Help Me Understand Why it Takes "Courage" to Come Forward Now

[skmo]

Hollywood seems to be in the midst of an implosion. This is a great thing. While it's sad that the entertainment industry may have sheltered and protected a sexual predator, I have to say it doesn't come as a surprise. The idea of a "Casting Couch" is almost as old as the industry itself. It's terrible that some women have been very harshly coerced against their will into doing sexual things they didn't want. I'm all for taking rapists and child molesters and beheading them publically.

That last statement is not, rpt. NOT hyperbole: If you commit forcible rape or sexual molestation against someone unable to consent because of age or innate mental condition, I would be glad to provide society with the swing of an axe to remove your head after a legitimate judicial review. Hell, I'll forge the axe in my barn myself, if needed.

That said, I am also sure there are many women who will willingly provide sexual favors to most anyone if it'll gain them what they want. If a producer tells a woman "You'll get this role if you sleep with me, otherwise you won't" it's disgusting, but it's not rape. We're seeing society now publically expressing outrage at something that almost everyone understood was going on, and while it's a good thing, I think some of it is also a bit hypocritical. C'est la vie. Do good and good will eventually happen to you, do bad and the same will happen. Hollyweird is starting to reap some of what it has sown.

Here's the thing I'm not understanding: The more sanctimonious media and political types are falling all over themselves to praise women coming forward now to condemn Harvey Weinstein (yet I notice they're still universal in their praise for Little Willy Clinton) saying things like: "The courage of these women to come forward now and share their stories of Harvey Weinstein is so admirable."

I'm sorry, but Why is this courageous? We're not in 1950 where rape victims are blamed for allowing themselves to get raped. Most of these women were perfectly willing to remain silent when there was a risk of damaging their careers for speaking out publically, but now that bashing Weinstein has become causes célèbres, lots of previously silent victims are only to happy to hashtag "metoo" when it's safe to do so.

Regardless, I'm glad to see such a perverse group suffer, but I'm also sure the result won't be an overall change for good, it'll just result in professional perverts like these guys going further underground. I remember seeing Corey Feldman years ago talking about how Hollywood was run by pedophiles which hastened Corey Haim's death and resulted in many of the young stars turning to drugs. I also remember the nonchalance with which his words and warnings were dismissed by his interviewers and he was belittled by them (Barbara Walters, you're a pig.) Unfortunately, the changes we WON"T see will be a more sophisticated world of perversion.

[eddie]

Hollywood actors are just a bunch of crybaby liberals, and yes, the casting couch sex has gone on for decades, the women are as guilty as the men, I think the reason it's coming to light, as it should be, is because the media loves the dirt on people!

[Thinker]

Yeah, it takes little courage to stand up for something when it’s popular and acceptable to do. Peer pressure is a human temptation I find most disturbing, partly because there is such a tendency for insane thinking & behavior when people blindly follow the crowd. To me, it is the worst threat to us politically and spiritually.

Still, this topic of sexual abuse needs to be more open and I think it could prevent some future abuses by empowering potential victims and educating perpetrators about the often life-long harm such abuse causes. Yet (there’s always another side), I hope this trend doesn’t cause women to obsess about victim mentality or develop insane paranoia and unwarranted anger toward men.

One more point: Leftists illogically claim people are “born with sexual deviant preferences.” If they were more logical they’d realize in doing so, they are absurdly saying “rapists were born that way and can’t be expected to change.” But of course, Leftists ideologies lack logic and favor comfortable lies over inconvenient facts.

[kittycat51]

Speaking of Corey Feldman, just this week Feldman claimed he survived a “near-death experience” after two trucks tried to run him over — all because he's working to expose pedophiles in Hollywood, and trying to make a film. As a security measure Corey has already written down the names and details of the events and given them to a trusted person of power, in case anything should happen to him or any member of his family before the film is finished.

[Spider]

It's disgusting these women kept quiet and allowed others to be hurt by this man. And now they are coming forward? It takes no courage to come forward now.

[skmo]

It's disgusting these women kept quiet and allowed others to be hurt by this man. And now they are coming forward? It takes no courage to come forward now.

Indeed.
.
.
.

Fonda.jpg (71.02 KiB) Viewed 1006 times

[justkeepswimming]

Playing devil's advocate here. There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today. I'm all for justice today but we can't be credible if we aren't willing to examine the very mistakes we collectively made in the past. What good is it to condemn today if we turn a blind eye to our past yesterday sins?

Hollywood seems to be in the midst of an implosion. This is a great thing. While it's sad that the entertainment industry may have sheltered and protected a sexual predator, I have to say it doesn't come as a surprise. The idea of a "Casting Couch" is almost as old as the industry itself. It's terrible that some women have been very harshly coerced against their will into doing sexual things they didn't want. I'm all for taking rapists and child molesters and beheading them publically.

That last statement is not, rpt. NOT hyperbole: If you commit forcible rape or sexual molestation against someone unable to consent because of age or innate mental condition, I would be glad to provide society with the swing of an axe to remove your head after a legitimate judicial review. Hell, I'll forge the axe in my barn myself, if needed.

[justkeepswimming]

Playing devil's advocate again. I'm okay with your statement if you're willing to play my game. I personally think what you said is very naive and hurtful to any victim of abuse. It ALWAYS takes courage to come forward at ANY time. It's shame, guilt and fear that keep them quiet. I know this from personal experience.

Here's my game. In your world, let's say in EQ or RS, (don't know your gender), if something is taught that is grossly incorrect, do you have the courage to raise you hand and correct the teacher and all in attendance. For example, if a teacher taught that Joseph Smith translated the Papyri into what we know of today as the Book of Abraham, do you have the courage to raise your hand and say, "uh, actually he didn't translate it. The church teaches this in an essay on LDS.org."

If you have the courage to do this then maybe you have the right to condemn someone in a situation you most likely know nothing about.

It's disgusting these women kept quiet and allowed others to be hurt by this man. And now they are coming forward? It takes no courage to come forward now.

[justkeepswimming]

This is remarkable irony!! Great contrast you found here.

It's disgusting these women kept quiet and allowed others to be hurt by this man. And now they are coming forward? It takes no courage to come forward now.

Indeed.
.
.
.
Fonda.jpg

[brlenox]

Playing devil's advocate here. There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today. I'm all for justice today but we can't be credible if we aren't willing to examine the very mistakes we collectively made in the past. What good is it to condemn today if we turn a blind eye to our past yesterday sins?

You think you are making a point and perhaps it is hyperbole, perhaps you are serious, but dragging other innocents ie. President Young and President Smith, into an erroneous comparison is disrespectful and unnecessary. Whatever you have suffered can only be made worse by such tawdry behavior.

[justkeepswimming]

Look, I'm a very active Mormon but I have no problem separating what was pure divine intelligence and what was immoral. If you haven't read the Nauvoo essay then I don't understand how you can say I made an "erroneous comparison."

Tell me this. Prophets have always done immoral / grotesque things that we regular members would be excommunicated for. Nephi killed, JS married a 14 year old girl. Both were spiritual giants and both did awful things. Why do we have to accept that all JS did was good in order to accept his restored gospel. This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous.

Playing devil's advocate here. There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today. I'm all for justice today but we can't be credible if we aren't willing to examine the very mistakes we collectively made in the past. What good is it to condemn today if we turn a blind eye to our past yesterday sins?

You think you are making a point and perhaps it is hyperbole, perhaps you are serious, but dragging other innocents ie. President Young and President Smith, into an erroneous comparison is disrespectful and unnecessary. Whatever you have suffered can only be made worse by such tawdry behavior.

[Fiannan]

Tell me this. Prophets have always done immoral / grotesque things that we regular members would be excommunicated for. Nephi killed, JS married a 14 year old girl. Both were spiritual giants and both did awful things. Why do we have to accept that all JS did was good in order to accept his restored gospel. This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous.

Is marrying a 14 year old immoral? I am not advocating it but where in the scriptures is it said to be immoral? Consider this a challenge.

[skmo]

There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today.

And all of it has the same amount of credibility as the hildabeast does. I understand it's the popular thing for people to want to accuse Joseph Smith of things because of his role in helping restore the Fullness of Christ's Gospel to the earth, but by the words of scripture: "By their fruits ye shall know them." The people spreading hate about Joseph Smith are most often doing it out of hate. The restored gospel helps bring salvation into eternity and guidance for temporal happiness.

[skmo]

Is marrying a 14 year old immoral? I am not advocating it but where in the scriptures is it said to be immoral? Consider this a challenge.

Juliet was 13, no one thought that to be odd in its time. Prior to 1900 the minimum age in Scotland for marriage was 9. We live in a kinder time, but it's unique in history.

[RAB]

Not to mention a mountain of evidence that Joseph did not have sexual relations with most of the women he covenanted with, and maybe not any of them. For starters, DNA has proven that none of the children that were supposedly his by plural wives actually could have been his. Quite remarkable since birth control was considered evil, and not much known about it in the first place. Second, none of the women he was sealed to that were not otherwise married ever ended up pregnant during his life, though many of them had children with their future spouses (meaning, they didn't have fertility problems, and neither did Joseph) or current spouses. Third, sealing then was a way of sealing the human family together, and allowing faithful women who were either single, married to non-mormons (and one of the non-mormons even allowed his wife to be sealed to Joseph since he thought it was all baloney anyway) to be a part of the new and everlasting covenant. Fourth, in light of the fiendish doings of John C. Bennett and the "Strikers" seducing women all over Nauvoo with "spiritual wifery" or having sex if you kept it secret, Joseph and Emma acted together to teach what the correct principle was, Celestial marriage and at times plural marriage, but never illicit sex as long as you kept it secret that Bennett and others were seducing women with. In teaching that principle to vulnerable women (widows and single sisters), many of them were sealed to Joseph and other bretheren, with Emma as a witness and a participant to some of those sealings. Emma felt that plural marriage should not be conjugal, especially in light of what Bennett and the Strikers had been doing. Of course, that directly contradicts Section 132 of the D&C, which makes it clear it was appropriate to have conjugal relations and raise up children to the Lord. But it appears that no one had conjugal relations with their plural wives until at least 1843, probably in order to avoid confusing what Bennett had been doing with the real law of plural marriage. My guess is Joseph avoided it altogether due to Emma's feelings on the matter. The evidence to back it up is the lack of any child that has Joseph's DNA outside of Emma. For a more thoughtful look at the polygamy of Joseph and Brigham Young, read Reluctant Polygamist by Meg Strout. It is very enlightening.

[justkeepswimming]

You sound like a liberal when you hide behind the line "doing it out of hate." Isn't that what conservatives and Christians detest about liberals? That they try and brand Christians as haters without first attempting to understand why they believe what they believe.

I only say this because I find it amateurish to label me a JS hater because I accurately point out something he did only to then be told I hate him for pointing it out. I love Joseph Smith more than most Mormons do but it's not a naive, idealized love, it's a love based on facts and reality. I love him because he could somehow look into a hat with a rock and miraculously come up with the Book of Mormon. I love him because of the first 16 verses in D&C 88, verses that changed my life. But I refuse to ignore the ugly side of his life. He did things that put Warren Jeffs in prison. I am not a Joseph Smith hater because I accept his accurate history.

Are you afraid you can't believe in JS if you have to accept his sins?

There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today.

And all of it has the same amount of credibility as the hildabeast does. I understand it's the popular thing for people to want to accuse Joseph Smith of things because of his role in helping restore the Fullness of Christ's Gospel to the earth, but by the words of scripture: "By their fruits ye shall know them." The people spreading hate about Joseph Smith are most often doing it out of hate. The restored gospel helps bring salvation into eternity and guidance for temporal happiness.

[skmo]

Are you afraid you can't believe in JS if you have to accept his sins?

I'm not really concerned with what sins people want to create for him or for those he had. I've studied a lot of U.S. history (my first degree is History and I taught it for my career) and I've learned enough to know that historical data gathering is hard under the best of circumstances, and it's always, ALWAYS influenced by the bias of the researcher. Original source material makes this slightly less damning, but nothing will alleviate it short of an inspection of the Book of Life in the hereafter.

Why is this important? Because I know a great many things were written about historical figures that bears no resemblance to factual events. Students from my time grew up knowing that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and then proclaimed "I cannot tell a lie" because a biographer used this story to demonstrate his greatness. He had wooden teeth, and threw a coin across the Potomac.

I'm quite sure Joseph was or did some things wrong. That's called being a human. I'm also quite sure he translated the Book of Mormon and was ordained by resurrected beings. What activities he did to ensure his exaltation or craft his damnation are his to deal with.

:edited to add emphasis:
I don't have faith in Joseph Smith. I have faith in Jesus Christ.

Christ created the world. He is certainly powerful enough to remove from the earth a man who would lead astray His Church. The scripture I quoted comes into play again. What fruit does the restored church bear? Spreading the Gospel of Christ to all lands as the opportunities become available. Helping people learn how to live their lives in accordance with principles taught in the New Testament. Getting people involved with genealogy to allow temple work to be done for those who have passed on. I don't need to know how Brother Joseph raised his kids, how he ran a bar in his basement, or what other people say about him. I know God used him to restore the gospel to its fullness.

From there what I need to know is how to learn more about the teachings of the savior, how to better love my fellow man, especially since so bloody many of them are idiots of the highest order (I'm a retired teacher - trust me on this one) and how to gain a better understanding of how to apply the atonement in my own life.

[David13]

Playing devil's advocate here. There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today. I'm all for justice today but we can't be credible if we aren't willing to examine the very mistakes we collectively made in the past. What good is it to condemn today if we turn a blind eye to our past yesterday sins?

Hollywood seems to be in the midst of an implosion. This is a great thing. While it's sad that the entertainment industry may have sheltered and protected a sexual predator, I have to say it doesn't come as a surprise. The idea of a "Casting Couch" is almost as old as the industry itself. It's terrible that some women have been very harshly coerced against their will into doing sexual things they didn't want. I'm all for taking rapists and child molesters and beheading them publically.

That last statement is not, rpt. NOT hyperbole: If you commit forcible rape or sexual molestation against someone unable to consent because of age or innate mental condition, I would be glad to provide society with the swing of an axe to remove your head after a legitimate judicial review. Hell, I'll forge the axe in my barn myself, if needed.

You may be a "collective" Charley, I'm not.
dc

[brlenox]

Look, I'm a very active Mormon but I have no problem separating what was pure divine intelligence and what was immoral. If you haven't read the Nauvoo essay then I don't understand how you can say I made an "erroneous comparison."

Tell me this. Prophets have always done immoral / grotesque things that we regular members would be excommunicated for. Nephi killed, JS married a 14 year old girl. Both were spiritual giants and both did awful things. Why do we have to accept that all JS did was good in order to accept his restored gospel. This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous.

Playing devil's advocate here. There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today. I'm all for justice today but we can't be credible if we aren't willing to examine the very mistakes we collectively made in the past. What good is it to condemn today if we turn a blind eye to our past yesterday sins?

You think you are making a point and perhaps it is hyperbole, perhaps you are serious, but dragging other innocents ie. President Young and President Smith, into an erroneous comparison is disrespectful and unnecessary. Whatever you have suffered can only be made worse by such tawdry behavior.

I am pleased that you are an active Mormon but you are making the classic mistake of expressing understanding where there is none. Reminds me of God's question to Job:

Job 38:2

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

What is evident is that you do not understand any of the examples you put forth as evidences of the evil acts of prophets. Just using the Nephi example is sufficient to illustrate a multitude of errors in judgment. It also indicates you have yet to understand God, if you would think that he would tolerate his prophet being an intentional murderer as defined in scripture and yet establish him and bless him for a righteous life. You characterize Nephi as "immoral / grotesque". In the same breath you judge God since it was through his spirit that Nephi was directed to slay Laban. Perhaps James 1 will provide sufficient cognitive dissonance that you rethink so brash a conviction:

James 1:13-15

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Perhaps if you wanted to exercise a moment's patience you might study it out as this author did in this very abbreviated review of the Nephi /Laban scenario. Which though abbreviated will still shed more light on the incident than you manifest having ever received before.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=45802&p=792035&hil ... 14#p792035

Of course there is Joseph Smith, also levied with the stamp of your final judgment - another "immoral / grotesque" character in God's burlesque rendition of the plan of salvation where those of unrepentant immoral character and turpitude prevail to receive the greatest blessings.

"I'm a very active Mormon but" ...but what? When Joseph Smith was alive he endured up to 46 times where he was hauled into court. Sometimes he faced anywhere from 30 to 40 witnesses against him. They created false witness, they challenged his integrity, they accused him in the courts of law over and over and yet, he was never found guilty. Never in any instance when he was hauled before men of sound reasoning and mature mental disposition was he ever found guilty. The mobs constantly trying to drum up charges to convict an innocent man even with all of the liars they could hire or convince to bring charges against and yet they could not prevail to get a guilty judgment on any counts. Yet you having nothing but the efforts of like minded people, mobsters in their hearts, who still seek to destroy a man by creating false witness, by distorting facts, and by confusing the narrative so that weak minded people such as yourself can defiantly exclaim "I'm a very active Mormon but" ... "This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous."

Even in the time the history was in the making it was erroneous as evidenced by the multitude of failed efforts to prove otherwise, but now you join your voice with the modern mob, the new historians still making their claims, still bringing their charges and for some reason failing to learn the lessons that the factual history sustains - he was never found guilty - and now you without a court, with no actual witnesses claim you know the problem with "today's" Mormonism. You know the facts of the issues and you have rendered judgment and he is guilty. Do you want to know what the problem is with "today's Mormonism"? It is you - and people like you who claim to be enlightened manifesting nothing even close to such.

However, all said, I doubt you do this intentionally. You are just a product of a generation of divided loyalties. You don't know what it is to throw your hat into the ring and be committed with all of your heart, might, mind, and strength. Being generous you might be up to this level - a part time soldier, or one of the partially yoked - as described in the writings of Neil A. Maxwell:

If we enlist and take the Savior's yoke upon us we "shall find rest unto [our] souls" (Matthew 11:29). If we are only part-time soldiers, though, partially yoked, we experience quite the opposite: frustration, irritation, and the absence of His full grace and spiritual rest. In that case weaknesses persist and satisfactions are intermittent. . . Actually the partially yoked experience little spiritual satisfaction, because they are burdened by carrying the awful weight of the natural man -- without any of the joys that come from progressing toward becoming "the man of Christ." They have scarcely "[begun] to be enlightened" (Alma 32:34). The meek and fully yoked, on the other hand, find God's reassuring grace and see their weakness yielding to strength (see Ether 12:27).

Strange as it seems, a few of the partially yoked, undeservedly wearing the colors of the kingdom, are just close enough to the prescribed path and process to be able to observe in others some of the visible costs of discipleship. Sobered by that observation, they want victory without battle and expect campaign ribbons merely for watching; but there is no witness until after the trial of their faith (see Ether 12:6).

These same Church members know just enough about the doctrines to converse superficially on them, but their scant knowledge about the deep doctrines is inadequate for deep discipleship (see 1 Corinthians 2:10). Thus uninformed about the deep doctrines, they make no deep change in their lives. They lack the faith to "give place" (Alma 32:27) consistently for real discipleship. Such members move out a few hundred yards from the entrance to the straight and narrow path and repose on the first little rise, thinking, "Well, this is all there is to it"; and they end up living far below their possibilities. While not as distant as those King Benjamin described "For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?" (Mosiah 5:13) -- these people are not drawing closer either. (Men and Women of Christ [1991], pp. 2-3)

Sometimes these such call themselves "active Mormons" not really comprehending what it really takes to wear that moniker. These who darkeneth counsel without wisdom should consider upon something Joseph once Said:

Had I inspiration, revelation, and lungs to communicate what my soul has contemplated in times past, there is not a soul in this congregation but would go to their homes and shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something. Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain. (Smith, Joseph, Speaking at a funeral for Judge Elias Higbee on August 13, 1843)

Become an active Mormon then - learn something. Be one who has studied the scriptures, one who has come to know the mind of God and who truly understands the greatness of his prophets and apostles because he has studied their writings and knows their spirits as well.

Don't forget the link above to learn a little about Nephi and when you are done with that decide whose side you are on.

[Benjamin_LK]

Getting back to the topic. The mass is just putting out a scapegoat to divert attention from the bigger problem. Just as much as there has been a casting couch, I would argue that they have also had a scapegoating system to pile up on one or a few offenders to divert any possible attention from some of what they are doing.

[JohnnyL]

Tell me this. Prophets have always done immoral / grotesque things that we regular members would be excommunicated for. Nephi killed, JS married a 14 year old girl. Both were spiritual giants and both did awful things. Why do we have to accept that all JS did was good in order to accept his restored gospel. This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous.

Is marrying a 14 year old immoral? I am not advocating it but where in the scriptures is it said to be immoral? Consider this a challenge.

On top of that, what was this "marriage?" DNA evidence shows it wasn't JS's child.

[JohnnyL]

Not to mention a mountain of evidence that Joseph did not have sexual relations with most of the women he covenanted with, and maybe not any of them. For starters, DNA has proven that none of the children that were supposedly his by plural wives actually could have been his. Quite remarkable since birth control was considered evil, and not much known about it in the first place. Second, none of the women he was sealed to that were not otherwise married ever ended up pregnant during his life, though many of them had children with their future spouses (meaning, they didn't have fertility problems, and neither did Joseph) or current spouses. Third, sealing then was a way of sealing the human family together, and allowing faithful women who were either single, married to non-mormons (and one of the non-mormons even allowed his wife to be sealed to Joseph since he thought it was all baloney anyway) to be a part of the new and everlasting covenant. Fourth, in light of the fiendish doings of John C. Bennett and the "Strikers" seducing women all over Nauvoo with "spiritual wifery" or having sex if you kept it secret, Joseph and Emma acted together to teach what the correct principle was, Celestial marriage and at times plural marriage, but never illicit sex as long as you kept it secret that Bennett and others were seducing women with. In teaching that principle to vulnerable women (widows and single sisters), many of them were sealed to Joseph and other bretheren, with Emma as a witness and a participant to some of those sealings. Emma felt that plural marriage should not be conjugal, especially in light of what Bennett and the Strikers had been doing. Of course, that directly contradicts Section 132 of the D&C, which makes it clear it was appropriate to have conjugal relations and raise up children to the Lord. But it appears that no one had conjugal relations with their plural wives until at least 1843, probably in order to avoid confusing what Bennett had been doing with the real law of plural marriage. My guess is Joseph avoided it altogether due to Emma's feelings on the matter. The evidence to back it up is the lack of any child that has Joseph's DNA outside of Emma. For a more thoughtful look at the polygamy of Joseph and Brigham Young, read Reluctant Polygamist by Meg Strout. It is very enlightening.

Yes, thank you! This one post puts the "essays" to shame.

[Mark]

Look, I'm a very active Mormon but I have no problem separating what was pure divine intelligence and what was immoral. If you haven't read the Nauvoo essay then I don't understand how you can say I made an "erroneous comparison."

Tell me this. Prophets have always done immoral / grotesque things that we regular members would be excommunicated for. Nephi killed, JS married a 14 year old girl. Both were spiritual giants and both did awful things. Why do we have to accept that all JS did was good in order to accept his restored gospel. This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous.

Playing devil's advocate here. There is more than enough evidence that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young committed the very crimes you'd kill men for doing today. I'm all for justice today but we can't be credible if we aren't willing to examine the very mistakes we collectively made in the past. What good is it to condemn today if we turn a blind eye to our past yesterday sins?

You think you are making a point and perhaps it is hyperbole, perhaps you are serious, but dragging other innocents ie. President Young and President Smith, into an erroneous comparison is disrespectful and unnecessary. Whatever you have suffered can only be made worse by such tawdry behavior.

I am pleased that you are an active Mormon but you are making the classic mistake of expressing understanding where there is none. Reminds me of God's question to Job:

Job 38:2

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

What is evident is that you do not understand any of the examples you put forth as evidences of the evil acts of prophets. Just using the Nephi example is sufficient to illustrate a multitude of errors in judgment. It also indicates you have yet to understand God, if you would think that he would tolerate his prophet being an intentional murderer as defined in scripture and yet establish him and bless him for a righteous life. You characterize Nephi as "immoral / grotesque". In the same breath you judge God since it was through his spirit that Nephi was directed to slay Laban. Perhaps James 1 will provide sufficient cognitive dissonance that you rethink so brash a conviction:

James 1:13-15

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Perhaps if you wanted to exercise a moment's patience you might study it out as this author did in this very abbreviated review of the Nephi /Laban scenario. Which though abbreviated will still shed more light on the incident than you manifest having ever received before.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=45802&p=792035&hil ... 14#p792035

Of course there is Joseph Smith, also levied with the stamp of your final judgment - another "immoral / grotesque" character in God's burlesque rendition of the plan of salvation where those of unrepentant immoral character and turpitude prevail to receive the greatest blessings.

"I'm a very active Mormon but" ...but what? When Joseph Smith was alive he endured up to 46 times where he was hauled into court. Sometimes he faced anywhere from 30 to 40 witnesses against him. They created false witness, they challenged his integrity, they accused him in the courts of law over and over and yet, he was never found guilty. Never in any instance when he was hauled before men of sound reasoning and mature mental disposition was he ever found guilty. The mobs constantly trying to drum up charges to convict an innocent man even with all of the liars they could hire or convince to bring charges against and yet they could not prevail to get a guilty judgment on any counts. Yet you having nothing but the efforts of like minded people, mobsters in their hearts, who still seek to destroy a man by creating false witness, by distorting facts, and by confusing the narrative so that weak minded people such as yourself can defiantly exclaim "I'm a very active Mormon but" ... "This is the problem with today's Mormonism. I point out accurate history and you call it erroneous."

Even in the time the history was in the making it was erroneous as evidenced by the multitude of failed efforts to prove otherwise, but now you join your voice with the modern mob, the new historians still making their claims, still bringing their charges and for some reason failing to learn the lessons that the factual history sustains - he was never found guilty - and now you without a court, with no actual witnesses claim you know the problem with "today's" Mormonism. You know the facts of the issues and you have rendered judgment and he is guilty. Do you want to know what the problem is with "today's Mormonism"? It is you - and people like you who claim to be enlightened manifesting nothing even close to such.

However, all said, I doubt you do this intentionally. You are just a product of a generation of divided loyalties. You don't know what it is to throw your hat into the ring and be committed with all of your heart, might, mind, and strength. Being generous you might be up to this level - a part time soldier, or one of the partially yoked - as described in the writings of Neil A. Maxwell:

If we enlist and take the Savior's yoke upon us we "shall find rest unto [our] souls" (Matthew 11:29). If we are only part-time soldiers, though, partially yoked, we experience quite the opposite: frustration, irritation, and the absence of His full grace and spiritual rest. In that case weaknesses persist and satisfactions are intermittent. . . Actually the partially yoked experience little spiritual satisfaction, because they are burdened by carrying the awful weight of the natural man -- without any of the joys that come from progressing toward becoming "the man of Christ." They have scarcely "[begun] to be enlightened" (Alma 32:34). The meek and fully yoked, on the other hand, find God's reassuring grace and see their weakness yielding to strength (see Ether 12:27).

Strange as it seems, a few of the partially yoked, undeservedly wearing the colors of the kingdom, are just close enough to the prescribed path and process to be able to observe in others some of the visible costs of discipleship. Sobered by that observation, they want victory without battle and expect campaign ribbons merely for watching; but there is no witness until after the trial of their faith (see Ether 12:6).

These same Church members know just enough about the doctrines to converse superficially on them, but their scant knowledge about the deep doctrines is inadequate for deep discipleship (see 1 Corinthians 2:10). Thus uninformed about the deep doctrines, they make no deep change in their lives. They lack the faith to "give place" (Alma 32:27) consistently for real discipleship. Such members move out a few hundred yards from the entrance to the straight and narrow path and repose on the first little rise, thinking, "Well, this is all there is to it"; and they end up living far below their possibilities. While not as distant as those King Benjamin described "For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?" (Mosiah 5:13) -- these people are not drawing closer either. (Men and Women of Christ [1991], pp. 2-3)

Sometimes these such call themselves "active Mormons" not really comprehending what it really takes to wear that moniker. These who darkeneth counsel without wisdom should consider upon something Joseph once Said:

Had I inspiration, revelation, and lungs to communicate what my soul has contemplated in times past, there is not a soul in this congregation but would go to their homes and shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something. Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain. (Smith, Joseph, Speaking at a funeral for Judge Elias Higbee on August 13, 1843)

Become an active Mormon then - learn something. Be one who has studied the scriptures, one who has come to know the mind of God and who truly understands the greatness of his prophets and apostles because he has studied their writings and knows their spirits as well.

Don't forget the link above to learn a little about Nephi and when you are done with that decide whose side you are on.

Here here brother! I think you nailed it with this analysis. It is so interesting to see people come on this site and profess their never ending love and loyalty for the church and its leadership in one breathe and then start to excoriate it in the next. Seems pretty double sided to me.. justkeepswimming has become compromised whether he is willing to admit it or not. (I think the poster is a he.) Just out of curiosity I went back to his first post on this site a few weeks back. He ended it by saying this:

" My personal temptation to leave (the church) at times is that I like the idea of growing my own self confidence with the Lord, w/o the need of a scheduled routine, or physical buildings to be in. I've benefited from the church so much that I can't leave but if I ever did, I would not look at it as leaving the church but moving on from it to the Lord directly. As much as I love the church, sometimes it feels a little to bureaucratic to me."

There's that pesky "BUT" again. I can hear all the talking points now: Arm of flesh cursings; etc etc etc. Kind of like me saying to my sweetie I love you BUT I cant stand this this and this about you. And this and this. This is also driving me crazy. Cant you PLEASE change this??

[JohnnyL]

Were any of the women coming forward raped, or just gave sex for work? Big difference... If it was the latter, what are they complaining about?