Sorta all Mormon(s)

TO THE DOUBTING THOMASES AMONG US

2012-01-29T15:49:00.003Z

I can only speak about my own experience here. I don't think doubts are necessarily bad.

They sometimes mean we are ready to question and take on more than what we were fed. I think doubting is sometimes necessary, so we can grow. Our religion does not give us easy answers. We never stop learning and probably never will. In the process come new vistas... and a lot of confusion. There are times when I've felt like the more I learned, the less I knew.

Hold on to your testimonies, and accept that sometimes you will doubt. Remember that Joseph was a man, and his interpretations of revelations or visions may have changed with time. There are situations I would explain differently now than I would have 5 years ago. And how do we explain conflicting reports of honest eye-witnesses to a crime? Our own situation and perceptions may shape our understanding.

At last, Joseph said he was not perfect. He made mistakes. Makes ours easier to bear!

I wish you luck. It's not always easy, but try not to feel bad about it. Oh, one more thing: Sometimes it's best leaving what you're struggling with for a while. You may be surprised how clearly it appears to you when you look at it again later.

THE HARD CHOICES OF TRUTH-SEEKERS

2012-01-27T15:54:00.001Z

A friend of mine doesn’t understand why I picked a religion that requires so many sacrifices.

Unlike many people, I didn’t go about picking up a Church or a faith like I pick up a shirt or a tie. I was not shopping to suit my needs and desires. I am in a spiritual quest that has been leading me to this Mormon Fundamentalist path. This is not something I have chosen as much as something that drew me to itself. I believe this is the true religion and I have to follow it. I do not care about the politically correct or the shopping list, I care about the spiritually correct.

Last week I spoke with a friend about faith. How Science and Religion do not need to compete but that we should all look for Truth, whatever the source may be. If Science teaches us something about our planet or the Universe, then we have to accommodate that piece of knowledge into our own understanding. This does not discredit the Bible or the revelations of God, like some Evangelical Atheists would want us to believe, it simply demands that we acknowledge that our interpretation of the Bible or revelations was not accurate.

No matter the source, as a Truth-seeker, I am eager to learn and understand, and I cannot be sure of anything, because my path is not my neighbor's path, and it was not even my own path 3, or 5 or 10 years ago, and it might not be the same path in 2 or 5 years from now.

I keep an open mind, and yet I am quite a sectarian, because there is some information that I have accepted and discards certain doctrines and sets of belief. I don’t see an incompatibility, but I wanted to stress to Jonny that I was not one of those anything-goes kind of believer. I am just willing to learn and progress out of the so-called orthodox box.

Too bad if it takes me to a religion that demands sacrifices.

HOW CAN GOD BE EMBODIED?

2012-01-12T15:45:00.000Z

Hasn't it been said that God is in everything?

I believe God pervades everything and is present in all things in the whole universe too, if "God" is an eternal principle.

However, I do believe God was once a man who has become a god and that there are many gods. Some think it is blasphemous, but it is only if you worship several gods. I only have one god, like you have one U.S. President, but there are many presidents in the world, and Presidency is a concept.

Doesn't the Bible say that if a man sees God he will die?

The Bible says that Moses saw God's back. He also spoke with God face to face. I also believe Abraham talked and fed God before the angels resumed their trip to Sodom. I also believe Jacob wrestled with God. I guess it comes down to interpretation and belief, but the part about Moses is quite clear though.

Were we to see God in all his glory, we may die. There are several interpretations to what this glory could be, but let's assume that it would consume us, then maybe God is able to show himself stripped of this glory, so we can bear his presence.

This is just my personal belief, and you have to decide what is the truth for yourself.

Doesn't an embodied God lessen God's status?

I'll just add that an embodied God is no less grand than a disembodied one. To me, and I don't mean to offend, a disembodied God would have no clue what life down here would really be like. My belief that my God was once a man makes me relate to Him and helps me know that He knows what this is really like. It does not bring God down to Man, it only elevates Man to God.

TRIALS

2011-12-18T10:44:00.011Z

This post is not about the "Sister Wives" family challenging Utah's bigamy laws in court, but about trials we all face in this existence.

Trials can be the result of our own actions, or negligence. They can be caused by others around us. Religious people will also say that they can be caused by the Devil, or may be a test from God.

I believe the Devil can only do what we let him do. He has the power we let him have. Yet he can cause many trials. I believe God lets us live our lives, but maybe there are things he sends our way, or lets agents send our way, or simply lets happen, because He knows it is good for our eternal progression.

I've been tried lately, where it hurts the most, and where I am the most likely to fail. I know my own weaknesses well, but was my heart heavy because of my own actions, which is the most likely reason, or was it Satan tempting me, or God testing me? In any event, I have been trying to move on, and I've been waiting for this personal trial to pass.

A good friend of mine tried to comfort me. She talked to me about turning to Christ, because the Atonement is not only for our sins, but he suffered for all the things humanity may ever experience, so he knows what we feel, and he knows us. I read the quote from a General Authority that she subsequently sent me.

I love my friend, and I respect her, and she tried to help me, and I am grateful to her for that. Yet, this sounded too "Christian" to me. I never could "turn to Christ" because he knows me "personally". This is something my well-meaning Christian friends advise me to do sometimes, those who actually believe in God, and not the liberal kind who have meetings in which they mention some non-specific god/essence. It is not something I heard much when I was LDS, but times are a-changing.

As I was browsing the net, I came across a quote from the Journal of Discourses: ‎"I heard the Prophet Joseph say: "You will have all kinds of trials to pass through. And God will feel after you, and He will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings, and if you cannot stand it you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God." (24:197) And when I read it, I felt a force. I will feel low for a while, I suppose, but this quote has lifted up my spirits, and gives me purpose. And this, again, confirms that nothing but Classical Mormonism will do!

FOLLOW THE PROFIT

2011-12-11T18:06:00.006Z

What surprises with my LDS friends is that they quote Monson with stuff like, "Be nice to everyone, and save money and avoid spending too much time in front of the TV", which is great advice, but common sense does not qualify one to be a prophet. Yet they call Monson a "great prophet" because of that. If they're any good at anything, it is making profit.

I do not look into what these men have to say. When they stop watering down tenets of our faith to be more mainstream, stop persecuting those who try to live the higher laws of the Gospel, stop rewriting doctrines so they can be labelled Christian, stop trying to be friends with the world, then maybe I will look into their words, but not now!

SONS OF GOD

2011-12-02T10:58:00.000Z

Here's an interesting article on the Sons of God in the Old Testament:

Hamblin: Theosis 2.1 "Sons of God"

‎'Sons of God' does not necessarily mean 'literally' sons. We can become the sons of Christ and we can also become sons of God. There might be more to this though. I think this text sits well with the Adam/God doctrine. It deals with the Council of Gods and with Elohim and a 'Son/God (I think Michael/Adam) and other Sons in 'human shape' (who can fall). How some may be assigned some nations and fail/fall may be disturbing, but maybe this is one aspect of Eternal Progression (going up or down).

ALTERATIONS

2011-09-24T09:50:00.023+01:00

I was talking to a friend of mine, a Humanist who loves talking about religion and is very supportive of my faith. She went to the LDS meetinghouse last weekend and was given some Church manuals. As I was browsing one, I could not help noticing how basic everything was. I know there is such a thing as milk before meat, but the LDS diet seems to entirely consists of milk. I also remembered seeing some comparative with the old manuals, and did a search when I got home.

You will see all those changes here.

In that comparative, we see that Gods, including Heavenly Mother, disappeared. Additions (underlined on the page) show a clear effort towards Christianization. Of course, to Christians, those manuals are still not Christian enough (and I'll say it's only a matter of time until they are satisfied). However, there is now much more emphasis on Jesus. Exaltation, for example, is depicted as a free gift by following Jesus.

Some may find the comments section insulting, but here are my personal favorites:

“Oops, we (the LDS) got caught with our weird doctrines and now have to change things to appear more ‘Christian’ even though we know we have the only true church - the one Adam and Eve, Abraham, and Jesus belonged to.”

“More editing to make the claims of j.smith and the following “prophets” of the lds seem less like a polygamous polytheist religion and more like Christianity.”

“Our ~~heavenly parents~~ Heavenly Father... What? Did the heavenly parents have a break-up?”

Also, while searching that page, I came about some reactions on someone's blog about the LDS last leader, Hinckley, who said he didn't know about God once being a man! I remember thinking that was rather odd. I know he later explained during General Conference that people should not worry, that he did know the doctrines of the Church. I guess he didn't want to confuse the world and was following his P.R. people's advice. Still, either he was lying through his teeth, or he had no clue about elementary Mormon doctrines.

See is that blog's entry here.

INTERESTING ENCOUNTER

2011-09-18T10:35:00.002+01:00

I bumped into the sister missionaries the other day. I normally keep quiet about my beliefs with LDS folks (to avoid a spirit of contention and -strangely- to "protect" them), but today I got tired of their patronizing, "Have you tried to read the Book of Mormon? Have you tried to pray? Do you know Heavenly Father has a plan?" It made for an interesting encounter...

The Bishop told missionaries a while back about my beliefs. The new sister thought I was inactive. "I haven't "tried" to read the Book of Mormon, I do read it. And I haven't "tried" to pray, I pray daily. And because I'm not LDS doesn't mean I'm unaware of basic doctrines!"

Sister: "What are you?"

Me: "I believe in the original teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young. I believe the Church is out of order for watering down or discarding essential tenets in order to appear all-Christian".

Sis (not smiling anymore): "But we are Christian. Jesus created the world".

Me: "The Gods organized the world".

Sis looks confused. Her companion is silent. I explain she can find all that in the Church publication of the The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. She now looks at me suspiciously. She says Jehovah was Jesus. I tell her many believe so but I don't. Now they're late and they must go.

She says: "You believe in the Book of Mormon? Good. Have you read Jacob 2? OK. Recently? OK... Read it again..."

Me: "I don't need to. I believe it's improper for people to enter polygamy without the keys. Like me teaching French if I didn't speak it and hadn't qualified as a teacher. But Joseph Smith restored the practice of Plural Marriage and the keys are still among us."

Sis and companion are now giving me dirty looks and start walking away.

Me: "Have you read D&C 132? Read it again. We need to practice Plural Marriage if we want to become Gods."

No answer as they're swiftly walking away.

I did not mention plural marriage when asked what I believed in. The new sister missionary is the one who brought it up by asking if I had read Jacob 2. Almost out of the blue as a goodbye. Maybe my answer was emotional at that stage (and as they were walking away I couldn't get too specific) but all I meant was that Plural Marriage had been restored, and had not been "cancelled". I wanted to stand up for my beliefs, because I am not ashamed of the Gospel. But maybe an element of pride, anger and self-righteousness did sneak in...

WIPE OUT HOMOPHOBIA

2011-09-11T20:44:00.000+01:00

There is that picture getting posted on people's Facebook Walls. It reads, "This person believes that everybody should be able to marry". It is by Wipeout Homophobia On Facebook".

I agree that every consenting person should be able to marry whoever they want. Gender or number does not matter. I don't care if people want to make contracts with the states (cuz that's what marriage is, really), but I don't like it how states limit people's Free Agency, and individual rights, by deciding who should marry who.

I want Freedom for ALL. Always strikes me funny that the gays, and their Liberal supporters, want the right to marry whoever they want, but at the same time are so opposed to straight people in plural unions to be legally married too. That is so self-centered and hypocritical to beg for a right you deny others of. Intolerance is intolerance.

WAS JOSEPH SMITH HORNY OR SPIRITUAL?

2011-08-20T10:32:00.005+01:00

The Salt Lake Tribune published a good article titled: "Comparing Joseph Smith, Warren Jeffs on polygamy".

In the article, the sexual dimension of plural marriages seems to bother LDS authors. After all, the Church teaches that Joseph only took plural wives because they were orphans or widows he looked after. It is when they talk about it at all... I remember meeting a sister missionary in St. George, who offered a tour of Brigham's Winter Home, and said she didn't know Brigham Young had plural wives until she went on her mission!

Some antagonist person recently asked, "That polygamy thing... Was Joseph Smith horny or spiritual?" She was clearly trying to turn Celestial Marriage into the usual "this-is-just-an-excuse-for-men-to-have-sex." I didn't get into the spiritual reasons with her. Instead, I decided to address the sexual dimension.

I told her that despite what Christianity teaches, sex is not wrong, dirty or evil. The ancient Jews knew that, and as Mormons, we should know that too. I told her that she could be sexual and spiritual. It does not have to be the Virgin Mary as a model, or the whore. We can embrace both sides of our nature. I believe it is OK, and I believe it was OK for Joseph too.

I believe Joseph's plural marriages were spiritual (they were the most valid in the eyes of God) and they were of a sexual nature (because that is an important part of marriage). There is no proof of descendants through his plural wives, but there are affidavits that those marriages were real marriages, sexual and spiritual, no matter what the age (the article says 10-12 was the age of consent back then) or what the "legal" marital status of those women were.

I told that woman, "Please don't feel you have to be sexual OR spiritual. That is a sectarian lie!" It worked. She didn't have anything to reply.

I think something the LDS may want to explore, and is briefly addressed in the article, is that the demise and death of the Prophet was mostly due to people within the Church who rejected Plural Marriage and the idea of the Kingdom of God, fundamental elements that the LDS ended discarding anyway.

LDS SAY MONOGAMY IS GOD'S HIGHER LAW

2011-08-07T12:57:00.007+01:00

"Polygamy is the exception to God's law," scholar and author Valerie Hudson argued this week at a conference in Utah.

This article did not surprise me. That sort of non-sense is, alas, nothing new. It is sad, and very telling, that the LDS Church has turned into one of the fiercest opponent to Plural Marriage on the face of the Earth.

What I would like to ask them is why, just why do they allow men to be sealed to another wife in the Temple when the first one dies, if they repudiate this doctrine?

They also like repeating that the Church "has not practiced plural marriage for more than 120 years", but this is not true. Wasn't Heber J Grant the last LDS President to have had plural wives?

They also like repeating that the LDS Church has no connection whatsoever with the FLDS. They certainly are not the same organization. The Baptist Church is not the Presbyterian Church, but they both share a common heritage, the Reform, and similar doctrines. The same goes for the LDS and the FLDS. They trace their "authority" to Joseph Smith, they use the same Scriptures, their meetings, as I understand are very similar. This claim to be the only Mormons is ludicrous, and dishonest.

Article: "The new and everlasting covenant, colloquially known (by Mormons) as temple marriage, is an eternal principle of the highest importance" and is based on a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman, Hudson said Thursday during her talk, "A Reconciliation of Polygamy."

Where does it say it is based on a monogamous relationship? Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants deals with Plural Marriage, not with monogamy.

Article: "Drawing from language found in the second chapter of Jacob in the Book of Mormon, Hudson said that "when God commands men to marry, usually he commands them to marry monogamously. Sometimes, as Jacob notes, he will command them otherwise. But eventually he always rescinds polygamy and returns his followers to the established pattern of marriage: monogamy."

Where does God rescind polygamy? Where does he command to marry monogamously? The Book of Jacob may refer to polygamy, but it was, I believe, unauthorized polygamy, not the one ordained by God, which, please correct me if I am wrong, is everywhere in the Scriptures as a commandment of God, when men are ready and called, but without ever be rescinded.

Article: "Plural marriage outside the command of the Lord is always a grievous sin," Hudson added. "The Lord speaks of severe punishment for those who practice polygamy without being commanded. No such punishments are noted for those who practice monogamy."

This seems to corroborate what I have just written. Section 132 restores the commandment of Plural Marriage, so it cannot be a sin. No punishment is noted for monogamists, like those who did not receive the Law or Knowledge won't be judged like those who did receive Law and Knowledge, as per Mormon doctrine.

Article: "Verse 36, however, is the great key to understanding what the Lord is trying to tell us about polygamy," she said. In verse 36, the Lord uses the example of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, Isaac, even though it violated the law, "Thou shalt not kill." Because Abraham did not refuse to obey the Lord's instructions, "it was accounted unto him for righteousness."

Article: "Because Abraham obeyed an exceptional commandment of God and departed from the law, it was 'accounted unto him for righteousness,'" Hudson said. "But that obedience did not turn the departure from the law into the law … The Lord relieves Abraham from the exceptional commandment. The joy that comes from being obedient is replaced by the overwhelming joy of returning to the original commandment — the rule, not the exception."

I have read this a few times now, and it doesn't make any sense to me. If the "exception" is "accounted for righteousness", should not we try to follow Abraham's example and be people of exception, and follow his example so it is accounted unto us for righteousness?

Article: "In the Lord's eyes," she said, "monogamy is not a sacrifice, but a blessing. But polygamy is a sacrifice. … When God does command polygamy, he understands it is a sacrifice of the joy that would be there for his children if they could live the higher law … the Lord desires all of his children to have the natural joy that comes from living the law of marriage: monogamy."

What a bunch of baloney! I can imagine that polygamy is a sacrifice. But didn't the Prophet they pay lip service to said that a religion that did not require sacrifices was not true religion? Does she really compare monogamy to "a higher law", and Plural Marriage as "a sacrifice of the joy that would be there for [God's] children"? Is not it the other way around? I am sure that Plural Marriage cannot be easy, and from accounts I have read, it can be extremely difficult, but not unlike this probation, not unlike Adam's situation when he fell, so we might be, thanks to his sacrifice, in order to obtain joy.

Article: "Hudson said she believes that "in the eternities we will have the privilege of living under the law, not the exception to the law." In this world, however, the reinstitution of plural marriage in the LDS Church will only happen if the Lord commands it."

In that case, like I said above, they need to stop sealing women to widowers. I think they should also edit the Official Declaration 1, add a "Thus saith the Lord" or something like that, and heavily edit, or why not simply delete, Section 132.

When will this mockery stop?

POLITICALLY CORRECT PEOPLE VS. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE

2011-07-15T12:55:00.020+01:00

BBC News: “Cecil Samuelson, president of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, led the "time for reflection" session [at the Scottish Parliament]. Green MSP [“environmentalist” Socialist elected member of the Scottish Parliament] Patrick Harvie has accused the Scottish Parliament of inviting the head of a "homophobic" US university”.

Professor Samuelson did not talk about homosexuals. He just happens to belong to a Church that is not in favor of gay marriage/behavior. If mere belief in a faith should exclude one from being a guest speaker, isn’t it religious discrimination?

Patrick Harvie was instrumental in including discrimination against gay people in the list of hate crimes in Scottish law, but has he forgotten, or has he ever known, that it is against the law in the U.K. to discriminate against anyone because of their religion or belief?

In a world in which Political Correctness has gone overboard, even keeping your ideas to yourself can get you in trouble.

Individuals’ personal opinions or belief should be respected. Can gay men positively contribute to society? I believe they can, of course, but beware before you say “no” because you may be called to publicly apologize for your bigotry.

Similarly, can religious men positively contribute to society? I believe they can, of course, but if you say “no”, those so-called “tolerant” people who love Political Correctness will join in to say “no”.

Don’t discriminate against gay people, but please do discriminate against religious people. Why this double standard?

Is it because it is now OK to be intolerant towards “intolerant religious people”?

Is it because people are now scared to criticize a homosexual man when he is wrong? In one episode of comedy show 'South Park', gay teacher Garrison sets out to be fired for discrimination on sexual grounds, so he can file for compensation. He performs extreme sexual acts in class, in presence of his students. Those who feel like complaining are told they have to be tolerant towards gay people.

I decided to write to Patrick Harvie. I started to write to him and then I stopped. I thought I should not be wasting time trying to show him how wrong his behavior was. I have learned a long time ago that you cannot reason with a bigot. I believe Harvie is a bigot. Yes, an irreligious gay bigot.

I had read that another member of the Scottish Parliament had defended the freedom of speech of the speaker, so I wrote to congratulate that MSP.

Here is the disappointing answer I received: “The point made by Patrick Harvie, and, I think a fair one, if a trifle esoteric, for people who may or may not be versed in politics or parliamentary procedure, was that President Samuelson was representing his university and was not speaking as an individual.” After patronizing me, the MSP said that “Patrick believes in free speech, even when he disagrees with the beliefs of a speaker”. Clearly, this was not obvious at all, so the MSP further explained: “However, he and I both consider that an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the institutional and corporate standards which we consider ethical.” In short, Political Correctness is now embedded in the Law of the Land, and this is far more important than Freedom of Speech, or even Freedom of conscience, championed by Protestant nations.

Speaking of Protestant nations, I had wondered why protesting against Professor Samuelson’s speech, when they do not protest against their Catholic peers. Isn't the Catholic Church a most homophobic institution, and, historically, isn't that Church against Britain's interests?

To cap it off, protesting against BYU's President for representing "an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the institutional and corporate standards which we consider ethical" seemed rather strange after they had invited the Pope to Scotland, and had lavished him with all the honors, paid with my tax money.

The MSP addressed this question: “I note your point regarding the Catholic Church which was well made. I think that Patrick also objected to the Papal visit. I did not object to the Pope’s visit.”

That MSP did not object to the Pope's visit but objected to the visit of a Mormon-run university president? I replied: “You stated that you personally "consider that an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the institutional and corporate standards which we consider ethical." The Pope does represent an institution which discriminates on the basis of sexual preference to be at variance with the standards which you consider ethical. So, why did not you object to the Pope's visit but objected to Professor Samuelson, who only represented a private school? Once again, this looks like double standards to me.”

