The Truth about Mormons

[Truthspeaker]

Then you must not be a real mormon.

I'm actually not a Mormon. I would have to be named Mormon. But he lived about 1600 years ago. I am however a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The genuine article

So then what's the deal with the magic underwear? You start explaining it on page 3 or so but then you say something like: but I can't tell you the really good parts about the magic underwear. So what gives? What's the real deal?

I never said the magic underwear........ I said "the magic underwear". Because that's what other people disrespectfully call the sacred garment we wear under our clothes. In our temple, we make sacred covenants with God. Part of the covenants are a promise to wear these garments as a daily reminder to keep the commandments of God. The covenants we make with God are so sacred in nature that we promise not to discuss them. If I went into all the details of every word of the ceremony, you wouldn't be so amazed. It's just that people get obsessed with them because they don't know them.

The main explanation I can give you is that they are a physical daily reminder for us to be faithful and keep God in our minds all day.

 

[Rubber Hoser]

Ya, I've seen pictures of those underwear, pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Like, you need to wear some special sexually restrictive clothing to keep you from being promiscuous and because your religion's grasp on you is so tenuous that you need to be reminded every second who you should be obeying. Sounds right out of the 19th century.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Ya, I've seen pictures of those underwear, pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Like, you need to wear some special sexually restrictive clothing to keep you from being promiscuous and because your religion's grasp on you is so tenuous that you need to be reminded every second who you should be obeying. Sounds right out of the 19th century.

That's fine if you think it's ridiculous. It's not your religion. No one is asking you to join us. By the way, it's not anything we wear that keeps us from "being promiscuous". I'm not sure what you mean by that but it's the decisions we make and not the clothing that has the power. I assume you mean running around and chasing after lots of sexual partners. It certainly isn't sexually restrictive to me and my wife. Without giving TMI our sex life is great. I just don't see it the way you do.

It certainly is right out of the 19th century. Joseph lived in the 19th century.

 

[Rubber Hoser]

Are you allowed to do anything other than the missionary position during sex?
And you're allowed to have sex for other purposes than procreation? You allowed condoms?
Does everyone in your church have to be a virgin until marriage?
Important questions for someone like me who is looking for a religion to join.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Are you allowed to do anything other than the missionary position during sex?

Sexual preference is up to the husband and wife. The Church does not interfere.

And you're allowed to have sex for other purposes than procreation?

Absolutely

You allowed condoms?

Church never dictates what husband and wife do in their sex life.

Does everyone in your church have to be a virgin until marriage?

No. There is no sex police. It is considered a sin in our church to have extra-marital sex, but everyone is always encouraged to come to church. People are never asked to confess. If someone knows they have a problem or an addiction to sin, they may choose to discuss it with the Bishop in private. No one goes out of their way to ask if you have been sinning in private. Everyone else comes to church to focus on their own weaknesses. They go to learn in church how to better their lives. It's very personal, not a confession session.

Important questions for someone like me who is looking for a religion to join

.
Thank you for the honest questions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have seen this sentiment a number of times before, and it always makes me wonder. Does that mean that when people voluntarily go to their death for a faith other than your own, it validates that faith?

I'm not going to argue that such people believe in whatever it is they believe. I accept that people usually will not voluntarily go to their death for something they don't believe. However, the fact that someone is willing to do so only speaks to the strength of their belief, not it's validity.

Sorry to break into this discussion with such a small point!

I never claimed they are valid because they voluntarily went to their deaths. Im saying people dont voluntarily go to their deaths for something they know is a scam. They actually believe it.

Now, just because someone believes it doesnt mean they are correct. But when they try to argue Joseph was a scam artist, it doesnt fit. He believed what he was preaching.

Sure he could, he began to believe his own scam to relieve his own cognitive dissonance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wasn't Joseph a pedophile and a polygamist?

no and yes in that order.

Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Truthspeaker, are you affiliated or associated or in any way in contact for these answers with any official or unofficial LDS apologetics institutions, forums, or branches?

Think very carefully before you answer, and answer truthfully in fact as well as intent.

 

[Avatar4321]

Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?

no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?

no.

proves otherwise. Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.

 

[Avatar4321]

proves otherwise. Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.

Im not lying. Youre the one making the accusation. It's up to you to prove it. There is absolutely no evidence he had sexual relations with anyone besides his wife Emma.

It's beside the point anyway. His testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses is not somehow made invalid by violating a social norm. He could have spent the latter half of his life engaging in actions that damned him to hell. It wouldn't invalidate anything he or the others saw and testified to.

You can't attack the message, so you have to attack the messenger. But the messenger never claimed to be anything but an imperfect man. So how does pointing out imperfections alleged or proven disprove the message? You think God doesnt work through imperfect people? If he waited for people to be perfect before they could be shown anything, He wouldnt reveal anything to anyone.

Quite frankly, discussing these accusations are quite useless because you cant prove it and even if you did it wouldnt change anything.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Truthspeaker, are you affiliated or associated or in any way in contact for these answers with any official or unofficial LDS apologetics institutions, forums, or branches?

Think very carefully before you answer, and answer truthfully in fact as well as intent.

Well I wouldn't be Truthspeaker unless I was honest would I? So your attempt to corner me into feeling guilty about associating with any of the above mentioned groups is fruitless.

