Haven't Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?

jefflindsay.com ^ | Nov. 5, 2006 | Jeff Lindsay

[restornu]

---

Haven't Anti-Mormons Completely Destroyed the Credibility of Mormonism?

It is a common myth that anti-Mormon attacks have completely overwhelmed the intellectual position of Latter-day Saints, leaving us with nothing but blind faith in "warm feelings" we get about the Church. The portrayal of Mormons as idiots without any intellectual foundation in our religion is a common caricature based on deceptive marketing. With the flood of anti-Mormon arguments, books, pamphlets, movies, and Web sites, it is easy to think that Mormonism would be completely devastated if only 10% of all the things said against it were true.

I once met a new convert, a college student, in my town of Appleton, Wisconsin, who showed me a couple of thick books loaded with accusations against the Church. She was upset and angry and planning to leave the Church. I tried to calm her down, and one by one, we discussed the arguments that were bothering her. Once one attack was diffused, she raised another, and another, and I think I helped her see that there was little merit to what she had raised so far, and that the bulk of the anti-Mormon material was truly deceptive. Then she just dug in her heels and said, "Well, it doesn't matter. If only 10% of all the things in here are true, that's enough to destroy the Church!" She left the Church, and if she had lived 2,000 years ago as an early Christian convert, I'm sure she would have left the Church then, too. After all, if only 10% of the things that the anti-Christians said were true, then that would be enough to destroy Christianity, right? (Oh, how I wish modern education would help people understand that critical thinking means more than just thinking of criticism.)

Anti-Mormon literature is often ignorant of what Latter-day Saints really believe and especially ignorant of LDS authors have written in response to anti-Mormon attacks. Many of the common attacks against the Church are regurgitated arguments from the nineteenth century, arguments which have been thoroughly and carefully treated by responsible LDS writers who do much more than just talk about some warm feeling in their hearts. But the anti-Mormon writers and speakers of today make it sound as if no Mormon has ever dared to respond to their awesome arguments, and that the Church can only retreat and hide when faced with an intellectual battle.

The flaws in some standard anti-Mormon arguments have been pointed out by a number of non-LDS writers. In one interesting example, two evangelical critics of the Church, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, presented a paper at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting, April 25, 1997 that warned the evangelical community about the impressive efforts of LDS scholars and criticized the blind approach of typical anti-Mormon literature. Their article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" (later published in Trinity Journal, Fall 1998, pp. 179-205), is one of the most intriguing non-LDS articles I've ever encountered from critics of the Church. (One of several copies of it on the Web can be found at ComeToZarahemla.org, Ben Spackman's Website, or Cephas Ministry.)

Mosser and Owen note that anti-LDS writers have ignored the work of some LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few critics have done: they have actually read a wide variety of LDS scholarly writings. As a result, they came to the following five conclusions:

The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibility interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

(Further analysis based on the paper of Mosser and Owen has been provided by Justin Hart in "Winning the Battle and Not Knowing It," in MeridianMagazine.com, an article in five parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. For an interesting example of the issues that Owen and Mosser have raised, see Paul Owen's rebuttal of anti-Mormon John Weldon's response to the original article of Mosser and Owen. Owen appears to be appalled at the "head-in-the-sand" approach of John Weldon, who has demonstrated the very problems that Mosser and Owen speak against in their paper and says that Weldon's anti-Mormon "intellectual narrow-mindedness" is "astounding."

Latter-day Saints who study the responses of LDS writers to anti-Mormon criticisms know that there are many excellent resources which may refute or at least defuse many of the arguments hurled against us. These resources, found at places like FARMS, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRLDS.org), SHIELDS, and even my little Web site (including my Mormon Answers section), do not rely on blind faith and emotional feelings to deal with the critics - though there are some tough issues like polygamy for which we don't have good answers (ugh - I really don't like polygamy!). But for many issues, Mosser and Owen are correct in observing that there are "robust defenses." In fact, many of the defenses turn the tables on the critics and leave them in intellectually untenable positions. In fact, we could turn around and ask them a few tough questions of our own -- see, for example, "My Turn--Questions for Anti-Mormons."

