The More Good Foundation is referring people to a newer web site entitled: Generally it seems to be a well-intended, good hearted, somewhat informative repository of unofficial answers (and I openly applaud both sites for what they are trying to do). Still, after reading around this site, here are some of the more interesting and/or troubling answers….

To be fair, there are also tons of other answers from that are interesting, thoughtful, and not controversial, but reading through some of these tougher questions and answers left me with a few thoughts and questions of my own…

  • I wonder how this got through the vetting process at Are answers like this more good for LDS members, or more bad? I’m not condemning I totally support what they’re trying to do, and I know it’s difficult. I’m just curious if these types of answers really do support their goals. If so, I may not fully understand their goals.
  • How long will it be before the non-doctrinal, but very authoritative statements of past GA’s evaporate from our day-to-day mind set? Those of you familiar with the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions will note that a great deal of’s answers are directly refuted by the handbook (like birth control).
  • I am SOOO grateful that the GA’s of today do not opine so freely as they once did on some of these topics. They seem to use MUCH more discretion and care than they used to, and I am very grateful for this. I probably could not stay in the church if GA’s made these same types of statements today.
  • Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the LDS Church could provide direct, succinct answers to questions like this, so that the myths and bad doctrine could be very directly dispelled, and the answers (when possible) provided? Will this day ever come?
  • If the church won’t or can’t do it, how I wish that FAIR would take this on: a very simple Q&A section, with very simple, straightforward answers. Just like, but with more accurate responses. FAIR….if you’re listening….PLEASE consider doing this.
  • Finally, if you find any of gramps’ answers incorrect or offensive, please consider emailing him with your concerns or corrections.  His email is:

I am 100% sure that gramps is a totally nice and smart guy. I don’t mean to pile on him, or be mean spirited. I just don’t feel that all of his answers are helpful, and that some can be very damaging to the faithful (either because they are factually incorrect, or far too speculative).

That’s true with all I write too, of course, so take my editorial for what it’s worth. :)


  1. ed johnson September 18, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    Does anybody know who “Gramps” is? There is a link for “Who is Gramps,” but it shows a bunch of pictures of Gramps without really telling who he is.

    In fact there is even a picture of Gramps “with his máte” despite his hard line on cola drinks:

    let coca-cola alone

  2. Matt Thurston September 18, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    My impression is that Gramps wasn’t ornery enough. Maybe he’s getting too much fiber in his diet, or not enough cholesterol. He just seems a little too tame. Gramps needs a little more BKP in his philosophy, and a little more J. Golden in his delivery.

  3. Doc September 18, 2006 at 9:04 pm

    By the way, the video is cheesy.

  4. Capt Jack September 19, 2006 at 9:41 am

    I agree, to say Coke is against the spirit of the WoW while sucking on a mate–there is no accent–doesn’t make much sense at all.

  5. Allen Wyatt September 19, 2006 at 11:06 am


    Interesting post. Let me make a couple of comments and add some information that you may not be aware of.

    1. The conclusions you draw about the relationship between AskGramps and the More Good Foundation are too sweeping, and certainly don’t merit mention in the first sentence of your post. We don’t “refer” people to AskGramps; we provide a link to the site on a directory page that has many links. Such a link does not endorse the site and everything on it, as it seems you are implying. (There is no “vetting” process at MGF, other than a general “is this site pro LDS or not?” I think that we can both agree that AskGramps is pro LDS, despite any disagreement you may have with a few answers he provides.)

    2. AskGramps is linked to from other places besides the More Good Foundation’s directory page, such as Jeff Lindsay’s Mormanity blog. Would you draw a conclusion of relationship based on those links, like you did with the Foundation’s single link?

    3. Gramps is a guy by the name of Clay Gorton. Many of the answers at the site are based on answers he wrote in a series of books years ago. They were (if I recall correctly) published by Deseret Book or Bookcraft. In fact, they are still being sold by them. You can find links to them on the AskGramps Web site.

    4. Clay has lived a long life and served faithfully in many leadership positions. He is a grandfather many, many times over and wears the title “Gramps” very well. What sort of answers would you expect from such a person? He provides answers from his perspective, and he doesn’t (from what I’ve seen) claim they are definitive. He doesn’t speak for the Church, and his answers–while they may seem quaint or flat-out wrong to some–reflect the times in which he has lived. Do you think that senior citizens should leave the controversial topics to younger people and not voice their opinions?

    5. You mentioned that there is tons of good stuff at the AskGramps site. (I’ll have to take your word for it; I’ve not read most of the articles there.) I’m curious why you would focus on the few controversial topics addressed by Clay out of well over a thousand responses. That seems a little harsh to me, and somewhat sensationalistic. Would you, when you are well into your golden years, want MormonStories judged solely by the answers to a few controversial topics you chose to tackle?

    My best to you.

    -Allen Wyatt, President
    More Good Foundation

  6. Equality September 19, 2006 at 11:32 am

    The fact that the question “Is it OK to love my homosexual daughter?” is even asked speaks volumes about the so-called Church of Jesus Christ. The answer, while a stunning display of ignorance in its own right, is not so revealing as the question being asked in the first place.

  7. Dave Sigmon September 19, 2006 at 12:19 pm


    Gramps is H. Clay Gorton.

  8. Tom September 19, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    No, Equality, that says a lot about the person asking the question. It says that they’re clueless and haven’t been paying attention in church or scripture study.

  9. ed johnson September 19, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    Thanks Dave,

    Here’s Clay Gorton’s home page:

    I find this whole “ask Gramps” think kind of fascinating. It puzzles me that Gramps doesn’t identify his real identity anywhere on his “ask Gramps” web pages. In one response, he even recommends a book by “H. Clay Gorton” without giving any indication that they are the same.

    I find it especially weird because all his arguments are simply appeals to authority. He usually provides quotes from GAs or scriptures, but sometimes he simply states things as his own authority. The idea that we should trust an authority that we know only as “Gramps” seems weird. In fact, the use of appeals to authority as the main form of argument in much Mormon discourse is a little weird. I find the idea that Mormon teenagers need to trust whatever “Gramps” says is disturbing.

    Gorton is identified as the author of his “Gramps” books sold by Deseret book.

  10. Hellmut September 19, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    Sometimes I wonder if the parable of the borrowed light doesn’t apply to our culture. Obedience is a poor substitute for self-reliance and responsibility.

    It’s sad when people turn to authority rather than reason when they have to deal with difficult family situations.

    That’s the reason why Stuart Matis died. We could have spared him his desparation if we had been more loving, less dogmatic, and had engaged what biology tells us about the nature of homosexuality.

    Reason would have saved Stuart Matis. The last thing Mormon culture needs is another voice that idolizes mortals and discounts reason. In many cases, reason can save our families bankruptcy, our daughters depression, and our sons authoritarian abuse.

    To be sure, there will still be suffering but a lot less than dogmatic obedience causes.

    We need to take responsibility for our own lifes. That’s what Jesus expects of us. If Gramps and the authorities get into the way then that’s a problem. I hope that they will take responsibility for the consequences of their sermons.

    And we need to take responsibility when we follow bad advice.

  11. Capt Jack September 19, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Whatever answers Gramps gives, his life story is fascinating, even for a post-mormon like me.
    Especially fun is to compare his mission in 1940s Argentina to what young men go through now.

  12. Gunner September 19, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    Sorry Tom, but Equality has a point. The church has been rather mean to homosexuals in the past, and the culture of the church has absorbed this BAD habit.

  13. Equality September 19, 2006 at 4:11 pm


    The point of my comment was that the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, which ought to be all about love and compassion as exemplified by the church’s namesake in the Bible, has fostered such a culture of hate, bigotry, and ignorance regarding homosexuality that a mother would seriously raise the question of whether is was “OK” to love her lesbian daughter. That’s sick and oturageous, in my considered opinion.


    I think the person asking the question has been paying very close attention to what has been communicated in the church by the likes of Boyd. K. Packer, Spencer W. Kimball, and more recently, Dallin H. Oaks and Lance Wickman.

  14. annegb September 20, 2006 at 10:10 am

    This is not a website I would recommend.

  15. Jordan September 20, 2006 at 10:19 am

    The fact that the question “Is it OK to love my homosexual daughter?” is even asked speaks volumes about the so-called Church of Jesus Christ. The answer, while a stunning display of ignorance in its own right, is not so revealing as the question being asked in the first place.

    Equality: how do you know it’s actually a “TBM” asking the question, and not some person trying to impersonate one to play the “devil’s advocate”?

    I know that happens occasionally on FAIR and other boards, just as occasionally TBMs may go to DAMU or Ex-type places and raise questions there.

    The fact that the question was even raised is indeed telling- to me it says that the proponent was probably trying to raise a ruckus and not really trying to know if he/she should love a daughter.

    We can all argue about the “culture of hate, bigotry, and ignorance regarding homosexuality” which has been fostered or not fostered by the Church, but I cannot imagine any mother truly asking this question sincerely. And though a so-called mother may ask such a question, I cannot imagine that it was because the so-called mother was a Latter-day Saint.

  16. n September 20, 2006 at 12:28 pm

    Regarding the comment which said “We don’t “refer” people to AskGramps; we provide a link to the site on a directory page that has many links.”

    That’s what it means to refer people online. That’s why site stats provide a “referring url” for how people arrived at a site.

  17. John Dehlin September 20, 2006 at 12:55 pm


    Thanks for joining us. Let me convey a few thoughts/concerns/questions….

    1) I definitely used the word “refer” in the Interent sense. An html link is commonly known as a referral.

    2) The fact that there is no vetting process at MGF is very interesting to me. You guys have to make those kinds of calls, and I understand how hard it would be to review everything on any site. I do think that it would make sense for you to at least check out some of the most critical and/or controversial issues each time you consider a site, just to see how the topics are treated. It only took me an hour to find the questions I listed in my blog post. Again, this is your call, but it seems like you might consider digging one level deeper than a “pro-LDS” or “anti-LDS” criteria. It seems like so much is at stake.

    3) You and I perhaps differ a bit on the perceived seriousness and stakes of this Internet dynamic. For me, when I see a site that claims that no seer stone was used in the translation of the Book of Mormon, that fasting and prayer are the solutions to homosexuality (as a choice), birth control is evil, no mention of blacks receiving the priesthood in the early days of the church, that there is minimal connection between the Masonic lodge and LDS temple rituals… me, this is very serious, and potentially extremely damaging to people’s faith, understanding and perspectives. Bad answers, in my opinion, are exponentially more risky and damaging than no answers. For me, passing this off as “just a nice old man doing the best he can from his perspective” doesn’t reflect the seriousness of what’s at stake (for me)…especially when he relies so heavily on GA quotes. So we can just agree to disagree on the seriousness of what’s at stake–and again, I respect what you are trying to do, I just think you might be doing more damage than good in this one instance.

    4) Regarding the question, “Why didn’t I mention the positive”–it’s just a personal thing. I have a particular interest in the tougher, more challenging questions of Mormonism and their treatment. I receive emails from literally hundreds of people each year who feel lied to and deceived by the church for the factual things they’ve discovered OUTSIDE of church instructional settings. In my view, sites that perpetuate this misinformation only add to the defection within the church. It seems to me that accuracy and candor are of upmost importance to keep more people from feeling lied to and misled (though I fail at this myself, I acknowledge).

    Anyway, I hope you can take criticism and questions in the spirit in which it is intended. I believe in and appreciate what you are trying to do at MGF, and believe that sometimes external criticism can help improve things.

  18. annegb September 20, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    I should clarify, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this site, but I didn’t notice anything especially insightful or special in it.

  19. paula September 20, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    Annegb, by “This site” do you mean “Ask Gramps”, “more good foundation” or “mormonstories”?
    One thing that bugged me about “Ask Gramps” is that it’s so hard to find out who the information is coming from. If you’re going to set yourself up as an authority on the church, you should let people know who you are. Especially if you are linking to your own books for sale.

    And I think it was appropriate to single out those links– some of them are just plain outdated and wrong. (Birth control for example)

  20. Equality September 20, 2006 at 5:13 pm

    [quote]Equality: how do you know it’s actually a “TBM” asking the question, and not some person trying to impersonate one to play the “devil’s advocate”?[/quote]

    I know it by the power of the Holy Ghost which speaketh expressly to my soul and lieth not, and by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. But seriously, of course I don’t know that. But if a “troll” TBM comes to a DAMU site it is usually obvious pretty quickly to the regular participants and moderators. Likewise, when a disaffected member or exmo goes to a TBM site and “pretends” to be someone trying to fit in. The AskGramps site appears to be in what might be fairly classified as the “TBM” category. If the question as posed were offensive to TBM sensibilities, it seems that Gramps would have answered by saying something like: “how could you as a Latter-day Saint mother even ask such a question? Don’t you have any understanding of the gospel?” But Gramps didn’t seem to think there was anything unusual about the question, which supprts my assertion that the question being asked speaks volumes about the values being instilled in members of the LDS church today.

    [quote]We can all argue about the “culture of hate, bigotry, and ignorance regarding homosexuality” which has been fostered or not fostered by the Church, but I cannot imagine any mother truly asking this question sincerely.[/quote]

    I am not sure whther I am sorry or envious that you lack the imagination to envision a mother asking this question sincerely. Recently, upon learning he had doubts about the foundational truth claims of the LDS church, a mother of a friend of mine called up his wife and told her that if she wanted to leave my friend, she and the kids would have a place to stay. I have interacted with many people who have come to know very powerfully and painfully the conditional nature of faithful Mormon parental love. True, to their credit, many faithful Latter-day Saitns reject the bigoted advice and counsel offered by such as Oaks and Packer, but I think it takes a real lack of imagination not to see that there are many who think loving their homosexual son or daughter could “send the wrong message” and who will choose obedience to the Brethren over loving an apostate family member.

  21. Equality September 20, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    How does one do effing quotes on this blog? Every flippin’ blog is different.

    Should I use those less-than/greater-than thingies?

  22. Equality September 20, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    A 5-second Google search yielded this:

    “I grew up in a VERY strict LDS home. My family is probably the most ignorant family in the world regarding homosexuality. I know that if my parents found out I was gay they would tell me to leave and never return. I have an adopted non lds cousin and she recently came out. My mom said the she wishes my aunt never adopted her and that she never wants to see her again. Mormonism is a dangerous religion for all people and it has hurt many many people. I urge all people who are currently involved in the lds church to re-examine their beliefs!”

    That’s from a site called

    Of course, I guess you could dismiss that particular story because, hey, maybe it was just someone posing as a suffering gay Mormon trying to stir up a ruckus.

  23. Jordan September 20, 2006 at 5:38 pm


    I was not dismissing anyone’s story. The quote at issue was a question supposedly asked by a TBM. Questioning the origin of that question has nothing to do with the statement you quote from, where people have really legitimate and sad stories to tell.

    My point was that you can’t judge the Church or its members from a random question posed by who knows who at “”- I’m almost laughing as I type this. I still doubt that, even if a mother were struggling with how to relate to her gay son, she would turn to asking some random old geezer at “” for advice regarding whether or not it was still OK to love her own flesh and blood. Sheesh!

    But the quote at is definitely more serious, and most likely authentic. That person obviously did suffer at the hands of the less informed (and less charitable) among us. Unfortunately, there are jackasses in every religion and amongst all people.

    By the way, nothing I see in the recent “interview” with Elders Oaks and Wickman would warrant the parents in the story you cite to treating their own offspring so poorly. In fact, I feel quite certain that this behavior would be condemned by Elders Oaks and Wickman.

    And even if they would not condemn it, I would and do. But that traumatic experience is not the same as some so-called mother posting such a ridiculous question at “”- I can hardly see how the two even compare.

  24. Equality September 20, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    You might also check out another story at the same site here:

    Here is an excerpt from a story by a man named Tom Clark:

    “In contrast to the overwhelmingly loving acceptance by Les’ family, my mother completely cut me off from the family from the moment she learned that I was in a relationship with another man. She began a campaign of insults and condemnations that were punctuated by long periods of silence – only to be broken by blistering orders that I not attend family affairs or have anything to do with friends in Idaho, including not attending my class reunions because to do so would embarass and disgrace the family.

    She became a tyrant, invoking mormon doctrine and authoritarian writ to insure that I understood that I was going straight to hell with the rest of those who were unworthy of god’s love. It was a period of great sadness for me and one that I’m not sure I’ve yet completely recovered from.”

    So while you cannot imagine it, Jordan, people like Tom Clark are living it. And just where do you think Tom Clark’s mother got her ideas about homosexuals going straight to hell if not the Mormon church of which she was a member?

  25. desert vulture September 20, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    From my informed NOM perspective, which is an objective critical position, the link will continue to foster disillusionment and angst due to a concerted effort to disguise and deny any negatives in church history or doctrine. This is unfortunate.

    I merely went to the site and looked up the answers to a couple of the questions that JD highlighted above. Birth control. Gramps refers to GA quotes that it is an evil sin. Then why did my SP inform me and my DW that family planning and birth control are fine? And that it is a myth that birth control is sinful? Come on MGF, why would you link to such a site? To further stir up the agitation among the membership as it discovers the horrific chasm between reality and what we have been taught in church?? JD is right, this is a serious problem, and should be addressed as one. Instead, we have Clay Gorton (is he the fisherman too?) becoming a major player in Bloggernacle, why? Was it his answer that the seerstones weren’t actually used in the translation of the BoM? Richard Bushman says differently. Who should I believe? Hmmm, I’ll take a well-respected published PhD over gramps. And I think most thinking people would agree. So, how does help anyone decipher the endless maze of current mormon thought and doctrine? I really don’t see that it does. And that is unfortunate that in this day and age, and under such critical pressure as the church currently finds itself, that a link to an anonymous grandpa is given as a source for discovering authoritative doctrine.

  26. Mayan Elephant September 20, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    to the MGF:

    you say this is pro-LDS. is that the simple standard for being more good or less good?

    what he says about birth control is insane and harmful. in my opinion, ungood. perhaps you can explain how his comments could possibly be more good.

    what he says about homosexuality makes me sick. and it reminds me why i cycle from wanting to understand more about the church i left and wanting to destroy it and watch the temples and chapels sit vacant. what is more good about his comments? oh, because they are pro-lds they are good? nice. the fact that you, the MGF, dont link to a site that forcefully refutes his comments, nullifies your effort or claim of being good in any way. you are on the wrong side of civility, goodness, social justice and science on this one if in fact you consider gramp’s response to be good.

    what is the standard for being more bad, calling for a jihad against mormons? gimme a break.

  27. Jordan September 21, 2006 at 9:10 am


    I don’t know where she got those ideas. But I do know that such hatred is not a part of my personal belief system, which is largely derived from the LDS paradigm.

    That woman would have been a hateful bitch with or without the church.

  28. Jordan September 21, 2006 at 9:31 am

    Side debate aside, I agree that Gramps is not helping anyone.Apologetics in general can be iffy, but uninformed “folk” apologetics is the worst, as evidenced by the ask Gramps site.

    That said, I am certain he is a nice old man just trying to help people keep their testimonies (and in the process, damaging some worse than he would have had he just kept quiet…)

  29. Equality September 21, 2006 at 10:31 am


    I think your personal belief system is admirable. I think it is open to debate, however, whether the admirable qualities of your personal belief system exist because of, or in spite of, your affiliation with the LDS church. Just as I wonder whether the mother in question would have been quite so vehemently opposed to her son’s homosexuality if she were raised as, oh, I don’t know, a Unitarian Universalist.

  30. Texasguy September 21, 2006 at 8:14 pm


    My point was that you can’t judge the Church or its members from a random question posed by who knows who at “”- I’m almost laughing as I type this. I still doubt that, even if a mother were struggling with how to relate to her gay son, she would turn to asking some random old geezer at “” for advice regarding whether or not it was still OK to love her own flesh and blood. Sheesh!
    I guess this leaves me wondering what you meant when you said on another blog that Gays are not following the Holy Order of Things and shouldn’t be allowed to have the same rights that you and I take for granted. For starters, How about the right to be recognized as loving partners in a relationship?

    Didn’t Oaks say,

    Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings” and “I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, “‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.

    Is this an example of compassion and understanding? Can you control your urges for the rest of your life to resist being heterosexual and enter into a meaningful relationship? Should people not follow the advice of Wickam and Oaks? Are they just geezers giving their own opinion?

  31. Texasguy September 21, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    I can’t figure out how the XML codes work. I hope you can see where I was quoting Jordan (the first section), Oaks (after my comment), and my comment at the end. Sorry for the bad coding.

  32. Texasguy September 21, 2006 at 8:20 pm

    BTW the quotation marks around the word partnership are straight from the interview. Apparently, Oaks doesn’t really view gay relationships as real relationships.

  33. Jordan September 21, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    Texasguy- I still fail to see a mandate there for parents to stop loving their gay children, as the so-called mother was alleged to have asked Gramps about.

    And I never said that gays should not be allowed the same rights you and I take for granted in a secular sense. I was discussing why from a religious (LDS) sense the God of Mormonism cannot validate same sex relationships with a divine stamp of approval. That says nothing about whether or not the United States government can. In fact, there are several good arguments grounded both in civil liberties and in federalism that say gays should be allowed to marry in the United States. My comments to Mayan Elephant had a different emphasis and were directed towards why homosexuality must be considered a sin towards God BY THE MORMON CHURCH (not by secular society and secular government like the United States). I know of no other response than to say that it must be according to the holy order of things- meaning that if one accepts the principle of divine revelation, one accepts therefore that when Gordon B. Hinckley says homosexuality is a sin and against the holy order of things, it must be. I don’t know all the reasons, but I do know that this does not give me an excuse to treat gays unkindly or turn them away from myself (or my family, if that were the case).

    I do think we can agree that Gramps site is not helping anyone who actually has questions about church-related issues.

  34. Texasguy September 21, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    My point exactly. What does that suggest to you about Mormonism? I think you actually know quite a bit about Mormonism but choose to apply it selectively. Sorry, you feel I have dismissed you casually. I think this is the first time I have responded to a blog post of yours.

    why homosexuality must be considered a sin towards God BY THE MORMON CHURCH

  35. Texasguy September 21, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    I am fairly certain (know with every fiber of my being) the Mormon church does not support gay unions/marriages even in the secular sense as you have alluded to supporting. They don’t even want parents to show “approval” of the “relationships” by going out in public or allowing them in the home with their partner.

  36. RB September 22, 2006 at 12:13 pm

    I think it’s interesting that he posts his journals online…and even more interesting is that he speaks of the worthiness of some of the missionaries he was overseeing. Apparently confidentiality doesn’t mean much…

  37. desert vulture September 22, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    This may be a side issue, and I don’t really want to steer the conversation away from contemporary treatment of gays by the church, but isn’t it a bit disingenuous to cry hellfire and damnation about gay unions, when the church itself practiced alternative lifestyle marriages between 1852 and 1904 officially? It seems to beg the question of whether the church can look at itself introspectively and see any internal hypocrisy in demonizing gay couples now when they demonized heterosexual monogamous couples then. Where does the church draw the line in demonizing familial relationships? I know the church would love to forget 52 years of history, but it seems to me that the pro-polygamy agenda against monogamy, was ever bit as vile and corrupt as the current pro-monogamy agenda against gay unions. Can the church EVER learn from its past mistakes in judgment ???

  38. Equality September 22, 2006 at 4:04 pm


    Thanks for posting that link. What a hoot. I liked this gem:

    “In interviewing Elder Vargas from Cochabamba assigned to the La Paz Mission, I asked him what was the indigenous language of his area, and he replied, “Quichua”. I asked him if he knew any Quichua words and he replied that he understood the language perfectly. I then read to him from 3 Ne 9 the names of the cities that were destroyed at the time of the crucifixion of the Savior and asked if any were familiar to him. He recognized two names as Quichua words– the first, “Mocum”, Quichua “mocu” which is the name of the process by which the natives make their alcoholic beverage, chicha. The other word was Kishkumen, which in Quichua signifies a person of authority that has other people reporting to him– an additional evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.”

    Soem body should tell the guys at FARMS about this proof that Kishkumen was in Chile.

    I also liked the info he gave from a talk by a visiting Richard G. Scott, who told the missionaries the fiath-promiting story that President Benson was acting as voice in a prayer circle in the Temple with the Twelve every Friday and praying for the missionarie–in October 1991. Anyone buy that story?

  39. Equality September 22, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Bolivia. Chile, Bolivia, same difference (kidding :-)). It ain’t Tehuantepec, that’s fo shizzle.

  40. Hiram Page September 24, 2006 at 8:27 am

    Texasguy says: “Are they [Oaks and Wickam] just geezers giving their own opinion?”

    Answer: Yes, in many cases they are. The sad thing is that there are no clear guidelines for distinguishing when they intend to speak as men of God and when they are merely offering their own geezerly opinions. So, I have taken to deciding for myself. I decided not to take advice from Elder Oaks on how best to love my children. He apparently knows very little about it.

  41. desert vulture September 25, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    I’m pretty sure that Gramps is just another hack who has just as many questions and hangups as the rest of us. If he is so perfect then why isn’t he a GA and speaking to us as one of the “Lord’s annointed.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it a while gramps.

  42. Mayan Elephant September 25, 2006 at 3:49 pm


    in a subsequent interview regarding the public relations piece, oaks and wickman acknowldege having no divine inspiration or expertise related to the subject. so, yes, it was just their opinion.

    interestingly, they do acknowledge that it is consistent with the church’s position. so, i assume its reasonable to conclude that there is no inspiration or education in the church’s position either.

    i suppose its good to know the church’s position and its good to know the position is not inspired or informed. if that was oak’s agenda, he succeeded.

  43. texasguy September 25, 2006 at 6:05 pm


    *Hijack* Thanks for you website and podcasts. I liked your tour of TS.

    It’s nice that we know better how to love our children and don’t feel the need to get advice from someone who doesn’t know anything about our situation.

  44. annegb September 25, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    I meant the Ask Gramps site. It seems to be pat answers with no real insight into the realities of painful situations. You and I could do that for ourselves.

  45. Hellmut September 25, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    I agree with you, Jordan, that some Mormon parents would not disown their children over their sexual orientation. Sadly, others do.

    The LDS hierarchy has been instigating anti-gay referenda in several states. LDS leaders are preaching that gays are a threat to the family. The proclamation about the family teaches that only heterosexual people are full human beings.

    LDS authorities are asking LDS members to save the family by fighting homosexuals. LDS leaders are issuing callings to LDS members to campaign for anti-gay referenda. They are raising money for these campaigns and they are asking members to sign the requisite petitions in sacrament meeting. The proclamation even excludes homosexuals from salvation.

    In light of these phenomena, is it any wonder that some LDS parents would disown their children over sexual orientation?

    They aren’t psychos but believing Mormons who place following priesthood leaders over everything else. They sacrifice their own children to the LDS Church. The parents do that because they believe that LDS authorities are the mouthpiece of God.

    It is true that other religions and ideologies also inspire irrational and hateful behavior. However, that does not absolve us from the particular pathologies of our own religion.

    When the Savior talked about the mote in the eye He meant that we need to take responsibility for the abuses of our own culture.

  46. paula September 25, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    annegb wrote “I meant the Ask Gramps site. It seems to be pat answers with no real insight into the realities of painful situations. You and I could do that for ourselves.” I know exactly what you mean, except that I probably couldn’t do the pat answers. I’m more that type that comes up with “Questions for Gospel Answers”

  47. Ben January 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    This this was a good post. Also both sides of the responses I have agreements with. I see it like this take the coke example. The first part of Gramps reply are his words the second part are ACTUAL quotes from chruch authorites and prophets. Fine reply that you don’t agree with Gramps on the caffiene issue but please state exactly what you don’t agree with him about, or atleast a specfic quote or all the quotes. Sounds a little like prophet bashing to me when you are not clear as to what you specifically disagree with. In that same sense Johns picks for the examples of AskGramps post make it sound like we are all of one mind here! e.g. On birth control (Ouch!!!!!). Ouch what John? I read it but I still had to guess a little as to what specific Ouch!!!! you are talking about. Anyways my 2 cent if it is even worth that you decide, lol.

  48. mikey January 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    Gramps is a well-meaning guy, but he’s off in search of the elusive hidden mysteries of knowledge that are deeply ingrained in Mormon culture. I know his family and have met him, and he sincerely tries to come up with a faith-promoting answer for everything. He tends to give the old (60s-70s era) Bookcraft authors and all those self-published Mormon authors as much credence as he does the general authorities of any era. His theological methods strike me as having a lot in common with those who are still looking for the Spanish gold in central Utah — any old rumor is as close to the truth as current knowledge, and he’s convinced that buried somewhere in those rumors there are eternal treasures of wisdom.

    If you look at other answers in the Gramps archive, you’ll find a feigned ignorance about a number of things and a simple-minded insistance on literally accepting certain statements from GA’s (try for an example). In fact, the more I read the more it seems that Gramps is very well intentioned but strangely out of touch with the world. I think we can pity such a simple soul but hardly need to take him seriously.

Comments are closed.