Nikolas Rex's Blog, page 2

Unraveling the Tape

In 2017 Joseph L. Bishop, former President of the Missionary Training Center (MTC) in Provo, Utah, met with a woman who claims he attempted to rape her while she was a missionary in the MTC in 1984. The meeting was recorded and the audio begins with the accuser interviewing Mr. Bishop for what he thinks is an interview about leaders in the church. At [40:30] the accuser transitions the conversation to her discussing what she claims he did to her in the MTC. A long conversation ensues in which the accuser not only discusses what she claims happened to her, but also prods Mr. Bishop into discussing his interactions with other women. While Mr. Bishop never affirmatively acknowledges any specific actions, he admits that he has molested at least one woman and has been inappropriate with many other women. At one point he claims if the full extent of his sins were to be revealed he would be excommunicated and the Mormon Church would be embarrassed.

Joseph Bishop doesn’t explicitly admit to rape, but here is a long sample of what he does admit to (transcript excerpts, including author commentary)

Page 26

Victim: But you also kind of groomed me, a little bit, and you took me down into the basement, it wasn’t really a basement, but it was downstairs, a little storage room.

Joseph Bishop: Mm-hmm.

Victim: I’m not angry with you, because I think …

Joseph Bishop: You ought to be …

[commentary]: he has said he doesn’t remember her but when she mentions he took her down to the downstairs storage room, he knows that she ought to be angry at him for something and lets that slip out

Victim: Well maybe, but I’m not. I’m over a lot of things that have happened to me. But you hurt me. And I need an apology.

Joseph Bishop: Well I apologize, from the depths of my heart, I can’t remember what it was but I’m …

[commentary]: right after telling her that she ought to be angry with him, he says he can’t remember why he needs to apologize but that he is sorry. Seems fishy

Victim: You were never disfellowshipped, had a counsel?

[commentary]: victim is confused. The church publicly claims that they have no tolerance for sexual abusers so the victim assumes that if his actions were known, he would have had church discipline.

Joseph Bishop: I felt I’d repented. I’d confessed.

[commentary]: If he did not know what she was talking about, still claiming to not remember details, what is he telling her he’d repented of or confessed for?

Victim: Oh.

Joseph Bishop: That time.

[commentary]: What? It seems he is saying that he confessed to what he did to the victim but that he had other instances that he hadn’t confessed.

Victim: You confessed about me?

Joseph Bishop: I don’t know about… I confessed all of my sins to Elder Wells when I was in the mission. But anyway, let me apologize.

[commentary]: Not willing to say that he’d confessed to what happened with this particular victim, but acknowledging that he confessed sins of this sort to the area president, Robert E. Wells. The timeline doesn’t work out for him to have confessed to what happened at the MTC because he worked there after his confession to Elder Wells while he was mission president in Argentina, which the victim points out on page 71.

Page 30

Joseph Bishop: But I have this thing about, I have this sexual addiction, what can I say?

Victim: But, did you get treatment?

Joseph Bishop: No.

Victim: So what did you, how …

Joseph Bishop: I kept fighting, and I kept trying to pray and this and that and everything else to get over it. I’m now, I now feel healed in the sense that I am not tempted … Did you notice what I did when you came in?

Victim: Shook my hand?

Joseph Bishop: No, I opened those so … [presumably motions to blinds]

Victim: Oh, I yeah no, I didn’t notice that they look fine.

Joseph Bishop: Well I, just so you know, I don’t put myself in …

Victim: In a position to … [victim pauses and changes the subject]

[commentary]: Joe has learned over time that if he doesn’t do things such as open the curtains when he is alone with a woman that he has a tendency to do things he regrets. It seems unlikely that he learned this only through his one interaction with this one victim.

Page 31-32

Victim: Yes, and she was, you liked it when she pulled it down over her breasts and exposed her breasts at dinner.

Joseph Bishop: Yes.

Victim: Okay. But, okay, so, your addiction was the problem. I understand that. I understand that more than you know, only because I worked in substance abuse, addiction.

Joseph Bishop: From the other side of it was, was not …

Victim: You know what, we don’t need to talk about [wife]. The fact that I was a missionary, and you were my mission president and you were sharing that was the problem.

Joseph Bishop: That’s true.

Victim: Yeah. So, but you had that storage room. Why did you take me down there? And why would you do what you tried to do?

Joseph Bishop: I think at that time I was still very much addicted.

[commentary]: Notice here he doesn’t act like he can’t remember what happened or seem confused about what she was referring to. He gives a reason to her for why he did what he did.

Victim: You were really struggling?

Joseph Bishop: Oh my. I have struggled. I have struggled my whole life on this very issue.

Victim: With no counseling, no way of making a change of behavior?

Joseph Bishop: How could you, how could even … I used to say to myself all the time, I’m a hypocrite.

Victim: You were.

Joseph Bishop: Yeah, of course.

Victim: Yeah, damn right you were.

Joseph Bishop: Okay now what can a hypocrite do.

Victim: Oh, yeah. So you tried to change your behavior …

Joseph Bishop: Tried to solve it myself. I’m not going to do this anymore, I’m not going to do this anymore, I’m not going to think about this, I’m not going to, you know …

[commentary]: Joe’s son is claiming that his father’s “sexual addiction” was impure thoughts. Joe mentions thoughts here, but he also says “I’m not going to DO this anymore”. He admits to actions and it doesn’t sound like he feels like it was one isolated bad action, but something that he repeated many times.

Page 33

Victim: So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?

Joseph Bishop: Yes.

Victim: You talked about what you did with me and other women?

Joseph Bishop: Yes.

[commentary]: as stated previously, he can’t have confessed to Robert Wells about his actions in the MTC if that confession took place while he was mission president in Argentina, as he claims.

Victim: How many other women are there?

