To Those Who Are Investigating "Mormonism" Part Two

If you are investigating Mormonism (the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "LDS Church"), you are probably studying it in private meetings in your home with missionaries from that church.

Until recently, the missionaries were required to present Mormonism in six "discussions", which were a series of memorized sales talks. They are now encouraged simply to "follow the spirit" in their presentations. The basic message and approach, however, is still essentially the same. A thorough, thoughtful and balanced discussion of each of the six "official" lessons as the missionaries formerly presented them to investigators is at http://www.lds4u.com, together with the techniques and strategies which the missionaries are instructed to use. (The actual texts of the discussions were also on this site at one time, but the Mormon church threatened the webmaster with a lawsuit, and he removed them; click on "next" at each window to read a summary and commentary.)

Here is a summary of important facts about the Mormon church, its doctrine, and its history that the missionaries will probably not tell you. We are not suggesting that they are intentionally deceiving you --most of the young Mormons serving missions for the church are not well educated in the history of the church or in modern critical studies of the church. They probably do not know the all the facts themselves. They have been trained, however, to give investigators "milk before meat," that is, to postpone revealing anything at all that might make an investigator hesitant, even if it is true. But you should be aware of these facts before you commit yourself.

Each of the following facts has been substantiated by thorough historical scholarship. And this list is by no means exhaustive!

The "First Vision" story in the form presented to you was unknown until 1838, eighteen years after its alleged occurrence and almost ten years after Smith had begun his missionary efforts. The oldest (but quite different) version of the vision is in Smith's own handwriting, dating from about 1832 (still at least eleven years afterwards), and says that only one personage, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. It also mentions nothing about a revival. It also contradicts the later account as to whether Smith had already decided that no church was true. Still a third version of this event is recorded as a recollection in Smith's diary, fifteen years after the alleged vision, where one unidentified "personage" appeared, then another, with a message implying that neither was the Son. They were accompanied by many "angels," which are not mentioned in the official version you have been told about. Which version is correct, if any? Why was this event, now said by the church to be so important, unknown for so long?

Careful study of the religious history of the locale where Smith lived in 1820 casts doubt on whether there actually was such an extensive revival that year as Smith and his family later described as associated with the "First Vision." The revivals in 1817 and 1824 better fit what Smith described later.

In 1828, eight years after he supposedly had been told by God himself to join no church, Smith applied for membership in a local Methodist church. Other members of his family had joined the Presbyterians.

Contemporaries of Smith consistently described him as something of a confidence man, whose chief source of income was hiring out to local farmers to help them find buried treasure by the use of folk magic and "seer stones." Smith was actually tried in 1826 on a charge of money-digging. It is interesting that none of his critics seemed to be aware of his claim to have been visited by God in 1820, even though in his 1838 account he claimed that he had suffered "great persecution" for telling people of his vision.

The only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Smith (many of them related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. No disinterested third party was ever allowed to examine them. They were retrieved by the angel at some unrecorded point. Most of the witnesses later abandoned Smith and left his movement. Smith then called them "liars."

Smith produced most of the "translation" not by reading the plates through the Urim and Thummim (described as a pair of sacred spectacles), but by gazing at the same "seer stone" he had used for treasure hunting. He would place the stone into his hat, and then cover his face with it. For much of the time he was dictating, the gold plates were not even present, but in a hiding place.

The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormondescribes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormonmention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormonis an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormonpresents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.

The people of the Book of Mormonwere supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormonthere is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.

Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.

Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormoncontained the "fulness of the gospel." However, its teaching on many doctrinal subjects has been ignored or contradicted by the present LDS church, and many doctrines now said by the church to be essential are not even mentioned there. Examples are the church's position on the nature of God, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, polygamy, Hell, priesthood, secret organizations, the nature of Heaven and salvation, temples, proxy ordinances for the dead, and many other matters.

Many of the basic historical notions found in the Book of Mormon had appeared in print already in 1825, just two years before Smith began producing the Book of Mormon, in a book called View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (no relation) and published just a few miles from where Joseph Smith lived. A careful study of this obscure book led one LDS church official (the historian B. H. Roberts, 1857-1933) to confess that the evidence tended to show that the Book of Mormonwas not an ancient record, but concocted by Joseph Smith himself, based on ideas he had read in the earlier book.

The Evangelization Station
P.O. Box 267
Angels Camp, California, 95222, USA
Telephone: 209-728-5598
E-mail: evangelization@earthlink.net
www.evangelizationstation.com
Pamphlet 529

The LDS still think of them as the great and abominable church.

***

Stop with old world views which are not current today many faiths have received a clearer understandings

It was not just the LDS in the early 19 Century many faiths believed in the folk lore!

As stated taht many converts also bring with them bagage

Early Saints brought their world views with them.

The same thing, of course, continues to happen today.

Excerpt

Why, some might ask, would some Latter-day Saints, even general authorities, misinterpret the Book of Mormon’s meaning of the “great and abominable church”? As I’ve noted in other writings, the Church was not restored in a cultural vacuum.

