Change wifi settings to static... see if it works. If not change it back to DHCP and see if it works. (mine only worked until I set it back to DCHP)
If that doesn't work try changing the DNS / Gateway to match the router settings. (192.168.1.1 usually)
If that doesn't work try changing the DNS / Gateway to match the router settings. (192.168.1.1 usually)
- Win + R: C:\Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default
- Close Chrome
- Delete Favicons file.
Switching from Apple to Android? New to Android? What apps should I get?
By Zack - December 01, 2013
Phone Suggestions: Moto X (Best in the small-form factor) or HTC One (Great speakers and industrial design) or Nexus 5 (Cheapest and best off-contract phone)
App Suggestions:
App Suggestions:
- Free
- From Google: Keep, Gmail, Google+, Drive/Dropbox, YouTube, Play Music, Sound Search, Chrome, Voice, Sky Map, Hangouts, Wallet, Translate
- Score Center / WatchEspn
- Push Bullet
- Flixster (movies)
- Mint (Finance/Budgeting)
- Amazon
- MyFitnessPal
- Greenify (if rooted)
- Imgur
- Netflix
- Okcupid (if single)
- Simple Calendar Widget
- Paid
- Nova Launcher
- Titanium Backup (if rooting)
- Swype (Fastest one hand keyboard)
- Tapatalk HD (Forum reader/browser )
- Unified Remote (Control everything on your PC with your phone/tablet)
- Reddit Sync (Best Reddit app)
- Wolfram Alpha (Best calculator there is)
- Tasker (Automate your phone and life)
- Dashclock w/Extensions
- Plex
- Live Wallpapers
- Icon Packs (Can apply through custom launchers such as Nova)
- Power on, connect to WiFi, login with your personal Gmail account, and download in the Google Play Store all the applications you normally use. App suggestions will be given below.
- Make sure the software on the Android phone is updated to the latest version (i.e. 4.3 or 4.4). You should get a notification if there are software updates.
- You can add additional Gmail accounts now or later.
- At this point, your Google account should be activated and your Google apps such as Gmail will be accessible.
- Update your iPhone or iPad
- Power on, connect to WiFi, make sure your Gmail is logged in, and upgrade all of the iPhone software to the latest iPhone software release (typically iOS 7+).
- Check that you are using iCloud to back up contacts. Go to iCloud (in Settings) and enable that for contacts (“on”). If not using iCloud, go ahead and sign up for it. (The latest Mavericks requires the use of iCloud for Mac users if you want to transfer contacts.)
- For your personal Gmail account, in Settings/Mail, turn on sync for contacts. In the latest iOS, this should sync your Gmail contacts and iPhone contacts.
- In Settings/Messages, turn “off” iMessage, as that messenger is an iPhone-to-iPhone messenger and if its on your iPhone friends texts won’t make it to Android. Your iPhone will still use SMS messaging to reach your friends if you use the iPhone after this change.
- Make sure your iPhone is fully synced to the Mac iTunes. Your photos and music should all be backed up on your Mac when this is done. Go ahead and verify that on the Mac and the iPhone.
- At this point you should see all your Gmail, have your apps, and have your contacts in the Android phone. If the contacts are not in the Android phone, manually download the contacts as follows on your Mac:
- Go to apple.com/icloud, login with your Apple ID, and click on contacts
- In the lower-left corner, click on the wheel, and “select all” the contacts and “export” the vCard into a vCard file (in Downloads).
- In a browser, go to gmail.com, click on the Mail button and select “Contacts”. You should see a list of your Gmail contacts. Import the vCard file into Gmail/contacts using the “Import contacts” command and it should have manually added your contacts. Delete any duplicates or use the “More / Find & merge duplicates” function.
- At this point you have your Gmail, apps and contacts on the new phone. Also verify this.
- On your Mac, connect your music to Google:
- Download Google Music Manager onto the Mac, and run it. Music Manager will upload your iTunes music to the cloud. The standard version is free and handles most iTunes libraries. You will need to sign up for Google Wallet and give your credit card information, but it’s free. Be sure the music is going to your personal Gmail account above. See https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1075570
- With the above complete, you should have your Gmail, apps, contacts, and music all moved over. Verify this on the Android phone
- Take the SIM out of the iPhone and insert it into Android.
- You may need an adapter (from nano-SIM to micro-SIM), but then reboot the Android and you are all set ! For texting either use the Messenger app in earlier releases or the “Hangouts” app in Android 4.4.
- Find Your Way Around Android
- The back button is often a source of confusion because its functionality is not always consistent. In most cases, it will just take you to the last thing you did in an app. If there is no last thing, it may take you back to your home screen. Sometimes it will do something else; you’ll have to learn which apps are the exception.
- The home button simply takes you back to your home screen.
- The multitasking drawer shows you your active apps so you can quickly switch between them without the need to go back to your home screen or open your app drawer. It works similarly to iOS’ app switching, though it provides a vertical list (instead of a horizontal one) and provides a preview of the open app. Instead of tapping and holding to close apps, you swipe them away.
- The settings button is sometimes a soft button like the others mentioned in this section, but on certain devices it will simply appear contextually in apps. If you see a vertical ellipsis (three dots stacked on top of each other), that’s where you’ll access an app’s settings. To get to your phone’s system settings, just open the Settings app in your app drawer, on your home screen (if you keep it there) or via the notification drawer (explained later, in the Notifications section).
- Home Screens
- Like iOS, Android can have more than one home screen. On many phones, you’ll find five, but the number varies depending on the manufacturer and version you’re using. Your primary home screen (or page, if you prefer to think of it that way) starts in the middle with additional ones to the left and right.
- On Android, you can display apps and make folders just as you can on iOS by tapping, holding and dragging an app onto another app. Android doesn’t force you to place anything on your home screen, however, so you have to do a little more work to make it look the way you want. While this might seem more complicated and tedious, organising your Android home screen offers several distinct advantages. First, you don’t have to display any apps you don’t want. Second, you can add widgets that provide information and functionality. Third, you can download custom launchers that let your home screen do even more for you, such as customise its appearance. We’ll discuss all three in this section.
- How To Add And Organize Apps And Widgets
- Unlike iOS, Android doesn’t show all your apps on the home screen by default. Instead, you can add your most important ones to your home screen and find the rest inside the app drawer. The app drawer is a little icon (in your home screen’s dock by default) that you tap to view your entire collection of apps. Once you’re inside your app drawer, tapping and holding any app will take you back to your home screen so you can create a shortcut. Just place it wherever you want and you’re done.
- There is a second way to add shortcuts to your home screen. While on the home screen, you can tap any empty space and hold for a moment. This will bring up a menu asking you want you want to add. Just choose the app you want and it will appear on the home screen. Tap and hold to move it around.
- If you want to remove an app shortcut (which will not uninstall the app), just drag it to the letter X at the top of the screen and let go.
- Widgets work exactly the same way. If you tap an empty space on your home screen, choose the Widgets option to add a widget instead. You can also add widgets from your app drawer by scrolling past all your apps and into the widget section. Tapping and holding will allow you to place them on your home screen. In the latest version of Android, you can also change their size by dragging along the edges.
- How To Change Your Launcher
- On Android, Launchers refer to your home screen and the functions surrounding it. Unlike with iOS, you can download apps to replace the default option. Android’s default launcher is solid, but you can do a lot more with a custom launcher. We’re big fans of Nova Launcher, but there are plenty of good options. Each launcher has differing options, but most can customise icons, change home screen animations and pack more into your dock. Changing your launcher doesn’t require more than downloading your choice from the Google Play Store and opening it up. If you like it, read the next section to learn about how to set it as your default app.
- Default Apps
- In iOS, Apple forces you to use its apps as the defaults. In Android, you don’t have to. If you prefer a different navigation app for your driving needs or an alternative mail client, you can make the switch without much hassle.
- All you have to do to change a default app is to download a new one and open it. Next time an app is required for a specific function, such as opening an image, you’ll be asked which app you want to use for the job. Simply select the new one and tap the “Always” button to let Android know you want it to be the default.
- If you ever want to undo this change, you can clear the defaults easily too. Open your app drawer, find the current default app you want to clear, and tap and hold down on its icon as if you’re going to add a shortcut to your home screen. Instead of adding that shortcut, however, drag the app to the top of the screen where you’ll see the text “App Info”. Let go and a screen will appear with a bunch of settings for that app. Under the Defaults section you’ll find a “Clear Defaults” button. Tap it and you’re all set.
- Notifications
- The Notification Center in iOS looked like a play straight out of Android’s book. The pull-down notification drawer which both mobile operating systems offer are very similar.
- Android offers a number of additional features in its notification drawer that you won’t find in iOS. You still drag down from the top of the screen to bring it up, but dismissing notifications is a little easier. You can swipe any individual ones from left to right to get rid of them, or you can dismiss them all by tapping an icon at top that looks like three horizontal bars. Android’s notification drawer also has a handy settings menu that you can view by tapping the little human icon in the upper right-hand corner. This makes it easy to check battery status, toggle aeroplane mode and change screen brightness.
- By default, Android doesn’t offer the same range of Lock Screen notifications like iOS. That said, you can get similar features by installing an app called LockerPro. It not only provides a similar experience to iOS, but offers quick app launching shortcuts and (in my opinion) a better design.
- Overall, you’ll like how notifications work on Android. You can add any lacking functionality you liked about iOS through third-party apps and get a few bonus options the operating system adds by default.
- Maps and Navigation
- When Apple released iOS 6, it delivered turn-by-turn navigation for free, just as Google had done Android several years prior. In many cases, Apple takes a lot longer than other companies to develop features but offers a better product when it finally comes out. This was not the case with Maps, and so you’ll be very glad to make the switch to Google’s phenomenal built-in navigation.
- You may also find yourself a little confused, as Google splits its Maps and Navigation apps into separate entities. When you want to find a place or get directions, you’ll use Maps. Maps will provide you with directions. It works very similarly to the way Apple’s Maps worked prior to iOS 6. If you want turn-by-turn navigation, you tap the navigation button after getting directions and the Maps app will launch the Navigation app to handle your request. This feels a little unnecessary, and you’ll find you’re tapping through more menus and buttons than you would on iOS — strangely, even with Google’s official Maps app for iOS — but it’s a small price to pay for great navigation that’s fully integrated with the operating system.
- Voice Commands Using Google Now --- See other post here with a list of commands here
- Operating System Updates
- When you have an iPhone, you have an official Apple device. When you buy an Android, you don’t have an official Google device unless you purchase an official Google Nexus phone. That means you’re at the mercy of your phone’s manufacturer and carrier when it comes to receiving system updates. This can be very frustrating because updates can be slow to roll out, especially in Australia.
- If you are considering switching to Android, we highly recommend purchasing a Nexus phone. This way you’ll always receive updates as soon as Google releases them. If you go with a non-Nexus Android phone, however, you might prefer flashing a ROM.
- Battery Life
- Turn off radios you are not using (Bluetooth, GPS, NFC)
- Turn down Brightness
- Don't sync EVERYTHING. Pick and choose only the necessary items such as email. Lots of widgets need to sync information and therefore you might have to edit their schedule of how often they should sync.
- Rooting And Flashing ROMs
- Like jail-breaking on an iPhone, rooting Android provides additional privileges that allow you to do even more with your device. For many iPhone users, Android provides so much more flexibility that rooting may seem unnecessary. Personally, I only root for the purpose of creating an automated backup. If you want to root, our complete guide provides instructions for the most popular Android devices.
- Rooting your Android also leads to another, somewhat riskier proposition: flashing ROMs. By default, your phone comes with a specific version of Android created by the phone’s manufacturer (that’s just plain stock Android if you’re using a Nexus device). This version of Android is your phone’s default ROM, which you can often change to another that provides additional features, speed enhancements and more.
