Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Bush Crime Family Goes Back Three Generations!


Bush Family Exposed Documentary 2018

Published on Jan 25, 2018

The Bush Crime Family - Three Generations of Treason

American Patriot
Published on May 21, 2016
There have been terrible crimes and criminals in United States history - but because the Bush family has passed their misdeeds down through generations, they are unequivocally the most corrupt. Rarely has there been a whole family of underhanded criminals where nefariousness was the rule rather than the exception. It's not as if they have no code of conduct, the facts prove they lie, cheat and steal as their code of conduct
Prescott Bush was a firm believer in eugenics, (the study of genetic improvement through selecting parents, or racial superiority) which was very common among the influential families at the start of the twentieth century... of course we are all more familiar with the eugenics 'studies' done by the Nazis. William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany in 1937 said, '... I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi Regime.' Which 'ruling families' was he referring to? Well, Old Prescott was convicted by the U.S. government under the Trading With The Enemy Act in 1942 and fined one million dollars. Brown Brothers Harriman's affiliate Union Bank- of which Prescott was director- invested huge sums of money into Thyssen Steel, the backbone of Nazi steel production.
August Thyssen, an affluent German industrialist, lost much of his empire to the harsh Treaty of Versailles after WWI. Vowing this would never happen again, he founded three banks in three countries: August Thyssen Bank in Berlin, Bank voor Handel en Scheepuaart in Rotterdam, Holland, and Union Banking Corp. in New York City. Using money channeled through these three banks, Thyssen financed the rise of the Nazi party and their front-man Adolf Hitler, ruled Nazi steel production, profited from the mining of coal by Jewish slaves, and financed concentration camps including Auschwitz. In 1937, while director of Union Bank, Prescott hired Allen Dulles to 'cloak' his accounts; Allen obviously didn't do that great of a job because in 1942 the U.S. Alien Property Custodian froze Union Bank's accounts. 'Coincidentally,' Allen Dulles was appointed U.S. Intelligence Chief in post-war Germany while he was also the lawyer representing Thyssen's bank in Holland. This ensuing cover-up may have saved Prescott from further penalty stemming from proper investigation. In 1951, Prescott reclaimed Union Bank from the U.S. Alien Property Custodian, and went on to represent Connecticut in the Senate.
Who is Jeb Bush, Really? – Part 1 – The Bush Crime Family
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Who is Jeb Bush?
The elite establishment who control the MSM (Mainstream Media) are ensuring through their biased media coverage that US 2016 presidential hopeful Jeb Bush becomes the frontrunning candidate for the Republican Party. As he enters more and more the limelight and the consciousness of the average US voter, many will be wondering – who is Jeb Bush, really? This series takes a deeper look at the latest bloodline Bush foisted upon the American people in a “free and democratic” election.
Who is Jeb Bush? The Latest Bush in a Long Line of Treason
The Bush family is one of the most notorious and nefarious American families ever to rise to power in the USA. The list of their deception, thievery and murder stretches all the way back to the early 1900s. For an in-depth investigation into their criminality, listen to The Freedom Link’s The Bush Family: Four Generations of Treason!. Here is a brief snapshot of their family history, starting with Samuel Bush:
– Samuel Bush, father of Prescott Bush, grandfather of George H.W. Bush and great-grandfather of George W. Bush, Marvin Bush and Jeb Bush, becomes General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings Company which manufactured railway parts. At the time it was run by Frank Rockefeller, brother of oil tycoon and elite kingpin John D. Rockefeller – the same guy that started the Rockefeller oil empire, the Big Pharma cartel and ultimately, in a big way, allopathy or 
– Samuel Bush becomes President of Buckeye in 1908 when Rockefeller retires, staying there until 1927 and according to Wikipedia becoming one of the top industrialists of his generation. During this time his clients include the Harrimans, since the US railroads were controlled by E. H. Harriman. Thus the Bush family begins to do business and rub shoulders with the Harriman and Rockefellers families, 2 major elite bloodlines. When WW1 breaks out, Bush also forms an alliance with the Remington family through arms manufacturing. Joe Joseph, Tim Watts, and John King of the abovementioned The Freedom Link radio shows estimate that during WW1 Samuel Bush and his cronies profited to the tune of US$200,000,000 or $200 million. This equates to around $3.1 billion in today’s money, according to this site.
– Samuel’s son Prescott Bush, through banks owned by the Harriman brothers (E. Roland and W. Averill), traded with the Nazis before and during WW2. The US Government declassified documents proving it. Hitler’s rise to power was aided by Wall St. bankers. Prescott was involved in the failed coup d’etat of 1934 to militarily take control of the US Government, where the plan was to overthrow FDR and install a fascist dictator in line with the ideologies of Hitler and Mussolini. Fortunately Marine Corps Major-General Smedley Butler, the man who famously declared that “War is a Racket”, blew the whistle on the Business Plot and refused to go along with it.
– Prescott’s son George Herbert Walker Bush or George H. W. Bush rises to power through his company Zapata oil. He rubs shoulders with the Dulles brothers, lawyers of the Rockefellers, who also had deep ties to Hitler and the Nazis. John Dulles worked in the Eisenhower administration, while Allen Dulles became head of the newly-formed CIA. There is a lot of evidence linking George H. W. Bush to the assassination of JFK.
– George H. W. Bush goes on to become head of the CIA and US President. He invades numerous poor and developing 3rd world nations to ensure US corporations can steal their resources and set up military bases, oversees CIA drug and gun running operations, and personally supervises that large quantities of cocaine get shipped into the US via the Mena, Arkansas airstrip (with a little help from his partner in crime Bill Clinton). Mind control victims such as Cathy O’Brien (and others) accuse George H. W. of being a sadistic rapist and serial killer, claiming Bush repeatedly raped her and her young daughter, and ordered mind-controlled soldiers to kill themselves. George H. W. publicly calls for a New World Order on September 11th, 1991. He is also part of the Satanic black magic rituals of Bohemian Grove and Skull ‘n’ Bones secret societies.
– George H. W. Bush’s son and Jeb Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, sets the record for the mentally-challenged US President (maybe due to all the Illuminati inbreeding). He oversees the most daring false flag operation of all, 9/11, passes horrible legislation like the Patriot Act to eviscerate the Bill of Rights, sets up the loathed DHS and TSA, propagates the massive and fake war on terror, and invades countries like Iraq and Afghanistan – despite admitting they had nothing to do with 9/11. Incidentally, George W. Bush’s brother Marvin Bush was the director of the electronic security system in the twin towers. He also removed the bomb searching dogs form duty 1 month prior to 9/11. Just a coincidence … nothing to worry about.
So, in summary, there are at least 4 generations of Bushes who have been involved in starting and/or funding sides in both World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, numerous CIA wars, the Gulf War and the fake never-ending War on Terror, not to mention drug smuggling and illegal funding on “contra” terrorists in Iran and Nicaragua. So when considering “Who is Jeb Bush?”, it’s good to know the lineage he comes from.
George W. Bush passed the ball to Obama. Is Obama about to pass it forward to Jeb Bush?
Who is Jeb Bush? A Criminal Past of CIA Drug Smuggling and CIA Contra-Funding
Let us now turn our attention to Jeb Bush. Who is Jeb Bush? Is he, or has he been, involved in any of his family’s dubious and criminal enterprises? Unfortunately the answer seems to be yes. The CIA drug smuggling activities of the 1980s was related to the “Contras” – both the Iranian Contras and the Nicaraguan Contras. In the case of Iran, the elite were trying to get a foothold in a country that was close to Russia for geopolitical purposes. In the case of Nicaragua, the CIA were trying to topple a 3rd world nation government that wasn’t friendly to the US in exchange for one which would toe the line. Money from the weapon sales, thanks in large part to Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras in Nicaragua.
There is strong evidence that Jeb, like his father and brother, was involved in CIA drug smuggling and the murder of CIA drug smuggler Barry Seal in 1986. According to this article on Daily Kos:
“Barry Seal was a legendary CIA drug smuggler and ace pilot who had literally worked for the Agency since he was a teenage pilot prodigy in the late 1950s. By 1986 Barry Seal was having legal problems (criminal and a huge IRS tax liability) that not even his CIA connections could protect him from and according to Seal’s lawyer Lewis Unglesby, Barry Seal was a threat to testify against Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, in early 1986 Barry Seal was threatening GHW Bush to get the IRS off his back or he (Seal) was going to blow the whistle on the Contra scheme and CIA drug smuggling.”
If you threaten someone like George H. W. Bush, you can guess what’s going to happen. The article further quotes former CIA agent Chip Tatum, who had known Seal and shared confidences with him, “listening with amusement the first time we breathlessly relayed what we’d discovered: that Oliver North is guilty in the assassination of Barry Seal … “No shit, Sherlock,” he replied, laughing. “It ain’t exactly the secret of the century, I can tell you.”” Here are some quotes from The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider, written by Al Martin:
“In this discussion, I had mentioned the recent assassination, only a few days before, of Barry Seal [Feb, 1986, outside his halfway house in New Orleans]. I said to Jeb, “Isn’t it convenient that Barry Seal was assassinated when he was? And now suddenly all the information and documents he had are gone missing?” Jeb had a rather broad smile on his face, and he concurred that it was convenient. He added a little snicker – as he often had a tendency of doing. Also little beads of sweat formed on his forehead, as when he gets nervous. It’s something you can notice when he’s on television. He still has a tendency to have little beads of sweat around his forehead, when he is either lying about something, or he’s nervous about what someone is saying.”
Part 2 of this “Who is Jeb Bush?” series takes a look at other aspects of Jeb’s past, including his links to PNAC (Project for a New American Century) which conveniently prophesized a 9/11-type attack before it occurred …
Want the latest commentary and analysis on Conspiracy, Natural Health, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up for free blog updates
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles 
and senior researcher at, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.
Who is Jeb Bush, Really? – Part 2 – The Bush Crime Family
Wednesday, January 31, 2018