Early Saints brought their world views with them.

The same thing, of course, continues to happen today.

In the early days of the Restored Church many Protestants were anti-Catholic and believed that the Roman Catholic Church was the “mother of harlots and abominations” mentioned by John in his Revelation (17:5).

Anti-Catholic articles were printed in major frontier newspapers, Catholics were at times treated to violence, and Catholic doctrines were referred to as “‘repugnant’” and “‘blasphemous.’”

Prior to the early nineteenth century, Roman Catholicism “had been branded as an illegal form of worship in New York.

Members of this communion were not permitted to proselyte, erect cathedrals, nor celebrate public Mass.” (Backman, 59.)

Anti-Catholicism is as old as the Reformation. Martin Luther himself referred to the popes collectively as the “‘whore of the devil.’” (Vogel, 59 and Wright, 2:568.) Adam Clarke’s popular nineteenth-century Bible commentary equated the “great whore that sitteth upon many waters” (Rev. 17:1) with the Catholic Church. (Vogel, 60.)

Some early nineteenth-century Protestant writings referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “‘the whore’” and the “‘mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.’” (Ibid.) Yet other religious figures of the day believed that not only were Catholics part of the “the whore,” but so were competing Protestants. (Ibid., 61.) From comments of early Latter-day Saints it becomes obvious that the Saints were familiar with such anti-Catholic rhetoric.

In 1835, for instance, Oliver Cowdery mentioned that several Protestant groups including Baptists and Presbyterians referred to the Catholic Church as “‘the Beast.’” (Ibid., 60.) George Q. Cannon (George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses [June 11, 1871], 14:167), Orson Pratt (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses [January 25, 1874], 16:347), John Taylor (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses [October 8, 1882], 23:262), as well as articles in the Messenger and Advocate (3:9, 513), and the Times and Seasons (3:15, 815 and 4:10, 149), all pointed out that Protestants referred to the Catholic Church as the “mother of harlots.”

Like some of these nineteenth-century religious leaders, several early Saints noted that the children (Protestants) of the “mother of harlots” were as corrupt as the parent organization. (Orson Pratt [1850], 44.) A bad tree, these Saints argued, produces bad branches. (Times and Seasons, 3:15

“Did I build on any other man’s foundation?” Joseph once asked. “I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain....” (HC, 6:479).

“There is some truth in all religions, in heathendom as well as in Christendom,” observed Orson Whitney. “And it is the truth in those systems that perpetuates them, not the errors with which the truth is mixed.

There are millions of good, honest people all over the world, in all the churches, but they have not the fulness of the Gospel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its one depository. This is the claim we make.

This is the ‘Mormon’ attitude.” (Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report [October 1929], 29.) “Although I was going to say I am not a Universalist,” John Taylor once remarked, “but I am, and I am also a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic, and a Methodist, in short, I believe in every true principle that is imbibed by any person or sect, and reject the false.

If there is any truth in heaven, earth, or hell, I want to embrace it, I care not what shape it comes in to me, who brings it, or who believes in it, whether it is popular or unpopular. Truth, eternal truth, I wish to float in and enjoy.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 1:155.)

In a 1909 Conference, Charles Callis gave a good overview of the LDS view of other churches (especially in regards to the early days of the restored church) when he said:

Some people say, “Is not the religion of my father and mother good enough for me? They were good people, and if I can live to be as good as my father and mother, I am satisfied.” But, in that, men and women deceive themselves. Our fathers and mothers lived up to the best light they had before the gospel was restored.

They obeyed God to the best of their ability, when they lived up to the measure of truth He gave unto them. But the Lord in this day hath spoken unto the people and commanded that they should obey the fullness of the everlasting gospel. (Charles A. Callis., Conference Report [April 1909], 19.)

In conclusion, while some – though not all – Latter-day Saints through the years have connected the Book of Mormon’s “great and abominable church” to Roman Catholicism (just as many Protestants read the same thing into John’s “mother of harlots”), when we read what the text (1 Nephi) actually says (exegesis) rather than what we read into the text (eisegis), we find that the Book of Mormon (and hence official LDS doctrine) is not anti-Catholic.

We also understand, in the context of the times, that early Latter-day Saints understood that while other faiths were apostate, they nevertheless were often inspired and embraced many truths. The Saints offered such believers added truths.

1 At times LDS missionaries have referred to the Catholic Church as the “GA” (pronounced gee-ay) – an acronym for “Great and Abominable.” Use of acronyms among LDS missionaries is not limited to the Catholic Church.

Some missionaries refer to those belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses as jay-dubs (short for JW’s). Even within the Church such acronyms are often used by missionaries or members. “GA,” for example, can also refer to a “general authority” (which can make things ironically confusing), and “SP” for “stake president,” “MP” for “mission president,” and so on.

2 Methodist leader Roger Williams, for instance, believed that the Church of England was “‘a daughter... of the great whore of Rome.’” (See Vogel, 61.)

Michael R. Ash

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.