Joseph Bishop: It’s not that there’s so many other women, it’s just the two that were there, I remember one when I was in the Bishopric.

[commentary]: Joe admits to sexual acts with at least three women, yet the church statement says they have nothing to go off of to discipline him. He doesn’t specifically admit to sexual abuse yet, just to things he did with women that he felt he needed to repent of.

Page 34

Victim: Do you remember the other girl with me? The other one you were grooming? Her name was [first name]

Joseph Bishop: [first and last name]

Victim: Yes, that’s her last name.

Joseph Bishop: l remember

Victim: Did you molest her?

Joseph Bishop: Yes.

[commentary]: Joe shows his memory of that time period is good by remembering the last name of the second victim and he admits to sexual abuse. The church still doesn’t have enough to go off of to have a basis for discipline.

Page 35

Joseph Bishop: Anyway I was stressed unwittingly and unwantingly into a work with …

Victim: Women like me?

Joseph Bishop: Women who had been harmed.

Victim: Traumatized.

Joseph Bishop: Traumatized. And I was not strong. The last person who should have been in that situation was me. I shouldn’t have been in that position.

[commentary]: Joe was given that job as MTC president after confessing to Robert Wells to past sexual acts.

Page 36

Victim: Well when did you molest her?

Joseph Bishop: When she was living with us.

Page 37

Victim: You were never called into a church council, church court, even after you confessed to Elder Wells, there was never a fellowship, nothing?

Joseph Bishop: No I hadn’t confessed all those things before Elder Wells, but wanted to redo it. I struggled to make sure that everything was taken care of.

[commentary]: Again, his confession to Wells was of past deeds prior to his sexual abuse of at least two women while he worked as MTC president.

Page 39

Victim: You just … I don’t know how many women there are, but if this story went public, you would be the Harvey Weinstein or whatever the hell his name is of the Mormon church. True?

Joseph Bishop: I would be.

Victim: Yes you would be.

Joseph Bishop: I would be.

Victim: How many women have you apologized to? At least obviously [other MTC victim]. Is she still alive?

Joseph Bishop: I haven’t… she contacted… she did what you did, appropriately so. She made an attempt to find out. I did [inaudible – presumably “apologize to”] her. Anyway. I had a conversation with an authority called me –

Victim: Who?

Joseph Bishop: Somebody in the church, I don’t remember their name.

Victim: Okay. It was a long time ago.

Joseph Bishop: Yeah. Years and years ago. And she had made the same thing you had done. I confessed. She had her problems, too. Poor [other MTC victim]. But. Mine was the big problem.

[commentary]: The church contacted him “years and years ago” about his other victim when she apparently also went to the church authorities to find out what they had done about this abuser. He says he was contacted by the church and confessed at that time. The recent official statement from the church claims to not have known about any abuse or had any indication that it was true.

Page 41

Victim: If this goes public, how many women are going to come and say oh my god, me too? How many?

Joseph Bishop: Point well taken.

Victim: Okay, I know this point is well taken. I want to know how many. I want to know that I am not the only one,. I want to know that I am not the only one.

Joseph Bishop: You are not the only one.

[commentary]: Joe knows what the victim is accusing him of, and though he has maintained that his memory of what happened is different than what she says happened, he acknowledges that it was abusive and he acknowledges that there are other victims. Still not enough “evidence” for the church to consider discipline.

Page 46

Victim: No. Hell no. There is no excuse. In a criminal sense, for you, would … no.

Joseph Bishop: I would be excommunicated and the church would …

Victim: What? The church would be what?

Joseph Bishop: The church would be embarrassed

[commentary]: Joe has been in church leadership for many years of his life. He knows what acts will get someone excommunicated. He hasn’t specifically spelled out any of those acts in the interview so far, but here he admits that if he confesses to what he has really done he would be excommunicated and the church would be embarrassed. He is not talking about having dirty thoughts, as his son suggests.

Page 47

Victim: I do. I want compensation. I want somebody to say, oh my god, all these years we thought you were nuts, but you weren’t.

Joseph Bishop: You weren’t.

Victim: No I wasn’t.

Joseph Bishop: Well. Here I am, recording it.

[commentary]: Did he know he was being recorded? Sounds like it.

Victim: Well okay. I hope you have a good criminal attorney. Cause you’re gonna need one.

Joseph Bishop: I’m sorry to hear that.

Victim: Well, I have no other choice.

Joseph Bishop: Well you do, but I understand.

[commentary]: He acknowledges that what she has been telling everyone for years about what happened is true (that he sexually abused her, tried to rape her) and that she isn’t crazy. He even goes as far as to say he understands why she feels she might need to press criminal charges. If his only recollection of the night (as is being reported through the police) is that he requested her to show him her breasts and she complied, why would he say he understands that she wants to press charges or that he would be excommunicated?

Page 48

Joseph Bishop: My big concern is the pain that’s going to take place. With all of my family, who love me. I have five sons who would be devastated. Their wives will be devastated. My grandchildren will be devastated. My great-grandchildren.

[commentary]: Is he really saying that his whole legacy will be ruined because he asked one lady to show him her breasts and she complied? However inappropriate that request would be, his admission here shows that he knows what he did was more significant than that.

Page 55-56

Joseph Bishop: I asked myself the same questions you’re asking. All the time. Why? Because I have a lot of problems.

Victim: I’m sure you do.

Joseph Bishop: I do. And in this process, I have a lot of the other. I found a lot of women, but alot of bad thoughts. Masturbation, took me a long time to get over that. I don’t even know if you accept that or not. I don’t know.

Victim: I think there are a lot of women, and I think there are a lot of bad things, and if you have forgotten, at least, that small part …

Joseph Bishop: I did, which makes me wonder what else I might have forgotten?

Victim: So it doesn’t surprise you that you may have done that?

Joseph Bishop: Oh, no.

