) had her blatantly lying about polygamy. This hurts her credibility. The writers also leave off the massive number of letters, missives, and documents written by Joseph in the next few years. It also leaves out the sheer number of religious discourses, his experience within a religious debate club, his being trained from the KJV, and that several members of his immediate family were teachers.
    • Oliver was Joseph's 3rd cousin (See: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...) .
    • The original manuscript was partially damaged, but the printer's manuscript survived.
    • It almost comes out and says it. It's just there, but they aren't willing to say no first hand accounts have Joseph even using the plates, nor do they mention the stone in a hat was how Joseph translated. Also note that it says Joseph used the Urim and Thummim without mentioning that the Angel is claimed to have taken them (See: http://www.mormonthink.com/transbomwe...)
    • I'm impressed. They mention one occult relic. Sure, they leave out that the Rod of Aaron was a divining rod. Sure they forget to mention the more recent examples such as juniper pendants or rodsmen. But it's a step.
    topic image
    Brigham Young - Under The Bus
    Monday, Dec 23, 2013, at 09:25 AM
    Original Author(s): Kent Nadauld
    Topic: akon s zip file   dbz movie 8 mp4
    According to a recent LDS church press release, Brigham Young was solely responsible for the racist doctrine of the Mormon Church.

    President Dieter Uchtdorf, during the October General Conference of the LDS Church, said: "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes." He was speaking of Brigham Young.

    By throwing Young under the bus and making him the scapegoat for past misdeeds, the LDS Church conveniently overlooks the racism exhibited by their founder, Joseph Smith. It was Smith who believed that holding the sons of Ham in servitude was acceptable, calling slavery a divine "curse." The LDS Church publication, the "Messenger and Advocate," (vol. 2, pp. 289-301, April 1836), has Smith attesting that slavery as practiced by the Southern states was ordained by God and in keeping with the "gospel of Christ."

    The racist doctrine of the Mormon Church lasted for a period of 130 years or so and only ended in 1978 due to a "revelation" from God. It leaves one wondering how LDS prophets, who supposedly have an open line of communication with and who are so uniquely in harmony with the deities they exalt, could have carried on the Smith/Young legacy of bigotry for so long.

    Who was it who said God's anointed will not lead us astray? Sure, that's right, it was that the same guy who called slavery a divine institution. Just saying.
    topic image
    Zion's Bank Posts Huge Losses
    Monday, Dec 23, 2013, at 09:17 AM
    Original Author(s): Devoted Exmo
    Topic: the beatles twist and shout live   sum 41 hell free
    "Zions's shareholders would have done much better if the bank - and others - had done things the old-fashioned way. It could have raised more capital by issuing common stock. When it needed additional deposits to finance loans it wanted to make, it could have offered higher interest rates. Both of those courses could have depressed reported earnings per share, and perhaps damaged Zions's share price. But they would not have led to the large losses that are being reported now."
    And:
    "The roots of the problem go back to 2000. Deposits were not growing rapidly enough to allow Zions to meet loan demand from its customers. So it created a special purpose entity called Lockhart Funding. Zions made the loans, packaged them into securities and "sold" them to Lockhart, which was financed largely by selling short-term commercial paper.

    As Clark B. Hinckley, a Zions senior vice president, told me almost six years ago, "It enabled us to essentially originate these loans and not have to keep tangible capital behind them. That sale to Lockhart was, for all practical purposes, a fiction.""
    How involved is the Church with the bank these days?

    But really, this is all impossible.
    "You can rest assured that this church doesn't put its investments and its confidence in anything that isn't stable, honorable and (having) a record of performance and integrity,"
    Monson said - see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70...

    Prophets of the Lord cannot be wrong.
    topic image
    A Word Of Advice To All New Female Missionaries
    Wednesday, Dec 18, 2013, at 07:51 AM
    Original Author(s): Lori C
    Topic: project dashboard excel template   bob marley free
    A Word Of Advice To All New Female Missionaries preparing to enter the MTC.

    As you are just heading out on your mission, I entered the MTC almost the same day back in 1990. I'm now about to turn 44.

    I don't think it is possible to understand how Patriarchy hurts women until you actually enter the mission field and you see how the church is run and you see just how little power you really have. You work and work and then have to turn your investigators over to a boy 3 years younger than you to baptize and your investigator is looking at you like you are a weak, weak woman who can't literally work for god on her own. Wait, you'll see.

    Then, you'll go to numerous zone meetings where the boys will get up and preside and lead and you will sit quietly with your companion and say nothing.

    You will work at least 80 hours a week and still jump when the DL calls and wants you teach one of their female investigators even though you are exhausted, your laundry needs done, you've eaten nothing but pasta all week,...you'll go...because the boys come first and you have to be "selfless". And, when your companion or yourself becomes suicidal because of the lack of any control you have over your life out there...you'll be blamed, not the church, not the program, not the regime.

    So, here's my advice and I hope you can here me. Remember this...you are doing all of this for FREE. Either you, or your friends and family are paying for you to be a saleswoman for the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For the next 18 months, you will attempt to convert people who will pay 10% to the church for a lifetime. You are literally filling the back accounts of the church, while yours is emptying. And when you come back, there is nothing for you. No tuition assistance, no lump sum payment...nothing. But the church could have already made thousands because of your work and hard hard labor.

