Rebecca Swain Williams: More To Her Story

The April 2011 edition of Ensign magazine includes an article about early Latter-day Saint Rebecca Swain Williams. As the article notes, Rebecca and her husband, Fredrick G. Williams, converted to the LDS Church in late 1830 while living in Kirtland, Ohio. Back in New York, Rebecca’s father opposed her conversion to Mormonism. This caused a deep and lasting division in the Swain family. Nevertheless, Rebecca remained faithful to the LDS Church until her death in 1861. She was never reconciled to her non-LDS family.

The history of Rebecca Swain provided in the Ensign is somewhat incomplete.  Though the article follows her life beyond the death of her husband in 1842 as it reports her relocation to Utah (in 1848-49), her obedience to Brigham Young’s call to settle then-remote Cache Valley, Utah in 1860, and her death in Smithfield, Utah in 1861, it fails to mention Rebecca’s marriage to Heber C. Kimball in 1846.

Rebecca Swain Williams became the nineteenth (or twentieth) plural wife of Heber C. Kimball (for time only) on February 7, 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple. Her place in the list of Heber’s wives is questionable because Heber also married Sarah Shuler the same day.

When she married Heber C. Kimball, Rebecca had the dubious honor of becoming a member of a family that held 2nd place in two categories. With 37 total wives during the Nauvoo years (1841-1846), the Kimball family was second only to the Brigham Young family (that included 40 plural wives). For the Utah years, the Kimball family was again just behind the Young family with 44 and 55 wives respectively. But in one category, Rebecca’s new family took 1st place. Heber C. Kimball married five pairs of sisters while Brigham Young only married four pairs (George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, 287-288).

Rebecca was 47 years old when she married Heber C. Kimball. They did not have any children together. However, she must have enjoyed the company of Heber’s children by his other wives. According to Heber’s Find A Grave web page,

“Officially Heber C. Kimball was married to 43 wives, of which he had connubial relationships with only 17. These 17 bore him a total of 65 children of which 43 lived to maturity.”

The Ensign article praises Rebecca’s tenacity, mentioning that she drove her own wagon west to Utah, took charge of a farm on Mill Creek, and again drove her own wagon when she relocated to help settle Cache Valley. As one of 44 wives, it’s not surprising that she received no help from her husband. But what’s interesting (though also not surprising) is that nowhere in the retelling of any of this is Rebecca’s status as a plural wife of an apostle and member of the Church’s First Presidency disclosed. Surely, in an article intended to highlight the “steadfast & immovable” faith of an early convert to the Church, Rebecca’s willingness to live The Principle is an important aspect of her history that shouldn’t be neglected.

But it was. Why?

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Mormon History, Polygamy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Rebecca Swain Williams: More To Her Story

  1. setfreebyJC says:

    In three words: "Not faith-promoting"

  2. Kate says:

    OK, one thing jumps out at me. Why did she marry Heber C. Kimball at all? I mean it was only for "time". I understand that she was sealed to her first husband for eternity and that's probably who she wanted for eternity, so why marry for time only??? Especially if she wasn't there to bare him children. I don't get it. Obviously she didn't marry him because she was a poor widow and he had to help her survive. This is mind boggling to me! I am also wondering why they left that part out of the Ensign article. Could it be that her marriage to Heber C. Kimball may have mormons asking the same question? Or, as setfree said, that part of her story is not faith promoting.

  3. wyomingwilly says:

    Kate, you said, " This is mind boggling to me! " . That's a great sign Kate. It shows how you are
    not being mesmerized any longer by following a false prophet. You can evaluate doctrinal issues
    without the dependency on that prophet etc. As far as to why Mormon officials left pertinent info
    out of the Ensign , I''ll bet it is'nt the first time . Would'nt it be something to find out what is being
    kept hidden away in the Church archives off limits to rank and file LDS ? Maybe one day ………..


  4. Mikey says:

    I would think that this website should be the LAST place where I would find concerns regarding one-sided reporting. Unless I missed all the articles about the positive aspects of the LDS church somehow. Is there a tab somewhere that I overlooked?

  5. Verne Brown says:

    Why did she marry Kimball? I would guess it provided a degree of clout and coverage that an independent woman would need to do the things she did, as well as keep less desirables from forcing her into marriage.

  6. Principle? What Principle? Who said anything about a principle? Did the General Authorities mention it in conference this year? No – ok we don't believe it then. And you are an anti-mormon for mentioning it!

