The case of the anti-Mormons

Viewers of tonight's season premiere of "History Detectives" will learn that a book about the horrors of "Female Life Among the Mormons" is a work of fiction.

"History Detectives" (8 p.m., Ch. 7) is a fascinating series in which historical objects are examined to determine if they're authentic. (Tonight's other two segments feature a World War II diary and a coin shot by Annie Oakley.)

In the case of the 1856 book about the horrors of Mormon polygamy, Marcie Waterman Murray of Stanfordville, N.Y., bought it at an auction and wants to know who wrote it. (There's no author listed.)

"I was very moved by this book. It really stayed with me a long time. I've become fascinated with it," Murray says.

What stayed with her is a barbaric account, written in the first person, of a young woman who married a Mormon elder in New York and traveled to Utah with Brigham Young. She suffered the "abominations" of polygamy and the "degradation it imposes on females."

That includes one account of a misbehaving wife who was stripped nude, tied to a tree and whipped until "blood ran to the ground."

"You don't know if this is a real book. You don't know if it's really from the 19th century. You don't know what it is," Zuberi said in a phone interview with the Deseret News. "But it is a document which definitely offers a skewed view toward marriage among Mormons.

"It puts (women) on the level of being slaves. You can take it as something that's either laughable, looking at it today, or something that really provided fuel for those who were anti-Mormon back in the 19th century."

Without detailing the entire episode, Zuberi quickly discovers that this is not a genuine history. Among other things, it purports to tell the story of Joseph Smith's death and gets it flat-out wrong.

And the show's conclusions are clear. "It seems that our book is little more than pulp fiction, and shot through with historical errors," Zuberi says in the show.

The segment briefly outlines 19th-century LDS history, including the effort to demonize Mormons.

"Someone could write it today in order to kind of speak badly of the Mormons," Zuberi said. "Someone could've written it then to speak badly of the Mormons. And that's our task — to find out."

He does his best to track down the author, including using "some high-tech stuff to determine who wrote the book and determine the authenticity or lack thereof."

In 21st-century Utah, "Female Life Among the Mormons" seems silly, even campy. But, obviously, the book's owner thought — perhaps hoped — it was genuine.

Upon learning that it's fiction, she gasps and says, "I'm actually a little disappointed. But I'm glad to know the truth."

But it certainly seemed as if she would've been more glad if Mormon women really had been tied to trees and whipped.

So you ignored it initially, very good I can accept and probably should have expected that.

However even better, I really love this from you:

Try just this once to pay attention. If you will look at the post, you will find that it WAS NOT MY anti-Catholic 'diatribe' -- nor was it written by a Mormon. If it is 'anti-Catholic,' blame it on the Roman Catholic church, not me; it's their history,; they made it.

I never meant to imply you or any other mormon wrote it, but you did post, basically in it's entirety, the article here to make some point, so you must support it's contentions, and take ownership of it's ideas in support of your "arguments" as they are.

But your second statement there, well it is a good one. Would you be willing to say the same about the mormon article from the same source, the same author you chose to back your contentions? I believe it would go something like this:

If it is 'anti-mormon,' blame it on the Mormons, not me; it's their history,; they made it.

Are you willing to take ownership of that idea, taking your use of the source to it's logical conclusion, or shall we see, yet once again, the hypocrisy of cherry picking, the twisting that is such an art form for the LDS sales team. I know I stand by it with the factual post made here by me and others directly from mormon/LDS documents and sources, for it is indeed their history, they indeed did make it...

BTW, quick update, I have it on very good and direct authority the PR guys as the LDS are trying to slip more and more into mainstream Christianity, including a large advertising effort, and the desire to get away from the term mormon and LDS and be known ads 'The Church of Jesus Christ" or just "The Church". May want to clear you pitches and attacks with the new goals...

And if you have low expectations of me, I am doubly blessed to receive such high praise....

Well F, problem is I don't know which mormon doctrine on the Holy Spirit is the real doctine. Here you have a spirit child without going through the ordinances or celestial marriage becoming a god without a body, taught to be either a mind or a spirit enitity then being separated from the Holy Ghost! Which teaching is real so I know which one to be deceptive with!

++++++++++++++++++++++=
YOU BASE YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE IDEA THAT THE HOLEY SPIRIT WILL NOT BE BORN TO THIS LIFE IN THE FUTURE.

You have not died yet, but that is a forgone fact. We all die at the end of this life.

It is an untrue idea, and makes all your argument of no value. It looks like you are following someone that is deceiving you about our teachings.

Jesus was part of the God Head before his earth life, as was recorded in the New Testament.

As for what you are saying that Talmage said in the ‘Articles of Faith’.

If you had studied th original text, instead of relying on someone else to tell you what it says, you would know that Talmage was talking about other religions, not the LDS teachings.

(I was taught that it was improper to use a reference that was lifted from another writing, unless you also reference the article the reference came from)

SO YOU CAN READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICAL, HERE IS PAGE 42 OF ‘THE ARTICALS OF FAITH’. I have included the parts of pages 41 and 43 that begin and end the ideas on page 42.

“Idolatry and Atheism—

From the abundant evidence of the existence of Deity, the idea of which is so generally held by the human family, there seems to be little ground on which man may rationally assert and maintain a disbelief in God; and, in view of the many proofs of the benignant nature of the divine attributes, there ought to be little tendency to turn aside after false and unworthy objects of worship. Yet the history of the race shows that theism, which is the doctrine of belief in and acceptance of God, is opposed by many varieties of atheism; and that man is prone to belie his claim as a creature of reason, and to offer his worship at idolatrous shrines. Atheism is probably a development of later times, while idolatry asserted itself as one of the early sins of the race. Even at the time of Israel's exodus from Egypt, God deemed it proper to command by statute, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” yet even while He wrote those words on the stony tablets, His people were defiling themselves before the golden calf they had fashioned after the pattern of an Egyptian idol.

Man possesses an instinct for worship; he craves and will find some object of adoration. When he fell into the darkness of persistent transgression, and forgot the author of his being and the God of his fathers, he sought for other deities. Some came to regard the sun as the type of the supreme, and before that luminary they prostrated themselves in supplication. Others selected for adoration earthly phenomena; they marveled over the mystery of fire, and worshiped the flame. Some saw, or thought they saw, the emblem of the pure and the good in water, and they rendered their devotions by running streams. Others, awed into reverence by the grandeur of towering mountains, repaired to these natural temples and worshiped the altar instead of Him by whose power it had been raised. Another class, more strongly imbued with a reverence for the emblematic, sought to create for themselves artificial objects of adoration. They made images by hewing uncouth figures from tree trunks, and chiseling strange forms in stone, and to these they bowed.

Idolatrous practises in some of their phases came to be associated with rites of horrible cruelties, as in the custom of sacrificing children to Moloch, and, among the Hindoos, to the Ganges; as also in the slaughter of human beings under Druidical tyranny. The gods that human-kind have set up for themselves are heartless, pitiless, cruel.

Atheism is the denial of the existence of God; in a milder form it may consist in ignoring Deity. But the professed atheist, in common with his believing fellow mortals, is subject to man's universal passion for worship; though he refuses to acknowledge the true and living God, he consciously or unconsciously deifies some law, some principle, some attribute of the human soul, or perchance some material creation; and to this he turns, to seek a semblance of the comfort that the believer finds in rich abundance through prayer addressed to his Father and God. I doubt the existence of a thorough atheist—one who with the sincerity of a settled conviction denies in his heart the existence of an intelligent and supreme power.

The idea of God is an inherent characteristic of the human soul. The philosopher recognizes the necessity of such in his theories of being. He may shrink from the open acknowledgment of a personal Deity, yet he assumes the existence of a governing power, of a great unknown, of the unknowable, the illimitable, the unconscious. Oh, man of learning though not of wisdom, why reject the privileges extended to you by the omnipotent, omniscient Being to whom you owe your life, yet whose name you will not acknowledge? No mortal can approach Him while contemplating His perfections and might with aught but awe and reverence; regarding Him only as Creator and God, we are abashed in thought of Him; but He has given us the right to approach Him as His children, and to call upon Him by the name of Father. Even the atheist feels, in the more solemn moments of his life, a yearning of the soul toward a spiritual Parent, as naturally as his human affections turn toward the father who gave him mortal life. The atheism of today is but a species of paganism after all.

Sectarian View of the Godhead—

The consistent, simple, and authentic doctrine respecting the character and attributes of God, such as was taught by Christ and the apostles, gave way as revelation ceased and as the darkness incident to the absence of divine authority fell upon the world, after the apostles and the Priesthood had been driven from the earth; and in its place appeared numerous theories and dogmas of men, many of which are utterly incomprehensible in their inconsistency and mysticism.

In the year 325, the Council of Nice was convened by the emperor Constantine, who sought through this body to secure a declaration of Christian belief that would be received as authoritative, and be the means of arresting the increasing dissension incident to the prevalent disagreement regarding the nature of the Godhead and other theological subjects. The Council condemned some of the theories then current, including that of Arius, which asserted that the Son was created by the Father, and therefore could not be coeternal with the Father. The Council promulgated what is known as the Nicene Creed; and this was followed in time by the Athanasian Creed over which, however, controversy has arisen as to authorship. The creed follows: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.” It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as few.

The Church of England teaches the present orthodox view of God as follows: “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.” The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God's person and attributes, as shown by the citations already made.

We affirm that to deny the materiality of God's person is to deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole, and an immaterial body cannot exist. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of “body, parts, or passions,” as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation.”

James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 41 - 43.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.