- Not all ROMs work on all phones and you can definitely brick your phone by failing to flash a ROM correctly. If you want to give it a shot, check out our guide to choosing a ROM (or our ROM guide for Nexus phones) and then follow that ROM’s installation instructions for your phone. If you need assistance, the XDA Developers Forum is a good place to start.
- If you attempt this task be sure to be familiar with ADB and how to backup using Titanium Backup and Clockworkmod or TWRP. XDA is your best source of Roms/Kernels/Radios/Tutorials.
Chocolate Ice Cream
Ingredients (Makes about 4 servings):
- 3 eggs (and some cream of tartar, if you have any)
- 1 cup heavy cream
- Choice of sweetener, to taste
- Unsweetened cocoa powder, to taste
- Get three bowls
- Separate egg whites and egg yolks in two separate bowls
- Put the heavy cream in the third bowl
- Use hand mixer (or whisk) to mix the egg whites first. Mix until stiff peaks form. Basically meringue. No biggie if you don't have cream of tartar, but a dash of it helps to form the meringue.
- Use the same mixer to mix the whipped cream. When somewhat stiffened yet still a little loose, mix in the sweetener and cocoa powder. It'll get kind of gloopy.
- Next, use the same mixer to mix the egg yolks until smooth and creamy-looking.
- GET RID OF THE MIXER! Use a spatula to fold egg yolks into the whipped cream mixture until fully incorporated.
- Fold egg whites into the mixture in #7. If you work with meringue a lot, you know how to do this. If you're a beginner, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yie5V37E1w[2] and see how he folds the egg whites into the batter.
- Put the finished mixture into a freezer-safe container. Wait until frozen solid. Serve, enjoy.
You can leave the cocoa powder out and put vanilla extract in for a vanilla ice cream. In this case, mix heavy cream until stiff.
You can probably mix some strawberries in there too.
I dunno what the net carbs are, since I was wingin' it on the cocoa powder and truvia, but shouldn't be too much.
You can use the same mixer if you go exactly in order from egg whites -> heavy cream -> egg yolks. If for some reason you want to switch it up, clean your mixer each time.
Chia Chocolate Pudding
Ingredients (for regular pudding you don't need to add chocolate)- 1 cup almond milk (You can use your favorite - soy, dairy, etc.)
- 1/3 cup chia seeds
- 1 1/2 teaspoons cocoa powder or some of Lindt's 90%+ cocoa bars or Walden Farms Calorie Free Chocolate Syrup
- 1 tablespoon or more sweetener of choice (Stevia, Vanilla Extract, cinnamon, etc)
For the believer, what is right and wrong is very simple: whatever God says is right is right, and whatever God says is wrong is wrong. And the scriptures or the prophets can tell you what God says. So, the believer does not steal simply because it is a sin; he does not lie because it is a sin; he does not work on the Sabbath because it is a sin; he does not eat pork because it is a sin, etc. There is no examining why some of these things are bad or wrong, they just are, because someone in authority says so. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in treating all wrongs as equal: it is a sin to drink a glass of wine; it is also a sin to kill someone. This results from the fact that such morality simply means: Obey. The believer has no need to ask for reasons; in fact, the believer is usually discouraged from asking such questions, because that would sound as though the believer is questioning divine authority.
Another problem with any morality based solely on a set of authoritative rules is that no such code of rules can be so complete that it covers every possible eventuality. Claims for the Ten Commandments, or even for the Bible as a whole, which offer them as a "complete guide" are obviously overblown. Simply consider that Christians cannot even agree among themselves on many moral questions, even though they appeal to the same Bible. And this is only natural. Look at any of the civil or penal codes in secular law, the purpose of which is to define precisely what is legal in the secular world and what is not (overlapping frequently with the subject matter of religious codes). These secular codes of "right and wrong" often fill several volumes, and are drafted by people trained to draft such legislation so that it covers all possible foreseeable contingencies, and in the most precise and unambiguous language possible (unlike most religious codes). And even so, disputes arise as to the application of such statutes to particular fact situations, or the interpretation of such carefully worded laws, so that a judge or jury must be called in to settle the dispute.
Bible apologists will of course argue that the Bible is intended only to teach correct "principles," and that by the influence of the Holy Spirit one can apply those general Bible principles to any real-life situation. But nowhere is one instructed as to how to do this reliably, and the result is worse than no moral guidance at all, since usually one can interpret an impulse or an urge to do what one wanted to do all along as a genuine inspiration from God. The result is ironically what many Christian moralists condemn in non-Christians: so-called "situational ethics."
It has become popular to use as a moral guide the question "What Would Jesus Do?", usually abbreviated in posters, lapel pins, rings, and costume jewelry as "WWJD?" The problem with this simplistic approach is that it assumes that one can know, or at least imagine correctly, what Jesus would do in any situation. That would, of course, depend entirely on our individual image of Jesus. For instance, I am sure that many Christians would enthusiastically answer "Yes!" to the question, "Would Jesus try to kill these evil abortionist doctors who are murdering helpless unborn fetuses?" and think that Jesus' cleansing of the temple was a good example. And is Jesus really a perfect moral guide - even assuming that we can know what he did and would do? Remember that Jesus had no qualms about breaking up families (Matt 10:35), preached that he had come to bring not peace, but the sword (Matt 10:34), showed ethnic prejudice (Matt 15:22-26, Mark 7:25-27).
Rather than WWJD?, one might do just as well to follow the advice which Jiminy Cricket sings in the animated film Pinocchio: "When you are discouraged, and you don't know right from wrong, give a little whistle, ... and always let your conscience be your guide!"
Generally, the Bible has many shortcomings as a moral guide. See a listing of objectional Bible morality at Bible Notes: Morality in the Bible.
Still another problem with religion-based morality is that (in Christianity and Mormonism, at least) one is expected to try to be perfect and never do anything sinful (or morally or ethically wrong). This goal is humanly impossible, but the religions do not admit its impossibility. Christianity solves the problem by convincing the Christian to accept his gross sinfulness, and then telling him that Jesus' atonement forgives him. Thus, the Christian doesn't really have to worry about sinning; he'll be saved anyway by the blood of Jesus. It's worse for Mormons: they have to worry every moment about whether their sins will consign them to a lower heavenly glory. The practical result is, all too often, that the Christian and the Mormon simply stop being concerned about trying to be "good" - the Christian because he's saved anyway, and the Mormon because he's damned anyway. In either case, there is the risk of psychological damage (depression) in addition to the lack of real moral guidance.
I think that children can be taught right and wrong without any reference to religion, and with very little reference to authoritarian rules. But it must be a continual effort by parents, and must begin with the parents' being models (however imperfect) of ethical behavior. Life every day presents us with many situations that have an ethical component, and in our family we always made it a point to discuss them with the children. Whenever we would forbid the children from doing something, we always tried to make them understand why. Whether they agreed or not, of course, they had to comply. But it was never simply "because I say so!" That would have been fundamentally the religious approach, and that does not make children think about why some act is good or bad.
Truly moral behavior is reasoned behavior. Whatever the beneficent result of an act may be, the act itself cannot be considered truly moral if the motive or the intention is not fundamentally moral. If I give a beggar a dollar for the sole reason that God has promised to reward me personally a thousandfold for such acts, my gift to the beggar was not, in my view, a moral act, but a completely selfish one.
Encouraging children to ask why something is good or bad leads them to understand the Golden Rule (which appears in almost all religions and ethical codes) and to understand that one must think about the consequences of their acts. Teach them also to recognize (and avoid) what are nothing more than rationalizations for justifying unethical acts, both in others and in themselves.
All of us must also be willing to admit that to many difficult ethical questions there is no clear answer, and that it is wrong in those cases to insist that there is a clear answer.
And lastly, I think children (all of us, actually) need to be taught that we are responsible for our own morality. This means two things: 1) we are responsible; and 2) we are not responsible for someone else's morality. (An exception to the latter statement is probably that parents are responsible for developing their children's morality).
Because parents have to take an active interest in developing their children's sense of morality, it's important that parents get guidance from non-religion-based thinkers and writers on ethics and morality. There are many excellent books on ethics available. They don't try to tell you what is right; they only try to help you learn to decide rationally for yourself what is right.
In fact, it was my first readings in textbooks on ethics that contributed to my beginning doubts about religion. I had been raised with a religion-based code of morality, and until I was well into adulthood I assumed that it would serve all my moral and ethical needs. One only has to read a few chapters of a good introduction to ethics to realize that such religion-based systems do not even begin to help with ethical and moral answers, because they do not even recognize the complex moral problems.
In the wake of the 2000 school shooting, Newsweek Magazine, whose cover story in its March 13 issue was "Murder In The First Grade," did a feature story inside called "How Kids Learn Right From Wrong" (pp 33-34). It was an excellent survey of the latest research and findings from child psychologists and educators, and traced the development of the moral sense in the child, and what promotes it and what destroys it. It was fascinating. For example, they have determined that the very young child is by nature empathetic, and feels the emotions of another child who is hurt or sad. It seems to be instinctive. The child then develops under the influence of the kind of environment it has, whether filled with conflict or with love. It learns by imitating what it sees.
And there was not a single word about religion! (And this in a magazine which had about four cover stories in the same year on Jesus, Biblical Prophecy, the Pope's Holy Land visit, etc.!)
The Smithsonian Magazine cover story for its January 2013 issue is "Are Babies Born Good?" And again, no mention of religion or God.
"Knowledge is only a cure for ignorance. Not stupidity."
Another problem with any morality based solely on a set of authoritative rules is that no such code of rules can be so complete that it covers every possible eventuality. Claims for the Ten Commandments, or even for the Bible as a whole, which offer them as a "complete guide" are obviously overblown. Simply consider that Christians cannot even agree among themselves on many moral questions, even though they appeal to the same Bible. And this is only natural. Look at any of the civil or penal codes in secular law, the purpose of which is to define precisely what is legal in the secular world and what is not (overlapping frequently with the subject matter of religious codes). These secular codes of "right and wrong" often fill several volumes, and are drafted by people trained to draft such legislation so that it covers all possible foreseeable contingencies, and in the most precise and unambiguous language possible (unlike most religious codes). And even so, disputes arise as to the application of such statutes to particular fact situations, or the interpretation of such carefully worded laws, so that a judge or jury must be called in to settle the dispute.
Bible apologists will of course argue that the Bible is intended only to teach correct "principles," and that by the influence of the Holy Spirit one can apply those general Bible principles to any real-life situation. But nowhere is one instructed as to how to do this reliably, and the result is worse than no moral guidance at all, since usually one can interpret an impulse or an urge to do what one wanted to do all along as a genuine inspiration from God. The result is ironically what many Christian moralists condemn in non-Christians: so-called "situational ethics."
It has become popular to use as a moral guide the question "What Would Jesus Do?", usually abbreviated in posters, lapel pins, rings, and costume jewelry as "WWJD?" The problem with this simplistic approach is that it assumes that one can know, or at least imagine correctly, what Jesus would do in any situation. That would, of course, depend entirely on our individual image of Jesus. For instance, I am sure that many Christians would enthusiastically answer "Yes!" to the question, "Would Jesus try to kill these evil abortionist doctors who are murdering helpless unborn fetuses?" and think that Jesus' cleansing of the temple was a good example. And is Jesus really a perfect moral guide - even assuming that we can know what he did and would do? Remember that Jesus had no qualms about breaking up families (Matt 10:35), preached that he had come to bring not peace, but the sword (Matt 10:34), showed ethnic prejudice (Matt 15:22-26, Mark 7:25-27).
Rather than WWJD?, one might do just as well to follow the advice which Jiminy Cricket sings in the animated film Pinocchio: "When you are discouraged, and you don't know right from wrong, give a little whistle, ... and always let your conscience be your guide!"
Generally, the Bible has many shortcomings as a moral guide. See a listing of objectional Bible morality at Bible Notes: Morality in the Bible.
Still another problem with religion-based morality is that (in Christianity and Mormonism, at least) one is expected to try to be perfect and never do anything sinful (or morally or ethically wrong). This goal is humanly impossible, but the religions do not admit its impossibility. Christianity solves the problem by convincing the Christian to accept his gross sinfulness, and then telling him that Jesus' atonement forgives him. Thus, the Christian doesn't really have to worry about sinning; he'll be saved anyway by the blood of Jesus. It's worse for Mormons: they have to worry every moment about whether their sins will consign them to a lower heavenly glory. The practical result is, all too often, that the Christian and the Mormon simply stop being concerned about trying to be "good" - the Christian because he's saved anyway, and the Mormon because he's damned anyway. In either case, there is the risk of psychological damage (depression) in addition to the lack of real moral guidance.
I think that children can be taught right and wrong without any reference to religion, and with very little reference to authoritarian rules. But it must be a continual effort by parents, and must begin with the parents' being models (however imperfect) of ethical behavior. Life every day presents us with many situations that have an ethical component, and in our family we always made it a point to discuss them with the children. Whenever we would forbid the children from doing something, we always tried to make them understand why. Whether they agreed or not, of course, they had to comply. But it was never simply "because I say so!" That would have been fundamentally the religious approach, and that does not make children think about why some act is good or bad.
Truly moral behavior is reasoned behavior. Whatever the beneficent result of an act may be, the act itself cannot be considered truly moral if the motive or the intention is not fundamentally moral. If I give a beggar a dollar for the sole reason that God has promised to reward me personally a thousandfold for such acts, my gift to the beggar was not, in my view, a moral act, but a completely selfish one.
Encouraging children to ask why something is good or bad leads them to understand the Golden Rule (which appears in almost all religions and ethical codes) and to understand that one must think about the consequences of their acts. Teach them also to recognize (and avoid) what are nothing more than rationalizations for justifying unethical acts, both in others and in themselves.
All of us must also be willing to admit that to many difficult ethical questions there is no clear answer, and that it is wrong in those cases to insist that there is a clear answer.
And lastly, I think children (all of us, actually) need to be taught that we are responsible for our own morality. This means two things: 1) we are responsible; and 2) we are not responsible for someone else's morality. (An exception to the latter statement is probably that parents are responsible for developing their children's morality).
Because parents have to take an active interest in developing their children's sense of morality, it's important that parents get guidance from non-religion-based thinkers and writers on ethics and morality. There are many excellent books on ethics available. They don't try to tell you what is right; they only try to help you learn to decide rationally for yourself what is right.
In fact, it was my first readings in textbooks on ethics that contributed to my beginning doubts about religion. I had been raised with a religion-based code of morality, and until I was well into adulthood I assumed that it would serve all my moral and ethical needs. One only has to read a few chapters of a good introduction to ethics to realize that such religion-based systems do not even begin to help with ethical and moral answers, because they do not even recognize the complex moral problems.
In the wake of the 2000 school shooting, Newsweek Magazine, whose cover story in its March 13 issue was "Murder In The First Grade," did a feature story inside called "How Kids Learn Right From Wrong" (pp 33-34). It was an excellent survey of the latest research and findings from child psychologists and educators, and traced the development of the moral sense in the child, and what promotes it and what destroys it. It was fascinating. For example, they have determined that the very young child is by nature empathetic, and feels the emotions of another child who is hurt or sad. It seems to be instinctive. The child then develops under the influence of the kind of environment it has, whether filled with conflict or with love. It learns by imitating what it sees.
And there was not a single word about religion! (And this in a magazine which had about four cover stories in the same year on Jesus, Biblical Prophecy, the Pope's Holy Land visit, etc.!)
The Smithsonian Magazine cover story for its January 2013 issue is "Are Babies Born Good?" And again, no mention of religion or God.
"Everyone is born ignorant, but to become and remain stupid is a choice."
Can Atheists be Ethical?
Fun Debate (CARM = Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)
CARM: Atheists' morals are not absolute.
JQ: This is true of everyone, even Christians. Case in point: most Christians would consider it wrong to murder children, but according to the Bible, God repeatedly committed this sin, murdering the first born of every Egyptian household, murdering all of the children alive during the Noah Flood, murdering 42 kids for making fun of a prophet. How many Christians would consider God a sinner?
CARM: They do not have a codified set of moral laws by which right and wrong are judged.
JQ: Neither do Christians. Christians will claim the Bible is their codified set of morals, yet they ignore the vast majority of rules laid out for them in the Bible. Most Christians would not stone the children to death for dishonoring their parents.
CARM: This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong.
JQ: Since, according to the Bible, God has no problem killing children, it does not follow that he would have a problem with abortion, and there are many pro-choice Christians. As far as the norms of society shifting causing a shift in ethics, does anyone remember the witch trials in Salem? Since, according to the Bible, witches should be killed, is CARM going to attempt to make it legal to kill witches? Will the members of CARM pick up the torch and stand up for their absolute, unchanging values?
CARM: If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill.
JQ: You mean like war? Surely members of CARM are not implying that Christians never kill.
CARM: This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best.
JQ: "Evolutionary ethics" is perhaps a better name, and it is how most ethical systems come about.
CARM: There are potential dangers in this kind of ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings?
JQ: This is a straw-man argument, and not a very good one. If atheists were inclined to join with the majority if it served our interests, then we would be confessing Christians. If I'm not mistaken, six million Jews were killed while their fellow human beings (almost all of which were Christian) watched. This issue has little to do with being a theist or a non-theist. Most people, theists and non-theists, go with the majority and are conformist.
CARM: If it serves his self-interests, why not?
JQ: Empathy, compassion.
CARM: But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings.
JQ: Are we not forgetting that the Bible condones genocide on multiple occasions? And let us not forget the Inquisition, the burning of witches, the crusades. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
CARM: But the issue is the base and ramifications of that base. Beliefs affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. A boat adrift without an anchor soon crashes into the rocks.
JQ: Let me see - 150 years ago, Christians owned slaves. 400 years ago, Christian burned heretics. Even today, some Christians bash homosexuals and relegate women to a lower state. And yet some don't. If Christian values are so absolute, how come there is such a variation of values amongst differant Christian groups?
CARM: The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian; in this the ten commandments are a summary.
JQ: CARM has a different Bible than I have, or CARM has simply cut out most of it and thrown it away.
CARM: In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be evolutionary. Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties of our world, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and equating humans to animals as a species are the ontological basis for our existence and living. With this the value of man is lowered.
JQ: This does not follow, and in fact, the opposite is true. It is true that humans are no longer the center of the Universe, but this conclusion is based on practical reasons, i.e. it is demonstrable that we are not the center of the universe. What we have learned in our increasing understanding of how we got here is that all life (including ours) exists in a state of balance and is very interrelated. Instead of demeaning life, this fact exalts life and helps us to understand how precious and how delicate it is. To the atheist, if we were to mess up the planet, we would have to fix it. There would be no one to save us.
CARM: In contrast, it is a very high calling to treat people properly who also are made in the image of God.
JQ: This statement has no meaning, and Christians themselves cannot even decide on what it means. What does it mean to be made in the image of God? Ask a million Christians, get a million answers.
CARM: Basically, I do not see how the atheist could claim any moral absolutes at all.
JQ: The real question is "Why do Christians claim moral absolutes when it is painfully clear that they have no idea just what those moral absolutes are?"
CARM: To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad.
JQ: If they are bad, then they will be selected out of civilization. I.e. destroying the Earth is bad, preserving it good. Of course, we try to reason these ethics out, since it is sometimes difficult to undo a system if one travels down the wrong path (i.e. fix the Earth after ruining it).
CARM: But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word.
JQ: You mean based on the 0.01% of it you actually practice.
Links:
Can Atheists be Ethical?
Fun Debate (CARM = Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)
CARM: Atheists' morals are not absolute.
JQ: This is true of everyone, even Christians. Case in point: most Christians would consider it wrong to murder children, but according to the Bible, God repeatedly committed this sin, murdering the first born of every Egyptian household, murdering all of the children alive during the Noah Flood, murdering 42 kids for making fun of a prophet. How many Christians would consider God a sinner?
CARM: They do not have a codified set of moral laws by which right and wrong are judged.
JQ: Neither do Christians. Christians will claim the Bible is their codified set of morals, yet they ignore the vast majority of rules laid out for them in the Bible. Most Christians would not stone the children to death for dishonoring their parents.
CARM: This can be a problem as the norms of society shift and the ethics shift with them. In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. Well, is it or isn't it right? If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong.
JQ: Since, according to the Bible, God has no problem killing children, it does not follow that he would have a problem with abortion, and there are many pro-choice Christians. As far as the norms of society shifting causing a shift in ethics, does anyone remember the witch trials in Salem? Since, according to the Bible, witches should be killed, is CARM going to attempt to make it legal to kill witches? Will the members of CARM pick up the torch and stand up for their absolute, unchanging values?
CARM: If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill.
JQ: You mean like war? Surely members of CARM are not implying that Christians never kill.
CARM: This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best.
JQ: "Evolutionary ethics" is perhaps a better name, and it is how most ethical systems come about.
CARM: There are potential dangers in this kind of ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings?
JQ: This is a straw-man argument, and not a very good one. If atheists were inclined to join with the majority if it served our interests, then we would be confessing Christians. If I'm not mistaken, six million Jews were killed while their fellow human beings (almost all of which were Christian) watched. This issue has little to do with being a theist or a non-theist. Most people, theists and non-theists, go with the majority and are conformist.
CARM: If it serves his self-interests, why not?
JQ: Empathy, compassion.
CARM: But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based upon the Bible is no guarantee that he will not also join forces for the killings.
JQ: Are we not forgetting that the Bible condones genocide on multiple occasions? And let us not forget the Inquisition, the burning of witches, the crusades. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
CARM: But the issue is the base and ramifications of that base. Beliefs affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. A boat adrift without an anchor soon crashes into the rocks.
JQ: Let me see - 150 years ago, Christians owned slaves. 400 years ago, Christian burned heretics. Even today, some Christians bash homosexuals and relegate women to a lower state. And yet some don't. If Christian values are so absolute, how come there is such a variation of values amongst differant Christian groups?
CARM: The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian; in this the ten commandments are a summary.
JQ: CARM has a different Bible than I have, or CARM has simply cut out most of it and thrown it away.
CARM: In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be evolutionary. Since evolution teaches that life is the product of purely natural and utilitarian properties of our world, survival of the fittest, natural selection, and equating humans to animals as a species are the ontological basis for our existence and living. With this the value of man is lowered.
JQ: This does not follow, and in fact, the opposite is true. It is true that humans are no longer the center of the Universe, but this conclusion is based on practical reasons, i.e. it is demonstrable that we are not the center of the universe. What we have learned in our increasing understanding of how we got here is that all life (including ours) exists in a state of balance and is very interrelated. Instead of demeaning life, this fact exalts life and helps us to understand how precious and how delicate it is. To the atheist, if we were to mess up the planet, we would have to fix it. There would be no one to save us.
CARM: In contrast, it is a very high calling to treat people properly who also are made in the image of God.
JQ: This statement has no meaning, and Christians themselves cannot even decide on what it means. What does it mean to be made in the image of God? Ask a million Christians, get a million answers.
CARM: Basically, I do not see how the atheist could claim any moral absolutes at all.
JQ: The real question is "Why do Christians claim moral absolutes when it is painfully clear that they have no idea just what those moral absolutes are?"
CARM: To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad.
JQ: If they are bad, then they will be selected out of civilization. I.e. destroying the Earth is bad, preserving it good. Of course, we try to reason these ethics out, since it is sometimes difficult to undo a system if one travels down the wrong path (i.e. fix the Earth after ruining it).
