Mormon Apostle states arguments against the Book of Mormon are "pathetic"

[Janet1983]

Once could say that Islam, in its majority nonviolent form, is a force for good in the world. Would that make Muhammed’s stories from God? Would it preclude any spiritual influences?

What of any number of other religions? We know the spiritual blindness of the Jews to their Messiah had spiritual influences. We see many, many non-Christian religions that, at their core, promote good (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confuscianism, etc.). Does that preclude influence from the Adversary in their falsehoods?

Time to self-reflect?

 

[Catholic20064]

You gave a poem. The apologists had an answer for you. It makes sense. No where did Oliver deny his testimony of the book of mormon. Where is it written by him that he denied his testimony? I gave you evidence to the contrary. Now Oliver did return to the fold and on his deathbed he gave his testimony of the book of mormon.

Now I would think that if Oliver ever denied his testimony and the saints kniew this, he would have adddressed it with them when he returned. Now that would seem logical. I am sure that he said things that were not very complimentary about Joseph Smith when Oliver left. That would be normal. But he never denied his testimony.

Also, if Oliver did have a hand in writing the book of mormon, certainly his excommunication would have given him reason to come clean.

And why would JS excommunicate someone who was in on the fraud? Now that isn’t logical.

We have several people who knew Oliver who claimed he denied his testimony directly to them. You gave me a second hand report from Cannon without any corroboration in a newspaper or court report which you would think would exist for such an extraordinary case. Why would Oliver address his denial when he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Saints? The reality is that Oliver did privately deny his testimony and these reports seemed to have made their way back to Nauvoo based on the Times and Seasons poem.

 

[why_me]

. You gave me a second hand report from Cannon without any corroboration in a newspaper or court report which you would think would exist for such an extraordinary case. Why would Oliver address his denial when he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Saints? The reality is that Oliver did privately deny his testimony and these reports seemed to have made their way back to Nauvoo based on the Times and Seasons poem.

I gave you what he said to the saints publically. You give a second hand testimony. Show me where Oliver in his own pen denied his testimony. You can’t. He always confirmed his faith in the book of momron and he never denied his testimony.

And what extraoridinary case are you taking about? I see no extraordinary case. Just a guy who never denied his testimony of the book of mormon.

And why would he want to ingratiate himself with the mormons again? He had his life and he was quite happy with it. He wanted to come back because of what he knew.

And may I remind you that he took his wife and daugher with him. Why if he knew that it was all a fraud, would he want his child and wife involved? And if he was actively denying his testimony would his wife wish to be involved with the mormons? I don’t think so.

 

[Arandur]

Dianaiad, you need to slow down and read things in context, without the exaggerating victim mentality. My post was in response specifically to WhyMe’s attempt to argue against the idea of potential negative spiritual influence of JS. It was NOT a broad generalization about people, but a response to a particular kind of argument–boy, you really love to be the victim, don’t you? I would appreciate it if you do not put words in my mouth.

Might be, if we actually went around calling all these churches ‘great and abominable,’ ‘whores of Babylon,’ and “churches of the devil,”

Your early leaders did. The premise of your whole church is founded on it. The point is that you cannot call other churches this (who worship Christ and do and advocate many good things) and then say that there is no way your church could fall in the same category because you worship Christ and do/advocate many good things. It doesn’t work. Simple logic.

But we don’t actually do that, y’know. YOU guys are really good at that sort of language, though, I have to admit.

Oh? Where? In what context? It’s not written into our scriptures that other churches are “Great and Abominable,” so that alone is a great difference. As for common language, you’ll notice that I only talked about unGodly influence in proper context–influences on the origin of Smith’s religions.

Of course we believe that; it would be illogical, not to mention incredibly hypocritical, to belong to a religious group if you believed someone ELSE had the most truth.

For that reason, it is obvious that whatever church you belong to is the one you believe has the most truth, or is the ‘only true church.’ If not, why are you still there?