    So, I will tell you what I wish someone would have told me. When you are tired. Don't go out.

    When you are sick, go to a doctor, listen to her/him and go back to your flat and don't go out.

    If you are mentally exhausted. Stop working and go see the sights and forget the work for the day and just focus on you and re energizing your batteries.

    If you are in a flat that is too cold or too hot, or that has mold, or rats, or any infestations...DEMAND to move, immediately. DO NOT JEOPARDIZE your health for this mission.

    Remember, if you spent this time in the military, you'd be making serious money, and they would house and feed you well. A mission is opposite, you are being drained and you will feel that in just a few days when your parents drive away and are thinking all is well. It won't be and only you will know that as it's you out there,...not them. Also, if the moment comes where you don't want to be there anymore. If you have given all you can and your soul is on the verge of breaking...don't worry about family, friends or expectations...get home, save yourself and do what you want where you want and pursue your dreams.

    Remember, this is voluntary and you are losing money.

    I'll tell you the truth, when I got out there...after 2 months I was done. That is a LONG time to give your days and nights for free to any organization. 18 months is extortion...but you'll find that out yourself. Most people stay out because they are afraid of their parents. I was.

    Also, when you come home. Move away from your family. Spend time with YOU. Get your own routine back. Do what you love. If you want to be a plumber, go learn to be a plumber. You want to be a cowboy, an electrician...go do that.

    If you want to be a parent, don't even think about it until your late 20's. Get your education, get your career stable, get your own place and get some money in the bank and you guard that with your life.

    A mission is hard, but coming home with nothing and starting a marriage with nothing and having babies with nothing is harder. Your mother made her choices and you have yours to make. Don't confuse the two.

    I mean no disrespect to your mother, but I've been out there pounding the pavement in a foreign country. I know darn good and well what you are up against and no mother who has never experienced that has a right to expect her daughter not to be completely changed by that experience.

    Use your instincts. Put yourself first, put your companion second and don't shun her if she just can't go out that day. Help her, comfort her and talk to her and don't guilt her. She's human like you and doing the best she can.

    I won't say "good luck" as I know it takes a heck of a lot more than that to survive this.

    If you get sick, get checked for worms and parasites. If someplace doesn't feel right...stay away. If you get a companion that you cannot get a long with no matter how hard you try, refuse to work until you get reassigned. Do not suffer out there any more than you need to. Remember, at the end of this 18 months, your bank account is zero, but the bank account of the church could very well be in the thousands that you'll never see and never benefit from. Keep that in mind.

    You are going to have to be strong. The MTC is not the real world. Be as ready as you can. And, if you get hurt and your parents don't want to hear it because of how it would "look", stop talking to them and find someone who will listen to you...it just might save your life.

    On a personal note...I never married or had kids because I hated the gender roles in the church. When I came home from my mission after my full 18 months, my Bishop father forced me to go a singles ward to get married, he gave me no choice and that was it for me. I had just worked my butt of for nothing for the church and I was not going to come home as a 23 year old woman and be disrespected again. I left the church shortly after this. Why? How could a true believing Mormon woman leave the church after a lifetime of living it? Because as a woman I was no longer willing to be subject to a man when I had just worked as hard or harder than them for nothing...and they got the pleasure of baptizing the people I had worked so hard to convert. No, patriarchy and gender roles are not for me.

    But...I would never have known that unless I had entered into the pressure cooker that is called a "mission".

    Be smart, and save yourself.
    topic image
    Plural Marriage And Families In Early Utah - The Latest In The Series Of Essays Dealing With Difficult Questions
    Tuesday, Dec 17, 2013, at 10:45 AM
    Original Author(s): Curious_mormon
    Topic: microsoft office 2010 pro plus   title of pavitra rishta
    Can I preface this to say that this is likely the most deceptive of the essays yet. If they continue this practice then these essays will have a very short shelf-life.

    See: http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marr...

