20 Truths about Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter isaac.madsen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, I’m sure the majority of Catholics are willing to admit that a Pope can lead people astray.
Not in matters of Faith and Morals. The Holy Spirit will not permit the Pope to teach error in matters of Faith and Morals. It is not because every Pope is an especially intelligent or virtuous man (though most of them have been), but because Jesus promised it. That is the charism of infallibility.

God bless you,
Paul
 
Not in matters of Faith and Morals. The Holy Spirit will not permit the Pope to teach error in matters of Faith and Morals. It is not because every Pope is an especially intelligent or virtuous man (though most of them have been), but because Jesus promised it. That is the charism of infallibility.

God bless you,
Paul
True enough. Thanks for clarifying! I have never read of a Pope showing either of those faults except in showing a bad example. I would say the same thing of Mormon prophets except that I do happen to find fault in quite a few of the religious concepts that simply don’t match up either with history or with the Bible, not to mention some of the examples of negative practices under both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young especially.

I have a great respect for the majority of the Papal bishops I’ve studied, though each have their weaknesses in regard to spirituality - such is to be expected; they’re human. The same is true of the Mormon prophets. Whether or not they are actually prophets (per se) is something for personal reflection and prayer. I feel that I have found my answer. Many others feel they have an opposite answer from God. That is probably the most complicated piece of the puzzle.
 
True enough. Thanks for clarifying! I have never read of a Pope showing either of those faults except in showing a bad example. I would say the same thing of Mormon prophets except that I do happen to find fault in quite a few of the religious concepts that simply don’t match up either with history or with the Bible, not to mention some of the examples of negative practices under both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young especially.

I have a great respect for the majority of the Papal bishops I’ve studied, though each have their weaknesses in regard to spirituality - such is to be expected; they’re human. The same is true of the Mormon prophets. Whether or not they are actually prophets (per se) is something for personal reflection and prayer. I feel that I have found my answer. Many others feel they have an opposite answer from God. That is probably the most complicated piece of the puzzle.
Isaac,

Here is a brief explanation of the Catholic understanding of the charism the pope enjoys. It originates from scritpture whree we see Jesus makes a promise to Peter. Jesus tells Peter that He gives him the keys to the kingdom. Jesus is a king. He goes away with the promise that He will return. In the Old Testament
when the King went away on some mission he entrusted his prime minister in charge of the kingdom while he was gone. The insignia worn by the prime minister that was symbolic of his authority to act on behalf of the king was a chain around his neck with keys. So we see Jesus is entrusting Peter to act in His stead. He is given the authority to be the prime (first) minsiter (servant). We hear Jesus tell Peter that He will bind in heaven what Peter binds on earth. He also tells His apostles He will not leave them orphaned. He says there is much He would like to tell them, but they can not bear it yet. He says He will be withj therm until the end of time and send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

Time has not ended. They are all dead. Who is He with and leading into ALL truth? He tells them to go to all nations and teach whatever He taught them.

These promises in themselves have a bearing on the Mormon notion that there was an apostacy. First, the history of controversies and disputes are well recorded from the very beginning. If there was an apostacy there has to be something in the historical record that it happened. The Church had to have taught and believe X and then denied the belief. There is no evidence of this in the historical record of doctrinal development.

As there are no evidences that would prove the widespread civilization Mormons claimn existed in North America, it has vanished without a trace, so there are no historical proofs of an apostacy.

If one did occur then the promises Jesus made in the Bible are false. He promiese to protect the truths of the faith for all time, in every century of the past and all to come. His Church can never believe lies.

This protection is through the office of Peter the bishop of Rome. While there have been popes who gave scandal, lived wicked lives they can never teach false doctrine, formally declaring a dogma on an article of faith or moral teaching. If this is true then all the popes who ever lived have to also be consistent in their teaching. The Church can not believe Jesus was born of a virgin and then change its story. Or, the Church can not teach that polygamy is acceptable and then condemn it, or polygamy is condemned and then accept it. If the Church ever changes her beliefs that are held dogmatically the Church is false.

Pope John Paul II in all his years made only one statement from the chair of Peter. He said that the Church has no power to ordain women. He said this to settle a controversy of our age. The pope speaks as an authority, but is normally only stating his opinion, which is not considered infallible.