Yes, of course, I have said this myself many times. This isn’t really relevant to whether or not one sect or another’s false teachings are influenced solely by man or by adversarial powers. The latter of which, btw, is just a question/statement of reality, not some sort of extra-bad conviction of sin for believing a false teaching.

Given this, just stop with this accusatory holier than thou attitude of 'you think you are the only true church and we are wrong."

Where have I ever used this sort of language, been holier than thou, or been accusatory with it? Yes, of course I believe my Church is true and others are fractured in varying degrees by false beliefs. D, please, it’s getting increasingly offensive that you put words in my mouth. How can anyone take part in a reasonable discussion with you if you attribute to them words and attitudes and so forth that do not come from them? It seems very prejudicial of you.

We claim that they are wrong. We don’t dismiss the good that they do, or deny their Christianity. or their personal relationships with the Savior, as you do with us. Since that’s so, I don’t think that the hypocrisy is on our side of the aisle.

Did I claim differently? Do we do differently? No.

It rruly is a ‘by their fruits’ thing. You can write, and talk, and accuse others of being vile Satan followers because they do not believe, quite, as you do

Again, where have I ever said anything like this. D, this is very offensive, and seems like a kind of bigotry of yours think and accuse me (and others) of things we have not said or done.

It’s not going to hurt you a bit, in other words, to admit that Mormons are good people who truly love Christ, and it’s not going to hurt you a bit to work with them, and even like them.

We have talked enough, D, that you should know that I have said Mormons are good and sincere people many, many times. Heck, I almost married a Mormon, and I DID marry a Restorationist! (knowing full well what they believed). So quit ignoring what I say and mischaracterizing me. You should know better. My life is proof that your consistent slandering to the contrary is what it is–slander, seemingly (due to its consistency) borne of some kind of prejudice.

Calling them hypocrites, though…that’s not a real good start to friendship forming.

I called the argument WhyMe used apparently hypocritical. If you aren’t adult enough to know the difference between arguing and criticizing arguments and not people, then please do not try to take part in such discussions.

Now, D, I use this strong tone with you because you have first accused me, offensively. I have been careful to say “seems” and so forth in various circumstances because I am calling it like I see it based on the patterns of your posts, but I recognize that I don’t know you and I could misinterpret what you say. I am careful to use such language because it provides a chance for the other person to explain what they really meant while letting them know how it came across to me. I’ll ask you to please read carefully and don’t exaggerate or take things out of context. Tell me how something comes across to you, yes, but without presuming and putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

 

[Arandur]

The mormons however do not lead souls away from god. Just the opposite.

So do most if not all Christian sects, and yet most, because of contradictions with each other, have some major false doctrines (for truth cannot contradict truth). Falsehood, lies, lack of or denial of truth, is a victory for the Devil.

They pray in the morning and they pray in the evening a family prayer. And then over their meals, they also pray. And they attempt to keep their bodies holy. How would all that benefit the devil?

I have explained. Did you really read my previous post? You didn’t respond to what I said about what the Devil seeks. The disunity of the people of God through the spreading of false teachings is a tremendous victory for him. Even if he can’t manage to sufficiently overcome God to have people abandon Him completely, it is still a victory and suits his purpose to lead people astray in as many ways as he can.

Plus they attempt to read the scriptures each day too. That certainly would not benefit the devil.

The Scriptures are pretty clear throughout that Satan attempts to lead people astray. How can that be missed? As for reading the Scriptures not benefitting him, oh really? A lot of contention has arisen from reading the Scriptures, largely when people make themselves God by putting their own interpretation above God’s. That’s a great victory for the Devil. Not as great, perhaps, as leading people to reject the Bible, but by leading them into falsehood or pride or contention, he claims a victory. Is that so hard to see?

But the mormon church would be an enemy of the devil. And so, it would be in his interest to destroy it.