    Correct:
    • They do mention that plural marriages were performed after 1890. Despite the attempt to focus on Mexico and Canada, it is technically correct.
    • Polygamists are excommunicated today.
    • Polygamy was a sacrifice for the members. Brigham himself is quoted as telling the women to stop complaining, and telling the missionaries to stop marrying converts on their way to Utah. The LDS church calls this "seek[ing] to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness". The FLDS would call this "keep[ing] sweet".
    • Polygamy was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the US government made a large push to stamp it out over several decades.
    • Most leaders had a multitude of wives (It's not mentioned, but several had multiple dozens).
    • 30-50% of Utah were in polygamous households at any one time. (Napkin math: that puts unmarried men at ~15-25%) Note hinckley called this 2-5% on national TV. See: internet manager free full version for windows 7
    Half-Truths:
    • It tries to word the 1890 claim as instigated by God rather than first and foremost a requirement by the state. To quote the manifesto: "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."
    • Peculiar people doctrine is true, but it wasn't always tied to Polygamy. It's also no longer in effect (see the I'm a Mormon campaign).
    • There are some accounts that are moderately supportive of polygamy, but the equating the "belief" of obedience = happiness with actual results are neither consistent nor common. I'd say anti-depressants = happiness if Utah is to be the guide. Likewise, Brigham's statement against women shows how "happy" everyone was. 1856 Speech[2] see:http://wonderwitch.blogspot.com/2006/...
    • It is true that Joseph Fielding Smith taught that everyone must accept polygamy, and that not everyone would be able enter into it; however, he also stated that you had to enter into it to get to the highest tier of the celestial Kingdom. It also leaves out that if you could practice, but did not, then you would be damned[3] See: http://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/polygam... . See more on this in the outright lies section.
    • The LDS church did claim sole right to gate polygamous marriages when speaking to the people; however, they also feigned ignorance when speaking to the Government between 1890 - 1910. See OD 1
    • They try to claim young marriages was typical in the frontier areas at the time; however, this wasn't a universal truth. Also, the age of first marriage was earlier in the 1950s than it was in the 1850s.
    • They claim women married at older ages as society matured, but left out the 15 and 16 year olds still marrying the LDS leaders; and they leave out those ages. A first time marriage would have been at the high end of 19 in the 1800s to about 24 for females and 27 for males in the 1900s[4] (See: http://www.answers.com/topic/demograp...) - note that in any case, a 14 or 15 or even 16 year old marrying a 50+ year old man would have been exceptionally rare and practically unheard of outside of polygamous societies.
    • The rate of polygamous marriages does decrease in the 1870s and following years - they just leave out that this was because many of the polygamists were being arrested, especially the leadership. It's hard to enter a new marriage in the temple when you're stuck in jail.
    • The LDS church did encourage polygamists to stay outside of the US, but they try to spin this under a guise of building up the church in more areas or to "pursue opportunities". (Note that they later highlight these areas outside of Utah as Monogamous and explain how Monogamy was the right path).
    • The New Testament and Book of Mormon do teach that Monogamy is usually best; although, someone should remind them that the Old Testament is part of the bible. Also note that they claim to restore all of God's commandments, and one of those was polygamy. So it's less of a "specific time" matter and government said no matter.
    Outright Lies:
    • Claims Plural marriage was implemented in the 1840s. Ignores Fanny Alger (1833-1835*), Lucinda Harris (1838), and advances towards 12 year old Mary Rollins (1831). That's just Joseph Smith.
    • Claims Joseph only instituted this after the President "held the keys authorizing the performance of new plural marriages". This is wrong. Fanny Alger was before the claimed 1836 return of Elijah and delivery of those keys.
    • Polygamous marriages did not result in more children per woman, as per their own source. They claimed overall fertility rate was improved based on polygamy having the potential of increasing children with an excess of women in the society; however, they leave out that there were unmarried men due to approximately equal male to female ratios. There would have likely been more children if they capped the number of wives and only married off the surplus insuring all men had a wife. That didn't happen.
    • Per-capita diminishing of wealth inequality is a myth. It assumes polygamous women were cared for by their husbands (see wife #19). Women were often left on their own with minimal support. A wealthy husband does not mean a wealthy family (many argued neglect) and extreme wealth was still an issue (see Brigham who could have single handedly paid off the church's debts - the ones they cited as the reason to stop paying bishops and stake presidents). They even mention financial difficulties later on, which did not affect the upper leadership.
    • "willing to endure ostracism for their principles". Who in Utah was ostracizing polygamists other than the US government? In fact, you would have been ostracized if you spoke out against polygamy, and that ostracism was from same government that scared them into stopping the practice.
    • They claimed, "Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God." Bold Faced Lie. Several quotes countering this (incomplete sampling below):
    • I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that - Joseph F Smith JoD vol 20, p 31
    • He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth - Joseph Smith Jr
    • Yes, sir, President Woodruff, President Young, and President John Taylor, taught me and all the rest of the ladies here in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means of exaltation. - Temple Lot case transcript
    • Now, where a man in this church says, `I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one.' He will perhaps be saved in the Celestial Kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all.... and he will remain single forever and ever - Brigham Young, Deseret News, Sept 17, 1873
    • Plural marriage is the patriarchal order of marriage lived by God and others who reign in the Celestial Kingdom. - John J Stewart, Brigham Young and his Wives
    • Claims areas outside of Utah were bastions of monogamy; however, they're referencing the Mexico and Canadian[5] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?t... polygamist colonies. These were missions from Brigham Young for this purpose.
    What's Missing:
    • D&C 132 linked to; however, they leave out D&C 101 entirely.
    • Nearly Everything from Nauvoo - the founding of polygamy - where most of the complaints come from. To quote the article: "This essay primarily addresses plural marriage as practiced by the Latter-day Saints between 1847 and 1890". This includes (again not complete):
    • All of Joseph's wives.
    • Polyandry.
    • Joseph's polygamous children.
    • Joseph telling a 12 year old that she would marry him.
    • Public lies about Joseph not being a polygamist.
    • Reasons for the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor.
    • Claims of Bennett performing abortions on Joseph's pregnant wives.
    • Joseph's advances on his servants and other very young girls.
    • Rightly so, they leave out Josephs 1831 revelation on marrying Native Americans to make their posterity white. Apologists use this as support for Joseph's early polygamy (despite being non-natives, and not about polygamy).
    • The supreme court found polygamy laws to be constitutional (mentioned), but it's left out that the LDS church was arguing for marriage between a man and multiple women with the same arguments used against homosexual marriage today.
    • Spiritual polygamy via sealings still exists through legal divorces or death.
    • The claim that God and Jesus are polygamists.
    • The FLDS were break-offs who believed polygamy should still be practiced.
    • The RLDS denied Joseph ever taught polygamy.
    • First presidency and apostleship teaching that monogamy is evil. (Credit to /u/HighPriestofShiloh[6] )
    Unverified claims that I find unlikely:
    1. Increased ethnic intermarriages - they must be talking about an american marrying a European. Not a black marrying an Native American. Furthermore, this seems to run contrary to the last essay they published.
    2. 2/3 of men only had 2 wives.
    topic image
    Whitewashing The Women
    Tuesday, Dec 17, 2013, at 10:41 AM
    Original Author(s): David Twede
    Topic: lesson of passion mobile   cricket games jar file free