What is an anti-Mormon? Anyone who disagrees with you?

This is a poorly defined term, but I would say that only the activists who attack the Church in a way intended to generate misunderstanding, fear, and shock are the ones who deserve the epithet of "anti-Mormons." Many such "Mormon bashers" feel that the end justifies the means, and use tactics that are incompatible with the truthful example of Christ.

There is plenty of room for decent people to disagree with us. Sometimes I even disagree with "us." Most Protestants and Catholics who disagree with us are not "anti-Mormons" but simply people of another denomination. But when someone strives to stir up anger toward the Church and relies on misinformation or half-truths, then I'm inclined to apply the anti-Mormon label--especially when they do it for a living. On the borderline are well meaning people who feel an evangelical duty to battle "cults" (which tend to be any group that disagrees with them) and write articles regurgitating the sensationalist and shocking diatribes of full-blooded anti-Mormons. I tend to call such critics anti-Mormons as well (I sense that they usually don't mind the title, unless they are posing as "loving friends of the Mormons" in order to launch more effective assaults on our faith). Those of other faiths who disagree with us and engage in civil discourse with us about their differences are usually not "anti-Mormons" but perhaps simply critics or just adherents of a different faith.

What tactics do anti-Mormons use?

Some pastors and ministers who might consider themselves as anti-Mormons are sincere in their differences with LDS theology and write intelligently and honestly about their views. They can differ without distorting the truth and can be respectful and kind in their discussions. I guess that intelligent and honest writing doesn't sell well, because the vast majority of popular writing against the Church is ugly, deceptive, and inflammatory. This is the stuff that I tend to call "anti-Mormon."

But others are deliberately deceptive, at least in my opinion. Some know what we really believe, but go out of their way to distort it. I feel that way about Ed Decker's classic work, The God Makers. His movies and writings create the impression that temples are evil, scary places with devil worship, homosexuality, and conspiracy. He alleges that Mormons are plotting to take over the country and impose a theological dictatorship. He warns people not to pray to understand the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, frightening them with the idea that Satan will come and deceive them if they do. I think this goes beyond the sincere.

One of the strangest and most dishonest tactics of some anti-Mormons is falsely claiming to have advanced degrees in order to buttress their credibility. An amazing example is Dee Jay Nelson, who gained the trust of many people by claiming to have academic credentials and an international scholarly reputation--all of which was entirely bogus. He was a con-man who led many gullible people out of the Church during the peak of his illegitimate career as an anti-Mormon lecturer. Others include "Dr." Walter Martin and the amusing "Dr. Dr." John Ankenberg (yes, he lists himself as "Dr. Dr." as if he had two doctorates, though he lacks even one - and no real Ph.D. with two degrees would describe himself as "Dr. Dr."!). The father of anti-Mormons, Doctor Philastrus Hurlbut, was actually named "Doctor" by his parents but lacked a degree. I don't think he promoted himself as if he had the degree, but that title has been used by others to increase respect for that immoral and twice excommunicated anti-Mormon. Other questionable anti-Mormon "Drs." include John Weldon, and James White.

Michael T. Griffith has a page showing some of the tactics of a prominent anti-Mormon. It illustrates how some anti-Mormons seem to deliberately distort LDS writings to achieve their own questionable purposes. The anti-Mormon in this case is Mr. Bill McKeever, the director of the anti-Mormon group Mormonism Research Ministry. I have also corresponded with Mr. McKeever and encountered yet another tactic that typifies many of the self-appointed cult bashers on the Internet. I grew frustrated that my responses to lengthy lists of charges and allegations were largely ignored, and simply followed by other lengthy letters loaded with more allegations and accusations than I could possibly deal with. Any issue I addressed was ignored and followed by additional long letters on new topics. Soon it was clear that the communication was intended to be only one way. It took many requests and finally a complaint to McKeever's e-mail provider before Mr. McKeever would quit sending me unsolicited lengthy anti-Mormon articles.

But that may just be enthusiastic zeal. Maybe it's being overly enthusiastic that leads me to use the "anti" label with some folks. Look, it's subjective, and may be used in error sometimes.

