Why haven't any LDS (Mormon) leaders exposed their church as a fraud?

[twopekinguys]

You can choose the conspiracy route, but you will find it a lonely road.

Not conspiracy, but nepotism. There is a difference.

 

[stevekehl]

On the other hand, the LDS leaders, both past and present, claim to have modern day revelation guiding the organization. **If they are not actually what they claim to be why is it that none of the 16 presidents, and additional men calling themselves apostles, have admitted it is fraudulent? **

Rattlesnakes don’t commit suicide. Check out utlm.org this is a Christian organization that uses Mormon doctrine to disprove Mormonism. Another good source is hotm.tv for some Mormon insights.

 

[Janderich]

Despite all the comments that have been given, the testimony of Prophets and Apostles stand bright and clear. For they know, and speak, the truth. Simply take the testimony of one apostle, Jeffery R. Holland.

youtube.com/watch?v=rAvvAHqnIKk&feature=related

He says:

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, … a rock of offence,” a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.”

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared in crossing an ocean, settling in a new world. I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek nor witness the fiery death of innocent believers. I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them, “* give [my name] unto the world, to witness unto the world that which * have seen.” And like them, “* lie not, God bearing witness of it.”

I ask that my testimony of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies, given today under my own oath and office, be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven. I hope I have a few years left in my “last days,” but whether I do or do not, I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world, in the most straightforward language I could summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the latter days. (Safety for the Soul, Jeffery R. Holland, General Conference Oct. 2009)

---

 

[TexanKnight]

Despite all the comments that have been given, the testimony of Prophets and Apostles stand bright and clear. For they know, and speak, the truth. Simply take the testimony of one apostle, Jeffery R. Holland.

youtube.com/watch?v=rAvvAHqnIKk&feature=related

He says:

James Jones said some of the same stuff…guess that makes him right, too?

That is the trouble with false prophets and “apostles”, they all say good stuff, but they lack the truth.

 

[Janderich]

James Jones said some of the same stuff…guess that makes him right, too?

That is the trouble with false prophets and “apostles”, they all say good stuff, but they lack the truth.

Enlighten me. Who is James Jones and what did he say.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Despite all the comments that have been given, the testimony of Prophets and Apostles stand bright and clear. For they know, and speak, the truth. Simply take the testimony of one apostle, Jeffery R. Holland.

youtube.com/watch?v=rAvvAHqnIKk&feature=related

He says:

Proselyting.

 

[Janderich]

Proselyting.

Rebecca,
This thread asks why Mormon leaders have not exposed the Chruch as false. To provide a statement from a Mormon leader on this subject seems extreemly valuable to the topic at hand. If this is proselyting then we should do away with the entire thread because it would appear the actual testimony of the very leaders in question is not allowed thus making the question one sided and meaningless.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Enlighten me. Who is James Jones and what did he say.

When I look out over this valley of young people, hundred and twenty-one young people in this church. They were once imprisoned by drugs. And now not one of these young people even have a violation of a law, not even a traffic violation. No tobacco, no alcohol, no drugs. No race prejudice. Free from all those lacks and wants. Free from all that division. All that carnal now– that carnal awareness. Free from those aspirations of worldly gain, the a– selfishness, the aggrandizing spirit of mortal mind and animalism. Truly, beloved, you can only see God here, if you have a heart to listen, eyes to look honestly, you can only behold God here. I do not require that you behold God in me. If you reproduce God to a greater degree by not seeing God in me and seeing it in yourself, then I’m happy for you. If you can sensitize yourself to a greater awareness of God, without recognizing me as a personal ministry of this five-fold heaven-sent order, then I’m glad for you, but in the meantime, if you haven’t found all that you want of God, come and follow me as I follow Christ. Take up your cross, as I take up mine (Matthew 16:24, “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” See also Mark 8:34, Mark 10:21, Luke 2:23, and John 19:31.). Let me speak in the person of Christ, as Paul said, what you forgive, I forgive also (2 Corinthians 2:10, “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ”), anything you bind, I bind also, Paul said, and I do it. Not in the name, not in a prayer, but in the person of Jesus Christ (likely Matthew 16:18-19, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” and Matthew 18:18, “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”). (Voice calms) I’m speaking in the office of the hundredfold ministry to those that need it (Matthew 13:3-9). But if you are unfolding on your own behalf, I’m grateful for your aspirations and your manifestation. I do not require that you call me anything but Jim Jones. Just do the works of Christ. If you care to do the works of Christ, come and unite with me. If you care to live the apostolic life, we’ll have all the agreement we need. You don’t have to give me any recognition whatsoever. Now when we take our hands again, in a different way, a different motion. (Pause) Just so that love is felt. Laying on of hands is a great art, it’s a great ministry.

Jim Jones, Redwood Valley, June 1972

Video archive at youtube.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
This thread asks why Mormon leaders have not exposed the Chruch as false. To provide a statement from a Mormon leader on this subject seems extreemly valuable to the topic at hand. If this is proselyting then we should do away with the entire thread because it would appear the actual testimony of the very leaders in question is not allowed thus making the question one sided and meaningless.

No doubt, one can read Holland and wonder if he really believes what he is saying. Could be he does, could be he is posturing.

I’m also aware Mormons look for any opportunity to bear their testimony. Testimony bearing, also called witnessing, is proselyting.

You could have chosen any number of quotes from Holland. Say, his conf. talk where he mocks the Trinity. No, you chose one where he is bearing his testimony.

So.

Proselyting.

 

[twopekinguys]

No doubt, one can read Holland and wonder if he really believes what he is saying. Could be he does, could be he is posturing.

I’m also aware Mormons look for any opportunity to bear their testimony. Testimony bearing, also called witnessing, is proselyting.

You could have chosen any number of quotes from Holland. Say, his conf. talk where he mocks the Trinity. No, you chose one where he is bearing his testimony.

So.

Proselyting.

If all else fails, and you can’t rebuke or rebut what has been presented, bear your testimony. Or, cry persecution.

 

[Stephen168]

Despite all the comments that have been given, the testimony of Prophets and Apostles stand bright and clear.

“For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Book IV, Chapter 7.

 

[BListon]

Today as I sat in an LDS sacrament meeting (I no longer consider myself LDS, but a relative asked my wife and I to attend his mission farewell) I began thinking about what is riding on the claims of LDS and Roman Catholic leadership, and a question that has long troubled me: **If the LDS faith is not actually what its leaders claim, why is it that none of the 16 presidents, and additional men calling themselves apostles and prophets, have admitted it is fraudulent? **

The RCC points to tradition and apostolic succession for legitimacy, but they don’t seem to emphasize modern day guidance and revelation, at least in the way that the LDS faith does. On the other hand, the LDS leadership claim to be prophets, seers, and revelators. What exactly this means and how it works is undefined, but we can be sure that they claim God speaks to them in some abnormal sense.

I can see how, even IF the Roman Catholic Church is not the True faith, it could have perpetuated while the believers even at the top remain honest and good people. The pope, other clergy, and laypeople simply believe they are part of something good and valid that was revealed 2000 years ago. They don’t see themselves as being guided in the same way that Mormons do.

On the other hand, the LDS leaders, both past and present, claim to have modern day revelation guiding the organization. **If they are not actually what they claim to be why is it that none of the 16 presidents, and additional men calling themselves apostles, have admitted it is fraudulent? **

Simply because they don’t consider it to be “fraudulant”

 

[truthseeker32]

Simply because they don’t consider it to be “fraudulant”

I guess this is where I get really hung up. I can no longer claim to be a believing Mormon, but as I study the phenomenon that is Mormonism there are all these questions I can’t seem to answer.

For example, why did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon in the first place? Many are quick to label the book a simple scam, but anyone who reads Joseph Smith Jr’s personal writings encounters a figure who really seems to have believed in what he was preaching. It is also interesting that some of those closest to him, even after feeling betrayed, continued to believe.

I suppose these are things that may never go away.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I guess this is where I get really hung up. I can no longer claim to be a believing Mormon, but as I study the phenomenon that is Mormonism there are all these questions I can’t seem to answer.

For example, why did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon in the first place? Many are quick to label the book a simple scam, but anyone who reads Joseph Smith Jr’s personal writings encounters a figure who really seems to have believed in what he was preaching. It is also interesting that some of those closest to him, even after feeling betrayed, continued to believe.

I suppose these are things that may never go away.

There is an archive of threads here that discuss Mormonism. Including the subjects you bring up here.

Briefly, Smith and some of his family and friends wrote the Book of Mormon in order to make money. They used a manuscript stolen from Spalding, heavily plagiarized the KJV, and added material from other sources available to them. (see Jocker and Criddle). The first edition of the BoM names Smith as the author, not the “translator”, as the versions do today.

If you then take the BoM in the context of the whole that Smith taught, you’ll see Smith had a developing doctrine of deity. He started out fairly close to Trinitarianism. By his latest work, the Book of Abraham, he was polytheist with indications he was on his way to naming himself “God”. Changes were made, later, to the BoM to reflect Smith’s changing doctrine of deity. He never preached from the Book of Mormon. Not once.

Smith’s personal writing were written with the aid of an amanuensis. My opinion is, he was dictating to an audience. There is little available that was written by his own hand. I don’t think we can guess what Smith believed, or didn’t believe. In his outward appearance he maintained to appear to believe. Some of what is quoted from him, by others, I think indicate he leaned towards atheism.

Those close to him were those who he trusted and included in his “work”. Those who defied him, in any manner, were immediately “excommunicated”. Some were in so far with him, that for them to deny any of what Smith taught would look more than poorly on their own character. Smith was also known to threaten people with destroying their reputations. Character and reputation had a very high importance to the culture of 19th century America.

That’s all without going into Smith’s personal character, which makes everything about him suspect. There are also many threads here regarding that topic.

 

[truthseeker32]

There is an archive of threads here that discuss Mormonism. Including the subjects you bring up here.

Briefly, Smith and some of his family and friends wrote the Book of Mormon in order to make money. They used a manuscript stolen from Spalding, heavily plagiarized the KJV, and added material from other sources available to them. (see Jocker and Criddle). The first edition of the BoM names Smith as the author, not the “translator”, as the versions do today.

As a money making scheme, the BoM sure didn’t work very well, especially at first. Solomon Spaulding’s manuscripts only contains loose similarities to Smith’s work. Claiming it was the basis for the BoM seems like arguing that Star Trek was the basis of Star Wars. There are loose similarities, but many more unique qualities to both.

“Doctor Philastus Hurlbut obtained a manuscript through Spalding’s widow, and showed it in public presentations in Kirtland, Ohio, in December 1833.[citation needed] Hurlbut then became embroiled in a legal dispute with Joseph Smith. Subsequently, Hurlbut delivered the documents he had collected to Howe. Howe was unable to find the alleged similarities with the Book of Mormon that were described in the statements and instead argued in Mormonism Unvailed (1834) that there must exist a second Spalding manuscript which was now lost.”

If you then take the BoM in the context of the whole that Smith taught, you’ll see Smith had a developing doctrine of deity. He started out fairly close to Trinitarianism. By his latest work, the Book of Abraham, he was polytheist with indications he was on his way to naming himself “God”. Changes were made, later, to the BoM to reflect Smith’s changing doctrine of deity. He never preached from the Book of Mormon. Not once.

You are correct about this.

Smith’s personal writing were written with the aid of an amanuensis. My opinion is, he was dictating to an audience. There is little available that was written by his own hand. I don’t think we can guess what Smith believed, or didn’t believe. In his outward appearance he maintained to appear to believe. Some of what is quoted from him, by others, I think indicate he leaned towards atheism.

Your theories are interesting. Thank you for sharing them.