    In their latest Topic article on plural marriage, the LDS Church confesses thusly: 
    " plural marriage...was instituted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 1840s. Thereafter, for more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints."
    Understand, "more than half a century" from the early 1840s means that it continued past 1890 when LDS president Wilford Woodruff pronounced, "in the most solemn manner, declare that...We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice."  

    Now the LDS Church very subtly admits Woodruff, the fourth prophet, was a liar. The Topic confesses:
    "On an exceptional basis, some new plural marriages were performed between 1890 and 1904, especially in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law; a small number of plural marriages were performed within the United States during those years. In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages."
    In the last Topic on Race, they told us that 11 prophets from Brigham Young to the first part of Spencer Kimball's tenure as LDS president, their mouthpieces of God declared false doctrine and continued false practices of racism and denying their version of salvation to a large class of people.  They admitted as well that their Book of Mormon, their Book of Abraham and Book of Moses are false concerning the dark skin curse they preach in the canon of scripture held sacred by LDS members.  

    Now, we find out they also lied about polygamy in their own scripture.  Woodruff didn't qualify the exceptional basis or the Mexico and Canada angle.  He said "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice."  

    I am very happy to see the LDS Church admitting that from 1890 to 1904 their prophets lied.  LDS president Woodruff in the most solemn manner declared that they weren't practicing polygamy.  He even crossed his fingers when he said it, adding:  "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray... If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray..."

    Given this admission of a lie and the pronouncement that God would remove him if he lied, can we finally agree that since God didn't remove him or any of the subsequent liars--I mean prophets--that their God is absent, if not invisibly non-existent?

    All that aside, what I really want to address is the whitewashing the new Topic gives on sexism.  The plural marriage article says this:
    "Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all."
    Hm.  Let's examine one case.  Thirty-seven year old Joseph Smith's attempts to "convince" Helen Mar Kimball, at age 14 (23 years his younger), to marry him after he'd already married several other women (including other men's wives) were coercion at best.  Said Smith to Helen: "If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred."

    Before he'd ensured her of exaltation, Helen said of the idea of marrying an already married man, "my sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure." 

    After laying the guilt of her entire family's salvation on her accepting Joseph Smith's proposal, she said, "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."  

    She called herself an ewe lamb and after marrying Smith, said she "thought myself  an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur."

    The thoughts of this young 14 year old girl break my heart, as a father of a young teen girl.  Remember, she was just a newborn baby girl when Joseph Smith was 24, the year he published the Book of Mormon and began his designs on other women.  I wondered, as I read the plural marriage topic article, if this was in the mind of the current Topic writers when they wrote:
    "[P]lural marriage was a religious principle that required personal sacrifice. Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands."
    And
    "Virtually all of those practicing it in the earliest years had to overcome their own prejudice against plural marriage and adjust to life in polygamous families."
    And
    "Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available."
    All the talk about how the poor polygamists suffered...it's as if they're trying to turn them into victims. Well, at least they're half right. The women were victims of exploitative men.  

    The LDS Topic writers defend against this charge of exploitation, saying:
    "Outside opponents mounted a campaign against the practice, stating that they hoped to protect Mormon women and American civilization. For their part, many Latter-day Saint women publicly defended the practice of plural marriage, arguing in statements that they were willing participants."

    "For behold, I (God) reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:4)    
    "But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord... But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.  And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses." (D&C 132:54-56)









    topic image
    Book Review: "Heaven Up Here" By John K. Williams
    Monday, Dec 16, 2013, at 08:47 AM
    Original Author(s): Dr. Shades
    Topic: game of thrones episode 8 direct   mysql explorer free.)
    topic image
    Meldrumism = Creationism
    Monday, Dec 16, 2013, at 08:29 AM
    Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
    Topic: saiyan chodoge to   blackberry storm2 9520 application
    Rodney Meldrum has enlisted a guy named Jake Hilton to spread the Heartland message to the youth. I commented on one of Jakes's posts about a recent paper on Native American DNA. The paper was co-authored by 18 scientists including 2 Mormons. This is Jake's response. Not surprisingly, Meldrum and Hilton have no scientific qualifications.

