cracks in the Mormon wall...(a story)

[alanmolstad]

so if you believe that Im wrong?....if you believe that your good faithful Prophet Smith would never send a women's husband out of town on a mission, only to then approach her later when he knew the coast was clear?......

Then put up or shut up!



but don't just waste our time by making pointless personal attacks against me just for bringing this stuff up to your attention!
Im not inventing things.....I simply showing others what I have found.
Attacking me personally only makes your whole case look so weak.

and besides, you guys know me well enough by now to realize that I simply don't give a rip what people think of me...LOL
and telling me, "You insulted Smith" is also pointless.

If you find my words troubling?...Well tough darts kiddo, let me get you a tissue......

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so if you believe that Im wrong?....if you believe that your good faithful Prophet Smith would never send a women's husband out of town on a mission, only to then approach her later when he knew the coast was clear?......

Then put up or shut up!

just checking in to see if anyone took up my challenge?..........nope, not yet

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

just checking in to see if anyone took up my challenge?..........nope, not yet

Still nothing.....

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Julie, I sure thought I made myself clear enough...

Its like......um...

Its like I may post links that talk about Smith's history of sexual conquests and right away some Mormons guests here start talking about me personally and start saying that like, "Oh you cant trust that source".etc.

But what is the one thing they dont do?.......they dont try to quote Mormon church official sources that contradicts the evidence.
Nope...that they dont do....LOL



so for example, I have posted a bunch of links that show us that Smith would send a husband out of town on a 'mission" and then when Smith knew the husband was out of the picture he would come sniffing around like a horny hound dog and try to get the guy's wife into bed with him.

If he did this?...then he is a sexual predator.
It's Case-Closed as far as Im concerned and the guy truly needed shooting.


If he did not do this then Im sure there are a ton of Mormon books and websites that prove the Smith never tried to bed a wife of someone he sent on a mission.

So we shall see what answer I get back to the charge that Smith used to do this?

Will the Mormon admit, "Yes, Alan, I guess you are correct and that Smith unfortunately did that very thing your links listed"

or, with the Mormon say, "No Alan, here is a Mormon official answer that proves 100% that Smith never tried anything with the wife of someone who was sent on a mission"




Or....will I get back just the typical 'ducking the issue" type answer of "Alan your question is disrespectful and Im not going to comment on gossip from such questionable sources"



Or will I have to turn the other cheek again to the same standard personal attacks made against me?....made by people that clearly dont like the message Im saying, but cant prove its wrong, so they just decide that the best thing to do is "Shoot the messengerr" and hope that makes it all better........

Wow, more lies, I have given you the straight scoop to directly contradict the things you go on and on about...you ignore it.

Because I have pointed out exactly WHY the source is unreliable (and you backed me up on it already) AND I've given you the actual story. On Sarah Pratt, on Helen Mar Kimball, on William Law, on John Bennett, etc..etc...etc..

Just because you refuse to acknowledge these comments, doesn't mean they don't exist. I made the comments, I gave the info..,it's YOU that refuse to refute the information I give back. And I'm not the only one who's done it. Case in point, the comments I made about Bennett today. You have replied and everything else I said EXCEPT that. Hmmmmm

Tsk tsk tsk Alan....if you don't want to be called a liar, you really shouldn't make blatantly dishonest statements.

[MickeyS]

"No Alan, here is a Mormon official answer that proves 100% that Smith never tried anything with the wife of someone who was sent on a mission"

You really expect the church to officially address and give statements about every little bit of gossip and BS that people come up with because they don't like the church? That's hilarious. Now your answer is the church doesn't bother to address your personal opinions about Joseph Smith so they must be true?? *** , you have to know how silly that is right? Especially when if you did ACTUAL research yourself, you'd find the answers.

[MickeyS]

How do you refute something that doesn't exist. You don't even have a specific event, it's a broad statement. There's nothing to refute. Please provide something specific. My word, really? Lol

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Still nothing.....

This is the history of missionary work...nope, nothing about sex

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...-in-the-church

Please provide evidence to the contrary...put up or shut up Alan

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so if you believe that Im wrong?....if you believe that your good faithful Prophet Smith would never send a women's husband out of town on a mission, only to then approach her later when he knew the coast was clear?......

Then put up or shut up!



but don't just waste our time by making pointless personal attacks against me just for bringing this stuff up to your attention!
Im not inventing things.....I simply showing others what I have found.
Attacking me personally only makes your whole case look so weak.

and besides, you guys know me well enough by now to realize that I simply don't give a rip what people think of me...LOL
and telling me, "You insulted Smith" is also pointless.

If you find my words troubling?...Well tough darts kiddo, let me get you a tissue......

My "attacks" weren't pointless...you on the other hand thoroughly enjoyed personally accusing members of this forum as well as people in my personal life, who you don't even know, of joining the church because of sex. And because so many members officially join the church when they're 8, is it your contention that the missionaries give 8 year olds the scoop about unlimited sex before they're baptized? I personally serve in the Primary Presidency in my ward...we do not teach our 8 year olds that, or anything like that. So, if you're **** hurt because people call you out on your ridiculous statements, don't get all full of yourself thinking you're some kind of "martyr" "hitting a nerve" If nobody said anything, you would just say the silence is compliance. When we refute comments you make with ACTUAL doctrine and history, you just ignore it or say it's lies.

