Why is Mormonism the big discussion topic in this forum?

[CJ_Nick]

I was merely responding to the OP. If you know of a better explanation as to why there are so many Mormon (often anti-Mormon) threads running in here, started by Catholics (often anti-Mirmon Cathilics), why don’t you tell us what that is, instead of snapping back at me?

zerinus

Hello again Zerinus,

I can’t tell you why, for sure, but I do have an opinion as to why there are so many. Do you want my opinion??? OK, here it goes. The reason why ( IMHO ) is that the Mormon teaching is so far removed, different, and indeed completly new to that of what Christ taught when he walked among us.

I would offer that the Mormon Church is very appetizing to potential converts ( Become a God of your own Earth, sealings with spouse forever, different levels of Heaven, etc) and is indeed a " flavor " many of us broken humans would be drawn to. The problem, as I see it, is that we don’t get to " choose " which flavor we would like to pick as it has already been chosen for us by the " Chosen One " - Christ.

In addition, the use of " anti Mormon " seems to be WAY over used. I think one who disagrees with all the LDS prophet claims and teachings should not be labeled " anti " but should be understood, simply, as one who does not believe or adhere to the LDS claims and teachings.

I am sorry that my last post to you was taken as " snapping back at you ". I was merely disagreeing with your contributon that Catholics are fearful of LDS members.

At any rate, I appreciate you willingness to share your perspectives with me.

Peace,
CJ

 

[ParkerD]

I Nephi 14:10 And he saith unto me, Behold, there is, save it be, two churches: 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. Therefore, there are two churches WITHIN Mormonism, because the LDS would rather winnow people than teachings.

Jerusha,
There is no doubt in my mind that there are LDS who act in the following ways, and are therefore being enticed by the devil or his angels (the spirits who followed him in the pre-mortal life and were cast down to this earth):

1. exercise control, dominion or compulsion in their relationships
2. create contention in their relationships
3. are enticed by addictive behaviors and do not repent of those behaviors
4. abuse their authority, mislead others, appear to be something on the outside that they are not on the inside

The Book of Mormon is all about this. It is written more applicably to the LDS themselves than to those outside of the LDS church. President Benson made this very clear years ago. (Actually, it is written to both, but more especially to the LDS members.)

As to your last inference, when Christ talked about “better that a millstone be hanged about his neck…”, He wasn’t mincing words. To allow intellectual self-appointed “geniuses” to injure “these little ones who believe in me” would be to violate Christ’s injunction.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

[why_me]

Plus, refuting Mormonism is perhaps the easiest task any apologist could undertake. I think some of the more shrewd LDS leaders have known that and tried to cover-up the history of the Mormon church.

So how is it that something which is so simple to refute, still retains passionate believers? Someone mentioned “hard-headedness” and it’s like that. It’s perhaps like an addiction to a drug. There’s no good reason for it, but it retains a grip on the person.

Can you give your theory about who wrote the book of mormon and an explanation of the witnesses that signed statements that they were shown the plates that had an appearance of gold, three of those witnesses claiming that they were shown the plates by an angel?

Also, why Joseph Smith’s wife Emma went along with it even though she disdained polygamy at times? And why JS would eventually give his life for a fraud and suffer persecution for 20 or so years when he brought forth the book of mormon even though it was a fraud, according to you. I look forward to your answer.

 

[reggieM]

Can you give your theory about who wrote the book of mormon

Joseph Smith with some collaboration with library books cobbled together the fanciful book of mormon. He slightly altered texts from the KJV and claimed that he translated plates. Mr. Smith already had a bad track record, having been arrested for his treasure-seeking con-game and known as a teller of fanciful tales.

an explanation of the witnesses that signed statements that they were shown the plates that had an appearance of gold, three of those witnesses claiming that they were shown the plates by an angel?

Again, I don’t want to sound disrespectful to you or other LDS believers as persons of dignity, but when I consider aspects of your religion, I just find it beyond absurdly laughable, and I am not the only one who does so. As ParkerD just said “It is what one can expect from casual observers …” So, one should expect me to find the story of the golden plates to be comical and ridiculous (and therefore there’s no reason to be offended, I hope).

Joseph Smith just happened to find these gold plates (which are then later claimed to merely have “the appearance of gold”) in the same way that he found “treasures” in Palmyra New York, for which he was arrested. Then, he is told not to show anyone the plates, but apparently they can “feel” the plates covered with a cloth (as Emma did). Ok, right there anyone (non-LDS) will smile. This is like how a child makes up a story. When his followers pressured him, Mr. Smith said that the angel took the plates back so, sorry, they couldn’t see them. Then Smith said he got them back but they were hidden in the woods. Then finally, the angel took them back so nobody can analyse them. Smith supposedly translated the plates without even needing to see them to do so (therefore, why were the plates necessary at all?).

As for the “witnesses”, Mr. Harris claimed that nobody saw the physical plates, but only saw them spiritually. Supposedly, Mr. Smith was not supposed to show the plates to any “unauthorized” person but then he showed them to Harris and others (how did they get “authorized”?).

I realize that the LDS has lengthy arguments about every detail of this absurd story, but none of that has ever done anything to make this story appear as anything but a fraud and a con-game by Joseph Smith. As I see it, there’s not even enough material to debate about. The whole thing rings false and has obvious signs of cover-up and deception in almost every aspect.

Also, why Joseph Smith’s wife Emma went along with it even though she disdained polygamy at times?

I don’t know that much about Emma but I wouldn’t call her the best witness to Mormonism. Her husband was getting famous and he claimed that angels would strike down anyone who opposed him, so she was simple-minded enough to go along – although, as you said, his polygamy wasn’t very pleasing to her.

And why JS would eventually give his life for a fraud and suffer persecution for 20 or so years when he brought forth the book of mormon even though it was a fraud, according to you.

Well, I don’t consider a guy who was shot in a gun battle as having “given his life”. If Smith had won that final battle, he would have “taken other people’s lives to protect his own scheme”. Clearly, Mormonism made an unknown guy very famous and very successful with the ladies. That has a lot of attractive power (some wondered why God always chose the most attractive women in the congregation to be Joseph Smith’s wives).

I realize that you disagree with me and don’t like what I said. But perhaps it would be best to accept it, as ParkerD did, as just what “casual observers” should be expected to believe about the LDS. As I said, Mormonism strikes me as a fraud, a particularly lame one actually, which has almost zero truth in it’s core story. I do not find it dignified at all, and at best, I find the details to be the most humorous concoctions I’ve ever read about religion.

I guess it helps having lived near Palmyra NY all my life. I know the people there and the descendents of Joseph Smith’s neighbors. They’re very simple people with no theological sophistication at all. There was almost no Catholic presence there when Joseph Smith launched his Mormon story. So, his influences are clearly seen in the bible-thumping Protestant churches of the area and the heavy concentration of Masonic lodges there. His theology was a mismash of those influences. Some real exposure to Catholicism would have helped him a lot (and avoided the entire Mormon religion). Claims about the “great apostasy” were made without his even understanding Christian origins themselves.

 

[why_me]

As for the “witnesses”, Mr. Harris claimed that nobody saw the physical plates, but only saw them spiritually. Supposedly, Mr. Smith was not supposed to show the plates to any “unauthorized” person but then he showed them to Harris and others (how did they get “authorized”?).

This was the last testimony given my Martin Harris before he died:

Last Testimony of Martin Harris
One of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon
While at Clarkston a short time before he died, Martin Harris bore strong testimonies as a witness of the Book of Mormon. Ola A. Jenson, ward clerk of Clarkston at the time gives a signed statement of the following testimony of Martin Harris.

It was in Clarkston, Utah, July 1875. Early in the morning a, thought come to my mind that I would go and see how Brother Martin Harris was feeling. It was only three blocks from my home. I heard he was not feeling well. People came from other towns to see Brother Harris and hear him bear his testimony on the Book of Mormon. When I arrived there were two men present. Brother Harris lay on his bed leaning on his elbow. I said, “How are you?” Brother Harris answered slowly, “Pretty well.” “We came to hear your testimony on the Book of Mormon.” “Yes,” he said in a loud voice as he sat up in bed, “I wish that I could speak loud enough that the whole world could hear my testimony. Brother stand over so I can see you.” Then he stretched out his hand and said, “Brother I believe there is an Angel to hear what I shall tell you, and you shall never forget what I shall say. The Prophet, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and myself went into a little grove to pray to obtain a promise that we should behold it with our own eyes. That we could testify of it to the world. We prayed two or three times and a length the angel stood before Oliver and David and showed them the plates. But behold I had gone by myself to pray and in my desperation I asked the Prophet to kneel down with me and pray for me that I may also see the plates. And we did so and immediately the Angel stood before me and said, “Look” and when I glanced at him I fell but I stood on my feet and saw the Angel turn the golden leaves over and I said, “It is enough my Lord and my God.” Then I heard the voice of God say the Book is true and translate correctly!”

