Because of my interest in Mormon Studies, a work colleague today pointed me to, one of the top news sites for the technology industry. The link he pointed me to was this article, where digg readers had highlighted a new anti-Mormon video as interesting or important. Currently, it ranks #1 in the Educational Video section of Digg. So far it’s been watched 5,300 times.

  • Is there anything in this video that you were not taught growing up in the church? For me, pretty much everything I heard in the video (except for Christ marrying 3 women while on earth) is something I was definitely taught growing up, or at least heard as quoted by a General Authority.
  • Is there any piece of history or doctrine in this video that anyone feels safe in claiming that “it wasn’t taught by at least one general authority in the history of the church?”
  • What percentage of what’s in this video would you consider to be accurate regarding LDS doctrine and history?
  • If a close friend or even a child were to see this video, and then ask you to explain how it reconciles w/ LDS theology, what would be the honest/ethical way to respond?
  • To me, this represents the many tough issues that church leaders have to now deal with on the Internet, including:
  • How do you teach church members to follow the teachings of the bretheren today, but ignore what they taught yesterday?
  • If you are the bretheren, how would you handle this? How do you “manage” the Internet?
  • Don’t you agree that new Web 2.0 services like,, and google videos are going to affect the church like we’ve never seen before?
  • For those of you who have seen the Scientology video from Southpark, do you feel like the LDS church looks more, or less strange to the uninformed observer than the Scientologists do?

I look forward to your comments. I love the church, but tend to see this phenomenon for what it is–a real pickle. I don’t stuff think this will do any cataclismic damage to the church, but it might b


  1. Shawn July 20, 2006 at 2:58 pm


    As you already know, I’m a long time reader, but a first-time poster. Just to let you know, this video is nothing new. As far as I understand, it is part of Ed Decker’s “Godmakers” film which is now nearly 25 years old. Dialogue published a great series of articles 2 decades agao debating the merits of the film & the animation (and found that, apart from an accurate portrayal of the pain some people feel as a result of member-imposed “perfection pressure,” it is not in any way an accurate reflection of Church doctrine). The articles can be found on-line in Issue 18:2.

    As for me, I’ve been a member all my life & certainly wasn’t taught the majority of the “doctrines” espoused in the animation, such as:(1) Elohim=Adam (a theory refuted from the pulpit by SWK), (2) God had intercourse with Mary (I know BRMcK believed it, but has never taken on the weight of actual church doctrine); (3) we will be judged by JS (wrong); and (4) JS did more for mankind that anyone including Jesus (wrong again).

    Don’t get me wrong – Church history and theology certainly have their tough-too-explain aspects. I just don’ think this video is in any way an accurate (or fair) presentation of same. Plus, I always have a hard time swallowing what I learn about a religion’s belief system from an ex/disgruntled member.

    Keep up the good work.

  2. canadiancynic July 20, 2006 at 3:09 pm

    I can confirm the previous post. This is directly from Godmakers I. Decker repeated the use of this animation in almost all of the rest of his Godmakers series…oh…and by the way, the libelous Godmakers II is avaliable online in quite a number of different places online. I’ve dowloaded it from the Internet Archive and Google video.
    Thanks for noticing it!

  3. Square Peg July 20, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    Congratulations, John–I think you’ve stumbled across the original “Man’s Search for Happiness’s” evil twin! :)

    Actually, it’s hard for me to see how any fair, thoughtful person could really take this little cinematic wonder too seriously. The production quality is horrible (1963 called–they want their voiceover guy back), and the whole thing reeks of biased propaganda.

    I just can’t see how something this goofy could really change many people’s opinion of the church one way or the other.

    On the other hand, it might be an interesting study to see which video actually omits and distorts more accurate historical information–“Mormon Theology in 6 Minutes” or the new church-produced Joseph Smith movie. Could be a close call…

  4. Matt Elggren July 20, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    I’ve never seen it so it’s new to me. :)

    As one who was raised to see LDS teachings as quite literal, most of this does in fact sync with what I was taught and/or what I imagined as a consequence of taking the teachings literally.

    As for production value…well, it really is in line with official church productions of the time. Remember the stage of the mind?

    And speaking of that…The narrator’s voice in this videao sounds oddly familiar…it sounds like BKP.

  5. Johnny Rotten July 20, 2006 at 4:22 pm


    I was taught all of this with a few exceptions. For instance the Adam God Theory and Joseph’s treasure seeking, which while a teenager, I was told in no uncertain terms was false. Also, I learned much later in life that we taught Jesus was a polygamist. Although I was taught he was married but the polygamy thing was covered up.

    As for Mary and Elohim, Blacks as less valiant, preexistence, God being a polygamist and the nature of the after life etc… Yeah…I was taught all that in seminary and Sunday school. I was also taught that you could only have (procreate) sex in the highest degree of the celestial Kingdom, those that went to other kingdoms would have to live an eternity of celibacy.

    As for the video, its awful and ugly, the production value is poor and the tone and feel is dark and mean.

    It’s embarrassing, many of my friends have seen this and other anti-Mormon films. I often wonder what they say and think of my family when they are alone. My son has some friends whose parents recently told their children that they’re not aloud to associate with my 9 year old son, because he is Mormon. They are evangelicals that attend a large local fellowship and have seen this and other anti films.

    Tough stuff… and even worse considering we are forced to answer for things our parents and ancestors taught which we no longer believe or accept as doctrine.

    Great post, keep it up!

  6. Gunner July 20, 2006 at 5:06 pm

    :(1) Elohim=Adam (a theory refuted from the pulpit by SWK),

    The problem is that this was not a “theory” but the words of the prophet. So when SWK refuted it the question arises that who do you believe when there is dueling prophets. This is not about practice or something. This is about the nature of who God is. I understand the belief that one prophet can “over-ride” the words of another. But a basic idea like this is odd.