    Sorry I just wanted to rehearse for everyone what they are bound to hear soon…

  7. falcon says:

    It doesn't count because it happened a long time ago, one of the "doesn't count" options available to Mormons. Mormons also have selective memory syndrome. Besides, knowing this will make them feel bad which means that it isn't true even if it is (true).
    You have to be able to think Mormon to get this.

  8. wyomingwilly says:

    Polygamy. One important aspect in this episode of mormon history that can be overlooked is that
    of the plight of mormon women as they endured this lifestyle. It's a testimony of the inner strength
    they possessed as wives and mothers. God has blessed women with a special strength as mothers.
    But unfortunately this episode in Mormon history is also a testimony of their devotion to "following the
    prophet", being misled in believing that by embracing this teaching that it was thus embracing the
    fullness of the gospel. We need to separate the individual Mormon from Mormon leaders. It's in how
    Mormon leaders handled this doctrine that is revealing, and to a large extent why for many years it
    has been treated in a less than honest way in Church publications. Mormon author, B.Carmon
    Hardy, stated that for many LDS, it is "…a curious sometimes embarrassing doctrinal heirloom."

  9. Kate says:


    Is there such a thing as "positive" aspects of the LDS church? Now I know that the LDS pride themselves in doing good works, so what? I haven't met a mormon yet who could outdo the good that Mother Teresa did. I do not see any positives in the LDS church when it comes to doctrine, theology or history. There certainly isn't any good coming from the church as they lead people away from the true and living Christ. So which positive aspects are you talking about?

  10. wyomingwilly says:

    Mikey, the fact that your Church has many " positive aspects " to it , is not the point. The reason this
    ministry exists is that it takes the scriptural warnings about spiritual deception by false prophets
    seriously. Good and decent people can be misled into believing false doctrine. False prophets
    can even live a moral lifestyle, but their claims of relaying truth straight from God needs to be
    evaluated. To embrace the teachings of a false prophet on vital issues such as who God is , or
    how salvation is obtained, can be spiritually lethal no matter how many good works a person
    otherwise may do. May you understand this. ww

  11. falcon says:

    This blog doesn't exist to promote Mormonism but to expose it. There are plenty of Mormon based rah rah sites were Mormons can live out their religious fantasies.
    I sense a hint of the old Mormon persecution complex coming out Mikey.
    When Mormons gather together they can spin whatever yarns they desire in order to manufacture a religious set of feel good narratives that reinforce their hopes, dreams and aspirations (in Mormonism).
    The articles that appear here can either serve as a drink of refreshing cool water to nourish the souls of those Mormons seeking the truth, or a bucket of cold water over the head to wake-up the spiritually slumbering Mormon.

  12. Violet says:

    'Why did she marry Heber C. Kimball at all?'

    Do you think women had equality when it came to their rights? Women were not looked upon as equal. Google women's sufferage movement. She married him because it was an honor (or so she thought.) How would she get to heaven if she were not sealed to a man? Do you really think she could walk into a bank and take out a loan? Women were owned by men. They could not 'own' property. What was theirs was their husbands'. And what was their husbands' was his.

  13. f_melo says:

    Mikey, i´m sure you´re aware the Mormon Church has millions of dollars put into giving it the good image it wants. So, why would you want anybody here just shutting up about true history that is intentionally neglected by mormon leaders with the goal of keeping people in the dark?

    Did you notice that? In order for your church to come out looking good they have to omit and hide historical facts, and by revealing them your church comes out not so good? What´s funny is that the researchers here at MRM are not making stuff up, they were just telling part of the story your church left out. Did you see the question at the end? Why would they leave out something so important as that?

    I´m left with the conclusion that your church deceptively wants to become politically correct and accepted by the general public and therefor they have to use those dubious tactics to promote itself as the most wonderful organization ever on earth – which is, when you actually just read the whole story provided by its documents, anyone can see it´s not.

    So, i´m sorry if the truth hurts you, and hopefully one day you´ll embrace it.

  14. f_melo says:

    I know why the Mormon Church is embarrassed to talk about polygamy. Most people despise it, and they want to be accepted. How else are they going to put Romney in the White House?

    You know what´s worst? That that attitude is going to change as soon as they get what they want. They believe they are the only true church, they believe they are the ones with the right to rule the earth, they believe there´s one church of god and one church of the devil, you either belong to one or to another, there´s no middle term. All this talk about other churches having some truth in them, and let´s hold hands together in community service, etc. is all boloney, and they know that! That´s called seduction, that´s what wolves in sheep´s clothing do, they seduce the sheep by looking good, and saying nice things and making promises of partnership and peace, but that´s just so you´ll trust them. When you least expect you´re there worshiping a false god and having them as your masters.