Among the specific tactics used by those I consider anti-Mormons, an especially interesting one is their creative use of definitions to classify Mormons as a cult or as non-Christian. Ironically, the non-standard definitions they craft would also condemn Christ and His early disciples in the New Testament as cultists and non-Christians. For details, see my page, "Do Latter-day Saints Belong to a Cult?" For a tongue-in-cheek demonstration of related anti-Mormon techniques, see my spoof page about an exciting new software product, CultMaster 2000.

A useful resource for information of major anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations, with links to refutational material, is the Critics Corner at Shields-Research.org.

An excellent resource exposing many anti-Mormon tactics is They Lie in Wait to Deceive, Volumes 1-4 by Robert and Rosemary Brown.

Why do evangelicals get so down on Mormons?

Daniel C. Peterson authored the following passage on the Evangelical approach:

The fact is that evangelical Protestantism represents a faction, no more, of a minority faction, no more, of Christianity. That faction arose, relatively late, in northwestern Europe, and it is still basically dominant only among those of northwestern European extraction. It is distinctly a minority in Italy and Brazil and Mexico and Spain and France and Argentina, and it is virtually invisible in Greece and Romania and Russia and Armenia and the Ukraine, to say nothing of Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Iraq.

Latter-day Saints do not claim that their faith-group is exhaustive of Christendom. We recognize that there are Catholic and Orthodox and other Christians. Some evangelical Protestants seem reluctant, however, to grant that the Copts or the Catholics are Christians at all. Some say so implicitly, and others have told me so explicitly, under direct questioning.

Latter-day Saints do, of course, claim that God has acted to restore the true fullness of Christianity, and that that fulness is embodied in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Such a claim can seem arrogant, and I, for one, would be very hesitant to make it -- indeed, I would refuse to make it -- were it not for the presupposition of direct revelation that undergirds it.

To assert, as some evangelicals have declared directly to me, that they alone are Christians, and that they have arrived at their unique Christianity by virtue of their own reading of the Bible -- implicitly dismissing the other claimants to Christianity as either preternaturally stupid or irrationally evil or some mixture of the two -- seems to me both arrogant and, in view of the fact that the preponderant majority of world "Christians" hold to different opinions, quite unlikely to be true. Even to claim that evangelical Protestants alone are "biblical" or "orthodox" Christians, seems an improbable and smug declaration.

That is the point. Ironically, Latter-day Saints rely, here, upon God's grace, where some of my evangelical interlocutors -- the ones that I have in mind -- seem quite evidently to trust in their own understanding.

But most envamgelicals, though critical of our religion, are not what I would call "anti-Mormons." In fact, many are very respectful and tolerant, in spite of their strong disagreement with our views. The evangelicals I have know over the years have largely been fine examples of Christians who were not out to defame us or stir up fear about the Mormons, and have been great people to dialog with.

What Do Scholars Think of Hugh Nibley?

Some anti-Mormons seem ignorant of Hugh Nibley's work. When forced to confront his writings, many rapidly dismiss him as irresponsible, biased, sloppy, deceitful, etc. On the other hand, there are some non-LDS folks who have pointed out a variety of flaws in Nibley's writings. While Nibley did much to advance study of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, LDS people must understand that his work can be rather dated now and often contains errors that he is not around to correct now. Enjoy it, but proceed with caution. But proceed with even more caution with anything I write, for I am far less competent and qualified that he was - I'm just an amateur apologist, guys.

Regarding Nibley, as brilliant and talented as he was, he spent much of his life writing for LDS audiences, and thus may not be widely recognized by other scholars in his field. in spite of some great early publications. That's my opinion, though I have incredible respect for him, having watched him in action and having read much of his work.