I have read lots of information from people you would call apologists. So yes I am in some way in contact with official and unofficial sources of doctrine because I read up. I also read up on anti-mormon sites. I have posted links to both such sites in my myriad of answers.

I'm never quite sure how someone wants me to answer certain questions when they say I should think very carefully before I answer. I guess they are waiting to spring some great trap on me. Oh well.

If you are asking if I am paid or sponsored by either official or unofficial church institutions. No I am absolutely not.

I am an official Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So I am definitely affilliated with them since I am a card carrying member.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?

no.

proves otherwise. Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.

The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.

Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Truthspeaker, are you affiliated or associated or in any way in contact for these answers with any official or unofficial LDS apologetics institutions, forums, or branches?

Think very carefully before you answer, and answer truthfully in fact as well as intent.

Well I wouldn't be Truthspeaker unless I was honest would I? So your attempt to corner me into feeling guilty about associating with any of the above mentioned groups is fruitless.

I have read lots of information from people you would call apologists. So yes I am in some way in contact with official and unofficial sources of doctrine because I read up. I also read up on anti-mormon sites. I have posted links to both such sites in my myriad of answers.

I'm never quite sure how someone wants me to answer certain questions when they say I should think very carefully before I answer. I guess they are waiting to spring some great trap on me. Oh well.

If you are asking if I am paid or sponsored by either official or unofficial church institutions. No I am absolutely not.

I am an official Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So I am definitely affilliated with them since I am a card carrying member.

Thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

proves otherwise. Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.

Im not lying. Youre the one making the accusation. It's up to you to prove it. There is absolutely no evidence he had sexual relations with anyone besides his wife Emma.

It's beside the point anyway. His testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses is not somehow made invalid by violating a social norm. He could have spent the latter half of his life engaging in actions that damned him to hell. It wouldn't invalidate anything he or the others saw and testified to.

You can't attack the message, so you have to attack the messenger. But the messenger never claimed to be anything but an imperfect man. So how does pointing out imperfections alleged or proven disprove the message? You think God doesnt work through imperfect people? If he waited for people to be perfect before they could be shown anything, He wouldnt reveal anything to anyone.

Quite frankly, discussing these accusations are quite useless because you cant prove it and even if you did it wouldnt change anything.

Your statement is useless. Smith was sexually active with women not his wife, and, yes, that behavior does change matters.

Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations. I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism. You have offered nothing.

Testimonies are personal not universal, thus the messenger's behavior must be examined.

Present-ism is not a defense of Smith's sexual escapades in the 19th century.

 

[JakeStarkey]

no.

proves otherwise. Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.

The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.

Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.

Thank you for your statement concerning Joseph Smith's sexual activity.

Present-ism is not a defense against JS's behavior back then. Yes, he can and is judged by his behavior, with the same validity of judgment for the murderers at Mountain Meadows in southwest Utah Territory (Mormon militia mass murdered more than 120 men, women, children, and infants in 1857).

The 14-year olds were in the care of Smith and his wife, and they could not consent. And, yes, the state was the defining law in the matter, not family or church.

 

[Rubber Hoser]

So when you go swimming can you take the magic underwear off?
If you have more than one wife like JSmith, can you have them naked in a big bed all at the same time? Cuz I'd be into that.
So you're saying also that JSmith was chosen by god but then lived the rest of his life in sin?

 

[JakeStarkey]

For the record -- I think the modern LDS church is no better and no worse than any other Christian denomination. If they claim "Christ is Lord and Savior", they are no better or worse, in my opinion, than the Catholic or the Protestant or the Evangelical who claims the same. Where I differ is that no credible proof exists that the LDS Church is the "one true church having sole authority to act in God's name here on earth." In other words, the LDS Church is not the Kingdom of God on earth.

 

[Truthspeaker]

proves otherwise. Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonliness and Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.

The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.

Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.

Thank you for your statement concerning Joseph Smith's sexual activity.

Present-ism is not a defense against JS's behavior back then. Yes, he can and is judged by his behavior, with the same validity of judgment for the murderers at Mountain Meadows in southwest Utah Territory (Mormon militia mass murdered more than 120 men, women, children, and infants in 1857).

The 14-year olds were in the care of Smith and his wife, and they could not consent. And, yes, the state was the defining law in the matter, not family or church.

Oh please. Your ignorance is amazing. Not only do you not know about acceptable social norms of the time but you don't even know that Joseph wasn't alive during the mountain meadows massacre. You could at least have accused Brigham Young of that. At least that would have figured in to the correct lifespan. Anywhoo, you have exposed yourself as lacking in knowledge and have been fed a line by some disgruntled anti-mormons. I have already fully explained the mountain meadows massacre dozens of times. I refer you to the facts located in the pre-20th page section of this thread. It's already been dealt with. you ought to read up and stop being so presumptuous as to think you are the only one who dared ask such a bold question. Realize the rest of us are way ahead of you. Not behind.

Joseph Smith has nothing to be ashamed of in his marriages. you are way out of context.

 

[Truthspeaker]

So when you go swimming can you take the magic underwear off?

If you have more than one wife like JSmith, can you have them naked in a big bed all at the same time? Cuz I'd be into that.

You are not allowed to have more than one wife in the present day church.

So you're saying also that JSmith was chosen by god but then lived the rest of his life in sin?

No he did not live the rest of his life in sin.