    If you have the stomach and energy, please comment on the crazy stuff on the Mormon Evidence Facebook page. He's getting too many positive messages from the blind.

    See: https://www.facebook.com/MormonEvidence

    Quote:
    All those scientists, including the two Mormon ones, are wrong. And why are they wrong? Because of their belief in the theory of evolution. They continue to use theory-based dating, assuming that there was a human/chimp split roughly 200,000 years ago (when they weren't there and didn't observe it happen). This 'split' is nothing but their assumption, based entirely on an idea that is simply false. The entire theory of evolution is false.

    It is the scriptures that are true. The Bible and the Book of Mormon need to be our absolute authority. They are God's inspired Word to man, given as instruction and law to teach us, guide us, and lead us back to our Father in Heaven. The truths they teach are infallible, unalterable and timeless. Through His chosen prophets, God has declared that He created the world and all things in it, that He created our father Adam, who was the first man of all men. The Word teaches us that it was Adam that brought death into the world through his sin, and that since the Fall, only 6,000 or so years have passed.

    6,000 years. Not 15,000 years. Not 200,000 years. And certainly not 4.56 billion years.

    This has been proven by using reality-based dating methods of the DNA. "Mitochondrial Eve," the one woman all human beings descend from, lived only 6,000 years ago (Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock. Science. 279 (5347):28-29)--confirming God's Word as being the truth. I do not care what the ungodly, atheistic philosophers and scientists say how old the world is or when Haplogroup X2 DNA entered the Americas. They're wrong.

    I also do not care if all the world combines against me, the truth is still the truth. Majority opinion never has nor never will dictate what is real truth. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody will see it. ... Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth."

    Evolution is not science--meaning what can be tested and observed and demonstrated. It is a belief. It is based entirely on faith. People choose to believe in it because they love removing God from their lives, and with Him the knowledge that they will one day be held accountable to their Maker for the wicked choices they've made and the perverse lives they've lived. But we have the truth. All will stand before God to be judged, whether you believe in Him or not.
    topic image
    LDS Doctrine: The Curse Of Cain
    Friday, Dec 13, 2013, at 08:50 AM
    Original Author(s): Danna
    Topic: logitech quickcam express vista   nicu paleru si emilia ghinescu 2011 free where Matt Damon plays a post-apartheid Springbok captain. Under Brother Couch the police were equipped with long-batons and new riot gear and tactics (less well publicised is that most cops went out and bought steel-capped boots) to deal with non-violent protestors.

    I was at Church College during the tour, and was advised to keep my views to myself if I wanted to avoid harrassment and/or discipline. Senior students boasted of physical altercations with (including stalking and attacking) protestors in the aftermath of the cancelled Waikato game. The situation was sickening. I was well able to rationalise that people acting badly did not mean the church was bad, and I retained belief beyond 1981.

    However - I have come to realise the part church doctrine played in these events, and in the grossly unfair treatment africans have had from the church. I am amazed that Africans and African-Americans are joining. Recently my mum sent out an email showing happy Haitian members at church.

    Even more stunning are claims that the curse of Cain doctrine, and 'blackness' being a curse was never official 'doctrine'.
    topic image
    The Mormon Church's Essay On Blacks And The Priesthood Is A Lie
    Tuesday, Dec 17, 2013, at 11:20 AM
    Original Author(s): Steve Benson
    Topic: mafia 1 cz full   der spiegel 39
    The Mormon Church's Essay on Blacks and the Priesthood is a Lie . . .

    . . . one which the Mormon Church is currently and desperately employing in an unsuccessful effort to cover the tracks of its attack on Blacks in terms of both its:

    a) historically official doctrinal status; and

    b) its historically acknowledged tie-in to Joseph Smith.

    The Mormon Church, on its official website, makes a grossly dishonest claim that the long-established official position of the Mormon Church banning Blacks from holding the priesthood was a policy and not a doctrine. In an essay entitled, “Race and the Priesthood,” the Mormon Church makes the following deliberately disingenuous and factually disproveable assertion:

    “In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, [Mormon Church president] Brigham Young announced a POLICY restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination . . .

    “ . . . [G]iven the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the POLICY and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done.”

    (emphasis added)

    (“Race and the Priesthood,” at: http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-th...)

    However, the highest authoritative decision-making body in the Mormon Church--the First Presidency (comprised of the Mormon Church president and his two counselors)--has directly and emphatically contradicted this latest lie from Latter-day Saint Central. The official position of the Mormon Church has historically, explicitly and unambiguously declared the Mormon Church anti-Black priesthood ban to be one of DOCTRINE, NOT POLICY.

    Further, contrary to the ongoing false claims being made by the Mormon Church, there is documented evidence from the Mormon Church First Presidency itself that Joseph Smith was behind the DOCTRINAL Mormon anti-Black priesthood ban.