The elite establishment who control the MSM (Mainstream Media) are ensuring through their biased media coverage that US 2016 presidential hopeful Jeb Bush becomes the frontrunning candidate for the Republican Party. As he more and more enters the limelight and the consciousness of the average US voter, many will be wondering – who is Jeb Bush, really? Part 1 dealt with the history of the Bush crime family, as well as Jeb’s probable involvement with CIA drug smuggling. Part 2 of this series takes a deeper look at other aspects of Jeb Bush’s past, such as his involvement with PNAC and drug money laundering.
Jeb Bush and his PNAC neocon pals got their new Pearl Harbor with 3000 American deaths. We got the fake War on Terror.
Jeb Bush, PNAC and 9/11 Foreknowledge
PNAC (The Project for a New American Century) was the neocon (neoconservative) think tank group set up in the late 1990s to push the war agenda, specifically to push, unashamedly, for the US to continue its imperialist ambitions. It wanted nothing less than total American supremacy across the globe. It advocated more money for the military, more invasions, more foreign military bases, more war. Unsurprisingly, PNAC had a strong Zionist influence so of course it was pro-Israel. The PNAC membership is really staggering; it reads like a “Who’s Who” of American elite New World Order conspirators, such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagan, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and others. As this PNAC document shows, Jeb Bush was also a member. PNAC was replaced by the new think-tank Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in 2009.
One of the most famous and nefarious passages from any PNAC document is this oft-quoted one from Rebuilding America’s Defenses, talking about how changing America may take a long time, unless a big “catastrophic” event was to occur:
“This process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
This was written before 9/11. Are we supposed to believe it’s just a coincidence that PNAC and other criminal elements within the US Government got their new Pearl Harbor just afterwards? What are the chances that Jeb Bush had no 9/11 foreknowledge, given that he was a member of PNAC, that his brother George was US President and supposedly in charge of US air defense at the time (although that may have been left to another PNAC member, then VP Dick Cheney), and that his other brother Marvin Bush as mentioned in part 1 was in charge of the electronic security system of the Twin Towers? Does anyone smell a rat here?
Jeb Bush helped with CIA drug money laundering through his bank in Florida, City National Bank of Miami.
Jeb Bush and Drug Money Laundering
We know that Jeb Bush has close ties with the CIA in his past. Thanks to the investigate research of Wayne Madsen, we also know that Jeb was doing a bit more than just importing coffee during his banking time in Florida. According to Madsen:
“Jeb should fully explain his relationship with Alberto Duque, a Colombian national who laundered drug money for the Medellin and Cali narco-cartels and Nicaraguan contras while serving as owner of City National Bank of Miami and president of the General Coffee Company of Colombia … Duque financed a $30 million real estate development project run by Jeb Bush. In 1983, Duque was convicted for fraud and sent to federal prison. Duque hired a Bush family CIA crony to serve as City National Bank’s president … Don Beazley, who previously worked for the CIA’s Nugan Hand Bank in Australia. Before it collapsed, Nugan Hand was responsible for laundering money from the CIA’s Golden Triangle opium and heroin smuggling operations from Southeast Asia’s Golden Triangle and paying off U.S. surrogates in Asia, including Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, Park Chung Hee in South Korea, and various Thai generals.”
The elite always use their office to dole out personal favors or pay back those that got them into power. When he was Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush funneled US$1.7 billion of Florida’s state pension funds through investment banking institutions such as the Lehman Brothers, Carlyle Group, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, UBS, J.P. Morgan, etc. who were the fundraisers of George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns. Jeb Bush is a man who wouldn’t rule out torture. Jeb Bush is man who doesn’t like the 
average person to have access to encryption. Jeb Bush is a man who would be happy to continue George W. Bush’s disastrous and highly illegal foreign wars, claiming that the US must maintain its “unequal military strength” or military supremacy.
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are the latest reps from America’s modern mafia crime families.
Who is Jeb Bush? The Same as Hillary Clinton
Given the elite control over the political process and the mainstream media, you can be pretty sure that any mainstream candidates given good coverage and press are not going to be very different on key issues. In fact, as this article from Jake Anderson on Global Research shows, Bush and Clinton are identical on all the important issues facing the US. Jeb and Hillary are being funded by the exact same people! Both Jeb and Hillary both support giant corporations (and get support from the very same corporations to the tune of millions), the current Rothschild-Rockefeller Federal Reserve banking system, more empire-building wars for imperialist America, the Patriot Act, NSA mass surveillance, fracking, GMOs (and the prevention of GMO labeling), secret trade treaties like the TPP and even the death penalty! Could it be any clearer that Jeb and Hillary are utter tyrants, when they believe the nameless entity of Government has the right to take away your life? The Clintons by the way are up to their necks and beyond in corruption, crime and dead bodies just like the Bushes. The Bushes and Clintons are America’s modern day mafia crime families.
Jeb Bush = More of the Same Crime
Politics has been likened to pro-wrestling: the result is never in doubt and has already been pre-determined (however wrestling has more chance of a spontaneous outcome!). If Americans vote in Jeb Bush, it’s going to mean more of the same crime: more wars, more corporate cronyism and corporate welfare, more surveillance and more corruption, while less choice, less privacy and less freedom. Let’s hope the average US voter has enough wisdom not to vote for continuing the oligarchy … remember, there has been either a Bush or Clinton in the White House from 1980-2012 – that’s 32 straight years!
Also See:
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington
Sat 25 September 2004