    They believe that God is a polygamous man who is sitting there in his throne surrounded by hundreds of wives. That´s one of the most strange questions i asked myself as a mormon. It was if i could pray to heavenly mother, and if my heavenly mother was the same as everyone else´s in my family… seriously. Mormons are embarrassed about that, yet they can´t let go without letting Joseph go with it. So, they hold it as a "sacred" secret that only those who are ready, if not smarter to catch that up sooner, will hear about it.

  15. falcon says:

    It would be very instructive for Mormons to do a side-by-side doctrinal comparison of SLC style Mormonism and that of the other Mormon sects. The "one true church" identifier kind of gets lost in the myriad of competing Mormon thought developed by the various prophets of the various sects. There's a reason why the SLC church clung to polygamy (along with the current FLDS-the real Mormons) and why the other groups circa 1840s rejected it. Those that didn't follow after Smith, initially and BY later, saw the "error" in the ever evolving Mormon doctrine. In fact, a couple of the older Mormon groups more closely resemble original Mormonism that wasn't all that far off the orthodox Christian path. Smith wrote his tome in the hopes of making some money and as it turned out the SLC Mormon church has fullfilled his wildest dreams with the wealth they have accumulated.

  16. The_Hammer says:

    Stop being a hypocrite will you. I know you have posted here before and you and all other LDS who come here are always going on about how we are wrong and dont have a clue, yet you guys NEVER, can you say NEVER, Show us from scripture where we are wrong. You accuse and run, we have asked LDS many times, What about this or that.

    Example, WoW, it started out as a good thing to do, but then turned into a law of God that must be followed in order to be saved. Yet you guys only follow the Dont drink coffee or tea part, When we ask, what about rub your cows with tobacco, or eat meat sparingly we never get a reply.

    What about JS first vision. There are 9 different first vision accounts, Which one is correct? If it is not the very first one ever, then how do you prove it is one of the other ones, and why even mention the first one if it is not true.

    You guys never answer these questions, you just tell us were wrong, You are such a hypocrite, When guys start to take these question seriously and stop doing drive by's then maybe I will take you seriously.

    It has been said, people dont care how much you know, until they know how much you care. We prove we care because we take time to back up everything we say with quotes from your teachers, books, doctrine, videos, Etc.

    You guys tell us you care, but you dont care enough to show us where we are wrong.

  17. Kate says:


    I know why the Mormon Church is embarrassed to talk about polygamy. Most people despise it, and they want to be accepted. How else are they going to put Romney in the White House?

    I never did understand what the big deal was to have a mormon as president, the other day I heard someone say that if Mitt Romney gets in, he will be required to be loyal to the LDS church first and our country second. That really rung true for me. Hopefully that will never happen.

    You also talked about there only being 2 churches. This is so true. Part of why I left was because of the things I had been taught for about 30 years or so, are all of a sudden changed and the church acts like those things were never taught and it is the members who have it all wrong. Even though we try to back things up with church doctrine or past prophets, it doesn't matter, I'm so disgusted with the excuses of " He wasn't speaking as a prophet when he said that." or " New prophet trumps old one" and my favorite " God reveals things at the right time, so things change". Now why would God switch around his nature so much? Wouldn't he want us to know who is is from the beginning and leave it at that? Why would he need to keep us guessing?

    As far as polygamy goes, the LDS practice it EVERY DAY in their temples. They all know that it will be reinstated and openly practiced by all LDS some day. They still believe in polygamy, no matter how many times Gordon Hinckley publicly denounced it. No matter how many times he said in public interviews that it is an abomination to their god. He actually said this and a few days later was speaking at a funeral where he told the man that he would have both of his wives in the CK (his second wife was the deceased). Is that not polygamy? Nothing they do is "sacred" it's all secret because to tell the "whole" OFFICIAL truth would bring down their church. Most people today aren't as superstitious or trapped as they were when the first 5 prophets were leading the church. I just had a thought, Thomas Monson has to know that he is not receiving revelations or communing with Jehovah, I'm wondering if he has any conscience at all.

  18. Mikey says:

    I'm not sure how my comment was hypocritical. I agree with pretty much everything written in the above post. I agree that the article in question was incomplete and did not include all of the information that it probably should have. I have no problem with people writing negative blog posts about the LDS church. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of a website that writes only negative articles about the LDS church complaining about the LDS church writing only positive articles about itself. I personally think it would be best if all writers on all sides of the issues (including the LDS church itself) covered all true aspects of every story. That is probably an unrealistic dream though.