    The rest of the film is of low quality(production and material). I have it on my computer and it is for laughter only when I watch it. It has an agenda. When you know that you can watch it in a whole new light.

  7. Jeff Day July 20, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Elohim = Adam as far as I know was never advocated or believed by anyone significant. The idea that Elohim is the name of God the Father is a relatively modern concept. Adam = God was, however, taught, published, defended, believed, and sung about (and disbelieved, etc, as well). For references, I’d refer anyone to read the Brigham’s God Notebook on Issues in Mormon Doctrine.

    The only patently false thing I heard, was the Joseph Smith did more for the salvation of man than anyone else EVEN Jesus Christ. That is not what, to my knowledge, was ever said. It was save Jesus Christ only. Am I wrong about this?

  8. HP July 20, 2006 at 5:28 pm

    Hey, if it gets people to ask us if we really believe all that, it won’t be a bad thing. It is a ridiculous culling together of the wierdest statements found within mormonism. This gives a picture like the one you would have of Islam if you only took the wildest statements of the Ayatollah Khomeni and Osama Bin Ladin. It’s silly, John, and can be safely ignored.

  9. Johnny Rotten July 20, 2006 at 5:28 pm


    I think this is where they get the idea that Joseph says he did more than Christ. Of Coarse it’s remains an uncomfortable comment, even when it is explained in context.

    Joseph Smith said, “I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam…Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9).

  10. Johnny Rotten July 20, 2006 at 5:37 pm

    Oh…there is weirder…the Bigfoot comments by, I think it was, Joseph F. Smith; the cosmology of the BOA; Kolob earth falling etc… Then you add the ten tribes…hollow earth (I was taught that by my MTC teacher).

    I can come up with much weirder statements. How about the seer stone stuff; three Nephite stories; Brigham Young’s healing cane; the pre-1990 temple ceremony; the teaching that sickness was related to sin and all the other oddities that we have rejected etc…

    Yeah…lots of weird stuff.

  11. John Remy July 20, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    John, I would imagine that the Scientology video looks stranger. Even if an American observer viewed Joseph Smith as a fraud, he still worked with familiar material out of the Judeo-Christian tradition (Bible stories, Jesus, Satan, angels, etc). Also, I think that society’s attitudes towards Scientologists probably parallels feelings towards Mormons earlier in the 20th century.

    But if we really take a look at all this from the 35,000 foot perspective, isn’t just about all religion pretty fantastic? Take mainstream American Christian beliefs: a poor Jewish teacher was executed by the Romans. He came back to life, and made it possible for all humans to do the same. If you weren’t brought up as a Christian, this might be pretty weird stuff. Throw in a global flood and a big boat full of all of the animal species, and a God who thought at one time that cutting off the foreskin was the best way for men to show loyalty…we could go on and on.

    From a rational, modern perspective, evangelical Christians draw attention to Mormon absurdity at the risk of hypocrisy.

  12. Jen July 21, 2006 at 5:24 am

    There is no way to reference what is truly doctine or what was a general authority’s “bright idea”. I can only this of two conclusions.

    1. The current authorities are convinced of past teaching but are sensitive to the controversy and keep quiet.


    2. The current authorities disagree with past teaching bar are hesitant to discredit former leaders with the fear of discrediting their own.

    We want some clarifications on doctrine. I’d rather the church be clear on foundational beliefs rather than skirt around controversy.

  13. Ed Decker July 21, 2006 at 6:15 am

    No just kidding, I’m not Ed Decker.
    But I LOVED Ed Decker’s “Godmakers” series.
    It was such ridiculous that you can watch them during family home evening – and have a good laugh.

    But my favourite was not Ed Decker himself, but his friend Bill Schnoebelen, former Mason and Satanist, I mean, this guy has done the whole package.
    And he noticed how similar all three of them are.

    Some former posters are right that the video has a poor image/sound quality, but it is highly entertaining nevertheless, and I would recommend it to anyone.
    I think, there is hardly any modern movie reaching the same level of Anti-Mormonism as “Mr. Ed” Decker’s “God makers” series.
    It was also the influence of the God maker series that Mormonism started to mainstream itself, removing embarrassing doctrines, as more and more LDS people were asked about Kolob, Men on the Moon, handshakes and other sacred(secret) doctrines.

    Watch it and enjoy.
    Your Ed.

  14. KLC July 21, 2006 at 9:51 am


    Would it be presumptuous to say that I feel like you are a little too eager to want to believe that all of the bilge in that video is being eagerly but surreptitiously voiced in LDS congregations week after week and is only now being brought to light by the internet and youtube?

    Asking whether we were taught these things is a little disingenuous. Is someone’s unasked for comment in Sunday School a teaching? Is someone’s crackpot speculation in Elder’s Quorum a teaching?

    I think I have a much more honest question for you. I believe you have stated that you were an assiduous and diligent Mormon, honestly striving to do the right thing as it was taught to you. Given that, how many of the “doctrines” in that video did you personally teach, as a missionary, as a Sunday School teacher, as a seminary teacher or in any other calling?

  15. Geoff J July 21, 2006 at 10:09 am

    John Dehlin,

    Who “taught” you this crap in church? Do you consider the wild-*ss speculation about, say, Christ being married (or even polygamous) that your high school buddy told you he overheard his Uncle Larry mention to be the same as being “taught” something in church?

    I saw this dorky video recently too and thought it was so funny I might post on it because it is so over-the-top inaccurate. But here I see you posting on it and treating it as if it reveals some secret “teachings” of the church. Have you lost your mind dude? This is tripe and treating it seriously makes you look like a joke. (Or perhaps the witless chump-monkey of the anti-Mormon crowd.)

    How annoying.