mendonutah.net/history/cache_county/44.htm

And as for the spiritual eye comment please see here:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses_3.pdf

 

[ParkerD]

ReggieM,
You ascribe an amazing writing ability in the person of Joseph Smith.
Joseph Smith had been given a pistol by a visitor shortly before the mob/militia stormed the jail where he and others were supposed to be protected, and instead were shot at while the guards did nothing. I suppose that it’s easy for you to say it was a “gun battle.” But anyone with any sense at all knows that there is more than a “gun battle” going on in those circumstances. You truly are a “casual observer,” quickly jumping to easy “I will not think about this” conclusions. That’s fine with me. Have a nice day.

 

[ralphinal]

Not to get into the specifics of what is discussed, Mormonism is like all the other topics on here. Sometimes, it seems like it is all we discuss, and at other times, we see few new threads on it. It is not as feast or famine as Freemasonry, but it is still cyclical.

 

[why_me]

Joseph Smith with some collaboration with library books cobbled together the fanciful book of mormon. He slightly altered texts from the KJV and claimed that he translated plates. Mr. Smith already had a bad track record, having been arrested for his treasure-seeking con-game and known as a teller of fanciful tales.

Really? Strange how no one saw him with pen in hand, nor with paper. And I am sure that the library in Palmyra was well stacked with various books and that there would be a record of him taking books out…but…alas…there is none.

But I think that you will like this story:

jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wouldn’t say it is THE big discussion topic.

I can’t answer for all, certainly, but for many Catholics Mormonism is pretty obscure. They have lots of missionaries and lots of materials out there, but, kind of like the JW, they don’t give you the whole story immediately.

I’m never too keen on reading self-descriptions, so long ago, I got my hands on a copy of the Book of Mormon and the “D & C” ("Doctines & Covenants maybe?). The first didn’t impress me, but the second was, to me, chilling. But not many people are really familiar with either one. Then I read a good part of a third book of imporantce to Mormons; “Pearl of Great Price” I think was the name of it. It has been a long time.

Reading those put me off Mormonism in a big way, forever. They’re welcome to be Mormons if they want, and I have had Mormon friends, but the religion leaves me stone cold, in a way that even Protestantism does not (and I’m not too keen on Protestantism).

Most Mormons I have ever known, though, were prolife and, as such, are welcome allies in my mind, notwithstanding how anti-Catholic that religion really is.

 

[why_me]

I don’t know that much about Emma but I wouldn’t call her the best witness to Mormonism. Her husband was getting famous and he claimed that angels would strike down anyone who opposed him, so she was simple-minded enough to go along – although, as you said, his polygamy wasn’t very pleasing to her.

I can see that you don’t know much about Emma. However, she was involved in the translation:

We do know that Joseph sat with the plates and verbally gave the translation to scribes. Oliver Cowdery was the primary scribe who wrote down the translation for most of the text, but others also participated. For example, Joseph’s wife, Emma Smith, served as a scribe briefly. She said, “After meals, or after interruptions, [Joseph] would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, p. 290). Again, this is much unlike traditional translation processes, where frequent review and revision is necessary during the translation. (Critics charge that many changes were made after the initial printing - but these were minor changes, typically correcting printer’s error, spelling, punctuation, and grammar, as discussed in detail on my page about Changes in the Book of Mormon). As Joseph dictated, the scribes wrote his words in a steady stream, without divisions into paragraphs and verses. The ancient text also lacked punctuation, which had to be added to the English manuscript.

jefflindsay.com/BOMIntro.shtml#5b

 

[why_me]

I guess it helps having lived near Palmyra NY all my life. I know the people there and the descendents of Joseph Smith’s neighbors. They’re very simple people with no theological sophistication at all. There was almost no Catholic presence there when Joseph Smith launched his Mormon story. So, his influences are clearly seen in the bible-thumping Protestant churches of the area and the heavy concentration of Masonic lodges there. His theology was a mismash of those influences. Some real exposure to Catholicism would have helped him a lot (and avoided the entire Mormon religion). Claims about the “great apostasy” were made without his even understanding Christian origins themselves.