[commentary]: Young men and women are kept home from missions for admitting to masturbation. The MTC experience is full of guilt producing talks about how you need to confess and forsake such things to be worthy to carry the spirit. And this guy was the president of the MTC and a mission president while admitting to the same thing that everyone else in the whole church is shamed for.

It is also telling that in this part of the conversation she is implying that he has abused more women than he is admitting to and he keeps insisting he can’t remember the details, but he does remember enough to say it wouldn’t surprise him if he had actually harmed more women.

Page 57-58

Victim: Well, the fact of the matter is you didn’t really tell everything that you told, everything that you did. You gave little bits and pieces, and you covered yourself in a shroud and you walked along. And each time that happened, you carried something heavier with you each time you went because you never told the whole story when you confessed. If you did do it, then excommunicate it. So did you repent? No. Not the way that the Lord tells us to repent. You didn’t say you were sorry. You didn’t even tell the whole story. And so there are women like me out there struggling, and you defecated all over us. And you just walked along and you continued serving in the church like we were nothing. We were nothing. We are nothing.

Joseph Bishop: I think you’re right.

Victim: I think I’m right too.

Joseph Bishop: I wish you weren’t. But I think you are. I didn’t think of it that way. I thought I was doing everything that I possibly could do to overcome this sexual addiction, and well …

Victim: [tells story of ex-husband’s deeds and how he never fully admitted to church authorities of what he did]…So, did he repent? Not to what I understand the Lord considers repentance. So, you do the same thing, but it’s the way that it is. You are not special this way. You are not singled out this way. If you are not transparent, if you do not really tell the whole story, you carry it with you. Once you tell the whole story, you can let it go because the Lord takes it away. You’ve never done that. That’s why it’s still with you. That’s why you walk around with this heavy burden. It’s a ball and chain, and it’s strangling you.

Joseph Bishop: Yes, it truly is.

[commentary]: Joe admits that he never fully confessed to all his actions to priesthood leaders and that his past actions still haunt him. I will say again and again, Mormon guilt is heavy, but this level of guilt can’t possibly be about impure thoughts or seeing someone’s breasts, which is all that he has explicitly admitted to. So what weighs so heavily on him?

Page 62

Joseph Bishop: I feel for the first time in those 30-something, longer than that for me, that I have been successful, at last. I no longer have those feelings. I don’t have the stuff that sleeps with me bugging me all the time. I don’t. It’s gone. I don’t know how long. It’s been like alcoholics anonymous where they get up and say, “Hi, I’m” …

Victim: “I’m Bob. I’m an alcoholic”.

Joseph Bishop: Yes. I’m Joe. I’m a sexual predator.

[commentary]: A straight forward admission of what he is. Yet again, not enough evidence for the church to consider discipline.

Page 63

Victim: Taking a missionary down into the basement, to the storage room, is not normal. Trying to rape a missionary is not normal.

Joseph Bishop: No. (…) I think of that night and what in the world what could ever possess me to do that?

[commentary]: I cut out a couple sentences of the exchange here, but I don’t think the above can be said to be taken out of context. He doesn’t correct her accusation of rape. He agrees it is not normal. And he remembers that night and that what he did was not right.

Page 66

Joseph Bishop: I could have been great. I know that. I was one time Bob Wells told me that .. .and it was about the same time this other was going on.

Victim: Which other?

Joseph Bishop: When you and …

Victim: Oh, and [other MTC victim]

Joseph Bishop: Yeah. When he had put my name in the hat to become a Seventy, I was never called. I know why. I know why. Because Carlos Asay may not have done what he should have done with you, but he did what he should have done with me.

[commentary]: If this is true, that Carlos Asay didn’t talk directly with Bishop about the accusations of the victim but did tell higher authorities who made sure Bishop was never made a seventy, then the Church is again lying about how long they have known these details. So the Church protected itself by quietly distancing itself from Bishop and never putting him into other high positions, but it ignored the people he abused and has now even tried to discredit them when this scandal broke.

Page 66

[commentary]: There is some back and forth discussion about avoiding situations that you know you aren’t strong enough to be in and stay out of trouble

Victim: It’s not necessarily a bad thing to do when we’re weak in that whatever area that is. For an alcoholic, it would be absolutely just avoid it, those triggers, those things that cause you to have that-

Joseph Bishop: That’s very true for me. That’s where it started with all females. I don’t-

Victim: Yeah.

Joseph Bishop: I was concerned today when you said, “Come to my hotel.” I’m not gonna put myself … Then you said, do you remember? Glass enclosed conference room.

Victim: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Joseph Bishop: Okay. I can do that, but I’m trying to be wise.

[commentary]: Joe has told the victim several times that he has worked through his “addiction” (predatory behaviors) and doesn’t have those problems anymore, but here he is admitting again that even the idea of meeting with a woman alone made him nervous because it would be placing him in a position that he knows he has taken advantage of in the past and done things he regretted. It is good he is to the point that he can avoid those situations where he will get himself in trouble, it is telling that he doesn’t fully trust his actions even now.

Page 73

Joseph Bishop: We’ve been pretty clear today about this thing true repentance. I thought I’d been doing it. I don’t think so now. I think I need to do some … I think I need to go to my bishop and lay it out.

 

Spotlight, but for Mormons

I love movies. So it makes sense when I read the news about former Missionary Training Center President Joseph Bishop (yes, that’s his real name) my first thoughts are of award winning, based on a true story, film Spotlight.

For those yet unfamiliar, I would say, stop what your doing right now and go watch it, it is an excellent film. I won’t put any movie spoilers here, but here is a short summary of what events the movie covers, just in case you are at work or somewhere you just can’t watch the movie.

In 2001, editor Marty Baron of The Boston Globe assigns a team of journalists to investigate allegations against John Geoghan, an unfrocked priest accused of molesting more than 80 boys. Led by editor Walter “Robby” Robinson (Michael Keaton), reporters Michael Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Matt Carroll and Sacha Pfeiffer interview victims and try to unseal sensitive documents. The reporters make it their mission to provide proof of a cover-up of sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.

That leads me back to my initial topic, which I mentioned at the beginning of this post, Joseph Bishop.

Recently a recording of an interview with Joseph Bishop was released revealing that Joseph Bishop, as acting Missionary Training Center President, had a rape room in the basement of the MTC.

Audio File

Transcript

Horrible? Yes. Disgusting? Yes. Surprising? For believers of the mormon church, probably, but for those looking from the outside in on practices of the LDS organization? Not really.

Here is a little context on the timeline of everything that has come to light:

1984: Joseph Bishop assaults a missionary in 1984. She (allegedly) reports it to church leaders at the MTC and nothing happens.

1987: After her mission, victim told her bishop about the assault. The bishop said he never relayed the allegations higher because he felt the “allegations were groundless.” Further, he said her story was hard to believe because of the heavy vetting done for MTC presidents, which means they could not possibly do something like that.

2010: The victim goes to the church again about the incident and also threatens Joseph Bishop. The church files a report with the police not about the sexual allegations, but to report the threat. Victim claims she was joking, the police and church do nothing further.

2017: The victim then goes to BYU police in 2017 and interviews Bishop to get his confession on a recording.

January 2017: Victim then gives the audio to BYU police and church leaders. The church begins a settlement process while doing nothing to punish Bishop (that we know of – official statement from TSCC only states they are investigating).

February 2018: The church then begins with with the state government to make these kinds of recordings illegal going forward, so that other members can not make recordings with their bishops or other church leaders.

March 19: Mormon Leaks releases audio and transcript of the conversation with Joseph L Bishop. Hours later the Deseret Books website removes their Joseph Bishop books.

March 20: TSCC releases a statement that makes sure to mention that the victim is a former member who only ‘partially’ served her mission.

March 21 AM: Deseret News (owned by the church) publishes their story that undermines the victim by ignoring all quotes from the transcript while using defenses for Bishop from his son. They also make sure to note that the victim has a criminal past.

March 21 PM: The Salt Lake Tribune releases story that BYU police would charge Bishop with sexual assault if the statute of limitations had not expired. They also note that Bishop admits to asking the missionary to expose her breasts, and that his story is different from hers because “he either can’t remember it or that [she] was exaggerating her account.” (Deseret News would have had access to this information, but for obvious reasons chose to ignore it)

This is one hell of a timeline for the church to now claim is not a cover-up and that they take these allegations seriously…

Are there horrible people everywhere? Yes, horrible people can exists in any organization. But that’s not the point here. The point here is HOW God’s “one true church” reacted to this. They didn’t immediately excommunicate Joseph Bishop when they found out about this. THEY TRIED TO COVER IT UP. On top of that THEY TRIED TO BLAME THE VICTIM!

This is advice that LDS leaders GIVE OUT!

What’s worse, is that the LDS church (along with many other religions, such as the Roman Catholic Church) creates an environment RIPE for this sort of thing. Sure the girl in question (or girls as Bishop admitted to more than one) was not a child so it wasn’t pedophilia, but Joseph was in a position of authority and used that to his advantage to take advantage of her.

“Children are taught that their leaders are gods. If I am asked a question, I answer it. If a leader says I am something, then I am. If a leader tells me not to tell my parent something, I shouldn’t. Children are taught to be submissive and quiet.

It is the perfect situation for abuse.

Then, predator or not, these leaders teach our children that their bodies are public property. The children get so used to answering questions about their own bodies that it doesn’t scare them anymore. It doesn’t send out alarm bells, because this is just what you do. Your body isn’t your own, it’s just property of the church.

So, even just by having these interviews, regardless of intention, the child is already hurt. They already lose something – they already do not get to see their bodies as their own.

Then, it happens. Sexual Assault. Molestation. Rape.

The children don’t tell anyone, because who would they tell? And their body isn’t theirs anyway, so it’s probably not worth mentioning. But it’s scarring and traumatizing. It breaks you.”

So even as children are growing up (and let’s be honest 18 years old [the new lowered age for mormon missionaries] although “legally” an adult, is still a very young adult, practically a child in many aspects depending on their youth, and since the LDS organization infantilizes its members to keep them like children, they are certainly still children mentally) when they leave to go on a mission they are still very young. So no, it’s not surprising to us on the outside looking in that a former MTC President had a rape room in the basement of the MTC.

Bottom line? Get your kids out of the LDS organization. The good people inside said organization are good IN SPITE of the mormon church, not because of it.

So, trying to wrap up my thoughts here and I want to bring back Spotlight for a moment. I had heard of a few cases of catholic bishops being excommunicated from the catholic church because of rape and pedophilia, but I had never understood the extent, the rampant, widespread reach in which this was happening. After watching Spotlight it really hit home how much of a problem this is with religious organization. Mormons held so much pride because they thought they were part of the “one true church” and that sort of thing just didn’t happen in their church.

Well, yes, yes it does. Worse, the LDS organization works hard to cover these things up. Does that sound like a church run by the benevelont all-loving all-knowing God mormons claim to be the head of?

No it does not, not to me.

For God’s sake, the man himself admits he would be the Mormon Harvey Weinstein.

#MormonMeToo

Sources:

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/...

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/com... have_something_to_say/

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/loca...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/03/2...

https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/...

 

Participating in Ordinances

Recently read this and decided it was too perfect not to share as it succinctly describes how I currently feel about the LDS organization.

“My child is free to be ordained a deacon after he reaches the age of 18 if he chooses. I describe my decision to prohibit him from receiving the priesthood before being emancipated as an act of compassion, not exclusion.