  19. falcon says:

    Did our little lady friend in the article sacrifice everything for the Lord Jesus Christ or for Mormonism. Mormons are not sold out to Jesus. They are sold out to a form of religion that they suppose holds the keys to unlock the door to becoming a god, a promise the Mormon church can't make good on. It's amazing how people will literally sell their souls for a false promise. Their emotions are heightened and they think that these feelings indicate direct communication from God. I wonder what the feelings of guilt and shame imposed on Mormons by their religion is interpreted as by (Mormons)? I'm guessing it is interpreted as displeasure on the part of God for their lack of commitment and zeal even though they may be pouring their time, treasure and effort into building the Mormon Inc. organization.
    Jesus wants our focus on Him and Him alone. The focus for Mormons is their own personal deification through total dedication to the organization. Mormons never know if they've done enough and that's all part of the scam. Serving Mormon Inc. is not serving God. This is in large part due to the fact that the god of Mormonism is not God. So in the end all of the works of service, the sacrifice, the time and the money goes to promote the temple of an idol.

  20. f_melo says:

    "I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of a website that writes only negative articles about the LDS church complaining about the LDS church writing only positive articles about itself."

    Mikey, again, you´re 100% wrong. You take this article to be negative, but is it really? The article isn´t negative. The negativity that you find is due to the fact that your church isn´t forthcoming about its history and motives, that´s why your conscience makes you feel bad about it because you know something stinks – if it didn´t this website wouldn´t even exist. Sharon didn´t go out of her way to portray this whole business as something negative, the story itself is negative on its own without any help of any writer whatsoever.

    I also have to ask you why you think it is negative… Is it because it talks about polygamy, that eternal principle every mormon knows came from god to Joseph Smith? Are you embarrassed about that as well, and do you actually think polygamy is a bad thing?

    My next question is – aren´t you bothered by the fact that a church such as yours that uses the words "truth" and "truths" so often isn´t really interested in portraying the truth accurately, but that you actually need people doing research to correct intentional omissions and misinformation? Is that the attitude of a church that calls itself the church of Jesus Christ? I wonder how much historical misinformation Jesus spread around during His days on earth…

    The LDS Church is one of the most dishonest organizations i´ve ever encountered. Even the Catholic Church apologizes for its past atrocities and deception at times. But hey, keep telling yourself that´s alright, that is all part of life, that it´s OK for the Church to lie a little, to take advantage of others a little, for tomorrow we die "and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God."(2 Ne. 28:8).

  21. f_melo says:

    "I never did understand what the big deal was to have a mormon as president, the other day I heard someone say that if Mitt Romney gets in, he will be required to be loyal to the LDS church first and our country second."

    That´s an interesting debate, because you have other organizations that present the same problem, such as freemasonry. Yet you don´t see people chasing after them and their doctrines, they have far more influence than the mormon church. My opinion is that in the US people should be free to worship as they wish, but there should also be taken into consideration whether those religions require oaths to make those people subject to another secular government other than the one established by the Constitution.

    "I'm so disgusted with the excuses"

    When i was reading that part of your comment, that hymn came to mind "How firm a foundation". Sure, as firm as jelly.

    "Now why would God switch around his nature so much? Wouldn't he want us to know who is is from the beginning and leave it at that? Why would he need to keep us guessing?"

    Some people don´t like when i tell them that they´ve got to be ready to accept some crazy revelation that comes out of the blue, such as the early members had to accept polygamy. That´s what you signed up for, and you had better be ready for whatever craziness comes your way.

    "As far as polygamy goes, the LDS practice it EVERY DAY in their temples."

    They do, and they believe that God is right now in his celestial palace with his hundreds of wives. They won´t admit it in public and will try to disguise it as Gordon Hinckley did in the Larry King show. Yet the truth remains there.

    "I just had a thought, Thomas Monson has to know that he is not receiving revelations or communing with Jehovah, I'm wondering if he has any conscience at all."

    According to the new gospel principles manual, apostles are now just special witnesses of the name of Christ, they are not required to even see Jesus to be apostles anymore. I´m sure they have the traditional burning in the bosom in their meetings, but i´m so sure they haven´t seen anything supernatural, because if they had they wouldn´t have been quiet about it. I mean, who would? The true New Testament Apostles couldn´t. I´m sure they´d love if someone these days had that kind of experience, it would be enough for a mormon revival.

  22. Mikey says:

    I must not be very clear. I AGREE with what Sharon wrote. The article she discusses is incomplete and it is very likely that the omission of the "non-faith-promoting" parts of the story was deliberate. I do not condone that style of storytelling. Pointing out this lack of complete information is a valid basis for a blog post or critical review. But it is difficult to take seriously from this website. If you want the LDS church to include a "non-faith-promoting" aspect to every "faith-promoting" story they publish then maybe this website should include a "faith-promoting" aspect to every "non-faith-promoting" post that is pubished here. Only seems fair.