I suppose that you saw the Hill Cumorah pagent in Palmyra. What did you think of it?

hillcumorah.org/Pageant/

 

[NewSeeker]

I can see that you don’t know much about Emma. However, she was involved in the translation:

We do know that Joseph sat with the plates and verbally gave the translation to scribes. Oliver Cowdery was the primary scribe who wrote down the translation for most of the text, but others also participated. For example, Joseph’s wife, Emma Smith, served as a scribe briefly. She said, “After meals, or after interruptions, [Joseph] would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald, Oct. 1, 1879, p. 290). Again, this is much unlike traditional translation processes, where frequent review and revision is necessary during the translation. (Critics charge that many changes were made after the initial printing - but these were minor changes, typically correcting printer’s error, spelling, punctuation, and grammar, as discussed in detail on my page about Changes in the Book of Mormon). As Joseph dictated, the scribes wrote his words in a steady stream, without divisions into paragraphs and verses. The ancient text also lacked punctuation, which had to be added to the English manuscript.

jefflindsay.com/BOMIntro.shtml#5b

None of the scribes ever said they saw Joseph sitting with the plates while translating, including Emma. In the same interview you cited, she also said, “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” I agree; this is very unlike a traditional translation process. It’s also very unlike the depiction of the translation process found in LDS lesson manuals (which all assume he used the plates, and not his hat and peepstone).

NS

 

[why_me]

None of the scribes ever said they saw Joseph sitting with the plates while translating, including Emma. In the same interview you cited, she also said, “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” I agree; this is very unlike a traditional translation process. It’s also very unlike the depiction of the translation process found in LDS lesson manuals (which all assume he used the plates, and not his hat and peepstone).

NS

She also said this:

None of the scribes or witnesses to the translation process ever indicated that Joseph used any other books or written materials to help him translate (Maxwell, p. 40). Emma said, “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from, [and] if he had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me” (“Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” pp. 289-290).

And we also have this about the translation process:

Still, the details of how Joseph did it are not really known. Witnesses saw him using the Urim and Thummim and thought he was seeing the translation, but what actually went on is not known.

From the same link.

 

[reggieM]

Really? Strange how no one saw him with pen in hand, nor with paper. And I am sure that the library in Palmyra was well stacked with various books and that there would be a record of him taking books out…but…alas…there is none.

But I think that you will like this story:

jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml

Here’s a Wikipedia entry:

David Persuitte, in his book, Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon, presents a large number of parallels between passages in View of the Hebrews and in the Book of Mormon, but notes no instances of direct copying. However, the parallels between the two books that Persuitte presents cover a broad range of topics, including religious ideas about the responsibility of the American people in convincing the Indians of their “Israelite” origins and converting them to Christianity. Moreover, Persuitte quotes from View of the Hebrews Ethan Smith’s theory about what happened to the ancient Israelites after they arrived in America. That theory is also essentially a summary of the basic story line of the Book of Mormon, including the idea that the ancient Israelite immigrants to America split into two factions: a civilized group and a savage group that subsequently exterminated the civilized group. Persuitte also quotes from the two books several similar descriptions of structures built by the civilized faction and wars that were fought between the two factions, as well as numerous other similarities. According to Persuitte, the ideas that can be found in View of the Hebrews are sufficient to have “inspired” Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon had he read it.[33] Joseph Smith himself mentioned Ethan Smith and cited passages from View of the Hebrews in an article published in the Times and Seasons in June 1842.[34]

Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were distantly related through their mothers (3rd cousins, 1 time removed).[35] Cowdery was educated and trained as a typesetter/printers assistant in the 1800s and worked at the Poultney Gazette in the summer of 1823 (the paper became known as the Northern Spectator in December 1823), the year that Ethan Smith published the first edition of View of the Hebrews. Cowdery’s family, including father William and stepmother Keziah, were noted as being longstanding members of Ethan Smith’s congregation in Poultney when he arrived and assumed leadership in November 1821. Even prior to his book’s publication, Ethan Smith advocated his views regarding the origins of Native Americans in sermons to his congregations. In 1825, Ethan Smith published the much-enlarged second edition of View of the Hebrews, the same year that Cowdery left Poultney for New York State.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

That seems like more than just a coincidence to me.

 

[reggieM]

jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml

From that satirical piece:

Joseph: You miss the brilliance of my work, Brother David. If I steal a man’s coat, he’ll recognize it again and call me a thief. But if I only take a tiny thread here, a stitch there, borrowing minute and random strands from hundreds of coats–or books, in our case–and weave it together into a new cloth, who could be so wise, so clairvoyant, as to detect my fraud. It’s the work of a genius, I tell you!
Father Smith: Joseph, you may be right, but I dare say that someday, men and women of such intellect and genius may be born who might see through our fraud and expose you as a plagiarizer. If they are able to trace the threads back to their myriad sources, your book will become worthless.
Joseph: Excuse me, but I’m the acting prophet here. Besides, even if you are right, there is no risk of being discovered in our lifetimes, I assure you.

Actually, that does not seem like satire at all. I think it sounds very much true to life.

 

[reggieM]

None of the scribes ever said they saw Joseph sitting with the plates while translating, including Emma. In the same interview you cited, she also said, “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” I agree; this is very unlike a traditional translation process. It’s also very unlike the depiction of the translation process found in LDS lesson manuals (which all assume he used the plates, and not his hat and peepstone).

NS

Didn’t he also “sit behind a curtain” while translating?

 

[reggieM]

I suppose that you saw the Hill Cumorah pagent in Palmyra. What did you think of it?

hillcumorah.org/Pageant/

I don’t think my opinion of it would be relevant or helpful. My tastes have been formed on traditional Catholic (and therefore Western European) aesthetics so it’s a totally different thing. I think the LDS believers are sincere and friendly. They put a lot of work into their religious production. The Hill Cumorah pagent gets a good bit of publicity around here – it’s on billboards and tv ads. People come from far away to attend. I met two ladies who spent their life savings to come from New Zealand for the pagent. They literally said that Palmyra was “the promised land” for them. Again, I’ve lived here a long time and that comment just has a very strange sound to it (I’m trying to say it nicely).

It’s like saying that Christ will return to Independence, Missouri. But as I said earlier, I am filled with wonder and amazement that so many people adhere to Mormon belief. I like to investigate that aspect, as well as the many stories about Joseph Smith himself.

 

[ParkerD]

ReggieM,
My kids in high school do better research than you. But your casual research has gotten you what you wanted. Way to go!

 

[Jerusha]

Here is the link to View of the Hebrews:

olivercowdery.com/texts/ethn1823.htm

I agree. that “satire” by Jeff Lindsay doesn’t look like staire to me.

 

[reggieM]

More from Wikipedia:

Parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon

It has been argued that there are significant parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In 1922 B.H. Roberts (1857–1933), a prominent LDS apologist and historian,[9] was asked to answer a non-believer’s five critical questions by LDS Apostle James E. Talmage. It is unclear when Roberts first learned of the View of the Hebrews or what motivated him to make the comparison, but he produced a confidential report that summarized eighteen points of similarity between the two works.[10]

In a letter to LDS Church president Heber J. Grant and other church officials, Roberts urged “all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world.”[11] Roberts’ list of parallels included:

• extensive quotation from the prophecies of Isaiah in the Old Testament
• the Israelite origin of the American Indian
• the future gathering of Israel and restoration of the Ten Lost Tribes
• the peopling of the New World from the Old via a long journey northward which encountered “seas” of “many waters”
• a religious motive for the migration
• the division of the migrants into civilized and uncivilized groups with long wars between them and the eventual destruction of the civilized by the uncivilized
• the assumption that all native peoples were descended from Israelites and their languages from Hebrew
• the burial of a “lost book” with “yellow leaves”
• the description of extensive military fortifications with military observatories or “watch towers” overlooking them
• a change from monarchy to republican forms of government
• the preaching of the gospel in ancient America.[12]

Roberts continued to affirm his faith in the divine origins of the Book of Mormon until his death in 1933, but as Terryl Givens has written, “a lively debate has emerged over whether his personal conviction really remained intact in the aftermath of his academic investigations.”[13]

Fawn Brodie, the first important historian to write a non-hagiographic biography of Joseph Smith,[14] believed that Joseph Smith’s theory of the Hebraic origin of the American Indians came “chiefly” from View of the Hebrews. “It may never be proved that Joseph saw View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon,” wrote Brodie in 1945, “but the striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence.”[15] On the other hand, Mormon apologists argue that the parallels between the works are weak, over-emphasized, or non-existent.[16][17]