Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think it's also interesting how Lucy Walker explained how she gained a testimony of plural marriage and the reason she understood that it was practiced.  Lucy Walker spoke at an event at the "Sixteenth ward Assembly hall" in Salt Lake city in 1899, and part of what she said about plural marriage at that event was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, 12/24/1899, page 4:

"Lucy Walker Smith was introduced as one of the wives of the prophet.  She testified to his great moral worth, of him as a man, and how loth she was to enter into polygamy, and that she did not do so until she had prayed long and fervently that if polygamy were true that she should be given a knowledge.  That knowledge she subsequently obtained, and it was then that she consented to marry the prophet.  One night when she was praying in her room, it suddenly became as light as day, and it was then that she was given the testimony.  After the death of Joseph Smith, she became the wife of Heber C. Kimball.  Emma Smith, the wife of the prophet, was a good woman, but she too had made mistakes at times.  Men did not take polygamous wives because they loved them or fancied them or because they were voluptuous, but because it was a command of God."

I liked the story because she didn't accept his offer of plural marriage until she had had a personal profound spiritual experience telling her that it was a true principle.  

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish I could find it but saw research papers come up and they didn't find much on it as well. It was such a short article, stating that women were trafficked to Utah after missionaries baptized them and not knowing about polygamy. It was an old article, either in the late 1800's early 1900's by the way it looked. So in my memory it actually said trafficked even back in those days, in the article. Hopefully I will find it, but then again it could be an anti person that made it up out of anger perhaps.

Do we know if it was more believable than the newspaper article that was printed back east that said that a woman had to escape the SLC temple by jumping into the great salt lake?  These articles weren't really investigative journalism and so often they were flatly making stuff up.  It makes finding the truth through the newspapers of the time annoyingly tricky.

Edit to add:  I'm not arguing that it couldn't be true and I've heard pioneer stories where old men came home from missions back east with young brides (much to the dislike of their other wives).  I just don't want to take stories of articles about trafficking from back east with more than a grain of salt because back east they really didn't know that much about what was going on in Utah but they loved the sensational stories that sold papers.

Edited October 29, 2023 by bluebell

[webbles]

(ignore)

Edited October 29, 2023 by webbles

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Served in England 2x. Once in 1842/43 and next in 1850. He was a polygamist going back before JS died. 

That's cool.  Do the stories have him lying about it in England on his mission?  Or in Nauvoo?  Also, who is he?  There aren't very men who practiced polygamy before Joseph died so I could probably guess it.

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Polygamy was not publicly acknowledged by the church until 1852. Up to that time, church leaders lied about it to the members as well. 
 

why lie?? Well the optics of old dudes marrying multiple young girls doesn’t exactly sit well with people. 

I don't find that explanation good for why they lied before 1852.  The number of young girls marrying older men before 1852 was not very large compared to the rest of polygamy.  And after it was publicly announced in 1852, young girls didn't stop marrying older men.

What does the story about your ancestor say for why he lied?  Did he marry any young girls?

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

no wonder Mormons know jack squat about polygamy. The church is still scared to really teach it. That’s why no one believes all these crazy stories from back in the day. We can’t and have not talked about it. Prob never will. 

I think the bigger reason why members don't know much about polygamy is the massive expansion in members.  If you go back to the 1950s, pretty much all members were related to someone who practiced polygamy.  It was a part of their heritage.  Now, we have more than 50% of the church that have no connection to polygamy except through the church's history.  They haven't heard the stories growing up nor can they talk to people who actually lived it.  I have a polygamous ancestor who died in the 1970s.  I have a family story where a new stake president was confused on how to deal with an old husband with two old wives getting a temple recommend renewal.  For me, polygamy was a big part of my growing up years.

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

That's cool.  Do the stories have him lying about it in England on his mission?  Or in Nauvoo?  Also, who is he?  There aren't very men who practiced polygamy before Joseph died so I could probably guess it.

go ahead and guess. I’m not gonna say. Last I need is to get doxxed and actually get disowned instead of just halfway like I am now. 
 

im not sure why you are so fixated on what my relative might have or might not have said, what was written, need a photo of the journal page etc. the church has acknowledged it was church policy to lie about it. Call me a liar if you feel you should I don’t really care. He was doing what he was told to do by Brigham young and JS. Missionaries are supposed to obey right? 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't find that explanation good for why they lied before 1852.  The number of young girls marrying older men before 1852 was not very large compared to the rest of polygamy.  And after it was publicly announced in 1852, young girls didn't stop marrying older men.