Some related insight into Nibley is provided by two well educated anti-LDS writers, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, mentioned above, whose article, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?," is one of the most intriguing anti-LDS articles I've ever encountered. It warns that anti-LDS writers have essentially completely ignored the significant scholarship of Hugh Nibley and many other LDS scholars who are providing "robust defenses" of the LDS faith. In preparing their paper, Mosser and Owen did something that few anti-LDS writers have done: they have actually read a variety of LDS scholarly writings. Their response, paraphrased, is: "Wake up, anti-Mormons! We're losing the intellectual war without even knowing it!" Here is what they say about Nibley:

Hugh Nibley: The Father of Mormon Scholarly Apologetics
Hugh Nibley is without question the pioneer of LDS scholarship and apologetics. Since earning his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley in 1939, Nibley has produced a seemingly endless stream of books and articles covering a dauntingly vast array of subject matter. Whether writing on Patristics, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the apocrypha, the culture of the Ancient Near East or Mormonism, he demonstrates an impressive command of the original languages, primary texts and secondary literature. He has set a standard which younger LDS intellectuals are hard pressed to follow. There is not room here for anything approaching an exhaustive examination of Nibley's works.(1) We must confess with Truman Madsen, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Brigham Young University: "To those who know him best, and least, Hugh W. Nibley is a prodigy, an enigma, and a symbol."(2)

The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible scholar would every read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking."(3) The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude toward evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."(4)

No doubt there are flaws in Nibley's work, but most counter-cultists do not have the tools to demonstrate this. Few have tried.(5) It is beyond the scope of this paper to critique Nibley's methodology or to describe the breadth of his apologetic.(6) Whatever flaws may exist in his methodology, Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigiliae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review.(7) Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom.(8) The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"(9) Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.

Footnotes from the above passage:
1. FARMS is currently working on a twenty volume collection of Nibley's works, ten of which are already published (abbr. CWHN).

2. Truman Madsen, foreword to Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), ix.

3. Ibid., xiv.

4. Quoted by Madsen, ibid., xi.

5. In fact, the only substantial evangelical interaction we have seen to date is James White's 56 page (single spaced) disputation of the proper syntax of the pronoun in Matthew 16:18. This paper can be acquired from the Alpha & Omega Ministries Internet site.

6. For a sharp critique of Nibley's methodology from an LDS perspective see Kent P. Jackson in BYU Studies 28 no. 4 (Fall 1988):114-119.

7. Specific references can be found in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1990), 1:xviii-lxxxvii.

8. See the contributions by these men in volume one of Nibley's festschrift By Study and Also by Faith.

9. See Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 147 n. 105.

Where can I find resources to respond to anti-LDS attacks?

I think my LDSFAQ Suite offers useful answers to many common questions and allegations. Other general resources with many articles and responses include:

FARMS

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies in Provo, Utah, is the leading organization for scholarly understanding of LDS issues, especially the scriptures. They are a tremendous source of valuable research and publications. As one of many examples from FARMS, one of the best written articles dealing with typical anti-Mormon attacks is that of Russell C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts, "Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, pp. 90-298 (I said it was good, not short!).

The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRLDS.org)

Offering many sound articles and other resources for those wishing to understand intellectual issues involving Latter-day Saint religion.

SHIELDS

A competent and diverse LDS resource for those wishing to explore LDS doctrine, history, and rebuttals to anti-Mormon allegations.

Russell Anderson's Response Page"

A collection of resources and discussion of common anti-Mormon attacks. There is also some fascinating information on some of the most famous professional anti-Mormons.

A Resource for LDS Apologetics

By Kevin Graham. A collection of articles and resources, including many articles by Kevin.

Other specific resources:

• Credible responses to Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters' Inventing Mormonism are found on a page by Russell Anderson.
• Information on "Dr." Walter Martin - by Russel Anderson

[nicmarlo]

Clarification, the sentence should state:

What the false prophet Joseph Smith said is of NO comparison, whatsoever, with Paul...

[Zakeet]

Re: Hoax, a translation was never made, and a statement attributed to Joseph about what they were was from someone elses journal. No translation was done, though the Church had them for many years.

JOSEPH PRONOUNCED THESE PLATES GENUINE!

As described in detail with annotations HERE, Joseph Smith accepted these plates as authentic and even claimed he had translated a portion of them.

According to the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary:

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth. Joseph Smith

The plates were lost for a number of years until one was rediscovered in the 1950's in Chicago Historical Society Museum.