The Bush Dynasty of Death: Four Generations of Wall Street War-Making and War-Profiteering


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

From a Mormon to an Atheist in Two Days!


The Ancient Paths - 1st Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner
Published on Oct 30, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 2nd Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on Emma Smith
Published on Nov 3, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 3rd Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on Polygamy
Published on Nov 6, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 4th Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on Scripture
Published on Nov 11, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 5th Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on the Book of Mormon
Published on Nov 12, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 6th Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on the Book of Abraham
Published on Nov 25, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 7th Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on the Mountain Meadows Massacre
Published on Nov 26, 2012

The Ancient Paths - 9th Interview with LDS Historian Sandra Tanner on Mormon Politicians
Published on Dec 12, 2012
It's official. I emailed the bishop of my ward and resigned my membership in the "Mormon" church on 29 January 2018.

The Lost Book of Abraham

Aaron Shafovaloff
Published on Jun 26, 2007
Free Book
"By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"
Charles M. Larson

Book of Abraham debunks anti LDS lies/Thousands and thousands of explosive hits
Paul Gregersen
Published on Oct 18, 2014

Joseph Smiths screw ups when he wrote the Book of Mormon

Published on Jun 14, 2012

Why Invent the Jesus? • Richard Carrier Ph.D.

Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics of Manitoba
Published on Aug 30, 2017

Elder Holland learns about the Book of Abraham

Published on Jul 29, 2016

Truth or Lies? Ex-Mormon vs Two Mormons

Published on Jul 8, 2017

Ex-Mormon vs Two Mormons (Continued)

Published on Jul 8, 2017

Joseph Smith and Other Men's Wives (Pt 1)-Dan Vogel

Dan Vogel
Published on Oct 16, 2016

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Richard Carrier debates William Lane Craig
Answers in Insanity
Published on Oct 10, 2015


$10.00 Brain Surgury Special...Mormons Only!!! Show Recommend At Door...
Published on Oct 12, 2011

Christianity Debunked Using Science and History Richard Carrier
Published on Jul 10, 2016

The Gospel According to Carrier

Published on Nov 24, 2017

7 False Prophecies from Joseph Smith - Mormons

Published on Nov 20, 2015

The Gospel According to Carrier Part II

Published on Dec 21, 2017

Did Jesus Christ really exist? Richard Carrier shares some inconvenient truths
Published on Dec 10, 2017

