Mormon TV: Harvard video goes viral

Not to distract from Rachel's poised performance, but - -

Inevitably Mormons claim to be misunderstood and misrepresented in the media. Two things that contribute to this:

Modern-day Mormon doctrine is a confusing mix of official and personal "Mormon" beliefs. Each Mormon receives "personal revelation," and their church receives other revelations that may or may not be known generally, even among Mormons. The essential Mormon doctrine is, in two words, Joseph Smith. Almost everything else is negotiable. To illustrate: Mormons believe "God lives" because Joseph Smith said he met God in the woods in 1820. They know that the conventional understanding of God as the Trinity is wrong because Joseph Smith said he met not only God, but Christ, too, as two separate, physical beings. Some say both are Gods, as has their church; others say only one is God, as the church often implies, and the other an offspring. And so on.

In addition, the Mormon church was founded on careless accusations about other churches and their beliefs. (Famously: that "Presbyterianism is not true," as Joseph Smith said to his mother, as reported in Mormon scripture.) When not focused on wooing others it continues to misrepresent and speak rather unkindly about others. Its claim to be the only true church - - the only true Christian church - - is the foundation for many other aggravating doctrines and a confrontation that Mormons bemoan and blame on others.

Bob,
As a practicing Latter Day Saint for the last 35 years, I take issue with your statement that we "misrepresent and speak rather unkindly about others"-
In my own personal experience I have never, not even one time, heard anyone speak unkindly of another faith from the pulpit. The LDS church website has not one unflattering remark about another faith tradition.
Maybe what a Mormon bemoans is that untrue things about our religion are stated as fact by others. If someone told a lie about something sacred and important to you, would you bemoan such a thing?

Chances are, Lola, that in your 35 years as LDS you have not met with and listened to scores of eager young missionaries of your church. I have. I'll never bet on what one will say!

I have listened to testimonies and little talks in dozens of sacrament meetings and firesides - - usually bland, occasionally demeaning of another faith (not necessarily my own).

The literature of the church is filled with insults. Just one example: "The Strange Gods of Christendom" and "False Gods" - - used by LeGrand Richards in "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" to describe the faith of all churches except his own, and yours.

At lds.org one can search out comments and teachings that offend others; there's lots of stuff at that site. Comments may seem tame (and true) to members, who are accustomed to the idea that everyone else is wrong. Look at what the church teaches in its student manuals, such as its statement that "the church of the devil" is every church other than the one true church. And so on; sorry to disturb you.

Now, now Bob,
Why would you think you disturbed me?
You leave me to wonder why, if the LDS church is such a bad thing, you would have listened to "scores of eager young missionaries" and "testimonies and little talks in dozens of sacrament meetings?" You did remind me of a comment I heard about the missionaries several years back. "The LDS Church must be true or the missionaries would have destroyed it long ago."
All of us who are of a religious tradition think we are right, whether we are Baptist, Methodist, Jewish or Mormon. Are you offended by all other religions who think they have the truth, or just the Mormons?

As a former missionary and a convert to the church. I would state that we are taught not to discuss other religions disparagingly. In fact our view is to merely offer what we have. The question as to whether other religions are true or not, is something that is imbedded in all religions. After all, if you seek that which is the way to salvation you do not do so by presuming Catholic, Islamic or Baptist are all equally valid or true.

In reading Mormon church history one will find it taught that god told Joseph Smith that all the religions on the earth were an abomination. This idea is not ecumenical in the least bit. When a missionary I taught, as instructed, that all churches were wrong, when explaining the "First Vision". That all religions were wrong was the purported answer Joseph received from God. Supposedly God said, "they draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me."

The girl in the interview left out the part about..."their hearts are far from me."
Furthermore, when I attended the temple, film depicted a protestant
minister as under the influence of Satan. That right there says a lot about how Mormons feel in private about the other Christian sects. Lastly, the Book of Mormon teaches that all other religions are the church of the devil.

Small wonder other Christian religions are hesitant to include the Mormons in community of Christian churches.

As one who works with youth everyday, I can not help but admire the zeal of LDS youths and young adults and how much they stand out in a world become slave to computer games, baggy pants and skateboards. I don't pretend to understand the faith, but the family culture of the Morons leaves me wondering as a parent if I choose the right path for my children.

Let's remember Bob how few reglions send their youth out to represent them. That in it;\'s self is a powerful statement about theLDS.

Attaching yourself to any religious cult (christian, mormon, muslim, etc.) is just another form of power seeking.
Grow up children.

I am human as we all are and any one from any religion, even if they are a memeber of it, can make mistakes. I for one don't try and demean any religion even if I don't understand it altogether. I know that people often times, even Mormon's, may say things about others that are not right. The only way to wade thorough all this is understanding and being christ like. People don't make our church true it is the principles and doctrine that do. Our doctrine is misinterpreted and misunderstood by those that take a piece of it and then turn it to mean something that they actually think it means to their understanding. Whether this is done to demean or done out of good intent it still is misinterpreted or misunderstood. The deep doctrine can be confusing and without a lot of studying, looking into, and talking to someone that is a scholoar then the whole concept cannot be conceived. I do believe that there can only be only one true church, one faith one baptism. How can you believe that you can be saved if you aren't baptised by one holding the right authority. This doesn't mean that what other churches teach is all untrue or that they are bad. I find that other churches have a lot of truths and really teach their congregations great things. I also believe that there are some people out in the world that follow the gospel better than some Mormons. I believe that all people that are not Mormon will have a chance to go to the Kingdom of God. This doesn't distract from the promise of Moroni in the Book of Mormon which states that if you do read the Book of Mormon with real intent that you will find the truth and that is that the Book of Mormon is true scripture. I encourage all that reads this to do just that and I promise you that if you follow this promise you too will find that this book is true and if this book is true then you will know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and if he is a true prophet then you will know that the he did see God and Jesus and through him they set up the true church again upon this earth. I believe it is important enough to challenge yourself to find out and you too will find your eyes will be opened.

Mitch

Mitch - I just wanted to comment here and thank you for your words. I (as well as many others I'm sure) couldn't have stated it more clearly. What Mitch said rings true 110% and those that have doubts or want to speak lowly about the Mormon church should read Mitch's statement before doing so. After all, we as children of God are told not to judge others. Jesus Christ is and always will be the judge of us and our actions.

I take great umbrage at this article and video. first, "a good way to show our religion", isn't that "your mission" as a mormon (i didn't capitalize the m because the religion does not deserve it) to try to convert as many people as you can to your religion? I will say this: maybe instead of sending mormons all over the world on "their mission" let's send them to all the countries who hide and train terrorists to kill innocent children and adults in countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,,Pakistan, and then maybe you could stop the extremists. but I think not because you are extremists as well and who like them ,hide behind the church or faith or whatever you want to call it. I read a book called "Leaving the Saints" and inside was a quote :"They say that religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell, and spirituality is for people who've been there.". You decide !!!

agree with Mitch and Todd. Nicely said Mitch ;)

I do wish there was some sort of logical way for me to explain why I am a Mormon... at the same time I wish I could have people feel what I feel when I read the book of Mormon or hear our leaders speak. But even when I can not have you touch with your eyes or see with your eyes what I experience I know these feelings are real and not only are these feelings real but they encourage me to be a better man. They make me want to serve my Heavenly Father by helping his children, for when we are in the service of our fellow man we are only in the service of God.

On the other hand, the book of Mormon you can see it and touch it, and from just reading it you can start to feel these feelings of joy and peace that I was just talking about and get closer to Heavenly Father. Is this not a good thing, even a great thing?

We can talk for days about doctrine and we can discussed why someone said this and that... at the end of the day it will be our actions that speak. I am happy to to be able to lift up my head hight and say that we Mormons are always willing to help our neighbourds, as a church and as individuals. It is something I learnt to do since I was a little boy growing up in the church. We even leave our homes and school and everything we have for two years to go help the Lord, we come from different education backgrounds and cultures. And I swear we have the best intentions to serve wherever we are sent, even if sometimes we fall short to show it do to our young age and lack of experience. But we don't excuse ourselves for the message because it is a message we have lived in our homes and experienced in our lives, and it's beautiful!

Marco said,
..."I wish I could have people feel what I feel when I read the book of Mormon or hear our leaders speak. "

Anytime a pleasant story is shared one can be made to feel good.
I remember listening to Paul H. Dunn stories and wonderfully inspiring stories they were. I felt so good when I heard him or read what he wrote.

"Feeling good" I later discovered has nothing to do with the truth of what I heard. You see Paul Dunn was later found to be a fraud. His stories were fabrications and he soon became a former General Authority. He never played pro baseball for the St. Louis Cardinals nor did many of his wars stories ever happen. Yet many faithful members thought the spirit was making them feel good and confirming the truth of what this charlatan was saying.

Now regarding the Book Of Mormon, if one wants to believe something bad enough one will believe. However if one wants to truly study the Book Of Mormon there needs to be an analysis of the anachronisms i.e. the numbers passages from the King James Bible which was published in 1611. How can the Book Of Mormon which supposedly was written from 600 BC to around 400 AD have passages from a piece of literature written many years later. The King James Bible didn't exist when the BOM purportedly was created.

However it was around when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (cousin) decided to publish the Book Of Mormon. Not only was the KJV of the bible plagiarized but so were many Revolutionary War writings. The Title of Liberty was taken from Revolutionary war correspondence. Further, many of the geographic names were taken right out of the area Joseph Smith grew up. A google search will readily show this.

So feeling good about something doesn't make it true anymore than feeling good about your favorite football team winning the Super Bowl.

I find it interesting that the "Mormon haters" really are so hateful. If the religion is false then what does it matter what they say or do? It is also interesting to read about "former" Mormons who did something awful in their life by their own choice and now condemn the church that tried to keep them from going down that path. I just think if you don't want to be a Mormon, don't join their church. If you used to belong and now are disaffected with it, just shut up and let other people enjoy what they want. I don't get all the hostility, the Mormons are usually pretty nice people.

The comment about the garments were not really clear. All other religions wear there religious clothes for all to see. Example, priests, nuns, etc. We as Mormons wear our garments close to out hearts so only the Lord knows how we feel about him and how important out religious beliefs are to him

It would be nice to hear a Mormon field some questions about the real issues facing Mormonism for once, like,

#1. How do you explain the fact that Mormons discriminated against blacks based soley upon their race, by denying them the priesthood and entry to their temples for 120 years of their history, especially given the fact that Joseph Smith gave blacks like Elijah Able the priesthood?

#2 How do you reconcile the fact that the Book of Mormon claims that American Indians are descended from an evil race of Jews (Lamanites) with the genetic science, which has proven that Native Americans are not descended from Jews, but are in fact descended from Mongolians?

#3. How do you reconcile the fact that Joseph Smith 'married' the wives of 11 other men (according to the Mormon's own geneological records on FamilySearch.org) with D&C 132:61-63 (Mormon scriptures) which calls that practice (polyandry) adultery?

Once a Mormon can answer those questions honestly, they might be taken seriously, until then, it's just nonsense.

It always astonishes me to see how vocally hostile some people are to my Mormon faith.

I think I can truthfully say that I feel no such hostility toward anybody else's. In fact, quite the contrary. (And I spend much of my time thinking and speaking and writing about other faiths.) Nor do I hear such hostility in the Mormon services that I attend (and have attended on every inhabited continent).

There is, I think, real significance in the difference.

I find it funny when people in the mormon church cry victim and play the persecution card. Or they project their lack of morality on those who have left the mormon faith.
Let’s see what kind of morals and hatred the so called inspired prophets of God preached from their pulpits. Not only did the mormon church teach this vileness but also fought against civil rights for blacks. Do your research and find out for yourself. Make up your own mind, don’t let anyone convince you. You be the judge.

Brigham Young, 2nd President of the church
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

John Taylor, President of the Church
“And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God;...” Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304

Wilford Woodruff, 4th President of the Church
"And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground- it would also take the life of his children."
(Wilford Woodruff Journal)

Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th LDS President
"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race.” The Way to Perfection, pages 101-102.

Inferior race? Kill those who intermarry with blacks? Kill their children too? cut their heads off? Representatives of satan?

This here says it all. These men were no more inspired than a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Call that hatred? I'm just stating the facts.

RE: Sr Dave ;)

I understand completely what you are saying. That's why I said I wish there was a logical way for me to explain why I'm a Mormon. There really isn't. And if people felt good when Sr Paul Dunn was speaking then it was probably because the spirit was testifying according to the faith of the listeners of the truthfulness that the principales he was teaching were correct. It was not testifying necessarily testifying that his stories were true.

then again I didn't intend to convince anyone that what we believe is true. I think it's impossible. It is a path that has to be chosen personally through study and free agency. We do learn true principales in the church and after studying pondering and praying we decide through free agency if what we feel and learn is from our Heavenly Father and then we act upon it. That is the beauty of it. If you decide it's not something you want for yourself you still can't say is not good because of the fruits that you have receive, which are peace, joy, happiness etc etc...

Sr. Stan Green,

If we are never going to agree in some points, and apparently you have made up your mind in some specific ones (3 of them =D) we can at least talk about using the things that we do have in common to do good. That would be more productive no? I'm sure we'll find something...

How many times have Mormons failed to answer your questions honestly, Seth Green?

I won't bother to try because it is obvious that I, nor any other LDS, is privy to the right answer. On top of that I can't be taken seriously. Wow.

Bob:
Joseph Smith's story which relates his account of being told all the other religions and traditions were wrong is an indelible part of our historical underpinning. However, that is an entirely different prospect from overtly teaching one's congregant's Mormon's aren't Christian (ie are going to burn forever in hell's everlasting fire). Our theology posits a God who grants 99.9999% of his children some level of salvation whether Mormon, Baptist, Atheist or Buddhist. Mormon's have no "attack dog" ministries as do mainstream Christians.

Mr. Stan Green et al:
#1 The kingdom of God stands independent of racial culturalism--meaning, God's work cannot necessarily be viewed through a lens of what we may consider racist or not. If one believes in the Bible than one believes the rights of the Priesthood are delegated to different people at differing times, according to God's will and purposes, not because a green man dislikes a yellow man. Remember that Mormons were staunch abolutionists, which was even one of Joseph Smith's U.S. Presidency candidacy platforms. They believed wholely in the freedom and equality of all men--as we do today.
#2 That science is not proven and continues to be debated among scientists to the present day.
#3 Joseph Smith never married a woman who remained married to another man.
I have answered honestly.

Let me at least make a short attempt at being honest with Stan R, though space won't allow much. I'm in my fifties and grew up in Utah but then left for 25 years to pursue my profession, living in 6 countries and working in 40. Growing up in Utah, although we were aware of the priesthood exclusion practice, for most of us blacks (not just African-Americans) weren't really on our radar screen. There just weren't many (any in my school) around. When I did get to know some during summer work, they were extremely popular among the LDS youth. We elected one as our governor at Utah "Boys' State." There really wasn't a lot of prejudice. Though occasionally I would hear a racist comment, not from my parents, not from most of my friends or their parents or my church leaders, I have heard many many more racist comments from non-Mormons outside of Utah. As far as we were concerned growing up, we were just stuck with this odd practice that different people tried to explain in different ways and most of us looked forward to going away some day. Once most of us got out on missions, had more exposure to blacks and learned first hand that there are wonderful people of every race (again, as I had been taught but just not experience much), we began to really look forward to the day when the priesthood policy could be put behind us. There was a great rejoicing, a great relief among the Mormons I know when the practice of priesthood exclusion ended. Many shed tears at the news. We would honestly like to put this behind us. Of course people like you--with all due respect--I guess will never let us. If you don't want to believe that God was involved in all of this in the first place, that is one thing, and I suppose even understandable if you come from outside the faith—I for one firmly believe God was involved in our ending the practice—the beginning is more complex. But for you and others to not let us move on, is another thing. How many years must it be before people stop trying to make us into some kind of racist bigots because of a past practice? Again, I deny that I was ever taught bigotry; I was only taught that I had to have faith to accept this strange practice till the time was right for it to end. Thank God that was in my lifetime. I was one of those thrilled to put it behind us and again, assert with absolute confidence that that was the vast majority of us—in fact, though I would occasionally hear a rumor about a Mormon who didn’t like the change, I have never met one personally. (And I was living in Utah when it ended.) But tell me, Stan R., now this time you honestly, in two hundred years will we have put it behind us sufficiently for you to stop trying to use it against us? In 1000? Or will it be never good enough for you? There's my attempt at your first question--if it's really a question and not just an effort to kick at Mormons. I'll have to see if this answer will post at this length before I go on to the next.

Stan R. Question 2: What the Book of Mormon teaches about the "Lamanites" gets characterized in many ways, sometimes wrong even by some Mormons. The only good way to really know what it teaches about the Lamanites is to read it. It seemed to make sense to Mormon teachers in the past that this was a "history of the American Indians." LDS scholars today agree that it is much more complex than that, and to their credit, work to understand what science and archaeology and anthropology tell us that can further that understanding. But the book doesn't teach they were an evil race of Jews. That the group of American immigrants featured in the Book of Mormon had mid-Eastern ancestry and were part of the Jewish "race" and religious tradition is clear (though there was some Egyptian culture mixed in there too). But the “good” and the “evil” peoples who came out of this group mixed considerably over the roughly 1000-year period covered by this, the main part of the Book of Mormon. The real evil ones, in the end, were the “white” race which was essentially annihilated in warfare with the “Lamanites” who had been off and on, generally wicked, generally good, mixed with the “Nephites,” etc. The reality of the story in the Book of Mormon as to who was good and evil is much more complex, just like the reality in the real life we all know is much more complex about who is good and evil. The DNA experiments, by the way, are interesting about what they may help us understand about who these people were. Although I’m surprised that in just the few years that DNA testing as been brought to bear on these questions, some people are so absolutely sure that the results turn Mormonism on its head, most serious researchers are more thoughtful about them. I nevertheless agree that as time goes on, these and other scientific tests may have us alter our understanding of the contextual story some of us have understood. There's nothing wrong with that--we're supposed to grow in our understanding as new knowledge becomes available. Already we’re pretty sure that the Book of Mormon is not the story of the ancestry of all, perhaps even most, native Americans. I think the best approach to the Book of Mormon is the one others have recommended—study it carefully and approach its message spiritually. There are those out there that will tear the Bible apart just as readily using scientific or archaeological findings—just not as many of them because the Bible belongs to a much more widespread, popular religious tradition (including the Mormons, by the way) . But whatever science says about the Bible, doesn’t change the book’s fundamental truths.

Stan:

You wrote:
#1. How do you explain the fact that Mormons discriminated against blacks based soley upon their race, by denying them the priesthood and entry to their temples for 120 years of their history, especially given the fact that Joseph Smith gave blacks like Elijah Able the priesthood?

My comments: The priesthood policy change by Brigham Young in 1848 has not ever been explained in modern revelation. So, any explanation by any Mormon today is pure speculation. The larger issue is whether or not you can find a faith, or a time in history wherein some discrimination wasn’t a policy or a practice that was either tolerated, sanctioned, or instituted by the God of that particular faith. It is a fact of American history that Americans did not equalize blacks well even after the Emancipation Proclamation. It took America another 100+ years to finally acknowledge the rights of those of the human family, who happen to have black skin. I see the larger question at hand is whether or not the priesthood ban caused the LDS 12 apostles to lose their apostolic authority. Based on scriptural precedent, I don’t see that as a problem for the LDS Church.

Stan wrote:
#2 How do you reconcile the fact that the Book of Mormon claims that American Indians are descended from an evil race of Jews (Lamanites) with the genetic science, which has proven that Native Americans are not descended from Jews, but are in fact descended from Mongolians?

My comments: I’ll kindly ask you to retract your false statement that the Book of Mormon asserts that the American Indians descend from an “evil race of Jews,” which you identify as the “Lamanites.” The Book of Mormon chronicles, in part, the history of the Lamanites AND the Nephites, who all belong to the same “race,” are of the same “family,” and who both, at different times, were righteous and wicked. During the visitation and for 250 years afterward, the two groups were ONE people, equally righteous and good.

You’ve also mixed Mormon folklore with Book of Mormon textual claims. At the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon, many Mormons assumed that Lehi has his party were the principal ancestors of the American Indians. However, such an assumption is not codified in the Book of Mormon text. Why should Mormons not be allowed to expand their views of the historical situation? It is an absurd proposition that Mormons must hold to the unscriptural assumptions of other Mormons.” This commentary can’t address all of the complex issues found in the DNA question, but suffices to say that DNA evidence has not and does not disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon text.

You wrote:
#3. How do you reconcile the fact that Joseph Smith 'married' the wives of 11 other men (according to the Mormon's own genealogical records on FamilySearch.org) with D&C 132:61-63 (Mormon scriptures) which calls that practice (polyandry) adultery?

My comments: Stan, any relationship that moves beyond one man and one woman, without the proper authority and priesthood keys is considered adultery in LDS scripture, history, and doctrine. However, with the proper keys and authority, those relationships become authorized in God’s eyes. For example, Abraham and his grandson, Jacob (Israel) were both polygamist prophets. Is Judaism and Christianity threatened by these polygamous beginnings? Were Abraham and Jacob masquerading as prophets but secretly just lustful polygamists? We also learn in the Bible that God gave King David other men’s wives through his prophet Nathan. (Not in the case of Uriah.) If this is always adultery, why is God authorizing his prophet to do it? LDS members believe that with God, all history is at hand before him – past, present, and future – there is no passage of time for Him in the same sense it passes for us. God’s sanctioning of polygamy or of giving David other men’s wives, is as fresh in God’s mind today, as if it happened a moment ago. Both Jews and Christians must reconcile their views of God with this necessary reality.

It is obvious that Joseph Smith’s revelations on plural marriage offended many in his day, and offends many today. But I don’t see any scriptural precedent for rejecting Joseph Smith as a prophet because of polygamy or polyandry, based on God’s dealings with his prophets from the Bible, in the past. The question is, did Joseph Smith have the authority to act in such a way or institute such relationships? You can’t answer that question by making an appeal to cultural sensitivities or the Protestant interpretation of “adultery” without the rest of the Bible.

Stan wrote:
Once a Mormon can answer those questions honestly, they might be taken seriously, until then, it's just nonsense.

My comments: Stan, this last assertion is nonsense and is a straw man. A person cant take Mormonism seriously and can test the Book of Mormon’s authenticity without answering the questions above.

Stan R. I get to your question number three conveniently at the time I need to get ready for work, because there is no question that it is the most complicated of the three and there are probably others who can do a better job than I at answering it. I will say this: one can approach the Mormon polygamy question from many angles. One angle from outsiders is to say that Mormons "conveniently" put polygamy behind them when the pressure became too great from the outside world and then they moved on (ah, but if only they had been allowed to move on.) This is another one of those where we can say "How many years will be sufficient to let it go?" It seems Christians and Jews have been able to forgive the practice in Abraham, Moses, David and other Biblical figures, so maybe in 2000 years they will give Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others a pass too. Another approach is to believe that there were some spiritual principles at play in both the instances of the ancient biblical patriarchs who had more than one wife and among that minority of early Mormon settlers who participated in the practice. Although I believe that is true is some sense, I don’t think I’ll even begin to go there, because it gets pretty complicated with the “fundamentalist” remnants of the Mormon church who continue the practice today, even to the point of child abuse in their marriages to minors. I do know that I have an ancestor who had two wives and the last thing on his mind was amassing some kind of harem. He writes in his journal about fears that he will not be up to the sacred obligations entailed by this second marriage. It was a hard slog for these men and women. Otherwise suffice it to say that mainstream Mormons fully reject the practice on earth now and deny the rightness, goodness and authority of those who continue it today. Some (few) say Mormons believe we will practice polygamy again someday or that it will be the order of heaven. Most Mormons I know aren’t so presumptuous. The Mormon men I know are content with having the one wife they have as their partner and friend. True there are vestiges of the practice of “plural marriage” in mainstream Mormonism—though just vestiges—in the sense that a man might still find himself “sealed” to more than one woman if a first spouse has died and he remarries, but this is rare and nobody really knows what this all means--though some (again few) of the lay church claim too. As for Joseph Smith’s practice, most of us are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because so much of what he was instrumental in bringing to us has proven itself “by its fruits” to be good and leads to Jesus Christ. When hearing what you have said, most will scratch their heads and say, “huh?” My own belief is that if someday I find that Joseph Smith was wrong in any of these other relationships, it doesn’t destroy everything up till that point in his life that was so right and so good. He was a human being, after all is said and done. But even that is a big IF. We will see. I believe he was a good man, called of God. In the end, there are so many things we are yet to understand and I’m grateful to belong to a religion that teaches that learning and understanding are part of the big scheme of things, that they continue on into eternity, and that ultimately we will find no conflict between the truths unearthed by science and the truths unearthed through spiritual means. Now we “see through a glass darkly,” we even look at each other that way; but we will all see ourselves for what we are when this life is over, as brothers and sisters regardless our race or religion (including you and me, Stan, however unappealing that thought might be to you), , as children of the same God, and will likely all be a little embarrassed (if not deeply chagrined) at how we treated each other, including how we as Mormons sometimes treated others—despite our knowing better.

Correction from above:

Stan wrote:
Once a Mormon can answer those questions honestly, they might be taken seriously, until then, it's just nonsense.

My comments: Stan, this last assertion is nonsense and is a straw man. A person CAN take Mormonism seriously and can test the Book of Mormon’s authenticity without answering the questions above.

Whoops, my apologies: I wrote "Stan R" but meant Stan G, of course.

"To the simple minded, all things are simple."

Dave you wrote
"So feeling good about something doesn't make it true anymore than feeling good about your favorite football team winning the Super Bowl."

So all human feelings are relative? The same feeling of love that I have for the safety and well being of my child and the feeling I have for my favorite sports team, are the same? If all feelings are relative Dave, then why do millions of people exercise their will freely and change and modify their behavior toward a more disciplined spiritual life when they embrace Mormonism? Why doesn’t the feeling for my favorite sport team have the same impact in my life? Clearly the feeling one derives from applying the principles restored by Mormonism is a much more significant moving force in the lives of people than the latest fan craze over a sports team. Can you see the necessary distinction?

Often Mormons speak of their “feelings” to describe their experiences when they have learned truths about the past, present, or the hope they have of future events. When these truths and principles are applied, in real life, their authenticity becomes self-evident – lives change for the better and a greater measure of personal peace permeates life experience.

About your other assertion - you’re going to have to do more research to account for the Book of Mormon than just claiming it was plagiarized. The Book of Mormon wasn’t created in a vacuum, but has a real history that has to be accounted for and addressed. Your disbelief or ignorance of the Book of Mormon isn’t a position of authority or a logical beginning point from which we can test its authenticity.

For example, you said that it’s impossible for the Book of Mormon to contain quotations from the King James Version of the Bible because the KJV was published in 1611 and the Book of Mormon was published [in 1830]. Your failure to distinguish between the concepts of ancient scripture and an English literary style, create problems for your assertions.

The Book of Mormon asserts that Jews in 600 BC had a copy of the Old Testament (written to that point) on metal plates that they took with them on their journey, ergo the source of the “quotations” from the or Old Testament. The Book of Mormon also records the visitation of Jesus Christ, after his resurrection in Jerusalem, during which Jesus shared some of the exact same sermons and messages with the Nephites and Lamanites, ergo the “quotations” from the New Testament. Even if we extract those quotations, we still find a large, rich, and substantive spiritual and religious history, and a significant and impressive contribution to the gospel of Jesus Christ; a work that addresses and answers many, if not, all of the major doctrinal contentions within Christianity. How do you account for that body of literature, Dave?

I am sadly amused that ad nauseum picking and axing doctrinal tenants has supplanted a discussion of religious understanding. I don't recall the purpose of this video to be a derogatory bend to others, and as such, the victimization and defensiveness expressed by such contrarians is simply juvenile. Moreover, it is quite obvious that the questions posed on this thread are neither original nor creative, and have been well-qualified and answered time and time again. The redundant moan of familiar red-herrings hopes only to support a self-evident proposition of illuminating erroneous doctrine, yet finds little substantive or persuasive authority outside its own dicta. It is too bad, indeed, that such antagonists prefer to take offense than to listen. Until they do, they have very little to learn. Why they continue to talk, however, remains a mystery.

I am a 38 year old life long LDS member born of converts; I believe that contention is of the Devil, but it is okay to defend true principles civilly and with love.
God and Jesus want us to fight the good fight, the Adversary would have us be weak and confused.
I pray that all of us can get to the real answers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, forgive our trespassers, and live in harmony. Fight the good fight as the New Testament claims. And be kind no matter what we believe. God is in charge and He will answer all our questions in due time. Reading all materials with humility is key. Faith and prayer are necessary also. God bless.
God bless.

I have one comment. Toward the bottom of the first page of the Book of Mormon it states:...."to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations....And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." Read it and believe it!!

I have no problem as an LDS member in saying that other religions are wrong or that they might be untrue. I believe that all religions are generally good if they practice Christian values but I do not believe that they are actually the church that Christ has established. I have many, many wonderful and committed friends of many other religions. I respect them dearly, particularly when they really stand up for what they believe. However, they have their beliefs and we have ours. We believe ours was restored by Christ himself in these latter days. Other faiths feel that their religion is the true religion else why would they be members of their faith?

Come on kids, play nice. Even a redneck like Toby Keith gets it. "And before all this debating leads to angry words and stife, sometimes we shold just agree to disagree."

Oops, my bad. Toby Keith's words are "angry words and hate." Even more compelling.

What's clear from this is that nearly ALL religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) have their extreme fringes and those who say hateful, mean, racist, sexist and/or exclusionary things, either as representatives of their organizations, or because of their standings within their organizations (i.e., Elder, Priest, Rabbi), have their individual comments perceived to be representing their entire faith. While I do not practice any formal religion, I have friends who practice many faith-based traditions, and believe that whatever works for them is only beneficial to their life. They respect my decision to exclude religion from my life for the same reason, especially given that I am a good, caring person.