CARM: But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word.
JQ: You mean based on the 0.01% of it you actually practice.
Links:
- Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig vs Shelly Kagan Debate
- Does the Universe need God?
Mormonism Argument - The Prophets Were Just Men! That's why they are imperfect! Jesus Christ and God are perfect!
By Zack - October 27, 2013
These are the things I can say if I believe all the prophets were just men:
Do you realize the implications of that statement? President Young, speaking as President, said that all his sermons, however small or off-the-cuff, were scripture. And remember, he was a Prophet at the time, so he could not lead the Saints astray with this or any other statement. It's just not in God's program. He was meaning the Saints could have full confidence that his sermons were the same as if from the mouth of God. (D&C 1:38)
This is a huge declaration. Stake Presidents may, on occasion, lead you astray, bishops may falter, even apostles may fall. Quite a number of apostles have been excommunicated, especially in the early years of the Church. But the President of the Church, according to President Woodruff, can never fall. He can never lead you astray, which is to say he can never teach you false doctrine.
Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, p.164 -- Yes, we believe in a living prophet, seer, and revelator, and I bear you my solemn witness that we have a living prophet, seer, and revelator. We are not dependent only upon the revelations given in the past as contained in our standard works -- as wonderful as they are -- but we have a mouthpiece to whom God does reveal and is revealing His mind and will. God will never permit him to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove him out of his place if he should attempt to do it. You have no concern. Let the management and government of God, then, be with the Lord. Do not try to find fault with the management and affairs that pertain to Him alone and by revelation through His prophet -- His living prophet, His seer, and His revelator.
In an eternal truth, all statements given as fact by a prophet must be in harmony with previous statements given as facts by previous prophets on the same subject.
How long until our current set of prophets become looked back on as speaking as men out of their own prejudice?!
Also Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CZ1FJZqZ98
- You're right, they were just men. They can't be counted on to do God's will successfully, so God won't fault me for not trusting them and discounting/ignoring their advice.
- If imperfect men are corrupting God's message to me, then they should be removed from the chain of communication.
- Following the prophet is as trustworthy as a playing a game of telephone. The words may make sense, but you have no way to knowing their source.
- It's called the great apostasy when other churches teach the ideas of men mingled with scripture, or change the holy ordinances. This church shouldn't get a free pass to repeat the mistakes it was supposedly set up to correct.
- If there is ever an instance where a prophet was “speaking as a man” when they thought they were giving revelation to the church, then that means that a prophet of god can’t tell when they are receiving revelation or not. And if they can’t tell when they’re receiving revelation and when it’s just themselves, then they’re not getting any revelation at all. If there’s no way to tell, then both of them are the same.
- If they were prophets, why is their system of receiving revelation no different sounding than ours? Why don't they hear Jesus's voice? Joseph Smith supposedly heard Jesus' voice for the Doctrine and Covenants, why aren't modern prophets receiving revelation in the same fashion as Joseph Smith did? Why aren't they using the seer stones for revelation, translation and prophecy?
- Why are prophets seemingly unable to distinguish when they themselves are speaking as prophets or men? Why can't they sense a difference? They're supposed to have special gifts of discernment, why don't they sound all that special?
- When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over." -Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.
- "There have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes." - Dieter Utchdorf
- "The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture." - Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.136
- Brigham Young said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 13:95).
Do you realize the implications of that statement? President Young, speaking as President, said that all his sermons, however small or off-the-cuff, were scripture. And remember, he was a Prophet at the time, so he could not lead the Saints astray with this or any other statement. It's just not in God's program. He was meaning the Saints could have full confidence that his sermons were the same as if from the mouth of God. (D&C 1:38)
- 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 to do that, the Lord would remove me out of my place..."- President Wilford Woodruff, Deseret Evening News, Oct. 11, 1890, p. 2.
- "...convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds..."- Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 15-16
- Elaine Cannon said: "Personal opinions may vary. Eternal principles never do." -Ensign Nov. 1978, p. 108
- Brigham Young said: "What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." JD 9:15
- Brigham also said, "How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves. That is your privilege." JD 4:368
- Elder McConkie said, "Wise gospel students do not build their philosophies of life on quotations of individuals, even though those quotations come from presidents of the Church. Wise people anchor their doctrine from the Standard Works..."
- President George Q. Cannon expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle, or a President. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us.
Elder Benson said the Prophet takes precedent over the scriptures, and Elder McConkie says the Scriptures should be the final anchor of truth, not the quotations of church leaders. Who to believe?
- Apostle Charles W. Penrose declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect and venerate him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." Millennial Star Vol. 54 #12 p. 191
- And again he said, "And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood. We have heard men who hold the Priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided 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 the idea of seeing another become his slave, who had an equal right with himself to the favour of God; he would rather see him stand by his side, a sworn enemy to wrong, so long as there was place found for it among men. 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 asking 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 minds to do wrong themselves." Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp.593-95
- "I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." JD 3:45
This is a huge declaration. Stake Presidents may, on occasion, lead you astray, bishops may falter, even apostles may fall. Quite a number of apostles have been excommunicated, especially in the early years of the Church. But the President of the Church, according to President Woodruff, can never fall. He can never lead you astray, which is to say he can never teach you false doctrine.
Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye In Holy Places, p.164 -- Yes, we believe in a living prophet, seer, and revelator, and I bear you my solemn witness that we have a living prophet, seer, and revelator. We are not dependent only upon the revelations given in the past as contained in our standard works -- as wonderful as they are -- but we have a mouthpiece to whom God does reveal and is revealing His mind and will. God will never permit him to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove him out of his place if he should attempt to do it. You have no concern. Let the management and government of God, then, be with the Lord. Do not try to find fault with the management and affairs that pertain to Him alone and by revelation through His prophet -- His living prophet, His seer, and His revelator.
In an eternal truth, all statements given as fact by a prophet must be in harmony with previous statements given as facts by previous prophets on the same subject.
"We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world… We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past." -Bruce R. McConkie
Elder McConkie’s statement suggests that sometimes prophets have limited understanding, and even “darkness” in their views (as we ALL do). Notice McConkie did not say “sorry, but the Lord was wrong. We actually did lead you all astray.”
Elder McConkie’s statement suggests that sometimes prophets have limited understanding, and even “darkness” in their views (as we ALL do). Notice McConkie did not say “sorry, but the Lord was wrong. We actually did lead you all astray.”
Where do we find the doctrine that says the Lord won’t allow the President of the Church to lead people astray? I can’t find it anywhere, and I’ve looked. The closest I’ve come to finding something is Wilford Woodruff’s statement, “I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.” [Emphasis added] (“I say to Israel” is omitted in Official Declaration 1, but you can read the original text in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2).
From all this we can conclude that:
1. Prophets have made mistakes, taught false doctrine, and have led members astray.
2. Leaders and scriptures have said they would never lead anyone astray but yet future leaders confirm that past leaders did make mistakes
That brings us to the question: exactly when is a prophet acting as a prophet?
What writings from the prophet and other general authorities can be considered as scripture?
We remember that today's Prophet is human, and makes mistakes. But when it comes to teaching doctrines, he makes no mistakes or false statements which could lead a Saint astray.
In conclusion, according to these integral portions of LDS doctrine, when the living Prophet makes a comment, stated as fact and not merely as his opinion, concerning the Church as a whole or doctrine of the Church as a whole, his statements must be correct, so as not to possibly lead anyone astray. If it is a situation-specific revelation, it supersedes any prior revelations on the same subject. If it is an eternal truth, it will be in harmony with all other statements by previous prophets on the same subject. In sum, all of his statements given as fact concerning the Lord's Kingdom must be true for the Church to be true. They are given as scripture to the Saints. That is why the Church leaders counsel the Saints today: "When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over." Remember this when reading the words of today's prophets. If it concerns eternal truths, and is given as fact, it must be true for the Church to be true. The Prophet is not permitted to preach, knowingly or unknowingly, false doctrine as fact, because that might lead some astray. Further, if you are reading from the teachings or sermons of previous prophets, things taught as eternal truths, then they must still be true today.
If it is not in the program of the Lord for Thomas S. Monson to lead members of the Church astray, then neither was it in the program of the Church for Joseph Smith or Brigham Young to lead the Church astray (again, either knowingly or unknowingly). It's just not part of the program. When you are reading words of one of these earlier prophets, the same things apply to them as to today's prophets. If they are speaking for the Church as a whole or expounding as fact (not opinion) doctrines for the Church as a whole, those sermons must be inspired, for the Church to be true. Situation-specific revelations can change, but eternal truth revelations must last forever. They couldn't lead their members astray, either. In the days when Brigham Young was prophet, when he spoke (as fact concerning doctrine), the debate was over. All eternal truths taught by Joseph or Brigham or John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff must still be true today. That is the program, and it is the only program concerning revelation and scripture given by the Lord to the Church, as we have seen by the statements of Church leaders. Eternal truths are the same yesterday, today, and forever, and cannot be changed.
LDS members are told to unquestioningly follow the "Brethren" and not to doubt, and to avoid reading anything that might cast the Brethren in a bad light. And who tells the members to do this? These very same Brethren. In essence, "Only read the literature we have approved, not things that might shake your testimony (make us look bad.)"
Can you imagine the Board of Directors of a company to tell their stockholders, "Only read good stuff about us. Don't dig into anything else." That Board wouldn't last too long. "Have total trust in us," is in essence what they are saying, though they couch that essence by saying "Trust God totally" and then tell us that they are God's only authorized Prophets and Apostles.
I end this but just asking you to value history. Value truth. I have taken many quotes here and phrases from various websites but I included reputable sources. I just didn’t have to do most of the research. I just want you to value the doctrine and history and how the church was ran for a 100 years.
From all this we can conclude that:
1. Prophets have made mistakes, taught false doctrine, and have led members astray.
2. Leaders and scriptures have said they would never lead anyone astray but yet future leaders confirm that past leaders did make mistakes
That brings us to the question: exactly when is a prophet acting as a prophet?
What writings from the prophet and other general authorities can be considered as scripture?
- D&C 68:4: And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
- D&C 68:2: And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—
We remember that today's Prophet is human, and makes mistakes. But when it comes to teaching doctrines, he makes no mistakes or false statements which could lead a Saint astray.
In conclusion, according to these integral portions of LDS doctrine, when the living Prophet makes a comment, stated as fact and not merely as his opinion, concerning the Church as a whole or doctrine of the Church as a whole, his statements must be correct, so as not to possibly lead anyone astray. If it is a situation-specific revelation, it supersedes any prior revelations on the same subject. If it is an eternal truth, it will be in harmony with all other statements by previous prophets on the same subject. In sum, all of his statements given as fact concerning the Lord's Kingdom must be true for the Church to be true. They are given as scripture to the Saints. That is why the Church leaders counsel the Saints today: "When the Prophet speaks, the debate is over." Remember this when reading the words of today's prophets. If it concerns eternal truths, and is given as fact, it must be true for the Church to be true. The Prophet is not permitted to preach, knowingly or unknowingly, false doctrine as fact, because that might lead some astray. Further, if you are reading from the teachings or sermons of previous prophets, things taught as eternal truths, then they must still be true today.
If it is not in the program of the Lord for Thomas S. Monson to lead members of the Church astray, then neither was it in the program of the Church for Joseph Smith or Brigham Young to lead the Church astray (again, either knowingly or unknowingly). It's just not part of the program. When you are reading words of one of these earlier prophets, the same things apply to them as to today's prophets. If they are speaking for the Church as a whole or expounding as fact (not opinion) doctrines for the Church as a whole, those sermons must be inspired, for the Church to be true. Situation-specific revelations can change, but eternal truth revelations must last forever. They couldn't lead their members astray, either. In the days when Brigham Young was prophet, when he spoke (as fact concerning doctrine), the debate was over. All eternal truths taught by Joseph or Brigham or John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff must still be true today. That is the program, and it is the only program concerning revelation and scripture given by the Lord to the Church, as we have seen by the statements of Church leaders. Eternal truths are the same yesterday, today, and forever, and cannot be changed.
LDS members are told to unquestioningly follow the "Brethren" and not to doubt, and to avoid reading anything that might cast the Brethren in a bad light. And who tells the members to do this? These very same Brethren. In essence, "Only read the literature we have approved, not things that might shake your testimony (make us look bad.)"
Can you imagine the Board of Directors of a company to tell their stockholders, "Only read good stuff about us. Don't dig into anything else." That Board wouldn't last too long. "Have total trust in us," is in essence what they are saying, though they couch that essence by saying "Trust God totally" and then tell us that they are God's only authorized Prophets and Apostles.
I end this but just asking you to value history. Value truth. I have taken many quotes here and phrases from various websites but I included reputable sources. I just didn’t have to do most of the research. I just want you to value the doctrine and history and how the church was ran for a 100 years.
How long until our current set of prophets become looked back on as speaking as men out of their own prejudice?!
Also Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CZ1FJZqZ98
Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
- The idea that "books" of Jesus were designed to make him fit the prophecies or spread more easily is not new. Heck, there are two different stories in the New Testament on linking Jesus to Nazareth (to fulfill a prophecy the savior would come from there) and two different stories on how he is a descendent of King David (both which seem to fail by going through Joseph who is not a blood relative of Jesus since Mary was a virgin upon his conception).
- There is plenty of biblical scholar work showing books of the New Testament (or others not included) being written and modified to meet agendas and prophecies. (E.g., read some of Bart Ehrman's books.) However, that is still consistent with Jesus being a real person and the foundation of stories about him being based on some reality, even if distorted and modified to make him seem divine rather than just a person.
- The difference here seems to be more direct evidence of the goal of creating the actual figure of Jesus and the foundation of the stories to achieve an agenda, that of the Romans pacifying the Jews.
- Here's how I understand it after a few years of studying world religions (admittedly none of this may be true and my memory may not be what it once was, so feel free to discuss):
- This is why the Torah is included in the Christian Bible. The Torah is also recognized as valid by the Quran, even though the Torah is not actually in the Koran as it is the Bible.
- Modern day Judaism is the ancestry of the remaining Jewish people who did not believe Jesus was the messiah their prophecies spoke of, and also holds that messiah hasn't yet come in any other form. Ergo, they have stuck to their original beliefs. Christianity holds that Jesus brought the 'new covenant'. 'Christians' didn't start really disassociating with Judaism until around 150-300 AD. Up until around that point, they still considered themselves apart of the Jewish community, albeit a bit of a heretical one.
- To me, the biggest evidence against Jesus is the fact that he never wrote anything. Here is a man who said "I am the way, the truth, and the light." and who claimed to be the most significant human ever, yet he never wrote anything at all?
- It is amazing how willing people are to believe in the ridiculous if you simply promise them something in the afterlife.
Jesus in a nutshell
- The Gospel of Mark was the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
- The Gospel of Mark shows clear signs of being written as an allegorical fiction
- Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures
- Some of the details of the life of Jesus are based on mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures
- Jesus' crucifixion on Passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically
- The Gospels make many claims that are contradicted by the historical record
- The earliest writings about Jesus, from Paul and others, contain no details of his life
- Many statements in the letters of Paul only make sense if Paul does not view Jesus Christ as a historical person
- There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime
- Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
- All of the non-Christian references to Jesus can be shown to have either been introduced later by Christian scribes or were originally based on Christian claims
- There is no evidence of any knowledge of a tomb of Jesus (empty or occupied) prior to the Gospel stories
- There were many conflicting beliefs about who Jesus Christ was in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, including beliefs that he had never existed on earth "in the flesh"
- The Catholics made purely theological arguments as to why Jesus Christ had to have existed "in the flesh"
- The idea that "books" of Jesus were designed to make him fit the prophecies or spread more easily is not new. Heck, there are two different stories in the New Testament on linking Jesus to Nazareth (to fulfill a prophecy the savior would come from there) and two different stories on how he is a descendent of King David (both which seem to fail by going through Joseph who is not a blood relative of Jesus since Mary was a virgin upon his conception).
- There is plenty of biblical scholar work showing books of the New Testament (or others not included) being written and modified to meet agendas and prophecies. (E.g., read some of Bart Ehrman's books.) However, that is still consistent with Jesus being a real person and the foundation of stories about him being based on some reality, even if distorted and modified to make him seem divine rather than just a person.
- The difference here seems to be more direct evidence of the goal of creating the actual figure of Jesus and the foundation of the stories to achieve an agenda, that of the Romans pacifying the Jews.
- Here's how I understand it after a few years of studying world religions (admittedly none of this may be true and my memory may not be what it once was, so feel free to discuss):
- Christians were persecuted mainly in the early Western Roman Empire (if at all – this claim can be argued a lot, but generally speaking the claims reference persecution in the West), while Constantine was emperor of the later Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire. The geographical distance today would be Rome as the capital vs. Istanbul. That should say quite a bit about how different the two empires were.
- By the time Constantine was making Christianity the Roman religion, the persecution of the Christian sects had dwindled to nearly nothing; Christianity was accepted and gaining ground. Constantine didn't exactly 'make' the Christians; he chose to align with a side that was clearly already winning. This was a political move. See the Councils of Nicea for more info there.
- The Koran/Quran is similar to the Bible because it was written after it and believes in many of the same root stories. Islam is the religion of Ishmael, son of Abraham. Judaism is the religion of Isaac, Ishmael's younger brother. Ergo, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can all be traced back to Abraham. Their stories are all essentially identical before Abraham, and retain many similarities after. It can also be argued that Islam is being used politically so much these days because they're simply copying what's worked before in the past when Christianity split out of Judaism.
- Modern day Judaism holds that Jesus was not 'the prophet' spoke of in the Old Testament. Technically speaking, Christians are simply 'Jews who believe the prophecy was filled through Jesus'. The religions are one in the same, excepting that key point.
- This is why the Torah is included in the Christian Bible. The Torah is also recognized as valid by the Quran, even though the Torah is not actually in the Koran as it is the Bible.
- Modern day Judaism is the ancestry of the remaining Jewish people who did not believe Jesus was the messiah their prophecies spoke of, and also holds that messiah hasn't yet come in any other form. Ergo, they have stuck to their original beliefs. Christianity holds that Jesus brought the 'new covenant'. 'Christians' didn't start really disassociating with Judaism until around 150-300 AD. Up until around that point, they still considered themselves apart of the Jewish community, albeit a bit of a heretical one.
- To me, the biggest evidence against Jesus is the fact that he never wrote anything. Here is a man who said "I am the way, the truth, and the light." and who claimed to be the most significant human ever, yet he never wrote anything at all?
- It is amazing how willing people are to believe in the ridiculous if you simply promise them something in the afterlife.
Jesus in a nutshell
The Journey To Atheism - Understanding Why Organized Religion Is Harmful and How One Can Become A Free Thinker
By Zack - October 17, 2013
- Every single claim made by religion comes from people: not from sources out in the world that other people can verify, but from the insides of people's heads.
- Because religion has no reality check, it is extraordinarily difficult to counter its flat-out lies ... because ultimately, its claims rest on an unverifiable belief in an invisible God.
- "Religion gives people hope in hardship" -- but I fail to see how encouraging oppressed people to suck it up until they get pie in the sky is a good thing. For the oppressed, anyway. Why it's good for the oppressors is crystal clear.
- Because it's a belief in invisible beings and events and judgments that happen after people die, religion short-circuits our reality checks.
- When people are taught that believing things without proof or evidence makes you a good person, they become far more vulnerable to fraud, manipulation, and deception.
- When people are taught to let go of difficult questions and trust whatever religious authorities tell them; that it's better to trust their feelings than their critical thinking skills; that evidence and reason are less important than faith; that "doubter" is a synonym for "sinner"... they become vulnerable to every cheater, chiseler, swindler, con artist, and late night infomercial huckster who's lucky enough to cross their gullible paths.
- The idea that belief without evidence is a virtue doesn't just inspire people to trust their religious leaders blindly. It inspires people to trust anybody blindly. Including people who are trying to rob them blind.
- Religion blocks scientific research (e.g. stem cells).
- Religion wastes time/money.
- Teaching children about hell is child abuse. Nothing but the unverifiable promise of permanent bliss or torture in the afterlife would make loving, decent, non-abusive parents inflict it on their children.
- Religion provides a uniquely stubborn justification for evil. I'm saying that religion is uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self-correction... and that this armor protects it against the reality checks that act, to a limited degree and in the long run, to keep evil in check. I'm saying that religion takes the human impulses to evil, and cuts the brake line, and sends them careening down a hill and into the center of town.
- When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. Religion is the off-switch of the human mind. Your intellect is a better instrument of spiritual growth than any religious teachings.
- Religious “truths” are inherently rooted in a fixed perspective, but real truth is perspective-independent. When you substitute religious teachings for truth, you mistake shadows for light sources. Consequently, you doom yourself to stumble around in the dark, utterly confused. Clarity remains forever elusive, and the best answer you get is that life is one giant mystery. Religious mysteries, however, arise not from what is truly unknowable; they arise from the limitations of trying to understand reality from a fixed frame of reference.
- Religions are authoritarian hierarchies designed to dominate your free will. They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate.
- Religions are very effective at turning human beings into sheep. They’re among the most powerful instruments of social conditioning. They operate by eroding your trust in your own intellect, gradually convincing you to put your trust into some external entity, such as a deity, prominent figure, or great book. Simply by convincing you to give your power away to something outside yourself, religion will condition you to be weaker, more docile, and easier to control. Religions actively promote this weakening process as if it were beneficial, commonly branding it with the word faith. What they’re actually promoting is submission.
- By putting forth confusing and internally conflicting information, your logical mind (i.e. your neocortex) is overwhelmed. You try in vain to integrate such contradictory beliefs, but it can’t be done. The net effect is that your logical mind disengages because it can’t find a pattern of core truth beneath all the nonsense, so without the help of your neocortex, you devolve to a more primitive (i.e. limbic) mode of thinking. You’re taught that this faith-based approach is a more spiritual and conscious way to live, but in reality it’s precisely the opposite. Getting you to distrust your own cerebral cortex actually makes you dumber and easier to manipulate and control. Karl Marx was right when he said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”
- The truth is that so-called religious authorities don’t know any more about spirituality than you do. However, they know how to manipulate your fear and uncertainty for their own benefit. How nice of you to let them.
- When you donate to a major religion, you support its expansion, which means you’re facilitating the enslavement of your fellow humans.
- When you join a religion, your fellow mind-slaves will help to keep you in line, socially rewarding your continued obedience while punishing your disloyalty. Why do they do this? It’s what they’ve been conditioned to do. Tell your religious friends that you’re abandoning their religion because you want to think for yourself for a while, and watch the sparks fly. Suddenly you’ve gone from best friend to evil demon. There’s no greater threat to religious people than to profess your desire to think for yourself.
- When you subscribe to an established religion, you have only two options. You can become an idiot, or you can become a hypocrite.
- First, there’s the idiocy route. You can willingly swallow all of the contrived, man-made drivel that’s fed to you. Accept that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Believe stories about dead bodies coming back to life. Learn about various deities and such. Put your trust in someone who thinks they know what they’re talking about.
- Free yourself from the mental baggage, stop looking to others for permission to live, and start thinking on your own.