Richard Carrier Discusses Jesus, Saturnalia and Christmas Celebrations w/ Mythinformed
Published on Dec 20, 2017

Richard Carrier, Rapture Day

Published on Jun 20, 2011

Richard Carrier Deconstructs Christianity in One Hour
Published on Mar 25, 2015

Christianity Debunked Using Science and History - Carrier

Published on Nov 9, 2015

Exclusive: Brigham Young’s Great-Great-Granddaughter on Mormonism and Mitt Romney
Sue Emmett left the church because of the very values she says would make Romney a frightening president.
Jamie Reno
Sue Emmett is Mormon royalty. Her great-great-grandfather was Brigham Young, the founder of Salt Lake City, first governor of Utah, and president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) from 1847 until his death in 1877.
Emmett, whose grandmother was born in Young's historic Beehive House, attended Brigham Young University, where she walked past the imposing 7-and-a-half-foot bronze-casted statue of her great-great-grandfather every day on her way to class.
“Walking by that statue every day, I was reminded of my heritage, my lineage,” says Emmett. “That, plus going up to Salt Lake and walking through the Beehive House a couple of times and thinking of my grandmother, who I knew very well, all that pretty much sealed the deal for me being a very devout, obedient Mormon girl.”
But by the time she reached her mid-30s, she began to have doubts. Emmett started questioning the ethics and veracity of the church’s doctrine and its founders, including Young himself, and she grew increasingly concerned with the way, she says, the church treats women. She held these questions close to the vest for many years until, in 1999, at the age of 55, she finally made the hard decision to leave the church.
"There was a powerful mystique around me that I was special because of my heritage, so it was really difficult for me to leave,” says Emmett, now 71. “It was the only life, the only home I ever knew. But I just couldn’t stay any longer.”
Emmett, who still has dear friends and family members in the church—“You can be critical of the church and still be compassionate toward the people in it,” she says—is now president of the Exmormon Foundation, which was organized to give support and understanding to those who leave Mormonism. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Emmett, who rarely speaks to the media, talks about what life is like in the church, why she left, and what she thinks motivates Mitt Romney to want to be president.
"The church has astutely created a very benign image to the world. They spend millions of dollars a year doing this," says Emmett, who was born and raised in Portland, Ore., and still lives there. "But there are things that go on inside the church that are hurtful to women. There are many women still in the church who have complaints about not having any real say in what goes on, but they have nowhere to go with these complaints.”
Emmett says there is a lot of silent suffering among Mormon women, but she just reached a point where she couldn’t stay silent anymore.
Divorced from her husband of 34 years, who is still a Mormon, Emmett—the mother of seven grown children, five of whom are still in the church while two have left—says that “the one thing that finally put the arrow in me" was when she and her sister-in-law decided to start a retreat for Mormon women. Church leaders were not amused, she says.
“It was just a social and cultural thing," Emmett explains. "We made a vow that we would never have anything at the retreat that was anti-church, it would just be a place for cultural events and sharing ideas. We had artists and guest speakers, including one woman who spent her life traveling around the world taking pictures of women and their cultures.”
Emmett says the retreat, which was held in an Oregon mountain lodge and typically attracted between 60 and 70 Mormon women, had feminist overtones, “but we never talked about problems at church. We did nothing wrong.”
Still, the negative reaction among her church’s leadership was the last straw.
"We knew we'd get in trouble for doing it, but we did it anyway," she says. "From that point on, I was marginalized. I’d done everything a good Mormon woman could do in the church, including teaching children in Sunday school, but after we did the retreat I was treated differently.”
Responding to Emmett’s comments about the church’s treatment of women, Ruth Todd, a spokeswoman for the church, tells The Daily Beast: “Nearly half of the 14 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are women. To assert that my membership or participation in the church is based on compulsion or deception is both offensive and disparaging to me as a woman, and is patently false.”
Says Todd: “The right of every individual [Mormon] to make choices for themselves that determine their path in life and in the eternities is a fundamental doctrine of our faith. As a woman, I view my role in the church and in God’s plan as distinct and complementary to the efforts of men. Trying to characterize the role of women in the church in a purely hierarchical way misses the mark and is a flawed premise that demeans the role and value of women.”
Since she left 13 years ago, Emmett has become a leader of the ex-Mormon movement, which she says is not about bashing her former church but about helping former members make the difficult adjustment. “It’s such an insular world, and for some people it is really hard to make it on the ‘outside,’ so to speak,” she says.
Emmett has watched Mitt Romney very closely throughout his public life and has strong opinions about what shaped his personality and his character. “Mitt is a product not only of his wealth, but of an organization that gives men power when they are 12 years old,” she says. “That is when boys are ordained with the priesthood. It is a big moment in a Mormon male’s childhood.”
As for what pundits say is Romney's difficulty connecting with people, Emmett blames it largely on what she calls “the entitled Mormon male syndrome, where the leadership professes compassion and concern but leaves the manifestations of that to the drones. All male leadership is not this way; there are some wonderful men who do their best to exercise their power compassionately, but many do not.”
Emmett says Romney was a bishop, “a position where everyone defers to you. What a bishop says goes. People come to them to receive blessings.” He then became a stake president, she says, which means he presided over several congregations, and at that point bishops deferred to him.
“Mitt has had people defer to him and not challenge him his entire life,” says Emmett. “In the Mormon church if you challenge your priesthood leaders it’s a very bad thing to do, especially for women. As the world can now see, Mitt has a very hard time with being questioned and criticized; he’s had so little of this in his life."
Will he be more beholden to his church than to the American people? Emmett recalls that when Romney was stake president in the church, he was pro-life. But when he was running for governor he changed his position to pro-choice. A woman in the church who was a good friend of Emmett’s went to see Romney and thanked him for changing his position. “He told her that he had talked to church leaders in Salt Lake,” Emmett says, “and that they gave him permission to change his position.”
The Romney campaign did not respond to numerous requests for comment.
Emmett says she doesn’t think Romney has the ability to separate what leaders of the church want from what the country needs.
“Mitt has been groomed to become president from a very young age,” says Emmett. “The thing is, I think his father [George Romney, who ran for president in 1968] would have made a much better president. In many ways the church was more benign then than it is now.”
Regarding Romney and the presidency, Emmett cites a bit of Mormon lore called the White Horse Prophecy that has floated around since the time of Mormon founder Joseph Smith. It suggests that Mormons believe a time will come when the U.S. Constitution is eroding and Mormon leaders will save it and usher in a new theocracy with Mormons in charge. Emmett’s great-great-grandfather talked about it. In a discourse from 1855, Young wrote that "when the Constitution hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the 'Mormon' Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it."
Romney has said that he considers the White Horse Prophecy just a matter of speculation by church members. "I haven't heard my name associated with it or anything of that nature," he told The Salt Lake Tribune in 2007. "That's not official church doctrine…I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief."
But Emmett begs to differ. “I can guarantee you that there are millions of Mormons who believe this prophecy and see Romney as potential fulfillment of it,” she says. “As a Mormon, you grow up hearing about this prophecy. I think Mitt believes he has a mandate from God to become president so he can help move this along. I don’t know if it’s a conscious thought, but it's in his subconscious.”
Emmett says she thinks Romney’s biggest fault is that he has a “serious problem telling the truth. There is flip-flopping, which he has done more than any politician in modern history, and then there is out and out lying,” she says. “This kind of thing has sadly been a part of the church from the very beginning. Some modern apostles actually taught that it is not always the best thing to tell the truth if it interferes with preaching gospel.”
Emmett says the notion of “Lying for the Lord,” as it has been called, implies that teaching the whole truth about the church should be avoided. At a presentation on Lying for the Lord at the 2008 Exmormon Foundation conference, Ken Clark addressed the issue. Clark, who worked as a teacher for the LDS Church Education System (CES) for 27 years and also served as a bishop before leaving the church in 2003, tells The Daily Beast, “Lying has become an institutionalized method of administrative control with the church.”
“Every Mormon grows up with the idea that it’s OK to lie if it’s for a higher cause,” says Clark, who now works for a company that markets employment and labor market data. “But what happens is when this becomes a part of your ethical tool kit, you develop a condescending attitude toward people. Like Ann Romney saying 'you people.’ This idea of lying for the Lord gives you license to place people on an inferior level. It’s OK for Mitt Romney to ignore the principle of full disclosure because it’s in his DNA. Look what he’s doing with his taxes, and how he talks only in generic and sanitized terms about his religion.”
But church spokeswoman Ruth Todd says there is no merit to Clark's accusations.
“To assert that there is a culture of dishonesty or deception in the church is both woefully uninformed and ridiculous," Todd says. "The pursuit of truth is at the heart of who we are. Mormon women around the world participate actively in our church because we find value and truth in the doctrines, structure and deep meaning provided by the gospel of Jesus Christ that is at the core of our faith. All church members are encouraged to study for themselves and develop their own convictions about the church and its teachings.”
When Clark left the church, he says, Emmett was of "great help to me. She is one of best people I know. She is very courageous and compassionate."
And Emmett, despite her issues with Romney and the church, does not want to be cast as a Mormon hater. She says that while she strongly disagrees with many of the tenets and practices of Mormonism, most Mormons are kind, honest people.
“Many of my children and other family members are still devout Mormons, and I want to be sensitive to their beliefs and I have no desire to hurt them,” says Emmett. “It’s been hard for me. It was my entire life for 50 years. I was very sincere and devout for a very long time. But as a feminist and someone who believes that you should be allowed to say what you really feel, I had to leave.”
Ex-Mormonism's Toughest Challenge
Zelph On The Shelf
In 1981, Boyd K. Packer gave a BYU fireside where he said:
“Remember: when you see the bitter apostate, you do not see only an absence of light, you see also the presence of darkness. Do not spread disease germs.”
This is not surprising, as those who leave the LDS Church have been demonized since its beginning, when Joseph and Brigham would order members of a Mormon vigilante group known as the Danites to kill those who apostatized.
Sidney Rigdon, in a letter he once wrote to to Orson Hyde, said, “…it was the imperative duty of the Church to obey the word of Joseph Smith, or the presidency, without question or inquiry, and that if there were any that would not, they should have their throats cut from ear [to] ear.”
Said Elder John D. Lee, “Punishment by death is the penalty for refusing to obey the orders of the Priesthood. I knew of many men being killed in Nauvoo by the Danites. It was then the rule that all enemies of the Prophet Joseph should be killed, and I knew of many a man who was quietly put out of the way by the orders of Joseph and his apostles while the church was there.”
By contrast, Boyd K. Packer’s words about ex-Mormons seem tame! But that doesn’t mean they don’t still have enormous power over Church members, most of whom have lived their whole lives being taught that apostates wanted to sin, got offended, or just weren’t strong enough to “live the gospel”. Nowhere in Mormon teachings is there room to believe that people leave the church because they determined, against the desires of their heart, that it wasn’t true. Any evidence that contradicts claims made by the LDS Church is deemed “anti-Mormon literature” (or the new favorite, “slanted”), just as evidence that contradicts claims made by the Church of Scientology is considered “suppressive”. Such labels allow church members to reject the validity of evidence that doesn’t confirm their beliefs, and avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance.
Though many modern Mormons are becoming more tolerant of those with different beliefs—even those who leave the LDS Church—we still have a huge stigma to overcome. I spent hours chatting with an active Mormon online yesterday, who was determined to believe that I deliberately slant evidence when using it in Zelph content, and who ascribed motives to my criticism of Mormonism that don’t exist. He spoke to me with far less respect that I spoke to him (because my criticism of the Church justified it, apparently), calling me a “bigot”, “not normal”, “not funny”, “just as bad” as a white supremacist, and liking tweets that said I was the worst of the millennial generation and need to be “called out” for what I “truly am”. He told me I’m “immoral and tacky”, while also making it clear that he didn’t think I had a right to call out what I think is immoral. I’m human, and it hurt, especially as I had tried so hard to facilitate constructive dialogue with him. (We actually did have some more constructive dialogue once we started talking one-on-one, thankfully.)
I criticize Mormonism because I believe in the words of J. Reuben Clark, who said “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” The fact that Mormonism is demonstrably false aside (at least according to what I consider valid methods of truth determination, I.E. not feelings), I call out the Church because I don’t believe in a god who would let racism run rampant from the very top of his “true church” for 150 years under the pretense of “divine will”, yet who thought Joseph marrying teenagers was important enough to get going within a few years of the Church being founded. (Conveniently with no revelation until Emma found out.) I don’t believe in a god who leaves our “heavenly mother” completely out of the narrative, despite teaching women that they’re in charge of raising children. (Just not the most important ones?) I don’t believe a church is led by a god when its leaders have to be knowingly dishonest to perpetuate a false narrative. (Joseph Fielding Smith lying about the seer stone and saying it was an “anti-Mormon lie” when he had it in the Church’s vault at the time, for example.)
Having your character constantly called into question (not even called into question—just flatly denounced) because you’re following your conscience really hurts, especially when you’ve already had to deal with the grief that comes after your religious worldview collapses. Ex-Mormons have to give Mormons the space to share their beliefs, or they wouldn’t be able to maintain any Mormon relationships, but we are expected to keep quiet about our thoughts on the Church, because negativity—even that which seeks to correct misinformation and prevent ongoing harm—is seen as evil contention in Mormonism, which does not accept criticism from “outsiders”.
When Mormons start realizing that ex-Mormons and those who criticize the LDS Church can be good people with good intentions, their narrative starts breaking down. Developing compassion for those who lost their faith after encountering new evidence is fatal for Mormonism, because in order to perpetuate the narrative that the Church is true, believers must think that losing one’s faith is a choice that is made with bad motives.
The best thing ex-Mormons can do is change the narrative about themselves—by not making Mormons feel attacked or like they need to defend their beliefs, by opening up constructive dialogue when appropriate, and by fostering and maintaining positive relationships with believers. We won’t always be able to change people’s minds about us, but we can try. At the end of the day, we’re all just human. We all hurt the same. We’re all (usually) trying our best with what we understand and have experienced. Peace requires tolerance of those with different beliefs, and in the Mormon/ex-Mormon community, I think that tolerance needs to start with ex-Mormons, because we are the ones who have experienced both sides of the coin, and can therefore (usually) empathize with Mormons better than they can empathize with us.
Be a safe space for Mormons, but when they ask you about your disaffection, don’t be afraid to tell them that you wanted the Church to be true—that you researched with the bias that it was. Let them know how much you cried out in prayer wanting God to take away your doubts—to give you some kind of answer to the endless evidence indicating that your beliefs were based on fallacies. Be open with them about the pain you experienced as you lost your faith through research, and how hard you tried to make it all work. Try to help them understand a world that they don’t understand, while using your understanding of their world to be non-threatening. Remember how you felt when you were in their position. Ex-Mormons have a lot of work to do if we’re going to change a narrative created by 200 years of teachings that liken us to “disease germs”. See the humanity in others and let them see the humanity in you.
See this page in the original 1992 publication.
Author: Whittaker, David J.
Following the violence in northwestern Missouri in 1838, the Mormon dissident Sampson Avard, star witness in a court of inquiry weighing evidence against LDS leaders, charged that the Church had organized a band of armed men bound by secret oaths who had engaged in illegal activities against non-Mormon neighbors (Document, pp. 97-108). With the 1841 publication of the court proceedings, Avard's account became the foundation for all subsequent non-Mormon "Danite" accounts. Thus was born the legend of the Danites.
Though no Danite organization was known in Nauvoo or in Utah, the stereotype persisted, becoming a part of national discussion about Utah and the Latter-day Saints and for decades a staple of dime novels (see Mormons, Image of: Fiction). By 1900 at least fifty novels had been published in English using the Avard-type Danite to develop story lines of murder, pillage, and conspiracy against common citizens. Arthur Conan Doyle (A Study in Scarlet ) created Sherlock Holmes to solve a murder committed by Danites. Zane Grey (Riders of the Purple Sage ) and Robert Louis Stevenson (The Dynamiter ) were among the authors who found the image of the evil Danites well suited for popular reading audiences who delighted in sensationalism (Cornwall and Arrington). The image became so pervasive that few readers were willing to question the accuracy of such portrayals.
The reality of Danites in Missouri in 1838 is both less and more than the stereotype. Contemporary records suggest something fundamentally different. In October 1838, Albert Perry Rockwood, an LDS resident of Far West, Missouri, wrote in his journal of a public Danite organization that involved the whole Latter-day Saint community. He described in biblical terms companies of tens, fifties, and hundreds (cf. Ex. 18:13-26)-similar to the organization the pioneers later used during the migration to the Great Basin. Here the Danite organization encompassed the full range of activities of a covenant community that viewed itself as a restoration of ancient Israel. Working in groups, with some assigned to defense, others to securing provisions, and still others to constructing dwellings, these Danites served the interests of the whole. This was not the secret organization Avard spoke of; in fact, Rockwood's letters to friends and family were even more descriptive than his journal (Jessee and Whittaker).
