Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To Those Who Are Investigating "Mormonism" Part Two
VictorClaveau.com ^ | Richard Packham

Posted on 04/28/2010 8:49:01 PM PDT by GonzoII

To Those Who Are Investigating "Mormonism" Part Two

Richard Packham

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.

WHAT THE MISSIONARIES WILL NOT TELL YOU

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


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: inman; lds; mormon; mormonism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last
To: SZonian

Somehow it seems you cannot distinguish or have a hart time to understand between a personal speculation and what is scripture.

I call it specualation because at the time these statements were made there was no revelation given only ones opinion.

again scripture is found only in the LDS Standard works the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenant and The Pearl of Great Price!


81 posted on 04/29/2010 7:44:50 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Thanks for remembering and I said they were the Lord’s Children and reaganuat try to smear my sincere statement.


82 posted on 04/29/2010 7:49:35 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: restornu

So now your apostles and prophets only preached their “opinion” and “personal speculation”?

And you were there to ask him if it was his “opinion” or if it was just “personal speculation”?

How do you know it was his “opinion” and not “personal speculation” Resty?

If your leaders are prone to “opinion” and “personal speculation” when speaking from the pulpit, why is it then that “when the leaders of the church have spoken, the decision has been made”?

What differentiates “revelation” from “opinion” and “personal speculation”? In other words, there is no more continuing revelation from the LdS because your apostles and prophets are only giving their “opinion” and “personal speculation”. Nothing more.

And btw, an LdS APOSTLE was quoted in that post calling the RCC the “whore of Babylon”, you can’t pretend to ignore it. You may try to deflect or to spin it as “opinion”, but at the time, he was speaking for the LdS church and they thought enough of it to keep it.


83 posted on 04/29/2010 7:56:51 PM PDT by SZonian (We began as a REPUBLIC, a nation of laws. We became a DEMOCRACY, majority rules. Next step is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

Somehow it seems you cannot distinguish or have a hart time to understand between a personal speculation aka even opinion from what is scripture.


84 posted on 04/29/2010 8:02:00 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: restornu
So what exactly does that mean to you, what does it mean when you post about a Mormon being hired or the fact the Catholic Church is working with Mormons in a charitable effort?
85 posted on 04/29/2010 8:14:59 PM PDT by ejonesie22 ( Tagline being renovated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Well, since you weren’t there you can’t know if it was speculation. You’re completely avoiding the subject.

I understand quite well what you posted.

Simple questions Resty, are your prophets speculating when they speak from the pulpit? Or is it just their “opinions”?

Why don’t you enlighten us? Since you’re trying to spin your way out of this, why don’t offer some clarification?


86 posted on 04/29/2010 8:21:26 PM PDT by SZonian (We began as a REPUBLIC, a nation of laws. We became a DEMOCRACY, majority rules. Next step is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Pretty....

:)


87 posted on 04/29/2010 8:25:37 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: restornu; SZonian
Restornu:

again scripture is found only in the LDS Standard works the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenant and The Pearl of Great Price!

Not true and you know or should know it as a knowledgeable and honest LDS member:

From the Gospel Principles:

Words of Our Living Prophets

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9).

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-15,00.html

Resty that is DIRECTLY FROM A OFFICIAL LATTER DAY SAINTS PUBLICATION!

Are you willing to go on record as disagreeing with the Gospel Principles of the LDS?

88 posted on 04/29/2010 8:27:41 PM PDT by ejonesie22 ( Tagline being renovated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: restornu; SZonian; Tennessee Nana; ejonesie22
I call it specualation because at the time these statements were made there was no revelation given only ones opinion.

(That's not what your leaders have told you):

“…their [Prophets’] discourses to the Saints, and their official writings should be considered products of their official prophetic calling and should be heeded.” (Church manual: Teachings of the Living Prophets, 1982, p. 21)

Resty, your leaders have said that once their writings become "official," those "official writings should be considered products of their official prophetic calling and should be heeded.”

Is it the word "should" used twice in the same sentence that is throwing you?

again scripture is found only in the LDS Standard works...

Again, that's not what your "prophets" have said; therefore you are misrepresenting both them and a clear Mormon church position:

“…Brigham Young has said ‘when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.’ I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible…” (Oct. 6, 1870, JoD 13:264)

“What is Scripture? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the church.” (Lds “prophet” Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, 1:186)

“There is scripture other than the standard works. Some people get the idea that the only scripture we have in the Church today is that which is contained in the four standard Church works. Now, the Lord in a revelation has spoken of something else defined scripture. [Then cites D&C 68:2-4].” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 148)

“The Lord has told us by revelation to speak as we may be moved upon by the Holy Ghost. When a man speaks as he is moved upon by the Holy Spirit what he says ins the word of the Lord; it is the mind of the Lord, it is scripture, it is the will of the Lord…” ( Wilford Woodruff, Sept. 1, 1899, Collected discourses, 1:340-341)

“…I submit that whatever comes from the voices of those who hold the authority is scripture, no matter of what they may speak.” (Of the First Presidency, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. Conference Report, April, 1944, p. 112)

“Anything and everything that affects the well-being of us Latter-day Saints or that has to do with our religion, may become part of that scripture, and when the servants of God speak to us about such things, speaking under the inspiration of the Lord, then their words become scripture.” (Ibid)

“…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophet,” 1980 devotional speeches of the year (Provo, 1981)

“Talk about revelation! You go and read the sermons of President Young, and if you do not believe now that he was a Prophet, I think after you have read them you will be sure he was…” (Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses & Writings of President George Q. Cannon 1:155)

89 posted on 04/29/2010 8:47:03 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Again there is a disclaimer in the JoD that it was never proof read and was recored by Watts who was taking notes to putting himself through journalist school.