- Many religious teachers (i.e. priests, rabbis, ministers, etc.) are just brainwashed slaves themselves. They don’t have any real authority and aren't even aware of the agenda being set by their superiors. This makes them better minions because they actually believe the B.S. they’re spouting and don’t know the truth behind it. A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar, but that’s as far as they get. They may interact with the bartender, but they never get to know the guy who owns the bar. They suffer from inherited falsehood just like everyone else.
- Is your religion based on the inspired word of God? No more than this article. Just because someone says their text is divinely inspired doesn’t mean it is. Anyone can claim divine inspiration. The top religions are decided by popularity, not by truth.
- When you externalize compassion into a set of rules and laws, what you’re left with isn’t compassion at all. True compassion is a matter of conscious choice, and that requires the absence of force-backed rules and laws.
- The more religious a person becomes, the less compassionate s/he is. The illusion of compassion substitutes for the real thing. Religious people tend to be the most bigoted and non-accepting people on earth. They’re the least trustworthy and suffer from the grossest character defects. They pretend they’re doing good, but they’re really collaborators in a system designed to push people into unconscious slavery to a “higher” authority. They are slaves promoting slavery.
- Historically speaking, religious people love to fight each other (unnecessary wars). Instead of unconditional love, they practice conditional loyalty. The only unconditional aspect is their thirst for blood. If you disagree with them, you’re a target… either for conversion or destruction.
- If you value the ideal of unconditional love, you won’t find it in the practice of religion. Real compassion doesn't arise from believing in God, from practicing various rituals, or from studying the concept of karma. Compassion can only result from conscious choice, and this requires the freedom to choose without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. If you’re obedient to your faith, it’s a safe bet that compassion is absent from your life. You probably don’t even know what real compassion feels like.
- Religion is the systematic marketing of fear.
- Blessed are the poor (donate heavily). Blessed are the meek (obey). Blessed are the humble (don’t question authority). Blessed are the hungry (make us rich while you starve). Blessed are the merciful (if you catch us doing something wrong, let it go). Blessed are the pure of heart (switch off your brain).
- That’s the kind of nonsense religion pushes on people. They train you to turn your back on courage, strength, and conscious living. This is stupidity, not divinity.
- Religion will teach you to fear being different, to fear standing up for yourself, and to fear being an independent thinker. It will erode your self-trust by explaining why you’re unable to successfully manage life on your own terms: You are unworthy. You’re a sinner. You’re unclean. You belong to a lesser caste. You are not enlightened. Of course the solution is always the same — submit to the will of an external authority. Believe that you’re inadequate. Give away your power. Follow their rules and procedures. Live in fear for the rest of your life, and hope it will all turn out okay in the end.
- When you practice faith instead of conscious living, you live under a cloak of fear. Eventually that cloak becomes so habitual you forget it’s even there. It’s very sad when you reach the point where you can’t even remember what it feels like to wield creative freedom over your own life, independent of what you have been conditioned to believe.
- Faith is the coward’s substitute for courage. It’s also really good marketing if you’re the one who controls the faith. If you’re afraid or unwilling to assume total responsibility for your life, you’re a perfect match for religion.
- Fear in one part of your life invariably spreads to all other parts — you can’t compartmentalize it. If you find yourself frustrated because you’re too afraid to follow your dreams, to talk to members of the opposite sex, to speak up for yourself, etc., then a good place to start is to rid your life of all religious nonsense. Don’t let fear get a foothold in your consciousness.
- Stop trying to comfort yourself by swallowing religious rubbish. If you really need something to believe in, then believe in your own potential. Put your trust in your own intellect. Stop giving away your power.
- Dump the safety-in-numbers silliness. Just because a lot of people believe stupid stuff doesn't mean it isn’t stupid. It just means that stupidity is popular on this planet. When people are in a state of fear, they’ll swallow just about anything to comfort themselves.
- Religion is spiritual immaturity: It’s entirely possible to enjoy your life without spending so much of it bent over in submission. Pull your head out of your rear, and look around with your own two eyes. If you need something to worship, then feel grateful for your own conscious mind. Pull it out of the cobwebs, and boot it up.
Cult Like Characteristics of the LDS Church (can also apply to organized religion)
- It operates according to a rigid hierarchy. Members nominally have a voting power over leaders, but in practice are expected to "sustain" those who have been selected as a demonstration of faith.
- The church teaches its members to not publicly contradict or criticize the church or its leaders, to keep right beliefs in conformity with the leaders, and even to drop old beliefs and adopt new ones if the church decides to change its position.
- The church teaches that people should take good feelings as evidence of the absolute truth of the church, but should ignore their feelings after joining when their feelings conflict with those above them in the church hierarchy.
- It sets itself up against "the world" (a somewhat derogatory reference to everything not Mormon), which is held to be "confused" and in "darkness" (as opposed to Mormonism).
- It teaches that those who decide to leave the church are proud, bitter, wicked, confused, greedy, enemies of truth, servants of the evil one, etc.
- It warns members against outside information about the church.
- It stresses conformity in trivial matters, such as how many earrings a woman may wear.
- It has a loaded language where, for example, something like "I know X" can mean "I don't know and don't even necessarily believe X."
- It demands a full 10% tithe (including from impoverished members), but doesn't disclose the financials to the membership.
- Those members who go to the temple are instructed to promise to give all of their money and time to the church (in a big group where anyone could see a defector, and with no warning and only a couple of seconds to process the first time it happens).
- Young men are commanded to act as missionaries for two years. During this time, they are given a much stricter set of rules to abide by, and are told that they must obey these rules at all times or it will be their fault if people don't choose to become Mormon.
- While the church's universities will admit non-Mormons, they will expel Mormons who decide to leave the church--and trash their transcripts in the process so that they can't transfer any credits.
Extras
- Visual Example
- Is God Necessary for Morality? William Lane Craig vs Shelly Kagan Debate
- You're less likely to get divorced if you're Atheist
- “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
- "Myth is what we call other people's religion." — Joseph Campbell
- “If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution.”
- “If you don't understand how something
works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don't
know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don't understand
how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis
a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go
to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God.” - “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire
- Sam Harris simply destroys Catholicism
- Best of Sam Harris Amazing Arguments And Clever Comebacks
- TED Talk: Science can answer moral questions
- Why I Criticize Religion
- Religion is a failed science
- Sam vs annoying Theist
- Considering a Creator
- On Death
- Just Think Part 1 -------------- Just Think Part 2
- University Synagogue
- Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe
Richard Dawkins
Facts most Mormons don't know about their own religion. (or what Mormons won't tell you)
By Zack - October 08, 2013
Joseph Smith Era (1805 - 1844)
- Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with a rock in a hat with his face pressed up against it.
- Emma tried to poison Joseph twice. (according to Brigham Young)
- Joseph Smith illegally married at least 33 women, some of whom were as young as 14 years old. Some of Joseph's marriages were secured by promising salvation or threatening damnation.
- Joseph Smith married at least 8 to 11 women who were already married to other men. This practice is known as polyandry, for which no reference can be found on the Church's web site. In some cases, Joseph married the wives of men whom he had sent away on missions. Brigham Young also married other men's wives. Infographic of Joseph's Wives
- Leaders of the Church, starting with Joseph Smith, systematically lied about practicing polygamy.
- Joseph Smith routinely lied to his wife Emma about his extra-monogamous activities, often making her feel alone, abused and foolish.
- Mormons insist that the name of true church of Christ must include his name, citing 1 Cor 1:11-15 and 3 Nephi 27:3-8. But on May 3, 1834, the original name of the church ("Church of Christ") was changed to "The Church of the Latter-day Saints," thus deleting any reference to the name of Christ.
- Just seven weeks after Joseph’s Masonic initiation, Joseph introduced the LDS endowment ceremony. It's obvious he copied it from Masonry.
- LDS Scholars and Leaders taught that faithful blacks were destined to be just servants in the next life.
- A black mormon was sealed to Joseph Smith as an eternal slave.
- Even though Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood, the Church institutionally denied individuals of African descent full blessings of membership for over 100 years.
- The Word of Wisdom was a suggestion from Emma Smith
- Joseph Smith taught "that no official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office" if he neglects to obey the Word of Wisdom. By his own teaching, Joseph was not worthy to hold his calling of prophet.
- Joseph smith wrote the account of the first vision 11-12 years after it actually happened and only named one person visiting him.
- Although the Priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery made no such claim until at least 1834.
- The gold plates weighed 200 lbs to which Joseph smith was reported to "run" with. He also once evaded attackers by running away carrying 200 pound plates...
- After Joseph Smith's prophecy to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon failed, he explained it away by saying that some prophecies come from the devil.
- Joseph smith gave conflicting accounts of an angel who guided him to the plates. He once said it was nephi, then moroni. This changed several times.
- All early Mormon Leaders including Smith, described the Moroni visit as a "dream" until 1831, the year after the church was organized.
- Almost 20 years before Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, his father coincidentally had a dream nearly identical to the narrative of "Lehi's Dream" in the Book of Mormon.
- The Book of Abraham is a funeral scroll and Egyptologists have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it. Joseph was completely wrong in his translation.
- Joseph Smith showed his ineptitude for translation when he declared a Greek Psalter to be Egyptian hieroglyphics.
- Joseph Smith made a number of prophecies that never came to pass. Apologists use manipulative tactics to justify Joseph's failures.
- Reformed Egyptian doesn't and has never existed.
- Joseph and Hyrum did not have garments on when killed. They removed them because it 'was hot'. (George D. Smith, An Intimate Chronicle The Journals of William Clayton, 222-24.)
- Joseph had a bar in his home
- The early mormons practicing polygamy KNEW it was illegal. (Illinois Anti Bigamy Act of 1833)
- In 1830, Joseph Smith had an interview where he only mentioned "an angel" when referring to the first vision. No God the Father and No Jesus Christ. Also, in the first ever account of the first vision, you will find he did not see "two personages," he only saw "the Lord."
- Joseph Smith drank wine, alcohol, beer, and had tobacco. He disobeyed the Word of Wisdom until the day of his death. (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 616)
- Joseph Smith's last words, "oh lord, my god..." were an attempt to shout the Masonic signal, "Oh Lord, my God, is there no help for the widow's son?"
- There are 10 versions of the first vision, the most popular one written 18 years after the event.
- Joseph Smith "tried the faith" of the Saints by riding through Nauvoo smoking a cigar just after having preached about the Word of Wisdom
- Joseph Smith & the Book of Mormon claim that the ancestors of Native America came from Israel (genetics and linguistics proves otherwise)
- Joseph Smith claimed that prior to the arrival of the Jaredites about 2,200 BC, the Americas were uninhabited (archaeology proves otherwise)
- Sidney Rigdon was the one who sparked the extermination order. Not the Missourians or Gov. Boggs.
- After Joseph's death, Book of Mormon witnesses accepted James Strang's leadership, angelic call, metal plates, and his translation of the metal plates as authentic.
- Joseph Smith taught that an angel with a drawn sword threatened him with destruction if he did not marry more women. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29)
- Four years before publishing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was tried in court and found guilty for deceiving Josiah Stowel into believing that he could locate hidden treasure through divination.
- Joseph Smith changed his doctrine from Monotheism to Polytheism after his 1st vision occurrence.
- Joseph used to call himself the "Author" of the BOM. Later changed it to "Translator".
- Joseph Smith dressed up like an angel to fool his followers
- Joseph was fooled into thinking the Kinderhook plates were ancient records and even attempted to translate them. This demonstrates that he had no real gifts of translation or Divine revelation.
- Joseph Smith Tried to Win the White House and Turn the US into a Theocracy
- Joseph Smith tried to steal Orson Pratt's wife while the apostle was on his mission. "not me" claims founder, "it was my assistant!". Pratt almost commits suicide, and Bennett, the assistant, goes on to write a book. J.S. denounces it claiming Bennett was a liar from the beginning.