In the fall of 1838, with old settlers in Missouri swearing to drive the Mormons out rather than permit them to become a political majority and with LDS leaders declaring that they would fight before again seeing their rights trampled, northwestern Missouri was in a state of war (see Missouri Conflict). Sparked by an effort to prevent LDS voting, violence erupted in August and soon spread. On both sides, skirmishes involved members of state-authorized militias. Evidence suggests that during this time of fear, clashes, and confusion, Sampson Avard, probably a captain within the public Danite structure and a militia officer, subverted the ideals of both by persuading his men to undertake the criminal activities he later argued were the authorized actions of the whole community. Encouraged perhaps by the firmly stated intentions of leaders to meet force with force but apparently without their approval, Avard used his Danite and military positions to mold a covert renegade band to avenge anti-Mormon outrages. He succeeded because after weeks of responding to violence with strictly defensive measures, Avard was not alone in feeling that the time for forbearance had passed. Others of the time in late reminiscences recalled that clandestine meetings were held, which were subsequently reported to Joseph Smith, who then denounced Avard, removed him from his official command, and disbanded the maverick body. Though short-lived and unauthorized, this covert organization, thanks to Avard's distorted and widely publicized testimony, usurped the former usage of "Danites," and the once honorable appellation became a synonym for officially sanctioned secret lawlessness.
In contrast, when five hundred men in the Caldwell County (Mormon) militia later took the offensive in response to two months of unrelenting violence and depredations, there was nothing secretive about it. In mid-October, with supplies running low, they left defensive positions to forage and to punish enemies-a very public effort to improve security by preemptive forays. Two weeks later, facing increasing numbers of volunteers and a militia emboldened by the governor's Extermination Order, they surrendered their arms in defeat.
The reality, then, behind the supposed secretive, lawless Danites of legend was this renegade band formed briefly in 1838 in the midst of war. There is no evidence of any such band later, and even in 1838, the Latter-day Saint community as a whole did not deserve blame for the unauthorized actions of a few. As Parley P. Pratt, an apostle, wrote to his family after hearing Avard's court testimony, "They accuse us of things that never entered into our hearts." From Liberty Jail on December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith summarized the situation as he then understood it: "We have learned also since we have been in prison that many false and pernicious things which were calculated to lead the saints far astray and to do great injury have been taught by Dr. Avard as coming from the Presidency…which the presidency never knew of being taught in the church by any body untill after they were made prisoners…the presidency were ignorant as well as innocent of these things" (PWJS, p. 380).
Unfortunately, in an age when Latter-day Saints were hated and persecuted, Avard's story provided a ready explanation for anyone who wanted to believe the worst. The reality was far less sensational.
Cornwall, Rebecca Foster, and Leonard J. Arrington. "Perpetuation of a Myth: Mormon Danites in Five Western Novels, 1840-90." BYU Studies 23 (Spring 1983):147-65.
Document Containing the Correspondence, Orders, Etc. in Relation to the Disturbances with the Mormons; and the Evidence Given before the Hon. Austin A. King. Fayette, Mo., 1841.
Gentry, Leland H. "The Danite Band of 1838." BYU Studies 14 (Summer 1974):421-50.
Jessee, Dean C., and David J. Whittaker, eds. "The Last Months of Mormonism in Missouri: The Albert Perry Rockwood Journal." BYU Studies 28 (Winter 1988):5-41.
Whittaker, David J. "The Book of Daniel in Early Mormon Thought." In By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, Vol. 1, pp. 155-201. Salt Lake City, 1990.
Our marriage has survived a crisis of faith
(The following Exit Story was written together by Erik and Shaunalei Andersen)
I have joked with my wife the past few years that I must be a genetic freak since I was apparently born without a ‘feeling the spirit’ gene. I’m not sure what everybody else feels, but I never feel ‘it.’
I prayed. I fasted. I paid my tithing. I did my home teaching. I attended my meetings faithfully. We had family home evening, daily scripture study with the family, the works. On a number of occasions, I had repented for every sin I could remember. I had gone into the mountains to kneel down before the lord and weepingly offered to give up all my sins to know him. I had quoted to the lord all the scriptures promising he will answer his children. I had poured out my whole heart to God, pleading with every feeling in my heart that he would answer me. Again, and again, and again. The LDS church claims Joseph Smith was wrong to keep pestering the Lord to give Martin Harris the 116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon, yet we expect investigators and members to keep going to the Lord endlessly asking him to confirm the truth of the LDS church – rejecting every doubting thought or feeling while embracing every good feeling as the Spirit of the Lord manifesting the truth of the gospel. I finally decided I was defective and would never get an answer. I continued to hope and act as if I knew the church were true (accepting callings, giving priesthood blessings, etc.), even without the reassurance I’d longed for. Once married, I withheld my lack of spiritual answers from my wife.
My beloved wife, Shaunalei, felt the spirit all the time – she was the most obedient member of the LDS church I had ever known. She fell in love and married me, but came to sometimes lament the fact that I was not the spiritual giant she wished I would be. I didn’t do anything bad. But I lost enthusiasm for personal prayer, personal scripture study, and bearing testimony—though I would participate when she organized it. I suppose I was afraid she would reject me. But there finally came a time, back in the summer of 2006, when I finally lay in my wife’s arms weeping, explaining how God had never answered any of my prayers and THAT was why I was not and could not be the spiritual giant she wished for. It was frightening, but it was the truth, and it felt good to not be hiding things from her. She could tell I was sincere and wanted more than anything for me to have a sure testimony; to be able to be the man she wished I could be, to be able to testify to our children that I knew.
We vowed to begin a journey together to study about the church and discover what my problem was and why I was so broken that I couldn’t hear God talking to me. A month or so later, we were at Deseret Book picking up something or other, and my wife noticed a new biography on Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, which she suggested we buy to help firm up my testimony. Several months later, while my wife and kids were out camping for a few days, and I was supposed to be doing some contract work, I finally picked up Rough Stone Rolling and began reading… I have a pretty good memory, and I had read many church books in the past, which made it disconcerting to hear many details of Joseph Smith’s life that were new and were different than I remembered. I began reading the footnotes carefully, and I drove over to the public library and picked up several of the books that were used as references. I began reading book after book, and taking notes. I soon felt like my mind was on fire. I couldn’t sleep. I would stop just long enough to eat. Within 24 hours of near constant study, I found I could no longer believe in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I felt a confusing rush of emotions: elevated, confused, angry, cheated, free, trapped, happy, dreadful, and just about every other feeling. I pulled out my cell phone and gave Shaunalei a call – “We need to talk” I said.