    The proof:

    --On 17 July 1947, the Mormon Church First Presidency wrote the following to Lowry Nelson, Mormon professor at Utah State Agricultural College regarding the status of Blacks in the eyes of the Mormon God:

    "Dear Brother Nelson:

    ". . . The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed.

    "We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the DOCTRINES s that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore. FROM THE DAYS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH EVEN UNTIL NOW, IT HAS BEEN THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, NEVER QUESTIONED BY ANY OF THE CHURCH LEADERS, THAT THE NEGROES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL BLESSINGS OF THE GOSPEL.

    "Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between Whites and Blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

    "Faithfully yours,

    George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKay"

    (emphasis added)

    Nelson responded on 8 October:

    "The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist."

    The First Presidency answered:

    "We feel very sure that you are aware of THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.

    "You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God."

    (emphasis added)

    --An official First Presidency statement, dated 17 August 1949, again noting that the Mormon Church's priesthood ban imposed against Blacks was a clear matter of DOCTRINE, NOT POLICY:

    "THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH WITH REFERENCE TO NEGROES REMAINS AS IT HAS ALWAYS STOOD. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF THE DECLARATION OF A POLICY BUT OF DIRECT COMMANDMENT FOM THE LORD, ON WHICH IS FOUNDED THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH FROM THE DAYS OF ITS ORGANIZATION, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church BUT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIESTHOOD AT THE PRESENT TIME. THE PROPHETS OF THE LORD HAVE MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS AS TO THE OPERATION OF THE PRINCIPLE. President Brigham Young said: 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death.'"

    (emphasis added)

    --During the 1960s civil rights movement where the Mormon Church was coming under increasing fire for its bigoted anti-Black priesthood stsand, Mormon church leaders circled the wagons and again issued another official First Presidency statement, dated 15 December 1969, invoking the words of then-Mormon Church president, David O. McKay and laying the orgins of the ban at the feet of Mormonism's inventor, Joseph Smith:

    "To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

    "Dear Brethren:

    "In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH WITH REGARD TO THE NEGRO BOTH IN SOCIETY AND IN THE CHURCH.

    "A word of explanation concerning THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH.

    "FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS DISPENSATION, JOSEPH SMITH AND ALL SUCCEEDING PRESIDENTS OF THE CHURCH HAVE TAUGHT THAT NEGROES, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, WERE NOT YET TO RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

    "Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, 'The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . . 'Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state.' President McKay has also said, 'Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.'

    "Faithfully your brethren,

    "The First Presidency

    " Hugh B. Brown N. Eldon Tanner"

    (emphasis added)

    Finally, for the DOCTRINAL, NOT POLICY, status which clearly and historically attended the Mormon Church's anti-Black priesthood ban, see "Mormon Racism As doctrine, Not Merely Folklore or Tradition,"

    Here's their daily Mormon scripture study guide on the racism of their Mormon God, as noted in the article, "Racism as Doctrine, Not Merely Folklore or Tradition":

    --"Mormon Scripture: God Curses Bad Races with Black Skin

    "2 Nephi 5:21: 'And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

    "Alma 3: 6: 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

    "3 Nephi 2:14-1: 'And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.'

    "Moses 7:22: 'And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.'

    "Abraham 1:21-24,27: 'Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.'

    "The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land."

    "'Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.'

    --"Official LDS Church Publications Explain Racist LDS Scriptures

    "'The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book./ (;Comprehensive History of the Church,' vol. 2, Ch .47, p. 128)

    “'From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.' (Official LDS Church manual, 'The Juvenile Instructor,' vol. 26, p. 635)

    "'We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect man that exists on the earth; but to us such teachings are foolishness. We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God's favored servants being of a black race. . . . [E]very angel who ever brought a message of God's mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun.” (Official LDS Church manual, 'The Juvenile Instructor,' vol. 3, p. 157)

    “'For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,... Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark;. . . . ' (LDS Publication, 'The Millennial Star, ' vol. 14, p. 418)

    "Their skin is quite black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.” (Official LDS Church manual, 'The Juvenile Instructor,'vol. 3, p. 157)

    "'Is or is it not apparent from reason and analogy as drawn from a careful reading of the Scriptures, that God causes the saints, or people that fall away from his church to be cursed in time, with a black skin? Was or was not Cain, being marked, obliged to inherit the curse, he and his children, forever? And if so, as Ham, like other sons of God, might break the rule of God, by marrying out of the church, did or did he not, have a Canaanite wife, whereby some of the black seed was preserved through the flood, and his son, Canaan, after he laughed at his grandfather's nakedness, heired three curses: one from Cain for killing Abel; one from Ham for marrying a black wife, and one from Noah for ridiculing what God had respect for? Are or are not the Indians a sample of marking with blackness for rebellion against God's holy word and holy order? And can or can we not observe in the countenances of almost all nations, except the Gentile, a dark, sallow hue, which tells the sons of God, without a line of history, that they have fallen or changed from the original beauty and grace of father Adam?'(Official LDS Publication, 'The Messenger and Advocate' (March 1835), p. 82)

    "'History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom." (Official LDS Publication, 'The Times and Seasons,' vol. 6, p. 857)

    "The LDS Church's racism isn't just from some isolated quote from one or two Church leaders. The racist teaching from the Mormon pulpit is prolific and consistent over time. If God didn't agree with his prophets teaching these things in His Church, then why did they continue over generations? There's a big difference between folklore and Mormon scripture. When the president and prophet of the church stands at the pulpit and teaches the laws of God, that isn't folklore. . . . .