- Anything about the DANITES - "MORMON HIT MEN"
- William Law, Austin Cowles, Todd Compton, and Jedediah Grant all left because J.S. wanted their wives
- D&C 101 - Used to state the LDS church was monogamous while Joseph was privately teaching polygamy.
- In Kirtland, Joseph Smith set up an illegal bank that ultimately failed and caused many of the saints to lose their money. There is also evidence showing that Joseph intentionally misrepresented the solvency of his institution.
- Laws Joseph smith broke: Adultery. Rape by coercion. Attempted murder. Treason. Theft. Conspiracy to defraud. Bank fraud. Fraud. Perjury. Witness tampering. Assault. Battery. Public intoxication. Glass looking. Destruction of property. Inciting a riot. Jail breaking. Treason against the United States. Treason against Missouri. Treason against Illinois. Bribery.
- Joseph was NOT a martyr sealing his testimony with his blood nor was he a "lover of the cause of Christ" as the church proclaims. He died unwillingly in a gunfight because he used tyrannical force to destroy free speech in an effort to hide his sexual exploits.
- Smith did not use the "Urim and Thumim" to dictate any part of the Book of Mormon text we have today.
- Mormon teachings regarding a "Celestial Kingdom" and "three degrees of glory" come from a 17th-century Christian author.
- None of the witnesses saw the golden plates.
- Smith would have been familiar with. Such a resemblance is too close to be a coincidence.
- Rather than translating with Divine help, evidence supports that Joseph Smith plagiarized a significant portion of the Book of Mormon from the Bible, Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews and other books contemporary to Joseph’s time.
- In defiance of God's command to not join any churches, Joseph Smith tried to join the Methodist Church.
- Joseph Smith and other early leaders taught that because animals had spirits, they should only be eaten in times of "dire necessity". Not only does the Church ignore this aspect of the Word of Wisdom, it also acts in direct defiance and hypocrisy by owning and operating the largest cattle ranch in the United States.
- Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843
- Joseph Smith taught that one of the tests of whether a revelation was really from God was its consistency with previous revelations: if it contradicted previous revelations, it was not from God. Many of his revelations, and the revelations of many of his successor prophets, have indeed contradicted previous revelations.
- In the official version of Joseph Smith's "first vision" he states that it occurred in 1820 as a result of his being moved by a large religious revival in the area to wonder which church was the true church. There was no such religious revival in the area between 1817 and 1824. This throws doubt on the entire chronology of events as depicted by Joseph Smith
- On 25 March 1838, Martin Harris testified publicly that none of the signatories to the Book of Mormon saw or handled physical records.
- 19th Century Missionaries were Sex Traffickers. Polygamy requires a inflow of new women. Heber C. Kimball even confirms it. "Everyone's taking the hot girls! Leave some for me!"
Brigham Young Era (1844 - 1877)
- Mark Twain questioned the Book of Mormon witnesses and reviewed the Book of Mormon.
- Brigham Young was Racist (Bottom right paragraph) as well as many previous apostles/prophets.
- The moon and the sun are inhabited!
- Do Mormons believe they can get their own planet? No, they believe they can get their own universe!
- Samuel Smith, the destined prophet after Joseph Smith, was probably poisoned by Hosea Stout (One of Brigham's Cronies). This then allowed Brigham Young to take full control of the church.
- Joseph Smith set apart his son, Joseph III, to succeed him as prophet. Brigham Young admitted this, but ultimately refused to cede his own leadership to Joseph III.
- Brigham Young claimed that there was a cave located at the Hill Cumorah containing "wagon loads" of ancient records "piled up in the corners and along the walls". No such cave has ever been found.
- Brigham Young owned a distillery in Utah and sold whiskey to saints for Pioneer Day celebrations.
- Brigham Young taught that Adam is our father and God, a teaching that later prophets have admitted as not true. More broadly, apostles have told us that the Lord permits false doctrine to be taught within the church.
- Mormons believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings on earth. This contradicts all scientific evidence showing that there have been humans for many thousands of years before the traditional time for Adam.
- Brigham Young wrote a letter to Bishop Warren Snow of Manti, approving of violent actions taken by Snow. The Bishop had castrated a young man who was courting a woman Snow wanted to take as his own plural wife.
- Brigham Young, in all his sermons, mentions nothing about Joseph Smith's "first vision." In one of his few references to the visionary beginnings of Mormonism he asserts that God did not appear to Joseph Smith, but rather sent an angel.
- Brigham Young taught that God had sex with Mary.
- Adam and Eve are aliens according to B.Y., J.S. and Heber C. Kimball. (J.D. 3:90, J:D 1:356)
- Dramatic Readings of Brigham Young - Video Series
Modern Era (1900 - Now)
- Every Mormon has scriptures depicting Min (The God of Sex and Fertility) with an erect penis. In 1968 They removed it. In 1987 they re-added it. LOL.
- Almost none of the church leaders for the first 70 years of church history would by today’s Church standards be qualified to serve missions, enter the temple, get baptized, or even attend BYU.
- You will not reach highest degree of heaven without being in a polygamous relationship. (D&C 132)... So if a Mormon tells you they don't believe in polygamy they're not even aware of the true doctrine. Mormons believe they'll be practicing it in the afterlife.
- Up until the late 90s, Mormon authorized pictures of Jesus had him with white garments.
- The Church allowed an adulterer, Richard Lyman, to serve as an apostle for 18 years before excommunicating him. Although it appears that fellow members of the quorum did not know about Lyman's adultery, these "prophets, seers, and revelators" should have had the spirit of discernment to know of Lyman's unworthiness.
- Doctrine & Covenants 121:36 teaches that "the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven", and can be "handled only upon the principles of righteousness." Given this fact, ordinances performed unrighteously (such as those by Apostle Lyman for 18 years) should not be acceptable in the eyes of God or the Church. However, such ordinances are rarely, if ever, re-performed.
- Apostle John A. Widtsoe taught that refined flour was contrary to the Word of Wisdom in 1930
- The official change of the Word of Wisdom from principle to requirement came with no claim of Divine instruction. On the contrary, the shift seems to have taken place for political reasons surrounding Prohibition and desire for mainstream Christian acceptance.
- The Word of Wisdom forbids eating meat except in Winter/Cold/Famine.
- Before 1978, Mormons taught that murder was so heinous that the atonement wouldn't apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering.
- Thomas Monson is a multi-billionaire (LDS church is a corporation sole).
- There are 613 Pharisaical rules in Mormonism
- The apostles are RICH and yet they are exempt from paying tithing.
- Despite being "lay clergy", mission presidents receive a significant amount of financial benefits from the Church. What is more disturbing, however, is that these leaders are explicitly told not to disclose information on funds received, even to tax advisers or the government.
- The church often sells properties valued at over $500,000 to corporations held by apostles' wives for $10, and then helps them sell the property and disburse the funds to corporations held by their kids.
- In the temple, Mormons promise to give all their money everything they have to the LDS Church.
- Mormons believe that all other churches are an abomination
- The 15th amendment gave black males the right to vote in 1870. The LDS church prohibited black males from holding leadership until 1978.
- The 19th amendment gave women right to vote in 1920. LDS church currently prohibits women from holding leadership.
- In September 1993 the LDS church excommunicated six faithful members for intellectualism, feminism, and attention to historical accuracy.
- The second anointing is done in the temple on a regular basis.
- The Mormon church will not disclose any of their finances and instead declare bi-annually that through self-audits, all finances are in accordance with their principles
- Mormons shouldn't have sleepovers!
- At the beginning of the Wentworth Letter, Joseph Smith states: “all that I shall ask at his hands is that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation.” The church then purposely ignores Joseph Smiths advice in the Gospel Doctrine manual and removes a IMPORTANT paragraph IN THE LETTER, that has Joseph Smith saying the Americas were not inhabited before the arrival of the Jaredeites around 2200 B.C. which we know is false.
- James Talmage had pot.
- The LDS church is growing the slowest it's ever been! (They could possibly be only 5 to 10 years from 0% growth as % of world population.) e.g. Graph1, Graph2, Europe PDF
- Mormons at BYU are not allowed to follow the 11th article of faith.. If you start the school Mormon and then leave the church you get KICKED OUT, and your TRANSCRIPTS GET WITHHELD. Current day example
- The LDS church paid almost $900K to Mark Hoffman for documents that were forgeries. Tithing and Prophets that speak with God at work! They also tried to hide it after.
- The church isn't even a church, it's a trademark owned by a corporation.
- Elder Oaks and Nelson are modern examples of LDS polygamists. (Sealed to multiple women)
- Monson has now given 61 consecutive talks w/o testifying of JS, the BOM, or the Restoration.
- Church's stance on tithing: "You can't afford basic life necessities? Pay us more money!"
- Cult-like characteristics of the LDS Church -- Half-way down.
- How the church uses the "spirit" to brainwash members into never questioning logically.
- The Mormon Church has a legacy of bashing Christians and Christianity.
- No masks on Halloween!
- President Joseph F. Smith got caught in an attempt to lie to a Federal court in 1903 -- Quote
- The Church reports ----- inflated ----- and inaccurate membership numbers.
- In 1886, John Taylor received a revelation regarding the practice of plural marriage. In the revelation, the Lord told Taylor "I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting." Four years later, Wilford Woodruff contradicted Taylor's revelation by issuing the 1890 Manifesto.
- The Church historically lied and presently still lies in telling the membership and outside media that polygamy ended in 1890. In actuality, Church-sanctioned and performed plural marriages continued until 1904 and beyond.
- The Church requires an oath of commitment from temple participants before the participant knows to what he or she is committing.
- Until 1990, the temple ceremony contained violent penalties requiring members to make symbolic gestures of slitting their own throats and bowels. Recent Church leaders have been dishonest about these penalties. The removal of these penalties, among other changes, came not by revelation but as a result of a 1988 survey that found that many members were uncomfortable with the endowment.
- As disturbing as the temple penalties are, the fact that the ceremony changed is also troublesome because Joseph Smith taught that "ordinances instituted in the heavens are not to be altered or changed."
- Church leaders teach that Joseph Smith destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor because it told anti-Mormon lies. In actuality, the newspaper truthfully exposed the Prophets sexual exploits.
- Members of the Church are taught that prophets talk to God and speak for God. But some modern-day prophets admitted that they had never seen, heard, or received revelations from God.
- The Quorum of the Twelve and members of the First Presidency are sustained as "prophets, seers, and revelators". Regardless, they haven't prophesied, seen, or revealed much of anything over the last 100 years.
- For years, Church leaders have lied that Thomas B. Marsh left the church over "milk strippings". In truth, Marsh left in large part because he didn't agree with the violent practices of the Danites.
- Boyd K. Packer and other church leaders have openly advocated obscuring and editing history by teaching us that "some things that are true are not very useful."
- The 12th article of Faith states that "we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." One way in which the Church ignores its own counsel is by baptizing illegal immigrants, and even giving them leadership callings.
- The Church has knowingly allowed and at times encouraged unethical missionary recruiting practices including baseball baptisms in the U.K. and soccer baptisms in Latin America. On my own personal mission missionaries would make up names, promise kids they get to go swimming, and give them cakes if they got baptized.
- Church leaders teach members to bear testimony in order to obtain one. This is a manipulative practice that leads to confirmation bias.
- In the past, the Church tried to deny Young's violent teaching. Now, most leaders admit that it was taught but denounce it as a false doctrine.
- The Church has never truthfully admitted to, or apologized for, its involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, a tragedy in which 120 emigrants were brutally slaughtered by Mormons at the command of Church leadership.
- For many years, leaders of the Church taught that dark skin is a curse that is caused by inferiority and sub-par valiance in the pre-existence. Some leaders have even suggested that dark skinned "members of the Church are changing to whiteness and delightsomeness."