  23. Kate says:

    I wish I would have stumbled across this blog 4 years ago! I could have saved myself so much time and heartache! Thanks for your comments everyone. Hopefully Mikey will dig a little deeper and find the real truth as well. Praying for you Mikey!

  24. f_melo says:

    Mikey, talking about being fair i´d also like to see your faith-promoting views regarding the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the Priesthood of all believers, Salvation by Grace through Faith alone, the Bible not being corrupted, Christian History, the Council of Nicaea, etc. Can you do that? I hope to be fair for you doesn´t mean to support false teachings and deceptive tactics, and you´ll only convince me the day i see a leader in the Mormon Church who publicly acknowledges that the church is less than forthcoming in its history and openly discuss with the members about what the top leaders omit as non-faith promoting.

    "If you want the LDS church to include a "non-faith-promoting" aspect to every "faith-promoting" story they publish"

    I think i myself am not being clear as well, or maybe you didn´t read what i wrote. Are you saying that polygamy is not faith promoting? Sharon wrote it in such a way in which Rebecca is portrayed as a very obedient and faithful woman, not only to the principles accepted today, but to the principles practiced in her own time.

    I guess you really think polygamy is bad, and to include it means to shake people´s faith… strange.

    "maybe this website should include a "faith-promoting" aspect to every "non-faith-promoting" post that is pubished here."

    Actually they don´t have to be faith promoting or not, all they have to do is to report the real history. By nature LDS history is non-faith promoting. Your complaint is not against this site, it´s against the church´s history itself. Other than that MRM does a comparison between mormon doctrines and Bible doctrines, and it exposes how mormon doctrine falls short. As Rick said, if you have a problem with that, then defend it in a competent manner non-deceptively, and we´ll have a debate.

  25. f_melo says:

    Mikey´s problem is that he isn´t looking for truth. Truth doesn´t have to be faith promoting or not. If your religion is true, truth will confirm your faith. If it isn´t, then truth will expose it for what it truly is. When the light of truth shines on mormonism, it exposes it as the deception it is. The only way to sustain it is to omit the admittedly true, but non-faith promoting aspects of it.

    Now, stop to think about it. Those things are true according to the mormon church itself, and yet they don´t confirm your faith in what you believe, on the contrary, they damage it – what does that tell you? If you answered "it tells you you´re being deceived" you got it. The only way to preach mormonism in a way that people would feel compelled to join is through omission of its true history and deep doctrines. The very practice of building on common beliefs is deceptive since mormon terms are not clarified for what they really mean. Mormon missionaries let investigators think that they are preaching about the same Jesus of history. They let people think that they are using the same words with the same meanings. They need to do that to persuade people to open their defenses so they can actually read the book of Mormon and go to church and be overwhelmed by the whole emotional-spiritual experience it provides. Otherwise, nobody would open that door to such danger.

    Now ask yourselves, is that how Jesus preaches His Gospel? Through deceptive sneaky tactics like those? I think Jesus and the Apostles would be offended to be compared to salesmen, but mormons don´t seem to have a problem with it, as long as they are baptizing.

  26. Brian says:

    Perhaps this aspect of Rebecca Williams’s life was omitted from her biography for any of the following reasons:

    1. Fear (concern this would make LDS members uncomfortable, and prompt unwanted questions)
    2. Embarrassment (not hard to understand)
    3. Unbelief (current LDS leadership may just not believe their religion's early teachings)

  27. Brian says:

    Hi, Mikey.

    Welcome to this site. It is good to have you here. Thanks for participating.

  28. wyomingwilly says:

    Mikey, thanks for your clarification . I'm glad you agree that this article seemed to deliberately omit
    some important information about Mrs Williams life . Have you gone a little further and asked yourself
    who in leadership is responsible for what is published in this and all church publications ? And when
    you say that you don't condone this "style" of storytelling, does that mean dishonest? Have you ever wondered
    what might be hidden away in Church archives that your leaders won't allow others to see ? I hope you
    can see why this is one question that needs answering. What does it mean when religious leaders seem
    to see the need to hide things from their followers.Maybe your Church has gotten to big, to much power ?
    Anyway, thanks for your participation here. May you come to take Jesus' warning to heart—-Matt.7:15

  29. Kate says:


    I truly understand what you are saying, but the problem here is that she was only married to Heber C. Kimball for "time" she wasn't sealed to him so he had nothing to do with her "eternity." That's why I have the question as to why did she marry him at all? She was already guaranteed a spot through being sealed to her first husband. Women were owned by men, but according to the article, it sounds like she pretty much did what she wanted. So there's a little confusion for me. It sounds like she was a pretty independent woman. With so many wives, I don't think Heber had all that much to do with her, so maybe she did think it was a huge honor to bare his name. Who knows?