I still have not received any answer from the MSP, presumably because this case is for Harvie just about political correctness and his gay agenda. For others protesters who did not protest the Pope's visit, I believe it is nothing short of religious discrimination.

Meanwhile, stories abound in Britain or the in the USA about what seems to be discrimination based on religion:
U.K. Christian couple sued for refusing gay couple a bed in their guest house;
California school district which canceled a fundraising program featuring memorial bricks, scuttling proceeds of $45,000, after two women submitted Bibe verses in their tributes;

Federal judge who ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony;

Man won two gold medals at the 1984 Olympics, had been filling the liaison officer position for the American team but had to step down because he is opposed to gay marriage.

FEMINIST FUNDAMENTALISTS

2011-07-04T12:26:00.005+01:00

I started reading "Mormon Sisters, Women in Early Utah" over a year ago, and then moved on to other stuff, but I've finished it this morning. It was edited by Claudia L. Bushman in 1976.

I recommended it to the Feminist Fundamentalists among us.

"Feminist Fundamentalist" may sound like a contradiction, but it comes down to interpretations. Many 19th Century women were not the "aggressive" type of Feminists that hate men (and many other women), but strong women who had to be resourceful on the Frontier, and could not afford to be trophy wives. There were women who fought for their right to be in polygamous marriages, and Mormon women had the right to vote in 1870 (before that right was taken away by the United States government). Comparatively, British women will have to wait for another few decades, and French women only got the right to vote in 1945.

"Fundamentalist" sounds like "closed-minded" and "dumb" to many people. To us it means that we believe in the original teachings of the early Brethren, and many of us came to Fundamentalism because we studied and compared early teachings to the soup that is served now, and pondered. There were many educated women in 19th Century Utah, some "entrepreneurs" for the time, far from the stereotypes the Gentile media painted of them. Little has changed there...

The book is made up of various essays on various aspects, from the then relative independence of the Relief Society, to women administering blessings, to biographies, to the portrayal of 19th Century Mormon women in literature.

I will share two revealing passages:

"Were we the stupid, degraded, heartbroken beings that we have been represented, silence might better become us; but as women of God, women fulfilling high and responsible positions, performing sacred duties —women who stand not as dictators, but as counselors to their husbands, and who, in the purest, noblest sense of refined womanhood, are truly helpmates— we not only speak because we have the right, but justice and humanity demand that we should." (Eliza R. Snow quote, "Practical Politicians", page 164)

"A correspondent from Manti North Ward noted that it was customary for 'the lords of creation' to quote the Apostle Paul in denying women the right to speak. While acknowledging the many good things in the writings of Paul, the sister questioned whether he was qualified to define the position of women: 'Now let us ask, Who is Paul? In the first place Paul was a Roman, second an educated lawyer, third he was a bachelor as we learn from reading, 1st. Cor., 7th Chap, 7th and 8th verses, fourth he tells us in his defense before Agrippa that he was 'raised a Pharisee' in the strictest sense of the word, and last we know, he did not enjoy that constant and elevating association with Jesus, which the other apostles were privileged to enjoy, and, which might have softened, or slightly ameliorated his views toward women." ("Woman Exponent", 1889, "Feminists", page 182).

THE INTOLERANCE OF LIBERAL CHRISTIANS

2011-07-03T13:57:00.004+01:00

I saw a BBCNews article on trying a faith for a month.

Some Liberal Christians think this is a good thing. I agree that studying various faiths, when one is unsure of what to believe, is a good thing. We should be open. There is truth is all traditions.

Yet this article is about a “consumerist” attitude, as opposed to a real religious experience of conversion, let alone a lasting commitment. In a world in which fleeting relationships are the norm, and marriage is accepted, that should not surprise me.

It is still irritating when it comes from people who profess to follow Christ. I guess I have a problem with many Liberal Christians.

I get along with many Atheists. Some actually praise me for being open to dialogue, for being a truth-seeker, for not preaching at them, and yet being bold with my faith. I respect their looking at the theories/evidence out there and standing up for what they believe in.

I have a conservative Christian friend with whom I can discuss the Gospel. Despite the big theological divide, we respect each other’s love for the living God and we respect each other’s commitment to demanding faiths that require sacrifices.

Many Liberal Christians are the champions of tolerance, of all-inclusiveness, yet they won’t respect anyone who does not have their religious approach. Yes, they are gay-friendly, they welcome drug addicts, they visit prostitutes. This is all good, Jesus brought his light to everyone. But his light was more than support, it was the Gospel.

Many Liberal Christians avoid talking about God.They say they do not want to offend. I remember going to a church wedding. The newlyweds-to-be had carefully selected readings from literature classics. There was so little from the Bible. The hymns were very generic hymns. Many Liberal Christians do not want to offend non-believers.

Many Liberal Christians think it is alright to offend believers though. The tolerance they preach should be for everyone, including conservative Christians, or Mormons. I remember one of them upset after hearing a sermon in his church, about the Second Coming. “We’re not that sort of Church”, he complained to me. One Liberal Christian “friend” called me “deluded” and mocked me with his friends for believing in a personal God and in the Scriptures. Another friend told me many people in his congregation sought fellowship and wanted to leave conversations about God out of the equation. He claimed he himself didn’t believe in “the supernatural” (meaning an actual God, angels or even spirits).

Maybe their intolerance stems from that fact they are ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power of a God in which they don’t really believe anymore.

POLYGAMY ON FRENCH TV

2011-06-04T11:21:00.016+01:00

France: A country that wants (the world) to believe that it is a champion of Democracy, Liberté and Human Rights, but at the same time made Secularism its state religion and regulates all aspects of his citizens' lives.

Polygamy is associated with the Muslim population, often seen as the root of all evils. Consequently, most French people are opposed to polygamy. M6, a French national network, dedicated an entire program of their famous "Enquêtes Exclusives" to Polygamy.

After the light-hearted polyamorous Canadian threesome that would have made smile some people (but didn't do me, even though I respect their choice), the program focused on desperate Muslim women in France, who are victims (in a polygamous marriage). I did feel sorry for them, and I hope they will find a way to get out of their miserable existence and find happiness.

However, unlike French politicians, social workers, and, I assume, the general public, I am opposed to the ban on polygamy. I feel sorry for women everywhere who are abused (in any ways) by their lawful husband, and hope they can all find a way to get out of their toxic marriage, but I would not wish to outlaw marriage altogether. Yet this is exactly what anti-polygamists suggest.

The treatment of the FLDS was also very negative. The Muslim faith was not criticised, yet when it came to the FLDS, the program used derogatory words, such as "secte", which in French is a strong word that actually means "cult" with a "guru" that has "une emprise mentale absolue sur les adeptes de la secte" (an absolute control over the minds of the cult's followers). I am no FLDS expert, but when the young girl says she loves Warren Jeffs, did the producers need to turn her into a lobotomized cult victim? Why not say the same when a young Catholic says she loves the Pope? Why not say that that big cult has an absolute control over the minds of their followers for professing such a love?

The French are funny like that. Funny also that the mayor of that city acknowledged that the ban on polygamy would force those families previously legally married in Africa to repudiate their wives and turn them into mistresses. It is, after all, a country where they tolerate Presidents (and every man who is discreet enough) to have mistresses. Just don't commit to them, and expect to be treated like a criminal if you marry more than one woman.

The program also said it was the first time a Fundamentalist Mormon opened his doors to the cameras. Err, not exactly, but go ahead M6, take the credit for being the first program to show us the world of Mormon polygamy. Oh, and a man does not need plural wives to go to Heaven. Maybe he does to go much higher, but that's another story.

Then came an Independent Mormon Fundamentalist family. If Moroni's family were spokespersons for polygamists, I don't think anyone in the world could object to this controversial practice. Despite the general negative tone of the program, Moroni's segment was surprisingly positive.

Although the media are very good at twisting the truth by the selection of the words they use or by editing their footage to suit their agenda, it would have been really difficult to malign Moroni's family's segment.

Moroni is so well-spoken, and he comes across as a regular guy (but make this a really nice guy), a family man, and his love for his family shines through. It would have been close to impossible for the producers to make him appear as a dark figure. Moroni also knows how to mix honesty with humor (as when he talks about Mormons having many kids in order to reign over the world. That made me laugh out loud and think "Way to go, Moroni!") Oh, and as a native French speaker, and a French teacher in a good British private school, I have to congratulate him for his command of French. I wish my students' pronunciation was as good as his!

Martha and Temple have nothing to envy their husband in terms of eloquence. In the segment they came across as very confident women. They spoke openly about their love and commitment for their family and the Gospel. The words they used and the manner they delivered those words were inspiring and edifying. Many church leaders (and spokespersons) could (and maybe should) learn of them. I know I have a lot to learn before I can be this articulate about what is so close to my heart (let alone in front of a camera). I was really impressed how even when they didn't say a word, their presence was strong, like those actors who can steal a scene without uttering a word. Not that these women are actors. You cannot fake that honesty.

As for the kids, as a teacher who has experience in both the private and the state sector (and worked in some deprived areas), I can only congratulate their parents. Like them they were open, spoke honestly, looked confident and well-balanced. They obviously feel loved like every child deserves to feel (but unfortunately like many do not).

My sister in France (who's not a Mormon) was impressed by Moroni's family. I am so glad they included this segment in a program that was so depressing.

To conclude, this program showed some threesome in Canada, some very sad situations in the Muslim community, some intolerant French people, and some exaggerated portrayal of the FLDS, all making this program a negative one, until Moroni's family saved the day.

In my edition of the footage, this story ends with the beautiful Arizona sunset.

THE MORMON MOMENT IN NEWSWEEK

2011-05-12T12:47:00.002+01:00

I thought this was the best article I've read on our faith in a long time!

Here are some of my favorite quotes (edited):

"The sect's unusual beliefs, like the wives of its leaders, multiplied rapidly, provoking opposition everywhere the Mormons turned. Today the legacy of that marginalization continues to mark the Mormon outlook on the world."

"Theological commitments also influence the way Mormons engage in politics. It's hardly surprising that support for low taxes and a minimum of government regulation would appeal to a community that once endured severe government-sponsored oppression."

"According to Mormon tradition, God and Satan fought a "war in heaven" over the question of moral agency, with God on the side of personal liberty and Satan seeking to enslave mankind. The theme of freedom—and the threat of losing it—runs through much of Mormonism."

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

2011-05-12T11:32:00.000+01:00

In "The Truth, the Way, the Life", B. H. Roberts wrote in the chapter "The Problem of Evil":

"The most celebrated formula of these time-worn problems is known as the antitheses of Epicurus, namely:

1) Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent

2) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent!

3) Is he both able and willing? Then why is evil?

"These questions are supposed to present an impasse to any harmony in the nature of Deity on the basis of his impotence, benevolence and the existence of evil. Yet in the light of our reflections in this chapter on evil, and especially in the light of the philosophy of Lehi in the Book of Mormon and John Fiske's faultless reasoning, the antitheses of Epicurus are not so formidable as might otherwise appear.

"Answer to Epicurus: God may not be able to prevent evil and destroy the source of it, but he is not impotent, for he guides intelligences, notwithstanding evil, to kingdoms of peace and security. Evil is a means of progress, for progress is overcoming evil.

"God may not be able, nor willing if he were able, to prevent evil, and yet he is not malevolent. For knowing that evil exists in the whole scheme of things as the necessary antithesis of good, and that one may not be destroyed without destroying both, why wreck the universe in order to prevent evil? And which if achieved would be the greatest of evils, since all things else would go with it.

"Why then is evil?" the last of the questions of Epicurus? The answer is, that it is a necessary and eternal part of "the dramatic whole", as set forth in both Lehi's philosophy and John Fiske's reasoning. And the kingdom of righteousness wherein dwelleth peace, the beatific vision and hope of the faithful, is the kingdom to be won by the conquest of evil; and which never may be realized but by that conquest."

("John Fiske was a professor, historian and philosopher of Harvard fame, from whose writings is to be obtained full warrant for all that the Book of Mormon passage on opposite existences sets forth, and this in his great treatise on the "Mystery of Evil" (1899) and published in his "Studies in Religion")

Nothing new here, I know. But when I think of some people and their beliefs, or those who reject God because they cannot reconcile God with evil in the world, I feel SO grateful for the Restored Gospel, for the ministry of Joseph Smith, and for the Book of Mormon.

In short, I feel so happy to be a Mormon!

I recommend Roberts' book. Some chapters are very dated, and some points of doctrine are more in line with modern LDS theology than I would like it to be, but I think it is overall a great work.

THE END OF DAYS

2011-03-28T18:38:00.005+01:00

March 2006 — There is a new TV show about Utah polygamists. I am an ex-LDS, Mormonism is still a big part of me, and so I am anxious to see it. When the theme starts, I am amazed how deeply Mormon (and accurate) it is. Later I see the baptism episode/scene, and I cry for two hours. I realize how much I miss Mormonism. So, I do some research, and during the summer find solace in a liberal Mormon denomination. I reclaim my Mormon faith, I feel like celebrating it; I learn from books and forums, and over the next few years I grow in faith, and inevitably change.

March 2011 — My favorite TV show in many years is ending. It makes me sad, and the finale is a shocker I am still processing. It is the end of the road, but not for me. My religious journey took me back to Utah in 2009. I was leaving the liberal denomination behind me when I met Fundamentalists by chance. I received a powerful testimony in their company. Today, despite my special circumstances, I consider myself a Fundamentalist Mormon.

In the end, Bill wins. He leaves the treasures of this world but has secured his family in eternity. He has also brought the debate on polygamy back and created (went back to) a church that he knows is endorsed by God. And he has realized that Love preceded, or must precede, Faith.

MULTIPLE MORTAL PROBATIONS

2011-03-13T18:19:00.020Z

Today my reading from the Journal of Discourses was The Clay and the Potter Vol 1, pages 160-162. Roughly: God takes clay and fashions us, and tries and tries again, until he makes a beautiful vessel, or if it is impossible, he throws it back and let it rest. God will let us/our spirits rest, passive, for maybe a thousand years, until he can try again, and all his children can be redeemed (apart from the Sons of Perdition).

Now, this (sort of) sermon gets strong reactions from people. Some say it proves Eternal Lives in the sense of Reincarnation, also known as Multiple Mortal Probations. Others say such teachings are from the Devil, and the debate often causes name-callings on the specialized forums.

MMP proponents believe that our eternal spirits not only get incarnated (coming from the realm of the Pre-Existence) but also get reincarnated in a new body. Some maintain that this is what Resurrection actually means.

There are some passages in various diaries of early leaders or witnesses that indicate that they believed and shared those ideas. Some close associates of Joseph Smith even said they got that teaching from the Prophet himself, who allegedly prayed to know if he had committed adultery in any probations, and who would have said that reincarnation was what resurrection was.

Some New Testament passages also suggest this, when Jesus is asked who sinned, that man or his parents that he was born blind (although this could mean that they expected the faults of the parents to be on the child) and that Jesus may be an ancient prophet back to the Land of the Living (although that could just mean that the office of that prophet was now in the person of Jesus).I have to say that even if I don't have a testimony of MMP, and it may be false, it makes sense. I don’t believe our bodies will be reconstituted from the same elements as they are now constituted, years or millennia after our natural death.

Coming back during the Millennium could be through a new birth, as we are taught that people will be born at that time. It could also be after, born of Gods.

The fact that some Gods do not have a body and do get reincarnated is shown with the Holy Ghost and in the birth of Jesus, if, as some maintain, he qualified for the office of Savior and was subsequently born of a woman. Some accounts show that Brigham Young may have taught this, that Jesus had been a man on another world.

If our bodies will become perfect and celestial (if we qualify), then a change has to be operated in the flesh. Reincarnation may be the explication. This is not to say that Jesus did not take his body back like his Father before him. Translation is also something different.

Some say that the three different kingdoms are actually on this planet, and that we inherit a kingdom on this planet, depending on our circumstances. Some also say that we evolved from the lower state to the human state and then to the God state. All I am saying is that all this is possible.

MMP opponents claim that Joseph Smith said the doctrine was of the Devil. Now, there was a man who taught the transmigration of souls, that a man’s spirit was found in his progeny, and this is what was meant by Eternal life.

Joseph Smith did say that man served the Devil and asked him to leave, but that man’s teaching was not MMP. MMP is not the usual Reincarnation teachings of various eastern religions or of folklore, which says that we get reincarnated as animals, or as another person, anytime, anywhere. MMP is not a new existence at the end of each life, but, as I understand a new level of existence, depending on our worth, at a time fixed by God, and at an unknown frequency.

It is possible that the sermon (and subsequent sermons) mean our existence in the flesh, and how God fashions us while in the flesh, but those sermons do seem to suggest that another body at another time is what is meant.

I have no idea who’s right or wrong, but MMP does make sense to me.

LET THERE BE LIGHT

2011-02-13T18:05:00.006Z

I saw the NASA pictures published on the Time website last week. One in particular caught my attention, or its caption even: "Even when the Sun is shining, the sky appears dark in low Earth orbit, because there isn't enough atmosphere to diffuse sunlight."

And I started to think that maybe that is what the Genesis author meant when he wrote: "Let there be light". Maybe it was the apparition of the atmosphere he was describing.

THE GODS OF GENESIS

2011-02-13T18:01:00.017Z

Elohim is the deity in the first chapters of Genesis. It is a plural, no matter how hard we try to explain it. The Gods were united though, and acted as one mind. They came to this world as a unit to organize it.

This reminded me of what I read some time ago on a Mormon Fundamentalist Forum. In substance, that the Gods came here with their wives, and I personally think under the authority of Adam.

It makes sense to me to say that gods or humans were "imported" to this world, like animals and the flora which were "commanded" to propagate "after their own kind".

I think the same applied to humans, "imported" to propagate "after their own kind". If humans had been created, and not imported, then it would have been after a long evolution, and certainly not as Genesis states it!

I do not reject evolution. I think the Gods may have had to introduce life to see if it was viable and to make it viable, with all the necessary links that we are aware of before "settling in".   In any cases, I believe the Gods peopled this planet.

I believe women were included in the organization of this world as "co-creators", as male and female, in "our" likeness, they humans created. Besides, I read somewhere that Jehovah" was a compound name that included male and female elements, the female element sounding like the name/title Eve. Yet it was Adam (whom I believe is the Jehovah of the O.T and the father of Jesus) who spoke to Abraham, Moses (who in Jewish Lore saw Michael's shape in the burning bush) and with Joshua (the captain was a title of Michael as I understand it).

The likeness and image of God are all over the O.T. Abraham, Moses, Joshua saw him as a man. Not only were there a plurality of Gods, but they also were anthropomorphic (or let's say humans are theomorphic)

WHAT IT FEELS LIKE

2011-02-08T19:59:00.002Z

I had a great Sabbath. One of those Sabbaths when you feel in-tune with God and feel his presence as if he was in the same room with you. All needs, desires, subside, and are replaced by a deep-seated peace, a real contentment and the air around you is replaced with the Spirit. Living in the Kingdom of God may be like that, and that is what the Celestial Kingdom must be like.

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT RELIGION?

2010-12-05T12:21:00.002Z

"Don't Know Much About Religion?" was a survey about religious knowledge, which surprised many: Atheists knew more than believers, and Jews and Mormons were way ahead of say... Catholics.

I was not surprised. The only interesting conversations I have about God is with Atheists and Mormons. Never with Christians.

The Atheists I speak with have thought about the question before coming to their conclusions. With those people I can have rational discussions. I am not afraid of sharing my faith with them, but there is an understanding that we are going to analyze the writings, the doctrines, and some other aspects. I find it very edifying.

Because I love learning about religion, I came to understand the Bible. I still have a lot to understand, and I never stop questioning and studying. I became a Mormon because of all the things I have read. Conversing with

Mormons, apart from some LDS Mormons, can also be very fulfilling, because we share a common knowledge.

My experience of conversing with Christians is simply frustrating. It is like talking about the state of the economy with a 3 year-old. Many of them just don't think. They have a set of core beliefs, it seems, that they cling to, because of their traditions and/or their lack of questioning.

With them it is all about a unknowable God, who is also a personal Jesus, who loves you no matter what, and shed his blood to save you. Most of the time, those I speak with, don't know the Bible, and very often do not even know their own doctrines, and what differentiates them from other Christian denominations.

And then come the Catholics...

I often ask myself who, in their right mind, can be Catholic? You just need to crack up a Bible, and learn basic facts of religion and history, to see they got it all wrong and made the whole thing up. And because they are flooded with their superstitions and traditions, they have no knowledge of God, so no wonder they came last in the survey. There is no progression with them, just an old established set of unscriptural and ungodly practices they abide to, just because.

I believe true religion is about knowledge and progression. It is not what you do to other people, even wonderful things you may do for other people; it is not a creed; it is not a passive approach to tradition; but it is an active scrutinizing of the Scriptures and all good books to find the Truth, and get to know the nature of God through pondering and spiritual insights.

B.H. ROBERTS' "THE TRUTH, THE WAY, THE LIFE"

2010-12-03T18:46:00.000Z

What struck me in the introduction of this book was Roberts' belief that this world existed before Adam and Eve came to replenish the Earth. I was aware of this teaching, but Roberts was writing much after the Adam-God doctrine had been abandoned by the Church.

