20 Truths about Mormons

[grandfather]

I tried to read through the many discussions here, but it was too long. I would like to comment on a couple of things. First is the discussion on mudslinging. If a thing is false it is not mudslinging to expose its errors. Doing so acrimoniously or with rancor is not helpful.

Secondly, one of the main protaganists claims he attends Mass and receives the Eucharist and also attends a Mormon service and receives a sacrament there. The Catholic Church forbids this. No one can stop you from doing it, but you are not Catholic and should not be receiving the Eucharist. You can not be both. You say you chat with the priests. Ask them. Explain what you believe or do not believe and ask them if you should be receiving the Eucharist and also participating in Mormon sacraments. If they tell you to continue to do this they are indeed apostate Catholics as Mormons claim.

Finally, the OP is sincerely concerned with seeking truth. Prior to examining particular doctrines or claims of different individuals who present themselves as conduits of truth from God, it might be helpful to understand the method for recognizing truth and falsehood. How does truth about spiritual matters come to us? Is it through a burning in the bosom, or some extra sense or feeling?

We do not know truth, that God loves us, by what we feel. We know truth by what He did.

History shows us that private revelation is unreliable. Many people claim to have had revelations from God and started different religions, who were wrong. There are false prophets. However sincere they may have been, they wre wrong. Truth can not contradict itself. God does not tell me something and then tell another person the opposite. Logic says either it is true that God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three persons with one nature, or this is false. This Trinitarian dogma is true or false, not true and false. If it is true then any relgion that denies it is false. Catholicism and Mormonism can not both be true. However we try, they are irreconcilable. Trying to be both Mormon and Catholic, or any other religion that is irreconcilable is an impossible task and such an attempt indicates that the person is very confused.

The claim of Judeo/Christianity is that there is a public revelation. God revealed truths publicly for all people. We receive them by faith, in believing that which has been revealed. I might have a religious experience and it might or might not be vaild. I have no way of knowing for certain if I hallucinated, or was visited by God or a decieving spirit. What I feel is irrelevant in determining the truth of a thing.

A truth test of private revelation is if it is consistent with the known truths that are previously revealed.

So for example if the claims of Catholicism are true and the Church is protected in her teaching, or dogma, that they will be true for all time, through the office of the pope, Peter’s successor, based on Christ’s promises, then no pope could ever proclaim a doctrine to be de fide, “of the faith”, that contradicts anything the Church has held in the past.

The same can be said of any religion. I do not know what the men who Mormonism claims are their prophets have taught. It does not matter. If they contradict one another or the founders of Mormonism, if there is inconsistency in doctrine, logically the religion is false, or it has had false prophets. If Smith was indeed a prophet and taught truth and his successors contradict him then they are apostate from the truth. How are Mormons to know the present prophet is right if past ones have been wrong?

This is one method of weighing the claims of a religion. Mormonism holds many things for which there is not evidence. These claims are not about spiritual matters, but historical. There simply is no evidence that any of it is historically true.

Entire civilizations do not disapeear without a trace. Their cities do not disappear and vanish. A people who has metal, horses, etc., do not lose their entire memory of having these things.

To an outsider it seems like believing in the tooth fairy. I realize this will taken as disrespectful and an attack, but the question is about truth. If a religion makes claims it proposes others accept, then the followers of the religion should not be upset if the evidence of those claims is honestly evaluated.

God bless all Mormons.

 

[truthsilence]

Originally Posted by BartBurk I agree. The arguments are tiresome. I don’t think Matt 7:21 or James 1:27 are important factors here. What’s important is which church (Catholic/Protestant or Mormon) is true. Catholics and Protestants may disagree on theology, but they come about their disagreements honestly because of a different interpretation of true scripture. As long as Mormon theology is based on false Mormon scripture (the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham) it has no claim to be Christian. To put forth proven false scripture as a basis for their truth puts Mormonism at a considerable disadvantage. Liars aren’t Christian and every time a Mormon testifies to the truth of those scriptures they are lying. It wouldn’t be so bad if their lies were innocent, but the fraud of these scriptures is so well established as to be irrefutable by an honest mind. That can’t be changed by an appeal to a supposed spiritual witness because any such witness has been proven false by the facts on the ground. Just based on their use of fraudulent scriptures, I would have to say Mormonism is not Christian.