One thing that does offend me about Mormonism (and believe me, there are lots of things that offend me about other faiths -- but this is not the topic here) is the practice of baptizing the dead (and living) in the Mormon faith. I know that this would deeply offend my ancestors (and also those who are not Christian) -- given that when alive, they CHOSE of their own free will to practice/believe something different. And, I am deeply offended that any church would have the audacity to baptize me into its faith. That is paternalism is at its worst, but Mormons are not alone in practicing that.

Whole lot of Mormons on this blog.

Seems like anytime a Mormon issue crops up they descend upon it to crush the opposition.

I am just waiting for the 2012 Presidential elections when the Mormons and Evangelicals battle it out for control of the Republican Party. My money is on the Mormons.

"Religion" in all forms is just a way to control the masses and to let people feel safe in knowing that "someone" will take care of them after death.
If you need that ---- fine....but my point is DON'T PUSH IT ON ME.
Don't even tell me anything about your religion. If I want to "find the way" I'll come knocking.
If you have to push it on me then how "real" is it?
Can't you just have "faith" in yourself? In others? Why must we push these religious beliefs on others? We're judging who's right & wrong based on books that were written by folks who heard the stories told by other folks!
My kids play the game of "phone tag" where they whisper in the ear of a kid and then that kid tells the next kid. Ever notice how messed up the saying gets after 10 kids? think about it.
Now I do believe in something but I'm not going to tell any of you what it is.
It's none of you business and that's the way it should be.

That was a great presentation of our faith. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I'm grateful to see a young lady with such principles and knowledge answering in a very smart and clear way everything. The youth in the Church are AMAZING! Way to go Rachel!

I'm quite certain that my witty, intelligent and insightful comment on this board will strongly influence another person's view of their religion and Mormonism.

Before you write anything I'll just say it - you're welcome, improving the world one post at a time is my calling in life.

First off it is not the Morman Church. It is THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTERDAY SAINTS. no matter where you look all over this earth you will never find the name the morman church any where on any of the church buildings. It is not Morman's church it is JESUS CHRIST CHURCH. In the bible it says that Christ's church will be called by his name. Prisident Gordan B. Hinkley put a notice in the Church Ensine telling members not to refer to the Church as the morman church. Even to the news media he always corrected the miss quote that this is the Morman church. It is so sad that members of the church call it the morman church even tho they have been tolt time after time it is not.

Hmm...Looks like Stan's questions were answered.
Should we have the missionaries sent to his house? =)

Just a note here, as a member of the LDS church, we care about all of Gods people, and want them to know about God's revealed truths of the everlasting gospel. All of God's children will have the opportunity to learn of him, even if they never learned about the gospel of Christ in this life. Only a true and pure religion would teach that Jesus loves little children, and if they die with out baptism or never "confessing" Christ, our Savior would not have them cast into hell - burning in everlasting fire as other churches teach as doctrine. The truth is that these innosent children will all go to the kingdom of heaven. I have spoken to many "Christians" about this subject, and their only reply is that it is too late for them, thus God in his mercy cannot save them nor is he any longer concerned for their souls. ONLY the living now having confessed Christ or are baptized as some churchs require will be in heaven.

What I note about those who cut down the LDS faith for the testimony of its people based upon their faith and the "good feelings" that testimony is part of that base. Objective proof is fine, but requires no faith. Subjective belief requires faith. To me both the subjective and objective are required to know the full truth.

The LDS faith does indeed preach that the have a more complete truth that any other faith. We do not preach that other faiths have no truth in them.

If Mormonism is true does that not make all other churches less than wholely true which in common usage is false?

I think the real question is whether or not Mormonism is true and if not then why?
For it to be false we need real evidence not just because your pastor said so.

JP -
I can understand your frustrations about baptisms for the dead and how you may perceive that your ancestors (on the other side) are having that ordinance forced on them. Just to clarify, when baptisms for the dead are performed, the deceased person does in fact have the right to choose whether or not he or she wants to receive that ordinance.

Christ taught us the proper way of baptism when he was baptized in the Jordan River. In order for someone to be baptized they must be submerged in water (as he was). Since our bodies separate from our spirit at death, those on the other side (our ancestors) need someone else to perform the ordinance for them if they want to take upon themselves the name of Christ. But I'll say it again; he or she can accept or deny that ordinance. We as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are simply using our bodies to provide them that opportunity of taking upon themselves the name of Christ.

I hope that somewhat clears up your concerns.

Someone had expressed dismay at the number of comments hostile to Mormons here. I personally have no problem with Mormons practicing their religion in peace. I don't particularly care if their beliefs are proven objectively true or not. If folks want to believe Native Americans are descended from Jews or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster causes the sun to set every night, it's all fine by me. Just please don't try to convince us that the first belief from my example is more plausible than the second. However, I do not appreciate: 1) being accosted by missionaries while walking to the subway 2) Mormon leaders advocating that their followers contribute money to take away civil rights, notably same-sex marriage in CA. These intrusions into the lives of others might explain some of the hostility you are encountering.

Mr. Stan Green,

Should you be a person of faith, I would like you to disclose your beliefs. Once we have this cleared up, then we can begin to deconstruct and pick apart your religion. It is all equally preposterous and that includes your belief system too. In all religions one may find misconceptions, misrepresentations and out and out lies. I think Mormons get the shaft because is a contemporary religion. The others have the advantage of being "historically" based, but that doesn't mean there aren't myriad farcical elements to them. However, I am sure you are of the mindset that your beliefs are paramount to all others. Way to go sport!

JP,
Mormons (or Latter-day Saints) perform baptisms on behalf of departed people, primarily their ancestors, with the idea that the baptism represents the formality and outward aspect of an ordinance that has absolutely no meaning if the dead person chooses not to accept it. If they do accept it, it's the symbol of a covenant, sort of like signing a contract, though that sounds a little crass when put that way. Regardless, free choice reigns in all of this. My guess is that those who live on after death, if you believe there is life after death, rather than be sorely offended are, at worst, amused by Mormon practices that they don't accept. In my view, the Dead are bound to have a much larger perspective than we are (for one thing they'll know that they lived after death), so what seems to be so offensive to people on earth, I doubt is so after this life. Just my opinion. Regardless, the baptisms are done out of love, not presumptuousness on the part of Mormons and if we were to leave somebody out, well, now that would be discrimination that I think one could take issue with. (Why would we choose to give one of God's greatest gifts to some and not others?) Nevertheless, many Jews today take offense that the practice has been done in some cases for Holocaust victims so the LDS Church is trying to work with them to exclude this practice for Jews except in the case of direct ancestors of a practicing Latter-day Saint. Still the key points are it's done out of love but the person for whom one acts as proxy, believed to be living after this life, has the full decision of whether to accept the baptism or not. Really it's the LDS answer to "what about all those people who died and never heard of Christ? Are they condemned to Hell for not having been baptized, etc.?" Mormon answer, no, everybody gets a shot at it and everybody gets to say yea or nay in the end. (By the way, see reference to the practice in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:29.)

Don, similarly: we don't believe in pushing anything on anybody. Our missionaries invite and, if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, they move on when someone says "not interested." If you think they're pushy, tell them I said to leave you alone. ļ :)

Well she gives a nice presentation. I have nothing against LDS or God in anyway. I didn't know the Palmira NY tablet connection. Having gone to college near there and grown up in upstate NY this interests me.

First I always thought Jesus was over in the mideast at least according to the Bible. Apparently the House of David stretched further than we realized. That and God has a good sense of humor . Upstate NY Palmira, NY is the last place I'd look or a Holy revelation but the Lord works in mysterious ways I guess.

To those in the LDS church desiring a "rational" way to explain the church, I would suggest Elder M. Russell Ballard's book, Our Search for Happiness. Nice, succinct and explanatory. It is unapologetic but respectful (at least it seems that way to me...to some it will likely just be another example of "pushy" Mormons..sigh)
Anyway, any time the topic comes up, you can expect the haters to come out of the woodwork, along with the geneuinely interested and the civil. Anyone doubting the resevoir of hate that exists towards the LDS Church and the lengths to which some will go to spew it has only to attend the Hill Cumorah Pageant and watch the behavior of the "antis" parading around outside the parking area...just a little taste of wht the Church went through historically and totally unreciprocated by the Church.

Religion is inane.

That was a truly great video. Well done, Rachel, you are a credit to your family and to your Church.
To all those who posted here, thank you for a great read. it never ceases to amaze me how often the questions Stan posted arise, no matter what the topic may be. The replies to his questions here are, however, on the whole, as honest and inspiring as the above video.
Thank you all.

For those who feel all religion is the invention of man for the purpose of controlling others or satisfying his own superstitions, why do you get so worked up about all your supposed revelations regarding the flaws in the LDS church? Why should you even care? You can live your whole life without being much affected by the beliefs of a minority of Mormons. Why bother to become a critic or an enemy? ...unless it possibly may be a significant movement. And, if so, perhaps you should learn more about it from the source. And for those who are determined to believe it is false for whatever other reason, why do you relish attacking it so. Christ himself said, if you want to know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether he speaks of himself (as a man only), live it. Test it. Criticism is easy and a cowardly course, really. Few have the courage to seek out the doctrine from its source, then test it sincerely. Regardless, central to Mormon beliefs is a respect for your agency to believe as you choose. And many Mormons have suffered greatly at the hands of those whose agency they, themselves defended.

It is a cult, anyone who says other wise is stupid.

God turned native americans skin red as punishment

God had intercourse with mary on another planet so it wasn't a virgin birth.

The baptism of dead none mormons (look up all the dead they have baptized including holocaust victims)

The lack of correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.
References to animals, plants, metals and technologies in the Book of Mormon that archaeological or scientific studies have found no evidence of in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America, frequently referred to as anachronisms.Items typically listed include cattle[horses, asses, oxen,sheep, swine, goats[ elephants,wheat, steel,brass, chains, iron, scimitars, and chariots.
The lack of linguistic connection between any Native American languages and Near Eastern languages.
The lack of current DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East.