In 1962, Welby W. Ricks, President of the BYU Archaeological Society, hailed the find as a vindication of Joseph Smith's work:

A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders....

The plates are now back in their original category of genuine.... Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well.

In the mid-1960's, an engineering analysis conclusively proved the plates were of 19th century origin. They were part of a cruel hoax, and Joseph Smith was duped.

The Mormon Church has since adjusted its position on the plates in line with your statement.

[farmer18th]

Thanks for taking my question seriously. I know this topic generates a lot of flame sometimes, without much light.

With respect to your answer:

Smith was a prophet. He taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We must accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ in order to receive salvation. Therefore, we must incidentally accept Smith, who taught the Gospel, as a genuine prophet.

The quote in question, though:

[There is] no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith...

..seems pretty explicit, as though the believer would have to accept Joseph Smith overtly and not incidentally. I know a lot of Mormons who would be startled to even read that quote; it just seems like the Church would be more consistant if it just repudiated the doctrine overtly as one of the many steps it might consider taking towards building a bridge towards (don't take this the wrong way) orthodoxy.

I routinely find myself defending the Mormons because of their conviction that the gospel of Jesus Christ should be seen in the fruits of the culture itself, that religion is not just a praise experience on Sunday, but I can't help finding some of the more ecstatic utterances of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young impossible to defend.

[fproy2222]

Why do you lash out at Joseph Smith for saying “as far as it is translated correctly” when you are doing the same thing, even calling it a poor translation?

=+=+=

This is probably due to the fact that the ‘english’ used is very old fashioned: Wist Thou not?

When the LDS scriputers are tranlated into non-English languages; you do NOT use what was in vogue 400 years ago, but in TODAY’s vernacular.

++++++++++++++=

I remember that question being answered over the pulpit at General Conference a few years back.

Would you help find it please?

[fproy2222]

Joseph Smith takes care of you?

Did Jesus get bumped to one of the lesser kingdoms?

++++++++++++++++

How did you get that falsehood from our teachings?

[Saundra Duffy]

“I think that means she doesn’t know how many gods there are.”

Where is Moses’ body? I demand that you tell me this instant. I’m sure you know, since you have infinite spiritual insight into God’s mind. Actually, now that I think of it, since God Himself apparently took possession of Moses’ body, I want you to tell me what form Moses’ body is in right now. Thank you.

[fproy2222]

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

+++++++++++++++

Thanks for putting in red a reminder from the Bible that their will be messengers from God after the close of the
bible.

[fproy2222]

Did you just say that Heaven will be great, but you do not know what great is?

[nicmarlo]

Yep..........and Joseph Smith fits in the category of FALSE PROPHETS about whom the followers are Christ are warned not to believe.

[colorcountry]

Did you just say that Heaven will be great, but you do not know what great is?

I just said, "I trust my Lord to know what great is, I cannot even fathom the greatness of God."

In Mormonism, one tends to focus on "earthly pleasures" like sex and children, when contemplating the magnificence of Heaven. I don't think earth will compare at all to Heaven.

Do you trust God, to make His dwelling place wonderful? Or must you create an earthlike heavenly realm to dwell on (as if your sinful human mind could compete with the majesty of God)?

[fproy2222]

Yep..........and Joseph Smith fits in the category of FALSE PROPHETS about whom the followers are Christ are warned not to believe.

++++++++++++++

Since you do not believe that Brother Joesph was a Prophet, where are the leaders Father promises in the Bible?

[nicmarlo]

Jesus Christ is God.

The promise of God, the Father, is that anyone who sets himself up to be better than or like God is condemnation to hell. He gave but one example by booting Lucifer out of heaven and into the pit.

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks for that reference to the LDS hymnbook...now, I am not a Mormon...however, I am quite appreciative of your providing a link to this hymnbook, and here is exactly why...

I used to play organ and piano in the Methodist Church, for many, many years..however, once we started moving around the country due to military moves, that kind of went by the wayside...moving to new areas, and finding new churches, those churches already had their own organists and pianists, and I was content to just be part of the congregation, and sing along, rather than be the one providing the music...