You know Bart, what you said here might sound harsh to some, but I can testify that I was personally told by my bishop to get up and bear my testimony and say that I knew something was true that I did not know was true. He told me that, after I said it, I would then know what I had said was true. I didn’t take him up on his suggestion. That was going too far, in my opinion.

I have since learned this is not uncommon council for an LDS member to receive.So my point is, how do we even know how many people, when they get up there in fast and testimony meeting are really “testifying” to something they “know is true” and how many are doing it because they’ve been told they should, and that by doing so they will convince themselves also?

Maybe thats why so many of them start crying as soon as they get the words “I know this church is true” out of their mouths. Perhaps they realize they are lying to themselves and everyone else.

 

[grandfather]

Maybe thats why so many of them start crying as soon as they get the words “I know this church is true” out of their mouths. Perhaps they realize they are lying to themselves and everyone else.

That is a severe indictment. It says that you were told to lie by a religious superior and others were about matters essential to faith. It says the religion is a sham. It is not only false, but a hypocricy.

 

[truthsilence]

That is a severe indictment. It says that you were told to lie by a religious superior and others were about matters essential to faith. It says the religion is a sham. It is not only false, but a hypocricy.

I agree. That’s how I experienced it and that’s one of the many reasons why I left mormonism. However, I am not saying that there aren’t LDS who *do *have deep feelings of belief; or that they themselves don’t believe that what they are saying is true. I’m not saying everyone who gets up there is lying. I’m sure there are plenty who sincerely believe what they are saying. (even before they say it)

 

[grandfather]

I agree. That’s how I experienced it and that’s one of the many reasons why I left mormonism. However, I am not saying that there aren’t LDS who *do *have deep feelings of belief; or that they themselves don’t believe that what they are saying is true. I’m not saying everyone who gets up there is lying. I’m sure there are plenty who sincerely believe what they are saying. (even before they say it)

In our town there was a Mormon family whose mother allowed her kids to drive her very fast sports car. Four teenagers hit a pole and died going 140 miles per hour. Catholic friends of ours had kids who were best friends with the kids who crashed and they were devasted. They went to visit the faimly or the memorial services and it was a commfort to the grieving parents that they knew their children all embraced the Mormon faith. Their teenage non-Mormon friends knew that this was not true. Kids are honest with kids. They were told by their friends that they did not believe one scrap of Mormonism. They thought it was a big fantasy. God rest their souls. It is hard for me to believe that groen people would raise their families and jump through all the hoops that are required of Mormons if they do not believe it. The Mormons I have known personally seem very committed to their religion in terms of following the program, but they also are unable to present a logical coherent explanation of how the precepts of Mormonism can be true. I am not mudslinging, or attacking anyone. That simply is my impression.

 

[rmcmullan]

My opinion is pretty simplistic. I always figured that if you believed Jesus was the Son of God, died on the Cross for our sins, and rose again on the third day that pretty much made you a Christian, no matter what denomination you belonged to.

Well most reasonable people would agree with you but since it doesn’t contain a harsh condemnation of non-Catholic religions, I guess it’s not good enough! That’s what it’s all about (I used to think it was the hokey pokey!)

 

[RebeccaJ]

(I used to think it was the hokey pokey!)

Pay lay ale!!

 

[PaulDupre]

You know Bart, what you said here might sound harsh to some, but I can testify that I was personally told by my bishop to get up and bear my testimony and say that I knew something was true that I did not know was true. He told me that, after I said it, I would then know what I had said was true. I didn’t take him up on his suggestion. That was going too far, in my opinion.

I have since learned this is not uncommon council for an LDS member to receive.So my point is, how do we even know how many people, when they get up there in fast and testimony meeting are really “testifying” to something they “know is true” and how many are doing it because they’ve been told they should, and that by doing so they will convince themselves also?