What was new to me, however, was his belief that plants, as well as animals, had been introduced in successive phases. Roberts thus explained "Evolution" and its missing links.

What I like about this system is that Roberts, like the early Brethren, did not reject Science, or any other field that offers knowledge. Instead -and I believe this is the true essence of Mormonism- Roberts tried to accommodate all the new "facts" of Science and Philosophy into his religion. What conflicted completely with the revealed word of God, he rejected, but not before trying to see if it could fit in his faith.

Therefore, Roberts did not take the Bible as the inherent Word of God. He saw the Word of God in the Bible, but this is not the same thing.

I have read about new research about bringing life to Mars, in different phases, that seem to parallel the Genesis account (or the Mormon interpretation of it). Indeed, the article published this year suggests it could be possible to create life on Mars, by taking plants, animals and finally humans over a long preparation period. I could not help thinking that this may be what the gods did with this Earth.

Finally, there was a chapter about his attitude towards women. He was not very progressive in that field, and this reminds me that those men are people with their own prejudices that do not reflect the mind of
God, but their own background. I believe this is also true when we deal with biblical prophets.

INDEPENDENT MORMON "FUNDAMENTALISTS" FORUM

2010-12-02T17:57:00.000Z

Because Fundamental Mormonism seems to be the road I feel I am meant to follow, I wanted to contribute and decided to create the Independent Mormon “Fundamentalists” Forum.

"The Forum provides an online community for men and women, of all kinds and all climes, who aim to live a life incorporating the original teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the early brethren.

"We do not belong to the LDS Church or any organized Fundamentalist group. We obey the dictates of our own consciences and the promptings of the Spirit. Our beliefs and practices are as diverse as we are.

"Whether you are investigating the early teachings of Mormonism or come from a Fundamentalist background, we would love to hear from you!

"The Independent Mormon “Fundamentalists” Forum offers fellowship and support, enabling us all to progress together as individuals."

Check it out!

ZION IS A STATE OF MIND

2010-09-24T18:53:00.003+01:00

Here's my summary of the first sermon in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, given by Brigham Young, in 1853.

Everyone's goal in this world is to obtain the best thing they can. Because of the traditions of men, not everyone's goal is to obtain Salvation. Yet if people knew their spirit was as eternal as matter and the gods, Salvation would be their ultimate goal. Furthermore, Salvation may be obtained here and now.

Some think coming to Utah will grant them happiness. It won't. Happiness is something we need to obtain and take with us everywhere we go. Zion is a state of mind. If we put our lives in order and deal with each other with charity (seeing the bigger picture instead of our own little worries and demands), we will obtain happiness, and we will obtain Salvation. Then we will truly be in Zion.

THE PAPAL VISIT

2010-09-19T20:36:00.016+01:00

The Pope came to the UK last week. I really tried not to let that visit get to me. I've been anti-Catholic since I was a kid.

While I defend the right of individuals to worship what and how they want, I consider the institution to be a heresy. I believe it is an abomination from which much evil has flown. I believe that Church is responsible for having perverted plain doctrines, and for denying the power of God. Here, in the U.K., Catholics burned on the stake those who dared reading the Bible. English monarchs later ensured Rome would not dictate its law to this realm.

How sad to see the lessons have been forgotten; how sad to see the Pope getting a platform in this country that his religion despises; how sad to see religionists and lay people of a nation that has ensured freedom from Rome's shackles welcome him with all the honours.

Once a nazi, that man's rhetoric would be condemned in this P.C. mad nation if he wasn't the Pope, untouchable, infallible, even, according to his followers.

How outrageous it is to see him parade through the streets of the town which has become my home, instead of being investigated for his covering up of child rapes.

And to add harm to injury, I subsidised the Papal Visit with my hard-earned money. Like Thomas Jefferson said: "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES

2010-09-10T18:28:00.000+01:00

I waited years to find an affordable set of Journal of Discourses, and I am now blissfully happy.

I decided to read one sermon at a time, making it a special Sunday activity. Since I have no church to go to, I thought I might as well create a structure to worship at home. Creating a structure makes my worship more intentional.

So, yesterday I started by playing a Mormon tune (to get in the mood). Then I prayed. I had just received B.H. Roberts' "The Truth, the Way, the Life" last week as well. I decided to use it as a Priesthood Manual before moving on to the sermon in Journal of Discourses. It was a successful experience. I feel like I've been to church with other like-minded people. The sermon is still with me.

I ended this part of my worship with another Mormon tune and I prayed before reading in the JoD, Volume 1, Sermon 1. I don't know if it was because I was so excited to be holding that book in my hands, but I loved it. And I love it when a sermon carries you for days. Talk about spiritual nourishment!

CONTEMPLATION

2010-08-20T15:47:00.012+01:00

I remember reading about an ancient Jewish mystic who had gone mad contemplating the mysteries of God. There are times when I immerse myself in Mormon doctrine and theology so much that I can almost burn myself like a cinder.

Is it not ironic to stop feeling God’s presence whenever I am tempted to assimilate those teachings at face value? How do you explain that my progression stops every time I try to get in line with an orthodox interpretation of those teachings? How come it makes me feel depressed and far from my God?

I hate thinking I have rejected the knowledge and the experience I have gathered in the last ten years, since my excommunication from the LDS Church. I since have followed my own path, learned from all sources available, grown. It scares me to feel like I did ten years back, struggling with my faith, trying to accommodate teachings that my conscience and my heart reject. I thought I had learned to follow the personal promptings of the Spirit, and to do what was good for me and my relationship with God.

Some Mormons might say that the early brethren’s words are not to be altered. I will say that the early brethren claimed they were proud not to rely on Scriptures but on their own revelations for their own time.

The bottom line is that Joseph is not here to give us the counsels of God, for our time, and his written word is not sufficient. Indeed, as one can get the Scriptures to say anything and its contrary, one can get the words of Joseph Smith, and others, to say anything and its contrary.

Besides, Joseph Smith sometimes taught one thing and later taught another. For example, he taught that Adam held his authority under the direction of Jesus, and that children who died would be rulers in the Celestial Kingdom. Those teachings are inconsistent with what he said in other speeches and revelations. Those teachings are also at odds with what Brigham Young taught in a long series of discourses.

Also, Joseph changed his version of the first vision several times; from claiming he had felt his sins had been forgiven, to seeing one angel, to seeing Jesus, to conversing with the Father and with Jesus. Brigham also claimed he believed that the Sun and the Moon were inhabited.

Those men were sometimes inspired, and sometimes speculated, and sometimes were wrong.

I do not mean to be disrespectful. If there were one single man in the history of humanity I could meet, it would be, with no hesitation, Joseph Smith. I also have a whole lot of admiration for Brigham Young.

However, the Prophet was human, and his humanity, as much as the social, cultural and historical context of his teachings, colored his ministry, the same way that Brigham’s humanity, as much as the social, cultural and historical context of his teachings, colored his utterances and policies.

Some Christians claim the Bible is all they have. If us Mormons of all denominations pride in knowing better, then we should do better, and not only rely on ancient or modern revelations to live our life and honor our God, but seek to do the best we can to gather personal knowledge and work out our own personal progression, using, but not stopping at, the early brethren’s teachings.

THE TREND

2010-05-06T16:50:00.004+01:00

"Why don't Mormons unite instead of splitting into so many small groups when they disagree on something?" or "How can that Church be taken seriously? It was created in 1985!" are things that I have heard.

This may seem strange to some people, especially to Christians who belong to churches founded long ago. Yet a church has to start at some point. The Church in Jerusalem once was a day-old church and so was the Church of Rome. As for splitting, that is what happened to all those Christians sects. We could say that Mormonism could have learned from those mistakes and numerous schisms though.

Mormonism simply follows the trend of Christianity. Indeed, I was once reading that book, "Lost Christianities" and I could not stop comparing the early stages of Christianity with Mormonism. How Christianity started with those assertions, those tales of visions, those new Scriptures that extrapolated the old ones and sometimes authored by frauds.

The same happened with Mormonism and those tales of angels visiting the Earth, the publication of the Book of Mormon, which I believe was a pious fraud, if an inspired one.

Then there is the person of Jesus, that became a godlike figure after his death, with tales of resurrection. In Mormonism, the historical Joseph Smith has become this superhuman with Disney features, and there were tales in the 19th Century that he was resurrected.

At last, the Christian faith evolves, taking on the pagan aspects of other cultures when it compromised with Rome and became mainstream. Mormonism has followed that trend too as it discarded many of its doctrines to fit in 20th century America.

To me, the question that comes to mind is: "What's next?"

WORLDS WITHOUT END

2010-05-01T17:41:00.004+01:00

I remember seeing this picture of the Universe, reproduced on a wide billboard.

It made me think of Abraham, and the promise God made. It made me think of Mormon theology, how "the works of God continue, and worlds and lives abound", to take the words of the hymn "If You Could Hie To Kolob".

It made me think of the teachings on how space extends, how God's glory will increase forevermore as new planets are formed and go through their cycle of existence.

It filled me with strong feelings and I thought I would share this as I found this picture among other interesting ones on CNN today.

BACK ON THE OPEN ROAD

2010-02-28T18:10:00.034Z

Over the last six months, I have contemplated becoming a Fundamentalist Mormon. In the process, I have become much more self-aware. Blissful and painful experiences have led me to re-assess my spiritual identity. I am grateful for it all. I have no regret.

It had started to annoy me that Reform Mormonism seemed to be nothing more than a virtual/online community. This had pushed me to investigate Fundamentalism, where real people were willing to meet and discuss doctrines I enjoy discussing. I felt like I was ready to take it all on, as one often does when joining a new faith, hardline interpretations, and all.

I suppose I also wanted a fresh start, after realizing I, too, had compromised on several levels. Maybe I also wanted to "check out" of the real world, retreat to some spiritual walled community.

On the other hand I had had some strong and wonderful spiritual experiences with some Fundamentalists I met.

It came a time when I had to face the truth and ask myself if I needed to be validated by people who would never accept me for who I really was, as a gay man. I had to confront my own demons. I had to be fully honest with myself and stop shoving reason out.

Mormonism speaks to me louder than any other traditions. I can say I believe in Mormon tenets, Fundamentalist ones, even if sometimes I feel very progressive about some interpretations.

Lately, I have come to the conclusion that I could become a Fundamentalist using reason to externalize those fundamental Mormon aspects in a modern and inclusive manner.

I feel I need to follow my own road, the one I feel God is calling me to follow, no matter what others on that road may say.

I feel that I can be an Independent Fundamentalist. Maybe of another kind.

BECOMING A MORMON FUNDAMENTALIST

2009-09-15T22:47:00.030+01:00

It struck me funny that no Reform Mormons in Arizona, Nevada or Utah wanted to meet me, for one reason or another, but other Mormon denominations were happy to. That got me thinking...

I raised this issue on the Reform Mormon forum before heading for the US in July. I understand that some people cannot travel far but some folks choose not to interact directly with another person feeling affinity with Reform Mormonism.

I have to say that despite some reassurances from one member, even before my trip, I felt like Reform Mormonism was just a forum and was made up of people who were as happy to worship Fire or Buddha as they were to praise Joseph Smith.

For months before going to the US, I felt like I wanted to "belong" or associate with people for whom every truth leads back to Mormonism and not the other way around. We all have our own path but I was suddenly feeling unsure about my fellow travelers.

So, I met some Fundamentalists for dinner in Sandy, UT. Like I wrote in a previous post, I had felt nervous about it but then I felt peaceful, I knew it was a good thing for me to meet them, that it was the right thing to do. I was told we could follow a leader if we wanted to but we can also be our own agent.

I like that! This is the general view among "Independents" and I guess that's what I could be.

I guess that's what I have been so far.

I've been following a road, sometimes getting out of the road, slowing down or stopping but I've been following this road, and in the beginning I didn't even know it.

I would like to be rebaptized, receive the Priesthood again, in case mine is not valid, although I have some manifestations that it may well be valid. I am for now bettering myself, and learning, of course. I'll have to go back to Utah for more. I am not in a rush.

We talked about "deep doctrine". We don't get that in Church, "because it is like Elementary School when you're already in High School". However, I was told it might be good for me to go to the LDS ward for some fellowship. I realize I do need some fellowship and the LDS Church is the closest thing I can get here, in the UK.

I have attended meetings on Sundays since I've come back. I never liked going before, I had stopped going years ago but now I feel good about going. The Bishop just said I had to keep to myself, which I understand. I'm not there to recruit people. I don't learn much, but I get some "vibe" that lifts my heart and my spirit. To be honest, I am amazed at the positive effect going back to church has on me.

Over the years, I have read so much literature, from scholars, from Christians, from anti-Mormons. I have studied a lot. I have erred a lot. But I am becoming a Fundamentalist because of it all. I cannot deny the spiritual experiences I had with them. And that last evening with them I felt the Spirit on the way back Downtown.

I am taking one day at a time. I feel quite different, spiritually speaking, and in other ways too, than I did when I went to America.

TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

2009-09-04T21:18:00.009+01:00

"1 Man, 1 Woman, 1 Marriage, God's Way" read that old man's sign in protest against one homosexual minister, here in the UK, and homosexuals in general. Methinks the sectarian world should spend less time interfering with people's lives and instead of making stupid sign crack up a Bible.

In that Book they profess to believe in, they will see that first and foremost, God granted Free Agency [Free Will] to mankind. In that book God gives a commandment to Adam and Eve but he also stresses that they are free to choose for themselves. Then, the so-called Christian world would see that Abraham, Jacob, David or Solomon took several wives after their encounter with God.

Sectarians will quote from a Gospel and from an Epistle to claim they are right about marriage being between one man and one woman but those books contradict all other Scriptures, so it is likely they are not accurate and got changed.

So, first: Live and let live. Then: Don't pretend your way is holy when you clearly reject God's way: Free Agency to all and Plural Marriage for those who want to be holy.

ABUSES

2009-09-03T15:57:00.003+01:00

"BBC NEWS: 'Many girls' abused by boyfriends

"The NSPCC says many teenage girls are in abusive relationships

"A third of teenage girls suffer sexual abuse in a relationship and a quarter experience violence at the hands of their boyfriends, a survey suggests.

"Nearly 90% of 1,400 girls aged 13 to 17 had been in intimate relationships, the NSPCC and University of Bristol found.

"Of these, one in six said they had been pressured into sexual intercourse and one in 16 said they had been raped" [...]

"Parents and schools can perform a vital role in teaching [youngsters] about loving and safe relationships."

Parents and school can help... This is it? When such things allegedly happened in a Mormon Fundamentalist ranch in Texas, there was a raid, a worldwide media coverage and all the children were taken away from their homes, to be returned later even though the media, at least here in the UK, didn't find worth mentioning!

My point is that abuse, of any kind, unfortunately exists everywhere and that's sick. But it also makes me sick to see the double standards and the demonization of some entire communities just because their faith.

SECTION ONE THIRTY-TWO

2009-09-01T17:57:00.011+01:00

I've started going back to Church since I came back from Utah. The first Gospel Doctrine class was on Section 132. How ironic!

Teacher: The lesson today in on Eternal Marriage. So... Why is marriage important?

Me: Because it is written that man cannot be without woman in the Celestial Kingdom.

Teacher: Err, OK, anyone else?

Member: To raise families! Families are important.

Teacher: That's correct!

We read quotes, but stopped short before Plural Marriage quotes, of course! That was not mentioned at all, not even from an historical point of view!

Teacher: Why is it important to marry in the Temple?

Me: The only way to inherit the attributes of God, become Gods like him and be able to create worlds, is to be sealed by the Priesthood. Gentiles give themselves to each other but personally, I think that whether they decide to marry, shack up or whatever, it's all the same to God, it's not binding to him.

Member: I disagree! My parents were Presbyterians and they loved God and they believed they had a God-sanctioned marriage! God recognized their marriage, I'm sure! We shouldn't think we're better than others because we have the Priesthood!

Other members nodded. I was blown away. It's not like I was saying I was better, I'm not even married! To me, her statement denied the power of the Gospel. I can see it was well intentioned but it was a toning down of our doctrines and beliefs. And it went against the verses we had just read! Mind you, it's not surprising, they are so open to the world. And Brigham Young said what it would mean when the Church gets too close to the world.

Teacher: Sister, I think you are right. That's what the verse about the Holy Spirit of Promise is all about. Even if we're not members of the church, what matters is that God recognized us as being his.

Me: ... [I kept quiet, but I wanted to say: "NO, the Holy Spirit of Promise is the second anointing!]

In the end, I felt grateful to have a higher knowledge. I'll keep going though, as fellowship is important and I'm all alone here. I'm not gonna let go of my knowledge. I know where I stand, even if it's on ongoing process but I won't be moved from the road I'm on.

DINING WITH FUNDAMENTALISTS

2009-08-03T22:03:00.024+01:00

In August, I met Mormon Fundamentalists for dinner in Sandy. I took the TRAX. I had felt nervous about tonight but once on the train I felt Peace. I felt it was a good thing for me to meet them, that it was the right thing to do. It took a while to get to the final stop. The train was crowded at that time but my timing was perfect.

We were sitting with food in front of us and and I spoke, Then I listened.

I said I would not know which group to choose if I wanted to join one. Who has they keys?

I was told the Priesthood is one thing, offices are within the Priesthood.

A Priesthood holder is no bigger than the next one and he does not have more authority than another when the Church is out of order.

So, I can follow a leader if I want to but I can also be my own agent. The various groups differ in some ways but God wants one people, so we should all be united and have no leaders in our cause.

This is the general view among "Independents". I guess that's what I could be given my circumstances. I guess that's what I have been so far. I've been following a road, sometimes getting out of the road, slowing down or stopping but I've been following this road, and in the beginning I didn't even know it.

I felt the question of Authority was now settled. What I had heard made sense and I was feeling "good" about it.

The other question I had was about the ordinances, especially Temple ordinances. One of them said she didn't receive her Endowment. I learned that some groups administer their own version, what they think is the true version of the Endowment. One of them said that receiving it from the LDS was a waste of time as it's been changed so much it's unrecognizable. She said I was right not to join the LDS again just to receive the Endowment.

Over the last 12 months I've been considering a way to receive it and even considered joining the LDS again, until I receive it and then leave. However, I felt uneasy about sustaining their leaders and I did not want to cheat. She asked what the Spirit had told me. I replied I had felt impressed not to join the Church again. Hypocrisy is not a good way to receive the Endowment. She said: "There's your answer!"

I learned that since the Church is out of order, we are not responsible for not obtaining our Endowments. God will supply a way when he wants to and if he doesn't, then he will judge us according to the dispositions of our heart. Also, the Lord understands our position. Once again, I felt satisfied with this answer.

I would like to be rebaptized, I told them, to be cleansed and rededicate myself to the work of the Lord, but it cannot be done yet. Too little time left in Utah and too long a road towards bettering myself still. I'll have to come back.

I told one of them about my "special situation". She understood. "It is a tough situation. It must be really difficult". She said I had to receive the answers for myself. She said that, indeed, being single and celibate is what I should be right now and that God works miracles. Who knows... I tried so many times before to change.

We talked about "deep doctrine". We don't get that in Church, "because it is like Elementary School when you're already in High School" but I was told it might be good for me to go to the LDS ward for some fellowship.

I asked about some "strange" teachings I read about. I was told Joseph Smith didn't mean them seriously, but was joking.

We stayed there three hours and then were joined by another lady I had met last week at the FLDS gathering.

The man in the group said he only had one wife because he doesn't want to pursue a woman. He wants someone who wants to be with him and therefore is not looking.

We parted with each other's email addresses and blogs.

What an enlightening evening! I felt the Spirit on the way back Downtown. I felt sleepy too. I admired the sunset.

Aaron and Tand sent me texts, saying that Brie cried when I left them this morning, saying: "I want Dad's friend to stay with us!" They said they'd loved having me with them. I'd loved being with them. I'd love to have a family.

WASHINGTON SQUARE WITH THE FLDS

2009-08-01T17:01:00.002+01:00

A few days ago, instead of going back to friends' after spending time in Provo, I checked in Motel 6. It was late and I thought I'd get a proper rest there.

The next morning, I walked up to the Courthouse TRAX stop. Walking on the opposite sidewalks were two men in long-sleeves and jeans, with a woman wearing a long dress and sunglasses. FLDS members! I watched and saw more around the Courthouse. I waited at the TRAX stop but the train wasn't showing up. So, I decided to get closer to them. I got to Washington Square. There seemed to be a gathering. 1,000 FLDS members were walking in the sun or standing still in the shade.

I felt out of place with my red T-shirt and my shorts. Almost as if I was dirty. I wondered if I'd feel this way were I to be face to face with the Maker.

One man was sitting alone. I asked him what was happening. He explained the State of Utah wanted to seize their land. He did not make eye contact, he spoke little and when he did it was a soft voice. He explained he was from Colorado City, the FLDS community at the Utah/Arizona border.

I walked on through the square and among all these people who were dignified in their silence. At the edge of the square I found women wearing regular clothing and holding signs. I spoke to them. They told me they were Polygamists, from the Kingston Clan, there with some of their children. They invited me to pick up one of the signs that were scattered on the grass. I chose one that read: "Justice For All" and held it high. It was the first time I ever did something like that. I wondered what my friends would think if they saw me standing there! Yet I was proud to be there and be part of this gathering.

Other signs read: "Give Our Land Back" and a group of Native Americans shouted with anger: "This is OUR land! Go back to England! You took OUR land, this is NOT your land!". I had seen them all before, sleeping on the grass and dozing in the sun, intoxicated from morning to night.

Some car drivers honked to show their support. Some cars with the hood pulled back had nice girls in them holding our signs. The woman beside me said it was her daughter with her friends. Meanwhile, some people made unpleasant comments.

I looked around. I had wanted to meet FLDS members for quite a while now. The girls and women were pretty and looked happy and healthy. The boys and men were very handsome and looked confident and healthy too. They were all very attractive and wholesome-looking.

The women wore long prairie dresses, with no pattern. Their hair was tied and braided in an elegant crown. The men wore jeans with leather belts or slacks. They all wore collared long-sleeved shirts, cowboy shirts, plaid shirts or regular shirts tucked in their pants. They wore sneakers or shoes and most of them wore caps.

Many were going back and forth to Starbucks. I wonder what they were drinking! But I knew they were the most delightsome and handsome people in town! Was it the clothing? The rustic look? Was it the fact they were in the outside world that made them look like the happiest folks? Was it the fact that they have a healthy, with no time wasted watching TV, playing computer games, no drinking or smoking, just the open air, the organic food, the wholesome entertainments? Whatever it was, I just felt drawn to them.

There was some band playing when I returned from Burger King and ate in the grass with a few people from the Kingston Clan. When the hearing in court finished, the music stopped and they announced that the land was now up for bidding. There were some speeches. The crowd was silent, reverential even. I gathered with them to listen.

The light through the leaves overhead was golden, the breeze was gentle. I could hear music playing. Yet there was no music being played. I thought I could hear angels singing and I realized I was feeling the Spirit of God so strong. It invaded me and it was the sweetest thing to experience. It was a powerful spiritual experience. I wished what I was feeling could go on like this forever. I wished I could remain with them. I knew then and there that if there ever was a people of God, it was these people.

I will never forget that moment! And I am of course scared of what it means...

Later on, I was introduced to some of the spokespersons for all Fundamentalist groups and even met Anne Wilde, who was a plural wife of Ogden Kraut. I saw some of her interviews on the internet and read some books by her late husband who wrote and published Mormon Fundamentalist literature. It was a wonderful experience to meet them all.

I spoke to a few other people and gave them my details but told them I wondered what good it would be to become one of them, to join a group if I was bound to go home alone in the UK. The spokesperson said we could meet for dinner next week and discuss things.

I helped load some signs in the truck and said goodbye. A man was being photographed with his three wives. You could feel harmony between them. I walked past some FLDS, said: "Excuse me" and they replied: "No problem". I waved "Thanks" to a van letting me cross the parking lot and the driver waved back. Those people could not be more polite and gentle.

A few hours later, thoughts were running a circle around me as I walked back through Washington Square to get to the library. I felt changed. I felt so light. I left the library and went back to Washington Square, bathing in the evening sunlight, sat on a bench, looking at the fountain and the trees. I was thinking of my first love, here, in Utah. Maybe I had come full circle? I didn't get to receive my Reform Mormon Endowments. Maybe that was not meant to be? Maybe I was not meant to stay in Provo last night? Maybe I was meant to check in that motel and come across that gathering?

I walked up to Temple Square. I went to Deseret Book as I decided I needed a new set of Scriptures. I bought a quad and got a discount. I went to sit by the Temple. I sat where I had sat with my first love, 11 years ago. I have no regret for what I did. The last 10 years have been an experience. I don't want to be LDS again.

I don't know what's next but that day was inspiring...

See coverage and pictures on KSL News here.

NEW SLC

2009-07-24T10:03:00.007+01:00

I hadn't been in SLC in 10 years. I never thought I would be back again. I like the gridlock street system here. It makes it so easy to navigate. I hardly recognized Downtown. ZCMI has disappeared, new buildings are being built, cranes are erected all around.

Temple Square: It is being revamped too and I realize my memory's played games with my mind as the Tabernacle, etc, is not where I remembered it to be. The Christus background painting looks darker and so does the Temple.

I had a tour with a sister missionary, as open as I wish her leaders could be. When I asked an older sister about the Christus's background painting, she didn't know but she asked if I was a member. When I replied I wasn't, she asked me if there was anything about the Church that I'd like to know. I said I thought I knew everything there was to know. She asked if I had read some of their literature about Jesus and the Family and I replied I wasn't interested. She then looked away and ignored me completely.

Joseph Smith Memorial Building: Nice building, nice café upstairs. Nice LDS chapel. I found their Distribution Center so focused on Jesus. There was hardly any image of Joseph Smith. I inquired about that, saying: "I see a lot of things about Jesus but very little about Joseph Smith!" The man there didn't have much to say apart from: "You may wanna try Deseret Book".

Deseret Book: It had very little real Mormon literature and artifacts. It looked more like an Evangelical Christian bookstore!

Conference Center: It was still being built the last time I was here. I enjoyed the Conference Center. It's a very nice building. I later sat outside Temple Square. Many LDS walked past, some weddings were being performed. I was listening to music Tori Amos played last night right across the street. I felt glad I was not LDS and it was a great feeling!

Church Museum: I had been before but I didn't remember it being so interesting with all their artifacts. There was the pistol of Joseph Smith, some of his journals, some furniture, pictures of ancient ordinances, handwritten revelations! There was a nice exhibition upstairs with good tour guides who give full information without trying to convert you like they do on Temple Square.

At the Museum's store, I found good posters and canvases. I found one of "Jehovah Creating the Earth" and bought a gliclé I can get stretched to a canvas when I am back home.

MORMONS IN ST. GEORGE

2009-07-18T22:02:00.009+01:00

I stopped at the post office, bought stamps, and made my way to the house of Brigham Young again. As I was taking a picture of a roundabout, a police car drove past, honked and one of the officers waved at me with a smile.

At the square there was a farmers market with live folk music. People were shopping fresh local produce and handicraft or just listening to the music. Children were running around laughing in the sun. It was so peaceful and pleasant! I got some zucchini bread and then there was another stall with a braided hair woman wearing a long prairie dress and a teenage boy wearing long pants and a long sleeved collar shirt. I understood they were FLDS [Mormon Fundamentalists from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] and live in Hildale [FLDS community]. They were selling cheese and invited me to taste a few samples. Man, those cheeses were some of the best I have ever tasted and their homemade bread was so good too! I bought some after hesitating which cheese was the best. The boy was staring at me the entire time and was very quiet. The lady was one of the sweetest people I have ever met, very soft spoken and with eyes full of charity. I told her to keep the change. That was the first time I had met some Fundamentalists and I thought it was pretty cool.

I went to Brigham Young's home again. The house visit was nice, if very generic and oriented to get people to receive missionary discussions. The sister missionary was from Germany and we chatted after the visit. I then went back to the Temple and visited the Visitors Center. I had a chat with the sister missionary from Quebec.

It astonishes me how some LDS [Mainstream Mormons] don't know their own doctrines and their own past. She said she didn't know about polygamy until she came here on her mission. She didn't know Brigham Young or Joseph Smith -the first Mormon- had plural wives. Non-Mormons know about it, I knew about it before I knew anything else about the Mormons!

How protected LDS are, sheltered from their own religion! Their leaders have managed to smother the past, to hide it under bushel. They have rewritten their own history. But hey, Joseph Smith did that too sometimes...

I proceeded to the Tabernacle and walked past a marriage guests in the Temple's gardens. Good-looking people getting married in the Temple, able to enjoy sex as something holy, while I would never be able to enjoy those blessings and be their equal.

Anyway, the Tabernacle was worth visiting. I took many pictures inside. The older sister who was conducted the tour knew what she was talking about! Some good questions were asked by a German visitor, like: "What is the difference between Mormons and Catholic or Protestants?"

I would have answered that the main differences are that we believe in continuous revelations, instead of relying on a closed canon of Scriptures, and then that we believe the Fall was a positive event enabling us to gather knowledge that may allow us to become like God. THAT is my understanding. Didn't Joseph Smith say: "Salvation cannot come without revelation. ... Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion?"

The sister missionary thought about the question and then replied: "We believe we have to be good to everyone, like Christ was, and we believe families are important and can be together forever." She did not lie but I found it sad when genuine interest meets with such complacent and basic PR statements!

It also struck me that the two pamphlets they were eager to give out to the public were not about the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith but a proclamation on the sanctity of marriage and families and another one about the divinity of Jesus Christ. PR machine all the way! In what do these statements separate the LDS Church from [other] Christian denominations?

The older sister missionary asked me a few questions after the tour as she saw how thrilled I was to be in the Tabernacle. I explained to her where I was on my spiritual path. She looked at me in the eye and said she hoped I was happy with my choice and she could feel a great and good spirit in me.

I visited a local bookstore, went back to my motel, ate some bread and cheese, did some laundry and got some ice cram from Iceberg, realizing that St. George had been my favorite place to visit so far. Then I packed up for my last destination on this trip: Salt Lake City.

I HEART ST. GEORGE

2009-07-17T11:08:00.010+01:00

I didn't take a vacation in a long time, so I decided to go to Arizona and Utah, in order to get some sun, catch up with friends and meet with Mormons of other "denominations".

I had a great time in Arizona, then stopped in Las Vegas and took a tour to Zion National Park. I was glad to leave Las Vegas after two nights. I dislike that place. I couldn't wait to get to St. George! There I found the most polite and delightsome people I have encountered on this trip so far! I just love everything there! I did feel at home. I felt like I was coming home, although I didn't know anyone there.

Maybe it's 'cause it's Utah. This is a Mormon city with its traditional wide grid-lock street system. Also, unlike Las Vegas, St. George has got plenty of things that I am interested in! Mormonism combined with heat and red rocks made me a happy boy!

It was so awesome to see Brigham Young's winter home. I was on my way to get some food, 'cause I was hungry but I got sidetracked because of the house and then the Tabernacle and the Temple and forgot I was hungry until many hours later.

I took many pictures of the house. Brigham Young became leader of the Mormons in Illinois after the martyr of the founder of the faith in 1844. He led the Saints outside the US and they founded what is now the state of Utah where they could live their religion in peace. I felt light and inspired there on the grounds of such a powerful historic/political/religious figure of the American West.

I lingered there as the sun was going down and shadows were stretching all around in a rich and warm golden light. It felt great to be there and I enjoyed the quiet moment. I walked down to the Tabernacle. The streets there were so clean. I walked past people that were good-looking and friendly. There was something positive and wholesome about their countenance and I think I knew what it was...

I enjoyed the Tabernacle and lingered there as the night was falling and decided to make my way to the Temple. I walked past nice old houses, peaceful houses in well-kept gardens.

As I got to the Temple as I saw patrons walking out. Mormons go to Church for Sunday worship and other activities but on weekdays then may go to the Temple to perform sacred ceremonies that they believe are essential for their eternal salvation. The Temple stood there in the night, all lit, like a beacon, all white and bright in the dark. I took so many pictures. I was enthralled like a poor kid in an expensive toy store. My jaws dropped and I think I even said "Wow" out loud a few times. I was amazed at the beauty of this spiritual place.

I later asked someone to take a picture of me in front of the Temple and we had a chat. She was from Arizona but was sealed in Salt Lake and lives up there now. Her cute little girl came to her and then her husband. They were all so wholesome, so good-looking and so friendly. They ought to be in a commercial. And I was thinking, I mean, I was doing some REAL thinking on my way back to my motel. It was so warm still...

I walked past Iceberg, a fast food restaurant. I remembered I hadn't eaten yet. I had forgotten I was hungry. Iceberg was nothing like those dirty fast-food restaurants. It was nice and clean and those nice blue-eyed girls were smiling at the counter. One of them said she loved my accent. So, now this was it: I loved this place for sure! I ate a nice chicken burger and a nice ice cream. Near me was a group of teenagers eating ice cream, having fun, with no swearing or anything.

I walked up to the hotel, showered and started watching TV after praying more intensely than the previous nights and feeling the Spirit of God. I then fell asleep in the most comfortable bed, feeling so safe and peaceful.

TRUTH IS MORMONISM

2009-02-21T11:50:00.030Z

"Truth is Mormonism" claimed Brigham Young. A bold statement. Anything that was true could be called Mormonism.

So, when we learn of other systems of beliefs that teach principles that seem true to us, we are entitled, according to Brigham Young, to call these "Mormon". And perhaps Brigham Young was right...

Whether it's the Hindu Upanishads and their teachings that the self is of the same eternal and self-existent nature as the Self -or the Divine- or whether it's Zarathustra, who founded a religion revealed to him by a celestial being and who taught dualism, opposition in all things, for humans must exercise free choice and need opposition in all things, or whether it's Philosophical Hermetica that teaches that God's son is Light/Adam and Life/Eve that descends into nature and descends [falls] so much that he becomes mortal but still is in the divine image, it all is present in Joseph Smith's teachings, in Classical Mormonism.

Joseph Smith taught that man's spirit was as eternal and as self-existent as God's in his King Follett Discourse. The Book of Mormon tells that opposition in all things is necessary and 19th Century Mormonism taught how Adam was a God who had been sent to this world with one of his wives to fall by partaking of the gross matter found on Earth, so their offspring would be mortal and taste the opposition in all things and learn and progress.

Philosophical Hermetica also teaches how God gave birth to a Man who looked like him ["very goodly to look on, bearing the likeness of his father"] when speaking of Man [Adam]. This is consistent with the teachings of Joseph Smith, teachings that are lost to the Christian world, and the Jewish world, since the weird doctrine of the Trinity and the idea that God is a spirit here, there and everywhere (despite some Kabbalistic teachings that don't shy away from God's "shape" as found in the Scriptures).

And then, of course, there is Gnosis. It has many forms, some close to Mormonism, so remote from it. Yet, as one study put it: "Gnosis consisted in the act of recalling to consciousness their divine origin" and that Man could become deified.

Smith taught the doctrine of the Pre-Existence, nowhere to be found in the Christian world that has lost so many plain truths, as well as the doctrine that God and man share a common nature, or that people need to learn to become Gods like all the Gods before them.

There are those who believe Smith was a prophet, the Prophet, and those who believe he was nothing more than a fraud. Of course, Joseph Smith was taught Kabbalah, Hermeticism and probably Gnosticism, so he may have incorporated those teachings to his new religion.

Whatever your take on Joseph Smith and Mormonism, it's amazing and wonderful that he was able to restore, and his movement is said to be a restoration movement, all those lost doctrines, all those movements from the East or from the past that had been lost, or gone underground, and brought them back to life for common people to enjoy and learn of.

Even to a modern reader, lucky enough to have access to all those ancient texts and to the studies made available on the internet or in our bookstores, Classical Mormonism still has this advantage that it uses images and a terminology that speak to a modern person, delivered for a modern audience.

That makes me happy for some reason. Maybe 'cause I'm a Mormon?

SMILING TO FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS

2009-02-20T12:04:00.009Z

Someone asked me the other day how I could be so fascinated with Fundamentalist Mormonism and be homosexual.

I would want to get to know Fundamentalists, that's true. I would expect their communities to be centered around families and never thought of them having single wards of some sort. I am not looking for other GLBT people in the Fundamentalist community. We all have a sexual orientation and that's something we all deal with one way or another. But the Fundamentalist teachings do fascinate me, although I disagree with some people's interpretations of it sometimes.

I remember when I was excommunicated from the LDS Church. They asked me what I thought the Plan of Salvation was, and I said that Adam was meant to be with Eve and procreate. They looked at me surprised. "But then?" Then, nothing. That's how it is meant to be, I just don't fit that mold is all. And it is still the case.

Do I believe being gay is wrong? No, I don't. I think there must be a reason for it and that reason is not for me to feel sorry for myself and hide away and be celibate till the afterlife. I really don't. So, of course that distances myself from both LDS and Fundamentalist groups.

I don't feel LDS at all anymore because to me they're like RLDS, a Christian denomination with Joseph Smith as a founder, but they are not Mormons. They claim to follow Joseph Smith but, like the RLDS, they only follow the early developments of his ministry. As for Brigham Young, the LDS pretend they follow him but they certainly don't! LDS are Christians. They are not Mormons!

Fundamentalists are Mormons though and I feel close to their cause.

The same question as the excommunication trial could be asked then: "But then?" And the same answer will be given: "Then, nothing". That's how it is meant to be, I just don't fit that mold is all. But I am fascinated with the doctrines, the teachings, the hymns and it has always been Classical Mormonism that caught my interest. I decided to join the LDS Church and never thought there was any other Mormon group out there.

So, yep, I would like to know Mormons who believe in 19th century Mormonism and not in the PR-machine-generated-Christianized doctrines of the LDS Church that just leave me so cold.

AFTER THE RAID

2009-01-02T21:55:00.008Z

FLDS » They say an April raid desecrated their temple, traumatized them and pushed them into poverty.

By Brooke Adams, The Salt Lake Tribune

Four days after Texas officials released a report defending its raid on a polygamous sect's ranch, the sect has fired back with its own statement calling the event an unjustified "fishing expedition" aimed at driving them out of state.

The seven-page statement says the raid on the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado left hundreds of children and adults traumatized, desecrated the sect's temple and reduced a self-sustaining community to poverty.

Now, the state has further damaged the community by releasing findings without giving the sect the right to respond in court and failing to offer an apology to more than a dozen families it determined had not abused or neglected their children, a sect spokesman said.

"These families have literally given everything in an attempt to save their children," said Willie Jessop, who issued the statement on behalf of the sect. "There has to be a reimbursement to an American family that has been proven to have done nothing wrong but was put through this trauma."

Jessop released the statement Saturday to media and also planned to deliver it to state officials, he said.

Patrick Crimmins, spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said the state's "investigation was very thorough. The report on the investigation is clear and we stand by it."

The YFZ Ranch is home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Authorities raided the ranch on April 3, five days after a domestic violence shelter received calls about an abused teenager. The calls are now believed to be a hoax tied to a woman in Colorado with a history of making false reports.

On Tuesday, Texas child welfare officials released a 21-page report that said its $12.5 million investigation at the ranch led to evidence that 12 girls were "spiritually" married between the ages of 12 and 15. Of those, seven have at least one child.

Child Protective Services removed 439 children from their families but was ordered by the Texas Supreme Court to return them to their parents after two months in state custody. Of those, 262 were considered neglected because their parents allowed contact with those engaged in or sanctioning underage marriages, the report said.

In 12 families, the state concluded there was no abuse or neglect; cases involving three families were closed because no investigation was needed. In another 39 families, CPS was not able to determine whether abuse or neglect occurred or to rule it out, according to the report.

The Texas report said 96 percent of those children are now considered safe and their lawsuits have been dismissed. Still pending are cases involving 15 children, including one 14-year-old girl who was returned to state custody in August. A Schleicher County grand jury has indicted 12 men on charges related to underage marriage and bigamy, and a criminal investigation is ongoing, according to the Texas Attorney General's Office.

Jessop said the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services was trying to be "prosecutor, judge and jury" in drawing conclusions in its report.

"We've never had our day in court to address what they're alleging," Jessop said of the report's findings on underage marriages.

Of the neglect allegation, the release said, "What hypocrisy in a state that leads the nation in teen pregnancies!"

The sect called the state's report an attempt to justify its "barbaric actions" and divert attention from the "irreparable damage inflicted on innocent children and the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars.

"Constitutional rights were trampled upon as though they didn't apply to the FLDS" and women and children were "treated as prisoners of war" at shelters, where they were fed food that made them sick. While there, some "innocent girls were brutally interrogated for hours.

"At Fort Concho, a young lady was locked in a room for hours and told that she never would see her family and friends again unless she admitted to things that she knew nothing of," it said. Jessop said about 70 percent of those who were living at the ranch have returned to their homes." But "irreplaceable" documents and artifacts of earlier church prophets and "priceless" family photos, genealogy records and journals that were seized have not been returned.

The community was unable to fully work its gardens and orchards, "a very critical situation for a people who, contrary to the common mis-perception, had not a single person on welfare."

The community owes just over $544,000 in property taxes, but its "resources have been wasted and their source of livelihood cut off," the release said.

It describes the raid as a "convenient tool for government officials seeking to implement their own vindictive agenda of driving the FLDS out of the state by holding as hostages the most prized possession of any family, their children." It includes statements from Texas Gov. Rick Perry, state Rep. Harvey Hilderbran and Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran about their hope that Texas would seem an "unappealing" home for the sect.

Jessop said the sect believes there should be a "reconstruction and accountability" to families whose children were unjustifiably removed from their homes and for unproven allegations.

"We strongly urge the people of Texas, and of this nation as a whole, to hold these officials accountable for their gross misrepresentations and abuse," the release said.

Here is the entire 7-page response from YFZ

LOVE AND MARRIAGE

2008-11-16T13:11:00.018Z

I am not pleased with Prop 8. Yet I understand that LDS folks are against same-sex marriage and I think I need to respect that. They stand for what they believe is right and I myself can be very vocal about things I disagree with. Why not accept that others may feel strongly about gay marriage then?

What I disagree with is having people lobbying so their religious views become the laws of the land. Or do I? I believe in Free Agency. I believe that forcing people to choose the "right", or what others think is right, is the plan of the Devil. I want legislation to reflect Free Agency. That is what Mormonism teaches me. So, like these people who voted for Prop 8, I wish my religious view became part of the laws of the land...

The LDS Mormon Church has distanced herself from that fundamental tenet and is now no better than Christian Churches... It is not the first time they do that. I wish their tax exemption was taken away from them. But let's not get carried away... The Utah Church has always influenced its members. Brigham Young did, the Bishops did. The Church was to be a Theocracy and even Joseph Smith received a revelation that he would become President of the USA. Yet it strikes me as very anti-Mormon to take away the Free Agency, call it Freedom, from anyone.

LDS Mormons have caused a lot of anger in California and the rest of the USA for putting lots of money to fight for Prop 8. And that is a mockery of their roots on many levels... Polygamy is what almost destroyed the Church in the past and may be why Joseph Smith, the common Mormon Prophet of all Mormon denominations and First Mormon, was killed.

Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman goes against Mormon doctrine, past and current. Those "faithful" LDS males can marry more than one wife in the Temples for time and eternity; their Scriptures contain revelations about Plural Marriage and their history was shaped by Polygamy.
So they are being very hypocrite but they are even more hypocrite when they say that "love" is not what a marriage should be built on but to breed.

Well, in that case, force all those newlyweds out of marriage until they are ready to procreate!

Hypocrisy apart, Mormonism stood for so-called "non-traditional marriage". Above all, it used to stand for Freedom and Free Agency.

Not anymore... And once again, I find myself closer to Fundamentalist Mormons who explained how disgusted they were by what the LDS Church did. Of course they said they were dead against homosexuality but in many forums they said homosexuality was not the issue and that if people "chose" to be gay, they had the right to be, because God wanted us to be free to choose and because Free Agency is an Eternal principle! Fundamentalist Mormons obviously have their own agenda in mind. But like gay people they are denied the right to be married. I wish Polygamy was legalized. But that's another topic. Just the fact that Polygamists get "married" anyway is inspiring...

Should I find a suitable partner, I would want to get married. I would want to have a "spiritual marriage", me, my partner, a ceremony officiator and maybe a few friends and family. And no law can prevent that! And to me, that's the only marriage that really matters!

I do not see a marriage performed by a minister in a Church, a Judge of Peace or the local City Council as being more valid in the eyes of God and in my eyes as the kind of "marriage" that I want.

Of course, having the same rights as legally married people would be something I would like to have too but the essence of marriage is not in there. I understand how difficult legal situations may become for some couples who are denied the right to marriage and I do no wish to diminish those difficulties. I have head so many stories that I would never wish to come across like I do not understand how important those rights may be.

However, being recognized by the state is not important to me.

In those times the words of "My Old Man" by Joni Mitchell come to my mind:

"We don't need no piece of paper
From the city hall
Keeping us tied and true"

TRUE ORDER OF PRAYER

2008-10-26T19:14:00.003Z

I read a bit about the "True Order of Prayer" and came upon a very interesting article that you can find here.

This article may not be authoritative in any kinds of way but I found it very inspiring. It gave me the following thoughts:

Tapping into the eternal force inside. What makes you whole, holy, united with God. Feeling the Spirit of God.

Traditional Christianity took this knowledge away from men and replaced it with control over them. This we know through the teachings of the Gnostics. Body, mind and spirit must be united to be with God, to become like him.

Unspoken prayers may express things and feelings words cannot express. Unspoken prayers may allow you to reach for that eternal side of you and your mind speak to the mind of God [inside you].

Songs and other works of art, including Scriptures, may have the same effect as making you feel in tune with God [inside you] as they use words/images you may not be able to come up with yourself but that you relate to nonetheless.

BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN

2008-10-25T11:42:00.008+01:00

This past week, Andrew Sullivan's political blog at "The Atlantic Monthly" took note of, like a friend wrote: "the LDS Church's unbelievable "in your face" activism in California to outlaw now legal same-sex marriages".

It is rather ironic indeed. And yet, so predictable and typical. The LDS Church wants to forget its past, and has forgotten it.

I was amazed the other day when a LDS tried to defend current LDS doctrines to me. I mentioned past doctrines and he told me that Brigham Young was a "fiery red-neck, a womanizer, maybe a murderer, that God's Prophets were not perfect and Young made many mistakes". He said I should not base my understanding of Mormonism on such journals as JofD as they were merely opinions.

I replied that if I said the same thing about Tom Monson, he would be very angry. He would say that Monson is the mouthpiece of God, a great Prophet, and that the "Ensign" magazine was to be revered as the word of God for our very day.

I said I could not be LDS because I cannot blindly follow these new doctrines, and that all too-Christian version of my faith. I was entitled to believe current leaders were in the wrong, because, if I followed his thought, LDS leaders a few decades from now may well claim that the "Ensign" was just rubbish opinions from very imperfect men.

This is kind of comic, I suppose, but that double standard really irritates me.

So, no wonder they want to define marriage between one man and one woman. Plural Marriage and the sacrifices the Saints made at the time is something of the past and so is the radically independent and individualistic spirit of Classical Mormonism.

Here's the article:

"Mormons vs Civil Rights

"People may be unaware that the top leadership of the LDS church has made banning gay couples from having any legal rights in California a supreme issue, part of a determined political campaign of unprecedented ferocity and organization. In California, this letter was sent to every congregation in California with direct instructions that it be read last June. Money quote:

"The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children... Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause. We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

"Mormon church leaders put out a broadcast across the country earlier this month insisting that Mormons contribute to and support Proposition 8.

The broadcast featured two Elders from the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

"BYU students from California listened in Provo stake centers on Wednesday, as LDS Church leaders led a broadcast regarding the church's support of Proposition 8...

"You don't expect the church to get behind things like this," said Chelsea Martinez, 20, a statistics major from Gonzales, Calif., who viewed the broadcast at a local stake center.

"Similar to other students attending the broadcast, Martinez's parents have participated in the church's effort by going door-to-door to identify voter preferences and are working to persuade undecided voters to help pass Proposition 8."

"The LDS Church, from its very top, is waging war on the civil rights of gay Americans and gay Californians. If you want to do something to resist the organization behind 77 percent of the funding of this Proposition, you can donate to the fight for civil equality here. I might add that if gay Californians actually cared about this as much as straight Mormons appear to, the race would not be close.

The Mormon Onslaught

"A Mormon reader writes:

"I just wanted to follow up on the post you made regarding Mormons not being united in the Church's stance on the Yes on 8 campaign. Personally, as a church-attending Mormon, the unbelievable, over-the-top support from the Church -at all levels- on this is a never-ending source of shame that digs up some of the worst skeletons in our collective closet -e.g., denying African-Americans full rights in the church until 1978, opposition to the ERA, etc.

"In my lifetime, it really is unprecedented. I have never had a similar letter one way or another read from the pulpit before or been told to donate my time and money to a political cause.

"The Church is normally very apolitical and prides itself on staying above the fray. Its stance here is particularly ironic given that the early Church actually had to flee the United States to Utah in order to escape persecution, much of which was directed at its own very odd marriage practices. Indeed, after Utah was admitted to the Union and Congress outlawed polygamy, some Church leaders had to move to Mexico to avoid prosecution. Ask Mitt Romney about his past since that is why some of his relatives are from Mexico. It is therefore deeply disturbing that they have chosen such a hurtful measure to "come out" on.

"The real effect is that people, like me, who oppose Prop. 8 are seen as apostate and against God's will. But I am comforted that with the Internet and the connectivity of modern communication – at least I am not alone in my feelings."

LOVE IS

2008-10-05T15:30:00.006+01:00

As found the following in a Discussion Group:

"Below is the link for a new political commercial being run in California to battle Proposition 8--which would turn the law back on same-sex marriage.

"The commercial is entitled "Love Poem," but as most of you here will immediately realize, what is being recited is not a love poem at all [at least not in the traditional sense.]

"Regardless of what one may think regarding same-sex marriage, the famous words recited in this commercial are worth contemplating. I admit I haven't thought of them in several years. Watching this commercial, and seeing people recite those words so naturally and casually....well, I was moved."

Click here to watch it on YouTube.

I find it a great rendition of great lines that I tend to overlook sometimes. I think I should personally have this commercial in the background when I study religious matters. It helps put everything back into perspective...

Visit: No On Prop 8

MEN ON A MISSION

2008-08-03T16:17:00.023+01:00

When I saw "The Dark Knight" I did not know that not only Aaron Eckhart was a Mormon who had studied at Brigham Young University, but he also had served his mission in France! And guess where in France? Yep, in my aera!

The film was OK. I was more interested in the person seating next to me...

I also read that the guy who created the shirtless missionaries calendar had been excommunicated. I thought he would...

AP, SALT LAKE CITY, July 13 - The creator of a calendar that featured shirtless Mormon missionaries was excommunicated Sunday after a disciplinary meeting with local church leaders in Las Vegas.

Chad Hardy said he bears no ill will toward the council of elders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I felt like I spoke my truth," the 31-year-old entertainment entrepreneur said. "Bottom-line, they still felt the calendar is inappropriate and not the image that the church wants to have." Men on a Mission, which has sold nearly 10,000 copies at $14.99 each, included pictures of 12 returned missionaries wearing black slacks, but not their trademark white shirts, in modest poses. The men also were photographed in traditional missionary garb and share their religious beliefs in biographical sketches. Some of the 12 models have also been called to disciplinary meetings, but none were punished.

"I have no ill feelings toward any of those people," Hardy said of the church council. "They did what they believed was right and I really do feel it was the best decision for both of us."

Frank E. Davie, the senior leader over a group of Mormon congregations in the Las Vegas area, confirmed the 12-member council's decision in a telephone call to The Associated Press. He declined further comment.

Hardy said the purpose of the 2008 calendar was not to tear down the church or its 13 million members.

"The project is about stepping outside the stereotypes and stepping outside of the image," Hardy said. "Not everybody fits the image and I let them know we're not trying to portray an image for the entire church."

An excommunicated person is removed from official church rolls, but are still welcome at church services. Excommunicated members are prohibited from receiving the sacrament and can't perform church callings such as teaching or preaching during meetings. They also cannot enter church temples.

EVERYTHING CHANGES

2008-08-02T16:10:00.002+01:00

The fact that the LDS Church used to teach that God once was a man, that Jesus was married to at least one woman and that Joseph was a descendant of Jesus and so on and now teaches something more Christian is acceptable. Religions evolve with their time, so do political parties, and so do I.

The problem is that the LDS Church claims to be infallible, the voice of the unchanging God.

So how do you tell members that "Ensign" magazine is to be considered Scripture, that the Brethren are never wrong and so they should not be questioned, but at the same time tell them that Brigham, or even Joseph Smith, taught wrong doctrines again and again?

Because they built their authority on the fact they are infallible, they have no choice but pretend past leaders were misquoted and speculating. Funny how modern-day leaders never speculate though...

I also heard in my ward, back in the late 90's, that we couldn't sing this hymn or talk about this doctrine because of investigators that were present that day.

Well, OK, but then you just water down everything... I understand you have to give milk before meat to a child, but a lifelong diet of milk sure won't be good... Someone said that to Hugh Nibley but I can't recall who...

I agree that you are either Mormon or Christian, but you can be LDS and Christian now. I guess it all comes down to your definition of Christian. I believe Classical Mormonism is certainly not Christian. I think I'll start calling the LDS, Christian Mormons.

If someone asked me if I was Christian I would say: "No, I'm Mormon". And if they further enquired: "So, you're LDS?" I'd reply: "No, I'm Mormon".

CHILDLIKE

2008-08-01T16:20:00.002+01:00

In the Bible, Jesus is reported to have said we should be like little children.

I think that innocence is not the purpose of mankind. Learning is. Making choices and face their consequences and learn for them. Eternal Progression. So being like little children is not to be innocent and "keep sweet".

Little children have no prejudice and approach other children regardless of their social or ethnic background. I see children who don't speak the same language come together and play together. Little children haven't set up barriers yet.

I don't want to be a child again but I want to have this ability to go to certain people or books or cultures etc that are strange to me but that can teach me somthing. Keeping an open mind and an open heart.

I want to be able to see the beauty that grown ups can't see. Like this kid I know who marveled at the seaguls pooping on the beach! Well, maybe not that, but you know what I mean! Being moved by a sunset or appreciative of a tree or a cloud, the beauty of the earth...

At last, and maybe that's too Christian for some, but I think of Trust. Children are trusting and I want to trust God and I want to trust myself like those kids who are not afraid to climb a tree. I want to be able to trust that great things wait for me in the future.

I remember saving a quote by Mike Richan: "You will always ask questions. You will always receive answers. As a result of those answers you will always ask more questions. It is an eternal process. How did we ever convince ourselves that it would be otherwise, that we should stop with certain answers?"

FLDS PHOTOGRAPHS

2008-07-26T16:39:00.001+01:00

From the "New York Times Magazine", a feature with photographs of FLDS women going about their daily lives. There is also a slide presentation of the photos

PIONEER DAY

2008-07-24T16:29:00.007+01:00

I celebrated Pioneer Day on my own by listening to some appropriate music and fixing something good to eat and drink. I also kept in mind what happened that day, the symbol of getting to what you want, to your promised land, after trials, and to finish, I watched some "Big Love".

I also sent an email to a Mormon friend that I love dearly and who's been having some troubled time, and I think I can share some parts with you:

"Like the Pioneers had to cross those cold and bitter plains, in the cruelest winters, pushing and pulling those darn handcarts. Some doubted, some lost, some died, some turned their backs to their God. Yet, many made it. Many who endured losses of the worst kinds and months and months on the plains, like the others, made it to the Salt Lake Valley. Those pioneers, despite the trials, had held on to their faith. And they had overcome. Their God had not forsaken them and they had not forsaken their God. And all was well. All was well for them.

"I think I like this image of the Pioneers arriving in what would become your native state, on that July 24. After our ordeals and trials, us too will get to the place where God wants us to be with more knowledge, a place that will be our Promised Land, whether it is a geographical place or a place in our mind or in our lives".

Then someone wrote on a Forum: ""When I think about all the pioneers, one thing I read that touched me really deeply, many people talk about enduring to the end and one author made the point that the people who died the first night out of Nauvoo endured to the end just as much as those who survived all the way to Salt Lake Valley. Tells me that my trials, and my lessons and all the things that move me towards Godhood are personal and no one else's test is exactly the same as mine. Of course that's why it's so dicey to judge others".

I realized that was true. Our individual trials, journeys, etc. are very personal, like the approach to faith. "True religion must acknowledge each individual."

REVELATIONS

2008-06-21T15:19:00.004+01:00

"Salvation cannot come without revelation" said Joseph Smith and: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none".

I was thinking about the theme of revelations. Christians ask God for help and inspiration. Yet, I don't think the Christian world claims to receive "revelations". They have a Bible and God can speak to them through the pages of a book put together almost 2000 years ago.

Like most Mormons, I have received some personal revelations. They are personal because they are about my personal path, not about other people's paths. They are personal because they are communicated to me one way or another. Yet I wonder about those revelations that do not come true. Is it the promptings of my own imagination or are they the product of wishful thinking? There are times when you know some inspiration comes from a higher source. So what when they do not come to pass?

I have had only one or two that have not come to pass and I was wondering if it was a problem of interpretation... Sometimes someone close to you says something. They are telling you something important but you are not receiving. Because of what you're going through or because of your emotional state, you hear something entirely different... So why would not it be the same with revelations that come from another plane?

As for the theme of a religion ruled by revelations instead of ancient Scriptures taken out of contexts, here's an interesting quote someone put on some Discussion group:

"I seem to be distinguishing between good and bad religion. Robert finds this absurd because the literal claims of all religions are more or less equally preposterous. I think I can save myself from absurdity with two related claims: first, religion isn't about belief and, secondly, religion is dynamic.

"Fundamentalism of any type is superstition, the opposite of religion. Dr Chappel, the Scientologists and the FLDS in Texas are offering false certainties - false because they are certainties - that exploit our unease. In each case belonging requires absolute submission to a system which cannot be allowed to change over time - unless, as in the case of the FLDS under Warren Jeffs, it is to become even more rigid. It is also important that they are all relatively recent. Conventional faiths are all much older and the passage of time has made them diversify, change and adapt.

"This process is no threat to religion, the idea of a revelation unfolding in time is entirely credible. Science is exactly that. The consolations of religion are nothing to do with certainties, they are to do with our wonder and gratitude that such stories can be told at all and that, mysteriously, they express something about our predicament that can be expressed in no other way. Belief in this context is largely meaningless and fundamentalism an outrage," - Bryan Appleyard, June 22, 2008, on www.andrewsullivan.com

THERE'S NO HELL

2008-06-18T15:48:00.003+01:00

I recently read a book by Germa Vermes called "The Resurrection"

He's a professor at Oxford University whose work is VERY accessible to all. Like someone told me, it seems that most respected scholars on Christianity are Jewish.

I was amazed as I was reading it how all these explanations he gave were just confirming everything I had always believed in: As in Classical Mormonism, there was no such thing as Hell in the ancient Jewish tradition, that existence on this Earth was to be enjoyed, that the dead went to the "Spirit World" [my words, not his] where they retained their identity, that the body was not something not to like, but a blessing.

My Mormon beliefs made me naturally comfortable with the author's explanations. And I thought of Joseph Smith, wondering if all these truths were things he had learned or if he had been inspired in all that he restored...

Joseph Smith and the School of the Prophets in Kirtland studied Judaism and Hebrew with a traveling rabbi who maybe taught them some Kabalah as well. For example, scholar Harold Bloom sees the Adam-God doctrine as being derived from Kabalistic teachings on the nature of Adam.

The fact that Mormonism has/had much more in common with Judaism than Christianity was a big part of my interest and subsequent conversion to Mormonism back in 1995.

FLDS TEXAS SNAPSHOTS

2008-05-08T22:39:00.024+01:00

- Fundamentalists being taken from the Ranch complied by singing. Doing this, the people were making a statement. Members of the sect were forewarned in 1953 that Arizona authorities planned to raid their community, then known as Short Creek, at the Utah/Arizona border and today known as Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona. The men had set up lookouts who ignited dynamite sticks to announce a long line of vehicles making its way to the community at 4 a.m. on July 26. The people gathered around a flag pole at the schoolhouse and they sang ''God Bless America'' as officers arrived. Same kind of raid this time again, in Texas.

- FLDS men did not react as the men of Waco. They cried and prayed but offered little resistance as police entered the temple, officials say...

- County sheriff confirms he has been working with a confidential informant for the past four years... which means it IS a witch-hunt and not an investigation to a rape claim...

- The age of consent was raised from 14 to 17 in 2005, with the FLDS in mind.

- Fort Concho, a 17 y-o man is married to a woman his own age. They have one child and she's due to give birth in August. In a brief phone call made to his family, the young man began to cry. He said he had seen his wife across the grassy field at the compound but hadn't been able to speak with her...

Now I'm not saying that there aren't any evil practices among at least SOME of the YFZ people, but their making an evil person of everyone and destroying their families while trying to destroy their religion is outrageous...

RECONSIDER ME

2008-05-06T09:11:00.008+01:00

I was shocked at what I saw and read, and I was shocked to see my friend untouched by what was going on... Insensitive to these poor children taken away from their mothers and the government violating their civil rights, most likely because my friends do not understand what happens in FLDS communivties and are fed with lies served by the media.

Yet the media and the public are now finally reconsidering their position!

An amended petition filed Wednesday asks the Texas Third Court of Appeals to return children taken from a polygamous sect's ranch to their mothers.

"What Did The FLDS Kids Do To Deserve This?" "Ben Stein Says Texas Authorities Are Acting Like The Gestapo By Taking Away The Children Of A Mormon Sect" "[CBS] Contributor Ben Stein has polygamy on his mind this morning … and children".

And here's an article published May 4, 2008 on www.washingtontimes.com:

"FLDS raid ripples"

"By Jacob Sullum - I'm not quite as old-fashioned as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -FLDS- [...] But I'm old-fashioned enough to believe the government needs a good reason to pull a crying, clinging child away from her mother and hand her over to the care of strangers.

"The possibility that the child might marry an older man 10, 12 or 14 years from now does not cut it. Citing that long-term, speculative danger to justify the certain, immediate damage it has done by forcibly separating hundreds of children from their parents, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has violated its duty to take such extreme measures only when there's no other way to prevent imminent harm.

"The department took custody of 463 minors who were living at the FLDS church's Yearning for Zion [YFZ] Ranch in Eldorado after an April 3 raid that was based on an abuse report police believe was a hoax. On Monday, state officials said the children, now living in group homes or shelters, include 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17, of whom 31 are pregnant or have
children.

"I don't know whether to believe that. Texas officials have proven unreliable even on such basic questions as the justification for the raid, which was a report of physical abuse from a 16-year-old YFZ resident who apparently does not exist, and the number of children seized, a figure that was revised yet again this week. Just a few days ago, the number of underage mothers was said to be 20. [...]

"Furthermore, the age of consent for sex in Texas is 17, while the minimum age for marriage, with parental approval, is 16 -raised in 2005 from 14 with the FLDS in mind. Hence a pregnant 16- or 17-year-old is not necessarily evidence that any laws have been broken.

"Even by the government's account, 463 children were forcibly removed from their homes because 7 percent of them may have been victims of sexual abuse. Although there's no evidence that boys or prepubescent girls were abused at YFZ, the minors in state custody include 213 boys and about 130 children under the age of 5.