What does the story about your ancestor say for why he lied?  Did he marry any young girls?

why did any of em lie? Prophet said to. 
 

marry young girls? Of course, don’t they all? 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I think the bigger reason why members don't know much about polygamy is the massive expansion in members.  If you go back to the 1950s, pretty much all members were related to someone who practiced polygamy.  It was a part of their heritage.  Now, we have more than 50% of the church that have no connection to polygamy except through the church's history.  They haven't heard the stories growing up nor can they talk to people who actually lived it.  I have a polygamous ancestor who died in the 1970s.  I have a family story where a new stake president was confused on how to deal with an old husband with two old wives getting a temple recommend renewal.  For me, polygamy was a big part of my growing up years.

If a BIC is from Utah, az or ID they have polygamist family somewhere. We did that phone app thing in a fifth hour class o e Sunday (ancestry.com I think) thing where you search for relatives nearby. We had about 74 people in attendance and probably 4-5 were not related somehow. Most of those 4-5 were converts. 
 

Members don’t know anything about polygamy is because it is (or has not) not taught. Find me a church correlates lesson manual that dives into this stuff like for real. It doesn’t exist. 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Diamondhands69
Doxxed sp

[webbles]

37 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

go ahead and guess. I’m not gonna say. Last I need is to get fixed and actually get disowned instead of just halfway like I am now. 
 

im not sure why you are so fixated on what my relative might have or might not have said, what was written, need a photo of the journal page etc. the church has acknowledged it was church policy to lie about it. Call me a liar if you feel you should I don’t really care. He was doing what he was told to do by Brigham young and JS. Missionaries are supposed to obey right? 

I'm curious to know why he felt the need to lie.  I like to know why people do what they do.  If the story just says he did it because he was commanded to, then cool.  That's not the case for everyone, though.

38 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

why did any of em lie? Prophet said to.

But aren't you curious on why they lied?  For instance, before Joseph died, it makes sense to lie since the few times he mentioned it in public caused an uproar.  But after the church left Nauvoo, they practiced polygamy openly in Utah but still lied about it outside of Utah.  That's what I'm curious about.  Why did they still feel the need to lie about it when they were open about it?  And how did they justify it?  If your ancestor had went on a mission during that time period and the stories mention why he lied, I'd love to know.  It would be an interesting data point on what they were doing.

40 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

marry young girls? Of course, don’t they all? 

No.  I have plenty of polygamous ancestors who never married young girls.

41 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Members don’t know anything about polygamy is because it is (or has not) not taught. Find me a church correlates lesson manual that dives into this stuff like for real. It doesn’t exist. 

I agree it isn't taught.  I don't see the need for it to be taught.  It doesn't affect our salvation.  I don't expect to have to go through a Jeopardy game to get into heaven.  I do enjoy learning facts but I don't expect them to be of that much importance in the hereafter.

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I find it odd you challenge the truth of my relative lying about polygamy on his mission when the church admits that is what happened.

What’s so hard to believe?

This isn't about whether or not anyone ever had to lie about polygamy (I know some did).  But, I asked for evidence of your source for two primary reasons:

1. I'm trying to find out how a person writes in a journal, "I had to lie about polygamy today".  
2. Most importantly, I question your source, for the reasons I describe below.

Apparently (based on what you said) you have never actually seen the journal entry, yet you make claims about it that can't be substantiated.  It's all hearsay.  If this is something that you are going to continue to claim about your relative, then you need to document it, because some family members may embellish stories or even make things up so that they sound important (I personally know of one distant family relative that is especially prone to this sort of behavior). 

As an example of this, consider what Elder Holland had to go through in 2017 when he shared a story of a missionary rescue during the June 27 Mission Presidents Seminar.  It was a story that was told to him by family members of the missionary.  But, Elder Holland had to retract the story a few weeks later after he found out, from other members of the same family, that the story contained inaccuracies.  A Deseret News Article reported the following on July 31, 2017 :

Quote

Elder Holland issued the following statement Monday:

"A few weeks ago when speaking to new mission presidents at the Missionary Training Center, I shared a story about two brothers, just as I heard it from individuals who knew the family and had heard it recounted by a family member. Within a few days, my office was contacted by the family, who expressed concern that some elements of that account were not accurate due to embellishing by a family member.....

“As a courtesy to me the family contacted my office, wanting me to be aware of the inaccurate parts of the story and offering their help in avoiding any perpetuation of those elements in the account I heard. I am deeply touched by their humility and courage in doing so, and as an equal courtesy to them, I am withdrawing the story completely and request that it not be shared further."

An ethicist and a historian said using stories is important but can be fraught with potential issues.

"One of the reasons you fact-check stories, even from people you love or trust or admire, is that there are a lot of ways to get things wrong," said Kelly McBride, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute.

It is important to differentiate between someone who knowingly embellished a story and someone who retold a story the way it was received, said Keith Erekson, who left his job as a history professor and special assistant to the president of the University of Texas at El Paso to become director of the LDS Church History Library three years ago.

In Elder Holland's case, he retold the story as it was given, he said.