And because we have moved so much, I never took my piano with...my sheet music slowly disappeared over the years, some due to our moving...

And so, it just seemed that part of my life was over...I no longer had piano or organ, or even my sheet music...I am now in my early 60’s....my primary piano and organ playing days in church were when I was in my teens, my 20’s and some small amount in my 30’s...so it had seemed my days of piano and organ playing were relegated back to my youth...

However this past Christmas, my younger son, always trying to outdo himself each Christmas, presented me with my Christmas Present...it could tell from its shape and feel, that it was a book of some sort...now the son told me, that this was just part 1 of my Christmas present and I should look at it, and try to figure out what part 2 was, and if I really wanted it...I guess he was somewhat dubious about how I would feel about this present...

So, I opened up the first part, the book, and sure enough it was a book, but a book full of different classifications of sheet music...there was patriotic music, religious music, show tune music, folk music, etc, and there were numerous tunes of sheet music in each category...then my son wanted me to guess what the second part of the gift was...well, all I could guess was that it was a piano, or an organ...and I was correct...but the son, not being a musician himself, wondered if I still remembered how to play, and did I really want this piano/organ..he had the second half of my gift out in his Jeep, not willing to bring it in, unless I really wanted it...he was fearful, that I had forgotten how to play, and would not want the piano/organ...Did I want it?...oh, you bet...I have so missed playing tunes...and the son did not apparently realize that once you know how to play an instrument, you never forget...or at least I did not...I feel, it is like riding a bike, one you know how, you never ever forget....so the son was thrilled, I was in tears, and so the son and hubby went out to the Jeep, and hauled my Christmas present in...

Now, it is unlike my old upright piano that I used all my church playing days, and unlike the baby grand I played in church, and unlike the organs I played in church...it is smaller, more compact, and lightweight...but it is a keyboard, which has many controls that I can access to have my keyboard sound like a grand piano, a pipe organ, an accoustic keyboard, a harpsichord, strings, and many other instruments...it is quite wonderful...

So I had the songbook that my son had given me, with which to practice and I have been able to download some sheet music off the internet, many of the old and popular songs we sang in the Methodist church...soon I was going to head out to some music stores, to purchase more sheet music, as I slowly am once again, honing my skills...

So, when I saw this link to the LDS hymnbook, I went right to it...there I found many songs I immediately recognized, and many I did not...so I will busy downloading this music...it is wonderful to download old and familiar tunes, they are like old friends, but it is also exciting for me, to be downloading new songs with which to practice...

I know this was a long dragged out story, however, I just wanted you to know, why I so much appreciated, this link to the LDS hymnbook being posted...even tho I am not a Mormon, I often watch the LDS program on TV, on Sunday mornings, and often the choir may sing hymns, with which I am not at all familiar, and yet they are beautiful songs...I am hopeful, that I shall find some of them in this LDS hymnal...

So many thanks...

[Zakeet]

Thanks for that reference to the LDS hymnbook...now, I am not a Mormon...however, I am quite appreciative of your providing a link to this hymnbook

YOU'RE WELCOME

Some of the hymns written by Mormons are indeed wonderful.

One of my favorite contributors to the Mormon Hymnal is Eliza Roxy Snow. At one time, I believe, it contained as many as 17 of her poems set to music in that book. Most of them are excellent. If you like, you can listen to some of her work (and obtain sheet music) HERE and HERE. I am especially fond of the hymn Great is the Lord.

Quite frequently, as is the case with so many things related to Mormonism, there is a story behind the story, so to speak. And unfortunately, this is the case with Ms. Snow.

Eliza was a devout Mormon. At age 38, she became Joseph Smith's 14th plural wife (in addition to Smith's lawful wife, Emma). In 1842, after learning Eliza was pregnant, Emma Smith beat Eliza with a broomstick and knocked her down a flight of stairs, causing Eliza to miscarry Smith's baby.

Eliza would marry Brigham Young after Smith’s death. She died childless.