We been over this many times!

I have even in the past posted the disclaimers when I had EXP and my gospel link worked!


90 posted on 04/29/2010 9:09:48 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“The Lord has told us by revelation to speak as we may be moved upon by the Holy Ghost. When a man speaks as he is moved upon by the Holy Spirit what he says ins the word of the Lord; it is the mind of the Lord, it is scripture, it is the will of the Lord…” ( Wilford Woodruff, Sept. 1, 1899, Collected discourses, 1:340-341)
_______________________________________________

So says the man who was still practicing polygamy when he said this...

NINE YEARS after the mormon god had told the mormons to quit doing that...


91 posted on 04/29/2010 9:17:10 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“What is Scripture? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the church.” (Lds “prophet” Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, 1:186)
___________________________________________

Like this ???

In 1958, Gustive O. Larson, Professor of Church History at the church’s Brigham Young University, acknowledged that blood atonement was actually practiced. He related the following:

“To whatever extent the preaching on blood atonement may have influenced action, it would have been in relation to Mormon disciplinary action among its own members. In point would be a verbally reported case of a Mr. Johnson in Cedar City who was found guilty of adultery with his stepdaughter by a bishop’s court and sentenced to death for atonement of his sin. According to the report of reputable eyewitnesses, judgment was executed with consent of the offender who went to his unconsecrated grave in full confidence of salvation through the shedding of his blood. Such a case, however primitive, is understandable within the meaning of the doctrine and the emotional extremes of the [Mormon] Reformation.” (Utah Historical Quarterly, January, 1958, page 62, note 39)


92 posted on 04/29/2010 9:20:42 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: restornu; SZonian
again scripture is found only in the LDS Standard works the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenant and The Pearl of Great Price!

Woops resty - did you forget about this????

Page 55 of the LDS Church manual entitled "Gospel Principles" reads, "In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders."

ONLY found - think again.

93 posted on 04/29/2010 9:50:08 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: restornu
Again there is a disclaimer in the JoD that it was never proof read and was recored by Watts who was taking notes to putting himself through journalist school.

Who authorized Watt? (Brigham Young)
Who ranks highest in the Mormon church to carry out what he assigns? (The "prophet")

Besides, who ranks higher, you or an Lds apostle? What did Lds apostle Franklin D. Richards in the JoD preface of vol. 2 reference the JoD as?

The Second Volume of the Journal of Discources needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth.

Who ranks higher you or a member of the First Presidency? What did a member reference the JoD as?

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press..." (President George Q. Cannon, JoD, preface, Vol. 8)

What about within your lifetime, Resty? What have Lds leaders said about the JoD?

Well, on March 21, 1963, the Deseret News ran an ad from Lds church leadership about the JoD. The ad read: Every Latter-day Saint should take this opportunity of owning the written words of remarkable teachings from the LDS pulpit. To the clear and vigorous exposition of Latter-day Saint doctrine is added the unmistakable authority of divine inspiration."

What more can you get Resty? Here church leaders were sqawking that the JoD is...
..."from the LDS pulpit..."
...exposes "Latter-day Saint doctrine" clearly & vigorously...
...presented with "divine inspiration...authority" -- and there's no mistake ("unmistakable" about that)

So, now you're saying, "Lds leaders, you're mistaken, after all?"

Three months after that ad appeared in the Deseret News, the assistant manager of the DesNews, Axel J. Andresen, wrote a letter about the JoD to a Mr. H.C. Combes dated June 12, 1963. In a few excerpts from that letter, Mr. Andresen said:

"...the 26 volumes of the 'JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES,'...If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about. I am sure that the individual is not anyone in authority -- certainly not among the General Authorities...May we also assure you that Deseret Book Company, being the only Church-owned book store, would not distribute literature on the Church, particularly anything as important as the Discourses of the Presidents and Apostles of the Church, without the approval of the Church..."

Resty, this DesNews Asst Mgr says before you even opened your mouth on this subject, that you "know not what" you "are talking about."

94 posted on 04/29/2010 9:50:26 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: restornu; Colofornian
Again there is a disclaimer in the JoD that it was never proof read and was recored by Watts who was taking notes to putting himself through journalist school.

And the great claim of smith was that he was uneducated???? sooooo. If the documentation is incorrect - then the lsd church should never have published it.

95 posted on 04/29/2010 9:52:16 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Wheres the LINK to “mormons and Moslems join forces” ???


96 posted on 04/29/2010 10:00:28 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla

The Church did not publish it was Watts used it as news letter to those who did not attend to earn money to go to school.

The book is called a Journal of Discourses they are not doctrines!


97 posted on 04/29/2010 10:01:11 PM PDT by restornu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Riiiggght. Nice spin but no dice. Either the JoD reflects LDS teaching/doctrine or not.

You can’t source it and then claim we can’t. Doesn’t work that way.

And I have never heard/read the Catholic church being the whore of babylon outside the LDS church.

However, it was common term for Catholicism when I was LDS and is often used in their literature.


98 posted on 04/29/2010 10:26:22 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christan - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Yep, they use the old sources when it suits them and dismiss it when it makes LDS inc look bad. They do the same with the Bible and their other so-called Scripture.

No consistency at all from the LDS.


99 posted on 04/29/2010 10:27:48 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-mormon, now Christan - "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: restornu; Godzilla

The ward teacher’s message for June 1945 admonished Mormons to let the leaders do the thinking:

Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the “prophets, seers, or revelators” of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy.... Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the general authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right.... He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to “do their own thinking.”...

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. (Deseret News, Church Section, May 26, 1945, page 51)


100 posted on 04/29/2010 10:29:58 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson