NOM

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:38 pm**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hx_CwU8GrY

In this clip from the press conference Dan Rascon asks Pres. Nelson about apostasy. He seems to think there are two reasons people might leave the chrurch: Word of Wisdom and being offended. Oaks steps in with how the church couldn't possibly be more transparent, cause Joseph Smith Papers.

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:52 pm**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:38 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hx_CwU8GrY

In this clip from the press conference Dan Rascon asks Pres. Nelson about apostasy. He seems to think there are two reasons people might leave the chrurch: Word of Wisdom and being offended. Oaks steps in with how the church couldn't possibly be more transparent, cause Joseph Smith Papers.

This was all so offensive. We have read the JS papers and they are demonstrating that JS canonized things to manipulate people. That really is kindof an elephant in the room when they also said that we need to give the leaders a break for human unless we are talking about doctrine.

Nelson paraphrasing his favorite D&C 132 to tell women their job is to birth sons and shut up was a nice touch.

Posted: **Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:58 pm**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:38 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hx_CwU8GrY

In this clip from the press conference Dan Rascon asks Pres. Nelson about apostasy. He seems to think there are two reasons people might leave the chrurch: Word of Wisdom and being offended. Oaks steps in with how the church couldn't possibly be more transparent, cause Joseph Smith Papers.

Wow. Why didn't they mention the essays instead of the Joseph Smith Papers? Those are much more accessible to members, but they avoid mentioning them like the plague.

Also, it was sickening to hear the...yes, people leave....so don't get offended....and don't sin or break the commandments

Last of all, ugh!! Joseph Smith comes out looking "mighty highly" after you seriously study church history? Is that really what Oaks stated???

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:19 am**

AllieOop wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:58 pm
Last of all, ugh!! Joseph Smith comes out looking "mighty highly" after you seriously study church history? Is that really what Oaks stated???

Yup. He is reading the edited version of church history, apparently. Or he is performing a rectal examination on himself.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:03 am**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:38 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hx_CwU8GrY

In this clip from the press conference Dan Rascon asks Pres. Nelson about apostasy. He seems to think there are two reasons people might leave the chrurch: Word of Wisdom and being offended. Oaks steps in with how the church couldn't possibly be more transparent, cause Joseph Smith Papers.

Oaks is entirely missing (or avoiding) an important point: Transparent does NOT equal Good

A reasonable explanation for virtually every challenging issue in LDS history is the Mormon spin on Divine Command theory. Plural marriage happened because the leaders and membership firmly believed that God wanted them to do it. Mormons don't drink coffee because they firmly believe that God is opposed. Mormons attend the temple because they have a testimony that God commands it.

This is all transparent, but it's not necessarily an objective good. The more transparency we get about plural marriage, BoM anachronisms, BoA translation, and LGBT policies makes me a lot more skeptical that divine providence is behind these practices. But Joseph Smith is the originator of most of the challenging issues in one way or another. If his integrity falters, then the reason supporting an LDS devotion is bound to falter.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:06 am**

AllieOop wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:58 pmLast of all, ugh!! Joseph Smith comes out looking "mighty highly" after you seriously study church history? Is that really what Oaks stated???

It was Nelson, but yes. He was claiming that ALL of Joseph Smith's writings are up for scrutiny and under that level of scrutiny which none of us would enjoy....

Call me a cynic, but I don't believe for a second we are getting All the writings. They have hidden too much for too long for me to believe they are really being forthcoming. Why not fully open the archives officially to 3rd party historians?

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:34 am**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:38 pm Oaks steps in with how the church couldn't possibly be more transparent, cause Joseph Smith Papers.

This is the type of stuff that draws me out of my perpetual lurking as it makes me the most upset and really gets me going. The Church and every leader from the top on down gaslights. Every single time I hear "you should have known" "we aren't hiding anything" "we have always been transparent" or any of the other B.S. about how we all should have known all of this controversial history I want to just rage and burn it down.

The Church is not transparent. The Church never will be transparent. The only thing that will force them to be transparent is when MormonLeaks does Mission Impossible and breaks into the First Presidency vault and releases copies of everything in there. I so hope that happens some day.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:21 pm**

Well, I have WoW problems, sex problems, offended problems, and just about everything else -- problems.

Damn,...sucks to be a human.

I also have a fair income and have put over $100,000 into the coffers via tithing.

But I'm not in BECAUSE THEY LIE!

I'm a mean SOB, a drinking bitching ASS. But there is a big difference between me and them: I pound on my chest and call out: "God, have mercy on me a sinner!" And those guys?....they walk on water (in their minds).

Yep, I have problems. But I'm not a bald-faced liar.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pm**

JS papers transparency example:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryM ... d=IE143768

Look at page 10 and 11 and the large black redacted sections. What's missing is the death penalty oath for the counsel of fifty. We know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.

Also note the image identifier under the "information" section is "MS 1325/b0004/f0003-redacted"

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:47 pm**

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pm JS papers transparency example:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryM ... d=IE143768

Look at page 10 and 11 and the large black redacted sections. What's missing is the death penalty oath for the counsel of fifty. We know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.

Also note the image identifier under the "information" section is "MS 1325/b0004/f0003-redacted"

Unbelievable. (Well... Not really.)

A couple months ago, after Ballard gave his "we haven't tried to hide anything" speech, you could go to LDS.org, and search for Helen Mar Kimball, and their search engine would re-direct to search for "Helen Maar Kimball" with no hits. They had literally trained their search engine to lie/hide information. Funny enough, the search engine has been "fixed" since then. I'm chalking it up to pressure from angry apostates.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:04 pm**

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pm JS papers transparency example:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryM ... d=IE143768

Look at page 10 and 11 and the large black redacted sections. What's missing is the death penalty oath for the counsel of fifty. We know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.

Also note the image identifier under the "information" section is "MS 1325/b0004/f0003-redacted"

Interesting. Lots of black. How do we know that's where the death oaths are recorded?

I wonder how they justify doing this. I can't think of a good reason for any redaction so many years after the recorded events.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:35 pm**

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:04 pm
FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pm JS papers transparency example:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryM ... d=IE143768

Look at page 10 and 11 and the large black redacted sections. What's missing is the death penalty oath for the counsel of fifty. We know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.

Also note the image identifier under the "information" section is "MS 1325/b0004/f0003-redacted"
Interesting. Lots of black. How do we know that's where the death oaths are recorded?

I wonder how they justify doing this. I can't think of a good reason for any redaction so many years after the recorded events.

You can read the text of the redacted section in this article:

https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/ru ... democracy/

My guess is the redaction is due to the temple terminology for signs, keywords, and penalty (in this case death) being used. They don't want temple stuff and the word "penalty" being associated these days, and certainly not in the context of the COF.

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:19 am**

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pmWe know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.

I don't suppose you know where we might see that transcript?

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:49 am**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:19 am
FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pmWe know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.
I don't suppose you know where we might see that transcript?

Oct[ober] 12th 1880—10 a.m. Council of L met—John Van Cott was voted in as a member—also Lorin Farr. Unanimous. Were instructed by Geo[rge] Q. Cannon[,] after affirming that they were in fellowship with every other person in the room[,] giving them the “Charge,” “The name,” & “Key word,” and the “Constitution,” and “Penalty.” The penalty was objected to by Jos[eph] Young. He said it was first suggested by the “Pagan Prophet”—but was not sanctioned by Joseph [Smith] the Prophet. F[ranklin] D. R[ichards] moved that we proceed to test the fellowship of each with each other. Bros. F. D. R[ichards], Jos. Young, C[harles] C. Rich, W[ilford] Woodruff, spoke to the question—the two latter sustained the “penalty.” Geo. Q. Cannon, read the minutes of the 1st organization which did sanction the “penalty.”Pres. [John] Taylor expressed his views which were liberal, so also did several others.
(Joseph F. Smith diary, 12 Oct 1880, original redacted at lds.org, typed extract in Quinn Papers)

Posted: **Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:20 pm**

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:49 am
Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:19 am
FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pmWe know it's there because Michael Quinn transcribed it.
I don't suppose you know where we might see that transcript?

Oct[ober] 12th 1880—10 a.m. Council of L met—John Van Cott was voted in as a member—also Lorin Farr. Unanimous. Were instructed by Geo[rge] Q. Cannon[,] after affirming that they were in fellowship with every other person in the room[,] giving them the “Charge,” “The name,” & “Key word,” and the “Constitution,” and “Penalty.” The penalty was objected to by Jos[eph] Young. He said it was first suggested by the “Pagan Prophet”—but was not sanctioned by Joseph [Smith] the Prophet. F[ranklin] D. R[ichards] moved that we proceed to test the fellowship of each with each other. Bros. F. D. R[ichards], Jos. Young, C[harles] C. Rich, W[ilford] Woodruff, spoke to the question—the two latter sustained the “penalty.” Geo. Q. Cannon, read the minutes of the 1st organization which did sanction the “penalty.”Pres. [John] Taylor expressed his views which were liberal, so also did several others.
(Joseph F. Smith diary, 12 Oct 1880, original redacted at lds.org, typed extract in Quinn Papers)

We'll, I'm glad to see that no tongues were actually pulled out through neck slits that day. Any idea what the "constitution" was?

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:36 am**

Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:04 pm
FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:41 pm Also note the image identifier under the "information" section is "MS 1325/b0004/f0003-redacted"
I can't think of a good reason for any redaction so many years after the recorded events.

Of course, the Joseph Smith papers would be redacted. As for the reason, some habits are hard to break and there is stuff that would make the Church look bad.

Posted: **Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:38 am**

In Quinn's book, Hyrum was the keeper of some witchcraft documents, actual spells on them and so forth.

Is that in the JS Papers?....those documents?

NOM

New FP discuss apostasy

New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy

Re: New FP discuss apostasy