Maybe thats why so many of them start crying as soon as they get the words “I know this church is true” out of their mouths. Perhaps they realize they are lying to themselves and everyone else.

When I was a missionary, the mission president and the visiting GA’s told us to bear testimony even if we didn’t have a testimony. They promised that if we bore testimony often enough, we would eventually develop a real testimony. I don’t know that it ever occurred to them that they were instructing us to lie. Lying is so integral to Mormonism that I don’t think most of them know they are doing it. But, having been born a “gentile”, it bothered me terribly.

Paul

 

[truthsilence]

When I was a missionary, the mission president and the visiting GA’s told us to bear testimony even if we didn’t have a testimony. They promised that if we bore testimony often enough, we would eventually develop a real testimony. I don’t know that it ever occurred to them that they were instructing us to lie. Lying is so integral to Mormonism that I don’t think most of them know they are doing it. But, having been born a “gentile”, it bothered me terribly.

Paul

Paul, I’m curious. Did it work? Do you think those people who didn’t have a testimony but said they did anyway, eventually did have one? Even if they did, it sure sounds like brainwashing to me.

I tried hard enough to gain a real testimony without involving other people by saying something out loud that I knew I didn’t believe. I can’t see how that would have made it any better. I think I would have felt like a complete hypocrite.

And the more I think about it, the more disturbing it is that the leaders are telling members to do it. Wow. Even telling the missionaries to do it. God have mercy on them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Paul, I’m curious. Did it work? Do you think those people who didn’t have a testimony but said they did anyway, eventually did have one? Even if they did, it sure sounds like brainwashing to me.

I tried hard enough to gain a real testimony without involving other people by saying something out loud that I knew I didn’t believe. I can’t see how that would have made it any better. I think I would have felt like a complete hypocrite.

And the more I think about it, the more disturbing it is that the leaders are telling members to do it. Wow. Even telling the missionaries to do it. God have mercy on them.

I’ve read many mormon exit stories where the exit starts with questioning everything while on a mission. Often it involves this idea of lying to oneself in order to convert another person. It doesn’t fit well with the idea that one is working for the Lord. It eats at a person’s conscience, as it should.

The sad thing is that many missionaries are truly trying their best and this crossing of truth with conscience can cause considerable feelings of guilt. Guilt for not believing what they are sure they should be believing. Guilt for believing that they must be truly sinful and beyond God’s grasp, otherwise God would be giving them the thing they need in order to believe. It isn’t like many aren’t trying their hardest. Failing God and believing that God has abandoned you for that failure is not a good feeling to be living with.

The mormon leader’s answer to this is to pray more, read more scripture, and tell people you believe when you really don’t. Say a thing enough and soon you’ll believe it.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul, I’m curious. Did it work? Do you think those people who didn’t have a testimony but said they did anyway, eventually did have one? Even if they did, it sure sounds like brainwashing to me.

I don’t think they ever got to really believe, but they did learn to pretend so effectively that it was hard to tell the difference.

Paul

 

[valient_Lucy]

One explanation given is that Joseph did not consider it to be important at that time. It was not until that he wrote the official version did he take time to write it more exactly. I am sure that if he would have related it over and over again from rote, the critics of JS would not be happy either.

How could Joseph Smith consider a vision from God to be unimportant?

 

[valient_Lucy]

that’s just silly. of course we believe in the bible. we also see that it isn’t historically anachronistic nor does it require belief in anything proven wrong. the BoM is full of things that we know didn’t exist. we know no one had metal swords or armor back then. we know they didn’t have linens or herds and flocks of European animals. they didn’t ride into battle on chariots either. The BoM does NOT have any of the things that we know existed in the americas then. where are the llamas and guinea pigs? the monkeys? what about corn that central to all pre-colombian cultures? what about the obsidian weapons? we don’t see these things in the BoM.

