I don’t want to cause you discomfort. But one of the Big Things in the Mormon church is the practice of polygamy, and how it was OK for some people to practice it, because “God commanded it”. You have to admit, the practice of polygamy is a rather unusual component to a religion originating in America. So - we will have lots of curious questions about it.
The information we have about Joseph Smith and his marriages is confusing, and conflicting. And the logic and consistency behind his childless marriages - why no better evidence of kids (if kids existed) why the LDS wasn’t able to give adequate evidence of JS’s polygamy at the Kirtland Temple trial - these things are all baffling. I can’t help but be curious about them.
I won’t poke for more answers - it’s obvious there are no easy answers, and you can’t know everything. And that’s another confusing thing in itself. I would have thought that the Mormon church would have had better geneology records of JS’s kids, (if they existed.) I would have thought that proving that JS had many wives would have been a slam dunk to prove in court, but obviously it wasn’t. (Hence the LDS church lost Kirtland Temple.) I just got this impression that the Mormon church would have more compelling evidence, and would have excellent records on these matters. But I guess they don’t. Confusing indeed.
Yosemitebabe, I want to thank you. I have been unable to give you the answers to the questions you have asked completely. Right now neither one of us can prove either stance. But you have acted with great maturity, grace, and respect in this thread and to me, and I hope I have shown you the same.
Since I double-posted the first time, this’ll be three times now. I promise I’ll be quiet and get out of the way after this.
I see you may be gone for a while, but I’ve just got questions that I’m looking for factual answers. There’s plenty of fuel for debate here already, so I’ll just
ask, and if you feel like answering, cool.
I've only read a bit of the Book of Mormon, and noticeably the English is archaic. I know that only one translation exists, but has anyone put the existing
version in more modern English (i.e., a paraphrase that doesn't claim to be scripture but is more readable)?
Along the same lines... Does the LDS church accept newer translations of the Bible (I thought at one time they only accepted the KJV or some other
kind). Actually, just list what versions of the Bible are accepted.
One more, a doctrinal question. I used to have a t-shirt that read, "Jesus Christ is God." Some of my Mormon friends saw this, and this would lead to
debates. It was a while ago, though, and I don't remember if they objected to it specifically or just knew that I was game for debating. So is that claim
something that goes counter to LDS doctrine?
Just wondering.
Admire your courage for putting yourself up here like this -- it's understandable you've gotten tired.
panama jack
Not that I know of. If they have, it’s not well known, and probably NOT recgonized by the Church. IIRC, my seminary teacher once told us that with each translation, a little bit of the original message is lost. It’s best not to mess with a good thing, so to speak.
I don’t think I have ever seen anything other than the KJV used by anybody in the Church. But I don’t know if that’s just because nobody has looked for any other version, of if that’s the only acceptable version. I will do some research of that over the weekend and re-address that particular question.
So they could have just been saying Jesus is NOT God per se, but rather a member of the Godhead. I know, I know this flies in the face of Catholic and Protestant belief of the Holy Trinity, and I’m sorry if you don’t like it. I’m not going to debate about this point. If you really feel I’m wrong, don’t worry about pointing out the error of my ways. I’ve heard it all already.
Or maybe your friends were just trying to draw you into a debate.
I am very sorry you had to post 3 times. I have been known to simply not see posts. I am terribly sorry if it caused you inconvience.
And anybody else who has posted a question that I have not answered, for the most part I probably haven’t seen them. Some I have and have not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer at this point. Please have patience with me. If you really feel that I haven’t seen your question, of if I’m pointedly ignoring it, repost it.
Well, I didn’t want to ask, but I was just in SLC yesterday and I thought about you and your thread:
I would like to clarify a couple things that were discussed earlier. Given the Mormon Church’s stance on gays/lesbians, how do you view a lesbian such as myself (especially one who started to seduce you?) Am I a sinner until I change orientation completely, or do I just not have to practice? I guess what I’m saying is - do you view me as a flawed human being, flawed in that I must no longer be a lesbian before I could be whole? I ask because I seem to receive two reactions from fundamentalist Christians - dislike or pity. Would you or other Mormons dislike or pity me, pepper?
And if I die as I am without changing, what happens to me?