As would every monotheistic religion, on its face. But there are so many differences among them, differences which cause disunity and contention, that the mere existence of such a myriad serves his purpose. Sure, he might like to destroy them all, but since he can’t, he’ll take what he can get. It’s important to understand how the devil works if you wish to combat him.

Let me explain what appears wrong to me about this conversation, and what the situation seems to be from people who have reacted so strongly to what I have said:

Presumably we all believe that Satan exists and generally agree he (and his hosts) attempts to lead us away from God in various ways. Then why is it that when he is brought up in an attempt to identify his works and understand him that people get so darn sensitive? That people seem to want to deny the possibility that he exists or does anything, and want to attribute any falsehoods or things that are not quite right solely to man’s will and works? If we all seek to wage righteous spiritual warfare, should we not be mature enough to be able to discuss our common Enemy?

 

[why_me]

More about Oliver Cowdery:

In 1847 Oliver moved to Wisconsin, where he continued his law practice and was almost elected to the first state legislature, in spite of newspaper accounts ridiculing his published declaration of seeing the angel and the plates. In his ten years outside the Church, Cowdery never succumbed to the considerable pressure to deny his Book of Mormon testimony. Indeed, letters to his LDS relatives show that he was hurt at the Church’s rejection but remained a deep believer. Feeling that his character had been slandered, he asked for public exoneration, explaining that anyone would be sensitive about reputation “had you stood in the presence of John with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood, and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater” (Gunn, pp. 250-51).

These statements contradict a pamphlet that Oliver was alleged to have published in 1839 as a “Defense” for leaving the Church (see Forgeries). Surfacing in 1906, it portrays Oliver as confused about seeing John the Baptist. But no original exists, nor does any reference to it in Cowdery’s century. Its style borrows published Cowdery phrases but rearranges his conclusions. A clumsier forgery is the “Confession of Oliver Overstreet,” which claims that the author was bribed to impersonate Cowdery and return to the Church. Abundant documents show that Oliver returned to Council Bluffs, Iowa, in 1848 with his wife and young daughter.

Diaries and official minutes record Oliver Cowdery’s words in rejoining the Church. He sought only rebaptism and fellowship, not office. He publicly declared that he had seen and handled the Book of Mormon plates, and that he was present with Joseph Smith on the occasions when “holy angels” restored the two priesthoods (Anderson, BYU Studies, 1968, p. 278). The High Council questioned him closely about his published letter (to David Whitmer) in which Oliver claimed that he retained the keys of priesthood leadership after Joseph Smith’s death. That was his opinion, Oliver said, before seeing the Nauvoo revelation giving all powers to Hyrum Smith “that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery” (D&C 124:95). “It was that revelation which changed my views on this subject” (Anderson, IE, Nov. 1968, p. 19).

Because they had started for Council Bluffs late in the season, the Cowdery family were forced to winter in Richmond, Missouri, where most of the Whitmer family lived. Letters throughout 1849 repeat Oliver’s hope to move west and also disclose his lack of means. They speak of his coughing up blood, a long-term respiratory condition that finally took his life March 3, 1850. The circuit court recorded a resolution of fellow lawyers that in the death of “Oliver Cowdery, his profession has lost an accomplished member, and the community a valuable and worthy citizen” (Anderson, 1981, p. 46).

David Whitmer and other relatives living near Oliver Cowdery in his final year later claimed that he disagreed with many Kirtland and Nauvoo doctrines, but Oliver’s documented criticisms at this time concern only intolerance and a continuing concern about polygamy. Although David Whitmer considered Joseph a fallen prophet, in 1848 Cowdery said publicly and privately “that Joseph Smith had fulfilled his mission faithfully before God until death” (Geo. A. Smith to Orson Pratt, MS 11 [Oct. 20, 1848]:14), and "that the priesthood was with this people, and the “Twelve’ were the only men that could lead the Church after the death of Joseph” (Anderson, IE, Nov. 1968, p. 18). In his last known letter, Oliver accepted an assignment from the Twelve to lobby in Washington, and acknowledged the leadership of the “good brethren of the [Salt Lake] valley” (Gunn, p. 261).