Thought I have never read the book of Mormon, this is one thing that makes me wonder how people can accept it as an accurate history of the Americas. Also, I’ve heard that there are references to the Israelites in the Book of Mormon as raising pigs. First of all, there were no pigs in the New World, and second, and more importantly, pigs are a complete violation of the kosher dietary laws.

If I was to ever read the Book of Mormon, I would not accept it as an accurate history of the New World unless 1 it was consistant with our knowledge of the pre-Columbian Americas and 2 it was consistant with Judaic practices mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Church is about having a good feeling.

No it isn’t. It’s about serving God. We don’t go to church or serve God to feel good any more than we drink water to feel good. We drink water to stay alive. We can, and often do, enjoy drinking water, but that’s a fringe benefit, not the purpose.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Much is not written on that website and it does take a certain slant toward the lds church. For example about polygamy. What the site doesn’t mention is the personal witnesses that many of these women received about its truthfulness. They have written such testimonies in their own words.

For example: Lucy Walker. When Joseph asked her to be a plural wife, she at first felt repulsed by the idea. But when she went to pray about this principle she ‘received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the marriage covenent called…plural marriage’

Mary Lightner had a similiar experience. When the time came that Joseph offered her plural marriage she was sceptical and did not accept his proposal. She told Joseph that she would not agree until she received a personal witness or testimony of its truthfulness. Later she went to pray for that witness and received a heavenly visitation and agreed to be sealed to Joseph.

Zina Jacobs: ‘When I heard that god had revealed the law of celestial marriage (plural marriage) that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come. I searched the scripture and by humble prayer to my heavenly father I obtained a testimony for myself that god had required that order to be established in this church.’

Of course there are more testimonies from other women but the reason why many women entered into plural marriage with Joseph was after receiving a personal testimony that the practice was sanctioned by god after he answered their prayers.

Now this is something that the other website will not tell you. And I do not get the feeling that these decisions depended on a ‘warm fuzzy’ as related by Issac for his own experiences.

The following is one source that I used for the polyandrous wives:

fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf

If God revealed to these women that polygamy was true, why did he reveal to the prophet later on that polygamy should be forbidden?

 

[isaac.madsen]

This is false. There are not a dozen personal accounts of the first vision. Do you have a source to back this up? I know of three accounts said at different times. The lds church uses the official version. I am afraid that you are mistaken in your account. This is what makes me a little fishy about your claims. ´

What exactly don’t members realize? Who wrote the book of mormon? Did JS? was his story true? Who wrote it?

It’s been awhile since I’ve been on. I thought I’d go back and clarify this. Here is a link that will help with some of the JS first vision accounts: irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Accounts.html.

I’m surprised to see that this conversation is still going fairly strong. It’s obviously a rough topic to discuss and all the answers aren’t clear.

I think I already said what members don’t realize when I said,

Most members do not realize that Joseph Smith did not pen the majority of scripture we have.

I apologize if that isn’t a clear statement, but I’m not sure how to improve upon it. As for whether or not JS wrote the Book of Mormon – well, that’s the point of the discussion anyhow isn’t it? I don’t want to make any particular judgement calls at this point because honestly I don’t know.

 

[isaac.madsen]

I tried hard enough to gain a real testimony without involving other people by saying something out loud that I knew I didn’t believe. I can’t see how that would have made it any better. I think I would have felt like a complete hypocrite.

And the more I think about it, the more disturbing it is that the leaders are telling members to do it. Wow. Even telling the missionaries to do it. God have mercy on them.

My process has been much the same. I realized as a child that the testimony my parents taught me to give in church was not the testimony that I had. You can say that by ceasing to bear my testimony in church I lost it, but that’s simply inaccurate. I continued giving talks and occasional testimonies in church up until I rejected my mission call (not sure if I’ve discussed that whole episode on this site yet).

So what is a testimony anyway? Is it being able to say the “right” words or is it simply stating exactly what you believe and nothing more? I lean to the latter of the two options. I learned a great deal as a ward missionary and I’m grateful for the experience because it taught me a lot about how religions function in general.

