Jim's strawman and misrepresentation

"(Jeremy, you provide no evidence of a racist revelation, and your understanding of what constitutes doctrine is deeply flawed.)"

I do, Jim. I've provided how the Church and its leadership (including the First Presidency) defended and rationalized the ban as originating from God in my Debunkings for years, which you completely ignore and keep your readers in the dark about.

I expand and go further on this in the Racist ban not divine! box answer below.

The one here whose understanding of doctrine is deeply flawed is actually Jim's as he is peddling a homemade Jim Bennett Mormonism® version of Mormonism at odds with the actual doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You don't have to take my word on this...see for yourself in my line-by-line debunking of Jim's "Reply".

“We don’t believe in infallibility of our leaders.”
– PRESIDENT DALLIN H. OAKS, PRESS CONFERENCE, JANUARY 15, 2018

And I don't either. We (critics) don't either. Leaders like Oaks and Mormon apologists like Jim Bennett keep creating the strawman that we insist that leaders are supposed to be perfect when that is not our argument, claim or position. We'll talk much more about this below in the "Infallibility Strawman box answer.

Jim doesn't give us the link to the Press Conference where Oaks said this (Jim accidentally duplicated Uchtdorf's link). Here's the correct link to the source: KUTV's LDS Church introduces new leadership to worldwide audience.

Oaks is the last person who should be saying this. If Oaks really believes in his statement, why does he make the following contradictory statements and claims, which implies an infallibility of the LDS Church and its leaders?

Source

Source

"We do not give apologies" - Dallin Oaks

Is it just me or is Elder Christofferson cringing hard in the above video?

Jim's "Short Answer"

I'm going to break the above into three parts because they deserve their own complete individual debunkings:

Lord won't mess with Prophets' agency

Oh, like this time Joseph got paid a visit?

Source

I guess commanding Joseph under threat of destruction to marry little girls is more important to the Mormon god than waiting until 1978 to tell his Church and prophet to finally stop being embarrassing racist shits.

I guess threatening Joseph under threat of destruction to marry his foster daughters is more important than telling the Saints three words that would have revolutionized the world and made Joseph and the Mormons absolute global heroes: "Boil your water."

I guess threatening Joseph under threat of destruction to marry mother-daughter sets / sister sets / already married women (polyandry) or pressuring Nephi to cut Laban's head off are more important to the Mormon god than stopping the holocaust and genocides.

"Infallibility" Strawman

Who said anything about personal "infallibility"? That's your bullshit strawman and claim; not mine.

I don't expect personal infallibility or perfection. I just expect basic integrity, consistency, decency and morality...not the absolute disgusting and immoral piece of shit that is Brigham Young. Or most of the racist cowards in both quorums who carried and upheld institutional racism for the next 130 years.

It's also a strawman as I never claim that prophets are not fallible or mortal men. I never claim there's a "Super-Brigham" nor do I ever use that term. I do not know of any other critic who uses this term or claims that prophets are not human or fallible (or that they should be).

This is a common go-to attack that apologists use against critics ad nauseam. They create a strawman that critics are claiming that prophets should be perfect and infallible. Critics do not make such a claim. Jim often uses this card and strawman against me throughout his Jim Bennett Mormonism® Manifesto.

Joseph Smith said:

"I never told you I was perfect, but there is no errors in the revelations which I have taught..."

- The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369.

Here Joseph Smith is acknowledging personal fallibility but is teaching doctrinal infallibility.

Mormon apologists like to play in the mud squealing about personal fallibility while ignoring doctrinal infallibility.

Critics are focused on doctrinal infallibility and not on personal fallibility.

If we can't expect basic honesty, consistency and morality while these fallible men are speaking as prophets...what's the point of prophets? If yesterday's doctrine can be today's false doctrine and yesterday's prophet can be today's heretic...what's the point of prophets?

If these so-called "prophets" are just fallible and mortal men who have no greater connection with God than the rest of us...why then are we propping these men up or listening to anything they have to say? Especially in light of a clear and horrible ~200-year track record of consistent fraud, racism, bigotry and fake revelations?

If there's no real "Thus saith the Lord" and they're making stuff up as they go along...who cares what comes out of their mouths?

If you're truly a "prophet, seer or revelator", it is a reasonable expectation for you to act and demonstrate as such.

It is beyond reasonable to expect the "Lord's servants" to have basic integrity and consistency and to not teach divine racism or that Adam is God or claiming a revelation to ban LGBTQ+ before claiming another revelation to undo the previous LGBTQ+ ban just 3 years earlier.

"We will always teach the truth"

Prophets capable of making mistakes

Gee, I wonder where we all got the "black-and-white" idea that the Church and prophets are never wrong?

"I never told you I was perfect, but there is no errors in the revelations which I have taught..."

- The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [1980], 369.

"The Prophet will not lead you astray"

"We will not and cannot lead you astray"

"We will always teach the truth"

"They are the most perfect, inspired, unflawed leaders on Earth"

"When the Prophet speaks...Sisters, the debate is over"

Even Jim Bennett admits that members are indoctrinated that prophets are basically "born fully formed in perfection and they walk on air":

"born fully formed in perfection and they walk on air"

We're just so beyond "mistakes", Jim. A mistake is an unintentional harm and then correcting it and apologizing for it. These men are deliberate in their harmful deceptions. They do not apologize:

"We do not give apologies" - Dallin Oaks

What these men, masquerading around as prophets, have done to generations of Latter-day Saints is just criminal. The tragic LGBTQ+ suicides. The divorces and ruined family relationships because of the Church's truth crisis and how it brands those who leave. All the ruined lives, lost time, lost treasure and lost opportunities from the fallout of the LDS Church's truth crisis and dishonesty.

It's time for the con to stop and for the green curtain in Salt Lake to open so that we can end further preventable human tragedy, suffering, suicides, divorces, broken families and carnage that these men and their truth crisis are causing.

Adam-God

Let's look at the stunt that Jim just pulled here.

Here's a screenshot of the above CES Letter paragraph from the CES Letter:

And here's a screenshot of the same above CES Letter paragraph that Jim presents in his "Reply" for his readers:

Where's the clear hyperlinks? Jim's readers have no idea about the very important hyperlinks in this paragraph because Jim conceals and hides the hyperlinks from his readers. How dishonest is this?

Notice that Jim does not link to the Lecture at the Veil in his Reply document like I do in the CES Letter. There's a reason why Jim did this as we'll see below in the Factual Endowment Ceremony box below. There's a reason why Jim doesn't clearly share the hyperlinks as they lead to evidence and sources that debunk Jim's bullshit apologetics trying to distort and obfuscate this issue.

Jim does this deceptive shit all over his "Reply" document. It's just dishonest and should be a serious red flag to any truth seeker trying to get to the bottom of the LDS Church's truth crisis.

One of the reasons why Jim hides the hyperlinks is because they clearly show that Brigham Young not only taught and presented Adam-God as a doctrine but that he presented this doctrine as a direct revelation from the Mormon god himself and which doctrine and revelation Brigham introduced as the Lecture at the Veil in the Temple ceremony.

Jim is trying to reframe and present Adam-God as a "nothingburger" that was "not taken seriously" when this is not true. Brigham Young, as prophet, seer and revelator, took this very seriously for decades as revelation and doctrine.

Presentism

Presentism is what Mormon apologists run to in their attempts to diminish, soften, obfuscate, sidetrack and avoid the glaring problems of "prophets" behaving badly. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there", they often quote.

There's several problems with this L.P. Hartley quote that Jim and his apologist buddies use ad nauseum in avoiding the actual problems. Radio Free Mormon did an excellent podcast on this issue and quote. The quote is referring to a novel where the character is looking back at some of the terrible things he did as a teenager and knowing he would do things differently in the present. In other words, the past is a foreign country and they do things differently there because in the past he did things differently than what he'd do today.

As Radio Free Mormon brings this point home in sharing his conversion story: this would be the equivalent of me looking back at my time talking to the missionaries who taught me that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using gold plates that were open on the table with the interpreters. Looking back now, I know the missionaries (through no fault of their own - believed the narrative they were taught as well) were teaching me a history that is simply not true. So, in the past I joined the Church because I did things differently then but now I know the Church can be proven false I would make a different choice. In other words, the past is a foreign country because now I know so much more and cannot look back and judge my teenage self as if I knew then what I know now.

Maya Angelou summed up this beautifully in one of her famous quotes that I love:

"I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better."

Jim and apologists are misusing and bastardizing Mr. Hartley's quote for their own nefarious agenda of distracting their readers from their prophets' rancid immoralities and failings.

Slavery was wrong in the 19th-century just as it's wrong in the 21st-century. True prophets with a bat phone line to God would know this. Hell, people then without a bat phone line to God knew this.

Racism was wrong in the 19th-century just as it's wrong in the 21st-century. True prophets with a bat phone line to God would know this. People then without a bat phone line knew this.

Horrible misogyny was wrong in the 19th-century just as it's wrong in the 21st-century. True prophets with a bat phone line to God would know this. People then without a bat phone line knew this.

A married 38-year-old man marrying and having sex with teenagers (some of whom were his own foster daughters), sister sets, mother-daughter sets and other mens' wives was despicable, disgusting and wrong in the 19th-century (and they knew it even back then) just as it's wrong in the 21st-century. True prophets with a bat phone line to God would know this. Everyone back then was repulsed by all of this and some of them were even in the mob at Carthage to kill him.

Polygamy/Polyandry/adultery was wrong in the 19th-century just as it's wrong in the 21st-century. True prophets with a bat phone line to God would know this. People then without a bat phone line knew this.

Jim, you can't have it both ways. You can't accuse me and critics of "presentism" when we point to your "prophets" behaving badly while you also reject Moral Relativism. You cannot have it both ways.

You don’t get to say you’ve got a direct line to God who is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” while consistently lagging a generation behind contemporary societal morality (civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+, etc.).

It's worth repeating what I wrote in the CES Letter:

Why would I want my kids chanting “Follow the Prophet” with such a ridiculous and inconsistent 187-year track record? What credibility do the Brethren have? Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his “theories” that will likely be disavowed by future “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators”? If his moral blueprint is not much better than that of their Sunday School teachers? If, historically speaking, the doctrine he teaches today will likely be tomorrow’s false doctrine?

If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay, and God’s name is not “Adam”?

---

Back to the main question and issue that Jim obfuscates and avoids answering while hiding behind "presentism".

Notice how "prophet, seer and revelator" Brigham Young describes Adam-God: "doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our father and God".

Jim tries very hard to gaslight us here in this section by trying to tell us that Adam-God was never doctrine but here we see Jim contradicting his own prophet's words and adamant position that it was indeed a doctrine that God Himself revealed to him.

Brigham Young: Adam-God is "doctrine which God revealed to me".

Jim Bennett: No! Adam-God was never doctrine! Squirrel (aka Presentism)!

Jim attempts to diminish Adam-God to "idea"

This is just Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® mumbo jumbo trying to reframe the problem through the problematic "Presentism" lens that we've already covered in the Presentism previous box answer.

Jim is wrong. The Church did incorporate the Adam-God doctrine (that Jim tries to reduce and diminish to an "idea") by incorporating it into the very endowment ceremony of the Temple.

Kimball renounces Adam-God

"Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine and yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic."
- CES Letter

"Why would I want my kids chanting 'Follow the Prophet' with such a ridiculous and inconsistent 187-year track record? What credibility do the Brethren have? Why would I want them following the prophet when a prophet is just a man of his time teaching his 'theories' that will likely be disavowed by future 'Prophets, Seers, and Revelators'? If his moral blueprint is not much better than that of their Sunday School teachers? If, historically speaking, the doctrine he teaches today will likely be tomorrow’s false doctrine?

"If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay, and God’s name is not 'Adam'?"
- CES Letter

Yesterday's prophets and teachings disavowed

Actually, that's not my point. My point:

Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine and yesterday’s prophet is today’s heretic.

"Prophets, seers and revelators" vigorously disavowing Brigham Young and his Adam-God false doctrine is just one example - out of several - of the above main point.

Why are we following these men and what they say when even their own successors are disavowing them and their teachings?

"Just trust the prophet"

Of course Kimball was the living prophet in 1980, Jim. Your asinine question demonstrates your ignorance on the actual points and the deeper problems being discussed here.

The point is that McConkie is trashing yesterday's prophet Brigham Young for misleading and teaching yesterday's doctrine that is now today's false doctrine (that McConkie hilariously adds that the devil is using now) and yet McConkie, in the very same speech, ironically admonishes his listeners to listen to today's living prophet as a source for factual and accurate doctrine and information.

I talk about this some more below in the next box answer.

Factual Endowment Ceremony

If you had gotten the link to the Lecture at the Veil in Jim's Reply document like you would have from the CES Letter, you would have been taken to a link that has the following information:

Just before his death, Young took steps to ensure that the Adam–God doctrine was taught in the church's temples as part of the endowment ceremony. In 1877, while he was standardizing the endowment for use in the St. George Temple, Young introduced as part of the endowment the "lecture at the veil." L. John Nuttall, Young's secretary, recorded in his journal a transcription of Young's temple lecture regarding the Adam-God doctrine: A portion of that journal entry reads as follows:

Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours … and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world .... Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.

Now you know why, dear reader, Jim doesn't copy my quote exactly from the CES Letter by including the Lecture at the Veil hyperlink in his Reply document (See details of deception in above Adam-God box).

Instead of giving us the very important and relevant Lecture at the Veil information, Jim attempts to hide all of this from his readers while creating the above nonsensical and misleading strawman answer.

The Lecture at the Veil was claiming that Adam is God the Father who had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth, Adam's wife Eve is the common mother of all living spirits in the Celestial world and that Father Adam's oldest son is Jesus the Savior, Father Adam's first begotten in the Spirit World.

All of the above was taught in the Endowment ceremony of the Temple. Hence, the name: Lecture at the Veil.

This is what I'm referring to in my above CES Letter statement. Yesterday's true and factual endowment ceremony is now today's false and misleading endowment ceremony.

"Prophet, seer and revelator" Bruce McConkie was telling his listeners that if they received the Temple endowment that they "had no excuse whatsoever for being led astray" but McConkie fails to see the irony, contradiction and absurdity of his claim when you factor in how Adam-God "Lecture at the Veil" was coded into yesterday's Temple endowment ceremony.

Further, McConkie's 1980 statement about the truthfulness and reliability of the Temple endowment of that day would be undermined in the future by additional changes and revisions of the Temple endowment ceremony in 1990 as well as in the 21st-century.

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.'" – Ensign, August 2001, p.22

Yesterday's endowment ceremony is today's revised and corrected endowment ceremony. Today's endowment ceremony is tomorrow's revised and corrected endowment ceremony.

What about Brigham's Saints?

This is Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® attempt to reframe the Adam-God doctrine and revelation as a nothingburger "idea" that no one took seriously.

The record (that Jim hides and obfuscates from his readers by hiding hyperlinks) clearly shows that prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young presented Adam-God as both a doctrine and revelation from God. He introduced this doctrine as the Lecture of the Veil (hyperlink that Jim hides from his readers) in the Temple ceremony.

Brigham's successors, of course, ended up rejecting Adam-God after Brigham's death but the point stands: The Saints of Brigham's time had a living prophet teaching them false doctrine that he claimed was doctrine that was revealed to him by God himself. What about them and the predicament they were in?

How is McConkie's advice of following the living prophet reliable and trustworthy when there's a clear track record of living prophets leading the Saints astray and into the trees?

Jim's continued obfuscation

No, Jim. The actual only undermining going on here is you hiding sources and evidence from your readers that contradict and debunk your reframing and apologetic attempts.

Jim is attempting to distract from my main points of the unreliability of prophets by trying to make this about a popularity contest on how popular or unpopular the doctrine and revelation that prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young presented to the Saints.

While I'm focused on the problem of living prophets leading Saints astray with false doctrines and fake revelations, Jim is trying to distract his readers by pointing out that the doctrine eventually died off; as if this makes everything okay and a prophet having taught false doctrine and fake revelation as a little minor hiccup on the Mormon prophet track record.

Jim is dancing around the core problem and issue: Brigham Young, as prophet, seer and revelator (along with other prophets) have taught false doctrines and fake revelations. How are these so-called "prophets" reliable and why are we listening to anything they say?

Yesterday's prophet is today's heretic

What a bunch of Jim Bennett Mormonism®.

The name of the game, Jim, is consistency. If so-called "revelations" are contradictory and inconsistent - as the Mormon prophet track record is riddled with - we would be insane not to question the reliability and validity of Mormon prophets.

Parable time. Let's learn about the Parable of the Calculator:

If I have a calculator that can be wrong at arbitrary times, I'm going to have to check the numbers the calculator is giving me by hand every time I do a calculation. After two or three times of doing that I'm just not going to use the calculator anymore. A calculator that can be wrong at any random time is useless as a calculator.

Similarly, someone who claims to speak for god and relay his will, but can be wrong even when they explicitly say they're speaking for god, is useless as a mouthpiece for god.

If the prophet is no better than a man then he's no better than me. And if he's no better than me then why should I follow him?

If a prophet can speak as a man, then how can you know for certain when the man is speaking as a prophet? If you can't know for certain, what is the point of a prophet?

Blood Atonement

There goes Jim again with the quotes that he twists into his stupid strawman that he runs off with.

No, Jim. It's in quotes because that's what Brigham Young's teachings on this issue have become known as. Only you are twisting it to mean that I'm claiming that Brigham Young called it this and that it was "cOdiFiEd" and "sUsTaIneD" blah blah blah.

Jim's whole non-answer here is a strawman that is designed to ignore and obfuscate the issue. Jim is literally not answering or addressing my core question, concern and argument.

My above CES Letter statement stands correct. Brigham Young taught a doctrine that is known as "Blood Atonement" where a person's blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins as it was beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Further reading:

• Oath of Vengeance
• Blood Atonement Quotes
• Blood Atonement - Wikipedia

silLy bRiGhAm sCaRiNg fOLkS

This is the Church's and Jim's attempt to minimize and obfuscate the Blood Atonement doctrine into basically a little scary sermon given by Brigham Young.

The record proves otherwise. Blood Atonement had far reaching implications and impact on Mormonism - from Mountain Meadows Massacre to the Temple ceremony where for generations members of the Church swore a sacred oath of vengeance in the Temples praying that God would avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Source

More information on Oath of Vengeance.

The update is to convey to my readers that the May 2014 Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints essay did not exist when I wrote the letter to the CES Director in April 2013.

See previous silLy bRiGhAm sCaRiNg fOLkS box answer for my response to the rest of Jim's comment.

nOt dOcTrInE

This is Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® attempt to rebrand these problematic doctrines by trying to gaslight and Jedi mind trick all of us into believing they weren't even doctrines to begin with.

Oh, look...prophet, seer and revelator President Dallin Oaks debunking Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® opinion:

Adam-God doctrine

Oh, look...prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young on Adam-God:

“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.”
- Deseret News, June 18, 1873

Here's the context that Jim isn't sharing with his readers: Brigham Young started preaching Adam-God publicly around 1852 and he pointed to the Mormon God Himself as the originator of the doctrine because he taught that God Himself revealed this doctrine to him. Brigham pointed to Joseph Smith as also having taught this doctrine. Brigham taught this teaching as doctrine over the pulpit in General Conference multiple times and even had it installed as the Lecture at the Veil in the Temples.

Adam-God was a de facto doctrine of the Church during Brigham Young's presidency and after his death up until the early 1890s and especially the early 20th-century when Church leaders became more vocal against it. While Jim is trying to diminish this by getting anally legalistic here, the reality is that it was a de facto doctrine presented to the Church by prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young, which he taught was revealed to him by God himself and which he called "doctrine". Brigham's successors have also referred to this teaching as "doctrine" - whether as true doctrine or as false doctrine.

Whether this doctrine got voted or all the legalistic checkboxes got checked is not the point here. The point is that a prophet, seer and revelator taught that God Himself revealed to the prophet that Adam is God and the prophet declared that this is doctrine. This prophet taught Adam is God as doctrine for decades as prophet and leader of the Church.

Yes, it wasn't a popular doctrine and yes, it likely didn't go through a vote but it was still de facto doctrine taught by a prophet, seer and revelator as revealed truth from God. It was installed in the endowment ceremony of the Temples.

Yet, this doctrine and teaching was later disavowed by future prophets as false doctrine. Spencer Kimball didn't call this a false "teaching". Kimball called it a "false doctrine".

Blood Atonement doctrine

Just like Adam-God, Blood Atonement was declared doctrine by prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young for decades. Originally taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham just took it further than Joseph. Jim's claims of it not being doctrine is just Jim attempting to minimize the damage by being anally legalistic here while obfuscating the reality that it was de facto doctrine in mid 19th-century and early 20th-century Mormonism.

It was absolutely de facto doctrine not just during Brigham Young's administration but for decades after as it was part of the Endowment ceremony of the Temples.

Jim's revisionism

Yeah...you and your Jim Bennett Mormonism® claim that Adam-God and Blood Atonement weren't doctrines is just wrong, Jim. I demonstrate this here, here, here and here.

I've debunked your "Presentist" lens nonsense here.

I'm always happy when new light and knowledge enters the world. This is why I embrace the scientific method and why I believe asking questions is important. This is why I don't cling unto prophets because, as history demonstrates, it's the prophets who cling to error and it's the world that evolves. It's science and the world that forces the so-called "prophets" to let go of their errors - not the other way around.

Prophets want obedience. Science wants hypotheses, testing, evidence and peer review.

Only men who become gods are polygamists

"You really need to read the rest of the sermon"

I did, Jim. In fact, I not only read the entire sermon and source, I wrote about it in 2013 - 8 years ago and over 5 years before your updated "Reply" in 2018 - in my Debunking FairMormon, which you ignore and don't share with your readers. It also didn't stop you from your bullshit and obnoxious "jErEmY dIdN'T rEaD tHe sOuRcE!" attack.

Seriously, it's all right there. Here's a high level screenshot of my 2013 content and writing debunking your above asinine apologetics that you plagiarized from FairMormon while keeping my direct debunking in the dark from your readers so that you could make me look deceptive/clueless and attack me with your bullshit "jErEmY dIdN'T rEaD tHe sOuRcE!" attack:

"you will be polygamists at least in your faith"

I'm going to do something cool here. I'm going to copy/paste my 8-year-old 2013 content to debunk Jim's above FairMormon-plagiarized apologetics:

FairMormon agrees that Brigham Young taught this but they attempt to diminish by obfuscating the difference between being saved in the Celestial Kingdom versus becoming gods in the Celestial Kingdom.

From FairMormon: The quote does not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion (text quoted by critics is in blue, bold emphasis added). Here's the entire quote from Brigham Young:

“We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”

Jeremy's 2013 Rebuttal:

“You will be polygamists at least in your faith”? How does this statement change anything? You still have to be a polygamist with actual wives or a polygamist in heart in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom. However, as Brigham Young stated at the end of the above quote and which FairMormon concedes, you have to be an actual polygamist with actual wives to become a god in the Celestial Kingdom.

How is the above statement and doctrine to be reconciled with a 1998 "prophet, seer, and revelator" specifically stating that “polygamy is not doctrinal,” as President Hinckley publicly declared on Larry King Live?

Things become clearer when you read further down in FairMormon’s “Quotes to consider” section:

Quotes to consider:

There are other remarks by Brigham Young that express the same concept:

“I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.”
- Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:527 (journal entry dated 12 February 1870).

See that? "Celestial glory" vs. "Celestial Kingdom".

There’s a major difference between being “saved in the Celestial Kingdom” (Salvation) and “becoming Gods in the Celestial Kingdom" (Exaltation). According to Brigham and other early prophets, only polygamists become gods. In the above quote from Brigham, you can still be saved in the Celestial Kingdom as a polygamist in heart without the extra wives but you don’t get to become a god.

Joseph F. Smith confirmed Brigham’s doctrine that only actual polygamists obtain exaltation:

FairMormon is ignoring the main point and argument in the “Prophets” section of my letter: Yesterday’s prophets (Brigham and other early prophets) are today’s heretics and yesterday’s doctrine (polygamy = godhood) is today’s false doctrine (Hinckley’s “polygamy is not doctrinal”).

---

How cool is that? I just used my 8-year-old 2013 writings and debunkings to debunk something that 2018 Jim says I didn't read. Thanks 2013 Jeremy! Love ya, bud.

In Jim's 2021 Mormon Stories interview, Jim was asked why he ignored my apologetic debunkings like Debunking FairMormon. Jim responded by basically putting his nose up in the air and waving it all off as just repetitions of what's already in the CES Letter.

No. It's not repetitions of the CES Letter. It's an expansion and extension of the CES Letter. The above example is a great example of this and how FAIR, Jim and other apologists play games here by claiming "jErEmY dIdN'T rEaD tHe sOuRcE!" when I demonstrate in my debunkings that I not only read the sources but I debunk their apologetics even further.

Oh, look! Can you spot the false prophet?

Brigham's quote source & Hinckley's quote source

"New and Everlasting Covenant" = Polygamy

There goes Jim again with his incomplete and inaccurate claims. My previous answer box debunks Jim's above incorrect claims as well.

"Nope. The New and Everlasting Covenant as defined in D&C is celestial marriage, which includes monogamous sealings."

The new and everlasting covenant as defined in D&C 132 is primarily polygamy / plural marriage.

Oh, look...from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve in December 1891:

"We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890."

- First Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve
Petition for Amnesty, 19 December 1891, Messages of the First Presidency, James R. Clark, Volume 3, p.230.)

Mormon scholar and author of Textual Studies of the Doctrine and Covenants: The Plural Marriage Revelation, William Victor Smith, PhD., wrote about D&C 132 and plural marriage:

"Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants was the last of Joseph Smith’s formal written revelations and it was a watershed in Mormonism for many reasons. Like many of Joseph Smith’s early revelations, the revelation was given to an individual, not a community. Its target was his own wife, Emma Hale Smith, largely in response to her rejection of plural marriage. Polygamy, the main theme of the July 1843 revelation, is a complex subject in Mormonism. This short work can only hope to discuss a few aspects that relate specifically to what is now Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the impact that this revelation has had on Mormonism."

"Section 132 never underwent the same textual expansion-contraction cycle that marked many of Smith’s other revelations during his lifetime. His life ended too soon for any revisions. It is nevertheless true that in many ways the July 12, 1843 plural marriage revelation has affected the course of Mormonism for nearly two centuries; and it was redacted, not with pen and ink, but with selective reading that shifted its focus from plural marriage onto eternal monogamous marriage. Yet, many important themes in current Mormonism are based on narratives derived from the plural marriage revelation. Section 132 is a deeply-embedded component of Church teachings on eternal family, the approach of the Church towards gay rights and marriage, and social issues such as the role of women within the Church and family life. It is not an exaggeration to say that the revelation on polygamy is one of the cornerstones that underlies what Mormonism is today."

For Jim to try to insist that D&C 132 and the "new and everlasting covenant" in there is not about plural marriage is just delusional and grossly incorrect.

"Several other prophets after Young, including Taylor, Woodruff, Snow and Joseph F. Smith gave similar teachings..."

Notice that Jim is silent on the above sentence. Jim knows that they did:

"Men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted. “Why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four?” Many question me in this manner. I suppose they are afraid of [the] Edmunds [Tucker act]. What is the Covenant? It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a Plurality of Wives and takes both to make the law. The Lord leads the mind step by step to this point: First that all covenants must be made by his power; Next the eternity of the covenant reaching into Eternity; After this the Lord tells us what the Law is and how he justified his servants. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because this was the law ordained for the fullness and glory of God before the world was. This was the law and from Hagar sprang many nations. The Lord has said that to whom this revelation is given, that they are eligible to this law, its blessings and its requirements. The men can only be saved by acts of righteousness and the woman are under the same law. Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his Law, or they cannot enter into the fullness, and if they do not they may lose the one talent. When men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be damned, and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood [except] by [which he] covenants to enter into the fullness of the Law, and the same with the woman - she says she will observe all that pertains to the New and Everlasting Covenant. Both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds."

- President Joseph F. Smith
Comments at quarterly conference held March 3–4, 1883, Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah; also Church History Library.

“All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham.”

- Revelation to John Taylor, September 1886

"Even Brigham Young admitted to George Q. Cannon. that “there would be men in the Celestial Kingdom that had but one wife.”"

Here's what Jim isn't telling you in his above little stunt:

The distinction between being saved and being exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Brigham and his successors understood this distinction very well.

There’s a major difference between being “saved in the Celestial Kingdom” (Salvation) and “becoming Gods in the Celestial Kingdom" (Exaltation). According to Brigham and other early prophets, only polygamists become gods. In the above quote from Brigham, you can still be saved in the Celestial Kingdom as a polygamist in heart without the extra wives but you don’t get to become a god.

There are other remarks by Brigham Young that express the same concept:

“I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.”
- Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:527 (journal entry dated 12 February 1870).

See that? "Celestial glory" vs. "Celestial Kingdom".

So, when Brigham said "there would be men in the Celestial Kingdom that had but one wife", as Jim is quoting, he was correct. However, he was talking about the salvation (being saved) side of things and not exaltation.

I'm talking about exaltation. The big league. The top of the top. I'm focused on Brigham and all these earlier prophets teaching that polygamy is required for exaltation and Jim is over there with his false equivalence trying to distract us with the being saved (salvation) side of the coin (which both Jim and I agree on) and not the exaltation side of the coin.

Hell Upon Earth!

I laughed at this. Jim misses the irony of criticizing tone with this misleading snarkiness.

Jim did the same shit by comparing the CES Letter to his 1980s anti-Mormon boogeyman, The Godmakers. This was my response.

It was just a letter to a CES Director who approached me asking me to share my concerns and questions, Jim. Nothing more. Nothing less. 2021 Jim, of all people, knows this is true because he's my witness to my emails with the CES Director.

It's not a pamphlet. It's not a "tract". It was a letter written - at the request of a CES Director - by a life-long-returned-missionary-married-in-the-temple Latter-day Saint who lost his faith and who wanted official answers to the issues.

As for the above cover? Even LDS apologists Brian Hales and Terryl Givens admit that polygamy was hell for the women:

"In lauding the Church’s effort to explain this difficult topic, some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not. On earth, polygamy expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife. The practice is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel."

Brian Hales

Source: November 10, 2014 FAIR Blog Post

In the case of polygamy, the association with the Abrahamic offering of Isaac would be perverse if the act in question were transformed into a supernal principle, rather than a costly and agonizing trial. Even its most fervent defenders persisted, in the final analysis, in seeing the practice as a wrenching schooling, a test of faith, and the means to a greater end, but the blessed end itself: "In obeying this law it has cost [us] a sacrifice nearly equal to that of Abraham....There is nothing that would induce me to...lose my hold upon that crown which awaits all those who have laid their willing but bleeding hearts upon the altar," said one plural wife. Young's second wife Mary Ann concurred: "God will be very cruel if he does not give us poor women adequate compensation for the trials we have endured in polygamy." Lorena Bent found nothing to praise in a "principle which had caused so much sacrifice, heartache, and trial." Heavenly continuation of those trials would hardly constitute compensation.

Terryl Givens

Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity - page 287

It's a fact that for a period of time 19th-century Mormon missionaries in Britain and Europe were not honest to investigators and new converts about polygamy and that these investigators and converts did not learn about polygamy until they had already traveled thousands of miles to the Utah desert before discovering this disturbing doctrine and practice. Zero informed consent.

So, in light of all of this context, what exactly is misleading about the above "anti-Mormon" pamphlet cover? Utah in that period was hell on earth for many of its inhabitants; especially for women. If anything, just the cover alone was doing humanity a service by perhaps informing people overseas before making the mistake of traveling thousands of miles only to get themselves trapped into a multi-decade polygamous torture chamber out in the Utah desert.

But real nice try, Jim, in attempting to poison the well with your readers by blatantly misrepresenting the CES Letter with a false equivalence fallacy and a misleading scare tactic.

"Celestial marriage, not plural marriage"

I've already responded to and debunked this claim previously.

Hinckley lies that polygamy is not doctrinal

What do you mean it's "not now authorized", Jim? Polygamy is still doctrinal and still very much practiced in the Temples. Instead of physical polygamy, it's now spiritual polygamy.

Don't believe me? Ask your prophet Russell Nelson how many wives he's sealed to (hint: 2). After you're done asking Russell, walk over to his first counselor in the First Presidency Dallin Oaks' office next door and ask Dallin how many wives he's sealed to (hint: 2).

Two of the very top leaders and "prophets, seers and revelators" of the Church are spiritual polygamists! Not just in the afterlife but today...right now. They are in 2021 sealed/eternally married to more than one wife.

As long as the Church has D&C 132 canonized and they're sealing men to multiple women in the Temples, polygamy is doctrinal. Full stop. Period. As long as that section is included in your religion's canonized scripture, polygamy is the "principle of Celestial marriage".

Hinckley lied to the world when he claimed polygamy is "not doctrinal".

Oh, look! Can you spot the false prophet?

Brigham's quote source & Hinckley's quote source

I'm a product of Mormonism

I respond to Jim's D&C 132 claims here, here and here.

"We/Our": As you can see from the original document (later known as CES Letter) that I sent to the CES Director in April 2013, Jim (Jim is a witness to the emails with the CES Director and also has the exact PDF that I attached to the email), I used the same "we/our" language.

This demonstrates my mindset when I wrote to the Director in March and April 2013. It was not a me vs. them mentality. I still identified as a member of the Church and I still saw the people as my tribe. I saw the CES Director as a "helper" - not an antagonist or an enemy.

I was not seeking to harm the Church or the CES Director or to manufacture a giant anti-Mormon empire as some asinine apologists insist. I was trying to get official answers from the Church to these problems and issues that caused me so much pain and heartache in 2012-2013 before the Director approached me.

Yes, I resigned my membership in April 2016. The reason why it's written this way, as discussed in the above paragraphs, is that this was part of the original letter I sent to the Director in April 2013. Further, I have no problem saying "our" and "we" even today as like it or not, Mormonism is still my heritage. What most members don't get is that you can never fully sever from Mormonism because it's such an integral part of your origin, development and past. To completely leave and sever from Mormonism is to completely leave and sever from your heritage, history, family and past.

You can see my Mormon childhood and lived Mormon experience in the jErEmY dIdN'T hAvE a tEsTiMoNy of the Conclusion section where I share pictures, videos, journal entries, Sacrament talks, etc.

Inspired by a comment made by a friend, Scott, I'm borrowing and altering his words to drive home this point:

For me, having been a Mormon is like the other stages of my life. It’s something that I was, and it’s something that I did. It had its positives and negatives. But my current self is not defined by my former relationship to that church. I lived in New York City – I’m not an ex-New Yorker. I attended and graduated from BYU but I’m not ex-BYU.

I’ve graduated from Mormonism. It’s a part of my past but it no longer is a part of my present and future. To me, it’s something like my missionary journals…I’m reminded of my past from time to time seeing the journals on my bookshelf but it no longer has much power or much influence over my present life and my future.

I am a product of Mormonism. Rather than deny and throw away my heritage and past, I embrace it. Rather than see my years of devotion as a "waste", I see it as a graduation. Many of my extended family members and friends are members. I live in the heart of Utah.

This story helps to illustrate some of the above points:

I have a history with evangelical Christians. I grew up in La Mirada, California in my teen years where anti-Mormonism is prevalent because BIOLA is headquartered here. I wrote about this background context and story here.

I’m not sure what it is about my experience with anti-Mormon evangelicals in my youth and being in close proximity to BIOLA but I get very defensive and angry when evangelicals attack Latter-day Saints.

I was down in Las Vegas for a business training seminar with my dad in 2015. We hopped in the car and went to El Pollo Loco for lunch. While eating there, I noticed a guy a few tables down sorting and organizing those stupid evangelical style anti-Mormon pamphlets. I rolled my eyes and dug back into the chicken.

Twenty minutes later as we’re finishing up, I noticed the guy walking over behind me to a gentleman in a white shirt and tie. This was on a Sunday and having been around Mormons my entire life, I was willing to bet the farm that he was Mormon.

Sure enough, I was right and this guy was interrupting the Mormon’s lunch by soliciting his stupid shit to him. I stood up and went over and told the guy to leave the Mormon alone and to let him eat his lunch in peace. He asked why I cared and I told him that I used to be Mormon and I’m the author of the CES Letter. I told the evangelical that what he was peddling was bullshit and an insult to truth. The Mormon looked at me surprised and the guy harassing him looked at me in shock.

I looked at the Mormon and apologized to him that his lunch was being interrupted by a dick. I looked at the evangelical and again asked him to stop disrespecting the poor guy trying to eat his lunch and to just leave.

When I see the videos of these same dipshits at General Conference waving around garments and dropping them on the ground, I get very angry. I promise that I would have no hesitation in quickly yanking the garments from these low-lifes and running off to give it to a member.

Yes, I have problems with LDS, Inc. and the Church’s leadership and what they’ve done to hide its truth crisis from the members for generations. All of this is well documented in the CES Letter and here in my Debunkings. But I do not have any problems whatsoever with the average member of the Church. I do not tolerate any attacks or harassments on members of the Church or the missionaries. Period. Full stop. They were my tribe for like 80% of my existence and my life is still filled with members of the Church that I love and respect very much. Many of them are still my family and tribe today.

When I saw that Latter-day Saint being harassed at El Pollo Loco that day, I saw myself sitting there. I saw my in-laws. I saw my brother. I saw all my nephews and nieces. I saw my Scoutmasters. I saw my bishops. I saw my missionary companions/brothers. I saw my Grandpa. I saw all of the beloved Mormons in my life - past and present. And my defense mode and anger immediately kicked in.

It hurts to be called “anti-Mormon”. I am not anti-them.

LDS leaders = Modern polygamists

"We/Our": See the previous box answer for my response.

Rather than to confront the actual issue, Jim unfortunately decides to deflect and hide behind ad hominem by making this about me rather than my argument.

Notice that Jim doesn't even answer the question and waves it off. Well, for argument's sake...Teancum and Hyrum over there still believe and they both have a Temple recommend and they both have concerns about this. What's your response, Jim?

As Jim acknowledges, these men are "sealed to multiple women". In other words, spiritual polygamists. In the afterlife, they have multiple wives at the same time. In other words, spiritual polygamy.

This is happening right now. In the year 2021. Not 1840. Not 1885. Not 1945. Right now in the 21st-century, the Prophet of the LDS Church, Russell Nelson, and his counselor in the First Presidency, Dallin Oaks, are both spiritual polygamists sealed to multiple women. It's happening often in the Temples where widowed men are getting sealed to multiple women (but women cannot be sealed to multiple men).

And yet, Jim is trying to sell us all here his Jim Bennett Mormonism® monogamous opinion that polygamy is so 19th-century and is a nothingburger / non-issue today.

Schizophrenia

Yesterday's doctrine and prophets = today's heretics

I don't think Jim thought this one through very well.

It's not about "precept on precept". It's about contradiction after contradiction. The "revelations" that the so-called "living prophets" have given were simply to reverse and contradict past "revelations" and doctrines (ban on Black individuals/families and Priesthood, ban and un-ban of LGBTQ+, revise and remove from revealed Temple endowment ceremony, etc.).

God is not the author of confusion. God is unchanging. "In my own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

Why are we following these guys who have been so wrong for so long on too many important issues?

Church's Racism

I'm on the same page with Jim with the Church's racism.

"Now we finally get to something I find genuinely troubling, too."

What about Polygamy/Polyandry? Are you really trying to pretend here that your feathers are not ruffled by anything else? 2021 Jim's feathers are sure ruffled:

"The difficulty here is that I'm defending something [polygamy/polyandry] that, to some degree, is indefensible. And I recognize that. I'm defending something that makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable. I remember on Bill Reel's podcast being asked, 'Would you want your daughter working in Joseph Smith's household? Given that Joseph Smith proposed to all these women [girls] in his household?' And I said, "No! I wouldn't."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I want to be very clear. Polygamy is probably one the most difficult things for me to deal with. It is messy. It is difficult. It's impossible to deny that Joseph Smith did several things that are not just wrong but deeply disturbing. Particularly with regard to how he dealt with polygamy and plural marriage with his wife, Emma. It's clear that there's several incidents that he's not honest with her."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"There's things that Joseph did that are really, sort of, profoundly wrong in the practice of polygamy."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"I acknowledge that Joseph lied to Emma about some of the marriages."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

"The Church hasn't come to terms with polygamy...What we've done is just sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not there."

-Jim Bennett
Mormon Stories, Episode 3

2021 Jim on Polygamy | Polyandry

Forget everything that prophets said about ban

In other words? Yesterday's prophets are today's heretics. Thanks for demonstrating my point, Jim.

Also, "limited understanding and knowledge"? Uh...the rest of mainstream society here at home and around the Western world figured out that racism is morally wrong decades earlier.

No prophets or revelations or gods needed.

"Mighty" Brigham "called by God"

Brigham Young was a terrible and disgusting human being; even by the standards of his day. It's quite actually the opposite: those who honestly and open-heartedly examine the life of Brigham Young will come to the conclusion that he was a ruthless and immoral 19th-century cult leader of a rocky mountain polygamous cult who ran a very dangerous theocratic dictatorship.

The dangerous ideas that came out of Brigham's head and lips were not good. Ramped up institutionalized polygamy. Racism. Blood atonement. Adam-God. Mountain Meadows is his legacy because of his years of violent and horrible "prophetic" rhetoric, teachings and influence.

We continue to see the "wonderful" legacy of Brigham Young in the 21st-century from those who closely espouse and follow his teachings and thoughts:

Another "wonderful" legacy of Brigham Young:

One of the individuals who knew Brigham for close to 15 years and who was often in his presence was elect-lady Emma Smith. She hated him. She even accused Brigham of being part of the conspiracy plot of murdering her husband, Joseph Smith. In Brigham's own words:

"Emma is naturally a very smart woman; she is subtle and ingenious, and she has made all her children believe that myself, brother Kimball, and the other members of the Twelve laid the plot which terminated in the death of the Prophet. This charge is especially laid to myself. At the time that Joseph was killed I was in the city of Boston, a number of hundred miles away from the scene of the martyrdom. She has made her children inherit lies. To my certain knowledge Emma Smith is one of the damdest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness."
- October 1866 General Conference

Stop using the annoying and irrelevant "infallible" strawman, Jim. This is not my position or argument or claim. I'm not saying that Brigham should have been perfect or infallible. I'm saying, if he were truly a prophet with a bat phone line to an unchanging God, he should at minimum been moral, honest and decent. There were moral, honest and decent human beings in Brigham's time who were not supporters of slavery or racism or misogyny or polygamy. He certainly should have been more moral, honest and decent than his uninspired contemporaries who lacked the bat phone to God that he supposedly had.

Maybe this is why you omitted from your "Reply" my very last paragraph in this section which cuts through your bullshit and takes the above points home in very clear and simple terms:

"If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay, and God’s name is not “Adam”?"

What does it say about the Lord's "prophet" if uninspired secularists, "gentiles" and "infidals" were fighting against slavery, racism, misogyny and injustice at the same time that the "prophet" himself was advocating and preaching slavery, racism, misogyny, polygamy, falsehoods, hatred and violence over the pulpit consistently for decades?

See more on this in the next box answer.

Shading Lincoln to lipstick Brigham

Now we know why Jim said nice things about Brigham in the previous answer box. Gotta compliment him first before throwing him under the bus.

This is just a bullshit repetition of "Presentism" / Moral Relativism that Jim tried to sell to all of us earlier in this previous box answer. If you want to see my response to this, go there.

It pisses me off that Jim is pointing to and using Abraham Lincoln in his offensive and desperate attempts of making Brigham Young less of the racist monster he actually was. "Look! Lincoln was racist too in 1858 so Brigham Young wasn't so bad!" It's a false equivalence fallacy. It's just so...absurd.

The following graphic succinctly describes the central problem and issue here:

Source

Unlike Brigham, Lincoln never claimed to be a prophet speaking to and behalf of God. Unlike Brigham, Lincoln actually changed and eventually paid with his own life for freeing millions of slaves. Lincoln did something that Brigham didn't do: he made our society more humane, freer and more just. I'd bet money that if you were to read a short biography of each man to a group who had never heard of either man and ask them which one exhibited the best of humanity, 100% would point to Lincoln over scumbag Brigham Young. And rightfully so.

Jim wants to mask and obscure how terrible a person racist Brigham Young was by trying to point to other racists of his time. But what about the non-racists of Brigham's time that Jim isn't telling us about?

Credit: The Edge

God, I just can't bleach and scrub Brigham's name off of my resume and LinkedIn profile. It's so embarrassing. The best I can do is abbreviate it to "BYU" and hope most people outside of Utah don't know and don't connect the dots.

---

As for Joseph Smith? Jim is right that Joseph was no Martin Luther King, Jr. but Joseph was not "remarkably enlightened for that time period" on this issue either:

Source

Source

Compare Joseph's above racist statements to that of the words of abolitionist John Rankin from Ohio as far back as 1823 (see above "Who was more inspired" graphic).

So, Joseph Smith was "remarkably enlightened for that time period"?

"Policy not doctrine" & Word Craftsmanship

Oh, look..."prophet, seer and revelator" Dallin throwing shade on Jim and his Jim Bennett Mormonism®:

"...there is no scriptural justification for using that idea to exclude black members from Church leadership." [underlined emphasis mine]

Would you look at this deceptive word craftsmanship? "Church leadership".

Nobody is talking about "church leadership" here except Jim. Notice that Jim doesn't say, "to exclude black members from the priesthood" or "to exclude black members from the blessings of the temple." Jim just throws in the bizarre and irrelevant "Church leadership".

This is an apologetic Jedi mind trick game that apologists play where they condition their statements and claims to make it appear like it's saying something relevant when it's really saying absolutely nothing.

This would be like saying, "there is no scriptural justification for using the idea to exclude black members from eating funeral potatoes at Mormon funerals"...lol. Well, okay cool, Jim, but how about we talk about what it actually does exclude black members from? The priesthood.

Even David O. McKay contradicts Jim in the same quote that Jim is quoting McKay from: "We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro."

When we dig a little deeper, we find the exact scripture that McKay is referring to:

I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life.
- David O. McKay, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, p.19

Now we gotta see what Book of Abraham 1:26 says, right?

Before we get to the verses, it's important to understand that earlier in the chapter in verse 21, it talks about how the king of Egypt was a descendant of Ham, and "was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites". When you go to Moses 7:8, you see that there was a "blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." Now what does Book of Abraham 1:26-27, that McKay points to, say about those with the blood of Canaanites (aka "blackness")?

26: Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27: Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Jim is trying to tell us that there's no scriptural basis of denying Black people the priesthood but I just demonstrated the very scriptures that Mormon prophets have used for over 130 years as the justification for their institutional and personal racism after they were done pointing to the Mormon god himself as the originator of the ban.

Racist ban not divine!

It took a revelation to undo this racist ban, Jim. Contrary to all of your efforts to minimize institutional racism, many "prophets, seers and revelators" starting from Brigham until Kimball not only upheld this racism but they pointed to the Mormon god as the reason for its continued status.

Notice that Jim doesn't address the central problem and argument here and instead attempts to distract on quotes. It's in quotes because there is no canonized or specific revelation but the ban had been justified and treated by prophets for over a hundred years as if it was a revelation or mandate from the Mormon god.

Source

Source

More reading: LDS Discussions Ban Timeline

Racist ban not doctrine or revelation

See previous box answer.

And not only have I just did, I also did over 8 years ago when I debunked the same attack made by FAIR (FairMormon). You've not only ignored this, Jim, but you failed to inform your readers of this debunking and that I've already responded to many of your attacks in your "Reply".

"Only racist to Black people!"

This is Jim's Jim Bennett Mormonism® apologetic attempt to minimize the racism.

I'll just put these right here:

Source

Source

Source

This is just another example - of many - of the disconnect between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jim Bennett Mormonism®. Jim is going off sharing about his own personal opinions and theories on the flavor of racism that the Church preferred when, as demonstrated above from the words of its so-called "prophets, seers and revelators", they liberally and "lovingly" distributed their racism to other groups such as the Native Americans and Polynesians as well.

What Jim doesn't tell you is that this verse as well as Abraham 1:26 were foundational in the "divine disfavor" mindset and teachings used by latter-day prophets and apostles where they taught that Black individuals were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence and that their curse was to be born Black in mortality because of the choices they made in the pre-mortal existence.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything is a remix. For Jim to try to claim that this verse had nothing to do with the Church's 130+ years of institutional racism is just asinine and ridiculous. For him to try to claim that the verse isn't really racist because blah blah blah happened later in the Book of Mormon is asinine and ridiculous.

Walker Lewis

Then why did the First Presidency on December 15, 1969 contradict this by issuing the following statement on race to all General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents and Bishops?:

"From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God but which He has not made fully known to man." [emphasis added]

As stated in the first two paragraphs of the publication, this statement and its publication was given direct authorization from President David O. McKay himself as well as from his two counselors in the First Presidency.

For being one of "our best elders", Brigham sure was a dick to Lewis. Aside from the ban, Brigham gave Lewis the best welcome package ever just two months after Lewis had arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in October 1851 - from a very difficult 7 month trek from Massachusetts - by pushing for the Act in Relation to Service into law. This new territorial law made slavery legal in the territory of Utah and Section Four of the statute provided punishment for "any white person...guilty of sexual intercourse with any of the African race," regardless of their being married, consenting adults.

Not feeling the love or welcome from Brigham and the Saints, Walker Lewis noped out of Salt Lake that spring; just six months after arriving in Salt Lake Valley. Lewis would die a little under 5 years later back in Massachusetts of tuberculosis.

Mr. Lewis deserved much better than this. I think Joseph Smith would've been livid at how Lewis was mistreated by Brigham Young. But tell us more, Jim, about what a "mighty man called of God" Brigham was.

Putting lipstick on a fugly 1978 pig

Oh, look...Joseph Smith himself debunking Jim and his Jim Bennett Mormonism®:

Source: Elders' Journal, The Joseph Smith Papers

Question 13th: Are the Mormons abolitionists.

Joseph Smith: No, unless delivering the people from priest-craft, and the priests from the power of satan, should be considered such.-But we do not believe in setting the Negroes free.

---

Even if the early Church was "far too accommodating" to Black people, as claimed by Jim, it would be irrelevant as the Church, even in mostly Joseph's time, was still anti-abolitionist and racist. It would be irrelevant primarily due to the fact that for the vast majority of the Church's entire existence, the Church was racist, discriminated against and banned Black individuals and families from the saving and essential ordinances of the Temple and it blocked Black men from blessing the lives of their families by denying them access to the Priesthood.

Many of the Church's "prophets" and "apostles" were horribly racist in their comments and views for most of the Church's era of institutionalized racism.

Yes, Joseph Smith had an abolitionist platform when he ran for President in 1844 but you're not telling your readers about his racist teachings, comments and pro-slavery positions before he ran for the presidency.

There's just no way to sugarcoat this, Jim. I know you're trying to put lipstick on an ugly pig here but the lipstick just isn't able to mask how fugly the pig actually is.

I mean, Jesus...even the "great and abominable" Catholic Church and its Popes were anti-slavery as far back as 1741! Catholic Popes are more moral, inspired and closer in line with God's thinking on race than the Mormon prophets were:

Roman Catholic statements against slavery also grew increasingly vocal during this era. In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV condemned slavery generally. In 1815, Pope Pius VII demanded the Congress of Vienna to suppress the slave trade. In the Bull of Canonization of Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pope Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders;

In 1839 Pope Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade in In supremo apostolatus; and in 1888 Pope Leo XIII condemned slavery in In Plurimis.

Roman Catholic efforts extended to the Americas. The Roman Catholic leader of the Irish in Ireland, Daniel O'Connell, supported the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in America. With the black abolitionist Charles Lenox Remond, and the temperance priest Theobold Mathew, he organized a petition with 60,000 signatures urging the Irish of the United States to support abolition. O'Connell also spoke in the United States for abolition.

Preceding such, and while not explicitly expressing an abolitionist point of view, the Portuguese Dominican Gaspar da Cruz in 1569 strongly criticized the Portuguese traffic in Chinese slaves, explaining that any arguments by the slave traders that they "legally" purchased already-enslaved children were bogus.

In 1917, the Roman Catholic Church's canon law was officially expanded to specify that "selling a human being into slavery or for any other evil purpose" is a crime.

Source: Catholic Abolitionism

While racist Mormon prophets were still perpetuating institutional racism and support of slavery, trashing the Catholic Church and other religions, showing non-Mormon clergy as agents of Satan (who was referenced as having black skin before the 1970s) in the Temples...the Catholic Church and other Christian faiths were on the ground fighting against slavery and racism.

There were other US-based Christian religions/churches, considered uninspired and "apostate" by Mormonism, that were avowedly anti-slavery as early as the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s. For you to ignore these individuals and Churches who rejected slavery and racism as far back as the mid-18th-century while trying to pretend we were so progressive back then? While trying to rationalize and defend your own religion's 130-year institutional racism that continued as late as 1978?

No. You don't get to use the "lOoK hOw prOgReSsiVe wE wErE!" card here, Jim. Just stop. It's embarrassing. Jim...1978. 1978 for Mormon prophets to finally get their shit together.

"Possible error"

Then what's the point of prophets? Why are we following these men when they've led us so astray for 130 years just on disturbing institutionalized racism alone?

This isn't just Brigham Young's racism as Jim has been primarily focused on. This is 130 years of every prophet from Brigham Young all the way to Harold B. Lee. All those First Presidencies. All those Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They pointed to God for the despicable racism that would later be revealed to be an "error". All this sanctioned racism that they blamed God for only to be disavowed as "theories" in a 2013 essay approved by their successors.

Why are we listening to anything these men have to say about anything after such a long track record of catastrophic moral failures?

Racist ban "fault of man, not God"

"Didn't fully live up to that principle"? They did not live up to that principle. Period.

Of course it's the "fault of man, not God". But that sure didn't stop these men masquerading as "prophets" for 130+ years to point to the Mormon God Himself as the originator and perpetuator of the racist ban.

And that's the problem. These men caused so much human suffering and shame and guilt during that very long period of time for people of color (as well as otherwise for non-racist members) in the Church because of their racism that they wrapped up with divine wrapping paper and a bow while washing their own hands off of personal and leadership accountability since it was all the Mormon God's plan and doing.

Which brings us back to the central question of this entire section that I keep having to repeat over and over: why are we following these so-called "prophets" who led so many astray for so many years on too many important issues?

"God had to wait for white people to reject racism"

"God had to wait for fallible white people to reject racism"?

The Mormon god you worship, Jim, is a god who tells Nephi to cut Laban's head off so that others don't dwindle in disbelief.

The Mormon god you worship, Jim, is a god who sent an angel with a drawn sword to command Joseph to practice secret polygamy.

The Mormon god you worship, Jim, sent Moroni to take away the plates and the interpreters when Joseph and Martin Harris lost the 116 pages.

And yet here you're trying to tell us that your god was chill AF and was just biding his time for 130 years while simultaneously destroying his brand just so old white men in suits in Salt Lake City, Utah could finally learn the lesson that racism is immoral and wrong? Decades after everyone else figured it out?

Look at how much damage racism did to the Lord's One True Church. Look at how much damage polygamy did to the Lord's One True Church. When you ask the general non-Mormon population what they think of when they think of Mormons and the Mormon Church? They think of the broadway musical, missionaries on bikes, polygamy and racism. Not exactly the best PR strategy.

This is just ridiculous, Jim. It makes zero sense. Occam's razor has the better answer: so-called "prophets, seers and revelators" made up shit as they went along while creating a racist god in their own racist image who approved of their racism.

Book of Mormon Musical

There you go again with your assumptions, Jim.

You saw the actual PDF I sent to the CES Director on April 13, 2013. Go look at it. I said the same thing back then that I'm still saying today.

I had never seen the Book of Mormon Musical when the letter was written and I wouldn't see it until over 2 years later in the summer of 2015 when they came to Salt Lake. Here's my August 8, 2015 Facebook post:

I didn't copy this line from the Musical. I didn't realize it was similar to a line in the Musical until much later and I smiled when I actually saw the Musical in Salt Lake and heard it.

What likely happened in 2012-2013 was I read a comment or two somewhere on social media with this liner included and it stuck with me. It didn't occur to me at the time that this might be from the Musical.

Give the deaf guy the benefit of the doubt here. Further, my line is not exactly like the Musical as I have "again" in my line whereas the Musical doesn't.

Even further, so what if the lines are similar? The point still stands on how absurd it is that there's a God out there who allowed His Church and His servants to be so clueless and insane as to be racist to begin with and even worse to still be racist as an organization as late as 1978 after over 130 years of irreparable brand damage. It really wasn't that long ago...Jimmy Carter was President of the United States. Jimmy Carter is still alive.

Your bible condones slavery...your apologetics is invalid

Jim...the bible that you're pointing to for your above ridiculous apologetics / defense / rationalization / justification for your religion's 130 years of systemic and institutional racism? It accepts and condones human slavery.

Source

Here's Latter-day "prophets" on the subject of slavery and racism:

Source

Source

Source

@srslyitsmenotyou

Jim, your above offensive diatribe / apologetics / defense for the Mormon Church's 130 year institutional racism is moot, disturbing, immoral, despicable and invalid.

As I wrote about here, the Catholic Church, Popes and other religions and secularists were fighting against slavery and racism as far back as the 18th-century and here you're trying to justify why your "prophets" took it all the way to 1978.

I mean...how blind do you have to be to see the indisputable truth and reality that all of this is just indefensible, Jim?

Important Note:

I want to be explicitly clear here that I do not believe for a second there is a racist or bigoted bone in Jim Bennett's body - now or ever in the past. I am not accusing Jim of either. Jim has very forcefully spoken out against racism and the Church's history with racism in his 2021 Mormon Stories interview and I very strongly suspect that Jim now cringes at his above apologetics that he made years ago while under the trance of defending the Church on this issue. It is clear in 2021 that Jim has evolved on this and is no longer interested in defending this like he did years ago.

More disgusting apologetics for Mormon racism

This is just a repetition of the same disgusting apologetic bullshit attempting to defend the Mormon Church's 130 years of institutional racism. I've already debunked all of this in several of the above box answers.

So over this disgusting nonsense.

Praise to the IRS

According to Jim's asinine argument, the systemic and institutional racism went as long as 1978 - when the rest of American society had already changed over a decade earlier because these "prophets" didn't think there was a problem and just needed a little nudging and reminder from the IRS and Stanford to pray and ask the Mormon god if it's cool to stop being racist.

Thank you, Internal Revenue Service, for being the "pressing circumstance" to get God's prophets to stop being racist little shits.

Jim's ridiculous "progressive" spin

Source

This is such bullshit.

"...it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience."

But we're still going to deny Black individuals and families the most important access of all in mortality: the blessings and ordinances of the Temple.

We're going to deny Black individuals access to critical ordinances required for their salvation, exaltation and sealings to their spouses and families.

This was a moral evil. Period. Mormon "prophets" could try all they want to distract and obfuscate from their evil with rosy language about how they "support" Black people having cadillacs or being able to vote or to have a job but they contradicted all of this by their racist and discriminatory actions toward Black individuals and families within their own Church.

Then why did the same First Presidency (with a different second counselor) on December 15, 1969 contradict this by issuing the following statement on race to all General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents and Bishops?:

"From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God but which He has not made fully known to man." [emphasis added]

You cannot say, "Oh, we love colored people and don't think they should be denied rights" when you're simultaneously denying them the most important access in all of mortality: the blessings of the Temple.

You cannot say that it's a "moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience" while simultaneously denying him and Black families access to worship and receive the required ordinances of salvation and exaltation in the "pinnacle of worship" of their own religion, which is the Temple and the blessings of the endowment and eternal marriage/sealings of families. You cannot say this while banning black men from blessing their family's worship and religious experience by denying their father the Priesthood and their ability to have the Priesthood in the home.

Jim's attempts of painting Mormonism as "progressive" here are just absurd. Jim...1978.

How can we trust these prophets?

You and McConkie just don't get it.

It's not an infallibility issue. It's a reliability issue. It's a consistency issue.

Why are we following these men who have been so terribly wrong on too many important things?

See Parable of Calculator: Useless Prophets

"Tomorrow's heretics"

..."New light and knowledge" that racism is not okay, slavery is not okay, sexism is not okay, polygamy/polyandry is not okay, blood atonement is not okay and God's name is not "Adam"?

This isn't "new light and knowledge". The Catholic Pope and the Catholic Church as far back as 1741 was fighting against slavery. There were Christian and secular American abolitionists in the early 19th-century fighting against slavery and racism.

American society the entire 19th-century knew that polygamy was morally wrong and kept screaming at the Mormon Church to stop being cultish. The "new light and knowledge" to stop polygamy didn't come from the voice of God. It came through the force of the United States government.

There are LGBTQ+ Latter-day Saints right now and today who are killing themselves because of the words and actions of today's "prophets, seers and revelators". There's no "new light and knowledge and revelation" needed to know that the Brethren are wrong on this and other major social issues the last 200 years.

Why is it that the world learns the lesson first but the Mormon prophets don't get it until 20 or so years later? Why are these so-called "prophets" always behind?

You can't be "tomorrow's heretic" if you're right today. You can only be "tomorrow's heretic" if you're wrong today. Your statement here says more about your prophets than mine does.

Mark Hofmann

Only prophets when acting as such

More Jim Bennett Mormonism® bullshit obfuscation.

I'm focusing on the apologetic excuse that is often used by Mormon apologists to try to rationalize, explain and justify Mormon prophets behaving badly while pointing to the unreliability of the "follow the prophet" model and system.

I'm pointing to the absolute absurdity of this system and the craziness of using this system as a pathway to truth when it's blatantly obvious in 2021 that prophets are not reliable sources to truth and that they actually lead you away from truth and reality.

Jim talks about "expectations" and "assumptions". I demonstrate here how the problem is actually Jim and his Jim Bennett Mormonism® "charitable interpretation" of prophets that keep his litmus test and red flags from activating. And I demonstrate here that Jim's idea of "expectations" is dangerous cult thinking that keeps cult members trapped in cults.

"Brigham was a man of his time"

Jim seriously has a literalism problem. He does this every single time...with the Ouija Board, Mufasa & Lion King, Elder Andersen's quote, etc. It's like he cannot read between the lines or understand non-literal points that I'm making. It's so bizarre.

Of course Brigham was an inhabitant of the 19th-century, Jim. What I'm focusing on here is the apologetic excuse used to try to smooth over Brigham's rancid immorality and for being an absolute shitbag of a human being. Brigham wasn't a man of his time. To say that he was is to insult the majority of 19th-century humans who even then couldn't hold their disdain for the man and his immorality.

In the Shading Lincoln to lipstick Brigham box answer, Jim attempts to make Brigham look decent by claiming contemporary Lincoln was racist too and therefore Brigham wasn't so bad.

It pisses me off that Jim is pointing to and using Abraham Lincoln in his offensive and desperate attempts of making Brigham Young less of the racist monster he actually was. "Look! Lincoln was racist too in 1858 so Brigham Young wasn't so bad!" It's a false equivalence fallacy. It's just so...absurd.

The following graphic succinctly describes the central problem and issue here:

Source

Unlike Brigham, Lincoln never claimed to be a prophet speaking to and behalf of God. Unlike Brigham, Lincoln actually changed and eventually paid with his own life for freeing millions of slaves. Lincoln did something that Brigham didn't do: he made our society more humane, freer and more just. I'd bet money that if you were to read a short biography of each man to a group who had never heard of either man and ask them which one exhibited the best of humanity, 100% would point to Lincoln over scumbag Brigham Young. And rightfully so.

Jim wants to mask and obscure how terrible a person racist Brigham Young was by trying to point to other racists of his time. But what about the non-racists of Brigham's time that Jim isn't telling us about?

Credit: The Edge

If Brigham was truly a prophet with a bat phone line to an unchanging God, he should at minimum been moral, honest and decent. There were moral, honest and decent human beings in Brigham's time who were not supporters of slavery or racism or misogyny or polygamy. He certainly should have been more moral, honest and decent than his uninspired contemporaries who lacked the bat phone to God that he supposedly had.

Maybe this is why you omitted from your "Reply" my very last paragraph in this section which cuts through your bullshit and takes the above points home in very clear and simple terms:

"If Brigham Young was really a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, would it not be unreasonable to expect that God would give him a hint that racism is not okay, sexism is not okay, blood atonement is not okay, and God’s name is not “Adam”?"

What does it say about the Lord's "prophet" if uninspired secularists, "gentiles" and "infidals" were fighting against slavery, racism, misogyny and injustice at the same time that the "prophet" himself was advocating and preaching slavery, racism, misogyny, polygamy, falsehoods, hatred and violence over the pulpit consistently for decades?

I've already debunked and addressed the "man of his time" and "presentism" apologetics that Jim makes in the Shading Lincoln to lipstick Brigham, Presentism and "Mighty" Brigham "called by God" box answers.

Parable of Calculator: Useless Prophets

If the prophet is no better than a man then he's no better than me. And if he's no better than me then why should I follow him?

If a prophet can speak as a man, then how can you know for certain when the man is speaking as a prophet? If you can't know for certain, what is the point of a prophet?

The Parable of the Calculator

If I have a calculator that can be wrong at arbitrary times, I'm going to have to check the numbers the calculator is giving me by hand every time I do a calculation. After two or three times of doing that I'm just not going to use the calculator anymore. A calculator that can be wrong at any random time is useless as a calculator.

Similarly, someone who claims to speak for god and relay his will, but can be wrong even when they explicitly say they're speaking for god, is useless as a mouthpiece for god.

Since you've brought up your asinine "super" and "infallible" strawmen again...here's a more accurate view of prophets:

Jim's Lecture at the Veil obfuscation

Jim is peddling false and incorrect information here.

If Jim's readers had the link to the Lecture at the Veil that Jim omitted and hid from them, they would have seen the following content from the Wikipedia article:

Just before his death, Young took steps to ensure that the Adam–God doctrine was taught in the church's temples as part of the endowment ceremony. In 1877, while he was standardizing the endowment for use in the St. George Temple, Young introduced as part of the endowment the "lecture at the veil." The final draft of the lecture is today kept private in the St. George Temple.[citation needed] L. John Nuttall, Young's secretary, recorded in his journal a transcription of Young's temple lecture regarding the Adam-God doctrine: A portion of that journal entry reads as follows:

Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours … and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world .... Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.[58]

The Lecture at the Veil has nothing to do with Nauvoo or trying to remember from Nauvoo. This is Brigham Young presenting a new element to the ceremony shortly before his death decades later in 1877.

Jim's statement that "Adam’s status in the temple endowment has remained unchanged from Brigham’s time to this" is also false. The Lecture at the Veil that Brigham introduced to the Endowment fundamentally changed Adam's identity (see above transcript). Further, the Church removed the Lecture at the Veil after Brigham's death and reverted Adam's identity to that we know today as in the Endowment ceremony.

Jim's pettiness

There's Jim's "infallible" strawman again. I love how Jim twisted and turned this into a discussion on infallibility when that's not my claim or argument.

Let's look at how the Church defines "scripture":

"Canonized scripture is a collection of divine revelations given by the Lord to His prophets for the edification of mankind."

This is my definition as well and it is this definition that I had in mind when I wrote this.

Here's the entire CES Letter statement in its context so that you can see how the above scripture paragraphs is added support to the rest of the statement about Adam God:

I’m told that prophets are just men who are only prophets when acting as such (whatever that means). I’m told that, like all prophets, Brigham Young was a man of his time. For example, I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that “God revealed to [him]” that “Adam is our father and God” and the “only God with whom we have to do.” Never mind that Brigham taught this over the pulpit in not one but two conferences and never mind that he introduced this theology into the endowment ceremony in the Temples.

Never mind that Brigham Young made it clear that he was speaking as a prophet:

“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 35

Of course, Jim had to throw in his "jErEmY dIdN't rEaD tHe sOuRcE" attack in there. I read the entire sermon years ago when I wrote this. The sermon doesn't have to be about Adam God for Brigham's blanket claim here to apply to his other sermons, including his Adam God sermons. In this sermon, Brigham made a general and broad claim: "I have never yet preached a sermon...that they may not call scripture."

Brigham preached a lot of sermons and here he is claiming that he never yet preached a sermon (out of all those sermons) that we may not call "scripture".

Only in Jim Bennett's pettiness does he attempt to discredit and wave this off with his asinine and stupid "but this specific sermon is not about Adam God so therefore you oBvIoUsLy dIdN't rEaD tHe sOuRce!"

lol...I mean...

Ridiculous and inconsistent 187-year track record

Notice Jim's deceptive strawman and selective description of my actual points and arguments. Notice that Jim carefully doesn't insert "racism" in his list. I love how Jim describes 130+ years of prophetic racism and support for slavery as "anomalous quirks".

Jim keeps telling us of this "vast" list that "outweighs" their nearly 200 years of prophetic and moral blindness but yet he never produces or gives us an actual list for our evaluation and consideration.

"Although I also don’t much like the song “Follow the Prophet.” It sounds too much like the “Stonecutters Song” from the Simpsons."

The Simpsons - The Stonecutters song

What credibility do the Brethren have?

Wow, look at that amazing long "list" Jim gives us on all the things they've "been very, very right the vast majority of the time" (extra bonus points for adding the extra "very", Jim!).

I think it's hilarious how Jim claims this but then goes crickets about producing a list of his imaginary things they've "been very, very right the vast majority of the time."

Theists claim that faith is a tool for discovering truth. However, the fact that faith can sometimes lead you to truth and faith can sometimes lead you to something that is not true demonstrates that faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

Similarly, "prophets" who have been so catastrophically wrong and so morally blind for close to 200 years on so many important issues demonstrates that they are not reliable sources for truth. Jim is trying to gaslight us here by hilariously claiming "vast majority of the time" when the reality and truth is that for the vast majority of Mormonism's existence, the Church has been completely and totally wrong on Race and other key issues.

This is not just about keeping score. This is about the kind of things that they've been so wrong about: racism, slavery, women, LGBTQ+, polygamy/polyandry, science (DNA, evolution, age of Earth/universe, space exploration, moon/sun inhabitants), God's name (Adam-God), Blood Atonement, Book of Mormon historicity, Book of Abraham, Kinderhook Plates, and on and on and on.

Source

This didn't age well, Jim

This is actually hilarious reading Jim's 2018 claims now in 2021 (just 3 years later!) in the age of Rebrander Russell M. Nelson as "prophet".

Here's a funny truck decoration at a Ward Trunk-or-Treat:

This is controversial but there are many who believe that Russell is easing into introducing to the minds of members the idea that the Book of Mormon is not actually historical:

Moral blueprint not better than contemporaries

There you go again with your asinine strawmen, Jim.

It's not about infallibility or robots or any of the other bullshit you're using to distract or "veer off course" from my main point.

It's not unreasonable to expect "prophets" who have a bat phone line with a powerful and unchanging God to be more moral, honest and decent than their contemporaries. Especially in eras of slavery, racism, misogyny, etc.

If the role of "prophets, seers and revelators" are - by their very definitions - to see and hear what others don't and to lead the world in righteousness...how could so many of these men be so racist and immoral for so long?

It is not unreasonable to expect the "prophets" of our day to stop mistreating the LGBTQ+ community, hiding and lying about its full origins and history from its membership and to actually take care of the poor and needy instead of developing and building luxury malls, owning 2% of Florida and making ungodly amounts of money trading Tesla and GameStop stocks with its secretive $100 billion dollar slush fund during a global pandemic with so many of its members and the global community suffering.

Credit: The Edge

Today's doctrine likely tomorrow's false doctrine

"Not likely at all"

"Perhaps you are content with learning nothing more about God than you were taught by fallible Sunday School teachers, but there is a flood of knowledge waiting to be revealed, and '[a]s well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.' (D&C 121:33)"

@srslyitsmenotyou

Source

God give Brigham a hint

I wonder why Jim left this one out?

Perhaps because it reveals in plain and simple terms how ridiculous the Mormon god, Brigham Young and Mormon prophets are?

If you're going to claim to have a special bat phone to God? Act like it.

Brigham Young and all these men after him didn't act like it. They not only did not even get hints from the Mormon god but they lied to the Saints and the world that this was the Mormon god's doing.

The only time they got hints was when the United States government and the pressures of civilized society stepped in to force them to become moral and decent.