Incidentally, it is also interesting to listen for subtle (and in some cases, not-so-subtle) injections of non-Christian doctrine in Mormon hymns.

[Tennessee Nana]

Joseph’s “I’m greater than Jesus” remark was not taken out of context,
_______________________________________________

Years ago the Beatles said “We are more famous than Jesus”

Were they closet members of the mormon cult ???

Joe Smith clones/wannabes ?????

It is acceptable to be a member incognito...

[andysandmikesmom]

Thank you for your response and further links...

Yes, often there are very interesting stories behind the people who have written many of the hundreds, thousands of religious hymns that are in circulation...I always like to read the stories behind the music, as I am always interested in what motivates people, regarding the things that they do in life....

In the Methodist church, I remember that every so often, there would be a new hymnal that would be used..the old hymnals would be collected up, and new ones would be distributed....and very often certain popular old hymns would be taken out of the old hymnal, and replaced with newer or different hymns...I once asked the minister why this happened, and he remarked that often some of the older hymns were not in complete agreement with Biblical theology, and so even tho they were once popular, they were discarded from the hymnals...

One tune that I remembered at being disappointed over seeing its removal, was ‘In the Bleak MidWinter’....that has always been my favorite Christmas song of all time...and yet it was discarded, I think, in part, because it has been recognized that altho we celebrate Christmas during the winter, Christ was not born in the winter...so the basic premise of the song was really non-Christian doctrine, and that is probably why the song was eliminated from the hymnbook....

And then I noticed, it was quite difficult to even find a CD of Christmas songs, even religious Christmas songs, that even included ‘In the Bleak Midwinter’....the hubby and I used to scour all sorts of CD catalogs trying to find even one or two CD’s which included that song...however, in the past decade ‘In the Bleak Midwinter’, has had some sort of a ressurance, and I have been able to purchase many CD’s that include that song...and as a sidenote, I watched one of the Mormon Christmas programs, just this past Christmas, and they had a guest soloist, who did sing ‘In the Bleak Midwinter’, and did so in such a beautiful and haunting way, that it touched me in quite a wonderful way...

So many hymns, even old favorites from many different religions, do has aspects about them, that actually are on unsound Biblical doctrine, but because they are so well known, and so familiar, they are often still sung...on the other hand sometimes because they are on unsound Biblical doctrine, they are discarded...

Again, thank for your links...

[Elsie]

Could you find the references as to who God has caring for the people of other dispensations.

None.

Your dead 'prophet' is NOT 'caring' for you.

Nahum 1:7
The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him,

1 Peter 5:6-7
6. Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
7. Cast all your anxiety on him because He cares for you.

[Elsie]

You and others use words like

“JoeWorksSmith”

and then find it strange that we think you are condemning instead of truing to teach, as you claim.

 

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
  18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” 
 

Your concern is highly suspect.

 

Your Organization has NEVER rescinded these words and ideas.

 

 

So, if we Christians get a little testy; I'm sure you could have a bit of compassion and understand where we are coming from; right?

[Zakeet]

Joseph’s “I’m greater than Jesus” remark was not taken out of context.

YOU'RE RIGHT!

The spat you refer to began with this POST where I pointed out how Joseph was struck down shortly after he boasted he was greater than Jesus.

As you can see HERE, Sevenbak responded by asserting I took Smith's remarks completely out of context in order to destroy the faith of others, and make yourselves appear better among men.

I answered Sevenbak's charge HERE.

Essentially, things boiled down to the following positions:

Sevenbak: Smith was a humble servant of God facing intense persecution who used the Greater than Jesus statement as a metaphor to explain Gospel principles. He did this in a manner not unlike the Apostle Paul, who used similar metaphors in his letters.

Zakeet: Smith was boasting in an attempt to establish his authority and lying in order to save his butt.

Unfortunately, in my haste, I inadvertently forgot to post a link to Smith's entire sermon. I hereby rectify that omission with THIS.

I also invite the reader of this thread to read the entire sermon and decide for him/herself whether Joseph was being humble in the manner of the Apostle Paul, or answering charges of corruption and polygamy leveled against him.

[Elsie]

Would you help find it please?

No.