Which reminds me of a story. There is a large following in this country that HATES tge government SO much, they believe every m*** shooting is a "false flag", that all the people involved are actors and nobody actually dies. They dedicate whole sites with m***ive amounts of "evidence" and even have supposedly intelligent individuals, even college professors, who back these theories up. They are absolutely convinced but still demand "proof" the shootings existed. They demand that children be dug up to prove they are actually in their caskets and hound and har*** grieving families accusing them of being traitors to the people. The thing is, every single piece of "evidence" has been debunked and they have an alternative reason why it's not. If those families dug their children up, they would demand DNA testing to prove the children were theirs, then they would accuse the family of using their dead child pretending they died in the shooting, when they really died somewhere else. NOTHING, would convince these people that these people, these CHILDREN are really dead.

You behave exactly like these conspiracy theorists

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

My "attacks" weren't pointless...you on the other hand thoroughly enjoyed personally accusing members of this forum as well as people in my personal life, who you don't even know, of joining the church because of sex. And because so many members officially join the church when they're 8, is it your contention that the missionaries give 8 year olds the scoop about unlimited sex before they're baptized? I personally serve in the Primary Presidency in my ward...we do not teach our 8 year olds that, or anything like that. So, if you're **** hurt because people call you out on your ridiculous statements, don't get all full of yourself thinking you're some kind of "martyr" "hitting a nerve" If nobody said anything, you would just say the silence is compliance. When we refute comments you make with ACTUAL doctrine and history, you just ignore it or say it's lies.

Which reminds me of a story. There is a large following in this country that HATES tge government SO much, they believe every m*** shooting is a "false flag", that all the people involved are actors and nobody actually dies. They dedicate whole sites with m***ive amounts of "evidence" and even have supposedly intelligent individuals, even college professors, who back these theories up. They are absolutely convinced but still demand "proof" the shootings existed. They demand that children be dug up to prove they are actually in their caskets and hound and har*** grieving families accusing them of being traitors to the people. The thing is, every single piece of "evidence" has been debunked and they have an alternative reason why it's not. If those families dug their children up, they would demand DNA testing to prove the children were theirs, then they would accuse the family of using their dead child pretending they died in the shooting, when they really died somewhere else. NOTHING, would convince these people that these people, these CHILDREN are really dead.

You behave exactly like these conspiracy theorists

MickeyS--thanks for your insights here. I am always amazed that anyone can think that they can prove or really understand anything that happened 200 years ago. We go to great lengths to prove things in a court of law and even then, we often struggle--which is why we have executed people who later were proved through DNA to be innocent.

[jdjhere]

" I am always amazed that anyone can think that they can prove or really understand anything that happened 200 years ago."

Julie- If THIS is true, then the LDS church cannot pretend that THEY understand something that happened OVER 2,000 years ago... Yes?

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

" I am always amazed that anyone can think that they can prove or really understand anything that happened 200 years ago."

Julie- If THIS is true, then the LDS church cannot pretend that THEY understand something that happened OVER 2,000 years ago... Yes?

There is a huge difference between servants who speak to the Lord directly (confirming what happened 2,000 years ago) who then teach this information in love of the Savior and His church, and Internet gossip mongers who spread disinformation solely because of hatred for a group of individuals. Not even close to the same thing.

We have faith that prophets of God have confirmed truths to us about Christ's true nature and His church. You may not believe that, but Julie and I do, so of course we would not be able to draw any parallel between your example and our beliefs. But if you yourself don't believe we could possibly know what happened 2,000 years ago, (as you stated) then you would agree with Julie's statement that nobody can prove or understand what happened 200 years ago.

So it would appear that we're all in agreement about nobody being able to fully know from their OWN understanding alone what happened 200 & 2,000 years ago.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

MickeyS--thanks for your insights here. I am always amazed that anyone can think that they can prove or really understand anything that happened 200 years ago. We go to great lengths to prove things in a court of law and even then, we often struggle--which is why we have executed people who later were proved through DNA to be innocent.

Yes, I agree whole heartedly, and as you pointed out, even going through all the proper channels of man's courts and judges can still result in pretty big errors. That's why when it comes to spiritual matters I rely on the teachings of God as it has been revealed to man, and the Spirit who then testifies to me who I can trust. And also why, again, we should be careful who we judge and condemn in our personal juries.

I can only worry about MY salvation, and that of my family, and then share what I know to others when the opportunities present themselves (again guided by the Holy Ghost) But even knowing what I do, I would never flat say "this person, or this person" is going to hell, outer darkness, whatever, because I don't personally know their spiritual journey or what is going on with them. Only God knows.

I can express concerns with others depending upon how well I know them, ,I can share my testimony and what I know about Gods Plan, but I would never say with a certainty that ANYONE is going to a specific eternal destination. Again because I do not know what is in another's heart, what their past is and what their future will be. It is simply NOT my (or anybody's) place to state that. Regardless of what information they think they have. I believe this is quite clear when Christ stated to "judge not" and if you do, those same judgments you use against others will be used upon you.

