Atheoligical Tendency ~Open~

Mormons focus on accessible, social aspects of their religion. Although the Mormon system of doctrine is genuinely attractive to many of its members, many have argued that the primary "glue" of Mormonism is the heritage, culture, and family ties, not the doctrine and theology.

In other words, the typical allegiance to the Mormon organization primarily stems from something other than doctrinal concerns. The average Mormon sitting in a pew does not care how or why their religion works, they only care that it works for them.

They are not concerned with the real character of Joseph Smith or how the LDS scriptures coincide with biblical teachings. A common element often overlooked when Christians share their faith with Latter-day Saints is that many Mormons are not Mormon merely for doctrinal reasons. This view of not being concerned with theology is considered to be atheological. If a person does not care about their theology, they miss the importance of rooting their entire life in the true knowledge of God and a coherent, rational, theological worldview.

A person's relationship with God is built on the foundation of what one believes about God and what it means to be right with God. This is the most important determining factor in shaping the way a person lives.

An atheological person does not seriously reflect on their own foundational worldview assumptions (e.g., what is truth, who is God, does this matter?), nor do they see how doing so would be relevant to everyday life.

South Park, a fictional, satirical cartoon, depicted a Mormon named "Gary" with the following words:

"Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense. And maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don’t care if Joseph Smith made it all up. Because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this town might think that’s stupid, I still choose to believe in it."

Grey Echols, a Mormon, writes the following in a review of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus:

"This is a well written book which manages to not push an 'anti-Mormon' agenda. However as an LDS I do not think others should read it. Why? Because it could destroy your faith in the church. I am not trying to be clever. If you enjoy all of the good things the church has brought into your life, do you care where it came from?

No other church has so short a history that it can be examined so closely by science. Otherwise we would find that they are all created on the backs of con-artist. I am willing to bet every religion was founded by a fraud. So who cares. Does religion bring us together? Does it bond a nation, a town, a family? If so then let it be.

The truth is fleeting, and life is short. If believing in Santa makes children smile then believing in God makes adults smile. When children find out Santa isn't real, you kill a certain spark you can never get back. When you expose a church as a fraud, you kill a little spark in all of us."

Joe Smith:

... thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seeth that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. ... because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 13:26-29)."

Jesus Christ:

"Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

One of these two is a liar, and false prophet........

Another post from the same website:

"I was reflecting last night on the mormon concept of baptism and what it all means. They talk of the cleansing that comes from the blood of Christ. Now I not only believed, but taught that stuff for years. I thought I had a very good handle on it but now I am a bit confused.

In classical times on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would conduct a ceremony that would transfer the communities sins of omission to the scape goat. With the other offerings available in the individual for their sins they could become clean in the sight of G_d.

The one Yeshua (Jesus) then comes and is said to take on the role of the Suffering Messiah, taking on the part of that one great sacrifice for all mankind's benefit. The mormon view even claims that the non-accountable children's sins are covered by this sacrifice, as do the sins of those who repent, etc. We can haggle over faith vs. works, but I think very few would argue that it is still via the grace of Jesus that this still happens and all the other noise is just how conditional the "price" that was paid is. And mormonism claims to be that one and only true church of Jesus Christ.

Now add in the endowment. The initiatory now throws in another additional layer. Faithfulness is now required "that through your faithfulness you may become clean" and from what? "The blood and sins of this generation." It sounds to me that this cleansing is pretty much identical to the scapegoat offering. But then what of the baptism and atonement? Has not the Savior paid for those sins already? Why must we become saviors to ourselves by struggling through an ordeal of sacrifice (as it turns out is meant by faithfulness because of all the arbitrary requirements)? Keeping the commandments is no longer a choice, as a token of love, devotion, and respect for the Lord, his teachings, and his sacrifice; and an element of worship. It becomes a kind of contest for the aggressive personalities to show who now is the best savior of themselves, the most worthy."

Show me the contradictions from the accounts written by Br. Joseph, not the second hand ones.

Fine, I guess that throws out the official account doesn’t it hmmmmmm?

Let us take a look at two accounts that clearly had smiths influence in writing and compare to the official one. Source locations with links to images of the actual documents are here:

http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html – non mormon site
http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm - mormon site

1832 - History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith
Principle elements of account:
Smith started serious study of the scriptures at age 12
Felt convicted of sins
Determined all churches were wrong
No mention of a revival
Omits money-digging context
Age 15 (in his 16th year)
Location not clear
Vision of the Savior – Jesus Christ (has a “Christian experience”)
Told his sins were forgiven. Fell back into transgression.
At age 17 he again prayed and an angel appeared telling him about the plates and announced again he was forgiven of his sins.

1834-35 — Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3.
Principle elements of the account:
A revival stirred in him a desire to “know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion.”
Desired to know if a Supreme being did exist, and wanted manifestation that his sins were forgiven.
Age 17 (1823)
He was in his bedroom
Vision of an angel
Told sins were forgiven and Lord would do a work through him
Told about gold plates and their location

1838 — This account became the official version, now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:7-20. Special note again – this account was NOT written by Smith nor had his input.
Principle elements of the account:
A local revival caused him to wonder which church was right, it had never occurred to him all were wrong
Age 14 (1820)
He was in a grove
Had a vision of two personages
One identifies the other as his son (by implication God the Father and Jesus, but not explicitly stated)
Was told all churches are wrong and is to join none of them
Claimed to come under great persecution
Fell into all kinds of temptations
Three years later has vision of an angel

Internal Contradiction #1 – Age, was it 14, 15 or 17?

Internal Contradiction #2 – Who/what visited him – an angel, Jesus only, Jesus and the Father?

Internal Contradiction #3 – Regarding other churches, did he determine all by himself they were wrong (figured it out on his own) or was he told they were wrong (never having occurred to him prior to that).

Internal Contradiction #4 – Location bedroom or woods?

Internal Contradiction #5 – All three reference a visitation when 17, however, the 1834-35 account would not make sense that he was seeking proof of the existence of God – IF - the official version or the 1832 version are correct and he had a visitation when he was younger.

External Contradiction #1 – There was no 1820 revivals taking place, but there were revivals in 1823-24 time frame (invalidates the 1838 official version)

External Contradiction #2 – Joseph Smith applied for membership in the Methodist church in 1828 – yet it and all other Christian churches were supposedly condemned and he was ordered not to join any of them, according to the vision accounts.

External Contradiction #3 – In 1832 smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 21-22. Joseph did not even claim to have the Priesthood in 1820, and the Doctrine and Covenants clearly says that without the Priesthood no man can see God and live.

External Contradiction #4 – There is no evidence of any persecution of smith for his vision, either in local news accounts or even his mothers story about the events of the period.

External Contradiction #5 – It is strange that Joseph can recall the exact date of the first visit by Moroni (September 21, 1823), yet he cannot recall the date of his vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ.

While the internal contradictions condemn the story adequately enough, the external contradictions put the nails in the coffin. Remember, since you hold to first hand accounts, the official account doe not meet that standard and the handwritten account by Smith contradicts it too. And before the second hand accounts (told by smith to another and published) – much of the official church history is based upon these second and even third hand accounts.

As far as Paul’s accounts are concerned, I see nothing that serves as a contradiction even remotely resembling the magnitude of the clear contradictions of smiths accounts.

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.