  30. Kate says:


    Hun, the whole mormon movement is that type of storytelling. Dig deeper. Really research things out. Go out and buy a Bible, free and clear from mormon influence and really read and study it. You will see the truth. So many of us have.

  31. falcon says:

    Keeping busy doing seemingly religiously oriented church work is not serving God; it's serving the organization. Mormons get confused thinking that the Mormon church is God's organization on earth so by serving the organization they are serving God. Bad mistake.
    Would a Mormon dare go outside of the Mormon church structure and do "work" dedicated to God and hope to gain credit points to becoming a god themselves? Of course not. The work Mormons do, I think, are of two varieties. One is the performing of mindless rituals and rites of the Mormon church which is a way, in my thinking, to earn a form of Mormon indulgences. If a Mormon racks up enough of these indulgences then they get to become a god. Another way, it seems, to earn Mormon indulgences is just plain doing the grunt work of serving the Mormon organization.
    I read recently where there's been a "suggestion" that on home study night once a year, that families should go and clean the church instead of having the regular home study activity. I guess that's a good faith promoting activity, develops humility and saves on having to hire the work done.
    Here's a fun fact to shock and amaze; our works are like dirty rags when it comes to earning anything regarding our salvation. If we earn jewels to put in our crowns as a result of works, we take those crowns off and throw them at the feet of Jesus at the end of time. Our works are for Him, not for us!

  32. falcon says:

    Well Yippie! This lady was steadfast and immovable in her Mormon faith. People are steadfast and immovable in all sorts of things that they believe in which aren't true. I don't think we can assign this lady bonus points for being taken in by a religious charleton, Joseph Smith, and then dedicating her life to a lie. I know Mormons are suppose to be inspired by how this woman hung in there through trial and trivial. It's a good story for Mormons but for those of us who "know" Mormonism is a total rip-off and a false religious cult we may react by saying, "What a fool this woman was!"
    It's interesting how one person's heroine can be seen by others as a poor dupe who dedicated her life to a false religious cult. This woman must have had a tremendous burning in the bosom experience to persevere in her dedication to Mormonism. For those of us who don't count bosom burning as a good test of truth, we would say that the emotional buzz she got off of Mormonism sustained her through some pretty rough times. That's the power of believing. What the source of the buzz is is immaterial as long as the effect is there.

  33. Kate says:


    According to the new gospel principles manual, apostles are now just special witnesses of the name of Christ, they are not required to even see Jesus to be apostles anymore.

    Are you kidding me???? This is new since I stopped attending church. I don't have the new copy of the gospel principles manual. This should be a HUGE red flag to faithful members. Especially the older ones.

  34. The_Hammer says:

    Mikey, I maintain that you are a hypocrite because of this. You said

    I would think that this website should be the LAST place where I would find concerns regarding one-sided reporting. Unless I missed all the articles about the positive aspects of the LDS church somehow.

    You claim this site has one sided reporting, yet you know that this site focuses on exposing the lies the LDS church will not be open about. You asked about the positive things, The Bible tells us Satan comes as an angel of light, who cares if you guys do good and happy things, if the reason they are done is to lead people to their eternal death.

    Then we as Christians agree with you, Marriage is good, Lying is bad, Stealing is bad, their we agree you have positive things, that means what in the grand scheme of things that your church is filled with lies and false prophets.

    I also believe your a hypocrite because if we go back and look at when the LDS show up and reply it is never to the doctrinal issue like What first vision is correct. Or did the prophet speak the truth when they taught….

    But you guy show up and argue little things like, how come the positive side of this women's marriage was never given. Then when you guys do show up over the more serious issues of doctrine you never say anything other than, we are wrong and you have answered this question before. Like I said, if you want to be taken serious, then show everyone you are and give honest answers to honest questions. Not run from the questions and simply say, Your right and I'm wrong, NA, NA NA NA, BOO, BOO, BOO, Your not 2 years old.

  35. Violet says:

    Mikey. Hello.

    Yesterday morning on MSNBC (I try to stay fair and balanced), Cokie Roberts and her husband discussed how they raised their children in Judaism and Christianity. The spoke of how at the kitchen table they do not discuss doctrine or theology (as they laughed), but teach their children how to be kind and treat their neighbors.

    With my mormon neighbor, we discuss our children's achievements, how cute they are, and what we made for dinner. Kindness. Got it. But if we are on a mormon research ministry blog, the idea is to DISCUSS, DEBATE and CONVERSE doctrine and theology. Its like the pink elephant in the room that we are not talking about if you visit this website. We are kind, and loving of course, if we have an interest in religion, theology, and doctrine. We are here because we have a thinking cell and we are all trying to use it.

    Hypocritical would be only speaking of the positives. LDS are wonderful people and that is why we are here. Because we love you. The Christ of the Bible and the christ of the bom, are different and that is what is fascinating. Pretending there is no talk of kolob, progressing to godhood, pre-existence and everything that is not in the bible, or (the bom for that matter) would lose the point of the discussion. Don't you think?

    How are your children? What did you have for dinner last night? Nice weather we are having? Looks like we might be getting some rain. My son got a hit in baseball and made it to first base. Now can we talk about doctrine?

  36. Kate says:


    This comment brings to mind all those who suffered and lost lives coming across the plains in handcarts. Poor deceived souls. Yes their faith in a false religion helped but I think it was their sheer will to survive that got them here! All those wasted lives. As a mormon you are to look to that as a very faith promoting thing. I look at it and it sickens me. All those children and babies who suffered and died on the way and had absolutely no choice. Sad.

  37. falcon says:

    To any Mormon who might be reading this I would like to ask, where are your works and slavish devotion to the Mormon organization getting you? The organization takes your time, your money, and your mental energy and gives you what in return? Is it the promise of personal deification that keeps you slaving away in the Mormon system?
    Devotion to the organization is not devotion to God. When Christians talk about a personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, we're not talking about membership in some religious organization. The organization does not provide access to God. If someone never darkened the door of a church building they could still have a relationship with the Lord. Faith is a personal matter between the believer and God. Many church organizations serve too often as stumbling blocks and not stepping stones.
    Jesus said He came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. That happens when we get to know Him one-on-one.

  38. Mikey says:

    Ya, I would think that to many people polygamy is not that faith promoting (I really don't like the term "faith promoting", but somebody else here used it so I went along with it). I assume that is why it was left out of the story. I don't disagree with you there. Count me as one Mormon that wishes the church was more open about all aspects of it's history.

    Personally I don't think polygamy is all that bad. But then again, I support gay marriage as well, so I might not be your average Mormon. Must be the Canadian in me.

    But my original comment was not about doctrine and I am not really interested in having that discussion in this forum. I was merely pointing out my interest in a one sided blog crtiquing an article for being one sided. I just found it interesting.

    I appreciate everybody's concern for me. I hope we all sleep well tonight after we pray for eachother. Good night.

  39. f_melo says:

    "But my original comment was not about doctrine and I am not really interested in having that discussion in this forum. I was merely pointing out my interest in a one sided blog crtiquing an article for being one sided."

    I wasn´t expecting such a discussion either, i was just exposing your one sided view of one-sidedness.

    You really support gay marriage, and you can tell people that without getting in trouble with your bishop??? Wow, signs of the times…

  40. f_melo says:

    Kate, take a look yourself:

    "An Apostle is a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ in all the world (see D&C 107:23). The Apostles administer the affairs of the Church throughout the world. Those who are ordained to the office of Apostle in the Melchizedek Priesthood are usually set apart as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Each one is given all the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, but only the senior Apostle, who is President of the Church, actively exercises all of the keys. The others act under his direction."

    link –

    Usually set apart as members of the quorum of the twelve? When hasn´t that happened? I wish they´d provide an example of an "Apostle" not set apart as member of the twelve.

    Amazing, huh? But no, it doesn´t raise red flags, people barely care about it.

  41. The_Hammer says:

    Mikey said

    I support gay marriage as well,

    Have you ever read the Bible? Or do you even read it? The Bible is clear, The homosexual life style is wrong and no homosexual will ever enter the kingdom of heaven. They (Man and human laws) could make it legal and God will still say and has said it is wrong. Why would you support something that God clearly states as an abomination?

  42. Mikey says:

    I agree that homosexuality is a sin. I also believe that we are all sinners and therefore we are all an abomination in God's eyes. Since I assume that you generally don't believe our sins keep us from entering the kingdom of heaven (because that would be a somewhat works-based view of things) I wonder why you would think that the sin of homosexuality is any different than any of the other sins mentioned in the Bible.

  43. Mikey says:

    You're welcome.

  44. Mikey says:


    You seem like a great friend and a very nice person to be around. I am sorry that your Mormon neighbours seem to be such douchebags. I have read your previous comments on here about them and they don't sound like people that I would want to spend very much time with. It is great that you are striving to be a good friend to them anyway.

    Since you asked, my children are great. I have two boys, a 5 year old and a 2 year old, and a third boy due to be born next week. That is great that you are having some nice weather. It is actually snowing quite a bit where I am. Doesn't seem like mid-April at all. That is awesome that your son got ti first in his baseball game. You must have been very proud.

    I didn't really come here to talk about doctrine though. I might be inclined to talk doctrine with a friend or co-worker if they wanted to ask me some questions, but I'm not much for debating, especially in online forums like this. Not sure now why I even commented to begin with. I was more interested in the hypocrisy I perceived in the original blog post than in the doctrine mentioned within it.

    Anyway, have a good week.

  45. Mikey says:

    You are very correct. Truth doesn't have to be faith promoting or not. I don't doubt that the vast majority of the historical information presented on this site and others like it is true, but do you call it incomplete if faith promoting aspects are left out even when they are true? I wish the official church publications would include it all, faith promoting or not. The information presented in the Ensign article mentioned above was incompete, yet also still true. Wouldn't it be great if the Ensign and Mormon Coffee got together to write articles so that the full and complete story could be told every time!? As it is right now it seems we get either just the faith promoting (Ensign) or just the non-faith promoting (Mormon Coffee). Not ideal.

  46. wyomingwilly says:

    Mikey, I do have a concern for you and it's that concern combined with a respect for you
    that compels me to try and reason with you . You said that you wished your Church was
    more open with it's history.Do you realize what you're saying? Does'nt it bother you that
    maybe just maybe your leaders are hiding information that would shed a different light
    on what they been claiming to the world ? You also said that your comments were not
    about doctrine. Mikey, is'nt that the whole point though ? Think this through, if you admit
    your leaders have not been above-board in how they portray Church history, how can you be
    assured they're revealing the truth about God and salvation?

  47. wyomingwilly says:

    Mormon women have testified that living polygamy was to live the gospel "in full ". Imagine
    for a moment how sharing your husband with another woman was living the gospel in full .
    Apparently then this relegates those Mormons who were'nt living ploygamy as having only
    a partial gospel . What we take from all this is that obviously Mormon leaders have re-definded
    the gospel,The gospel means good news[ 1 Cor.15:1-4] . Apostles of Jesus Christ taught the
    gospel. Apostles of Joseph Smith taught another gospel — Gal.1:8-9.
    Sadly, Mrs. Williams it seems was obedient to a prophet, but not to the Savior.

  48. wyomingwilly says:

    Music promoted the Mormon gospel, and Mormon women sang the following song :

    Now, sisters, list to what I say–
    With trials this world is rife,
    You can't expect to miss them all,
    Help husband get a wife!
    Now , this advice I freely give,
    If exalted you would be,
    Remember that your husband must
    Be blessed with more than thee.
    Then, O, let us say,
    God bless the wife that strives
    And aides her husband all she can
    T' obtain a dozen wives.
    [ This verse sung as part of a ballad in the 17th Ward school House ,Salt Lake City,10-15-1856
    see Deseret News Nov.26, 1856 6:38, 301/2 ]

  49. falcon says:

    This is more of the mind-boggling thought process of people who are caught in a cult. It's almost too stupid to comment on. The full Mormon gospel includes men marrying a lot of women. What a total joke and yet these folks got their minds bent to such an extent that a concept like this makes sense to them. The cult manipulation tactic is that in order to be one of the super spiritual special people, and get into the gifted and talented program, you have to accept ideas that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In their minds this is what makes them so special. My oft repeated refrain, "The more absurd, the more convoluted, and the more revolting an idea, the more cult members accept it as being proof of their enlightened spiritual state." In their minds, it takes a higher level of spiritual maturity to accept nonsense.
    Take just about any concept in Mormonism and you'll find that its obnoxious and off-the-wall status is what makes it appealing to Mormons. In some sort of weird twist of the thinking process, the fact that the established orthodoxy of the Christian church finds the beliefs so repugnant, is proof that it's true (to Mormons). There's always a market niche that will move towards and be attracted to that which goes against the established order.

  50. The_Hammer says:

    Good dodge Mikey. You did not really answer my question. The bible is clear that we are all sinners and while we will not enter heaven for our sins, because it really is the rejection of Jesus that keeps us out, we also reject Jesus by doing these things and here is what the bible says.

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    Now as the Bible says, some of us were like this, so again have you read your word? If you for Gay marriage, then are you also for Drunks, thieves, liars etc. If not Howe can you be for and endorse on sin over another?

Leave a Reply