On an unrelated note, why are Mormon girls so cute? I travel to a lot of US cities, and the ones in SLC definitely have a “healthier” look to them. Blame genetics, lifestyle, diet, whatever they do seem in much better shape overall than many places. Does the Church recommend or actively sponsor specific nutrition (aside from the hot/cafeinated drinks issue) and physical fitness programs, and/or competitive activities?
Do I have to put more thought into seducing Mormon women to the lesbian lifestyle? (especially this one girl in the airport - she was so scrumptious I could just see that she wanted to come home with me and…oh, never mind).
Do I personally view you as a flawed Human Being? No. Does the Church? Well, that depends on how you look at it. It’s no big surprise that the Church does not approve of homosexuals. The whole Church is centered around the importance of the family and family values.From http://www.lds.org/library/pro_of_the_fam/pro_of_the_fam.html
I have stated before a long time ago in GD threads that gays and lesbians are NOT looked down on because they are gay or lesbian. However, these people are encouraged to pray, fast, have personal counseling sessions and when they are ready, start families. It’s kind of a like a personal sacrifice for the greater good.
As far as what happens to you when you die…I honestly don’t know. I kinda shy away from telling people what God might decide for them, because I’m not God. But I think you will probably have to pay for your sins like everybody else who has sinned and hasn’t repented before God. Your sin WILL NOT BE the fact you are a lesbian. Your sin will be the fact that you had sex outside of the bonds of marriage. Doesn’t matter who you had sex with.
There’s more to the Word of Wisdom than simply caffeine/hot drinks. It’s an entire dietry and exercise guide.
For a full discription of what is good for the bodies and why go http://www.lds.org/library/gos_pri/u07_c29-law_of_health.html
Basically it says not to take any harmful drugs into the body, including tobacco and alcohol. To eat good healthy foods, ie fruits, vegetables, fish, wheat. You excercise on a regular basis and stay healthy. Early to rise and early to bed and all that.
We’re taught all of this because our bodies are God’s Temples and we need to take care of them, and keep them healthy so they are clean for the spirit of God to dwell in them.
Oh, and if you ever want to see basketball at it’s best, go the stake games on Tuesday nights (Nights may vary). It’s not considered a good game until someone is body slammed against the concrete wall behind the basket. Those games get intense. And everybody plays. At least, that’s the way it was in Utah. Don’t come in between a Mormon and his basketball. And the football games are almost as bad.
It’s a shame I hadn’t noticed this thread before. I’ve been busy, with changing jobs, moving, and the fact that my wife and I are expecting our first child in about 2 weeks.
I think that pepperlandgirl has been doing a fairly good job in answering the questions, and I thought I’d offer a bit of help. I’m an active member of the LDS church. Served a mission and have spent most of the time since teaching Sunday School classes. I’m not the most knowledgeable about all the esoterica of LDS church history, but I hope I can help to some degree.
Having caught up a bit on the thread, I thought I’d respond to one thing yosemitebabe has been asking. Specifically about the claims made in http://www.qni.com/~jwinship/templelot.htm and who had the claim to leadership in the LDS church after JS was killed.
I don’t know where the judge has the idea that leadership of the church being inherited comes from the Book of Mormon. The very first person in the Book of Mormon is Nephi, and he is the younger son of a prophet by the name of Lehi. Nephi’s older brothers rebel and Nephi becomes the spiritual leader after the death of Lehi. Then the spiritual leader after Nephi is Jacob, Nephi’s brother (also a son of Lehi). There is a period in the book in which leadership descends directly from father to son, but it happens in a time of great wickedness, in which it is likely that a child would have a better chance of receiving religious instruction if he were in the family of faithful parents.
The judge also claims that Brigham Young usurped the leadership of the church after Joseph Smith’s death. This event has been called the “succession crisis”, and it happened a short time after JS died. Sidney Rigdon claimed that he should be a “guardian” over the church, presumably until Joseph Smith III was old enough to run things–there were some who felt that Joseph’s son should lead. Brigham Young stood up afterwards, and said that he didn’t care who led the church, as long as it was according to God’s will. There are over 100 eyewitness accounts that Young looked like Smith during his comments–even to the extent of small children shouting “Look momma, it’s Joseph!” After this, a vote was taken and Brigham Young was overwhelmingly sustained to lead the church. Note that he did so without taking the official role of president or prophet of the church until after the exodus to Utah.
The footnote to this is that Joseph Smith held meetings at a furious pace in March 1844 (about 3 months before his death), instructing the Quorum of the Twelve as well as others. Around the end of the month, he met and said with relief that he’d passed the keys on, and if he were removed from this life, the church could live without him. Furthermore, Joseph is quoted as saying (I’m not sure if it was at this meeting or elsewhere) something like “I will give you a key that will not rust–always follow the majority of the twelve apostles, and the records of the church.” That has held true with the LDS church since Brigham Young.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU emarkp. You are about a thousand times more qualified to answer questions on this thread then I am right now.
Thank you for your excellent post.
Emarkp - thanks for the answer. I was curious about the LDS perspective on that.
However, I still await an answer to why Joseph Smith never fathered any kids by all these other wives, or why the LDS church could not bring forth convincing evidence that JS did have many wives at that same trial.
I am not planning on pressing Pepperland further about JS’s wives, and lack of children, or all the rest, since it made her uncomfortable. But since you seem more well-versed on Mormon history, perhaps you could clarify?
Well, I should say that I’m no expert in LDS church history. I’m interested, and I try to study it when I can, but there are many more qualified people than I to answer these questions. That said, every serious issue I’ve seen raised against the LDS church to impugn the character of the founders or leaders has been conclusively refuted in my opinion. Over time, then, I’ve come to be very skeptical of claims made against the LDS church. Hence, I’ve not found it terribly urgent to investigate the latest claim I hear.
Now, on the matter of the court case which URL yosemitebabe posted, I skimmed it over and there are a few comments I can make. Firstly, the courts weren’t terribly friendly to the LDS church. In 1838, Lilburn Boggs signed what is now called “the extermination order” which directed that the “Mormons be driven from the state or exterminated.” Joseph Smith was repeatedly arrested, jailed, and acquitted for pathetic trumped up charges. It is telling to me that the URL posted only uses direct quotes when they seem to support the overall tone. Any opposing opinion or commentary is paraphrased. I mentioned the bizarre interpretation of the Book of Mormon. At this point, I’m wondering about the source of the document, which has no background that I could find.
As further historical background of the government vs. the LDS, after 10 years living in the Utah territory, Brigham Young was informed that an army was heading to Utah based on rumors that the Mormons were somehow disrupting the west. This was later known as President James Buchanan’s folly.
As for the question about Joseph Smith’s wives, I’ve seen it discussed at length in the newsgroups soc.religion.mormon and alt.religion.mormon. After sifting through the noise, it appears to me that he indeed had many wives. Yosemitebabe’s comments piqued my curiosity more on the issue, and I now have in my hand a 40-page essay about the issue written in 1996 (by the author of a book “In Sacred Loneliness : The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith” which was published in late 1997). I plan to read it and post my summary when finished. Sometime later I’m planning on checking out the book from the library to read. That’s a longer-term goal, since the baby might be here by then and I don’t know how much reading time I’ll have. As far as polygamy in general goes, Heber C. Kimball and Parly P. Pratt also had plural marriages and were associated with Joseph as leaders in the church long before Joseph died, so it wasn’t Brigham alone.
I can say this about Joseph and Emma. The court account at the URL above says that “Joseph Smith was in full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order.” It’s true they had several children, but at least 5 of them died within days of birth (or in one case about a year later). One child died after a mob hauled Joseph out into a pouring rain, then tarred and feathered him–the same mob hauled Emma and her two newborns (and the bed they were in!) into the rain as well, and then attempted to torch the house. One of the babies died of exposure. Also, my wife recently read a book which focused on the relationship between Joseph and Emma (written by one of their descendants, Gracia N. Jones, a great-great granddaughter who found out about Joseph and Emma in her teens, interestingly she apperas to have been the first direct descendant to join the LDS church)–it contains a transcript of the conversation between Emma and Joseph III in February 1879 (Emma was 74 at the time) from which, as far as I can tell, the RLDS make the claim that Emma denied polygamy. In reading the transcript, my wife says that Emma never really denied it so much as evaded the issue. I’ll follow up with my own comments some time in the near future. Ms. Jones writes about the RLDS issue, “in the year that Joseph III accepted leadership in the RLDS church, Emma worried about the outcome, and ‘the home circle was much agitated.’ …Emma seems not to have urged it, but reconciled herself to the decision, finally gave her support, and prayed for her son’s success.”