So by the same standard if one Mormon prophet speaks for God and takes a position on the Mormon faith or moral teaching and the next guy teaches the opposite there is a problem. Truth does not change. The moral law does not change. Mormons may not have a problem with their prophet changing what his predecessor said, but they should. If what you believed in the past about your faith is denied that means something else can change next year. How do you know what you believe today is true if what your predecessors believed was false? We need an unchanging truth, faith, understanding of moral law, beliefs about life and death and heaven and hell. We have Christ’s promises that we will, forever.
 
Isaac, here is a good book on authorship of the book of Mormon:
“Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon” by Howard Davis, Wayne Cowdrey (!) , Walter Martin

In addition, the Mormon Studies website, hosted by Ted Chandler, contains much more information.

I think it has really been proven that Joseph did not write the book, and that his visions were confabulations. In addition, the witnesses’ testimony may have been about an authentic native document which was mangled by racists. This is the reason why they did not recant their testimonies, but did detach themselves from Mormonism. Those honest believers saw SOMETHING, but it was not the final product.
 
Those honest believers saw SOMETHING, but it was not the final product.
Assuming that there was some kind of extraordinary event where Smith had a vision or encounter with a spiritual personage, even if this were true, and there were no contradictions and confusion about what really happened, there is no way of determining that it was of God other than examining the claims of Mormonism. Are they consistent with historical evidence? Is there evidence of the civilizations with metals, etc. Is there evidence of an apostacy? There is historical evidence of every controversy the Church has faced, the heresies, theological disputes, etc. Which one was the one the Church apostiacized under? If there was one, in the second century say, then the opposing argument should mirror Mormon beliefs and doctrines. It is not to be found. If Smith had an experience it could not have been divine unless the story holds up.
 
Assuming that there was some kind of extraordinary event where Smith had a vision or encounter with a spiritual personage,

I do not believe that JS experienced any kind of supernatural event

Are they consistent with historical evidence?

No, only partially, with the Vikings.

Is there evidence of the civilizations with metals, etc.

Only with the Vikings

Is there evidence of an apostacy?

The people of the settlements on Greenland could have Christianized, then reverted.

If Smith had an experience it could not have been divine unless the story holds up.

Perhaps Satanic?? :eek: The only story that holds up is that the Vikings were here, and there are parallels in the BOM.
Do you understand now? 😃
 
Isaac, here is a good book on authorship of the book of Mormon:
“Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon” by Howard Davis, Wayne Cowdrey (!) , Walter Martin

In addition, the Mormon Studies website, hosted by Ted Chandler, contains much more information.

I think it has really been proven that Joseph did not write the book, and that his visions were confabulations.
Wow! I’ll have to look into that. I’ll also be coming into possession of a book written by an author over the past ten years. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you anything about the author or his book yet for privacy reasons (as it’s not published and it covers some very delicate topics), but when I receive it I’ll definitely make it a topic of discussion on this site.
 
Isaac,

If you haven’t read this then please do. You will find it very enlightening. I think it proves that Sidney Rigdon was the principle author of the Book of Mormon (at least the religious parts).

God bless you,
Paul
 
Isaac,

If you haven’t read this then please do. You will find it very enlightening. I think it proves that Sidney Rigdon was the principle author of the Book of Mormon (at least the religious parts).

God bless you,
Paul
I recently read the following from an ex-Mormon named Bob McCue on another discussion group:

“I am aware, for example, of studies occurring right now at *** [well known US university] that will lead to a new kind of word pattern analysis of the Book of Mormon, and will point to Sydney Rigdon as its primary author. This research will be published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not have the expertise to critique this, but from what I’ve read about it I think it will at the minimum cause additional scholarship and will increase the academic understanding of the Book of Mormon. The hypothesis underlying this work is that Rigdon sincerely believed in the need to reform Christianity’s direction. He accordingly borrowed from Ethan Smith, Solomon Spaulding and others to create a pseudepigrapha that would move Christianity in the direction he thought it should go. He told what he regarded as a noble lie in that regard, and recruited J. Smith to help him do so. Smith probably bought into the noble lie aspect of the project, and likely had his own reasons for participating as well in light of his straightened financial circumstances and history as a treasure seeker for hire. His talents in this regard are what attracted Rigdon’s attention. There is now evidence of pre-Book of Mormon contact between Ridgon and Smith. Again, I don’t profess to be expert in this area. I lost interest in it long ago. I am barely aware of the developments in this area of Mormon-related scholarship.”

This is from a letter McCue wrote to a church leader asking him to reread and reconsider the Book of Mormon. He has blocked out the university in his public statement, but it will be interesting to see what comes of this. I don’t believe the pre-Book of Mormon contact between Smith and Rigdon has been well-established at this point, but there are certainly those who claimed to have seen Ridgon and Smith together prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

His entire letter can be found here:

thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=3644

McCue is now a self-declared agnostic.
 
I recently read the following from an ex-Mormon named Bob McCue on another discussion group:

“I am aware, for example, of studies occurring right now at *** [well known US university] that will lead to a new kind of word pattern analysis of the Book of Mormon, and will point to Sydney Rigdon as its primary author. This research will be published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not have the expertise to critique this, but from what I’ve read about it I think it will at the minimum cause additional scholarship and will increase the academic understanding of the Book of Mormon. The hypothesis underlying this work is that Rigdon sincerely believed in the need to reform Christianity’s direction. He accordingly borrowed from Ethan Smith, Solomon Spaulding and others to create a pseudepigrapha that would move Christianity in the direction he thought it should go. He told what he regarded as a noble lie in that regard, and recruited J. Smith to help him do so. Smith probably bought into the noble lie aspect of the project, and likely had his own reasons for participating as well in light of his straightened financial circumstances and history as a treasure seeker for hire. His talents in this regard are what attracted Rigdon’s attention. There is now evidence of pre-Book of Mormon contact between Ridgon and Smith. Again, I don’t profess to be expert in this area. I lost interest in it long ago. I am barely aware of the developments in this area of Mormon-related scholarship.”

This is from a letter McCue wrote to a church leader asking him to reread and reconsider the Book of Mormon. He has blocked out the university in his public statement, but it will be interesting to see what comes of this. I don’t believe the pre-Book of Mormon contact between Smith and Rigdon has been well-established at this point, but there are certainly those who claimed to have seen Ridgon and Smith together prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

His entire letter can be found here:

thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=3644

McCue is now a self-declared agnostic.
Bob McCue is the guru of postmormonism. He is respected in their circles. But he has a more difficult time in mormon circles with his ideas. It seems to me that he will latch on to anything that seems antimormon. The Ridgon/Spaulding theory has been heavily criticized by Dan Vogel. Dan Vogel is not a mormon but believes that Joseph Smith wrote the book himself through a ‘steady.stream of consciousness’. I don’t buy his logic but his book can be had from Amazon.

The great Dan Vogel and Dale Broadhurst debate can be read here:

mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=868

Mormondiscussions is not a prolds site but a site for mormon discussions. It is an interesting thread between two very intelligent individuals. Dale Broadhurst is researching the idea that Sidney wrote the book of mormon. He has his own website about Sidney Ridgon. Dale is a former member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

His site can be found here:

sidneyrigdon.com/

I have a hard time believing that Sidney wrote the book. First he left the church and never claimed authorship of the book of mormon and denied authorship when he was close to death. Second, missionaries searched him out and introduced him to the book of mormon.

In fairness, I will give a link to a site:

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/sidney_rigdon.html

In 1834, in Mormonism Unvailed, Eber D. Howe attacked the authenticity of the Book of Mormon by adopting Philastus Hurlbut’s argument that Sidney Rigdon purloined the “Manuscript Story” of Solomon Spaulding (see Spaulding Manuscript), plagiarized it to compose the Book of Mormon, and gave it to Joseph Smith to publish under his name. During his lifetime Rigdon and members of his family consistently denied any connection with Spaulding, and after the discovery in 1885 of one of Spaulding’s manuscripts, the story was discredited.
 
One problem with your logic on Rigdon is that he had suffered a head injury, and was apparently very emotionally unstable, and possibly schizophrenic as a result of that. Therefore, he lacked credibility. Prejudice and social stigma against survivors of head injury, devaluing even their good works was common in that time, and is still part of the cultural tradition of TBM’s. Therefore, any potential he had for leadership was, and never could be, realized. Your discounting of Rigdon’s part in the whole story has no valid grounds.

Period. End. No more discussion. 😃

Dale’s and Dan’s debate ended with a common ground.

Just because Bob McCue is a regular participant at exmormon.org does not make him a virulent anti-mormon.
 
One problem with your logic on Rigdon is that he had suffered a head injury, and was apparently very emotionally unstable, and possibly schizophrenic as a result of that. Therefore, he lacked credibility. Prejudice and social stigma against survivors of head injury, devaluing even their good works was common in that time, and is still part of the cultural tradition of TBM’s. Therefore, any potential he had for leadership was, and never could be, realized. Your discounting of Rigdon’s part in the whole story has no valid grounds.

Period. End. No more discussion. 😃

Dale’s and Dan’s debate ended with a common ground.

Just because Bob McCue is a regular participant at exmormon.org does not make him a virulent anti-mormon.
The Rigdon authorship has been around since 1834. It is not new by any means. I edited my last post to put in a quotation from the lightplanet website.

The point behind the great debate is that both camps cancel each other out. Both can not be correct.

Bob McCue is an antimormon as our most on that exmormon site.
 
If you define antimormon as nonmormon (and particularly exmormon), I have to agree with you. 😃

Dale agrees with Dan that JS contributed to the BOM, and acknowledges that Dan has made a lot of worthwhile contributions in Mormon studies.
 
If you define antimormon as nonmormon (and particularly exmormon), I have to agree with you. 😃

Dale agrees with Dan that JS contributed to the BOM, and acknowledges that Dan has made a lot of worthwhile contributions in Mormon studies.
If I am not mistaken I think that Dan believes that JS is the sole author of the book.

As I pointed out on the great debate thread toward the end of the discussion, the book of mormon is more than Sidney’s or Joseph’s involvement. A whole host of other characters come into play. The 11 witnesses and Joseph Smith’s wife for example. For Sidney to lease out his work to JS is one thing but to have the belief that at least 12 others would go along with visions and lies for more than a week is quite another. Then of course the whole first vision would have to be hatched and the restoration of the priesthood visitations among other things. The story is much more than a book.

For Sidney to write the book, get JS involved, then allow so many people in on the ‘con’ seems quite unbelievable for a work that he would supposively want to succeed.
 
Well, I am a conspiracy theorist. I think it makes a tremendous lot of sense.

If you choose to follow in Dan Vogel’s footsteps, I refuse to criticize that. 😃
 
Well, I am a conspiracy theorist. I think it makes a tremendous lot of sense.

If you choose to follow in Dan Vogel’s footsteps, I refuse to criticize that. 😃
If it didn’t make some sense, it wouldn’t have stayed around all of these years. As Criddle said in his paper, it has predictive power. I think it is significant that Rigdon lied to cover up as shown in this excerpt from Criddle’s work:

"For five years after publication of Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed on Nov 28, 1834, Rigdon and Smith provided no written rebuttal to that book’s central thesis, i.e. that Rigdon had modified Spalding’s work to create The Book of Mormon, On May 27, 1839, however, Rigdon finally wrote a denial, accompanied by a vicious attack upon Matilda Spalding Davison (Solomon Spalding’s widow) after she had provided a statement to the Boston Recorder (April 19, 1839) implicating Rigdon in the fabrication of The Book of Mormon. A portion of her letter read as follows:
Code:
Here [in Pittsburgh] Mr. Spaulding found a friend and acquaintance in the person of Mr. Patterson, who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed it for perusal. He retained it for a long time, and informed Mr. Spaulding that, if he would make out a title-page and preface, he would publish it, as it might be a source of profit. This Mr. Spaulding refused to do. Sidney Rigdon, who has figured so largely in the history of the Mormons, was at that time connected with the printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and, as Rigdon himself has frequently stated, became acquainted with Mr. Spaulding's manuscript and copied it. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all connected with the printing establishment. At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity where Mr. Spaulding deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands, and was carefully preserved. (See: [home1.gte.net/dbroadhu/RESTOR/Lib/New1839a.htm](http://home1.gte.net/dbroadhu/RESTOR/Lib/New1839a.htm))
Rigdon’s denial letter is available at: solomonspalding.com/docs2/Rob1905a.htm

Cowdrey et al. (2005) have demonstrated that Rigdon’s letter contained various deceptions. These are summarized in the following paragraphs.