When a mormon boy turns 12, he normally receives the priesthood and is ordained a deacon. With ordination comes the expectation of attending church and living church standards, which may cause friction between the child and his or her parents, who may not approve of these expectations or standards.

To avoid that potential for tension within our family, I have determined that our children should be old enough to make an informed decision about the commitments that come with ordination.

Children waiting until adulthood to participate in ordinances is not new to the LDS church. Similar waiting periods currently exist and are mandatory for children of gay members.

“Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go,” (1) Elder Christofferson said about children (of gay parents) who wait until they are adults to be baptized. “In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.”

The same applies to priesthood ordination as it does to baptism: Nothing will be lost by waiting until children are adults to make these decisions. That’s my final answer.”

(1) https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder...

And that is exactly it: “Children waiting until adulthood to participate in ordinances is not new to the LDS church. Similar waiting periods currently exist and are mandatory for children of gay members.”

This “waiting” policy, enacted in November 2015, clearly goes against Christ’s own teachings (and contradicts doctrine that Mormons believe in) It’s through all of the mormon standard works. It is infuriating to me that members choose to over-look how un-scriptural this “policy” is.

D&C 20: 70

70 Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

D&C 68: 25-7, 34-5

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

34 These sayings are true and faithful; wherefore, transgress them not, neither take therefrom.

Matthew 19: 13-15

13 Then little children were being brought to him in order that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples spoke sternly to those who brought them;

14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.”

15 And he laid his hands on them and went on his way.

Matthew 18: 6-7

6 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!

John 9: 1-5

1 As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth.

2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.

4 We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

3 Nephi 11: 32-33, 38-40

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

So, the Book of Mormon is the MOST correct book on earth (as mormons claim) and yet modern policies contradict that book, as well as Christ’s teachings… RED FLAGS PEOPLE!

Instead of Red flags I decided to fly a rainbow flag over this post, because mormonism almost killed my dad, several times, and now he is gay-ly, happily, remarried.

Revisionist History

Dear Mormons,

You can’t have it both ways. It is rather embarrassing when your religion states one thing isn’t true, and then later claim that you knew of that thing all along and either that it IS true (a clear contradiction) or that even if true, it isn’t important. It’s called revisionist history, it’s dishonest and wrong, and are clear indications that mormonism is not the “one true church” as it claims.

By the way, that last one? That was a quote from the man who is currently the President of the mormon organization, the one who claims to be a Prophet of God who speaks with the Almighty.

Red flags people, Red flags. Wake up; use your minds; think for yourself.

Uncovering Mormonism – Part 2

UNCOVERING MORMONISM

Part 2: Multiple Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision

The narrative that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches to it’s members is that when Joseph was a young man there was a religious excitement and fervor near where he lived and that he was wrestling with which religious group was right. Joseph came across James 1:5 in the bible and this scripture had a deep impact on him. This consequently led him, at age 14, to go into a grove of trees on a clear spring morning in 1820 near his home. In the grove he knelt and pleaded in fervent prayer to know which church was true. After a short altercation with the Satan, adversary, Joseph saw a pillar of light, and in that light, descended two personages, God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They spoke to him and informed him that none of the churches on the earth were true and that the creeds of those churches were an abomination to God, and forbade him to join any of them. All of this was recorded in what is the “official” 1838 account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Any differences in other accounts are ignored or considered inconsequential. Even the existence of the other accounts at all is not widely spoken of in church meetings or lessons.

In actuality, there are four separate firsthand accounts recorded (1), not to mention several second and third-hand accounts. These firsthand accounts were written long after this seemingly important event and years apart from each other. While this is considered an essential part of the foundational narrative of the Church today, most early members were completely unaware of it. (2)

The LDS church tries to minimize the differences between versions by suggesting two main reconciliations. The first is to simply state that the differences are not as serious as critics purports. (3) The second expands on the first with explanations for the differences. Explanations include false memories, differing audiences, and varying levels of comfortability sharing his experience over time. (4) Ultimately, the LDS church focuses on the 1838 account as the most accurate and authoritative description of the event.

As late as 1851, church publications such as the “Times and Seasons” testified that the angel that visited Joseph was Nephi, rather than Moroni.

However, it is impossible to ignore that these accounts contradict each other in obvious irreconcilable ways. Joseph’s environment, his motives, his experience, and even which personages appeared (In some God does not appear but Angels do, in others only God appears and Jesus is absent, etc.) are all dramatically different in the four accounts. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the Mormon church to describe the foundational events leading to its origin. However, Joseph Smith recorded a different first vision story than the “official” one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith’s 1835 published history of the church, he claimed that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year. Smith testified that he prayed while in bed one night, to discover if God existed. He said he was visited by an angelic messenger (Nephi not Moroni). As late as 1851, church publications such as the “Times and Seasons” testified that the angel that visited Joseph was Nephi, rather than Moroni. These contradictions and Joseph’s late sharing of this experience confirm that Joseph altered the telling of his experience to match his changing theology (5) and to establish his credibility in the midst of criticism that he had fallen; that in the end, his story of a spiritual experience in a grove is fiction (6)

1854 – “Some one may say, ‘If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?’ Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else.” – Apostle Orson Hyde (7)

_
1855 – “The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.” – Brigham Young (8)

_
“That same organization and Gospel that Christ died for, and the Apostles spilled their blood to vindicate, is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God,… The angel taught Joseph Smith those principles which are necessary for the salvation of the world;… He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world,… This man to whom the angel appeared obeyed the Gospel;…” – Wilford Woodruff (9)

_
“Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates.” – Apostle Heber C. Kimball, speaking Nov. 8th, 1857, was clearly unaware of a “First Vision” where Smith saw God and Christ (10)

This begs the question: Why doesn’t the First Vision play an important role in Mormon history until the 1880s? It was scarcely mentioned before then but now is considered to be the most important event in almost 2,000 years. The ‘Joseph Smith History’ in the Pearl of Great Price was written by a scribe in 1838, James Mulholland, and remained unpublished until 1842. Oddly, the “official” story was unknown to Smith’s family, church leaders and members until nearly a half century later. The earliest version of the first vision story in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting is not considered “official.” Church leaders led members to believe that Smith did not offer different accounts, until critics discovered them and forced the church’s hand.