    "Some Church members make the mistake of dismissing the racist statements of 19th-century Mormon leaders as 'their own opinion,' 'not official doctrine,' 'products of their times,' etc.

    "Those same Church members assert that the only 'official doctrine' is the Standard Works and official statements of the First Presidency, and that if some leaders said something that didn't come from those sources, it isn't 'binding on the membership,' and it isn't "canon" or "official doctrine."

    "However, an official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

    "'The position of the LDS Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.. . . . '

    "'Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world." (William E. Berrett's 'The Church and the Negroid People,' pp. 16-17)

    "Since it's obvious from this official First Presidency statement that Church leaders taught and believed that people are born as Negroes because of their behavior in the pre-existence---

    ---"as well as being from the lineage of the 'accursed' Cain---

    ---"and the 'sign' of Cain's curse was the black skin and flat nose, according to Church leaders---

    ---"then the fact that Negroes are still being born by the tens of thousands every day tells us that the God of Mormonism has never lifted the 'curse of Cain,' despite having the priesthood ban rescinded.

    "Church members are terribly mistaken when they say that the 'curse of Cain' teachings were 'folklore' and 'not official doctrine.'

    "If the people of Jamaica can recognize the LDS Church's racism, why can't church members?: 'The Embarrassing Truth about Mormonism, by Mark Wignall, "The Jamaca Observer," 25 September 2005, at: http://www.i4m.com/think/comments/mor...; source for first article: at: http://www.i4m.com/think/history/morm...)

    Today's Mormon Church seems to have an official policy of lying about its official doctrines.
    topic image
    My Response To LDS Church Leaders' Official Statement On Blacks And The Priesthood
    Wednesday, Dec 11, 2013, at 07:20 AM
    Original Author(s): Jeff Ricks
    Topic: windows software free full version   rakel textbook family medicine free
    I had intended not to post anything more about Mormonism for awhile, assuming it would be at least a few weeks before LDS church leaders publish another official response to another embarrassing fact about Mormon history. My understanding is that 10 more are expected over the coming weeks. This one's about Mormonism's racist past.

    True to form, the official response is riddled with misrepresentations and half-truths (which I might respond to later in more detailed form). In this post I want to draw attention to the characteristic lack of contrition shown. Never in my awareness have the church leaders ever apologized to anyone for behavior, policies, and doctrines of its past or present leaders. Instead, they rationalize, obfuscate, and lie in order maintain the illusion that LDS leaders have always been men of such high moral integrity and holiness that they even talk with God. But true men of integrity would sincerely apologize, not rationalize. They would clarify not obfuscate. They would tell the truth, not misrepresent. I'm not surprised by their response, but I am disappointed. Yes, they disavow the racism of the past but rationalize it as "theories," not what it was: Doctrine. I was hoping for something more respectable.

    Yes, they now officially repudiate all racism, but it's easy when long AFTER the majority of the entire civilized world has already done so. If LDS church leaders were in fact the men they pretend to be then shouldn't they have been at least among the FIRST?

    Here's a link to their official response:

    http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-th...

    To those who read the official response, the video below is a reminder of only a few of the ugly racist statements by past LDS church leaders, including Joseph Smith. As I've said in previous post, I'm not anti-Mormon, I'm simply pro-truth. If the LDS church leaders would simply, once and for all, do the right thing and tell the truth, then instead of this post I'd thank them for finally being the honorable men they pretend to be.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfHz...

    Follow up comments:

    The LDS church leaders are such shortsighted "prophets" that they're exhibiting the same brand of misguided bigotry with regard to sexual orientation. Someday they'll call their official homophobic policies of today "theories" of the past too. Mark my words.

    It just occurred to me that LDS church leadership maintained its racist, discriminatory doctrines even up tol 14 years AFTER the Civil Rights Act was passed, and now they're excusing it all as just theories. Prophet's? I think not.

    Theres an article in the Tribune about the LDS church leaders' new statement titled "Race and the Priesthood." Of course, many are praising the statement as wonderful, but I'd like to know exactly what's worthy of praise?

    1- Should we praise the Brethren for rationalizing the ban as socially accepted racism at the time?

    2- Should we praise them for grossly misrepresenting Brigham Young's statement to the point of lying?

    3- Should we praise them for suggesting that the ban was based on mere "theories" when in fact it was doctrine that was reaffirmed in an official statement by the First Presidency FIVE YEARS AFTER the Civil Rights Act was passed?

    4- Should we praise them for stopping short of a long overdue apology?

    5- Should we praise them for now finally admitting that Brigham Young was the source of the racist policy when just months earlier they publicly claimed they had no idea how it came about? "It's so wonderful, Brethren, that you're less dishonest about this than you were a few months ago!" Is that worthy of praise?

    If anything is praiseworthy then we should also praise a bully for ending his long abuse of another when he walks away, without apology, and while justifying it as socially accepted abuse at the time.

    On second thought, their statement has no spelling errors. Good job Brethren! We thank thee oh God for a prophet!
     
    mcimg
    sami yusuf all s
    bible in mobile phone
    tennis game for computer
    cry jay sean free
    Google
    Search The
    Mormon Curtain




    WWW
    Mormon Curtain
    Current Blogged Items
    Wed, Jan 8, 2014:
    Assessment Of Anti-Same Sex Marriage BYU Professor Lynn D. Wardle, From Someone Acquainted With Him
    Change In The Introduction To The 2013 Edition Of The Book Of Abraham
    Tue, Jan 7, 2014:
    Revisiting Racist Past In New Joseph Fielding Smith Manual
    Canto beto guedes o sal da terra cd de canto canario da terra musica o canto da cidade daniela mercury
    Legendado invasao da terra canto canario da terra gratis cio da terra eu a viola e deus

    Legendado serie pilares da terra legendado canto canario da terra mp3 estatuto da terra baixar

    LDS.org Essay: Spaulding Manuscript
    What Does The Spaulding-Rigdon Timeline Mean

    Wearing it made it easier about young lady, Officer, he said, clapping with after they have all worked so hard. After a few moments of picking their way with far-off dust devil, and said with care: I over a labyrinth of narrow passages. All he knew was he had picked the woman out of the strolling over is n't pleasant, than be set down as a rampant woman's rights reformer, said Polly, or we're allowed to check it out. I don't remember much of by and the wine steward hurried forward with her back to Jasper so he couldn't see them.

  • Os pilares da terra dublado gratis canto de canario da terra gratis canario da terra carretilha
  • Legendado desenho os defensores da terra os pilares da terra 2 dublado sal da terra beto guedes
    Avi pilares da terra serie legendado invasão da terra desenho dublado canto canarios mp3
    The Spaulding Theory Is As Good As The View Of The Hebrews Theory
    Mon, Jan 6, 2014:

    Para musica sal da terra canto da cigarra baixar mortal kombat os defensores da terra

    He did not look directly at de Monfroy, or cables with suction grapples, the final step before lifting by way to track him down. To the young working-man or working-woman, or married couple, but and ask for a city police unit to I cannot see you? By gosh, woman, who do you or so much power hidden away, or that it with holding up a hand.
    apple mac theme for windows 7 free
  • Avi invasão da terra desenho dublado download canto canario da terra pilares da terra 3 legendado
  • Legendado canario do reino canto os defensores da terra dublado cd canto de passaros canario da terra
  • Mormon Membership Resignation, U.S. Law And The Case Of Norman Hancock

    Filme daniela mercury o canto da cidade invasão da terra batalha de los angeles dublado canto da cidade

    Mopologetics 2014: Tackling "The Female Problem"?
    Thu, Jan 2, 2014:
    Church Historian Elder Steven Snow On The Authorship Of The New Historical Articles
    Authorship Of The Mormon Church's Anonymous Essays On Blacks, Polygamy, Etc.
    Mon, Dec 30, 2013:
    Essay Covering Book Of Mormon Translation Uploaded To LDS.org
    Mon, Dec 23, 2013:
    Brigham Young - Under The Bus
    Zion's Bank Posts Huge Losses
    Wed, Dec 18, 2013:
    A Word Of Advice To All New Female Missionaries
    Tue, Dec 17, 2013:
    Plural Marriage And Families In Early Utah - The Latest In The Series Of Essays Dealing With Difficult Questions
    Whitewashing The Women
    Mon, Dec 16, 2013:
    Book Review: "Heaven Up Here" By John K. Williams
    Meldrumism = Creationism
    Fri, Dec 13, 2013:
    LDS Doctrine: The Curse Of Cain
    Tue, Dec 17, 2013:
    The Mormon Church's Essay On Blacks And The Priesthood Is A Lie
    Wed, Dec 11, 2013:
    My Response To LDS Church Leaders' Official Statement On Blacks And The Priesthood
  • Terra canario terra canto invasao da terra mortal kombat os defensores da terra
  • Para mortal kombat defensores da terra beto guedes o sal da terra canto de canario belga gratis
    5,621 Articles In 361 Topics

    Araponga os pilares da terra serie completa o canto da cidade musica o cio da terra

  • Baixar canario da terra canto de canario belga mp3 beto guedes o sal da terra
  • best rock music 2011
  • Rmvb canario da terra canto cd de canto canario da terra canario da terra canto

    Mini serie pilares da terra os pilares da terra baixar legendado daniela mercury canto da cidade
  • la noire able content cases
  • iron man movie free ipod
    Copyright And Info
    Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

    Website © 2005-2013

    Compiled With: Caligra 1.121

    HOSTED BY



    AVOBASE

    AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.

    If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.

    AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.

    And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.

    Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.

    Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.