- Despite overwhelming evidence of racism in the early modern Church, leaders continue to claim that the reason for the priesthood ban is unknown. As such, the Church has never admitted error or apologized for excluding blacks from the priesthood.
- The Church has a long history of discriminating against women and teaching that they are to be subordinate to men.
- In campaigning against marriage equality on Prop 8 in 2008, the Church violated requirements of tax exempt organizations. These actions contradict the charge to obey, honor, and sustain the law.
- Many homosexual members feel guilt, depression, and shame as a result of the stiff anti-gay rhetoric taught by church leaders. Some have even been driven to suicide.
- In the 1970's, LDS-owned Brigham Young University conducted electroshock therapy on gay students to try to make them straight. This lasted for MANY years. Mark E. Peterson's Pamphlet.
- The Church relies on FAIR, FARMS and other apologists to defend the faith, but intentionally keeps some distance in order to maintain plausible deniability.
- When Mormon leaders announced in 1890 that the practice of plural marriage was ended, it was a lie. Church officials continued secretly to perform plural marriages and to enter into them for about sixteen years.
- Many Mormons assert that the reason polygamy was practiced in early Utah was because there were not enough men to provide husbands for worthy women. This is historically false - Utah census records for the 19th century show that Utah had a considerable excess of men.
- Mormons teach that a rape victim has "lost her chastity"; a woman should fight off her attacker or be killed in the attempt. Thus, young Mormon women are taught that their chastity is more valuable than their life. The result is that a Mormon woman who survives a rape is made to feel guilty, and is thus victimized again, this time by her church.
- Claim: Joseph Fielding Smith ripped out the pages about the 1st vision and placed them in his personal safe sometime after 1921. Then later when rumors about another version of the first vision started appearing, Smith returned them to the historic "letterbook 1" that dates beginning in 1832 for Paul Cheesman to "discover" to use for his master's degree thesis. The damage is clear.
- Since 1950, every 3.5 years the percentage of world population that is Mormon raises .01%
- To reach the current Catholic 17% percentage of world population, it will take 5,950 years, or be the year 7963.
- The LDS church counts resigned and deceased members until their 110th birthday.
- Former Apostle Delbert Stapley tried to dissuade Mitt Romney's father when he was governor from the issue on civil rights. Sickening.
- Blacks and the Priesthood Statement. Summarized statement.
- Oaks admits there's no inspiration in callings (2:47)
Literary Works of the Church (Book of Mormon, D&C, etc)
- There is no archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon.
- Analysis of the Book of Napoleon and The Late War and how it influenced Joseph's writings
- Beer and other grains are acceptable according to D&C 89:17. Wheat for the man, and for mild drinks, as well as other grains.
- Contradictions in LDS Scriptures
- The story of Laban in First Nephi illustrates that God's command must invariably be followed, even if it means committing murder. This is a dangerous message that inspires religious extremism.
- Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to local name and places that Joseph
- Many things stated in the Book of Mormon didn't even exist in the Americas.
- Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24–25), and the restoration as imminent (Isa 42:1–9). How then could this be contained on the Brass plates since Lehi left BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem? Therefore, The Book of Mormon could not be quoting from the brass plates, and it is a false, or forged book of scripture.
- There has been at least 5,280 changes to the Book of Mormon.
- DNA evidence shows that Native Americans do not come from Middle Eastern heritage. Recently, the Church changed its claim that "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" to the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians".
- The King James version errors of the Bible are the same in the Book of Mormon.
- The Church has changed the dates of events in the D&C in order to make Joseph's conflicting claims appear more plausible.
- The "Teachings of Brigham Young" manual dishonestly implies that Brigham was a monogamist by listing only two non-concurrent wives. Church editors have also changed all of Brigham's mentions of "wives" to "wife".
- The Book of Mormon uses the same logic to justify killing Laban that Caiaphas used to justify killing Jesus. (John 11:50)
- Mormon scripture (D&C 84:86, 91) says that true missionaries from God will not rely on their own money or supplies ("purse or scrip") for support, and this will be a test to distinguish them from false missionaries. Modern Mormon missionaries now rely on themselves for support; i.e., they do "carry purse [and] scrip."
- The Book of Mormon portrays Lehi as a devout Israelite (a prophet), but he is completely ignorant of which tribe he belongs to (1 Nephi 5:14-16). This would be extremely unlikely.
- The Apostle Paul said that a deacon should be married and the head of a household. But most Mormon deacons are boys only twelve to fourteen years old.
- The D&C says (116, also 78:15 and 107:53-57) that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, but the Book of Moses (PoGP, supposedly written by the prophet Moses, 3:10-16) says it was near the River Euphrates, which to Moses and his hearers meant the river in present-day Iraq.
- The Book of Mormon says that one must be saved in this life - after you die, it's too late (Alma 34:32-35). But Mormons spend much time and effort in baptizing dead non-Mormons in proxy ceremonies so that they can be saved in the afterlife.
- The one prayer which Jesus commanded his disciples to use (the "Lord's Prayer") is almost never used by Mormons.
- The "Word of Wisdom" (D&C 89:8) recommends using tobacco as a poultice for bruises, and for sick cattle. This has no medical basis in fact.
- Mormons believe that marriages performed in a Mormon temple are for "time and all eternity" - that is, the couple will be in a married state in heaven. But Jesus said that this is a false idea - there is no married state in heaven (Matt 22:23-30, Mark 12:18-25, Luke 20:27-36).
- The Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:24) says that God considered the multiple wives of David and Solomon to be an "abomination." But the D&C (132:38-39) says that it was not wrong.
- Mormons claim that their church is patterned after the early church of Jesus' apostles, but there are major differences.
- Joseph Smith claimed to have seen in vision both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elias (D&C 27:6-9). He apparently was unaware that in the Bible those two names refer to only one prophet (one is the Hebrew version of the name, the other Greek).
- According to Mormon scripture (D&C 84:19-22) no man can see God unless he has the Melchizedek priesthood. This revelation was given in 1832. The priesthood was supposedly restored at some unknown date in 1829 or 1830. But Joseph Smith claimed in the 1830s to have seen God in 1820, long before he received the priesthood.
- Numerous Bible passages (Ex 28-31; Num 3:7; Neh 7:63,65; Heb 7:12-14) clearly say that only Levites can offer sacrifices. No Levites are mentioned as accompanying Lehi from Jerusalem. Yet according to the Book of Mormon, sacrifices were offered by Lehi (1 Nephi 5:9) and his descendants (Mosiah 2:3). By what authority, then?
- The Book of Mormon frequently condemns secret "combinations" (societies) and the taking of oaths of secrecy. Yet an essential part of the Mormon temple's endowment ceremony is an emphasis on the secrecy of the oaths taken during the ritual and its other details.
- The explanation in the Book of Mormon for writing the important records in Egyptian (Mormon 9:32-33) is that it would have required too much space on the precious gold plates to write in Hebrew. This does not make sense, since Hebrew is a very concise language, using consonants almost exclusively, compared to Egyptian, which required a large number of complex characters and would have been unsuitable for engraving in limited space.
- The Book of Mormon began with a monotheistic perspective. Hundreds of changes were added at the first revision to replace "God" with "Son of God." It appears that Smith failed to complete the search and replace operation, as their are many verses remaining in the Book of Mormon that are trinitarian in nature. "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God" -Statement from the 3 witnesses
- There are 3 (or 4) immortal beings running around on the Earth according to Mormons.
- LDS Church releases statement on Blacks and the Priesthood - "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past" ... This contradicts the Book of Mormon
Quotes from Mormon History:
- "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
- "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." - Brigham Young
- "If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law, and so do this people." - Brigham Young [ JoD 1:361]
- The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray." - Wilford Woodruff (members say mistakes in the past were because they were 'just men')
- "I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." - Brigham Young (Despite this prophetic utterance, later church leaders have dismissed as non-scriptural the Journal of Discourses, from which this quote and many other of Brigham's teachings come.)
- "If your children are taught untruths on evolution in the public schools or even in our Church schools, provide them with a copy of President Joseph Fielding Smith's excellent rebuttal in his book Man, His Origin and Destiny." - Ezra Benson
- "There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less." - Joseph Smith Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1, page 61.
- And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but “hefted” them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified. - Mark Twain
- “The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.” -B. K. Packer
- Larry King: Does the Lord speak through you? "I Think" -Gordon B. Hinckley
- Larry King: Do you condemn polygamy? "I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal." -Gordon B. Hinckley (We still have Doctrine & Covenants 132 canonized. We're still practicing plural marriage in the Temples. Apostles Elder Oaks and Elder Nelson are modern examples of LDS polygamists in that they're sealed to multiple women.)
- On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, Hinckley sounded uncertain, "I don't know that we teach it." (I don't know is not a good answer from a Prophet...)
- About disclosing how tithing is being spent: "Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world." - Gordon B. Hinckley (No members have access to this information!)
- ""The best thing you can do for a single frustrated women... Is work on the Man" - Elder Oaks
Investigating the Truth is a Glorious action. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:
- Church leaders often teach us a falsified notion of truth and that"discerning the promptings of the spirit" is more valid in determining truth than actual, verifiable scholarship.
- The Church ignores the issues and questions of sincere truth-seeking members of the Church. We earnestly petition the Church to provide official, honest, and complete responses to these issues.
- Truth doesn't fear doubt.
- "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, It is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstein
- "If you quit today..." Calculator
Favorite Quotes about Seeking Truth:
- “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” - J. Reuben Clark
- "If a faith will not bear to be investigated: if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak." - George Albert Smith
- "Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand..." Gordon B. Hinckley
- "I think a full, free talk is frequently of great use; we want nothing secret nor underhanded, and I for one want no association with things that cannot be talked about and will not bear investigation." - John Taylor
- "Convince us of our errors of Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings." -Orson Pratt
- If intense pressure is used to dissuade people who wish to talk with former members or critics, it is a clear sign of information control. Controlling information is one of the most essential components of mind control.” -Steven Hassan, Mental Health Counselor specializing in recovery from mind control cults for over 30 years
- “For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction --- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” - Thomas Edison
- "If you are comfortable with a lie, you will never look for the truth." - Anon
- You can’t use reason to convince anyone out of an argument that they didn’t use reason to get into.
- "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? There isn't a religion on the planet that doesn't long for a comparable ability - precise, and repeatedly demonstrated before committed skeptics - to foretell future events. No other human institution comes close." - Carl Sagan
- “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
- "When I became convinced that the universe is natural—that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust." -Robert G. Ingersoll
- "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes
- The problem with ideology is it gives you the answer before you look at the evidence. So you have to mold the evidence to get the answer you've already decided you've got to have. - Bill Clinton
- "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer
- All scientific work is incomplete – whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time. Who knows, asked Robert Browning, but the world may end tonight? True, but on available evidence most of us make ready to commute on 8:30 the next day. - Sir Austin Bradford Hill
- Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- Once we take ownership of an idea - whether it's about politics or sports - what do we do? We love it perhaps more than we should. We prize it more than it is worth. And most frequently, we have trouble letting go of it because we can't stand the idea of its loss. What are we left with then? An ideology - rigid and unyielding. - Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
- “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” - William Paley (Question all answers)
- Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. - Thomas Paine
- The religious seek comfort, not reality. They seek comfort from reality. - Rick Fetters
- The chief difficulty I see in the sceptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them – the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe all these stupid doctrines are morons. - Carl Sagan
- "Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right." - Larry Mundinger
- The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found. - Miguel de Unamuno
- The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -Daniel J. Boorstin
- "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
- "I'm sure you believe the church is true, but I have a different method of determining truth than you. I've learned to trust facts and evidence over what I want to be true just because it feels good. And this is what the evidence leads me to believe. If you want to disregard evidence because that's not how you find truth, you can, and I will disregard your testimony for the same reason."
Best Videos:
Websites/Papers/Research Material from others: