Mormons search the web and find doubt

[StevenFrancis]

nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/some-mormons-search-the-web-and-find-doubt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“I felt like I had an earthquake under my feet,” said Mr. Mattsson, now an emeritus area authority. “Everything I’d been taught, everything I’d been proud to preach about and witness about just crumbled under my feet. It was such a terrible psychological and nearly physical disturbance.”

“The Roman Catholic Church has had 2,000 years to work through the hiccups in its history,” said Terryl L. Givens, a professor of English, literature and religion at the University of Richmond and a Mormon believer. “Mormonism is still an adolescent religion".

The truth surprises us. Sometimes it is a gentle thing. Sometimes it knocks you off a horse, and temporarily blinds you until you have further direction and healing. I kind of had both effects in my conversion. I am a convert from Buddhism. At first it was gentle surprise. A while after beginning to attend mass, I had some profound “Come to Jesus” moments which left me stunned, and even confused. I have both empathy for this gentleman’s discoveries. I know how hard it can be to let go of what we have believed so strongly. But at the same time, I have an excitement for you as well. He is hearing the Lord, after all. The Lord calls His sheep. I didn’t have to grapple much with cultural ties. He will have to deal with those in spades. But God bless those who are open to truth. Open to the surprise. Open to the pain, and open to the joy. May God bless and keep him on the journey which surely awaits.

 

[invisible_man]

disgruntled indicates a problem with the person. This is not the case. The case here is finding out you have been lied to and deceived.

I don’t mean that at all. In my opinion disgruntled can have many meaning depending on the context. Disgruntled can also mean once finding out information that one did not know, they become disgruntled because of that information. Then, there is a cause and effect.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t mean that at all. In my opinion disgruntled can have many meaning depending on the context. Disgruntled can also mean once finding out information that one did not know, they become disgruntled because of that information. Then, there is a cause and effect.

You know this is BS words have meanings and no matter how much LDS church members want to just make them up as they go the flipping dictionary has the meaning of words.

Disgruntled means"

dis·grun·tled
/disˈgrəntld/
Adjective
Angry or dissatisfied.
Synonyms
discontented - malcontent - dissatisfied - disaffected

If that is not what YOU meant then have the stones to come out and say it but don’t pretend that the word you used has some esoteric meaning that no other English speaker is aware of.

 

[rmcmullan]

This appears to be yet another thread that attempts to justify people who have left their former faith by blaming the doctrine. It’s not the doctrine, the doctrine is fine and they exaggerate the differences.

 

[twopekinguys]

This appears to be yet another thread that attempts to justify people who have left their former faith by blaming the doctrine. It’s not the doctrine, the doctrine is fine and they exaggerate the differences.

I think you have obviously misunderstood the entire thread.

It is clear, from reading the thread that the one common factor for people leaving mormonism is not the doctrine, but, the obvious deception surrounding how it evolved.

Smith practicing polygamy for example. Isn’t it funny how he was practicing it for numerous years before it became a “revelation”? The leadership hides that fact. Surprisingly, it became a “revelation”, when he got caught with his pants down. (literally)

The translation of the book of mormon. It is well known smith used his head in the hat method, but the church hides that fact. More deception.

That is what the thread is about, and that is why people are leaving the mormon church in the largest numbers ever recorded.

 

[Porknpie]

This appears to be yet another thread that attempts to justify people who have left their former faith by blaming the doctrine. It’s not the doctrine, the doctrine is fine and they exaggerate the differences.

No, much of the LDS doctrine is false, including

• There was an apostasy in the Catholic Church … no apostasy ever … Christ has guided his Church on faith and morals to all Truth, just like he said he would.
• We pre-exist our life on earth … no, we are created at the moment of conception
• We become Gods … no we become like God, not a God
• We become rulers of our own planet … no
• There is marraige in heaven … no there is not.
• The Lord’s Supper is symbolic … no, we receive Jesus, body, blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist at every Catholic Mass.
• There are mulitple Gods … no there is only one God in three persons (the Christian defintion of Trinity)
• there is life on the moon and the sun … no… we realize that this LDS doctrine has been disproven
• the American Indians are descendents of a great ancient civilation from Israel. … no, genetics show they are from Asia.

No the differences are immense and not exaggerated.

 

[Marie5890]

This appears to be yet another thread that attempts to justify people who have left their former faith by blaming the doctrine. It’s not the doctrine, the doctrine is fine and they exaggerate the differences.

I left because I didnt believe in Mormonism basic doctrines. Yes really truly, it was the doctrines…

Sorry if you are disappointed in others honesty.

 

[LivingWaters7]

This appears to be yet another thread that attempts to justify people who have left their former faith by blaming the doctrine. It’s not the doctrine, the doctrine is fine and they exaggerate the differences.

Why do you find it problematic that people leave a religion, whatever it may be, because of doctrinal reasons, and desire to discuss that, as well as others that may have left for similar reasons? Or is it because it is specifically the LDS faith that is the specific religion in question?

As mentioned before, I am curious to know if you would have the same response if someone said that they were attracted to Mormonism, and were disillusioned by their former religion, because of doctrinal reasons, which I see many times (whether it’s on this forum, LDS-related forums, in testimony meetings, stake convert firesides (I participated in one), etc).

And of course, doctrinal reasons being an important factor in leaving/joining a faith doesn’t detract from the importance of the Spirit that individual may believe as leading them in their faith journey.

As far as doctrinal differences, while there are certainly similarities (if you’re talking about Catholicism and Mormonism), however there are very clear and important, fundamental differences between the two, including (but not limited to):

-the nature of God
-the nature of man
-Church ecclesiology
-the nature of the sacraments/ordinances (most especially the Eucharist/Sacrament)
-the Atonement
-the Fall

 

[invisible_man]

I think you have obviously misunderstood the entire thread.

It is clear, from reading the thread that the one common factor for people leaving mormonism is not the doctrine, but, the obvious deception surrounding how it evolved.

Smith practicing polygamy for example. Isn’t it funny how he was practicing it for numerous years before it became a “revelation”? The leadership hides that fact. Surprisingly, it became a “revelation”, when he got caught with his pants down. (literally)

.

From the Introduction from section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.

What is hidden? It is in the Introduction to the section of the Doctrine and Covenants 132 which deals with polygamy.

 

[invisible_man]

The translation of the book of mormon. It is well known smith used his head in the hat method, but the church hides that fact. More deception.

That is what the thread is about, and that is why people are leaving the mormon church in the largest numbers ever recorded.

I found this from the LDS church’s site after putting in the search engine ‘seer stones’:

**
As Oliver Cowdery testified a few years later: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’” (JS—H 1:71n.)

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)**

lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

The head in the hat translation is also here in the LDS magazine for its members:

lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

Also, some people claim that the LDS church hides the translation process by its artistic interpretation but the LDS artists take their interpretation from this:

**One document explicitly says that the translator placed the Urim and Thummim over the characters on the plates, though it must be judged with great caution. It comes from a late but good source, Samuel W. Richards, a seasoned missionary and administrator in the Church. In returning from Britain in 1848 he lived temporarily in the area below Council Bluffs, and by coincidence Oliver Cowdery and his family asked for hospitality with him on their way from the Bluffs to visit Elizabeth Cowdery’s brother, David Whitmer, at Richmond, Missouri. This much is clearly factual. Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly.”**

lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

I think that information can be found if Mormons knew how to find it. It seems that many do not know how to search their own church’s website.

 

[onenow1]

I’m kind of feeling some lying for the Lord going on.

Kinda like promises of xxx virgins in Islam. Just another heresy. :twocents:

God Bless
onenow1

 

[invisible_man]

Kinda like promises of xxx virgins in Islam. Just another heresy. :twocents:

God Bless
onenow1

I find it all rather strange. TwoPekingGuys claims deception and yet, I found the head in the hat translation from the LDS church’s own website. Then, I discovered that polygamy is located in their Doctrine and Covenants section 132 where the Introduction states that Joseph Smith knew of the principle as far back to 1831. Plural marrige is in that section.

I see no deception yet.

 

[Porknpie]

From the Introduction from section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.

What is hidden? It is in the Introduction to the section of the Doctrine and Covenants 132 which deals with polygamy.

Plural marraige is not scriptural. It is not God’s revelation … from Catholic.com quick answers below. The Written Word of God both Old and New Testaments affirms marraige is between a man and woman, becoming one.

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?”

Further the bible in Galatians 1:8 warns - amazingly so - not to follow any new Gospel, even if from an Angel. God seems to have been warning of Joseph Smith and Moroni.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

 

[Porknpie]

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face

Invisible,

Do you believe this?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I find it all rather strange. TwoPekingGuys claims deception and yet, I found the head in the hat translation from the LDS church’s own website. Then, I discovered that polygamy is located in their Doctrine and Covenants section 132 where the Introduction states that Joseph Smith knew of the principle as far back to 1831. Plural marrige is in that section.

I see no deception yet.

For a lengthier treatment on the issue of the translation method of the Book of Mormon, see here for more of what Twopekingguys is probably thinking of (which readily accepts and states that the LDS website has those two quotes from 1993 and 1977):

mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#full

As far as plural marriage, no, the quote from the heading of D&C 132 (“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.”) does not specify what exactly the “principles” that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 are. You’re reading into that statement something that isn’t there, as it is completely vague (and section 132 doesn’t just address plural marriage, so it could be talking about other thing). I’ve taught out of D&C 132 on eternal marriage and exaltation, and didn’t talk at all about plural marriage, so again, the “principles” that Smith knew about as early as 1831 could be anything included therein.

Indeed, the editors of the scriptures subdivide the section as follows:

***1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way leads to eternal lives; 26–27, The law is given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation are made to prophets and Saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing plural marriage are set forth.

---

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

 

[twopekinguys]

I found this from the LDS church’s site after putting in the search engine ‘seer stones’:

**
As Oliver Cowdery testified a few years later: “These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’” (JS—H 1:71n.)

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)**

lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

The head in the hat translation is also here in the LDS magazine for its members:

lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

Also, some people claim that the LDS church hides the translation process by its artistic interpretation but the LDS artists take their interpretation from this:

**One document explicitly says that the translator placed the Urim and Thummim over the characters on the plates, though it must be judged with great caution. It comes from a late but good source, Samuel W. Richards, a seasoned missionary and administrator in the Church. In returning from Britain in 1848 he lived temporarily in the area below Council Bluffs, and by coincidence Oliver Cowdery and his family asked for hospitality with him on their way from the Bluffs to visit Elizabeth Cowdery’s brother, David Whitmer, at Richmond, Missouri. This much is clearly factual. Later Brother Richards told of his extended visit with Oliver Cowdery, who freely talked of the spectacular events in the founding of the Church. When Brother Richards was eighty-two, he dictated a statement reporting Oliver Cowdery’s recollections of Book of Mormon translation:

“He represented Joseph as sitting at a table with the plates before him, translating them by means of the Urim and Thummim, while he (Oliver) sat beside him writing every word as Joseph spoke them to him. This was done by holding the ‘translators’ over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages. Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the ‘interpreter’ until it was copied correctly**.”

lds.org/ensign/1977/09/by-the-gift-and-power-of-god?lang=eng

I think that information can be found if Mormons knew how to find it. It seems that many do not know how to search their own church’s website.

But yet in the artwork they use, they never use the head in the hat any more.

There are many mormons today that are not taught about their history. When they do find it out, it makes them study more, and study their way out.

 

[twopekinguys]

For a lengthier treatment on the issue of the translation method of the Book of Mormon, see here for more of what Twopekingguys is probably thinking of (which readily accepts and states that the LDS website has those two quotes from 1993 and 1977):

mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#full

As far as plural marriage, no, the quote from the heading of D&C 132 (“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.”) does not specify what exactly the “principles” that Joseph Smith knew as early as 1831 are. You’re reading into that statement something that isn’t there, as it is completely vague (and section 132 doesn’t just address plural marriage, so it could be talking about other thing). I’ve taught out of D&C 132 on eternal marriage and exaltation, and didn’t talk at all about plural marriage, so again, the “principles” that Smith knew about as early as 1831 could be anything included therein.

Indeed, the editors of the scriptures subdivide the section as follows:

***1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25, The strait and narrow way leads to eternal lives; 26–27, The law is given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; 28–39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation are made to prophets and Saints in all ages; 40–47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven; 48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation; 51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing plural marriage are set forth.

---

lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

Bingo!! We have a winner!!

 

[LivingWaters7]

But yet in the artwork they use, they never use the head in the hat any more.

There are many mormons today that are not taught about their history. When they do find it out, it makes them study more, and study their way out.

A friend of mine went to a fireside last year given by Richard Lyman Bushman, author of Rough Stone Rolling. I didn’t go, but apparently he brought up the head in hat method. That was the first time she had ever heard of it (she was raised in the LDS faith, preparing for a mission), and I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the first time for most.

 

[twopekinguys]

I find it all rather strange. TwoPekingGuys claims deception and yet, I found the head in the hat translation from the LDS church’s own website. Then, I discovered that polygamy is located in their Doctrine and Covenants section 132 where the Introduction states that Joseph Smith knew of the principle as far back to 1831. Plural marrige is in that section.

I see no deception yet.

But yet, you ignore the pure coincidence (cough, cough) that the polygamy revelation didn’t become public until he got caught with his pants down.

If you read the entire section 132, you will see that even smith didn’t follow the rules for it.

People start digging, and find things like this, and out the door they go. Simply because they take the word of whomever is teaching them. Why don’t they teach it all? Simple. It isn’t faith promoting.

We had a mormon poster that swore up and down that smith did not shoot back and kill someone during the attack at Carthage. It damages the whole lamb to the slaughter and martyr theories.

When I gave her the quote from the mormon church’s own history, her responses were 1. The elder that reported it was wrong. 2. smith firing at someone in the face was not a vital organ. Really?

If people aren’t taught these things voluntarily, then it is deception by omission, and that is what honks people off.

ETA: Wow, I just hit 5000 posts…yippee!!

 

[invisible_man]

But yet in the artwork they use, they never use the head in the hat any more.

There are many mormons today that are not taught about their history. When they do find it out, it makes them study more, and study their way out.

But I found it on their church’s website. I have no idea what more could be done. If Mormons would check their own church’s website, they would find it. I also just typed in ‘head in the hat’ into the LDS church’s website and I got the LDS magazine article about it. What is hidden? Also, I showed where the possible artwork comes from where Oliver Cowdery’s friend speaks about Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery sitting side by side each other as Joseph Smith read from the plates and Oliver Cowdery wrote it down. No hat mentioned.