Oliver’s wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery (1815-1892), had known him when he was taking dictation during the translation of the Book of Mormon, before their marriage. Said she of his lifelong commitment: “He always without one doubt…affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon” (Anderson, 1981, p. 63). This confidence stood the test of persecution, poverty, loss of status, failing health, and the tragic deaths of five of his six children. Dying at forty-three, Oliver was surrounded by family members who told how he reaffirmed the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the restored priesthood—and voiced total trust in Christ. Just before rejoining the Church, he penned his inner hopes to fellow witness David Whitmer: “Let the Lord vindicate our characters, and cause our testimony to shine, and then will men be saved in his kingdom” (Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, July 28, 1847, Ensign of Liberty, 1:92).

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/oliver_cowdery.html

It seems pretty clear to me that he never denied his testimony and the words of his wife speak volumes.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The Scriptures are pretty clear throughout that Satan attempts to lead people astray. How can that be missed? As for reading the Scriptures not benefitting him, oh really? A lot of contention has arisen from reading the Scriptures, largely when people make themselves God by putting their own interpretation above God’s. That’s a great victory for the Devil. Not as great, perhaps, as leading people to reject the Bible, but by leading them into falsehood or pride or contention, he claims a victory. Is that so hard to see?

It seems to me the contention created from dis-unity does lead people to reject the Bible.

 

[Catholic20064]

More about Oliver Cowdery:

In 1847 Oliver moved to Wisconsin, where he continued his law practice and was almost elected to the first state legislature, in spite of newspaper accounts ridiculing his published declaration of seeing the angel and the plates. In his ten years outside the Church, Cowdery never succumbed to the considerable pressure to deny his Book of Mormon testimony. Indeed, letters to his LDS relatives show that he was hurt at the Church’s rejection but remained a deep believer. Feeling that his character had been slandered, he asked for public exoneration, explaining that anyone would be sensitive about reputation “had you stood in the presence of John with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood, and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater” (Gunn, pp. 250-51).

These statements contradict a pamphlet that Oliver was alleged to have published in 1839 as a “Defense” for leaving the Church (see Forgeries). Surfacing in 1906, it portrays Oliver as confused about seeing John the Baptist. But no original exists, nor does any reference to it in Cowdery’s century. Its style borrows published Cowdery phrases but rearranges his conclusions. A clumsier forgery is the “Confession of Oliver Overstreet,” which claims that the author was bribed to impersonate Cowdery and return to the Church. Abundant documents show that Oliver returned to Council Bluffs, Iowa, in 1848 with his wife and young daughter.

Diaries and official minutes record Oliver Cowdery’s words in rejoining the Church. He sought only rebaptism and fellowship, not office. He publicly declared that he had seen and handled the Book of Mormon plates, and that he was present with Joseph Smith on the occasions when “holy angels” restored the two priesthoods (Anderson, BYU Studies, 1968, p. 278). The High Council questioned him closely about his published letter (to David Whitmer) in which Oliver claimed that he retained the keys of priesthood leadership after Joseph Smith’s death. That was his opinion, Oliver said, before seeing the Nauvoo revelation giving all powers to Hyrum Smith “that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery” (D&C 124:95). “It was that revelation which changed my views on this subject” (Anderson, IE, Nov. 1968, p. 19).

Because they had started for Council Bluffs late in the season, the Cowdery family were forced to winter in Richmond, Missouri, where most of the Whitmer family lived. Letters throughout 1849 repeat Oliver’s hope to move west and also disclose his lack of means. They speak of his coughing up blood, a long-term respiratory condition that finally took his life March 3, 1850. The circuit court recorded a resolution of fellow lawyers that in the death of “Oliver Cowdery, his profession has lost an accomplished member, and the community a valuable and worthy citizen” (Anderson, 1981, p. 46).

David Whitmer and other relatives living near Oliver Cowdery in his final year later claimed that he disagreed with many Kirtland and Nauvoo doctrines, but Oliver’s documented criticisms at this time concern only intolerance and a continuing concern about polygamy. Although David Whitmer considered Joseph a fallen prophet, in 1848 Cowdery said publicly and privately “that Joseph Smith had fulfilled his mission faithfully before God until death” (Geo. A. Smith to Orson Pratt, MS 11 [Oct. 20, 1848]:14), and "that the priesthood was with this people, and the “Twelve’ were the only men that could lead the Church after the death of Joseph” (Anderson, IE, Nov. 1968, p. 18). In his last known letter, Oliver accepted an assignment from the Twelve to lobby in Washington, and acknowledged the leadership of the “good brethren of the [Salt Lake] valley” (Gunn, p. 261).

Oliver’s wife, Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery (1815-1892), had known him when he was taking dictation during the translation of the Book of Mormon, before their marriage. Said she of his lifelong commitment: “He always without one doubt…affirmed the divinity and truth of the Book of Mormon” (Anderson, 1981, p. 63). This confidence stood the test of persecution, poverty, loss of status, failing health, and the tragic deaths of five of his six children. Dying at forty-three, Oliver was surrounded by family members who told how he reaffirmed the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the restored priesthood—and voiced total trust in Christ. Just before rejoining the Church, he penned his inner hopes to fellow witness David Whitmer: “Let the Lord vindicate our characters, and cause our testimony to shine, and then will men be saved in his kingdom” (Oliver Cowdery to David Whitmer, July 28, 1847, Ensign of Liberty, 1:92).

lightplanet.com/mormons/people/oliver_cowdery.html

It seems pretty clear to me that he never denied his testimony and the words of his wife speak volumes.

You can only come to this conclusion by completely ignoring all of the inconvenient evidence that he did.

 

[wyp8riot]

The Book of Mormon inspires people to believe in Christ and to do good.

Elder Holland was giving his testimony that it is true. He was expressing his passion for what he believes to be the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am glad that many Catholics and Mormons work together for the good of the world. Our church organizations have done a lot together as well.

Is there a thread that discusses the things we have in common?

 

[Jerusha]

You can only come to this conclusion by completely ignoring all of the inconvenient evidence that he did.

Mormonism is all about ignoring inconvenient evidence which is contrary to one’s beliefs.

Arandur, this is the reason why I downplay the possibility of Satanic influence in Mormonism. It activates their persecution complex.

 

[Arandur]

The Book of Mormon inspires people to believe in Christ and to do good.

So does the Catholic Church. Yet while there are many similarities and things in common, there are some very important beliefs that are very different. So who is right?

That “The Book of Mormon inspires people to believe in Christ and to do good” is not an argument for whether it is correct.

Is there a thread that discusses the things we have in common?

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them. They’re not as common because there’s not as much to discuss. Things you agree on don’t take as long to hash out

Jerusha, I think it’s important to discuss, because as you’ve seen, it seems common that Mormonism encourages an “argument” to dismiss the possibility of Satanic influences that in fact is quite dangerous, in that it ignores how Satan works and leaves proponents of this argument quite vulnerable to him, since they seem to believe they are immune from his attacks and the need for discernment.

Yes, it runs the risk of aggravating the sense of persecution/victim mentality. But so does any criticism. And I have seen many Smithians seek shelter in the various things about the Smith story (and his various writings) that are difficult to conclusively attribute to Smith’s invention. They tend to ignore the argument that there just aren’t clear enough records to prove conclusively, even if the evidence and consistent patterns strongly support one probability (interestingly, they use this argument in reverse when they discount criticisms from archaeology by saying “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”). That leaves open, however, the other possibility. Maybe JS and company didn’t come up with it entirely on their own; maybe they did have a spiritual experience. It’s just a maybe, but it’s a possibility that must be considered. Discernment of spirits is very important. It is clear in many ways that this is a possibility, and it is clear in many ways that if spiritual influence was involved, it was contrary to how God worked and the message He sent previous, and so was of the false and dangerous type.