A final comment about Emma. Many in the LDS church see her as some sort of enigma–she didn’t follow the church to Utah, and considering the trauma of Joseph’s death as well as the long, extended ordeal she endured facing mobs and Joseph’s spurious arrests, I can see a few reasons as to why.
I still have questions, but I know that you are not professing to be an expert in this matter.
First off, I’m sure the URL I provided is slanted in some manner. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m sure pro-LDS and pro-RLDS both have compelling evidence, (and to some extent, slanted) evidence to support their claims. It’s just the first URL I came up with.
As far as Joseph Smith being in the full vigor of his manhood, well, maybe many of the kids he sired with Emma didn’t do so well, but he did father them. We know she got pregnant many times, and gave birth. Why there are no officially documented pregnancies or children by these other wives is still confusing to me. And with that many wives, the odds would seem quite good that he’d have at least a few healthy ones, and that these kids would be proudly well-documented by the LDS church.
And as far as the court being unfriendly to LDS, well, why would they like either “side”? Both LDS and RLDS were “outsiders”, I should think, with their belief in the Book of Mormon, etc. Why would there be any preference with the court for the RLDS, who had the Joseph Smith Jr. and Emma Smith with them? Also, why were there not scores of Joseph Smith’s other wives standing up to testify that he did have lots of wives, thus proving that he supported polygamy? The impression I get is that of all the wives JS had, few or none were available for this trial.
I don’t remember where I heard these, but are the following true of Mormonism?
A man will be rewarded with his own planet in the afterlife, to be populated by he and his wife?
The majority of Mormons are only allowed in the temple one day a year, unless they have passed certain rites?
I’ve always been a little curious about Mormons, because it seems like it was the first ‘American’ religion.
I don’t remember where I heard these, but are the following true of Mormonism?
A man will be rewarded with his own planet in the afterlife, to be populated by he and his wife?
The majority of Mormons are only allowed in the temple one day a year, unless they have passed certain rites?
I’ve always been a little curious about Mormons, because it seems like it was the first ‘American’ religion.
You are basically right about the first one. That’s why it’s expediant to be married. The only way you can have spirit children is if you have a wife (Or husband). That’s the highest reward.
I don’t know about the second one though, because I’ve never been to the Temple myself.
While some Latter-day Saints have speculated along these lines, there is nothing in LDS scripture or authorized teaching that says this. While our scriptures (including the Bible) do speak of worthy believers becoming divine in the afterlife, the exact details of this existence are a little fuzzy.
We DO know that family relationships continue into eternity as they do here. My wife and I have been married, or “sealed”, in an LDS temple. Because of this, our faith is that our marriage relationship is eternal.
No, #2 is incorrect. Faithful adult Latter-day Saints may participate in a temple ordinance known as the “endowment,” during which we are taught important things about God’s plan and make specific promises to lead lives of moral character. We participate in the endowment for our own selves only once, but after that we can return the temple as often as we wish to go through the endowment ritual as proxies for those who have died without having experienced it. Each Latter-day Saint must reaffirm his or her worthiness to enter the temple once each year by interviewing with two local church leaders.
We’re often referred to in this manner. Certainly other faiths have come up in the United States, but none so successfull and with such distinct beliefs.
Yosemitebabe, I pointed out about the death of the children of Joseph and Emma as impeaching evidence of the URL posted above. I also have to post a correction about that URL–when I skimmed it, I misread the author as saying that the Book of Mormon taught that church leadership should be passed from father to son. Actually he was saying that this was in the Doctrine and Covenants (another book LDS accept as scripture). Unfortunately for us, the author merely states that the book, “clearly taught that the succession should descend lineally, and go to the first born. Joseph Smith so taught, had before his taking of, publicly proclaimed his son Joseph, the present head of complainant church, his successor, and he was so anointed.” There is no actual quote from the book to prove his point. We have to rely on his interpretation as to what is “clear.” Furthermore, in my research, I came across a statment made Joseph Smith III in the case over the Temple Lot (a piece of land that the LDS church purchased under Joseph Smith Jr. in Jackson County, Illinois, and which was abandoned when the church members fled. The temple lot was later purchased by a splinter group which now calls itself The Church of Christ (Temple Lot)). He stated, “No, sir, I did not state that I was ordained by my father; I did not make the statement. I was NOT ordained by my father as his successor-according to my understanding of the word ordained, I was not” (Plaintiff’s Abstract, in temple lot suit, page 79, Par. 126). This directly contradicts the author of the account in the URL.
Now let’s go on to the issue of Joseph Smith’s wives. Todd Compton wrote a rather exhaustive essay about them, published in “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought” in the Summer 1996 issue (Vol. 29, No. 2). Here are some of his conclusions: [li]
[li]There are conflicting claims about who was married to Joseph Smith. Some claims total 42, 46, and 48. Compton feels confident that a conservative number of women who have sufficient documentation to warrant calling them “certain wives” of JS in his lifetime is 33.[/li][li]Compton lists additional “possible wives” for which the documentation is more sketchy.[/li][li]There in fact is a sworn affidavit from Josephine Fisher, daughter of Sylvia Sessions (one of Joesph’s wives). Josephine stated that her mother told her, “that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet…”[/li][li]Mary Elizabeth Lightner stated that she knew of three children born to Joseph’s plural wives. “I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.”[/li][li]Some of the wives of Joseph apparently were sealed “for eternity” but not “for time.” This is a continuing source of confusion in the accounts–but “for time” appears to mean “in this life” and “for eternity” means “in the life to come.” Others of his wives stated very clearly that they were married to Joseph and had sexual relations.[/li][/list]
So we see that there is in fact documentation to support the claim that not only was Joseph married to several women, but that he did father children from them (just not as many as people like Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball did). Many people attempt to account for the lack of significant offspring by pointing out the stress in the Mormon community when these marriages took place, (almost all between 1841 and 1843–recall that Joseph was killed June 27 1844) and that said stress might have hindered conception. In addition to this, Compton points to a 1995 study which stated, (I’m quoting Compton’s summary here),
Dialogue, Vol. 29, No. 2, page 18, note 56.
Furthermore, in the years 1842 and 1843, Joseph spent much time wrapped up in jail or in court, fighting spurious arrests as I mentioned in a previous post.
This is enough for me to conclude that the URL posted is completely impeached. I don’t know where it came from, or from what mind it sprang, but I find it conclusively in error. As a final note, though there is no date associated with it, the URL states that the contemporary president of the LDS church was Wilford Woodruff. He became president of the LDS church in 1887, fully 43 years after the death of Joseph Smith, and nearly 10 years after the death of Emma Smith. I find it not unlikely then that few of any of the wives of Joseph Smith would be still living at the time, let alone able to make the trek from Utah to Missouri and back (though by this time the transcontinental railroad was complete, and so the trip wouldn’t have to have been made under the same circumstances as the original exodus west).
As to the interview of Emma by Joseph III. Here is what Gracia N. Jones had to say:
Emma and Joseph: Their Divine Mission, Gracia N. Jones, pp.352-354
We can see then that there was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the whole polygamy issue, but I feel confident that it’s been well documented that Joseph Smith did indeed engage in the practice. As to why there weren’t children, I think Compton has documented that in fact there were, just not very many, for at least the reasons cited above.
You seem to give a lot of evidence and information. However, I still don’t understand why any of Joseph’s kids are not more well-documented by the church. I’d think that would be one of the things that would be proudly well-documented. I looked up Josephine Lyon Fisher (who you mentioned was “well documented” as one of Joseph’s kids) and found this one link: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6552/sylviasessions.htm It was the only one I could find at all, I searched several major search engines. One thing that was puzzling - Josephine’s mother, Sylvia Porter Sessions was one of JS’s wives. But Syvia’s own mother did not mention Sylvia’s marriage to JS in her diary. Was it common in that day for a woman’s mother to not know about her daughter’s marriage? How odd.
It was not too difficult to find other links refuting JS’s support of polygamy: http://www.qni.com/~jwinship/sec-132.htm (I think this is related to a link I provided before…maybe the one you already have dismissed. I’m not sure! But it brings up interesting questions.)
I think the RLDS church contends that some of the historical church documents that support polygamy were altered to indicate support of polygamy. They think this was all unknown to JS, and done without his consent.
Now, in an earlier link, suspicion is raised about “Times and Seasons” in regards to accuracy. But here is a quote from “Times and Seasons” in which JS and his brother kick someone out of the church for practicing polygamy. Interesting…
I understand that as a Mormon, you have no doubt in your mind that Joseph Smith pracitced polygamy. I’m not attempting to “prove” that it isn’t so. You believe it, it is part of your church heritage, and this thread is about explaining what the Mormon church believes, after all! But it just seems to me that the history back then is blurry, and both LDS and RLDS sides have their own evidence and they directly contradict each other. And I still am confused about certain details, and issues. It sure has been interesting looking this stuff up, though! That’s what the internet is for.
Your assumption is that (1) the children of Joseph Smith’s polygamous wives would be “proudly well-documented” and that (2) they aren’t.
I don’t understand why the assumption of #1. What does it matter to me or the LDS church which are the children of Joseph Smith (except to them themselves)? Why would we care about going to any special effort to document it? It is not a matter we dispute. Historians have argued back and forth, and produced documentation to support or deny, but the church continues unfettered.
As for the documentation you provide, I have a few words. Firstly, nothing that the Tanners touch can be trusted. They have lied and twisted quotes so often, that there is no integrity left in any of their work. I have no respect for any of their so-called research after seeing the lengths they will go in an attempt to discredit the LDS church. They are not after truth, nor after dissemination of truth, but rather accusation after accusation, whether it be fabricated or undocumented, in attempt to persuade would-be converts and members of the LDS church to reject Mormonism.
Furthermore, searching for historical information on the web is not exactly useful research, I’m afraid. You may find some potentially useful information, but good luck finding a citation for it. Even if you do find references, you are relying on what people have put out on the web as your source. Since the ratio of polemic homepages to objective or pro-LDS pages is probably between 10-1 and 100-1, I wouldn’t expect you to find much except anti-Mormon literature.
Now as for the quotes above: http://www.qni.com/~jwinship/sec-132.htm
This is the same author that I’ve already impeached. His interpretation of D&C 132 is weak and (once again) relies on paraphrasing instead of direct quotes. I can’t believe anyone would take this page seriously.
http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/conspr.html
As you said, “(lots of all caps, and underlined words too, yikes!)” Yikes, indeed. There are no references givne for the claim about the 12 “taking over.” You’d think if Willard Richards had “taken over” he wouldn’t have been close to Joseph. Yet Willard remained in Joseph’s cell in Carthage in July 1844, and was in the room when the cowardly mob killed Joseph and Hyrum. This author’s claims are ridiculous and unsupported. Why give them any credence whatsoever?
http://www.centerplace.org/history/ch/v2ch32.htm
This is the strongest argument that the RLDS church might have, yet it pales in comparison to the sworn affidavit I mentioned above, as well as the testimonies of Joseph’s wives, in addition to that of the testimonies of Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball, etc. Given the quotes that show a great deal of secrecy surrounded polygamy, it’s not surprising that there isn’t a whole lot of written documentation to prove it during Joseph’s lifetime, or that Hiram Brown was cut off from the church for preaching it openly (plus the fact that the single quote is sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted in several different ways).
There has been some study examining the church’s denial of polygamy. In fact, there is evidence that some plural marriages continued even after the Manifesto in 1898 from Wilford Woodruff. I wouldn’t be surprised if the church denied it even while practicing it, believing that it would be dangerous to let it be widely known–and that only after leaving the United States, and going to the unorganized territory of Utah were able to practice it openly.
I have presented well researched and documented original sources to back up the claims above. With all due respect, I simply can’t give credence to random web pages with no documentation, especially those as polemical in tone as the ones you’ve cited. If you find serious research (i.e. from books and historical records), then please let me know what you find. If you rely on whatever google/altavista/yahoo/northernlight/excite/inktomi etc. tell you, you’re not going to get much useful information.
I know the church teaches that only Mormons have authority to pray over anyone.
In my experience, my son had a physical problem, and a member of a Pentecostal church prayed over him, and the next day it was all cleared up.
I know, some folks will say coincidence, but nope.
I told this to a LDS missionary, and he said it was probably the power of satan working, but I know that is silly.
How do you possibly explain healings done by many people, including women, who dont supposedly have the presithood authority?
I should have posted this in my last comments, but the board isn’t letting me edit the message for some reason. Anyway, on the topic of using webpages as documentation, the master himself addressed it:
“If hard data were the filtering criterion you could fit the entire contents of the Internet on a floppy disk.”