In his letter, Rigdon claimed no prior knowledge of Spalding (“I had not the most distant knowledge of his existence”), or of Spalding’s work (“lying scribblings”, “a bundle of lies for the righteous purpose of getting money”), and disparaged Spalding while attacking Matilda (“I of necessity have a very light opinion of him as a gentleman, a scholar, or a man of piety; for had he been either, he certainly would have taught his pious wife not to lie, nor unite herself with adulterers, liars, and the basest of mankind.”). His claim to have never known Spalding and his work is refuted by the testimony of Rebecca Eichbaum who worked in the Pittsburgh post office during the time Rigdon and Spalding both lived there. See: solomonspalding.com/docs/Eich1879.htm#1879a

As evidence that he had not acquired a copy of Spalding’s work at the Patterson print shop in Pittsburgh, Rigdon claimed “There was no man by the name of Patterson during my residence in Pittsburgh who had a print shop”. It is now known that Rev. Robert Patterson had control of a print shop owned by his cousin, Silas Engles and connected with the Patterson book shop, and that he lived in Pittsburgh for a time period overlapping the time of Rigdon’s residence in Pittsburgh (1821 - Feb, 1823)). It is also known that Patterson operated as a news agent and bookseller until nearly fifteen years after the death of his Junior partner (J. H. Lambdin) in Aug 1825 (Cowdrey et al., 2005).

Regarding the print shop, Rigdon claimed “what might have been there before I lived there I know not.” It is now known that (1) Rigdon visited Pittsburgh before the time he lived there to collect his mail; (2) Rigdon had an extensive personal library, and Pittsburgh was the most likely place for him to have obtained his books, (3) Rigdon had a personal association with J. H. Lambdin, the clerk, and Silas Engles, the printer for the Patterson publishing house from 1812 to 1816, (4) Rigdon manufactured leather book bindings for Engles.
See: solomonspalding.com/docs/Eich1879.htm See: lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1860.htm#021779
 
Assuming that there was some kind of extraordinary event where Smith had a vision or encounter with a spiritual personage, even if this were true, and there were no contradictions and confusion about what really happened, there is no way of determining that it was of God other than examining the claims of Mormonism. Are they consistent with historical evidence? Is there evidence of the civilizations with metals, etc. Is there evidence of an apostacy? There is historical evidence of every controversy the Church has faced, the heresies, theological disputes, etc. Which one was the one the Church apostiacized under? If there was one, in the second century say, then the opposing argument should mirror Mormon beliefs and doctrines. It is not to be found. If Smith had an experience it could not have been divine unless the story holds up.
There simply is no reliable evidence for Mormon scriptures. The Book of Abraham has been completely debunked because it was based on a translation of Egyptian scrolls. We can now compare Joseph Smith’s translation with what scholars who know Egyptian say. There is absolutely no correlation.

There is also no evidence for the Book of Mormon, but plenty of archaeological, linguistic and DNA evidence which contradicts it. I have found so much more peace in the Catholic Church which is based on a solid tradition rather than the invention of would be 19th century “prophets.”
 
There simply is no reliable evidence for Mormon scriptures. The Book of Abraham has been completely debunked because it was based on a translation of Egyptian scrolls. We can now compare Joseph Smith’s translation with what scholars who know Egyptian say. There is absolutely no correlation.
There is also no evidence for the Book of Mormon, but plenty of archaeological, linguistic and DNA evidence which contradicts it. I have found so much more peace in the Catholic Church which is based on a solid tradition rather than the invention of would be 19th century “prophets.”
Great post, Bart.

This is the 2,000 pound gorilla in the corner of the mormon stake house.

No mormon poster on these threads will TOUCH answering any question which points out the sect’s unChristian, new-Islamic beginnings.

None.

A lot of milk, but it’s powdered.

A lot of meat, but it’s gristle.

Robert
 
I think that this quote from the Holy Scripture should clear up anyones doubts on the danger of false gospels:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top