 

[Catholic20064]

So does the Catholic Church. Yet while there are many similarities and things in common, there are some very important beliefs that are very different. So who is right?

That “The Book of Mormon inspires people to believe in Christ and to do good” is not an argument for whether it is correct.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen them. They’re not as common because there’s not as much to discuss. Things you agree on don’t take as long to hash out

Jerusha, I think it’s important to discuss, because as you’ve seen, it seems common that Mormonism encourages an “argument” to dismiss the possibility of Satanic influences that in fact is quite dangerous, in that it ignores how Satan works and leaves proponents of this argument quite vulnerable to him, since they seem to believe they are immune from his attacks and the need for discernment.

Yes, it runs the risk of aggravating the sense of persecution/victim mentality. But so does any criticism. And I have seen many Smithians seek shelter in the various things about the Smith story (and his various writings) that are difficult to conclusively attribute to Smith’s invention. They tend to ignore the argument that there just aren’t clear enough records to prove conclusively, even if the evidence and consistent patterns strongly support one probability (interestingly, they use this argument in reverse when they discount criticisms from archaeology by saying “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”). That leaves open, however, the other possibility. Maybe JS and company didn’t come up with it entirely on their own; maybe they did have a spiritual experience. It’s just a maybe, but it’s a possibility that must be considered. Discernment of spirits is very important. It is clear in many ways that this is a possibility, and it is clear in many ways that if spiritual influence was involved, it was contrary to how God worked and the message He sent previous, and so was of the false and dangerous type.

I really doubt that Joseph had any spiritual influence beyond the desire to make an easy living. It didn’t work out for him, but I believe that was his original motivation – he didn’t really take to farming. So he, Oliver Cowdrey and Sidney Rigdon entered into a conspiracy to start a church and sell books by creating the Book of Mormon. Here’s a quote on Cowdrey’s involvement that is interesting:

On reading the name of Oliver Cowdry, in support of the divine authenticity of the work, whatever faith we might have been inspired with on reading the certificate, was banished, for we had known Cowdry some seven or 8 years ago, when he was a dabbler in the art of Printing, and principally occupied in writing and printing pamphlets, with which, as a pedestrian pedlar, he visited the towns and villages of western N. York, and Canada, and the only opinion we have of the origin of this Golden Bible, is that Mr. Cowdry and Mr. Smith the reputed author, have taken the old Bible to keep up a train of circumstances, and by altering names and language, have produced the string of jargon called the “Book of Mormon,” with the intention of making money by the sale of their books; and being aware that they would not sell unless an excitement and curiosity could be raised in the public mind, have therefore sent out twelve Apostles to promulgate its doctrines. * * *

[p.347] [Ashtabula (Ohio) Journal, 4 Dec. 1830, quoting the Cleveland Herald

[/quote]

 

[Jerusha]

I understand your reasoning, Arandur. I have lived among Smithians for quite a few years, and was taught in childhood to tread carefully, for their ire is dreadful, once aroused. We did not know that our very existence was offensive to them.

I would rather take a more cautious approach.

 

[Arandur]

I understand your reasoning, Arandur. I have lived among Smithians for quite a few years, and was taught in childhood to tread carefully, for their ire is dreadful, once aroused. We did not know that our very existence was offensive to them.

I would rather take a more cautious approach.

In Wisconsin? I thought that was mainly a problem in Utah.

I’ll be moving back to KC/Independence soon, and that’s the center of the RLDS/CoC + Restorationist and Remnant branches, but they don’t control the state so much. And they’re rather more reasonable, believing doctrines much closer to mainline Protestantism–they have valid Trinitarian baptism.

