The main thing that you need to understand is this: most critics of the church will gladly lie to a person. I do not exaggerate, as in fact many of the more prominent critics - and even some of the rank-and-file - have been caught openly lying to people.

The best thing to do is actually visit the church website - www.lds.org - and read the materials presented therein.

Now, as for your second link -

1. What most critics don't want people to know is that there's a major dispute concerning both how many wives JS supposedly had and when he took those wives. In fact, a number of sealings were actually conducted posthumously due to a mistaken notion concerning just how sealings worked and how people would be saved; suffice to say that this was corrected in rather short order.

Additionally, most polygamous marriages in the early days were what we today would know as a "marriage of convenience". It was all too common for people to be disowned and abandoned by family members for joining the church; couple this with the fact that there were no social nets in place back then if they were unmarried or widowed, and women were frequently left with nothing. In fact, Fanny Alger, the woman typically regarded as Joseph's first plural wife, was actually a "girl in trouble"; she was already pregnant when she came to live in the Smith household.

2. The guy's account of Joseph's final days is largely incorrect.

To begin with, the First Amendment didn't go below the federal level in those days. Instead, when the Expositor first popped up, the Nauvoo City Council appealed to Illinois Common Law, which did allow for governments to close "nuisance" presses. The destruction was thus an accident based on a misunderstanding of what the law allowed for.

Additionally, the Nauvoo city charter permitted the city to maintain its own militia, a concession from the state in the wake of the anti-Mormon persecutions in Missouri. In the wake of the Expositor's destruction, anti-Mormon papers all over the state were calling for an armed insurrection against the membership. This is why Joseph called for the militia to activate.

Furthermore, while Joseph surrendered to the charge of destroying the press, the state government did a bait-and-switch on him and instead recorded the charges as treason.

Also, Joseph didn't fire until his brother Hyrum had already been gunned down. Even then, there are at least two accounts concerning what happened when he fired off the pepperbox; the reaosn for this discrepency is because John Taylor, who wrote the version recorded by the church, was actually knocked unconscious during the melee and was told about the final moments by a third party.

3. You'll see both versions be spoken about in Mormon circles.

4. I ask the author to explain Haplogroup X, a Caucasian strain found in some Native American groups.

5. There's actually a fair bit of archeology in place that renders some accounts plausible; apologist Jeff Lindsay does a good job of giving an entry-level discussion of the matter on his website jefflindsay.com

6. The author is being selective in his citations concerning the church's historical teachings on race. In fact, under Joseph Smith the church was so forward-thinking on race relations that even to this day most Christian denominations have failed to match his example. I actually being literal when I say that "the church being integrated" was one of the key drivers behind the persecution in Missouri, as the locals feared a Mormon majority pushing an abolition law through the state. I'd suggest paying a visit to the "history" page at blacklds.org for more information.

7. Source? Those are some bold allegations the author is making.

8. Again, Jeff Lindsay does a good job of dealing with this topic.

9. I'll have to go back and find the actual citation, but Joseph himself appended the prophecy with "...if I'm still alive to greet him. Which I doubt strongly, given the nature of the persecutions against us."

10. It's obvious here that the author hasn't actually read most of the passages he's citing, and is just parroting someone else. I say this as I've already repudiated some of the arguments he's presenting.

11. The Word of Wisdom wasn't binding until the 1920s, and so you did have individual Mormons who owned beer halls and sold tobacco; it was a good way for the membership to get money from the non-Mormons who frequently traipsed through the state. And I'd love to see a citation on the brothel charge.

12. Who makes the claim presented? Every time I've heard it, it's been "One of the fastest-growing...", with a note that the church is on its way to officially becoming a world religion in its own right.

13. Again, most of the "God had sex!" junk comes from J. Edward Decker, and as such isn't anywheres near valid.

Rather, the original statement merely indicates that what took place took place via "natural" means. I actually had a critic flip out when I raised the prospect of parthenogenesis, as he was so fixated on the "sex" angle he had no comeback for any other possibilities.

14. What the guy doesn't tell you is that the "hoax" wasn't revealed until decades after Joseph and most of the other purported conspirators were dead. If Joseph had attempted the translation, why not blow the whistle on him while he was still alive?

15. Again, women have just as much right to reject an unworthy spouse as men do. Most critics of the church try to deny this fact, if they actually know it at all.

16. Sources?

17. I'll have to go back and look it up, but I don't think that quote is quite correct. Also, as mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph was thus in charge of the militia. Again, most critics miss that.

18. He references the Spaulding Theory?

A copy of Spaulding's manuscript was uncovered in 1898. Three teams have gone over it since then, and all three teams agree that there are only superficial similarities between the two works.

Any critic who takes the Spaulding Theory seriously fails.

At life.

19. Good salaries? It's a stipend, an expense account, housing, and a few shares of common stock (in the 1800s and early 1900s, the church created a handful of businesses to meet the needs of the membership). Considering just how much most of the leaders were making in their secular jobs (Dieter F. Uchtdorf, for example, was VP of Training for Lufthansa), becoming a leader in the church is actually a step down financially.

20. The church didn't believe Hoffman wholesale; rather, they wanted the documents so that they could call in an expert for a second opinion. This is what prompted Hoffman to start killing people: he knew that if the sale went forward, he'd eventually be found out.

Apr 16, 2012 -- 2:35PM, voice-crying wrote:

Why would a "critic" lie about the church (especially those who left it)?

It varies from person to person.

Some critics, like Decker, are in it for the $$$. Anti-Mormon material sells well among mainline Christian groups. If it tells you anything, the "comparitive religion" section of the local Family Christian bookstore chain actually consists of nothing but "why X is wrong" books.

Other critics, like Jerald & Sandra Tanner, presume that the ends justify the means. They feel that the church is somehow evil, and believe that it's OK to commit the occasional sin if it means pulling people away from it. In this light, they completely miss the point of what Jesus taught, and are in just as much - if not more - error than what they believe to be the church to be in.

Still others, like a lot of rank-and-file ex-members, have a psychological need to see other people leave the church in order to validate their own decision to leave. A lack of success at getting other people out of the church would, to them, be a sign that perhaps they made a mistake.

Then you have people - often ministers - who feel threatened by the church; the way they see it, if the church is right, then they're wrong. Not only do they have their pride and intellect at stake, ministers also often have their paychecks at stake, too.

And, why would I go to the churches link if I'm trying to find the truth about Romney's brain?

Anyone who wishes to study another faith should read that faith's official publications.

Otherwise, you're just being dishonest and cheating yourself out of the full picture.

Does Mitt Romney consider women to be second class citizens? He said back in Jan, that welfare women even those with small children should work.

The sad reality of welfare is that once a person gets on it, it's hard for them to get back off; some find the notion of free money too tempting, while others wind up with an increasingly obsolete skill set due to lack of job experience and/or training. At the extreme end of the spectrum, you have "welfare queens" who have made being on welfare their chosen vocation.

Romney's proposal was that single women be given additional aid to cover daycare so that they could re-enter the workforce.

This would actually be a godsend for those women who want to work but can't afford to pay for child care.

Apr 16, 2012 -- 7:25PM, voice-crying wrote:

If the mormon church is right, then the Bible is wrong. It's as simple as that!

You're committing a fallacy common to critics of the church: presuming a strict either/or scenario.

Rather, have you ever considered that the interpretation of the Bible as presented by many mainline sects is incorrect?

Most "faiths" want those interested to know all of the details; nothing is hidden.

Again - go to the church website and look up the Gospel Library. It's got the full canon, the current set of authorized instructional manuals, and copies of the official church magazines dating back to the 1970s.

Queens live in mansions they don't live in subsidized housing and buy food with stamps.

You were saying?

As you can see by the picture, the woman in question is on welfare yet somehow found the money for an absolutely massive television set.

Let's face it!!! Without education poor women with children will always be...poor women with children.

...which is why giving them child care would be a benefit, as it would give them the time off to go back to school.

Women on welfare are usually those who need it because they are unskilled (uneducated). The key is: education, not day work: moving a pile of dirt from one spot to another or playing the real life role in: "the Help."

Everyone has to start somewhere.

I got my start picking up trash and washing cars.

I was literally putting in 10- and 12-hour days.

But it was an honest paycheck and a stepping stone to something better.

What makes you think a poor woman should work outside the home while some other uneducated person takes care of their toddlers?

What makes you think that day care = uneducated?

Do you have any idea what kind of licenses a person has to get just to even consider opening a day care?

Day care vs. parent at home is a pretty cruddy choice, but some times sacrifices have to be made.

With my family, my dad spent the better part of six years bouncing around between different military bases by himself so that we wouldn't have to be constantly moving around with him. My older brothers were so close to graduating that a relocation would have derailed their plans for higher education. I went without a dad for a very long while so that my brothers could have a chance to succeed in life.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:01AM, voice-crying wrote:

Have you forgotten, you already said that LDS doesn't tell you everything up front? Remember I equated that concept to freemasonry.

What I said was "information overload."

There's a big difference between what I said and what you presumed.

In fact, the church won't even consider a person for baptism unless they've gone through so many lessons with the missionaries and attended so many Sundays.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 4:14PM, Ironhold wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:01AM, voice-crying wrote:

Have you forgotten, you already said that LDS doesn't tell you everything up front? Remember I equated that concept to freemasonry.

What I said was "information overload."

There's a big difference between what I said and what you presumed.

In fact, the church won't even consider a person for baptism unless they've gone through so many lessons with the missionaries and attended so many Sundays.

I understand why the LDS' "won't even consider a person for baptism unless they've gone through so many lessons with the missionaries and attended so many Sundays." BECAUSE: their goal is to prepare people to be apart of their cultivation. And yet that also becomes a contradiction...when they go around posthumously baptising Jews.