NOM

I think the thing that has been most useful recently in helping Mrs. Hagoth understand why I put no stock in anything The Brethren say is to simply tell her that don't trust anyone who has repeatedly lied to me. She is a keenly honest person and she can relate to this, but she needed examples, so I have talked about the following items. I'm trying to focus on recent statements, recent responses to early events, and early events that continue to be taught in the manuals and conferences even though they are easily demonstrated to be fabrications. I would appreciate if anyone has anything to add to my short list:

-Milk strippings & Symonds Rider
-November policy: first quietly inserted (and leaked), then revealed to be the work of lawyers, then announced to be revelation
-GBH on national TV: contributing members have access to finances, we don't teach eternal progression/godhood
-Seer stones: Quinn was excommunicated over it but once the internet made it unmanageable it became a celestial iPhone
-Family Proclamation written by lawyers
-BoA facsimile translations
-Mark Hoffman, spirit of discernment illusion, Oaks defended Salamander Letter
-Brigham-to-Joseph transformation
-Examples of people who are "enemies to the church" but are really decent, sincere people (she's likes John Dehlin)
-Elder Hollands brother-finds-brother story

1832 first vision account torn from the book and hidden in the vault until the 60s.

This council of fifty minutes redaction hiding the oath of execution if any member revealed the council meeting details.

http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2 ... y.html?m=1

1984 Ronald E. Poelman General Conference talk re-recording.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:14 pm This council of fifty minutes redaction hiding the oath of execution if any member revealed the council meeting details.

http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/2 ... y.html?m=1

Yeah, that's a good one. Has anyone here looked this up in the printed version of the minutes? Did these pages remain redacted?

"A few months shy of her 15th birthday"

"Carefully worded denials"

Women are equal partners wth their husband....

The Race and the Priesthood essay. It was only a "policy." Compare that idea to the 1949 First Presidency Statement or several good BY quotes. In fact, the essay quotes BY from an 1852 speech but dig up the whole speech. He says some nasty stuff in it and makes it very clear that he ain't spouting "policy." Anyone who found that quote to use in the essay had to intentionally ignore the problems in the speech.

One of my unrealistic goals is to do the research needed to produce a timeline of quotes showing it was very clearly NOT a policy to leaders throughout the years...until of course, it was.

Lamonites were the principle ancestors of the American Indians.

Laminates were AMONG the principle ancestors of the Cleveland Indians.

I tried this with my bishop, not with historical issues, but with mine. He still thinks there's unrepented sin lurking there, somewhere.

Parley Pratt's pamphlet "Mormonism Unveiled" (the one where he prophesied some weird stuff and gave a deadline) is repeatedly left off of church publications or controversial parts are edited out. Deceptive.

I’ve done something similar with my husband, but I used Daymon Smith’s Mormon Stories interview. Correlation was one of my initial issues, and Smith lays down a really good history and explanation of it as an insider (he used to work for the COB).

My husband listened to it, and we had many very good conversations. It helped that Smith was/is an active member. Dehlin doesn’t do the interview, and the interview is several years before his excommunication. (Of course, if your wife likes Dehlin, a Mormon Stories interview probably isn't a problem.) BCC also did a series of interview posts with Smith. The one drawback: it is long. Unfortunately, my husband has a long commute, so he was able to listen to one section each day.

Some good points in the interview: The schism that occurred in ending polygamy, covering up polygamy, Smoot hearings, the difference in theological thought between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt (and the fact that the church has taken Pratt’s positions and left Young’s behind), McKay’s reluctance to correlate, the non-spiritual development of correlated material, the whitewashing of history and its effect on members today, the recycling of quotes/conference talks, corporate structure, the building of the mall, flooding the earth with the BoM…honestly, because it was so long, it was kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.

It really helped my husband to see where I was coming from, to see that there are real issues out there, and now he’s begun to pick them out for himself. He's realizing that he's only been given a very small piece of a correlated (deceptive) story. While the recent Gospel Doctrine lesson on apostasy made me want to scratch my eyes out, DH was actively reading about Marsh, George A. Smith, he even made a comment in class that was shot down. All in all, Daymon Smith has been a win.

http://www.mormonstories.org/daymon-smi ... nd-mammon/
https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/03/03/ ... derground/

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:16 pm 1984 Ronald E. Poelman General Conference talk re-recording.

This one blew my mind when I compared the two version and saw the manipulation.

I like your approach Hagoth, good luck.

I like this approach. Let me add my view on "lack of trust". I don't feel like I can trust the witness of the Spirit that is supposed to be the ultimate assurance of LDS divinity.

The "spirit" confirmed the truth of the LDS church despite the items on the list provided by Hagoth and others in this post. But, does Pope Francis have a testimony of the Catholic church? Does the average member of Jehovah's Witnesses have a spiritual witness of the divine role of Charles Taze Russell? Do Christian Scientists have a testimony of Mary Baker Eddy? Do Seventh Day Adventists have a testimony of the prophet Ellen White? Do Baptists, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists all have some sort of testimony that their beliefs are ultimately and directly from God to the exclusion of all others?

The answer is yes. How would we distinguish who has the most correct testimony? Every major denomination believes they are the one true church to a greater or lesser extent. They all certainly believe that at least some of the other denominations are false. They all largely agree that Mormons are definitely mislead.

Great list.

I recently listened to Apostle Coup d'etat podcast by Radio Free Mormon / Mormon Discussion. Some fascinating new myths and deceptions discovered there.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:12 am Do Baptists, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and Scientologists all have some sort of testimony that their beliefs are ultimately and directly from God to the exclusion of all others

This is one of my favorite things to point out (see my signature line). It is the height of arrogance to assume that our experiences are superior to everyone else's, or even worse, that everyone else is being insincere about their testimonies. Another favorite question to ask, and I often do is, "did you choose your religion or, like most people in the world, was it a consequence of where you were born?"

1) Financial deceptions & manipulations

2) Logical fallacies/distorted ideas that contribute to mental illness (ie polarized thinking: you are either on the Lord's side or you aren't)

The gospel principles lesson on honesty teaches that both silence and telling only part of the truth are dishonest. There are explicit examples of the church doing this, but one of the biggest signs of dishonesty is the fact that it took 185 years for the church to acknowledge the contents of the essays. No one could have learned about seer stones, first vision accounts, or polygamy details from church sources until recently. There is a problem when South Park teaches more accurate history than the church.

McConkie's Mormon Doctrine section about peep stones teaches that Revelation through seer stones are from Satan. Oops! I'll post the full quote after church.

"In imitation of the true order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones or crystal balls. An instance of this copying of the true order occurred in the early days of this dispensation. Hiram Page had such a stone and was professing to have revelations for the upbuilding of Zion and the governing of the Church. Oliver Cowdery and some others were wrongly influenced thereby in consequence of which Oliver was commanded by revelation: 'Thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him.' (D.&C. 28:11.)"