The most damming evidence is that reason the 1832 account written in Joseph Smith’s own hand didn’t surface until later was that Joseph Fielding Smith, then the LDS Church Historian, upon reading the journal entry and how it contradicted the account the church officially used, decided to cut it out from Joseph Smith’s journal and keep it in his personal office vault, withholding it from the public. On the Joseph Smith Papers website the scanned in original journal pages can be seen crudely taped back in. (11)

Sources:

1 -http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site...

2 – http://www.jamesjudithmcconkie.com/up...

dialogue_larson_another_look_at_joseph_smith’s_first_vision_(2).pdf

3 – https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-co...

4 – https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-co...

5 – https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content...

6 – https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-1...

7 – General Conference Address, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.335

8 – (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)

9 – (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, pp.196-197)

10 – (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.29)

11 – http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/pape...

Resources for Further Research

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-visi... http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.or... http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site... http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisio... http://www.jamesjudithmcconkie.com/up... mith%27s_first_vision_(2).pdf http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_V... https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/explorin... http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.or...

adapted from: Mormon Primer and Mormon Think

Justice League

(Funny enough, I saw this movie just a few days after it hit theater but never uploaded the review I wrote of it from my phone, just goes to show how forgettable this movie was. Well, I wrote the review, so I’m going to post it now.)

The end credits began to roll and I immediately hopped out of my seat and stumbled down the aisle out of the theater, first to leave. I saw a trash can just outside the exit and I fumbled my ticket out of my pocket and threw it into the garbage, happy to rid myself of the ticket stub. I did so hastily, almost afraid I would get caught with the thing by someone I know, embarrassed to have seen the show.

If this isn’t enough of an indicator of my feelings towards Justice League let me spell it out for you. I did not enjoy it.

The whole thing felt short and rushed, and had no substance to it. There was a lot of action sequences but the main villain was just some big dumb clearly fake CGI guy (as well as an army of equally disposable CGI) and I never felt like the good guys were ever in any real danger.

I guess I’ve been spoiled now by superhero movies like Logan that feel gritty, and realistic despite the comic book hero source. Or maybe I’m no longer the demographic for these kinds of movies. It felt like a kids movie, with cheesy lines and jokes that fell flat, and swelling overly loud yet boring orechstral music (I only recognized the superman theme once for a minute or so during one scene).

What went wrong here? I don’t know. I loved Man of Steel and thought Batman Vs Superman was cool, but this just fell right flat on its face for me. There was no dangerous or heroic moments that stood out at all, certainly nothing like the tense melee Superman and Zod had in Man of Steel. Will Superman stop Zod in time from killing those people? Will Superman do it? Is he really going to kill Did? But of course he has to to save the people, and he does and the emotions of that moment are just so overwhelming and the scream of Cavill in that scene was just so perfect and thrilling.

But no, nothing like that in Justice League. They barely even break a sweat in this movie, Superman’s suit is even 5x shades of blue brighter than the other movies, which fits well with the rest of Justice League because it’s a kids movie and I did not enjoy it at all. There was certainly plenty of eye rolling from me though.

I give this schlump of a movie 1 star out of 5

Enfin – Better than: Hulk (the 2003 one… and just barely at that)

Instead, Watch: Batman vs Superman (the Ultimate Edition)

Uncovering Mormonism – Part 1

UNCOVERING MORMONISM

Part 1: Treasure Digging, Folk Magic, and the Smith Family

General membership of the LDS church are led to believe that Joseph Smith’s involvement in treasure digging was really only ever trivial. The two quotes most often used within LDS Church publications to support this is Joseph Smith’s own third person statement about himself:

“Was not Joseph Smith a money digger? Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.” – Joseph Smith (1)

And this quote by Joseph Smith:

“I continued to work for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence, arose the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger.” – Joseph Smith (2)

This term “treasure digging” has never really been defined (3) at length by LDS sources and the explanations given leave much room for misunderstanding. The details are generally told in a way that implies Joseph was hired along with other men to use shovels to dig for treasure at the behest of others who direct where and how these digs take place. The following example is found in an LDS Church periodical:

“His [Joseph Smith’s] judgment and good sense were continuing to develop, because in the year he turned twenty he was able to persuade his employer to quit digging for treasure. Joseph had gone to work for Josiah Stoal for fourteen dollars a month. Along with many people in this part of New York, Mr. Stoal (Josiah Stowell) dug for buried treasure. (4)

The average LDS member has little awareness of folk magic practices by the Smith family

This presents Joseph as just a hireling, while Josiah Stowell is the key figure pursuing treasure digging. The average LDS member has little awareness of folk magic practices by the Smith family (5) and, by extension, folk magic practiced by a number of individuals in the greater Palmyra area. There are only cursory mentions of any treasure diggers in the Palmyra area with the focus of such being on Sally Chase and her effort to locate the gold plates on the Smith property through the use of her “green glass through which she could see many wonderful things” (6) The general LDS membership is left to think there is little noteworthy of Joseph’s treasure digging, the folk magic practices of the Smith family, or the Palmyra area in general.

However, other insight reveals that Joseph’s treasure digging was actually vast and expansive. Dan Vogel, a scholar of Mormonism, reports at least 17 treasure digging sites in the Palmyra area. (7) Joseph Smith was involved with many of these sites. However, Joseph was not hired to shovel where directed, but rather, he was hired for his skill of locating treasure; which he did by placing a peep stone in a hat, burying his face into the crown of the hat, and telling others where to dig.

Joseph got his first seer stone in 1819 at age 13, one year prior to the claimed “first vision”

These treasure digs were not small holes, but large caves dug into the side of a hill. (8) In these treasure digs as the men directed by Joseph thought they were getting close to the treasure, Joseph would inform them he could see in the stone that the Spanish gold or silver they sought had slipped further into the earth becoming unattainable, and hence no treasure was ever recovered. Folk magic practices of that time dictated that hidden treasures were protected by guardian spirits who could be thwarted off by magic spells, incantations, (9) and animal sacrifices. (10) Joseph got his first seer stone in 1819 at age 13, one year prior to the claimed “first vision”. (11) He later found his second seer stone, the one used for the Book of Mormon translation, in 1822, only one year before his first visit from Moroni. One of Joseph’s treasure digs, unrelated to the Nephite plates, took place on the Hill Cumorah. Joseph is also believed to have been mentored in treasure digging by a scryer named Luman Walters. One source says: In 1822 and 1823, Luman Walter served as a seer for a treasure dig on the property of Abner Cole in Palmyra, Wayne County, New York. Joseph Smith, Sr., Alvin Smith, and Joseph Smith, Jr. reportedly participated in this dig. Walter possessed a magical book and a seer stone, which he used to locate buried treasure. Walter is said to have conducted three unsuccessful digs on the hill Cumorah, but later suggests that only Smith might be able to find the treasure there. The Smith family was heavily involved in folk magic practices such as water witching, scrying and magic incantations, and as already discussed, treasure digging. There is no evidence that Joseph successfully found treasure using these methods. As a result, Joseph was at best self-deluded and at worst knew he really couldn’t find treasure and was therefore deceiving others. Lorenzo Saunders, a neighbor of the Smiths, shared that Joseph Smith’s father, Joseph Smith Sr.:

“was always telling yarns, he would go to turkey shoots and get tight [i.e., drunk] and he would pretend to put spells on their guns and would tell them they could not shoot a turkey.” (12)

With this information it becomes pretty clear that Joseph’s story of Moroni and gold plates is simply a continuation of his pattern for deceiving others regarding buried treasure and the magical devices he used to try to locate that treasure. Moroni, gold plates, seer stones, and the Hill Cumorah show too much resemblance to the treasure digging culture of Joseph Smith’s youth, his family, and his community; as such it is too much to be a coincidence.

It is impossible to ignore the similarities between Joseph’s earlier treasure digging and his claimed experience with Moroni and the Gold Plates. Upon learning this information an LDS member should at least admit that the Smith’s folk magic practices were superstitious and not based in religion or science and how it obviously influenced later experiences that were claimed to be from God. And at most have a desire to dig further and uncover more actual, factual, truth regarding their religious claims. Enfin: Joseph, in his youth, was either self-deluded or outright deceiving people by letting them pay him to locate treasure, treasure he claimed to see with his seer stone, but never uncovered, and never was found to exist.

Sources:

1 – Joseph Smith, Elders’ Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [Kirtland, Ohio] 2 no. 3 (July 1838), 43. Also reproduced in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 120; History of the Church 3:29; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 271.

2 – https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js...

3 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying

4 – https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/01/j...

5 – http://www.conchisle.com/magic.htm

6 – Smith, History of Joseph Smith, 150, 149.

7 – http://undergroundnotes.com/graphics7...

8 – http://rationalfaiths.com/discovering...

9 – http://publications.mi.byu.edu/public...

10 – Emily Coburn, in Emily M. Austin, Mormonism; or, Life Among the Mormons, 1882, pp. 32-33

11 – Brodie, Fawn M. (1971), No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (2nd ed.), New York: Knopf, ISBN 0-394-46967-4.

12 – Lorenzo Saunders, Interviewed by E. L. Kelley, 12 Nov. 1884, 12, E. L. Kelley Papers, “Miscellany,” Community of Christ Archives, Independence, MO (EMD 2:156). In a previous interview, Saunders said Joseph Sr. “would go to Turkey Shoots and get drunk; pretend to enchant their guns so that they could not kill the Turkey. … He would blow in the gun and feel around the lock then tell them it was charmed and they could not kill the turkey” (Lorenzo Saunders, interviewed by William H. Kelley, 17 Sept. 1884, 2, E. L. Kelley Papers, Community of Christ Archives [EMD 2:127]). Saunders described an incident in a Manchester tavern in which the senior Smith became inebriated and on request displayed his genitals for measurement (interview with E. L. Kelley, 12 Nov. 1884, 22 [EMD 2:164]).

Resources for Further Research

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith... http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/gol... https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-co... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_l... http://www.mormonstories.org/top10tou... http://undergroundnotes.com/graphics7... https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/09/0... http://richkelsey.org/joseph_smith_mo... http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.or... http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-con...

adapted from: Mormon Primer

So who do you believe?

Book of Mormon – Trying to cover up false claims:

When two men claiming to be prophets of the same “one and only true” church of God proclaim contradictory teachings, who are we to believe? If we are to follow what the modern prophet says, what does that mean if a future prophet can declare a statement that directly contradicts what a past prophet has affirmed? Why are we to believe what the current prophet teaches when what he teaches can be so easily dismissed by future “prophets”?

Sources:

Kimball, “Of Royal Blood”, Ensign, July 1971, Special Lamanite Section
Nelson, “2016 Seminar for New Mission Presidents”, June 23, 2016

Furthermore…

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe as a matter of history that, centuries ago, in about A.D. 385, somewhere in the Americas there was an enormous battle between the last great army of a people known as the Nephites and the armies of a rival people known as the Lamanites. Both peoples are believed to have descended from a group of Israelites, led by a man named Lehi, who migrated to the Americas in about 600 B.C. The conflict ended with the destruction of the Nephite army and the eventual disappearance of all surviving Nephites. The details are given in the Book of Mormon, considered by Latter-day Saints to be a volume of sacred scripture.

What then became of the victorious Lamanites is a question that many Latter-day Saints have believed settled for most of the history of their religion, founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith Jr. (Smith said that he translated the Book of Mormon from ancient records buried for centuries in upstate New York and entrusted to his care by an angel of God.) The Lamanites, church members have long believed, are the direct ancestors of the indigenous peoples found in North, South and Central America by European explorers in the 15th and 16th centuries.

It’s a matter of some controversy, then, that LDS officials have now changed the text of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, softening the assertion made when the Introduction was first included, in 1981, that the Lamanites “are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” The new text says only that the Lamanites “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Sources:

http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles...

If you try and rationalize this away with  “the introduction to the book isn’t doctrinal, and thus subject to change.” or what have you, the point is that the entire church, including Joseph Smith and his successors, believed that native Americans were laminates and shared lineage with Jews. The mormon church has only backed off this belief today when DNA based methods of tracking human migration (aka actual factual SCIENCE) have been developed. The most damning part for me is the mission calls to preach to the lamanites in the D&C. That is the voice of Mormon Jesus as spoken through his prophet talking about native Americans in the old West as if they were lamanites.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Red flags people. Red flags.

But Prophets can never speak any wrong thing, so claims the Fourth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.

Sources:

Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.

So if that’s true, why do we have two “Prophets” saying different things? Are the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon Native Americans as Joseph Smith clearly claimed, or did he lie? Science can’t lie.

To answer those who ask: “why is this significant?”: The research shows that 99% of the American Indians can trace ancestry back to Asia (Mongolia, Siberia) and the other 1% can trace it back to Europe (mostly Spain). Now where are the American Indians that are “among” any ancestry from Jerusalem? They don’t exist! To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon should be based on confirmation through the spirit: shouldn’t the science back up that spiritual confirmation? There is no science to back up the Book of Mormon and there is certainly NO evidence to confirm the Book of Abraham! To go along with something because of spirituality is in no way wrong, but science and spirituality should not conflict. Find real truth.

To those who say the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can only come from the source, where is the source? God? How does he communicate? making you feel good or bad about something? By your definition of truth and how to obtain it I believe reading Lord of the Rings is “good and true” because I feel good when I read it. I also feel the police are “bad” since my heart skips a beat when their lights flash behind me when I’m driving and I can’t remember whether I was going the speed limit or just a few over the speed limit, and I have a negative emotional reaction. Prescribing an “eternal truth” to your emotional reaction is the pinnacle of pride and selfishness. Using FACTS, LOGIC, REASONING, SCIENCE, etc.to guide your decisions and philosophies is what we should all be doing.

“Philosophy has questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that may never be questioned.”

Awakening

“Religion should not be used to solve human problems…Life, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.” – Humanist Manifesto, 2003

I am currently having a weekend giveaway of my book of memoirs Truth in Reason. Last year was a very difficult year for me. The year my entire worldview was changed, the year I had an awakening. Like a Phoenix from the flames I rose from the ashes of my past beliefs founded on untruths, and I have come out anew. It is my awakening.

Get your free copy today!

Here is an excerpt:

“Oh God, please.

Father which art in heaven. I need you right now more than ever.

I seek for the spirit, desperately need it.

Why did I stumble into these essays tonight? Lord I have been trying my hardest these past few years to draw closer to thee. I have had doubts in the past, only a few here and there, but never of the validity of the entire church, not like this. Why did the church publish these essays? God, please take these doubts away from me, send me the spirit as thou hast unto me. The same spirit that I felt on my mission! Please God. I can’t have this happen to me. Not right now, not in the middle of transitioning into a new house and a brand new job, I can’t have this additional stress. Please. Send me the spirit to comfort me, something.

Silence.”

“Seers” and “Revelators”

If only there was someone in the LDS Organization that could talk to the Almighty and receive revelation about these things… like Seers and Revelators… instead of just predicting things (wrongly I might add).

Excerpt from a February 27, 2015 interview with Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland and Hugh Hewitt:

Hugh: The first was a man, the second was a woman. I would wonder what the burden of having all these young people on the road in an era of religious intolerance is like.

Jeff: It is a burden. It is a worry. We proceed with great faith. We say a lot of prayers on behalf of those young people, because they’re your sons and daughters and my sons and daughters, collectively speaking, and they’re someone’s child. And we worry about them a lot. But the miracle is that every indication we have, and we try to be very careful, we try to be very sensitive about where they work and to what locations they’re assigned and so on and so forth, but having said that, the statistics are that they’re safer in the mission field than they were at home. The chances for an accident, the chances for a serious difficulty or a death, are really minimal. We have been very, very blessed. We knock on wood and say our prayer, and don’t want to be arrogant about that, because there is a very high risk. But we’re greatly blessed, and they continue to come They continue to serve. And those numbers will increase. We’re projecting out probably within four years, the baseline number for the missionary force will be something around 100,000.

Excerpt from the February 1, 2018 LDS News Release ‘Church Announces Mission Adjustments’: “Changes to mission boundaries are common. Since President Thomas S. Monson announced in 2012 the change in the ages for missionary service, the Church has created 76 new missions to accommodate a surge of growth in only a few years, from 58,000 to 88,000 missionaries. The initial wave of missionaries has since receded to about 68,000 missionaries, as anticipated.”

Sources:

A Conversation with LDS Elder Jeffrey Holland, Hugh Hewitt – http://www.hughhewitt.com/a-conversation-with-lds-elder-jeffrey-holland/Church Announces Mission Adjustments, Mormon Newsroom – https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mission-adjustments-2018