That's a pretty scary and specific promise.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

" I am always amazed that anyone can think that they can prove or really understand anything that happened 200 years ago."

Julie- If THIS is true, then the LDS church cannot pretend that THEY understand something that happened OVER 2,000 years ago... Yes?

We understand that this is done through faith, not proof.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

So Smith is in bed with one girl...and later when she gets up he asks her to go get her sister.

Was this treating her like a wife or like a mistress ?

Irrelevant, since this didn't happen

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Its this whole "God says it's ok" excuse that Smith used to get women to consent to his sexual advances, after a while Smith's words just seemed to be a cheap pick-up line.

.

To this day, whenever I talk to a mormon, or read about Mormon teachings, or study any of the Mormon history, i always come to the same conclusion...

Its about Sex...

What we call "Mormonism" is a cheap pick-up line used to get younger girls.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

To this day, whenever I talk to a mormon, or read about Mormon teachings, or study any of the Mormon history, i always come to the same conclusion...

Its about Sex...

What we call "Mormonism" is a cheap pick-up line used to get younger girls.

Except it's not...as much as you would like it to be (for some perverted reason) it's not

Please show any doctrine that Mormonism is a "cheap pickup line". Please show statistics that we are recruiting young girls into sex. I know we're not, I taught these Young Women and that is nowhere near our doctrine. You said yourself that this ISN'T taught to the youth of our church, so how can you then make the statement that it is. You contradict yourself at every turn. You can't say "the church keeps polygamy and this whole "sex doctrine" a secret from its members" and then say "the church is recruiting members because of their "sex doctrine"....that you claim nobody knows about....hmmmmmm. Pick a side and a stance and then put up or shut up with some actual "evidence" that it is true.

You can't because it doesn't exist. Neither stance. You have convoluted "history" and gossip regarding a handful of young women that is completely inaccurate and which has been repeatedly debunked (you ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist) From that you make the grossly illogical conclusion that "Mormonism is about sex" when SEX is nowhere in ANY documentation....period.

I mean, you can repeat your hopes and dreams over and over and over again, it just doesn't make it true. I'm sorry for you Alan, I really am. I'm sorry you hold sex up to be this all important force in all things, and I'm sorry you continue to waste your time repeating that which isn't true, and in actuality is taking you further and further from your Father In Heaven.

The true test will be the day that all things will be revealed. My only fear of that day is that I get caught up in the negativity of places like this and it takes me away from my spiritual progression. But as far as the truths I know exist, I know these will be confirmed, and I am not afraid.

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

To this day, whenever I talk to a mormon, or read about Mormon teachings, or study any of the Mormon history, i always come to the same conclusion...

Its about Sex...

I believe you 100%--but that's a reflection on you, not our church.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

To this day, whenever I talk to a mormon, or read about Mormon teachings, or study any of the Mormon history, i always come to the same conclusion...

Its about Sex...

What we call "Mormonism" is a cheap pick-up line used to get younger girls.

"1Sa 1:2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children."

Would you make the same claim about men in the OT who had more than one wife?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by theway

Do you see the problem here?

As she admitted in her story 'doubt breed doubt' which shows that doubt will only cause you more doubt, nothing more.
Therefore it would have been impossible for her to have"found truth" through her doubt.
Because GOD NEVER USES DOUBT TO BRING ABOUT TRUTH.... Doubt is exclusively Satan's M.O.
Real truth only comes from the Holy Ghost... The Holy Ghost gives and confirms, it does not take away and destroy.
Being as all doubt comes from Satan, if she felt the need to doubt; she should of doubted her doubt, and not doubted her faith.

Notice also how none of her "story" states anything about having a testamony or having been converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is within the LDS Church. Her whole testamony was built around what other people told her and what she chooses to believe from AntiMormon sources. As we can see by the few Threads that I bothered to reply to of your's, AntiMormon evidence is based on nothing more than 3rd hand gossip from conflicting sources at best, and outright lies at worst. The irony is that it takes far more faith to buy into AntiMormon "facts" than the Mormon version. She was just too gullible and faithless to have lasted long within the true gospel of Jesus Christ as it is within the Mormon Church. So her leaving the Mormon Church was inevitable. As I see no change in her, she will be no different in your Church than she was in the Mormon Church.... Full of doubt and disbelief, affecting others with that doubt and disbelieve.

When you find out the truth about a sexual pervert who preyed on gullible young girls, you have to wonder why anybody at all would think God spoke through him!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Apologette

When you find out the truth about a sexual pervert who preyed on gullible young girls, you have to wonder why anybody at all would think God spoke through him!

So interesting that those against the church want to claim they understand 200 year old history as fact and ignore what was happening regarding being sealed for eternity and what that meant. It was not uncommon for many to be sealed to a prophet in the early days of the church. Understanding the revelation of sealing has been clarified over time. Not unlike Peter who did not understand Christ washing his feet, early prophets were doing their best to understand how revelation should be applied.