Prayer circles in your home

Local stake and ward prayer circles were organized and conducted until May 3, 1978, when the First Presidency announced that all prayer circles should be discontinued except those performed in a temple as part of an Endowment ceremony (See Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, Letter to All Stake Presidents and Bishops. May 3, 1978; “Update,” 3 Sunstone 6, July-August 1978).

The reason for this change is unknown, but could have resulted, in part, from the explosive growth of the Church and the fact that prayer circles were usually organized by a member of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (D. Michael Quinn, Latter-day Saint Prayer Circles. page 105).

Prayer circle wiki[1]

[Update 11/15/2016: I am wrong.  This Book of Enoch was written by a 1970’s spin off version of the church after a missionary wanted to return to polygamy.  Parley P. Pratt’s book of Enoch doesn’t mention True order of Prayer or veiled faces.  But he did have one.  I confused the versions of the Book of Enoch]

[Original content:] Book of Enoch that Parley P. Pratt had with him in 1844 mentions, “True order of Prayer.” and women having their faces veiled[2][/Original content].

How to construct your own altar for the prayer circle in your home[3], including a letter from the First Presidency in Brigham Young’s time.

Posted in Current issues | Leave a comment

Wildcat banks and the Kirtland Safety Society: Another FAIRLDS farce

FAIR’s Description:

4.1 Wildcat Banks

An almost amusing claim by some critics is that the Safety Society was a wildcat bank. It seems likely this claim is based on the expectation that most readers today don’t know what a wildcat bank was, and therefore will be unable to judge for themselves whether the claim is true.

Read the first two paragraphs of this and see who you think is spinning the facts after this point[1].

More FAIR:

It is wholly false, and easily demonstrated as such. A wildcat bank was an enterprise intended only for defrauding the public. The operators would open for business, accepting deposits of specie and issuing bank notes in return. They would print more notes, and use them to go out and buy whatever they liked. The problem was where they located the bank office. The location was somewhere in the middle of a forest, or in the mountains, or some other location very difficult to find. Only the wildcats went there.

Hmm.. let’s see what it really means:

Wiki article: “According to some sources, the term came from a bank in Michigan that issued private paper currency with the image of a wildcat.”

ಠ_ಠ

That’s not the same definition at all.  Is wiki lying, or is FAIR wholesale making things up?  No cited sources for FAIR, no quotes, nothing to back up this claim.

Because the bank office could not be found, no one could redeem the bank notes for specie. Once this was recognized, the bank notes quickly became worthless, and the operators of the bank disappeared with their goods and stolen specie.

The Safety Society office was down the street from the Kirtland Temple, a block from Joseph Smith’s house and across the street from Sidney Rigdon’s. If Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were trying to make the office impossible to find, they did a pretty poor job of it.

Were wildcat banks really about hiding the offices?

Wikipedia again:

The traditional view of wildcat banks describes them as distributing nearly worthless currency backed by questionable security (such as mortgages and bonds).

Kinda like Bear Sterns or Lehman Brothers–poorly backed banks based on paper transactions like mortgages. And no, I didn’t just go edit the Wikipedia article just to make the church look bad.

TL;DR: Seriously, the FAIR article writer is hoping that people don’t know what “Wildcat banks” are in an attempt to confuse the issue.

Hey kettle, this is pot. You’re black!

Posted in Apologetics | Leave a comment

Tax-exempt status and black people: How the government can change God’s mind

The following is a list of websites that address the loss of tax exempt status. I don’t know that there is a smoking gun that would convince a member, but the crowd here should be able to read and enjoy:

Rex Lee (previously president of BYU) once argued on record to protect the church’s tax exempt status over a question of race[1]

A note about tax-exempt status: Religious entities can pretty much say what they want and not lose tax-exempt status. However, it is very different for Religious Educational entities:

BYU – Ricks – CCH The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents, the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation.

On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism’d sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could “no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.” IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not “treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].” Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, “applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) ” See id., at A232.

BYU, Ricks and CCH probably received this letter.

On June 30, 1971, the three-judge District Court issued its opinion on the merits of the Mississippi challenge. Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150, summarily aff’d sub nom. Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971). That court approved the IRS’s amended construction of the Tax Code. The court also held that racially discriminatory private schools were not entitled to exemption under 501(c)(3) and that donors were not entitled to deductions for contributions to such schools under 170. The court permanently enjoined the Commissioner of [461 U.S. 574, 579] Internal Revenue from approving tax-exempt status for any school in Mississippi that did not publicly maintain a policy of nondiscrimination.

The IRS’s 1970 interpretation of 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools’ policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above “charitable” concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3). Pp. 592-596.

The Government’s fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners’ exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners’ asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 602-604.

BOB JONES UNIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)[2]

Corporate Sole is the safest organization for a racist 501(c)(3). The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a Corporate Sole.

Other Corporate Sole corporations:

Harrie A. Schmidt, Jr., state chairman of the Populist Party, which is run nationally by Ku Klux Klan leader Kim Badynski.

Glen Stoll, a Populist Party member who also is involved in the Embassy of Heaven, an anti-government religious organization based in Sublimity, Ore. Stoll was the leader of the Liaison Group, which called for militia members across the Northwest to assist Whatcom County constitutionalist Donald Ellwanger in a 1995 standoff with the IRS.

Doyal Gudgel, also active in the Liaison Group, but best known for organizing events in Seattle for David Irving, a British man who denies the Holocaust happened.

Despite huge holes in the secretary of state’s database, Lunsford was able to spot about 50 corporation soles associated with white supremacists, militiamen, constitutionalists or people who deny the Holocaust. He discovered some supporters of the Christian Identity, anti-government group Posse Comitatus had set up “soles” as early as 1979.

Bonus[3]:

David Ransom: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen.

DR: So in retrospect WAS THE CHURCH WRONG IN THAT?

GBH: NO I DON’T THINK IT WAS WRONG. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them.

DR: WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT?

GBH: I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE REASON WAS. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Satan is author of Republican Party: Wilford Woodruff

May 24, 1892: “I was called upon by two City Councillors and one Baptist minister. A card from Joseph F. and John Henry Smith was read and published in the stand and against the speech of Moses Thatcher saying that Satan was the author of the Republican party.”

Mind you, the man who helped found the party also got Joseph Smith’s killers off the hook.

Posted in Early Church History (1800s), Humor and wit, Politics | 4 Comments

Treasure Hunting Guide featuring Joseph Smith

http://josephantley.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/treasure-seeking-rituals-topical-guide-oct.pdf

Posted in Early Church History (1800s) | Leave a comment

Abraham Woodruff Quote about polygamy must produce children every year.

Abraham Woodruff: “…no year will ever pass, whether it be in this country [Mexico], in India, or wherever, from now until the coming of the Saviour, when children will not be born in Plural Marriage. And I make this prophecy in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Journal and Notes, 61, 18-19 Nov. 1900, Church Archives)

This is why the FLDS have so many children. They are trying to prevent us from being cut off by holding off the saviors return by having babies. Noble of them

What I didn’t know was that it was an LDS apostle that said it, NOT a FLDS apostle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_O._Woodruff[1]

Posted in Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints | Leave a comment

Joseph Smith III rightful successor quotes

I have never particularly desired any man to testify publicly that I am a Prophet; nevertheless, if any man feels joy, in doing this, he shall be blest in it. I have never said that I am not a Prophet; but, if I am not, one thing is certain, I have been very profitable to this people” (Journal of Discourses 10:339).

Posted in Succession Crisis | Leave a comment

Critical Thinking, Logic, and Skepticism for Children Course: Lesson 2

Lesson 2

Opening Song (First two verses):

If there’s a question bothering your brain
That you think you know how to explain
You need a test
Yeah, think up a test

If it’s possible to prove it wrong
You’re going to want to know before too long
You’ll need a test

Fundamental Rules of Logic:

  • One of the primary principles of logic is the law of (non-) contradiction. Basically it states that no statement (proposition, assertion, etc.) can be both true and not true.

My cousin rode an elephant.  My Cousin has never ridden elephants before.

  • The second primary law of logic is the principle of excluded middle (principium tertii exclusi). The law of (non-)contradiction simply states that A cannot equal, or be, non-A.

Either your cousin rode an elephant, or he/she did not.

  • The third primary law of logic is called the law of identity. It states that A = A, or that “if any statement is true, then it is true.”

My cousin rode an elephant on a merry go round.  It was wooden.

  • The fourth primary law of logic is the law of logical or rational inference, meaning that facts can prove other facts.

Your cousin rode on a model of an elephant, not an actual elephant, therefore, your cousin did not ride on an elephant.  He/she rode on an elephant-like structure.

  • Activity 1:  Have the children come up with a proposition.  Then have them write the negation of that proposition.  Have them write the excluded middle format. Have them identify facts that would establish the proposition.  Encourage them to try, even if this is not clear. Older children may need to create facts for younger ones.

Imagination can be very helpful here.  Comic books can be a great use here, as children can comprehend that Spiderman does not exist, but if one states that he exists, he should be able to be established by various facts.  This can help the kids move into a layer of abstraction.

Logical Deduction 1: Descarte’s Thinking Thing

Tell the children to think about what they are.  Explain that in the early 1600s there was a philosopher named Rene Descartes who had the same question.  His fundamental question was “Am I a body with a mind, or am I a mind with a Body?”

To illustrate use the following example:
Imagine that we are scientists or doctors and that, to treat someone to make them better, we need to cut away everything that is “not them.”  If we cut off a finger, would the person still be “them”?  An Arm?

At what point would they no longer be them?

Explain that Rene Descartes was trying to answer a similar question.  He came up with the idea that we are “thinking things.”  That is to say that the body is added on to a mind that exists independently.  He talks about “What if we are someone else’s dream like the Tweedledee  posits to Alice in ‘Through the Looking Glass’?”  He thinks about “What if he is a brain in a jar somewhere, just imagining it has a body?”

How could we test these hypotheses?

Phineas Gage Video.

Explain that scientists can actually show that different parts of our brain are connected to different behaviors because of accidents like Phineas Gage’s, where bits of brain were cut out.

Another philosopher who knew Descartes was named Thomas Hobbes.  Hobbes is probably most famous for having a tiger named after him. Hobbes posited that we are a body and that the mind is a creation of it.

How could we test this hypothesis?

Logic isn’t about guessing

Both Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes were, in the primary case, guessing.  They had some reasons for their guesses, but neither one actually put it to the test.

Anyone can guess. Anyone can make statements that sound reasonable but are not (such as in our elephant example).  What separates logic from guesses is that it is built on “deductions,” that is, that it considers facts as building blocks to come to a conclusion.

  • Activity 2:  Build a block tower out of Jenga-like blocks.  Start to remove a block from the bottom.  Ask the children what will happen if you remove the bottom blocks.

Logic relies on basic building blocks that work together with rules, just like a block tower.  Follow the rules, and you have a “firm foundation”–your argument is strong.  Skip pieces and ignore rules, and your tower will be weak.

  • Activity 3:  Have the children throw the blocks (Guessing).

Explain that guessing is like throwing blocks.  Although you might get a few blocks to stack up, it will never be as firm as the tower.

Conclusion:

We can know more about ourselves and the world around us by using the principles of logic to establish firm “towers” of belief that do not rely on guesswork.

There are four primary laws of logic (have the children repeat them, possibly hand out candy/cookies to children who can remember them):

  1. Law of (non-) contradiction – A statement cannot be both true and false.
  2. Principle of excluded middle- There is no third proposition. Either it happened or it did not (no quibbling).
  3. Law of identity – A true statement is true.
  4. Law of logical or rational inference – Statements can follow each other to a conclusion.

Homework:  Observe a person for a day and then write a story from their point of view.  Take it as accurately to how that person would think and feel about their decisions.  Feel free to ask the person why the make the choices they do, or how they would react.  The point is to get a feeling of how that person thinks and feels; as well as to understand how they are different form you.

Posted in Critical Thinking course for Kids | Leave a comment

Critical Thinking, Logic, and Skepticism for Children Course: Lesson 1

Lesson 1

Song[1]:

We will be singing this song as part of our opening song:

If there’s a question bothering your brain                                                                               That you think you know how to explain                                                                                You need a test                                                                                                                            Yeah, think up a test

If it’s possible to prove it wrong                                                                                            You’re going to want to know before too long                                                                    You’ll need a test                                                                                                                              

If somebody says they figured it out                                                                                         And they’re leaving any room for doubt                                                                               Come up with a test                                                                                                                  Yeah, you need a test

Are you sure that that thing is true?                                                                                           Or did someone just tell it to you?                                                                                           Come up with a test                                                                                                                      

Test it out

Find a way to show what would happen                                                                                     If you were incorrect                                                                                                                   (Test it out)

A fact is just a fantasy                                                                                                              Unless it can be checked                                                                                                                          Make a test                                                                                                                                       Test it out                                                                                                                                            

If you want to know if it’s the truth                                                                                               Then, my friend, you are going to need proof                                                                       Come up with a test                                                                                                                           Yeah, you need a test

Don’t believe it ’cause they say it’s so                                                                                            If it’s not true, you have a right to know                                                                                  Put it to the test (put it to the test)                                                                                           Yeah, test it out (put it to the test)                                                                                         Yeah, put it to the test (put it to the test)                                                                                  Put it to the test (put it to the test)

Topic 1: What is Logic?

1. Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: “experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic.”

2. A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: “Aristotelian logic.”

Topic 2: What is skepticism?

Any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts.

  • Discussion 1: Playground beliefs.

Has any kid ever made a claim that you found hard to believe? Have any kids made claims you later found out was not true? Have you ever made such a claim?

Skepticsm is a method of approaching life that makes you “less wrong” or able to see through these kinds of deceptions easier.

  • Activity 1: Look up “Free” things online. See how they are not really free.

Topic 2: What is Critical Thinking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iSZ3BUru59A[2]

  • Activity 2: Triangle Hypothesis

A plane figure with three straight sides and three angles. Cut out a Triangle from paper. Now cut the corners off and show how it is flat on one side if you line them all up (180 degrees).

Tell them that any triangle will always line up this way if the corners are cut off.

Instruct the children to draw their own triangles and cut off the corners. Have them try to make a triangle that does not line up. Encourage kids who draw scalene or acute triangles for trying and exploring.

Once the kids have completed the activity, ask if they believe your statement more now that they have tested it. Encourage them that if they ever did find such a triangle they should immediately show the class, because it would be a very important find for mathematics.

Conclusion: By learning Logic, Skeptism and Critical Thinking, we will not be as deceived and we will live lives where we are wrong less often.

Farewell video (House Hippo)[3]

Posted in Critical Thinking course for Kids | Leave a comment

Polygamy Laws in effect in Joseph Smith’s day

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99:

Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred.

This wouldn’t apply to Fanny Alger or the Johnson girl who were pre-Nauvoo, but this was the law in effect for most of Smith’s marriages.

Source for the law was based on English law:

At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical [98 U.S. 145, 165] courts, and until the time of James I., it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals, not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.

By the statute of 1 James I. (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period re-enacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. – U.S. v. Reynolds, 98 U.S. 145, 164-65 (1878).

The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy act, the 1879 SCOTUS Reynolds decision, and the 1882 Edmunds Act all reaffirmed the illegality of Mormon “plural marriage.”

Posted in Polygamy | Leave a comment