  16. Austin A July 21, 2006 at 11:59 am

    I don’t remember any documentation where Joseph Smith claimed himself to be a descendent of Jesus Christ. I know a few others have used D&C 110 to teach that principle, but he never taught it. He only said, “Would to God…I could tell you who I am!”
    The video saying that Mormons claim J.S. has done more for the salvation of man that anyone, INCLUDING Joseph Smith is outright stupid. The creators of the video know very well that Mormons make it clear that it is EXCEPT Jesus. They obviously have their own twisted agenda to lead people astray, and they use blatant dishonesty to achieve it.
    And as for the Adam-God teaching, it is too blatant to solely attribute it to inaccurate note-takers, yet Brigham Young also taught that Adam was created by Elohim. Thus, these contradictions are things Brigham Young will have to deal with, and it’s not for us to say what he really meant or believed, because he is not here to explain himself. Plus, it is not a ‘doctrine’ of the Church.
    I actually enjoyed the video, but I’d also love to make a similar video depicting the Creators’ (of this animated film) belief in the Trinity. It would be fun to have God speak to himself, send himself to earth, yet pray and communicate with himself while he is yet on earth but also in heaven, and to see him ask himself if there was any other way! Certainly, it would be a lot easier to make the creators’ evangelical beliefs look ridiculous than the Mormons’ beliefs.

  17. Clay July 21, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    I joined the church in 1991 in California, never experiencing Primary and having just one year of Seminary and youth programs. That said, from the very start I was interested in the deep dive into the doctrine and paid close attention. Here are some of the things that I never was taught personally:

    Jesus married at all, let alone to 3 women
    God had physical relations with Mary
    We will be judged by God, Jesus, and Joseph Smith
    Neutral spirits were all given dark skin. (I know this was taught by several, and believed by countless, but I never actually experienced anyone teaching it in my own church attendance.)
    Adam = God (Elohim)

    By this point, I am sure that each element of the video is based on some statement of a past LDS person of some significant authority. I’ve seen most of the comments that I believe would have supported the ideas. My impression is that they are usually spoken in moments of wild speculation. I actually think one of the biggest illusions about mormonism is that it is immune to the variety of individual doctrinal beliefs that are common in other religions (note the great disparity between various Islamic sects or within Catholicism across the globe). We like to say in today’s church that you can go to a ward anywhere in the world and get basically the same experience. I think that is relatively true today, but that’s mostly because its become uncool to really talk deep doctrine at church. If people shared some of the deeper dogmas they hold I would bet there’d be a surprising disparity. (Geoff most likely does not talk CoolNewThang-style openly at church, or if he does I’m sure a lot of people would think he is a crackpot.)

    Considering that, it makes it more interesting that during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s speculative discussion and exploration was rampant. I get the picture from the Journal of Discourses that in that time period the bretheren were arguing back and forth through speeches about points of doctrine (kind of like how athletes and ownerships will argue in the press). Brigham Young and Orson Pratt had big arguments about Adam/God that ultimately resulted in Brigham “pulling rank” on him. I believe (please correct me if you know) that Brigham fell on the side of Adam = God, and I definitely remember Wilford Woodruff later making a statement asking that people stop arguing about that subject at all, stating that it was unimportant. There has clearly been a pattern of LDS prophets trumping past prophets. If you read between the lines, President Hinckley basically trumped Brigham’s claims that the priesthood was race-restricted by God when he made this statement in the last GC: “How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?”

    I have no problem with that happening. Line upon line, right? As far as I can recall, while there is definitely an emphasis placed on following the counsel of the bretheren as it pertains to moral conduct, they never really say that you should be in agreeance with them lock-step when it comes to theology. In fact, most of them don’t even give you much idea what their own personal theology happens to be. Perhaps this is the result of MocKonkie’s Mormon Doctrine and the ensuing private rebuking. The modern church leadership has changed to focus on conduct rather than theology, and based on some of the wildness of past statements, that is probably the wisest course.

  18. FreeAtLast July 21, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    Interesting piece of animation – reminds me of the type in the “Rocket Robin Hood” series (ref.

    Based on what I was taught by the church from the late 1960’s to the mid-1980’s, doctrinally it’s about 80% correct. Jesus having three wives was new to me (I’d been taught that he had one). However, since Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other Mormon ‘prophets’ preached about the ‘eternal’ nature of polygamy, I wouldn’t be surprised if one or more senior church leaders had preached and/or written that Jesus, holder of all priesthood ‘keys’ and restorer of all ‘divine’ doctrines including polygamy, had been a polygamist himself.

    Theologically, the idea makes sense (if one believes in Mormonism). Smith, Young, and other Mormon ‘prophets and apostles’ had made it clear to church members that polygamy was necessary for their ‘eternal salvation’. Furthermore, President John Taylor declared that it was necessary for the growth of the church: “Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants.”

    “Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, “that if this principle [plural marriage] was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed.” When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them.”

    “When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221)”

    So, given how crucial polygamy was to members’ salvation and the growth of the church (if one believes former church presidents), how could Jesus not have been a polygamist? How could he restore an ‘eternal’ principle through Joseph Smith that ‘the Lord’ himself had not embraced? He couldn’t.

    To the best of my knowledge, the bit about Joseph Smith doing more than anyone, including Jesus Christ, for the ‘spiritual salvation’ of humanity has never been a church teaching, but I could be wrong. D&C 135:3 states: “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.”

    The Adam-God doctrine was a favorite of Brigham Young. In 1873, Young declared that God had ‘revealed’ to him that “Adam is our Father and God.” (ref. However, like ‘eternal, restored truths’ of the Mormon Church such as Heavenly Father having sex with Mary to create Jesus and ‘fence-sitters’ in the ‘Pre-Existence’ by being born into black families (and being cursed by God with dark skin), the LDS Church phased out the Adam-God doctrine in the 20th century.

    I wonder what ‘everlasting, divine truths’ of the LDS Church today will be eliminated in the next 50 to 100 years. Will Latter-Day Saints in 2065 be watching a digitally-animated film about Mormonism of the late 20th/early 21st century and completely disbelieve that the church ever taught that women did not have the right to hold the priesthood, or that homosexuality was an ‘abomination’?

  19. Johnny Rotten July 21, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    Jesus Christ the Polygamist;

    “I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children. All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this — they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfill the commands of his Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough ‘to fulfil all righteousness;” not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law “to multiply and replenish the earth.’ Startle not at this! for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only ‘did that which he had seen his Father do.'” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 210).

    And here are more;

    “It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it.”

    “I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass thought the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on as ass, but on a rail.”

    “At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ.” (All the above statements: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)

    Yes we at one time taught it, I was taught that he was married, later in life I discovered that we (the Church) at one time had taught Christ was a polygamist.


    I enjoyed your comments. However, I take issue with one point. The restoration was fulfilled and total in Joseph’s life. That is why we have no additional revelations sense his death. Line-upon-line applies to us as members not to the Prophet. After all we have been promised a Prophet will not lead us a stray.

    I find it hard to believe that a Prophet could be so confused about the nature of God that he would think Adam was the same being as God the Father. Moreover, that he would preach a false doctrine and lead honest obedient members astray.

    Oh well…I just try to look past it.

    The reality is all religions teach crazy ideas. Unfortunately in our Church there is no room for disagreement or debate.

  20. Stephen M (Ethesis) July 21, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    If you want to count folk doctrines, then the sky is the limit for things people have believed, taught and mistaught …

    I’m sure you can find them all, somewhere, and stranger, but that is true of any group.

    After all, did you know that …’s believe that black cats bring bad luck?

  21. Clay July 21, 2006 at 11:54 pm

    I’ve never heard that the entire gospel was restored within Joseph’s life. Just note the 9th article of faith:

    “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

    And then this comment from Ezra Taft Benson:

    “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”

    Are we really talking about being led astray when it comes to theology? If the theology results in behaviour that is in conflict with God, then yes. But just believing that Adam == God or not will really only result in you being wrong or right about the subject in your mind. I wouldn’t call that being led astray. Same goes for just believing one way or the other about Jesus’ marital status.

    That said, you get in a pickle with Brigham’s racial theories. That stuff led directly to particular treatment of blacks that President Hinckley only a few months ago said was blatantly wrong. Which one is leading us astray (Bensen gave his opinion already)? You are kind of forced to decide that one or the other is either leading astray, not a prophet, or else re-define your understanding of the role of prophets.

    I think we ultimately need to take a much greater responsibility in our own salvation. Heeding wise counsel, from prophets or just that old guy who has been through the thing before, is always a good thing. But he who is commanded in all things an unwise and slothful servant. ;-)

  22. fox_goku July 22, 2006 at 5:59 am

    I found the film to be nothing more than a parody and a distortion.

    How many ideas in the film could be matched up against doctrines taught in General Conference in the last 20 years? Against that standard, the film is not recognizable as Mormonism.

    I am reminded of my experience trying to do some Spanish to English translation using the Google function “Translate.” Idiomatic points and sometimes basic points of language were missed altogether. This film is nothing more than a Google-like distortion wherein the output is wholly inadequate.

  23. Gunner July 22, 2006 at 8:13 am

    fox_goku has it on the nose. The film is simply bad. They do take words out of context and use them for there own ends. There is a big problem with the words of the leaders that, even in context, are hard to sweep under a rug.

    Geoff J response is a bit harsher then needs be. We all have had that “odd” teacher at one point in the church who goes off into the ether with some material. I’ve heard stuff that made me leave the room to keep from laughing. It is out there and it is being taught. The correllated(?) material makes it harder to pop it’s strange doctrinal head up, but the beliefs and ideas still reside with many members.

  24. FreeAtLast July 22, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    Clay wrote: “I’ve never heard that the entire gospel was restored within Joseph’s life.”

    In D&C 132:40, ‘the Lord’ supposedly tells Joseph Smith: “I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee, my servant Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things.” If one believes that Smith actually received ‘revelations’ from Jesus Christ, then clearly, ‘the Lord’ himself is telling Smith that he’s restoring all things (i.e., the entire Gospel) through him (Smith).

    For generations, the church has taught its members and potential converts that only through the Mormon Church has the ‘fullness of the Gospel’ been ‘restored’, and that that ‘restoration’ happened through Joseph Smith. For example, in April General Conference this year, Elder James E. Faust stated: “the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored in our time by the Prophet Joseph Smith”. On the church’s website, there are 100 Ensign articles going back more than 30 years, including General Conference talks given by church leaders, in which the idea that the ‘restoration’ of Christ’s gospel happened through Smith.

    Before Joseph Smith came along, other Christian religions contained as part of their theology the idea that people needed to ‘repent’ of their ‘sins’, be baptized, and hearken to ‘the spirit of God’. So when Smith included these ideas in his new religion (Mormonism), he wasn’t doing anything novel. However, ‘restoring’ the ‘principle of plural wives’ was. The ‘restoration’ of the doctrine and practice of polygamy was part of the ‘restoration’ of the ‘fullness of the gospel’ (i.e., the gospel of Jesus Christ).

    The preface to the section in the Doctrine and Covenants on polygamy (D&C 132) states: “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501—507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.” (ref.

    The wording “new and everlasting covenant” is curious because in verses 1 and 29-39, the Lord supposedly tells Smith how the “principle and doctrine” of “having many wives and concubines” was practiced by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon. So in fact, there was nothing ‘new’ about the ‘covenant’ of polygamy when it was supposedly ‘restored’ to Smith.

    The dictionary defines everlasting as “lasting forever; eternal”. To this day, polygamy is still part of the body of doctrine of the LDS Church, as per D&C 132. No Church President or First Presidency has ever rescinded the doctrine. The Manifesto of 1890 stated that the practice of polygamy would end, as would polygamous marriages carried out by church officers. It stated nothing about ‘the Lord’ changing his mind and terminating the ‘everlasting’ doctrine of polygamy that had supposedly been ‘restored’ nearly 60 years before through Smith.

    Various church presidents and apostles taught that polygamy was essential to Mormons’ eternal salvation. For example, according to President Joseph F. Smith:

    “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false… Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith,… he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected….

    “If then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction,… it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one,…

    “I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 28-31)”

    Clearly, polygamy was an integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ ‘restored’ through Joseph Smith. So why do Latter-Day Saints not practice it today since their ‘eternal salvation’ depends on it, as many Mormon ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ with the ‘keys of the priesthood’ taught? If polygamy was an ‘everlasting covenant’ when it was ‘restored’ through Smith in the early 1830’s, why did the LDS Church stop making it possible for members to participate in that convenant more than 100 years ago? This, of course, is the principle argument of various Mormonism-rooted polygamist groups, and doctrinally, they are correct (if one believes in LDS theology).

    fox goku wrote: “How many ideas in the film could be matched up against doctrines taught in General Conference in the last 20 years? Against that standard, the film is not recognizable as Mormonism.” What ‘standard’ are you talking about? Are the ‘everlasting’ doctrines and ordinances ‘restored’ through Smith meaningless? Just because the church’s senior patriarchal leadership in the past two decades hasn’t had the courage to teach the ‘eternal truths’ ‘revealed’ to Smith, Young, and other church presidents (because those ‘truths’ have been too bizarre and offensive to many people) is only further evidence of the LDS Church’s apostacy from the ‘fullness of the restored gospel’.

  25. fox_goku July 22, 2006 at 9:59 pm

    Freeatlast: Your diatribe on polygamy is off point. On an appropriate thread I would be happy to debate with you the pros and cons of polygamy. I am comfortable with the topic, even if not the practice.

  26. enochville July 22, 2006 at 11:42 pm

    The Adam-God doctrine was a transcriber’s error despite what Joseph Fielding Smith claimed and it is quite clear that BY actually believed it. Futhermore, it was not treated as random speculation by a prophet during conference for it was codified by BY into the Lecture at the Veil. And, yet, SWK denounces the theory as false doctrine.

    (Brigham Young’s Lecture Before the Veil from the Journal of L. John Nuttall; BYU Special Collections; Pres. Brigham Young; delivered in St. George; Wed., Feb. 7, 1877. This was the first draft of the Lecture at the Veil. Brother L. John Nuttall was the private secretary to President Brigham Young until his (Brigham’s) death in 1877. )
    “Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. 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. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child…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.”

    (The Contributor, Vol 8, pg 218, 1886)
    Before Adam fell he was a resurrected man, that is, his physical body had been disorganized, and then reorganized…Between the time of Adam’s resurrection and his fall afterwards, he must have enjoyed a season of rest and peace”.

    (Edward Tullidge, Women of Mormondom, page 179, 1877)
    “Adam is our Father and God. He is the God “of the earth.” So says Brigham Young. Adam is the great archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ – the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man, Adam!”

    (Brigham Young, Millenial Star, Vol 15, pg 769, 1853)
    “When the virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.”

    (Conference Report, Millenial Star, Vol 16, pg 482, 1854)
    “They are lacking faith on one principle – the last “cat that was let out of the bag.” Polygamy has been got over pretty well, that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God.”

    (Wilford Woodruff, Private Journal MSS, Feb 19, 1854)
    “Pres. Young followed & made many good remarks he said…He said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ – Our God was no more or less than Adam..Michael the Archangel”.

    Let there be no doubt that BY believed it. That those around him took it as doctrine. It was so true that it was a part of the temple instruction. Did BY have the authority to reveal immutable, eternal doctrine or not? Things as they really are, were and are to come? Well, Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball appear not to think so.

  27. enochville July 22, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    My first sentence of the last post should have read,
    “The Adam-God doctrine was NOT a transcriber’s error…”

  28. Kirk Faulkner July 22, 2006 at 11:53 pm

    Every body missed the boat with this film clip. The discussion shouldn’t be about it’s distortions or tone. It should be about the fact that this would make an awesome saturday morning cartoon.

    Sorry, but this thing reminds me so much of he-man, it kind of makes me want to get active in the church again. The film hits some false notes but mostly the stuff is kinda true, just exagerated. I think it actually comes out as a cool story.

  29. FreeAtLast July 23, 2006 at 12:27 am


    You didn’t answer my question. I simply asked you to elaborate on the ‘standard’ relative to doctrines taught in General Conference to which you referred. Would that be a standard of ‘truth’, or some other ‘standard’ applied by senior church leaders, such as avoiding mentioning historical facts about Joseph Smith and 19th-century Mormonism that are not congruent with the current, official version of church history?

    By the way, my so-called ‘diatribe’ about polygamy was on-point 100%. The animated film (the subject of this blog) mentions that aspect of Mormonism a number of times.

    Many people who joined the LDS Church in the past 1 – 15 years are unware that until at least the early 1980’s, the church taught members about its doctrine of polygamy, telling them that if they were ‘faithful’ during mortality, priesthood holders would become Gods after death and LDS women would spend eternity bearing spirit children, who would incarnate on planets in the universe that their hubby-God had created through the power of the priesthood. This ‘eternal’ church doctrine was mentioned in the animated film.

    The f
    I again ask a question that is extremely relevant to Latter-Day Saints today: Why has the LDS Church abandoned

    polygamy and other ‘eternal truths’ of the ‘fullness’ of the ‘gospel of Jesus Christ’, as ‘restored’ through Joseph Smith? (which goes to Clay’s comment). Why aren’t Latter-Day Saints today being taught the ‘eternal truths’ ‘revealed’ to Joseph Smith and other Mormon ‘prophets and apostles’, a number of which are covered in the film and all of which are documented in official church sources?

  30. FreeAtLast July 23, 2006 at 12:57 am

    I accidentally hit the wrong key and my blog post was submitted before I finished.

    Regarding the animated film, anyone who has been in the church for more than two decades and sees it can’t help but realize just how much Mormonism has changed in the past 20+ years. Yet the LDS Church continues to market itself as a theologically-stable religious organization, which clearly it’s not. To get an idea of how much Mormonism has changed over the years, check out the Tanners’ online book, “The Changing World of Mormonism” (ref.

  31. Constant .... change July 23, 2006 at 4:12 am

    Commenting on the last poster:
    Every church is constantly changing.
    Even if the Christian churches have been on the market for two millenia now, doesn’t mean that today’s Christianity is identical to the Early Christian Church.

    The fact is that the flavour of Christianity is constantly changing.

    I’ll give one example from my own tradition, the Lutheran Church.

    After the second worldwar, when Germany recognized the horrors performed in the Holocaust, scientists were examining the sources of anti-semitism.
    And one big source found is Christianity and the bible.
    Consequently, the Lutheran church distanced itself from these past anti-jewish doctrines and the hatered stirred against Jews. This meant also criticizing their founder, Martin Luther, who was quite anti-semitic.

    Thus, all Christian denominations are constantly changing, and different flavours of Christianity change in popularity over time. Some denominations face major growth, others almost die out (e.g. Community of Christ).

    The only thing constant in this world is change.
    This also holds true for religion, Christianity, and the LDS church.


  32. WH July 23, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    I saw this on Digg a while ago too. I know it’s a compilation of the most far-out precepts of mormon doctrine, but still nothing was new to me. Many of these issues i had heard at some point in a church building.

    John, your question about how things are going to change with all these 2.0 sites out there is a big one. I’m even more intrigued as to how this will play out once there is a presidential race on the line.

    As a missionary, I remember being quite disturbed by topics like this that would pop up during church while my investigators were there. It was this seemingly impossible struggle to introduce just the right accurate information while protecting them from the wrong (still accurate) information. Why did I feel dishonest in how I presented the gospel to them? That always bugged me. If its true, why all the landmines?

    It seemed too many good, intelligent, Christlike people were turning away from our message. I could tell myself that they weren’t “the elect”, but if I was honest with myself I would have the same questions if i was in their shoes. So then I’d blame myself, right? Yep, that’s what Elder Ballard said to do when he came to our Zone. In a tone so indignant that it left me with the option to either hate myself or question the very system that I knew, at one time i would give my life for. I’m a good guy. I like myself.

    I still do.

  33. FreeAtLast July 23, 2006 at 5:33 pm


    It’s true that a number of churches, including the LDS Church, have changed in terms of their doctrines, rites, teachings, policies, etc. However, as far as the LDS Church is concerned, the changes in Mormonism have created a huge theological problem because since Joseph Smith’s day, the church has claimed to be the same as the ancient church established by Jesus, the only ‘true’ church of God with the priesthood, doctrines, and ordinances (rites) necessary for the people’s eternal salvation.

    For example, in the October 2005 General Conference, Elder Robert D. Hales, one of the church’s 12 Apostles, said: “This humble farm boy [Joseph Smith] was the prophet chosen by God to restore the ancient Church of Jesus Christ and His priesthood in these latter days. This restoration was to be the last, the dispensation of the fulness of times, restoring all the priesthood blessings which man could possess on earth. With this divine commission, his work was not to reform nor was it to protest what was already on the earth. It was to restore what had been on earth and had been lost.”

    If one accepts what Elder Hales to be true, then the doctrines and ‘spiritual’ ideas that Joseph Smith taught, including polygamy, the possibility for Mormon priesthood holders to become Gods, God living on a planet close to the star Kolob, and other aspects of Mormon theology mentioned in the film were in fact a part of the church established by Jesus, doctrinally and in practice.

    So, again the question: If the aspects of Mormonism mentioned in the film and taught to Latter-Day Saints (including myself) were ‘restored’ doctrines/truths of God, then why are they not taught to Latter-Day Saints today? If the ancient church of Jesus Christ contained the doctrine of polygamy, the teaching that blacks were cursed by God with a dark skin for being neutral in the ‘Pre-Existence’, the idea that priesthoood holders can become Gods after death and create their own universes, why are these and other ‘eternal truths’ as ‘restored’ by Joseph Smith not a part of Mormonism today?

  34. Johnna July 23, 2006 at 9:07 pm

    starbase near Kolob?
    known for his tall tales?

    I’m a mormon who believes that God the Father is the Most High God, and that the council in heaven was us. Theologies that can’t be backed up with scripture are irrelevant to me, no matter how popular they are.

  35. tall skinny kiwi July 24, 2006 at 10:24 am

    hey – i saw this like . . 2 decades ago on a big screen in a church

    wild to see it reemerge as a uTube

    good to hear comments from mormons – something that didnt happen the first time.

  36. John July 24, 2006 at 12:26 pm

    fox_goku said “How many ideas in the film could be matched up against doctrines taught in General Conference in the last 20 years? Against that standard, the film is not recognizable as Mormonism.”

    That begs a question: Did the GC begin “cleaning up” the doctrines in direct response to material such as The God-Makers, which was released 20-odd years ago? Did they suddenly get revelation that just, coincidentally, made things easier to deny as official? How could 150 years of doctrine fly out the window like that? Would your average evangelical council toss out the doctrine of the Trinity if someone made a movie ridiculing it? How pliable and reversib le is offical teaching?

  37. Clay July 24, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    I understand the restoration of “all things” to be speaking of ordinances, power to seal families together (i.e. keys), priesthood, etc. The elements of the LDS gospel that actually matter in salvation and exhaltation. That does not mean that all revelation was finished. These prophetic conflicts we’ve been discussing are not in the line of adding new ways to be saved.

    Also, yes Brigham believed in Adam/God theory, and yes many men around him believed it to be true… but there was definitely disagreement on the subject. I’m sure one could provide countless quotes from people’s journals and talk transcripts where people supported wrong ideas, but that wouldn’t mean that it was scripture or even that it was totally accepted by the majority. Brigham had the habit of speaking authoritatively almost constantly, even when just stating his personal views. He was living in a bubble in SLC, with little to no fear of the consequences of his statements. You have to decide for yourself how to deal with that.

  38. texasguy July 29, 2006 at 7:16 am

    Clay said “Brigham had the habit of speaking authoritatively almost constantly, even when just stating his personal views. He was living in a bubble in SLC, with little to no fear of the consequences of his statements. You have to decide for yourself how to deal with that.”

    So the Mormon plan is God gave us prophets, but we don’t know when to trust them. So pray about it and it should confirm everything that is currently taught including homophobia. That is until the church decides to change again. Then the things we were supposed to have “confirmed” will just be opinions. So Clay, why do we have prophets? Should we “Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, he knows the way.” (I have a mental image of someone scrubbing my childrens brain with a large scrub brush every time I hear these words)

    I seems to me that it isn’t just BY that passed his opinions off as the will of God. Racism by ETB and homophobia by GBH are two current examples of opinion being passed off as doctrine. Will the doctrine of submission by women just be opinion someday. My TBM mom thinks so.

  39. Emmett July 30, 2006 at 9:02 am

    Do any of you know why Ed Decker left the Church in the first place?

  40. Matthew January 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Elohim, definition:

    rulers, judges
    divine ones

    (plural intensive – singular meaning)
    god, goddess
    godlike one
    works or special possessions of God
    the (true) God

    The statement Adam=Elohim is not stating Adam was God the Father. Many of the definitions can be used without implying Adam=”God the Father”. SWK clarified, he did not conflict with the statements of Brigham Young. When perusing statements one should assume that the leaders were in harmony with each other before jumping to an assumption of conflict.

  41. Jake February 4, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    One thing can be said for us as members of the LDS church. We learn in our meetings mostly about what we believe. I’ve never seen any church activity based around how some other religion is false. That kind of acivity breeds intolerance and narrow-mindedness. I’m not saying that there is no church literature that attempts to show falsehoods in other religions, because there is. But that literature is for personal review. We don’t sit around talking about how false some other church is.

    From what I can tell and from my experiences on my mission, MOST other denominations do EXACTLY that. How could you present a video such as this to an entire congregation and feel like you did them a service and taught them something? I don’t care what religion you believe in. Joseph Smith’s “Articlees of Faith” state that we RESPECT other people for what they believe.

    Sure, we as Mormons might do research to prove another church false in our own minds. How could we affirm to have the truth and not do research to prove it, at least to ourselves?? But that’s a far cry from shouting it over the pulpit. I challenege any non-mormon to attend a meeting and see what’s being taught. It’s the doctrine of the church. Not the doctrine of how weird the Baptists or the Evangelicals or the Jehovah’s Witnesses are. I can promise you that!

  42. […] question/challenge to my readers (which reminds me of this post from last year): in spite of the venom, what percentage of this essay is actually historically/factually accurate, […]

  43. Brent August 26, 2007 at 3:15 am

    Hmm, how to explain this. First of all just because some of these things were taught or at least speculated about in the early days of the Church but are not taught or further speculated upon from the pulpits does not mean that they are no longer valid. The Church has to focus on the Core Gospel Teachings in order to keep members strong and active in the Chruch, especially when there are constantly new members coming into the Church. And in the same vein some things that were taught or speculated in the early Church may have been influenced more by cultural bias more than direct revelation. As an example I would like to posit a theory based on some info I found in the book “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai. Mr. Patai discusses the Arabic Idiom, which still exists today,

    “…or ‘his face is blackened,’ as it is phrased in Arabic. The ‘blackening’ of the face, of course, means that ‘black’ is dishonorable, while ‘white’ is honorable. Therefore, when a man does something that redounds to the honor of his kin group, the latter’s elders will say to him, ‘You have whitened our face.'”

    This of course leads straight to the passages in the BofM that speak of the Lamanites becoming “dark and loathsome” through their idleness and disobedience, and the Nephites being “white and delightsome”. it also explains the rapid changes in their supposed skin color as we thought we understood the terminology. It turns out that the book is not really referring to the color of their skin but their social appearance based upon the cultural foundations of their middle east origins. Lehi was most likely a Caravan trader remember, and his boys were well educated in the language and customs of the world they traveled in before the exodus form Jerusalem. Some how little Joe Smith just got lucky on this point, I guess. So, I might theorize from this gem that I was blessed to find that the early brethren of the Church supposed like the rest of us inheritors of the Anglo-European/American cultural bias that these phrases simply referred to skin color and therefore reinforced their biases and stereotypes of racial identity. Seeing as how there was not a large amount of Black potential members in the early areas of Church settlement during that time it probably wasn’t that big of a concern to the early leaders compared to all the other troubles they had to worry about. As Mr Patai goes on to say “But both peoples and their leaders are, as a rule, the prisoners of their cultural values.” This of course isn’t a complete answer to any and all questions of race politics in Mormon history but I believe it sheds quite a bit of light on the subject while also providing further evidence of the truth of Joseph’s claims.

    As for the Claim that Jesus married three wives; I have never heard of him marrying three wives. I have heard it speculated that he married Mary Magdelene and possibly Martha as well. Is the Cartoon referring to Mary His Mother when it mentions the other Mary? If so that is completely incongruous with LDS Doctrine and I have never heard it speculated or taught as such, nor would I ever expect to.

    The line about Joseph Smith doing more for men, even more than Jesus is absolutely false. I presume that they are trying to misquote John Taylor who wrote of the events of the martyrdom in section 135 of the D&C. In verse 3 he says “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, SAVE JESUS ONLY, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.”(my caps)

    Remember, Elder Taylor was not yet President of the Church when he wrote this and he had just survived and witnessed the assault and murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Not that any of that really matters, other than context, because what John Taylor wrote is perfectly true and easily understandable if you take into account all the authority, doctrines, and ordinances which were revealed through Joseph Smith. Getting a non LDS friend to understand this may require getting them to exercise an experiment in faith like Alma proposes in Alma 32, but simply perform a thought experiment with them about the importance of God using prophets to reveal his word and teachings and then recount as many of these revelations which came restored through Joseph as you can remember.

    The real problem with that cartoon is that it is part of a very negative film about LDS beliefs. So, while the film might portray some truth of what we believe it is twisting quite a bit of it and doing it in such a way as to shape the minds and opinions of the non-LDS viewers. In the Army we call this “winning the hearts and minds” to your cause. It is more commonly known as brain washing. The John Taylor quote is a perfect example of this. They took a very simple quote and just barely changed it to something that would be absolutely appalling to any non-LDS Christian and is just obscure enough that most LDS won’t know right away where to find it or how to quote it in order to give the proper quote and prove the cartoon creators wrong. The video also uses certain other triggers like “endless celestial sex”, which while it is true that we believe that the marital physical relations between husband and wife continue beyond the resurrection, it is worded in such away to sound like hedonistic orgies to the non-LDS viewer, when nothing could be further from the truth. Also when it shows the visual for genealogy work, instead of showing some one sitting at a microfilm viewer in a library or pouring over a family tree they portray a man and a woman in an old cemetary writing down names from gravestones. On the surface this seems ok at first, because that is sometimes a necesary step in genealogy work. However, upon closer examination we see that the couple are using a flashlight to look at the gravestone because it is night time! Who does genealogy work in a cemetary at night? This probably triggers visions of strange Mormon midnight cemetary rituals where we supposedly call up the spirits of our dead ancestors so that we can baptize them and convert them to Mormonism. This may sound like I am being sarcastic, but if you have ever tried talking to some of the people that are hardcore anti-mormon crusaders you will see that it isn’t too much of a leap of faith for them to make that connection. I once attended a friends Christian fellowship Young Adult retreat and Upon arriving I was befriended by another young man who was very nice and started introducing me to his friends. After all of us were conversing a little I told one of the other people that I was a Latter Day Saint and immediately as I said it I saw this young man who had befriended me whip his head around to my direction. I turned to look at him and I saw the kind of look of fright that I can only imagine Freddy Krueger gets to see on other peoples faces regualrly. I actually started to chuckle when I saw his face, which probably didn’t help my case any.

    As far as Joseph Smith being our Judge, I believe that comes from the Book of Mormon Doctrine of the the Ancient American 12 Apostles judging the seed of Lehi and then being judged by the Old World 12
    Apostles of Jesus’ day, 1 Nephi 12:9. I have heard it speculated in my youth that Prophets and Apostles will always stand as preliminary judges over those whom they had authority in this life, but the ultimate and final Judge of all of us is our Savior Jesus Christ. I even heard it speculated that the chain of Judgement starts with your local Bishops and up the line probably including parents and ancestry as well. Of course this opens up all kinds of questions, like “Do I have to be judged by every bishop I had during my life or just one that was most pivotal? Or how does the family line intesect with the “ecclesiastical” authority line of judges? Probably a hundred more questions similar to that. All that was just speculation I remember hearing as a kid. Whether it was from a G.A. at some point or just one of my older siblings wacky Sunday School teachers I cannot say.

    As far as the comparison to the Southpark Scientology video goes, I think that it is going to continue to cause headaches, but if we as a people actually investigate our own religion and let the Holy Spirit lead us and teach us we will be better equipped to dispell the falsehoods in this cartoon and teach in the proper context the marvelous doctrines this cartoon distorts which are peculiar to Mormonism. With the Southpark Scientology episode, as far as I can tell that is really what they believe and not twisted any. I don’t mean that in a hipocritical, turn around and do to them what people have done to us kind of way. I mean, the research that I have done on Scientology before that episode ever came out shows that they believe the exact same thing in their higher levels. Also in my cursory searches on google I haven’t found any Scientology apologetic sites trying to clarify and explain what was twisted in the Southpark portrayal. My point being that if it is true that the Southpark episode really is what Scientology teaches and not embellished or twisted any, than we cannot compare our cartoon to theirs because theirs is portrayed fairly for what they teach. We shoud be so lucky to have a fair portrayal of what our doctrine is. I would suggest that a person can learn more truth about LDS Theology from watching either series of Battlestar Galactica than they can from watching the GodMaker cartoon. But that of course opens it’s own can of worms trying to tell people what is science fiction and what is based on our actual theology. My final thoughts though are that this cartoon is already over 25 years old and so it may be seeing a resurgence due to the internet but it won’t be too detrimental. Also, Christ’s Gospel was never meant to appeal to everyone, sure it encompasses every child of God, but not everyone can live it or even understand it to it’s fullest without a whole lot of humility. Something that is in short supply in todays world that is run on the Mahan principle. I have a lot more that I could say, but I have already gone on too long. Congratulations if you finished reading this!

Comments are closed.