What is the state's rationale for taking girls who were not pregnant or mothers along with those who were, for taking boys along with girls, and for taking infants, toddlers and preschoolers along with teenagers? In an affidavit, it asserts "a pervasive pattern and practice of indoctrinating and grooming minor female children to accept spiritual marriages to adult male members of the YFZ Ranch resulting in them being abused." As for the boys, "after they become adults, [they] are spiritually married to minor female children and engage in sexual relationships with them resulting in them becoming sexually [sic] perpetrators."

"In short, the whole FLDS culture is sick and corrupt, so anyone raised in that environment is ipso facto a victim of abuse. This collective guilt theory, accepted by Judge Barbara Walther at a chaotic and cursory mass hearing April 17, is the antithesis of the individualized risk assessment that is supposed to justify taking a child from his parents. Some YFZ residents say they do not approve of marriage before the legal age of consent, while others say they do not practice polygamy at all. Yet all were tarred with the same broad brush, based on a principle that church attorney Rod Parker aptly summed up this way: "If you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."

Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

FLDS VS. LDS

2008-05-05T08:55:00.003+01:00

Today, John Walsh, the LDS and Fundamentalist Mormon expert quoted in one of my stories today, put out a press release responding to misstatements in the press about the two groups. Here it is:

LDS AND FLDS VERY SIMILAR IN BELIEF AND PRACTICE

MISSOURI CITY, TEXAS | 05 May 2008 | Dr. John Walsh would like to correct errors in numerous media reports about divergences between the FLDS and the mainstream LDS Mormon Church.

Based on Dr. Walsh's research, the LDS and FLDS share about 95 percent common theology and 75 percent common practice. The major differences in practice arise from the FLDS refusal to evolve from 19th century Mormon origins.

Here are some examples of false statements found in the Media:

1. ''The FLDS are not Mormon.''

Correction: A Mormon is someone who believes that Joseph Smith was the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, and who also believes that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. The FLDS meet these criteria, and are therefore Mormons.

2. ''The FLDS were never part of the LDS Church.''

Correction: The founders of Mormon fundamentalism, from which the FLDS emerged, were members of the LDS Church who left the organization over differences in the limits of priesthood authority in the 1930s. In the early 1900s, the LDS Church developed a new policy insisting that the President of the Church had the divine authority to either command polygamy or restrict its practice. The FLDS insisted upon the older policy that stated whether to practice polygamy or not was a personal matter between an individual and God. It should be noted that the last two leaders of the FLDS, Rulon Jeffs and his son Warren, adopted a more authoritarian approach to priesthood authority than the ideology originally espoused by the FLDS.

3. ''The FLDS don't practice what the LDS practice.''

Correction: FLDS and LDS worship services are very similar in format. They use almost exactly the same ritual. FLDS and LDS worship services are closer to each other in almost all respects than either of them is to the practices of any other religion, denomination, or sect. The FLDS use the temple rituals from the 1800s, while the LDS have modernized them. The FLDS use religious garments approved by Joseph Smith, while the LDS have updated their garments to allow the wearing of modern clothing.

4. ''The LDS Church has renounced polygamy. Anyone who believes in polygamy is ex-communicated. The LDS believes in the family unit of one man, one woman and their children.''

Correction: Polygamy is still an essential doctrine in LDS theology and is still practiced in certain forms by members of the LDS Church. While the LDS Church does not presently allow members to have more than one living spouse, the Church does allow widowers to marry again for ''time and all eternity'' if they so desire. For example, two current apostles, Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks, have both married a second wife for eternity. Apostle Oaks has told LDS Church members that he expects to continue marriages with both women simultaneously in heaven, and thus, according to LDS theology, he plans to procreate children with both of his wives after the resurrection. Major LDS Church authorities and theologians, such as Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, have stated that the Church will restore the full practice of polygamy after the Second Coming of Christ, if not before.

5. ''The FLDS treat women as inferior to men, while the LDS treat women and men as equals.''

Correction: There is no significant difference in the place of women in the LDS Church versus the FLDS. This is because both groups define their gender positions on a common canon of scripture. With both the FLDS and LDS, the place of women depends entirely upon how each household interprets scriptural passages indicating that wives should be subordinate to their husbands. Individuals interpret differently what subordination means. With both groups, you can find women who feel they are equal to their husbands and also find women who feel they are treated as inferiors.

6. ''The LDS Church stopped practicing polygamy in 1890, after the federal government banned it.''

Correction: The LDS Church still secretly practiced polygamy for several decades after the 1890 proclamation. In the early part of the 20th century, there was continual disagreement among LDS leaders as to whether the Church should continue to secretly defy US federal law over what many Mormons considered to be an inviolable religious principle. It was not until 1911, with the excommunication of Apostle John W. Taylor, that Church authorities had a consensus amongst themselves to truly discontinue the practice of polygamy. Even then, the Church did not aggressively excommunicate polygamists until the 1930s, when they began to forcefully pursue a mainstream all-American image in the national consciousness.

SUGGESTION

2008-04-28T10:27:00.006+01:00

Families torn apart. Despaired mothers. And all might be because of an anti-Mormon Fundamentalist calling in and claiming to be living there and being physically abused...

Notice how the government has shut off communicating with the press? Notice how the press is kept at a 4-mile distance from the Ranch buildings where they can't televise any pictures? Notice how planes can't even get near the place to monitor what is going on? Could it be that the don't want another "Waco" to happen - i.e. people hearing step by step what is really happening, with video footage to prove who did what, when?

Notice how, if the men refuse to relinquish the Temple to them, that they can just shoot/burn it up, with the men inside, and claim that the men started it. And, that the men won't have much if any sympathy because they are just evil old pedophiles, and that it is a good thing that all of them died and received their just deserves? That they were just hiding their evil actions and they just "had" to go in there and look around for this unknown "little girl"?

The "witch hunters" cheer in their stupid zeal to prosecute their imagined "atrocities" against all Mormon Fundamentalists when only a few are guilty.

Now it's been released that over 500 women and children were forcibly removed, and every one of the 416 children has been placed in state custody because a judge ruled that every single one of them was in danger of imminent abuse.

I call this bull! This fiasco has just begun. And it makes me sick!

In many ways, this is like the "Perfect Storm". We have an isolated group who is both feared and loathed by the community in general. We have laws that require law enforcement and others to react to any suggestion of abuse of a minor. We have state laws that allow children to be forcibly removed from home and family at the suggestion of "abuse." We have a group that was led by Warren Jeffs, who has been painted as more crazy than David Koresh and Jim Jones put together. We have a number of groups that have so much hate for the practice of polygamy that they will do anything -legal or not- to cause problems for those practicing it. And, of course, child sexual abuse is the designer crime of the age.

THAT TEXAS FLDS MESS

2008-04-19T03:37:00.010+01:00

One rape claim from an invisible teenage girl in an FLDS [Fundamentalist Mormon Church] town and the authorities take 416 children from their homes. Now, that's disgusting!

If there was a rape claim, then it has to be investigated and if it occured it must be punished. But it makes me sick that the state of Texas decided to separate each child of the town from their families, claiming all the children must be abused too! Hold on! What's happening there?

So, the state legislature takes children from a home if a risk of abuse is feared. Fine, but families in the 1,700-acre Yearn for Zion [YFZ] Ranch are all independent from one another. The Ranch does not constitute a single home.

So, how come armed State troopers moved in last week after a teenage girl phoned a domestic violence centre to tell she had been abused and removed 416 children from their homes? How come more than a week after, the caller is still unidentidied?

Some believe the caller doesn't exist and that all these distraught mothers have lost their loving children because of a prank phone call!

So what is it? It's religious intolerance! No-one would close down Catholic Churches because of all the priests who abuse children. No-one arrests those hateful Christian preachers that Mr. Obama likes hearing. America is still intolerant of Mormons who practise plural marriage. Whether a man decides to marry a woman, another man or two women, what difference does that make to me and you?

The authorities had no right to take all the children -some at gunpoint!- from the town where all were schooled and living in peace with their families like all other children in the state, just because of one phone call! Nothing justifies the fact that Texas seeks custody of 416 children and that foster families are waiting!

These children already have good mothers who love them and provide for them. Cult expert said in court: "the adults and children at the YFZ ranch seemed emotionally healthy". These children miss their moms bad. Their mothers are worried sick and look and sound desperate on TV. These women cannot eat and sleep because their children, some only 6-months old, have been taken from them for no reason!

I don't think you have to believe in the Principle of plural marriage to be appalled. You don't have to be FLDS to be moved. It breaks my heart and it should anyone who's not cold-hearted. It is also so sad for these women to whom motherhood is everything in this world and in the next.

Sure the Baptists who had coaches taking the children away from their desperate mothers were thinking it was good for the kids. How horrible indeed to be loved by two or three moms instead of one! Is it so bad to have more people to love and be loved by?

Some would claim it is better to be raised by the right-wing Christian bitch down the road and never see your real mom ever again but I beg to differ!

Yes, underage marriages were performed in the Temple. But the age of consent and the age of marriage changes from one state to another. It is legal in Alabama to marry a 14 year-old. But in Texas it makes you a criminal. FLDS people follow the Laws they believe come from God. I guess they should have been more careful in order to avoid this debacle and wait until the girls were 16 to consume their marriages - or set up their ranch in Alabama instead.

Some still would argue that the laws of men are not good when a 14 year-old can get married. But is it really better for a 15 year-old to be married to a man who will make her a queen or being a junkie who binges and has STD at age 12 [This is what's happening in the UK if I believe the front page of a local newspaper]?

In the meantime, the children are accommodated in crowded dirty rooms by the state and many have developed chicken pox. Christian ministers have been proselytizing to the children and their mothers, trying to take advantage of their misery... How low! Their vile traditions won't tempt the devout FLDS members.

Shame on Texas! Shame on America! I pray that these children will be reunited to their loving homes and that this horrible episode will make people more tolerant of those who live in peace and practise their religion like their conscious dictates and the Constitution guarantees.

BODY AND SOUL

2008-03-09T14:58:00.014Z

I don't know what your view of the resurrection is. I do like the thought that existence, including our bodies, are "good" and are gifts. This is something that my Christian friends cannot grasp. This is what makes the Mormon theology so fascinating to me. This is what I believe in.

The Reform Mormon website and the Doctrine class explore this. LDS and Fundamentalists alike believe that God has a body and that a body is essential to progress towards godhood. Not only that, but, Classical Mormonism claimed that God [or the Gods] enjoy[s] having sex too!

And that is so liberating!

I went to that Nepalese restaurant recently, and they had paintings of their Gods having intercourse. And that captivated me. I thought about how many myths and religions have their Gods have passion and sex. Yet the Christian tradition stripped anyone holy from their sexuality. Instead it became an evil thing. And how sad is that? But I am digressing...

So, despite my beliefs in the necessity of having a body to hold our spirits and the fact that this world and this body are good, I never really think of the resurrection. Many religions see becoming like God as becoming all-spirit. But what are your views?

FORGOTTEN HYMNS

2008-03-09T14:32:00.003Z

A very good article from Messenger Magazine on how the doctrinal changes have been reflected on LDS hymns:

Forgotten Hymns, Forgotten Doctrines

Censoring the past? Editing history? Hiding truths?

To me, all of the above!

I remember when I was LDS, I disliked those "new" hymns. They were so void of spirit, mindlessly repetitive, lacking depth, and generally of much lower quality. I can't name any off the top of my head, but whenever we sang an awkward hymn and I felt like it was not very spiritual, I always glanced down and saw a copyright date sometime in the last 30 years or so.

Original and groundbreaking doctrines have been washed down or totally discarded. The LDS Church is so intent on being "plain vanilla Protestants"... So, now they have once more modified the Temple ceremonies, which were meant to be given by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Strange also that the LDS Church has advocated the amendment of the Constitution to redefine marriage, when Joseph Smith claimed the Constitution was inspired.

I once agreed to the statement that the LDS Church was not Mormon enough for me. I now feel like saying the LDS Church has become anti-Mormon! I think it's sad...

FOLLOW THE BRETHREN

2008-01-13T18:15:00.003Z

During the October 1984 LDS General Conference, Elder Poelman, then member of the Quorum of the Seventy, gave a talk about the differences between the Church and the Gospel. Many members present had been edified by this talk and many had thought it had been the best of the Conference.

Yet, when Elder Poelman's talk got published in "The Ensign", the LDS Church official magazine, it had be altered to such a point that it was no longer the same talk that had touched so many devout LDS members!

Those members who had seen and hear Elder Poelman's talk could count their blessings though: The Conference Videos, that were to be broadcast for members across the world, contained "the edited version"!

The leaders of the Church got Elder Poelman re-deliver his speech, in front of the cameras again, once the Tabernacle was empty. Elder Poelman just had to pretend it was the afternoon session and that there was an audience before him. For realism effects, some coughs from the "audience" were added to the recording session of the Church leaders' own version of Elder Poelman's talk.

The original talk was excellent! The edited version is a typical "Follow the Brethren" kinda talk. The original talk reflects how I viewed the Church even back when I was a so-called "faithful" LDS. The original talk shows that the Church is a tool, a medium, a school, in which people can learn how to get closer to God. The Church is not an end in itself. Eternal Laws are not the same as Church Laws.

“ The conformity we require should be according to God's standards. The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles and eternal law, including free agency and the diving uniqueness of the individual.”
—Elder Ronald Poelman

The LDS Presidency did not like the sound of that one bit! Church members were to follow their lead, not to be told about “free agency and the diving uniqueness of the individual.” Although that phrase rings SO Mormon, it gave members too much independence from the LDS ever-expanding authority.

Furthermore, this incident shows the control the LDS Church has over its members. You must walk the line. Like one contemporary LDS authority said: "When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done". It is so frustrating to see most LDS Mormons go through the motions, the platitudes of their Church, without questioning, without going after knowledge, without real spiritual growth. So many are just part of an organization called the LDS Church, like they are members of a country club.

“...We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; It is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God who seeks for the redemption of his fellows, would despise this idea... Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority, have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the Saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without any questions.

“When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience, as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves...”
—Joseph Smith, Jr., Millenial Star Vol. 14, pp 594-595

Beyond the denial of fundamental Mormon principles, it is the whole debate of censorship that this incident addresses.

Yet, I am pleased the taping of the original, in two parts, is available on YouTube:

Watch part 1 here.
Watch part 2 here.

You can also read a transcript of the original talk: "The Gospel & the Church" -original text of the rewritten 1984 Conference talk- and a chart of the alterations made to Elder Poelman's talk here.

THE PROHIBITION

2008-01-13T16:55:00.002Z

From my understanding, the Word of Wisdom was not made a commandment until Heber J. Grant, then President of the LDS Church reacted to the Utah vote to repeal prohibition. Prior to the change made by Heber J. Grant, the word of wisdom was considered strong counsel and all members were encouraged to follow its principles, but members would not be denied a calling or temple recommend based on them not living it. I even hear there are pictures out there of spittons located in the Salt Lake Temple right around 1900.

I think the Word of Wisdom gives the LDS a sense of belonging. I guess it sets the LDS apart from the Gentiles. I think it came to be reinforced at a time when such differences between Mormons and Gentiles were not as obvious as they used to be. I find that Assimilation is a process that LDS authorities have been seeking as much as trying to avoid - if that makes any sense.

I always understood that the Word of Wisdom was an counsel, and not a commandment. Yet, as a member of the LDS Church, in order to be a good member, I was happy to follow the rule. Avoiding tea, coffee, alcohol and drugs really wasn't that hard!

What was difficult for me, however, was to see Utah LDS people looking down on those drinking a glass of wine with their meal at the restaurant. Didn't LDS people believe the Scriptures in which Jesus said it was not what entered the body that defiled it? I had a hard time getting on with people who'd tell me anyone who smokes cigarettes would go to Hell.

I also found it sad to see ex-Mormons drinking all they could while chain-smoking, as if they still were under the spell of the Word of Wisdom and reacted against it by over-indulging.

Yet, even some LDS apologetics have taken the stance that Section 89 is not an Eternal Law. It is just for the temporal well-being of the Saints. See Hugh Nibley's -someone I never liked- commentary on the topic here.

Once I became an ex-LDS, I started drinking tea and alcohol again with moderation. It's funny how in the back of my mind I felt like I was doing something bad. Not something that made me feel guilty, but more like a kid who's experimentating with things the grown-ups forbid him to.

Today, I realize that there was nothing new in the Word of Wisdom. One of many LDS legends claims that Joseph Smith had this revelation when no-one else in the world would have advocated such a thing. That's a lie: Many religious organizations had issued the very same laws at the same time Joseph "received" that revelation.

I reject any claim that this will be determine someone's salvation or damnation. I believe Joseph Smith gave his followers a good rule that they should feel free to apply in their own life in order to keep progressing.

Funny how some Fundamentalist Mormons, once again, understand a Mormon principle better than their mainstream cousins: Some drink wine from time to time and start their day with a cup of coffee!

I follow the Word of Wisdom in the sense that I do not over-indulge with booze. I don't smoke, I am not interested in doing drugs.

I believe the Prophet was right when he gave that rule. I think it is right to have a clear mind and avoid substances that can rule or ruin our bodies and cause addictions. Yet, we should exercise our own judgement. I think "Moderation" is a healthy way to interpret the Word of Wisdom. This is the way Joseph Smith and Brigham Young interpreted it. Oh, and let's leave concepts of "salvation" or "damnation" out of it.

THE BIG PICTURE

2007-06-18T22:33:00.002+01:00

The LDS Church want the world to believe that they are the only Mormons. Well, a Mormon Fundamentalist put these links up on a forum. These are photo albums of his visiting what are "pilgrimage sites" for LDS and Fundamentalist Mormons, as well as the Headquarters of the RLDS Mormons -Now called the Community of Christ- and the Headquarters of other Mormons: Church of Christ at Temple Lot.

"Pictures From Nauvoo Trip"

"Pictures From Carthage Trip"

"Pictures of Independence, MO, Adam Ondi Ahman & Tower Hill"

I had never seen present-day pictures of Nauvoo. The Temple looks beautiful and many houses related the Joseph Smith, John Taylor and others, have been turned into museums by the LDS and the RLDS Church. You can also see several shots of the gravestones of the Prophet and his family.

SPECULATIONS

2007-06-17T16:57:00.002+01:00

I love what I call "speculating" about God's works. It's a good way to open our mind and be receptive to receiving more knowledge, whether we look for it and find it ourselves through our own abilities, or whether it is bestowed upon us from above.

One aspect I love about Classic Mormonism -19th and early 20th century Mormonism- is the way they speculated about God and were bold and unconventional, as when they claimed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha. This is just one example, and it doesn't mean I particularly care about this thought. But you know what I mean, right?

That's this trend of Classical Mormonism I find in Reform Mormonism - compared to LDS Mormonism that is so fundamentalist Christian and denies the power of the doctrines revealed unto the past Prophets of the Church. The so-called "Neo-Orthodoxy" of the LDS Church.

IS THE LDS CHURCH MORMON?

2007-06-05T18:26:00.002+01:00

Sunstone has published an excellent article by Harold Bloom on Joseph Smith. It rings very true to me, and echoes things that I mentioned (not as well, of course) in this blog for a long time now.

Here are some highlights from his article:

"As an outsider, I am puzzled by the current Salt Lake City hierarchy. If there is any spiritual continuity between Smith and Gordon B. Hinckley, I am unable to see it. No disrespect is intended by that observation, which may be only another consequence of perspectivism.

"As an outsider, I wonder if the Mormons are not in danger of becoming just another American mainline Protestant denomination. I gather (subject to correction) that Mormon converts now are likelier to emerge from Asia or Africa than from the United States, which is hardly a deprecatory remark.

"Fifteen years ago, I thought that conversion to Mormonism might make it the religion of the American West, but why should Americans embrace what presents itself in such all-too familiar garb?

"The prophet Joseph announced the divinity of the human: by now he is Enoch, whom the Hebrews called Metatron, the lesser Yahweh or Angel of the Divine Presence. What has the Adam/God identity, carried on by Brigham Young, to do with the contemporary Gospel out of Salt Lake City?

[...]

"I have a fair number of Mormon intellectual friends, and some of them surprise me by insisting that they are Christians. Perhaps, but with rather a distance, tends to be my silent response. I have never understood why the magnificent Sigmund Freud, who did not trust in the Covenant, though he belonged to the Vienna Chapter of B’nai B’rith (“The Sons of the Covenant”), nevertheless insisted that monotheism was an intellectual advance over polytheism. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor—three authentic American heroes, faults and all—were not even monotheists, but henotheists: they believed in a plurality of Gods, as presumably the prophet Hinckley does not".

TEMPLE MARRIAGE

2007-06-02T16:26:00.001+01:00

Words of wisdom from Robert Kirby.
Tribune columnist
Salt Lake Tribune

My nephew got married on Thursday. Even though he was raised LDS, it wasn't the traditional Mormon temple marriage. He married someone of another faith. So of course we boycotted the wedding. I'm kidding. We went. Family is important. Bride and groom looked happy together. But the fact that they're young also makes them relatively clueless. They'll need all the family support they can get to make it work.

Not everyone gets that support. Last week, while riding TRAX, I listened -no choice really- as two couples across the aisle discussed the future weddings of their daughters. The couples were active LDS Church members. A major clue was the voluble agreement that they would not pay for the weddings if said daughters didn't get married in the temple.

One couple said their daughter could just go to a justice of the peace during her lunch hour. The other said they might give their daughter bus fare to Vegas. Then they complimented each other on defending the faith. I was pleased as well. Among the unexpected benefits of riding TRAX are such occasional reminders that I'm not the stupidest person in the world.

It's been a while since I heard that "temple or nothing" wedding stuff. I thought it had gone the way of that dim-witted pronouncement of "better a dead daughter than a sexually violated one." But a few days later, a friend said her mother had refused to let her get married in her grandmother's wedding dress when she found out it wouldn't be a temple marriage.

Gambling is technically a sin, but I'd still be willing to bet that Heavenly Father thinks micromanaging your daughter like that is a bunch of crap. If he were similarly controlling, he wouldn't have let two idiots have a daughter. The fact that your daughter is getting married at all means she feels ready to start taking adult risks. Ideally, this is also the same time when parents should start thinking harder about shutting up. You make fewer mistakes that way.

This isn't about whether getting married in the temple is important. This is about believing coercion is an acceptable way of getting people there. If you don't believe me, call the temple and ask if you can bring a hostage next time.

You may think you're telling your daughter how important a temple wedding is, but what she's hearing is that she's not as important to you as your personal sense of propriety. And regardless of how the marriage turns out, years from now, when she's looking back on the most important moment of her life, what she'll remember most about you was your priggish disapproval.

THE "M" WORD

2007-05-30T22:02:00.003+01:00

The LDS church's intellectual property holding arm, Intellectual Reserve Inc., is currently appealing the U.S. Trademark Department's refusal to grant it a trademark on the term, "Mormon." The refusal was based on the sheer widespread use of the term, as well as the fact that it goes beyond just members of that specific denomination.

A few years ago, the LDS decided to dissuade its members from using the M-word, because they wanted to appear all-Christian. They even changed the Church logo and make the words "Jesus Christ" bigger than the other words.

Today is a different world: Mormon Fundamentalists, Reform Mormons and others sects or religions that have Joseph Smith in common with the LDS, use the term "Mormon". This is what the LDS Church doesn't like. Within Judaism and Christianity, there are different denominations, but the LDS Church wants to prevent other Mormon groups to call themselves Mormon! (While wishing Christians considered them Christians too)

That's some nerve!

"THE MORMONS" ON PBS

2007-05-28T15:08:00.001+01:00

There has been a high quality program about the Mormons on PBS.

You can watch the whole 240 minutes of fair and complete exploration of all things Mormon on their website, free of charge, in Windows Media & Quicktime formats.

Just click here.

TRUTH OR BOOKS

2007-05-10T11:15:00.002+01:00

I was checking Deseret Book online, the official LDS Church bookstore, and was disappointed - althouhg not surprised- to see that some good and honest books about the Church were not available anymore.

I am thinking of Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History", even though I didn't personally liked it, or the book "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith". Those two books were on the shelves in the ZCMI store in downtown Salt Lake City 10 years ago. I saw them there.

The one on Emma Smith is about the strong-minded [first] wife of Joseph Smith who refused to follow Brigham Young after the murder of her husband, the Prophet. She stayed behind, with others, in Nauvoo, while most Mormons went west. Emma later joined the RLDS Church led by her son, Joseph Smith III.

One reader explains on Amazon.com:

"I first read this book years ago, when you could still buy it in Mormon book stores and honest research was not yet suppressed. [...]

"The author was excommunicated precisely because she dared to print the truth. It is always a sad state of affairs when you see authors and researchers being treated in a manner that one would associate more with a totalitarian government [...]"

Find unbiased and serious books about Mormonism, with: Signature Books or even go to: Amazon.com.

Just avoid the propaganda literature of Deseret Book that one person thus defends: "[...] don't search out authors who are all excommunicated and have some kind of hate agenda going [...]. There are literally tons of books through Deseret that are uplifting to read and are truly inspirational. Those kinds of books improve our lives and happiness. We gain a feeling of self-worth through goals and trying to improve our lives. We feel better about ourselves [...]"

In other words: Go to Deseret Book to remain safe and in a blissful ignorance offered by your pre-packaged faith, where all the thinking has been done for you by your ever so controlling Church leaders. How pathetic!

I believe in the proper Mormon doctrines which stipulate that Knowledge is what saves a man and that gaining knowledge and search for the truth, no matter how disturbing it may be, is an act of faith and is for our own progression and ultimately for the glory of God.

The LDS Church is not Mormon enough for me!

EMBARRASSING...

2007-04-17T16:59:00.009+01:00

From everything I read I always get a confirmation that the LDS Church is more Evangelical Christian now than it is Mormon. Hinckley, the LDS President - and pseudo-Prophet - does not really believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet they pretend to he was.

Hinckley and those before him have suppressed, denied, edited and rewritten the Mormon past as well as Joseph Smith or Brigham Young's doctrines. The LDS even excommunicate members who dare reading and believing what Brigham Young, the second LDS Prophet and founder of Salt Lake City, preached! You must stick to the cleaned-up official manuals of the Church and nothing else!

That makes me more sad that it makes me mad. All these leaders care about is the LDS institution, money and power, and nothing else. Although I don't believe in everything they believe, I have to admit that Fundamentalist Mormons are the only ones who continue to believe and practise what Smith, Young, and other early LDS taught. It's ironic that LDS authorities deny Fundamentalists the right to call themselves Mormons!

Reform Mormonism is a liberal religion that claims that Smith was an inspired man who created a new religion.

Reform Mormonism upholds those doctrines of Smith and other early LDS Prophets according to whom the quest for God is a personal quest; that we are neither saved or damned but progressing to degrees of existence; that God never created our spirits, because they are eternal; and that God cannot change the nature of existence, only use it with his advanced knowledge.

While the LDS Church suppress her "embarrassing" doctrines to appear and become all-Christian, other Mormons have no desire to please the religious right. Other Mormon denominations don't shy away from such doctrines as: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." Au contraire, somemake this statement the core of their religion!

It's that faithful, and at the same time very personal, humanistic and progressive, approach to Mormonism that captivates me and makes other Mormon denominations so attractive to me.

THE SALAMANDER LETTER

2007-04-15T18:04:00.009+01:00

Someone on the Reform Mormon Forum mentioned the Martin Harris letter, known as a Salamander letter.

It's funny how no-one today, LDS or so-called "anti-Mormons" have forgotten about this affair...

I remember reading that the Tanners, mentioned in the previous post, were one the very few people who "had a feeling" that Hoffman was a fake.

Branded apostates, the Tanners still had the spirit of discernment the Presidency - and Prophets - of the LDS Church didn't have.

The Tanners' early claim that Hoffman's documents were frauds - while the LDS Church leaders accepted them at face value - when the documents, had they been authentic, would have supported their agenda, is a testimony to their honesty.

The whole affair is also a testimony that the LDS leaders do NOT have the spirit of Prophecy (or at last are not infallible at all).

For a full treatment of this affair, click here.

BOOKS ABOUT MORMONISM

2007-04-15T07:44:00.002+01:00

I was checking all these great books about Mormonism on the Signature online bookstore. I am going to purchase all the Essentials as soon as I can. Full-time education to become a teacher refrains me from buying them just now. Maybe when I am a head-teacher will I purchase the 26 volumes of "Journal of Discourses" and other expensive works! I know many of these books are available online - I have "Journal of Discourses" on the sidebar - but I like having books on my shelves instead of looking them up on the net - I am old-fashioned like that sometimes.

The best "digest" of obscure and "concealed" doctrines or writings of all kinds I have come across so far is "Mormonism, Shadow or Reality?" by the Tanners.

Even though they are/were sometimes biased in their aims and the selection of their quotes, for having their Evangelical Christian agenda that they're pushing, I think we owe them a lot for publishing genuine and hard-to-find 19th century Mormon documents for decades.

Utah Lighthouse Ministry really have done students of Mormon history a wonderful service for the past three decades or more.

MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

2007-03-04T11:45:00.005Z

I've heard The Killers playing at friends', on the radio or at home. I like the religious undertones and the fact that the lead singer is a handsome and honest Mormon.

He said in an interview: "I believe in God. It’s a big part of my life". The article relates that "Bling" is about "the victorious story of Flowers' dad overcoming alcoholism and Catholicism to become a Mormon when Brandon was five".

About the line, ‘I’ve got soul/But I’m not a soldier’, Flowers said, "It’s about how you’re not always going to be perfect... For me it was more of a religious thing. Going through this phase in my life of believing what I believe and being thrown to the dogs. To the rock’n'roll world. Because even when I slipped I still believed what I believe".

If only Mitt Romney, the Massachussets Republican governor, running for President was as honest! But then there would be no hope for him to win the elections!

Some think he will never be elected because of his religion. The LDS Church has such a good Public Relations department that the Church now tends to be seen as just another Protestant denomination.

This desire to become mainstream Christians is their right. Joseph Smith changed the direction of the Church to suit his own agenda, so why couldn't present leaders do the same? The problem I have with that is the dishonesty, the rewriting of the past, the faking to be all-Christian when they they actually want to appear, intead of become, maintream Christians.

Mitt Romney won't aknowledge that his Church didn't give the Priesthood to the Blacks until 1978 because the Church Presidents [Prophets] said the coloured people were the sons of Cain and that the black skin was a sign of a curse.

Pressed with the question of Polygamy, Romney said it was "bizarre", going against Mormon Scriptures and Presidents, who claim that Principle to be essential, although its official practise is now suspended, while forbidden by the laws of men.

Romney won't aknowledge either that Church Presidents used to speak against the US govdernment, claiming that there would come a day when Washington would surrender, and the Utah Saints would take charge of the apostate nation and turn it into the Kingdom of God, a theocracy.

Modern LDS Mormons believe the current President and Prophet speaks with God, so what the Prophet says is what's to be done, no questions asked. People are told who to vote for and a Mormon President of the USA would be told what to do as well and no doubt he would obey.

Damon Linker, a former professor at the Mormon-sponsored Brigham Young University and author of Theocons: Secular America Under Siege, said: “What would it mean to have a Mormon as president who would believe that in an office building in downtown Salt Lake City there is a man who is the living mouthpiece of God on earth who speaks with the authority of God?”

Separation of Church and State is a guarantee to freedom, including the freedom to worship.

Have a look at YouTube here.

THE BURNING QUESTION

2007-03-04T11:40:00.002Z

Evidence of why the burning of the bosom isn't created by one's own mind?

Good question.

For some, that is perhaps the only source of their feelings.

For some, it it perhaps a partial source of their feelings, coming from their minds and also from their own spirit.

For some, perhaps it comes from their own spirit.

For some, perhaps it comes from another spirit, even a holy spirit.

And, for some, perhaps it comes from THE Holy Spirit.

Some, with enough experience, can tell the difference, appreciates what they do receive, and recognizes the difference.

Yet, how does anyone prove it to another? It is something that one must experience for themselves, for one can't give it to another. One can describe it, but can't give it to another. Kind of like trying to describe to another what the smell the earth gives out on a late summer afternoon after the rain.

I would describe that presence or communique with the Holy Ghost as an "other worldly" experience, and that when one receives such knowledge, they know that something is more true than they know that they themselves exist.

EX-MORMONS

2007-03-04T11:38:00.002Z

I met with a group of ex-Mormons today for the first time. They were all very nice people and I enjoyed their company. However, I am not sure I felt any real link with them.

It astounished me that after leaving the LDS Church, they seemed to have forsaken spirituality and/or the Mormon tradition altogether. Most of them described themselves as Atheists and were not willing to speak about Mormonism, due to the fact that they knew each other already and had done it time and time again before.

I was thinking that these people, like me, had stopped believing in the LDS Church but, unlike me, hadn't stopped believing the Church's claim to be the "One true Church on the face of the Earth". Therefore, if God wasn't in the LDS Church, to them this meant there was no God at all.

I told them I was not an ex-Mormon, just an ex-LDS. I still hold dear to Mormonism and am happy to. I have LDS friends and understand this is the organization where they can grow spiritually. I think they understand that I need to find my own space to grow spiritually.

I try to explain to people that I am Mormon without being LDS. They just need to be told that there are many ways to be a Mormon.

WOMEN AND THE PRIESTHOOD

2007-02-11T11:04:00.003Z

Mark 16:17-18 states that believers can have the gift to heal. Not just the Apostles or Priesthood holders. In D&C 130, the Prophet states that both husband and wife enter into "this order of the priesthood", not just the man!

An article in Mormon Messenger addresses this point. Here's some extracts:

Joseph Smith "affirmed that the “signs” Jesus spoke of, including being able to “lay hands on the sick” applied “whether male or female.” Evidently some of the women had either been inspired by this passage or had been prompted by the Spirit and had begun giving such blessings of healing. This had led to what Joseph considered “foolish” criticisms against such women, as others had felt they were “not doing right.”

However the Prophet pointed out that “if the people had common sympathies they would rejoice that the sick could be healed,” and he told the Sisters that if some of them “should have faith to heal the sick,” then, “let all hold their tongues, and let everything roll on.”"

There was no need either to receive the Endowment to exercise the Priesthood. A woman's ability to use her spiritual gifs or Priesthood is NOT related to the Priesthood of her husband. Every woman in Mormondom should consider this.

As a conclusion to this post, I will quote Eliza R. Snow: “Were we the stupid, degraded, heartbroken beings that we have been represented, silence might better become us; but, as women of God, women who stand not as dictators, but as counselors to their husbands, and who, in the purest, noblest sense of refined womanhood, being truly their helpmates, we not only speak because we have the right, but justice and humanity demand that we should.” “Great Indignation Meeting,” Deseret News Weekly, 19 January 1870.

CHANGES

2007-02-11T10:39:00.003Z

I was reading a blog and there was a post about the many changes in the Book of Mormon.

It's clear that for LDS people, this shift of theology throughout Joe Smith's existence causes a problem. Today the LDS Church tries to be mainline Christian. You'll see they'll have a cross in their meeting halls within 10 years! Prez. Hinckley, supposedly a Prophet and Seer, said on TV he had no clue about the doctrine that God was once a man and that Man may become a god! Go figure!

The Book of Mormon theology is 19th century Frontier Protestantism, a reformation, then Rigdon came along with the idea of Restoration. Then Joseph Smith continued to shape his Church, with Polygamy, and the doctrine that God and men are of the same race.

It is rather sad that the LDS Church distances herself with her fantastic past and is embarassed by the late revelations and doctrines of her founder!

Other non-LDS Mormons like me see no problems in the changes. Fundies think that the current leaders are fallen and Reform Mormons believe Joseph Smith invented the Book of Mormon and that his ideas evolved over time, so contradictions are normal. We're here to progress, and progression means changes.

Some LDS Mormons accuse people like me to be turning away from the truth... Au contraire, I believe we are truth-seekers. We're just not scared to face the truth. These changes in the Book of Mormon were spotted by many people and those who want to deny the facts are those who are walking away from the truth.

See, I honour and LOVE Joseph Smith, although I am not afraid to say I believe he was the God-inspired author of the Book of Mormon and many revelations. He was a man of genius, a true reformer and my inspiration. Some say they love the Prophet, but it is a clean, Disney-like version of him they like. Yet, they are right: It is sad when people walk away from the Truth...

TO KOLOB AND BACK

2007-02-11T10:15:00.002Z

I have just read a quote from the Mormon hymn: "If You Could Hie to Kolob". I always loved that hymn. As a matter of fact, my favourite hymns have always been the early Mormon ones. I could never stand those new ones about having a nice home with nice parents and all that jazz...

Anyway, here's the lyrics to this hymn I love.

"If You Could Hie to Kolob", 284 - William W. Phelps.

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.
There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.
There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
There is no end to being; There is no death above.

Of course, as LDS Mormons never stop becoming more and more mainstream Christians, the idea of Kolob is rarely explored in Church. I remember our ward dissuading the director of music to pick this hymn up in case it would trouble investigators.

THE SACRAMENT

2007-01-18T19:19:00.002Z

I had the Reform Mormon Sacrament [at home] for the very first time. The Mormon definition of Sacrament is not the same as the Christian one. Mormons use that word when Christians use: "Eucharist" or "Communion". For an explanation of its meaning for LDS and RLDS Mormons, click here. For an explanation of the Reform Mormon Sacrament, click here.

Reform Mormons believe that you can partake of the Sacrament if you want to and anyone can bless and sanctify it, because all believers hold the Priesthood. I never did it before because my flatmate is normally around. I thought I would do this on my own, but he decided to participate.

I blessed the bread according to the Reform Mormon ritual and we both took of it. We then did the same with the wine.

He knows I am not trying to convert him or anything, but he enjoys hearing about my faith.

I think he can see the good effect it has over me and also that this religion I have found [or come back to] is healthy and balanced.

I think he felt what Christians and myself call "grace" after partaking the sacrament. I know I did...

PLATITUDES

2007-01-17T18:52:00.002Z

Last Sunday I attended my local LDS ward. A visit to the LDS ward is always both exciting (because it is the closest thing to my system of beliefs that I can get around here) and disappointing (because I usually don't feel edified at all).

I had decided to go there with an open mind, and forget about the all-authoritharian side of the Church. Like I have read in many Fundamentalist Mormons forums, I too believe the Church has gone out of order. I don't believe the President of the Church is the one true infallible Prophet on the face of the Earth. I believe that: "God would that we all be prophets."

I don't believe that salvation only comes through the Church. What really drives me mad at times is too see how the LDS leaders are more worried about marketing the Church and presenting an all-clean PR Christian family-oriented Church than showing the formidable doctrines, and at times shameful past, that made Mormonism, and the LDS Church, a peculiar religion, hardly Christian.

I am proud to be a Mormon, but I know all too well that I could never enjoy being LDS again:

Anywhere you go, whenever you go, LDS Mormons are doing the 'good' that they are taught to do. And you can sum it up to 'The 5 Platitudes', namely:

1. Read the Scriptures
2. Go to church
3. Bear you testimony
4. Say your Prayers
5. Go to the temple

Last Sunday, I almost laughed because just about every answer in the Sunday school lesson or the Sacrament meeting would be one of these platitudes. So I would think: "platitude number 1" or whatever one applied. That's also what every current LDS manual would say.

It's always made me sick to think no one could ever get any deeper in the doctrines of God than this. I would always be told off: "This is not important for your salvation". They never thought those type of questions could help my exaltation.

MORMON AGAIN?

2006-11-03T15:02:00.007Z

"[...] the great news is that it's OK to be Mormon again. Here is a Mormonism that will not hurt you, will not judge or reject you, has much to offer you, wants you to experience joy in your life, and, most importantly, wants you to progress and connect with God. And that God is within you".

I was reading this part of the introduction page to the Reform Mormonism website.

For some reason, I had a few conversations about religion this week with different people. I explained to them how I see the Scriptures, how I believe in pre-existence and the fact that we are to emulate God and grow up until we become similar to Him or Her.

The leitmotiv seemed the be: "progression and knowledge".

I realized how Reform Mormon I had become!

I realized how important the Mormon tradition was to me and how good it felt to be able to embrace it again with a sense of purpose and a sense of happiness and freedom. I am on a journey and Reform Mormonism is the place I am crossing now, not knowing where it will lead me.

I am not sure about holding the truth when talking to people, and I feel blessed for it! I am not interested in "converting" people to my views, for the simple reason that my beliefs are far from being static. I used to be convinced the LDS Church was the One True Church, so I don't know if I can ever be convinced of anything ever again. How I see God, the Bible and the afterworld never stops evolving because of the things I read, because of the thoughts I explore and because of the knowledge I gain.

The core ideas I believe in retain their shape and form and weight, but these core ideas keep on changing their colours and shades. I think people respect this and I think they appreciate my quest to get closer to God and to my own self. If someone asks me what I think they should do, I'd say: "Develop your own spirituality in your own terms, if you feel prompted to do so".

In the Reform Mormonism forum, there are some posts that I disagree with. But then again, I love the idea of this free exploration of different systems, religions and self.

After the paragraph quoted above, one can read something that really speaks to to my heart:

"Welcome home".

YOUTUBE

2006-11-02T11:29:00.005Z

Now, it's all YouTube's fault. A lot of stuff about "Mormonism"!

Some videos on there are just wrong. Their hard line Christian agenda paints an erroneous picture of Mormonism. The truth is more than distorted, it's nowhere to be found! Some videos are boring, others are downright stupid. And then, there are gems:

There is a cartoon that shows, in an anti-Mormon sensational manner, what LDS "deep" doctrine is all about. This video infuriates LDS members, but it's all true doctrine. It's just not how LDS would like it to be presented! Take a look at "What Mormon Theology is All About"

Also, a Samuel the Uthanite puts up videos that "expose" the little lies of the LDS Church. Have a look at his blog: Mormon Truth!!

There are lots of blogs out there that trash the LDS Church, but that man addresses issues in an intelligent way and with accurate information!

A CONVERSATION WITH THE FUNDAMENTALISTS

2006-10-04T20:48:00.002+01:00

Two Korean Born-Again Christians knocked on the door this morning. I was not interested at all and these girls need to improve their communication skills. Yet, I listened to what they wanted to share and express. All too often we ward off ideas and people who don't fit in the little world we create for ourselves.

The different aspects of Mormonism interest me and I am a member of some forums ranging from the most liberal to the most fundamentalist. I remain silent and overlook their posts. But after the arrest of one of their "Prophets", a Fundie wrote: "It's sickening that 'talking heads' say that polyg is perverted, and homo marriages is a 'lifestyle' choice that should be legal". I had to intervene.

I don't see plural or same-sex marriages are perverted. It struck me that those people who need to hide their marriages from the law would criticize other types of alternative families.

One Polygamist gave the definition of "perverted":

"Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1996, p.1009 perverted adj. 1. of an unnatural or abnormal nature: a perverted interest in death. 2. misguided; distorted; misinterpreted. 3. turned from what is considered right or true. [1660–70] —pervertedly, adv. —pervertedness, n.

He said: "I would agree with polygamy NOT being perverted as it is "Natural" a man and a women were put here to reproduce... In "Nature" we find many breeds of animals in which one male joins with several female... However... Where in "Nature" is it "Natural" in that males join together? Is this NOT un-natural and abnormal behavior? Is this NOT misguided and distorted?

He added: "If gay marriages are NOT perverted... then perhaps we could also include in this NON perversion list, a man marrying his favorite sheep?.... What's the difference? The sheep is not consenting? Because it lacks the ability to reason? By the same token would this not fit the two so-called consenting males?"

I clearly had opened Pandora's box! I knew the same old stupid arguments would come up again, but hey! So, I argued that some Christians think that such a practice (Polygamy) is of "an unnatural or abnormal nature", since those Christians say Adam only had one wife according to Genesis and was told that the two of them would be one flesh. They also deem that taking the Patriarch's or David and Solomon's example of many wives and concubines is a "misguided; distorted; misinterpreted" way to understand the sanctity of marriage, and that polygamists have obviously "turned from what is considered right or true". This is just where you stand...

Two consenting adults indeed have the ability to formulate their own choices and eventually receive the reward or punishment for their actions. Free agency is God-given. A sheep doesn't have this ability...

I had used their own definition to show them that other people, namely Christian people, could use the same rethoric against them. They did not quite understand. It was then obvious that all they could see was their own religion's stance, and nothing else:

"First of all, you need to go thru the temple - you'll learn a lot more about Adam and... [Me: Yeah, Those Mormons believe that Adam came to Earth with several of his wives!]

"2ndly, just using the Bible, you will find that homosexuality IS an ABOMINATION, and is worthy of death - you'll find this in the O.T and the N.T: [Me: The O.T laws do not apply anymore. Who in Christendom eats Kosher and sacrifices lambs or doves each day? Besides, the N.T does not advocate the death penalty for "homosexuality"]

"Lev. 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

"Lev. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

"Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (NOTE – this is condemning Lesbians) 32: ... Such things are worthy of death not only for for those who do the same, but those who have pleasure in them that do them. (It is EXTREMELY important here, to note that the way the text reads (esp in the Greek), not only those who commit Homosexuality, but those who CONDONE it "are worthy of death")"

[Me: The N.T extract above was mistranslated in his Bible. Mine reads that those people gave in to sex between men although they were straight men and that the old law of Moses dealt with it severely. Guilty of sin are those who encourage people to do the same. Not quite the same message!]

"3rdly, God did not think that Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon or dozens of others mentioned in the Bible were "misguided; distorted; misinterpreted". David did NOTHING wrong except the adultry with Bathseba and the killing of Uriah. In other words, all of David's wives, there was NOTHING "misguided; distorted; misinterpreted" about his wives. God spoke thru Nathan saying that if David had wanted more wives, He would have gave them to him.

"4thly, the WISEST man that ever lived (Solomon) had hundreds of wives - since he was so wise in doing so, should we not be?

"5thly, I KNOW it is a Biblical precept - 2 quick examples: 1) AFTER Moses talked to God 'face to face', THEN he became a polyganist. 2) AFTER Abraham talked to God 'face to face', THEN he became a polyganist. God told them one of the ways to the Celestial Kingdom was by living Plural Marriage - not a Monogamist marriage.

"AND you don't EVEN want me to tell you about the ages of when most of the females got married - think, Bat Mitzvah".

I then understood how on earth they could despise alternative families other than their own arrangement! Of course, I do not believe they are right! But I found interesting to finally understand them, what makes sense to them, instead of just condemning them.

I explained to them that I respected their views, although I did not share them. I did not want to battle with the Bible, how useless! Then the posts became less virulent and more sympathetic:

"Thank you for that respect... I too respect your view... I just find it difficult to understand how something not found in nature could be construed as NOT perverted... [Me: Well, it IS found in nature] "It is true that many view polygamy as perverted... But it does not make it so..."

Also:

"My main reason for responding was to help you. You had earlier said: "I don't believe that polygamy or gay marriages are perverted. I believe they are both lifestyles that are all too often not understood by a majority of people."

"I was trying to make a complete distinction between the two - one is Holy, and should be practiced by proper authority; and the other IS perverted, and an abomination -- and just the acceptance and/or condoning of such a perverted act IS very grave. In the coming Theocracy, accepting it would be grounds for death. And of course, accepting/condoning it will keep one out of the highest part of Heaven.

I understand that you somewhat accept Plural Marriage, but your acceptance of homosexuality threatens your eternal well being!"

They did not feel attacked anymore, and they were worried about my well-being in the... Theocracy to come.

Although I was in their good graces now, I still explained that a sheep or a little girl don't have their free agency, unlike two consenting adults. Here was the reply to that:

"Please explain how that just because the two males have their free agency makes their actions any less perverted? Let's say 50 men pile into one big orgy doing all kinds of un "Natural" acts... So is it the UN "Natural" acts which makes it a perversion or is it the 50 men piled in an orgy?

"A small child, and I would go as far as saying that the animal also has free agency it is just that they are so much easier to dominate do to the inability to use it at the same levl as an adult... and when dominated in my estimation, is a direct violation of it..."

How ridiculous! But I realized that most people take refuge in the gay debate by making over-sexing it, like with a gigantic orgy. Better have a man abusing an animal than a man in love with another man!

I wrote a final post: "I now understand where you come from. I just have this idea that if two consenting adults decide to get into a partnership to feel fulfilled in their love and committment, God would not consider it an abomination. This would not be just a sexual thing. The 50-men orgy would be just a perversion in the sense that there is no emotional or spiritual dimension in such an act. Now, I know that you believe such a marriage or union would be an insult to the plan of God, but I believe that some people cannot be part of the plan for a reason or another, and I don't think God will destroy them for that. That's just my opinion, and I thank you for the detailed replies you supplied me with".

Thought I would share this with you all...

MORMON PROPHET ARRESTED

2006-10-03T15:00:00.002+01:00

The Fundamentalist LDS Church leader will face trials after being arrested Monday night in a simple traffic stop. Jeffs' capture ends a nationwide manhunt for a man considered a prophet by his followers, a man who was added to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list.

The trooper thought the man in the passenger seat looked similar to the fugitive polygamist. Inside the car, authorities found 54,000 dollars in cash, a police scanner, more than a dozen cell phones, portable radios, laptop computers, a Book of Mormon and there were letters addressed to 'The Prophet,' The trooper called for back-up. A pair of FBI agents were summoned to the scene.

"You know who I am," Jeffs is reported to have said.
"Who are you?" an FBI agent asked.
"I'm Warren Jeffs."
"What did you say?"
"I'm Warren Jeffs."

Authorities said Jeffs was taken into custody without incident. The 50-year-old man was booked into the Clark County Jail in Las Vegas at 5:07 a.m. on a pair of out-of-state warrants issued in Utah and Arizona.

FBI agents said they have tried to question Jeffs, but he has refused to reveal his whereabouts and claimed he was being subject to "religious prosecutions."

Jeffs is believed to have been sheltered through a network of safe houses. He has been on the run since he was charged in Utah and Arizona with sex crimes accusing him of forcing teenage girls into polygamous marriages with older men.

Recently, the FLDS Church has begun expanding into Nevada, which may explain why Jeffs was in the area. FLDS-linked businesses have closed down in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz., and relocated to areas like Mesquite and Las Vegas.

People who live in the polygamous border towns of Hildale and Colorado City described the town as quiet. "People are out working in their yards, they may not even know. I think that any problems that arise are going to come out of the increased news coverage. I imagine there will be a literal swarm that will descend on the Hildale/Colorado City area. We just want to make sure order is maintained and that people's privacy are respected." the County Sheriff said.

The FLDS Church has a number of enclaves scattered across the country including Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota, Texas and British Columbia, Canada.

"We're excited that our victim is going to have an opportunity now to have her day in court," deputy County attorney said. He spoke to the girl who claims that as a teenager she was forced by Warren Jeffs into a polygamous marriage with an older man. It was that charge that led to the first-degree felony rape as an accomplice charges against Jeffs, which could get him five years to life, if convicted. Jaeger spoke to the young woman on Tuesday, informing her of Jeffs' arrest. and share your reactions.

Read the article about the arrest and share your reactions.

IN THE REEL WORLD

2006-09-21T19:02:00.001+01:00

Still in the The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters, there is a link I found about films with Mormon characters, from "Ocean's 11" and "Deep Impact", to more arty or churchy stuff.

I was not aware there were so many Mormons -mostly LDS Mormons- in the reel world. Interesting read...

THE COMIC BOOK

2006-09-21T18:55:00.008+01:00

A friend sent me a link thinking I'd be interested in The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Characters. It's a well-done site full of information. It's incredible all that is available on the net! If you are not into comics, just take a look at their essentials page here.

Death from the Sandman series, the only graphic novels or comic books that I read, but that I really love is in the LDS category.

There is a Dr. Deseret that got her name from that state that Utah would have been if the South had won the Civil War and they had remained out of the USA.

Just imagine if Utah had NOT become part of the USA.

Yeah, it's stupid, although Brigham hated the US government, but let's pretend...

- The Mormons there would live in a theocracy that would not call itself a democracy like now;

- They would have never given up polygamy and caused several schisms like the FLDS branch, since they only gave it up to become part of the US;

- Mr. Bush might not have become President, OK, this is far-stretched and probably completely inaccurate, but Utah was the state that most voted for Bush on the last elections. The LDS Church being so closely tied to the Republican Party, despite what they say and despite the fact that they are still shamelessly exempted from taxation!

NOT ANOTHER BIBLE-BLOG!

2006-09-20T06:07:00.001+01:00

2 months ago, I created a blog dedicated to the Bible, and in which I expose my beliefs and conceptions or opinions about the sacred texts.

I decided to be as neutral as possible on "Not another Bible-Blog!" Feel free to visit and leave comments. It's not preaching I'm doing on there, it's trying to provoke reflection and discussion.

From time to time, I will give the link to some of the Bible-blog posts and then will discuss the post from a Mormon perspective, which I sometimes agree with and sometimes don't.

ON REINCARNATION

2006-09-18T16:11:00.009+01:00

Reincarnation is much older than the "new age" movement is not just of hindu origin. Most Native Americans spiritualities believe in reincarnation. There are Jewish groups -Kabalah- that believe in forms of reincarnation.

In G. A. Gaskell's Dictionary Of All Scriptures And Myths the following observation about reincarnation is found:

"Nevertheless, to deny the fact of reincarnation is on the face of it absurd, because without it any theory of the gradual evolution of the immortal soul through time, past, present and future, is inexplicable. All the sacred books teach involution and evolution through vast periods, and never hint at special creations of souls, or other things, taking place. Yet such special creations must be assumed if the doctrine of evolution of souls [i.e., reincarnation] is denied.
---Dictionary Of All Scriptures And Myths, pp. 619-620.

George D. Smith, the editor of An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals Of William Clayton, comments upon an entry in William Clayton's journal, and says that resurrection will literally be fulfilled by our again being born... "by literal rebirth through a woman"
--Sunstone Dec. 1991, p.35

In The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, we find the following entry:

"It was finally moved and carried viva voce [by word of mouth], that the doctrine of the Resurrection be the subject to commence with, and the following Brethren expressed their views in regard to it viz. Charles Smith, Jesse Turpin, George Mayer, James Park, David Wilkin, Edward Stevenson, and Edward Bunker. The views of these Brethren seemed to vary
materially on the subject, and there was very little or no light manifested by any one. It appears that the great difference in the views, is in regard to what is commonly called the baby resurrection, which idea is, that instead of the bodies being raised out of the ground &c. we shall again be born of a woman, as we were when we came into this world. Brother James Park agreed very strongly in favor of this kind of doctrine. This was a matter of astonishment to me, as I had never before heard of such a doctrine to understand it".
---An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals Of William Clayton, pp.429-430

In the Diary of Orson F. Whitney we find considerable support to substantiate this new doctrine, although Wilford Woodruff publicly claimed it to be false:

"3 June 1889: This evening I heard that Pres. Woodruff, in a meeting at Manti, a few days ago, publicly declared that the doctrine of reincarnation, that is one spirit having several bodies, to be false; that he was Wilford Woodruff and no one else, &c &c. Alright, bro. Woodruff, if you really said it, it is between you and the Lord. I believe it to be a true doctrine, & have for the last [word cut out of entry] years.
---Diary of Orson F. Whitney, 3 June 1889 entry, Church Archives

Orson F. Whitney here declares his belief that "the doctrine of reincarnation" is "a true doctrine." Just five days later Orson F. Whitney entered the following comments about Lorenzo Snow in his diary:

"8 June 1889: During our talks he [Lorenzo Snow] told me that his sister, the late Eliza R. Snow Smith was a firm believer in the principle of reincarnation and that she claimed to have received it from Joseph the Prophet, her husband. He said he [Lorenzo Snow] saw nothing unreasonable in it, and could believe it, if it came to him from the Lord or His oracle.
---Diary of Orson F. Whitney, 8 June 1889 entry, Church Archives

So, it was from Joseph Smith that Eliza R. Snow became "a firm believer in the principle of reincarnation." If Joseph did teach Eliza R. Snow about this principle, then he certainly kept it a good secret.

Some people find evidences From the New Testament: Jesus and his disciples came across a man who had been blind from birth and the disciples asked, "who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" The question which illuminates this situation is this:
Why would Jesus' disciples believe that the man's blindness from birth could have been a result of his sin? Did they believe the man could have sinned before being born? To those who believe in Reincarnation, the answer is: Yes. Otherwise their question makes no sense at all.

"1. And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth.
"2. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"
---John 9:1-2

Jesus did not correct his disciples for erring in doctrine, but told them straight forward that this man was born blind to further the purposes of God:

"3. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him".
---John 9:3

Jesus then healed this man to show forth "the works of God." Was then reincarnation a familiar and accepted belief of Jesus and his disciples?

LIKE THE GNOSTICS

2006-08-26T22:50:00.004+01:00

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi discoveries have given the world a new picture of the Primitive Christian faith. Like we've seen in the previous post, Mormons have always believed that some texts had got lost and that important truths were written off the Bible.

The Book of Mormon is, according to most Mormon traditions, a collection of ancient sacred texts that the founder of the Mormon sect discovered and translated into English. The Book of Mormon is believed to have clarified points that are much too obscure in the Bible.

New discoveries often discredit LDS beliefs. This wasn't the case with the Gnostic Gospels or the Essenes texts. Strangely enough, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts echo Mormon doctrines! Here are some examples:

- Mormons believe in our Heavenly Mother, who was known by the ancient semitics and then the "heretical" Gnostics;

- No other religion sees the "Fall" as a positive event: Mormons believe that Adam and Eve had to fall so humans could experience life, knowledge and have joy. 2 Nephi 2:25 in The Book of Mormon reads: "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy". The Nag Hammadi texts tell about Sophia, the goddess coming down to Eden to become Eve and save Adam from his ignorance. Note: That is an interesting topic and I will explore the theme of the Fall and of the Sacred Feminine in a future post!

- Gnostics believed in the Pre-existence, a doctrine ever so central to Mormonism that claims that we were spirits in the realm of God, had to come down to Earth in order to learn and progress, with the objective to become similar to God in all kinds of ways. This is what the Nag Hammadi texts mention too!

- LDS Mormons believe that the highest ordinance is to be married in the Temple "for time and the eternities". The Gnostics had "sacred marriages" that made them whole in the afterworld.

- Mormons stress the importance of Knowledge. Reform Mormons claim that Knowledge is what "saves" us. So did the Gnostics, whose name comes from the word "Knowledge".

In regards to all these similitudes, there's been some attempts to align the Gnostic texts found at Nag Hammadi with Mormonism. I have a book, that is not published anymore, called: "Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library". That essay tries to prove that Mormonism is true, since the lost Gospels are similar to the Mormon faith.

Such attempts are a far-stretched. But after all, this is so Mormon to do that: Brigham Young, second Mormon Prophet, said that all truths were Mormonism...

... AND FOUND

2006-08-25T23:38:00.001+01:00

The positive side-effect that I find with the Articles of Faith 8 and 9 of the LDS Church and the Mormon Scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, is that Mormons are open to new revelations and to ancient books being found. The canon is not closed!

For Mormons, the Bible is not the ultimate infallible word of God. This is not saying that the Bible is not the word of God: It sure is, as much as we can understand the meaning of the words used for a certain people, at a certain place at a certain time, to rephrase Article 8.

We need to use our minds and personal revelation, not a blind faith, to understand the Bible and see what in it applies to us.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi discoveries have given a new picture of the faces of early Christianity. Mormons have always known that some texts had got lost.

I don't believe everything the Gnostic Gospels say. I think many of them are not Scripture, in the usual Christian sense. However, I believe some of them to be inspired, as the Book of Mormon is inspired, and that all these texts may help me lift the veil and contemplate the nature of God.

Reform Mormons don't believe any Scripture is a revelation of God. However, they believe that the Scriptures, pieces of art, Science, when making us glimpse at the Truth, is scripture indeed. In that respect, Reform Mormons are so close to what Brigham Young, second Mormon Prophet said: All truths are Mormonism.

In the light of the Gnostic Gospels that are now becoming subject to novels, films and dozens of books, I like the idea of those ancient books out there that re-appear. These writings make us question our faith, make us progress and redefine our beliefs, while bringing us knowledge.

Joseph Smith was a Prophet. OK, I don't believe he was an actual Prophet: I believe he made up his visions, imagined the Book of Mormon and all his revelations. But his imagination was, to me, God-given.

Joe Smith really was an inspired reformer, more inspired and free in his theology than any other before him. This freedom made him tap into the Divine, and I believe he really got to understand the nature of God. For this, despite all his faults and gross errors, he deserves to be called a prophet.

LOST...

2006-08-24T23:33:00.001+01:00

The Catholic Church make big efforts to hide the fact that they persecuted and annihilited their opponents, hid sacred texts and coined a brand new religion using the person of Jesus, the Jewish texts, a big amount of Paganism and some letters from Apostles who had never met Jesus.

All these new books about the Magdalene, the Gnostics Gospels and the mis-conceptions of the Christian faith have been piling up in bookstores shock some Christians. However, Mormons were taught that some sacred books got lost and Rome modified the Bible to suit her agenda.

The Articles of Faith of the LDS Church are not as direct, but read:

"8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

"9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".

Today, we know, thanks to discoveries of ancient texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Catholic Church did not modify the ancient Scriptures found in our Bibles!

Ironically, Mormon leaders have modified the Book of Mormon several times in order to improve the "most correct book" of the word of God!

I'm sure the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith wanted to justify his future "revelations" and "translations" of lost ancient books that "fell" and would later fall into his hands, like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

I believe that Smith was the author of these books, but LDS Mormons believe them to be ancient Scriptures unearthed and translated by the Prophet.

I believe there are lost books that have been found and some books that are still to be found or revealed. Ultimately, these ancient or new texts help us re-shape and challenge our conceptions of God.

MRS. JESUS

2006-08-23T00:26:00.003+01:00

The Da Vinci Code, boring trash that it is, has the merit to have brought to the attention of the general public the subject of the lost scriptures and the sacred feminine - in the person of the Magdalene.

I have believed the Magdalene was the secret bride of Jesus long before Mr. Brown made the idea hip.

It was obvious to me when reading the Gospels of the Bible that she was a central agent; if not an Apostle, she still had the disctinction to be the first person to witness, then preach, the resurrection of her Savior.

"Don't cling to me" said Jesus, as she tried to embrace the resurrected being.

It was not proper for her to cling to him then. Her closeness to Jesus is manifested in the Gospels of the Bible, and even more in the Gospels that did not make it to the Bible for a reason or another. See the Gospel of Peter, Philip and Thomas.

This is not preached and this is not a doctrine, but when I was an LDS Mormon, I often heard that Mary Magdalene was the bride of Jesus! This is mentioned in Mormonism for Dummies, authored by the great-great-great-grandson of a Mormon Apostle who had more than 40 wives.

The Mormons, always so eager to promote marriage and families, made Jesus a married man, as the Savior showed us the way regarding all things. It was even claimed that he had several wives, back when Polygamy was an essential LDS doctrine.

I am not certain the Magdalene was Jesus' bride, but I think this is possible. As for her being with child and fleeing to the south of France, where she would have taken upon herself a ministry, it might be possible, but it might also be a fable. To me, her fate sometimes make me sad, but is not central.

What is central is that she was an equal to the other disciples. What is central is that despite the fact that the Catholic Church tried to make her a good-for-nothing and condemned women as a whole, with the effects that we know, there is a notion of the Sacred Feminine that has survived and has come to us after almost two millenia. This is something I will develop some other time...