Many people like to attribute this “brainwashing” process to “cults,” but I submit to you that it exists in all religions, including Christianity - yes, even Catholicism. I think “brainwashing,” however, is too harsh a term for most of the instances where I’ve seen it applied in regards to religion. It’s a term used by those who are “anti” and any day I’d rather be “pro”/positive than “anti”/negative. That’s a concept I’ve learned thanks to Mother Theresa.

However, through all the problems I was having with this so-called “testimony” of mine I went through a few negative episodes. I’ll admit readily that I have read anti-Mormon literature, but I’m glad for it because it led me to really question and think about things and look for the cold hard facts behind that literature. I went through the temple already knowing exactly what to expect. It met up to my expectations completely. What I sought for was not a “good” feeling. Instead, I sought for a feeling that it was right. What I did feel was quite the opposite.

I can say for sure that LDS temples are beautiful places. Last week I had the opportunity to go on the tour of the new Rexburg, Idaho temple. It’s absolutely exquisite. However, for myself it is about as meaningful as a Catholic cathedral would be to a Mormon. I can say absolutely that it can be a very emotional and even spiritual experience to go through temples. They are designed with that in mind, obviously. A temple removes a person from the daily world and puts one in a highly symbolic and deeply moving and peaceful environment (though you can certainly read up on some less-than-peaceful aspects of it if you desire).

Thank you to those of you who have been diligent in keeping this conversation going. I think it is perhaps one of the more important ones that I’ve been involved in on this site.

 

[why_me]

It’s been awhile since I’ve been on. I thought I’d go back and clarify this. Here is a link that will help with some of the JS first vision accounts: irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Accounts.html.

I’m surprised to see that this conversation is still going fairly strong. It’s obviously a rough topic to discuss and all the answers aren’t clear.

There are only a few accounts of the first vision given by JS as your website showed. The Martin Harris statements in the last one are interesting. But he never denied what he saw. However, I might not trust his memory on that occasion. He was a young man at the time of that interview and his brain could have a fuzzy memory.

The new JS priesthood manual does contains a portion of two accounts of the first vision that on first impression contradict eachother in chapter 1. But actually I see no contradiction. Check the footnotes for the 1832 account and the 1838 account. I

 

[isaac.madsen]

There are only a few accounts of the first vision given by JS as your website showed.

Actually, this website only showed a few accounts. That doesn’t necessarily mean those were the only accounts given. I won’t particularly say that giving more than one account of something is evidence against it either. I could probably go out looking and finding thousands of things “against Catholicism” merely because of contradictory statements regarding the same topic - given by Popes. However, I’m sure the majority of Catholics are willing to admit that a Pope can lead people astray. Mormons, for the most part, are thoroughly convinced that their prophets can do no wrong and that they’ll never lead anyone astray from God’s will.

The Martin Harris statements in the last one are interesting. But he never denied what he saw. However, I might not trust his memory on that occasion. He was a young man at the time of that interview and his brain could have a fuzzy memory.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Anyone could have a “fuzzy memory” at any point in time. Why should you rule out this particular situation?

The new JS priesthood manual does contains a portion of two accounts of the first vision that on first impression contradict eachother in chapter 1. But actually I see no contradiction. Check the footnotes for the 1832 account and the 1838 account. I

I’ll look that up and get back to you soon. Right now I need to be getting back to my day job.

 

[why_me]

I’m not sure what your point is here. Anyone could have a “fuzzy memory” at any point in time. Why should you rule out this particular situation?

.

That was just my point. Memories become fuzzy. I have nothing against what Martin said in 1859. It was an old man remembering the past. He was often asked about the events that occurred at that time. He must have been tired of the questions. But he never denied his testimony in the book of mormon and what happened to him. And that says much about Martin Harris.

What makes mormonism so powerful are the 11 witnesses that never denied what happened to them. Many of these men were god-fearing and I see no reason for them to keep up the lie since quite a few left the lds church. If a person fears god, he or she would not want to take such a lie to the grave. That is only my opinion of course.

And that makes the book of mormon a difficult nut to crack.