So I'm going to completely discount your story of your relative given that it can't be documented.  You can't generalize something that happened in some cases to all other situations during the same time period.   You are using John Taylor as evidence that your so called "gggfather" did it too, and that doesn't work.   That's a propaganda tactic.  It's not sound reasoning.   So I suggest that you seek to document your source or don't use your family "stories" as evidence for your claims.

14 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Are you afraid to criticize the church? 

Is that your goal here?  To try to get people to criticize the church?  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

this is something that you are going to continue to claim about your relative, then you need to document it, because some family members may embellish stories or even make things up so that they sound important (I personally know of one distant family relative that is especially prone to this sort of behavior). 

My husband had a relative who changed a few names because she didn’t like them (said they were nicknames rather than the actual names).

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

the church doesn’t even really talk about it now. I recall being gospel doctrine teacher back in the day (20yrs ago??) the year we had D&C manual it stated specifically in instructions to teacher to not discuss polygamy when it got to section 132.

What is best to be taught in gospel doctrine class is far different than what is taught by the church elsewhere.  Nobody expects "the church" to teach us everything we need to know about church history in a one hour gospel doctrine class each week.

The church Seminary and Institute manuals (taught like a school curriculum) have long included segments on plural marriage.  I took seminary in the 70's, and we used William E. Berrett's book, The Restored Church for our church history manual, and it has several pages on plural marriage.  I learned about it.  My kids learned about it in their seminary class.  So how exactly is the church hiding this?

[Diamondhands69]

41 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This isn't about whether or not anyone ever had to lie about polygamy (I know some did).  But, I asked for evidence of your source for two primary reasons:

1. I'm trying to find out how a person writes in a journal, "I had to lie about polygamy today".  
2. Most importantly, I question your source, for the reasons I describe below.

Apparently (based on what you said) you have never actually seen the journal entry, yet you make claims about it that can't be substantiated.  It's all hearsay.  If this is something that you are going to continue to claim about your relative, then you need to document it, because some family members may embellish stories or even make things up so that they sound important (I personally know of one distant family relative that is especially prone to this sort of behavior).
 

As an example of this, consider what Elder Holland had to go through in 2017 when he shared a story of a missionary rescue during the June 27 Mission Presidents Seminar.  It was a story that was told to him by family members of the missionary.  But, Elder Holland had to retract the story a few weeks later after he found out, from other members of the same family, that the story contained inaccuracies.  A Deseret News Article reported the following on July 31, 2017 :

So I'm going to completely discount your story of your relative given that it can't be documented.  You can't generalize something that happened in some cases to all other situations during the same time period.   You are using John Taylor as evidence that your so called "gggfather" did it too, and that doesn't work.   That's a propaganda tactic.  It's not sound reasoning.   So I suggest that you seek to document your source or don't use your family "stories" as evidence for your claims.

Is that your goal here?  To try to get people to criticize the church?  

I really could care less what you think of me, my family church service, or of the missionary story itself. If you think it’s a lie good for you. You can finally move on. 

as for Hollands talk… he should have vetted that unbelievable story from the get go. That story is clearly bull crap. Just like all the lost keys stories we have been hearing forever. 

He got suckered just like the entire first presidency did by mark Hoffman.  These guys really need to tune up their discernment meters. Prophets who supposedly see around corners need to start doing just that. 
 

Bottom line- the church lied ( both prophets and their representatives) about polygamy in order to manipulate people into joining the church. That much is true, documented and admitted to etc. 

I don’t need to worry about documenting it. It’s my families story not mine. Everyone knows it didn’t come from me. I’m just passing it along. They don’t have any problem with it. If they do they are not expressing a problem.
 

as for my goal?? Share truth. Today you learned the church sanctioned lying to investigators about polygamy. 
 

Next weeks topic: lying  for the lord.
 

homework read Boyd K Packets talk - the mantle is far far greater than the intellect. 
 

ponder the talk and think of info you could withhold from an investigator or your own children in order to maintain a faithful perspective. Not all truth is useful, just part of it will do. 
 

You are welcome

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I really could care less what you think of me, my family church service, or of the missionary story itself. If you think it’s a lie good for you. You can finally move on. 

I have said nothing of what I think of you or your family.  I only expressed caution for blindly accepting as truth all the stories that are passed down by your family.  I'm encouraging you to do some research and check your sources.

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

as for Hollands talk… he should have vetted that unbelievable story from the get go. That story is clearly bull crap.

You say that Elder Holland should have vetted the story he told, but you don't care about checking the stories you tell.  Am I detecting a double standard?  Are you not interested in the truth?

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Just like all the lost keys stories we have been hearing forever. 

He got suckered just like the entire first presidency did by mark Hoffman.  These guys really need to tune up their discernment meters. Prophets who supposedly see around corners need to start doing just that. 

I covered the getting "suckered just like the entire first presidency did by Mark Hoffman" thing with AtlanticMike here.  I'll requote it:

Quote

 

I try to look at it from the Lord's point of view and the big picture about how things turned out in the Hofmann story.  

A biblical example that comes to mind is the story in Genesis 37, when the sons of Jacob sold their brother Joseph into Egypt, and then faked his death when they took his coat of many colors and dipped it in goat blood, and then brought the coat to their father, Jacob.  Now Jacob was at the very least a patriarch, and his name is even listed among the prophets in Luke 13:28.  But what was Jacob's response when his other sons presented to him Joseph's coat dipped in blood?  "And he knew it, and said, It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces" (Gen 37:33).  For that moment Jacob was deceived by his own sons.  He may have been distracted by the emotion of the situation, but I think he just didn't get any kind of prompting on it, because the Lord used the envy and deceit of the sons of Jacob as a means to accomplish something else with Joseph (who was sold into Egypt) later on.  

I don't know what might have happened differently in the Hofmann story had any of the general authorities made it known they were prompted that the documents were forgeries.  We do know at least that (then) Elder Gordon B. Hinckley was skeptical about the Salamander document (but who wouldn't be, I certainly was at the time).  But without any forensic proof of a forgery, what could be said against it, and how would that sound to the public mind?  The news media would go wild with that.  Sometimes patience and a "wait and see" approach is the right approach.  Things may look kind of crazy for a short time, but in the end the Lord accomplishes his purposes.  

 

Look at the big picture.

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Bottom line- the church lied ( both prophets and their representatives) about polygamy in order to manipulate people into joining the church. That much is true, documented and admitted to etc.

Please document where "the church" did this to "manipulate people into joining the church", specifically for that purpose.  If it is for any other reason (like if the participants who practiced plural marriage were asked to keep it confidential), then it can't be proven it is for the purpose you assert. 

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I don’t need to worry about documenting it. It’s my families story not mine. Everyone knows it didn’t come from me. I’m just passing it along. They don’t have any problem with it. If they do they are not expressing a problem.

So you don't care if you are spreading lies?  Don't you want to know if your family stories are true or not?  

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

as for my goal?? Share truth.

But you just said above that you don't care if you are passing along lies or not.  You are just repeating rumors.  So how can we trust you to "share truth"?

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Today you learned the church sanctioned lying to investigators about polygamy. 

No, "today" I learned that you don't care if you pass along lies or not.  And none of what you said is new. 

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Next weeks topic: lying  for the lord.

Been there, done that (see the prior thread here).  

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

homework read Boyd K Packets talk - the mantle is far far greater than the intellect. 
 

ponder the talk and think of info you could withhold from an investigator or your own children in order to maintain a faithful perspective. Not all truth is useful, just part of it will do. 

Wait, that sounds really familiar, in fact it's just exactly like this thread started by Sara H.  

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

You are welcome

Thank you.

[Pyreaux]

On 10/29/2023 at 6:32 PM, InCognitus said:

I covered the getting "suckered just like the entire first presidency did by Mark Hoffman" thing with AtlanticMike here. 

Why do critics think Hoffman "fooled" the church? The Church didn't bother to purchase it.

[InCognitus]

48 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Why do critics think Hoffman "fooled" the church? The Church didn't bother to purchase it.

I don't think that at all, but that's the common accusation, and I was responding to that same accusation in this thread as was brought up by AtlanticMike in the prior thread.

[Tacenda]

Maybe a pin is needed since there seems to be so many. This time it's an LDS counselor treating gays in therapy and his therapy style was sexually abusive, with many coming forth about it. He was on the run and they finally cornered the fool. Rumor says he was a bishop or is, not sure on that detail. 

https://www.ksl.com/article/50783196/provo-counselor-arrested-accused-of-sexually-abusing-gay-male-clients

[Tacenda]

On 12/7/2022 at 4:31 PM, The Nehor said:

I always knew I was a mistake.

Well, call me bad fruit then too.

[pogi]

On 11/11/2023 at 9:22 AM, Tacenda said:

Rumor says he was a bishop or is, not sure on that detail. 

Reading through the comment section, one of the commentors stated the following:

Quote

I am really surprised by this one and will wait for the courts to decide, but Bishop Owen was always good to my family. Let's not give up on the idea of innocent until proven guilty

 

[pogi]

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/utah-therapist-built-reputation-for-helping-gay-latter-day-saints-they-say-he-sexually-abused-them

https://local.sltrib.com/utah-therapist-built-reputation-for-helping-gay-latter-day-saints-they-say-he-sexually-abused-them/

https://floodlit.org/a/a272/

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/2023/10/these-men-say-their-utah-therapist-touched-them-inappropriately-during-sessions-paid-for-by-the-lds-church/