Even though I was persuaded that the church wasn’t what I thought it was, I still spent a lot of time digging and reading… I didn’t want to have been mistaken about the evidence. I didn’t think I was, but I needed to be absolutely sure with evidence from many different angles. So I searched out and read many of the very early first hand sources about church history, to be sure of what all the credible early sources, both friendly and antagonistic, had to say for what happened and how things got started. I found a hundred reasons why believing did not seem justified by the evidence. But maybe there was something I had missed? How much evidence did I need to be certain where the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was pointing?
But even as I dredged up all these other problems and read all these books and biographies and histories, etc. For me the most compelling evidence remained the original piece of evidence that had started me down this path – a story I first found in passing in Rough Stone Rolling, then read in greater detail by following the author’s footnotes—namely, the story of Zina and Henry Jacobs. This young couple had loved each other dearly, married, and born children together but were ultimately driven apart by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as each successively demanded Zina’s hand in secret plural polyandrous marriage. Reading Henry’s pain-filled letters to Zina and his children, after Henry had been ordered to give Zina over entirely to Brigham — I just knew . . . God would not do that to people, or to families. My overwhelming sense of shock, horror, disgust, anger, and outrage, was my heart’s way of telling me everything I really needed to know. It took a couple of years for the facts stuffed into my brain to catch up with the certainty I already felt in my heart.
Back to our story… When Shaunalei got home, I was so excited to tell her everything I had learned. I somehow thought she would be excited to hear about all the things I’d discovered in my readings. She was in fact, NOT excited. She has horrified. And angry. Over the course of many painful discussions and several very painful months, I learned to shut up, to not try and push my thoughts on her. We found ways to compromise. We realized that even if if we got divorced over church differences, we’d still be taking turns with the kids on the weekends, where church issues would remain an ongoing battle–forcing the kids to always choose sides (mom vs dad), which we didn’t want. Since we really loved each other, and since we knew we would have to compromise anyway, we decided we might as well stay together and find our own middle road. There were several months where I wasn’t certain our marriage would survive. But I realized, since it wasn’t over yet, I would just try to be the best husband I could be—respectful of her feelings, loving, helpful—so that she wouldn’t feel the need to leave me. If she later chose to divorce me, I would at least be able to live without regret. Shaunalei soon realized that, while I was serious about not believing in the church anymore, I was still committed to our marriage. I was still a good person. And we both needed support.
Shaunalei, understandably, wished to have the entire family continue attending the LDS church. I, on the other hand, did not. I wanted to explore other denominations, to see if I could “feel God” there. This concerned her, since she continued to hope I would find my testimony of the LDS church before long. We didn’t want our kids (ages 10, 7, 5, and 3 at the time) to have to pick sides. So as a compromise, we decided I would continue to attend our LDS ward meetings with her and the children every other week, and she and the children would attend another denomination with me on the off weeks. During this time (18 months), we ended up having theological discussions nearly every Sunday afternoon after coming home from church meetings–discussing what was preached in the sermon or shared in Sunday School or sacrament meeting. We explored many, many issues of faith–what beliefs made sense, which did not; what we (individually) could believe, what we could not, etc. We had many conversations that would almost certainly not have happened if I had simply ditched church entirely. Rather than alienation and marital division–with the children having to choose sides–we became a more unified team, pulling together for the good of the family and out of love for each other, with our butts planted next to each other on a church pew every Sunday morning. We grew to love talking about the meaning of life, faith vs works, the possible nature of and evidences for/against God, the problem of pain, the problematic patterns we would see in the lives of charismatic prophets and cult leaders, the problematic process of picking the “right” prophet, the diversity of religion, the conditions of salvation, etc, etc. There was no pressure, because we were both just exploring these ideas together.
I knew my dear wife would never leave the LDS church: she had had too many witnesses and experiences for me to entertain hope. Yet in time, her first doubts surfaced. Following the government raid of the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas, we both became fascinated by the news reports of the FLDS church, their leader Warren Jeffs, and the people who remained loyal despite his in-prison confessions denying that he was ever a prophet. Shaunalei devoured the book Escape by former FLDS member Carolyn Jessop–which describes many problems inherent in polygamy (jealousy, competition, neglect, power struggles among the sister wives, loss of individuality, etc.)–and eventually came to the conclusion that polygamy was not an inspired principle. Her conclusion that “Joseph Smith must have been wrong about polygamy” was her first step in her own journey away from a sure testimony of the church. Shaunalei eventually began to ask questions, and study on her own, and found serious problems (in particular the evolving priesthood restoration story) that began to erode her testimony.
But, given all her earlier spiritual witnesses, she had to understand what her former spiritual witnesses were, and if Heavenly Father was okay with her new perspective on life and faith before she was willing to walk away from solemn baptismal and temple covenants. She prayed, asked for guidance, and took note of the many and varying gentle reassurances, epiphanies, and revelations that came to her — and then compared these with her earlier “witnesses.” She came to conclude that the revelatory process the church claims as evidence of our sure Knowledge of Truth, was not evidence at all—but rather, exploration, meaning-making, and peace-finding. She began to see problems in the Prophet model of revelation, where a prophet tells church members what God wants them to know, and where it is each church member’s duty to obey. This approach makes people subject to charismatic or manipulative or delusional personalities (such as Warren Jeffs), and makes people dependent on other people’s assurance that they are true spokesmen for the Divine.
Two long years after my own loss of faith, my dear wife Shaunalei was ready to leave the church. She had come to fully doubt the validity and importance of the church, and the truthfulness of its foundational claims. We resigned from the church together, with our whole family intact, on July 4, 2009.
We are the Andersen family, and we are Ex Mormons.