 

[Jerusha]

No, I moved to Wisconsin to get away from them. I tried to claim refugee status, but they wouldn’t let me. I am happy now in a town where anti-Mormon sentiment is common. Maybe it has something to do with the Strangites??? Very strange, they were.

I was raised in Hancock County Illinois, near Nauvoo. And somehow I ended up in SW Kansas, where they are desparately trying to maintain their toehold against a flood of Hispanics.

Yeah, but the KC area also has its share of TBM’s. You know, everyone is going to go back to Independence in the last days. At least that is what one of thier prophets told them.

 

[Arandur]

Yeah, but the KC area also has its share of TBM’s.

TBM’s?

You know, everyone is going to go back to Independence in the last days. At least that is what one of thier prophets told them.

I’m not too concerned about that
Even though, IIRC, those prophecies and discussions about them refer to the unworthy being ejected from Zion, etc.

 

[Jerusha]

True Believing Mormons-- the hard core, like Zerinus and Dianiad.

 

[PaulDupre]

Dianaiad:

Might be, if we actually went around calling all these churches ‘great and abominable,’ ‘whores of Babylon,’ and “churches of the devil,”

But we don’t actually do that, y’know.

Really? Your scriptures do.

3 And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.
• • •
9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil.
10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

• Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:3, 9-10

And the early LDS prophets and apostles knew exactly who Nephi was talking about:

**(The) Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. **Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil.

• Orson Pratt, The Seer p. 205 (1854)

According to Mormonism, both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’:

…all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism or the Lord’s supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt people.

• Orson Pratt, The Seer p. 255 (1854)

Question them, and they cannot answer the simplest question concerning the character of the Deity, heaven, or hell, this or that, or the other; a sucking child would comparatively confuse and confound them upon these subjects… I would say, great is their foolery; they are profound in their ignorance.

• Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 1:37.

The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses , vol. 6, p.176.

Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen (their) pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.
John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 167.

**What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute be(a)st **… What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing…Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God.

• John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 167.

Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls.

• Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, p.177. (note that this is from the 2nd edition of Mormon Doctrine, after the 1st Presidency made him remove the offensive parts)

"The present Christian world exists and continues by division.** The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. `There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.’**

• Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811

"Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their “long robes,” among the Jews, are equally included in their mother’s family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God."

• Prophet John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939

"The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven."

• Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85

Yeah, you guys are real sweethearts.

 

[ParkerD]

Really? Your scriptures do.

And the early LDS prophets and apostles knew exactly who Nephi was talking about:

According to Mormonism, both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’:

I didn’t used to think anything of the kind, even though I was aware of some teaching like that which seems to match some of the early Reformers about the church they had left. I start to get a different impression as I read things like what has been posted the last day or so on this thread. I start to think maybe the Reformers were right in their thinking in that regard.

Catholics seem to have such a wrong concept of what Satan and those who followed him in pre-mortal life spend their energy doing in this world. Anger, drug abuse, sexual abuse and break-up of families, bringing contention, internet abuse (they have a hay-day with that), creating self-doubt and the mocking and belittling of others–these are the kinds of influences those spirits spend their energy encouraging within human behaviors and attitudes.

 

[PaulDupre]

I didn’t used to think anything of the kind, even though I was aware of some teaching like that which seems to match some of the early Reformers about the church they had left. I start to get a different impression as I read things like what has been posted the last day or so on this thread. I start to think maybe the Reformers were right in their thinking in that regard.

Catholics seem to have such a wrong concept of what Satan and those who followed him in pre-mortal life spend their energy doing in this world. Anger, drug abuse, sexual abuse and break-up of families, bringing contention, internet abuse (they have a hay-day with that), creating self-doubt and the mocking and belittling of others–these are the kinds of influences those spirits spend their energy encouraging within human behaviors and attitudes.

Sounds like most of the Mormons I have known.