It is a scam if you believe in it then I have some magical golden plates I can sell to you.

Bob could not be more wrong concerning the nature of Mormonism. It is, instead, a highly structured religion with consistent, clear doctrines. This can be seen by anyone who will visit any LDS church on the Earth. They will hear the same doctrines, the same beliefs, they will see that the same manuals are used and that there are no divisions as there are in other churches. You'll never hear someone ask in Sunday School: "Do animals have spirits?" because we all know that they do. There are no diverging views on this. As for our "cult" status, this doesn't bother me, as the early Christian church also was widely known as a "cult" that thrived on "secrecy" and so forth. It is a true and living religion.

Wow. I don't know what to say after checking some of these posts. I should know better than to expect more from a liberal newspaper. I am not a member of the LDS, my political leanings are towards the center, and I am a Christian.

Why can't members of the LDS be allowed their beliefs? Is that not their right? Wasn't religious freedom the very reason the country was colonized in the first place?

I may not agree with all LDS teachings, but welcome them as Christians. Of course, the same folks bashing the LDS members here are on the other board bashing Catholics. If you're not an outright atheist, few that post on these boards will give you any respect.

Some comments made here show a lack of understanding on how Latter-day Saints determine truth. . Some have tried to minimize our determination of things spiritual by reducing them to “a feeling”. Let me try to offer an explanation Our beliefs are built feelings that come from the Holy Spirit.

We read this in First Corinthians 2:9-14
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

In an other place we read: (Here Christ meets with some of his disciples after his resurrection and they do not recognize him).
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, (Luke 22:31-32).

When Latter-day Saints speak of a feeling they speak of this kind of knowing. One may say this is totally subjective and we would concur. But it seems to be God’s way of conferring spiritual knowledge to his children.

Believe me you walk away from such an experience both by convinced and enlightened. This may sound foreign to some but it is very real. This is certainly not beyond God’s power to do.

Individuals are not always blessed with direct personal revelation as described above and they only have credence as they comply with church teachings. A personal revealing from the Spirit is usually meant for that person only.

We also rely on the scriptures and the voice of his Prophets today.

Mikemass

You wrote:

“However, I do not appreciate: 1) being accosted by missionaries while walking to the subway 2) Mormon leaders advocating that their followers contribute money to take away civil rights, notably same-sex marriage in CA. These intrusions into the lives of others might explain some of the hostility you are encountering.”

Some Mormon missionaries are certainly persistent, but most are polite regardless of their challenging or aggressive questions. I am certain if the missionaries knew that you felt genuinely threatened, they would take a step backward, (if there is room enough on the subway.) I suppose the best organizations in the world wished they had a dedicated and volunteer group of young men and women at the ready, like the LDS Church has. But, I do understand the protest – you don’t want to be bothered. That is reasonable.

I can also understand how you would feel unappreciative of Mormon leaders advocating to keep marriage only between a man and woman. What most Mormons do not recognize, however, are the attempts by pro gay-marriage groups to redefine marriage as a “civil right,” rather than a license or civil contract. To be clear, a single California Justice, in our view, cannot impose a wide sweeping social experiment upon the people without majority consensus of the same people.

Most of the “hostility” Mormons confront on the internet comes from fundamental Christians or other Christians who 1) either don’t know much about Mormonism, or 2) have been given the wrong information.

As a devout Mormon, I am fine with disagreement, but let’s always agree not to bear false witness against one another’s religion. Let’s get the facts straight. (I am not including you in that group – just commenting on your comment.)

Example? Doug’s comment above.

Really, Doug? There are so many misunderstandings and errors in what you just posted, I don't even know where to begin. You obviously have not searched for the truth about Latter-day Saints for yourself.

I echo Chris Jones' comments above. If someone really wants to know truth (regardless of religious sect), Christ has instructed us to seek it, not to carelessly disparage things you don't have any first-hand knowledge about.

chris jones wrote: "Why should you even care? You can live your whole life without being much affected by the beliefs of a minority of Mormons. Why bother to become a critic or an enemy?"

See post #47 for some reasons why I care. I don't consider myself an "enemy" of Mormons. If they stay out of my life, I'll happily return the favor. But Mormon leaders, in the name of their religious beliefs, actively promoted the passage of a law to revoke the marriages of gays and lesbians in CA. This could literally tear apart families. Do you consider this not "being much affected?" I'd like to ask the Mormon leaders your same question, phrased with one slight change:

"Why should you even care? You can live your whole life without being much affected by the marriages of a minority of same-sex couples. Why bother to become a critic or an enemy?"

"mikemass" my apologies to you for being "accosted" by missionaries on the subway. I hope you were not bruised mentally or physically by their actions. In the future I suggest you steer clear of the "two-somes" wearing name badges.

I also ask that you double check your facts about the "Yes on 8" prop in CA. This would be the second time we Californians have been asked to vote on "same-sex marriage" and as a group of citizens we have declined it. It was not a "Mormons vs gay marriage" prop. It was a citizens vote because the Court decided they could make law. The religious and non-religious were asked to state what they wanted. If all registered voters (Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. and Mormons) were all asked the same question and the passing of this proposition was denied, why is it only because of the Mormons who voted? I can't imagine they make up more than 20% of the total population of the state, but the prop passed with over 53% voting YES.

I also believe that if the simple Christ-like lifestyle of the Mormons feels like an intrusion on your lifestyle then you have already closed the door to any true discussion on religion. I am very comfortable with the religious choice I have made for myself and to raise my children with. You should welcome the opportunity as a test of your own beliefs, not a sparing match. I don't slam the door on Jehovah's Witness or other religious missionaries, but I welcome their testaments of faith on my door step and wish them Godspeed in finding others who may welcome their words of positive living. A Christ-like life is one that promotes positive leadership and teaching within a community and not the negative "haters" that break us apart.

Oh, Doug, Doug, Doug...what kind of nonsense are you spewing? With minor additions, this is just a reprint of what anti-Mormons have been saying for a century and not at all a fair representation of what we believe. With all due respect (and just how much is due in such a case) your comment doesn't show careful study and consideration of LDS claims. It seems to show somebody who's in a nasty mood spouting off what somebody else who hates Mormons passed on before, none of it with real knowledge or careful consideration. You don't know how many times your allegations here have been answered--at least the ones that sound like they have some scholarly basis. But your comment about Mary is absolutely nuts and I don't know a single Mormon who believes in such. And personally, anytime anyone connects the words "magic" or "magical" with Mormonism, I find it pretty offensive and just an attempt to discredit, rather than dialogue..This kind of stuff is making me tired. But patience--I must be patient. I think I'll sign off of this site.

Doug:

Oh yes.. the cult word, meaning, “I don’t like that your Church has a lot of influence.”

In your assumed fundamentalist Christian view, how did skin color come about during the 6000 year existence of the human race since Adam? Or since Noah for that matter?

There are no Mormon scripture texts that teach God and Mary had sexual intercourse to create Jesus’ body. The Book of Mormon teaches that Mary was a virgin, at the conception, during the pregnancy, and immediately after the birth of Jesus. However, it was quite evident that Jesus had 46 chromosomes. Mormons believe that God the Father can create a conception in a womb without sexual intercourse.

But, from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, if God could create the universe out of nothing in 6 days, it would seem unnecessary for Mary to be part-creator of Jesus body anyway. Why did God need Mary again if he can create the universe out of nothing in 6 days? Why not just create a Messiah as an adult – ready to preach?

On the Book of Mormon, you’ve presented a straw man argument. You say that all of the things on your list (that you gleaned from the not-found-yet list) must be found before we can genuinely consider the Book of Mormon as authentic history. However, Doug, the lack of those evidences notwithstanding, there are other methods we can use to test the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Sure, the discovery of horses, sheep, swine or other animals would certainly be interesting, but even if they were, you would still remain unconvinced that the Book of Mormon is authentic history.

In truth, in 1830, there were a great many things that the Book of Mormon predicted that were not yet archeologically substantiated. However, that list continues to shrink every year. Further, the Book of Mormon doesn’t claim that a complete Hebrew language would remain after 2400 years of history. However, there are links between Hebrew and the Mayan language, Quiche, that are impressive.

And no, DNA evidence does not prove or disprove the question of whether or not a group from Israel landed in central America in 600 BC. As evidence for this, just try to make an accurate comparison – please produce what Lehi’s DNA looked like in 600 BC.

But remember Doug, your argument ultimately fails since you still won’t believe when those evidences are found. Like I said, your argument is a straw man – there are other ways to test Book of Mormon authenticity.

Recently archeological evidence of two Book of Mormon settlements were found, which, in part, support the Book of Mormon as authentic narrative history. Both sites support and reinforce one another. Complex predictions were made about both sites and both have been supported by archeological evidence.

How do you account for those evidences Doug?

mikemass; in regards to overall position on gay marriage, do you realize that Mass voters upheld that marriage be limited to the union between one man and one woman? It was a referendum question that we voted "YES" as a majority. Mass Supreme Court, however, chose not to listen to the voters and allowed gay marriage.

What is wrong with LDS leaders trying to prevent something that they feel strongly about (incidentally, many other Christian faiths did the same)? A bunch of nuts got together and effectively banned greyhound racing in this state. Of course, that referendum question became binding.

Mikemass:

You wrote:
"Why should you even care? You can live your whole life without being much affected by the marriages of a minority of same-sex couples. Why bother to become a critic or an enemy?"”

Gay marriage is an untested social experiment that will impact millions of unborn children in the future. Why should citizens of government create families that are either motherless or fatherless by design? Why should Mormons be in favor of gay marriage when it is not necessary for adults, children or society? The human race needs heterosexual unions to survive and thrive, but homosexual unions are not necessary (see human history).

One of the issues at hand in California is whether sexual preferences of adults are more valuable than the rights of children to be born to a mother and a father.

Like I said, I understand that you feel differently. But there is no convincing scientific evidence or legal argument, that isn’t opposed by just as many traditional marriage Supreme Court justices, that require Mormons or Mormon leaders to form any other opinion than they have right now about gay marriage.

Mike, apart from the desire that gays and lesbians want marriage, can you make any compelling arguments as to why gay marriage is necessary for children, adults or government?

Not mentioned in the above comments in particular about baptism for the dead is this thought.... If the LDS Church is wrong, non-Christian, false religion, whether a false Christian religion or false in the sense that some claim all religion to be false...how can our baptisms for the dead harm anyone? If our doctrine and actions are false, then God (if he exists at all, per some viewpoints) will not recognize either us or our actions... and the baptisms for the dead will be so much wasted effort. I personally do not believe this to be the case, but in the meantime, how will we have hurt you? We do not ask you to attend such a baptism. We do not ask you to verify any such baptism. We do not ask you to approve it, or to change your family records to record it. We do not ask you to change your family history to note that such and such a person was a member of the LDS church. We don't have it put on tombstones. We don't ask you for donations in that person's name to pay for the baptism, nor to ensure our prayers in their behalf (or yours)). How can it have hurt either you or the person for whom we were baptized (after their death)?

Why is Hillel posting videos of Mormons?

“In Africa we have an expression,” Norman says. “When you see people throwing stones at the mango tree, you know they are doing so because the tree is bearing good fruit...."

This is taken from the October 2008 Ensign, which is an LDS magazine, you can view it online at www.lds.org. So according to this African expression and reading the comments above we must be doing something right! So thanks to all those that have verified this expression.

I myself am a Latter Day Saint and a convert to the church for almost 31 years and was most impressed with what was said by Rachel. She has a great deal of wisdom for her age and if I were her mother, for I have a 20 year old daughter myself, I'd be proud to have raised such a wonderful young woman. She is a wonderful example of a Latter Day Saint. I testify as well of the words she said were true and am thankful that I share her feelings of the church.

I find the objection of some Jews and others to the LDS practice of baptism for the dead and other ordinances for the dead curious for this reason. If they (the LDS) are wrong what they do means nothing and there is no harm done to anyone. On the other hand if they are right then what an enormouse blessing to those accepting these ordinances. Should there be a here after I for one would not want to have to face an angry ancestor because I denied them the opportunity to be saved.

I think it is safe to say that I have yet to see any LDS members go and rant and bible bash on any other blogs or forum boards about any other religion.

That goes to show you that LDS members strive to be Christ-like and don't like to initiate any type of confrontation. If anything, LDS members try to put out the fire when it arises.

LDS members are commanded (by the Lord) to spread his gospel to every kindred, nation, people, and tongue. That is where the full-time missionaries come in and that is where even member missionaries come in.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is currently the fastest growing church in the world, and with good reason. People live it and love it and it changes lives for the better. It has changed mine and I don't know where I'd be or who I'd be without it.

I'm grateful to everyone on this post who has defended the Lord's one and only true church on the earth today (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

re: #59 - TomH:

Thank you for your respectful post. I truly appreciate that.

You made some factually incorrect statements, however:

"the attempts by pro gay-marriage groups to redefine marriage as a “civil right,” rather than a license or civil contract. To be clear, a single California Justice, in our view, cannot impose a wide sweeping social experiment upon the people without majority consensus of the same people."

The SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia declared marriage a fundamental civil right, so there's no redefinition. This civil right was briefly extended to same sex couples in CA. Mormon leaders encouraged followers to donate to Prop 8, thereby working toward the denial of a civil right. Justices, even by slim majorities, have in fact overruled majority consensus. I'm thinking particularly of cases involving segregation and interracial marriage. Those were no doubt considered sweeping social experiments in their time.

I am truly sorry for any hostility directed to Mormons from other Christian groups. For the record, I'm also appalled by the incidents of vandalism toward Mormon facilities following the passage of Prop 8. That was completely unwarranted and illegal.

"Joseph Smith Jr"., JP, Mikemass, Doug, Avi, Stan, Dave, et al: I wonder why you comment on sites such as these, or even read articles which just make you angry. It seems silly. (The Davey doth protest too much, methinks!) Though you have every right to your beliefs (as do I) it’s odd to spend so much time arguing, mocking, maligning, and trying to discredit others. Do you think you'll convince us to adopt your bitter hatefulness? Do you think your shopworn arguments are convincing? I say, "Live and let live,.-- and don't throw up the support of Prop 8 as "proof of bigotry". The beliefs that guided us existed CENTURIES before gays were convinced en masse that they’re oppressed. There’s nothing wrong with upholding one’s beliefs; nor is it evil to encourage people to do so. Don’t think you can read our minds; it just makes one appear foolish. You don't understand us, and you seem to actively fight against ever gaining such understanding. What’s the point, or do you get a rush from contention? You misuse words such as “polyandry” and “accost”; is it ignorance, or a desire to mislead? Your degradation of others weakens your argument. “It is impossible to belittle another human being without degrading yourself.” (George Washington Carver)

+1 to Rick

re: #62 - jfisher wrote:

----------
"mikemass" my apologies to you for being "accosted" by missionaries on the subway. I hope you were not bruised mentally or physically by their actions. In the future I suggest you steer clear of the "two-somes" wearing name badges.
----------

Thank you for the sincere apology free of sarcasm. :) I never said it was a devastating experience, merely that I didn't appreciate it.

----------
I also ask that you double check your facts about the "Yes on 8" prop in CA.
----------

Please specifically point out which statements I made that were factually incorrect.

I don't recall saying that this was only a "Mormons vs. gay marriage" thing. I am equally unappreciative of the other groups (Catholics especially) who donated heavily to the yes on 8 campaign. BTW, the courts "make law" all the time. Where was the Mormon activism against the SCOTUS that ruled separate hours and pay rates for women unconstitutional? Or the decision against bans on interracial marriage? Was there no outrage at these activist judges forcing social experiments on the opposed majority? Let's not pretend this was really about respecting the will of the people, shall we? It was motivated by religious opposition to homosexuality, plain and simple.

----------
I also believe that if the simple Christ-like lifestyle of the Mormons feels like an intrusion on your lifestyle then you have already closed the door to any true discussion on religion.
----------

It would have been more simple and Christ-like not to try to legislate morality in secular government. So it doesn't just feel like an intrusion, it is an intrusion. I'm not a believer, so I'm not terribly interested in a true discussion on religion, whatever that means.

----------
You should welcome the opportunity as a test of your own beliefs, not a sparing match.
----------

A good debate is indeed challenging and interesting. Why are you characterizing this discussion as a sparring match?

To JP (#38, March 9, 09 01:44 PM):

Amen and thanks to Steve Duncan #43, Todd #46, David #49, Elsie #67, and Devon B #71!

I add: Moral agency or freedom of choice is a fundamental concept of Mormonism. We do NOT baptize any deceased person. What we do is a proxy baptism “for and in behalf of” the dead, the validity of which is completely determined by the fully-informed free-will choice of the dead. That is why every faithful Latter-day Saint earnestly aspires to go to hell!
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138/57#57

If I send you a check for a thousand dollars, you must endorse it in order to cash it. The dead must also freely endorse their proxy ordinances before “cashing in” on them. Some religions, including most Christian religions, damn forever those who happen not to live at a time or under circumstances where they could even learn of, let alone freely accept their doctrines. We believe that the keys for baptism for the dead were restored by Elijah in person to Joseph Smith, and it would be inconsistent of us not to extend this OFFER to everyone.

But our obligation is first to our own ancestors. I happen to “own” a 1/7 interest in my parents, about a 3% interest in my grandparents, and only a few parts per million interest in my earliest known ancestors. Back many generations, you and I are certain to have a common ancestor, and neither of us should presume to speak for him or her. You can't refuse baptism in his behalf, nor can I accept it in his behalf. But if you can somehow force Mormons not to make the offer, then you are, in fact, denying your ancestor that choice, for there without opportunity there can be no choice.

The only explanation I have for all the current opposition to the LDS practice of baptism for the dead is that our missionaries in hell must be doing something that offends the proprietor.

More: http://hthalljr.googlepages.com/choice.html

re: #66 - TomH wrote:

----------
Gay marriage is an untested social experiment that will impact millions of unborn children in the future.
----------

Specifically how is it going to impact these millions of unborn children? Please support your claim. BTW, same-sex marriage has been legal in MA for 5 years now, and in other countries for longer than that. Children seem to be growing up in these places unscathed. Why don't these experiences count as 'tested?'

----------
Why should citizens of government create families that are either motherless or fatherless by design? Why should Mormons be in favor of gay marriage when it is not necessary for adults, children or society? The human race needs heterosexual unions to survive and thrive, but homosexual unions are not necessary (see human history).
----------

Such families already exist. Many heterosexual marriages are childless. Many same-sex-parented families include children. Mormons don't have to be in favor of same-sex marriage (SSM). If SSM is legal, you can still be against it. You can still choose not to have a SSM. Your temples don't have to perform SSMs. Who are you to say the homosexual unions are not necessary? Have you read any of the theories on the potential beneficial role homosexuality may play in nature? Humans are surviving and thriving and reproducing just fine. Homosexuals have existed throughout history and in many species and the population continues to grow exponentially in spite of that. There is no threat to reproduction or heterosexuality here. If anything overpopulation is becoming a very real threat.

----------
But there is no convincing scientific evidence or legal argument... that require Mormons or Mormon leaders to form any other opinion than they have right now about gay marriage.
----------

Certainly no one is required to believe anything. Like I said, you can have whatever opinion you want about SSM, whether it is legal or not. What I have trouble understanding is what makes you take the next step to actively oppose it. Where is the convincing evidence or legal argument to deny SSM? Remember, we are talking about civil law, not church doctrine, which need not change at all.

See next post for the answer to your last question.

re: #66 - TomH wrote:

----------
Mike, apart from the desire that gays and lesbians want marriage, can you make any compelling arguments as to why gay marriage is necessary for children, adults or government?
----------

It's less about necessity than equal access. After all marriage laws really don't reflect necessity currently, do they? Does a woman really 'need' to marry a convicted felon? Does a white man really 'need' to marry a black woman? Does an infertile man really 'need' to marry a post-menopausal woman? The answer to most of these is probably no, and yet each of these pairings is legally recognized by our government as a marriage. They don't have to prove that their marriages benefit society. Why should gay or lesbian couples be excluded? What's the compelling reason to deny them access to a right that others enjoy?

But since you asked, I do happen to think the granting of hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and a host of other benefits not covered by civil unions does benefit married couples, and indirectly the communities in which they live. It encourages stable relationships, helps provide safety nets for the individuals involved, and fosters, well, happiness.

There seems to be a perception (not necessarily yours) that same-sex marriage is some kind of attack on heterosexual marriage and/or childrearing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just don't see the threat.

RE Stan Green Mar 8, 09 10:06 PM

Answer to #1.
The LDS prophet received revelation from God that "all worthy males may be holders of the Priesthood". That revelation changed the Church forever. It brought a blessed and glorious feeling to all members of the Church. It was the Lord's decision not the Church or prophet's decision. A similar thing happened in New Testament times. Jesus Christ said he was only sent to teach the House of Israel. After his death, the appostles and missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ only taught those of Judaism, or proselytes (converts) to Judaism without exception. Peter received a revelation while in Joppa from the reserected Lord Jesus Christ which changed the Church and Christianity forever. Both of these revelations were given in the Lord's due time and not man's, and it was the Lord's decision when he wanted the gentiles to receive the gospel and all worthy males to have the priesthood. In both cases, apostles received revelation from the Lord.

I just want to say that I know Rachel's family and I come from the same community/school west of Blackfoot. I am also a member of the LDS church. She represents the church the same as anyone should. For those of you who like me are members, we should listen and take note as to how to share our beliefs without being confrontational or overbearing. For those of you are not LDS, she presents the church how each member of the church hopes they can share what they believe. I am grateful to Harvard for hosting open discussions such as this. This is a great example of what dialogue and learning should be like.

Jason Lloyd said>

“Remember that Mormons were staunch abolutionists (sic), which was even one of Joseph Smith's U.S. Presidency candidacy platforms…”

I say Mr. Lloyd doesn’t understand what “stanch abolitionists” means and or the Mormons talk out of both sides of their mouths if they propounded this notion of being strong abolitionists.

Let’s see what the facts say:

Brigham Young on Slavery Interviewed by Horace Greeley for NY Tribune article Aug 20, 1859:

H. G.—What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?

B. Y.—WE CONSIDER IT A DIVINE INSTITUTION, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

H. G.—Are any slaves now held in this territory?

B. Y.—There are.

H. G.—Do your territorial laws uphold slavery?

B. Y.—Those laws are printed—you can read for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the states, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners.

Now let’s take a look at what the Mormon Newspaper, “Messenger and Advocate” had to say:

“Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty,... Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society…the project of EMANSIPATION (sic) IS DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR GOVERNMENT, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!— And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!...
(Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 299-301)

Mr. Lloyd, learn church history that has not been white washed.

Because Fred3, Mormons Rock!!

Wow...what a bunch of trash talk. I can't believe all the ridiculous rumors out there about the Mormon faith. Most of them are just incredible ignorance on the part of the people spouting them. For instance...The idea that Mormons believe God had sex with Mary on another planet? Excuse me? You really should ask someone who actually practices and knows the religion instead of spewing out garbage you heard from some gossip mill. Mormons believe in the same King James Bible that the rest of the Christian world believes in. We love and study it to learn about Jesus Christ…and yes…the same Jesus Christ all Christians believe in. Our belief about the life and divinity of Jesus Christ and his atonement is directly founded on and grounded in the pages of the New Testament. We only testify to those who are searching for the Gospel of Christ in their life that there is ANOTHER witness of Christ. Not a different one. The Bible and The Book of Mormon go hand in hand…they do NOT conflict. We believe God still loves His children and has not abandoned them. Why would you believe the Bible is the word of God and then be so quick to believe He can speak no more? Does someone have the power to silence Him when he chooses to speak? Fools.
We have a great reverence for Joseph Smith, yes of course. Don’t Christians everywhere reverence all men who have been prophets down through the ages of history? We DO NOT worship him…we DO NOT pray to him.
We also do not claim that other Christians are “wrong”. We only say that we have “The Rest of the Story”. There are MORE truths, not different truths, which Heavenly Father wants His children to have. More blessings that will help them on their journey home to Him and to feel peace while we live this life. We are not excluding anyone who chooses to learn of our faith. We keep no secrets. As for our missionaries accosting people? Please. If your father gave you a note and told you it was critically important in the lives of your brothers and sisters, that they must receive it, would you then just stand still and wait for them to realize you had a message for them? Or would you search them out and let them know? The responsibility would be on your shoulders if you didn’t at least try to deliver the message, whether they chose to heed the message or not.

Now to address a more specific comment that I would have found really quite laughable had it not been so offensive. And absurdly twisted….
37. “Seems like anytime a Mormon issue crops up they descend upon it to crush the opposition.”

Huh? Correct me if I’m wrong but the very first comment after the video was insulting and derogatory. We are not trying to crush anyone. We are simply defending our beliefs from attacks by people who do not know the facts about our religion yet find it necessary to flaunt their ignorance like some gaudy banner. The rumors being spread here are outright lies, nothing more. Of course, there are people who claim to be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and some who truly are, that are way out in left field somewhere. Is it a requirement that all of its professed believers must be perfect for a church (or any other belief system) to be true? Because I don’t think a religion on earth could make that claim. This country was founded on the principle of freedom. We only want to be able to believe as we choose without being bashed and derated at every turn. Freedom of speech is great…but it doesn’t excuse outright rudeness and the spreading of lies. Get a life people and go put your strength into something that will make a positive difference in this messed up world we live in. Don’t just sit around on your laurels and point fingers at people telling them how wrong they are just to make yourself feel superior. Really.

Two simple things
1. I remember a person "bashing" a missionary companion of mine saying iron has never been found in South America so the Book of Mormon is false. He resonded by asking if the newpaper reads tomorrow that iron existed anciently in South American, would you then join the Church? As the answer was of course no, we then discussed reasons not excuses. Far more productive.
2. Jesus Christ didn't say by their doctrines ye shall know them. He said by their fruits ye shall know them. Overall the fruits of the LDS Church are positive. Showing how a Church with 1.4% of the population can have a huge effect on the nation.

Todd said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is currently the fastest growing church in the world, and with good reason."

Todd you and many members of the church tell this faith promoting lie and with good reason. It adds to the brain washing. Do your research. The Mormon church is pretty much stagnant right now. Let me ask you Todd, when was the last time a family was baptized into your ward.? I'll almost guarantee you it has either been never, that you can remember, or a very long time ago.

It the church was the fastest growing there would a lot more converts than the typical misfit that joins or the usual 8 year old who really has no clue what is going on.

Now maybe 3rd world countries may have a lot of baptisms but not converts. The retention rate is horrendous. I know I served a mission in South America. Of the 12 or 13 million members of the church, only about 3 to 4 million are active.

The internet has a lot to do with the churches stagnation in the more wealthy countries. Europe has gone backwards in missionary work with the exception of maybe Eastern Europe. The mormon culture is not a one size fits all. Many cultures totally reject it. So I guess they are all going to the mormon hell--the telestial kingdom.

and on the third day, Mormons descended onto the blogs to express delight and squash dissent with a rubber mallet...gently....so as not to appear intollerant or uncivil. Then they all returned to their wives and danced naked for the children.

I apologize for reading through these comments without actually viewing the video in question--this article was sent to me by a friend, and I was distracted while I was trying to find a way to view the video.
First, I consider myself LDS, though I am presently inactive, and living in a state that is in direct contradiction to my faith. Do not judge my faith by my own choices and actions--my decisions are between me and my God.
Second, I am not now, nor have I ever been a 'Mormon'--my church is the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints.
Third, I do not, nor have I ever presumed to judge others wrong, evil, or wicked for their religious beliefs--I strongly agree with the policy of 'let others worship who, what, or where they may.'
I could go on all night, but many of you have covered the basic facts here. If this world were truly ready for 'proof' of ALL of the truths of God, we would not be arguing semantics nor religion here, but embracing each other as brothers & sisters in a place of peace and love.
God is Love. My firm opinion and belief is that one cannot claim any true association with God if one has contention, hatred, or guile toward any other. hence tmy understanding of the scripture, "...their hearts are far from me."
My friends follow many diverse tenets and beliefs--I love them for what & who they are--not for their religions, beliefs, opinions, or cultures. I love each of you because that is my gift from my God, a love unconditional. I pray for each of you, and welcome your prayers --a sincere prayer is a blessing in all respects.
PLUR (Peace, Love, Unity, Respect)
RAVEN

Dave: (Andrew)

The LDS Church has very high "active" standards for Church members. So the 5-6 million who are active are very active and subsequently very influential. You better pray that the other half doesn't become more devout.

The LDS Church grows by about 250,000 new members a year, gaining converts from mostly other Christian churches. That figure doesn't include the 8 year baptisms or children of record (members of existing Mormon families).

Go to www.mormons.org to sample the average Mormon convert.

LDS believe that the LDS Church will one day fill the world – and while rates increase and decrease, we’re confident that it will continue to grow despite the internet.

In fact, the LDS Church completes a new chapel building about every day. These buildings reflect real growth in the world and not just a revolving door statistic.

Congratulations to this wonderful young woman and to her family and all who are/were part of her life !! As an adult convert to the church, I knew that this was the true church with the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ before I had even read very much in the Book of Mormon or knew very much about Joseph Smith.

Conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ is not an intellectual experience -- it is an exercise of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and of the spirit, the mind, and the heart. I attended many churches and they provided me with stepping stones to learn from the Bible but not one had any answers to my questions about life and eternity. Even the histories of these churches acknowledge that they were founded by leaders searching for the truth, admitting they couldn't find it but were doing the best they could. Others have formed churches as a business for profit.

Joseph Smith, Jr. , was and is a prophet of God. He had no agenda but to fulfill the commandments of God. It would have been so easy to say it was false in order to save his own hide from men. But he knew that God knew and Joseph would not deny the vision. Who can fear men after they have been in the presence of God and His son Jesus Christ ???

"The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (History of the Church, 4:540).

It is very humbling to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Being baptized is the most important decision I have made in my life.
How was I so blessed to have found the gospel ?

Thank you Elder James Clegg and Elder Norman Weber and other missionaries who served in Minnesota many years ago.

Dave said (in #86):

"when was the last time a family was baptized into your ward.? I'll almost guarantee you it has either been never, that you can remember, or a very long time ago."

Actually to tell you the truth, two families were baptized in my ward this past month. The Gonzalez family and the Marshall family were welcomed with open arms into our ward.

As far as worldwide retention goes, yes the baptisms are much higher than those that remain active, I don't doubt that. I myself saw this retention problem in my service mission to Mexico City. However, the majority of converts go through quite a process in order for them to take upon themselves the ordinance of baptism. Converts know ahead of time that baptism is just the first step to reaching exaltation. The process of reaching exaltation and enduring to the end is where members start to fall away.

The Lord never said it would be easy, he only said it would be worth it. The gospel of Jesus Christ is simple, living it in today's world is where it can become difficult for most people...and that is why we must hold to the iron rod (the scriptures and the advice from our inspired leaders; namely the prophet and his apostles).

Dave, I am not sure what led you to stray away from the church (if you did in fact serve a mission and enter the temple). I'm sure that if you ever decided to come back into the fold you will be welcomed with open arms, not only by the members but by Christ himself. I think it is safe to say that we as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints love you and will keep you in our prayers.

I already commented once about "contention" (#31) and I have read the comments since then, now on 87... I see some occasional dialogue that may prove productive or somewhat enlightening. Attacking strangers for their written views without knowing the person is a new 21st century phenomenon that we delve in with the Internet. What a miracle! God is taking notes, and may he forgive us our trespasses. No matter what our belief system may be.
I know that through blogging I have overstepped my bounds as far as being vitriolic and rude; I try not to attack anymore, that does not represent my beliefs or how I was taught as to act or communicate-- Which brings me back to the actual topic of this whole thread: the speaker does an excellent job of explaining the LDS faith. Bravo to her..
As for the questions regarding baptism for the dead, same sex marriage, the veracity of the Book of Mormon, the growth and rentention of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, etc...
Cooler heads will prevail. That is my faith.I hope we can all live and learn to co-exist in harmony and peace.
There is no reason for hate.
God bless this Harvard student and the rest of us.
God is a Perfect Father and loves and forgives us all; it is up to us to seek out His Son and His Church. We as LDS try not to force or push anything that is not sought after; we know that that compulsion is from the Enemy.
May we learn to be more understanding and loving, charitable and faithful.
Peace.

All of this bickering back and forth from LDS and non-LDS folks alike reminds me of a few scriptures.......
Solomon writes about all of this yacking....Proverbs 18:6-7 "A fool's lips enter into contention and his mouth calleth for strokes. A fool's mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul"
Paul, writing to the members of Christ's church writes the following to Titus (KJV Titus 3 starting in verse 2..."to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men"...(then verse 9) "but avoid foolish questions...and contentions and strivings...for they are unprofitable and vain."
Why all the contention people? It just breeds contempt and bad feelings. And for you LDS people who KNOW you have been taught to avoid contention...You have read many times the words of Jesus Christ himself in 3 Nephi 11:29 " For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirrith up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."
The best way to chase away the light of Christ is to bicker point by point. Any religious person, of any faith, has their convictions and to try to "talk" them out of them is wrong. The best way to share what you believe is to share it and leave it for the other person to take it or leave it.
No amount of backbiting and quarreling is going to suddenly 'convince' them to come around to your way of thinking.

Linda

I can't fathom the utility and sense of ranting about the Mormons, such as Dave who pulled out racist quotes from various Mormon figures to discredit the religion. You could as easily find racist quotes from our American political forefathers and similarly attempt to discredit our entire political system. Sensible? Of course not. Religion and cultures evolve and you must judge a person on his or her own merits. Personally I'm an atheist and put all religions in the bucket of "Faith". None of them can be proven and thus appeal to the admixture of emotion, imagination and spirituality. Every religion has its seemingly offensive features to outsiders: I went to a Protestant college as a Protestant and it cured me of religion with anti-intellectual stances (often from Evangelicals) such as Creation "Science", speaking in tongues, the infallibility of the Bible as the Word of God (though it was developed by committees of scholars over hundreds of years) and the expedient and hypocritical device of being "Saved" yet plodding along and committing all the same vices repeatedly without any sense of self awareness. Live and let live; unless a religion is truly a cult (which I can't see any evidence of in Mormonism) --which to me means manipulating people to their own detriment and controlling their lives in every respect -- then its no better or worse than any other religion.

I appreciate the feedback I’ve seen on the baptism of the dead. I would like to respond to Elsie’s comment (#67) [and that of DevonB (#71)], who stated, “How can it have hurt either you or the person for whom we were baptized (after their death)?” First, I believe that my father may have been “baptized” prior to his death, at which point he was already a practicing Christian, though not Mormon.

Have you considered, that as some mentioned, it may offend the survivors and family members of the deceased person? While the INTENT may be perceived as a blessing by members of the LDS, its IMPACT can and is often perceived as arrogant and disrespectful. I wonder how member of the LDS would feel if, for example, Jews started bar and bat mitzvahs for all dead members of the LDS church…….or if Muslims or Catholics started to perform similar sacred rituals in the name of dead LDS members. I believe that all people, regardless of their faith, appreciate having their religious choices respected while they are alive. What happens after that is all speculation.

I just wrote a book. me and god just had a pow wow out in the woods. anybody want a part of my new religion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I hope folks haven't interpreted my previous posts as being in any way 'hateful' of Mormons. Hatred, in my book, seeks to deprive someone of his or her humanity. Certainly, there have been posts here that fit that category, but I believe I've attempted to be fair and rational.

Many LDS people on this forum have indicated a 'live and let live' call for mutual tolerance and acceptance. I applaud that and would have been delighted to carry on living and letting live until the moment the LDS leaders decided to abandon 'live and let live' and supported legislation to disintegrate the marriages of same sex couples in CA. Regardless of what you believe about same sex marriage, the effect of the LDS actions (among others) was to destroy thousands of marriages. Please don't try to dodge that fact or cloak yourselves in the mantle of victimhood when I point it out.

It's truly amazing that a large number of LDS members have expressed genuine shock and surprise that gay people might actually be angry with them over this. (And please note, anger and hatred are not the same thing).

Imagine if an important religious organization donated large amounts of money to a campaign to make Mormon marriage illegal for the reason that they felt it was somehow morally wrong. And in the process they trotted out all sorts of lies and distortions about Mormons (or LDS members if that's a more appropriate term?). Say that measure passed and suddenly all of your marriages were broken apart in the eyes of the law. Wouldn't you be just a tiny bit peeved?

My point in bringing up same sex marriage was not to attack anyone or try to sway anyone over to my position -- though follow up questions did spur some healthy debate. And, in spite of what another post implied, I haven't called anyone a 'bigot.' Rather, I want to foster an understanding that the actions of those LDS leaders have consequences. And some of those consequences include feelings of anger toward those leaders, the followers who contributed to prop 8, and whatever doctrine seeks to treat gay and lesbian people as somehow less than others.

BTW, the first two definitions of 'accost' from dictionary.com:

1. to confront boldly: The beggar accosted me for money.
2. to approach, esp. with a greeting, question, or remark.

My experiences with missionaries have fit both of these definitions. Accost does not mean 'assault.'

I am a Brazilian LDS Bishop, and serve on the MTC - Missionary Traing Center, teaching and helping prepare missionaries for the field. I have lived in Texas for some time, and had an office in Dallas, next to a man from Pakistan, and we would just say hi occasionally. One day, I was reading an LDS Church publication in the building, and he asked about our religion. To summarize this, we spent the afternoon talking about his Muslim religion, and I answered many questions about the LDS way of living. I was amazed at how many good things he and his friends do in their community, and we became good friends. No hate. Just brotherly love between two persons who really sat down and decided to learn from another..What a contrast to what |I see in this blog! Articles of Faith 11 and 13 are the cure to all this... http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Interesting connections between Mormons and early Christianity:

http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com

Are Mormons Christians?

The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):

1. Attend Religious Services weekly
2. Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life – extremely important
3. Believes in life after death
4. Does NOT believe in psychics or fortune-tellers
5. Has taught religious education classes
6. Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline
7. Sabbath Observance
8. Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith
9. Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily
10. Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen (very supportive)
11. Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality

LDS / Evangelical
1. 71% 55%
2. 52 . . 28
3. 76 . .62
4. 100 . 95
5. 42 . . 28
6. 68 . . 22
7. 67 . . 40
8. 72 . . 56
9. 50 . . 19
10 65 . . 26
11 84 . . 35

So what do you think the motivation is for the Evangelical preachers to denigrate the Mormon Church? You would think Evangelical preachers would be emulating Mormon practices (a creed to believe, a place to belong, a calling to live out, and a hope to hold onto) which were noted by Methodist Rev. Kenda Creasy Dean of the Princeton Theological Seminary, as causing Mormon teenagers to “top the charts” in Christian characteristics.

It seems obvious pastors shouldn't be denigrating a church based on First Century Christianity, with high efficacy.

[One of the plausible reasons why some Evangelical pastors denigrate Mormon belief is to protect their flock against a different interpretation of Christianity (and their livelihood).]

Further Reading: http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/

A Southern Baptist minister says the Book of Mormon is consistent with Jesus Christ’s teachings in the New Testament: http://www.centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

There is so much hate in the world........
So very sad.
For Christian, Aethist, Msulim or Jew -
May we all be forgiven.

I am saddened at reading all of this - not because I am a mormon and I don't like or don't want to try to understand all the misconceptions or allegations posted here, but just at the unwillingness on both sides to have an open dialogue. I have been a member my whole life and have experienced questions and misgivings about some of what the church or it's membership (sometimes it's hard to tell which is being represented) has put forth. I do know, that it does help me , motivate me to be the very best that I can. I want to love and help all of those around me regardless of his/her religion and I want to respect the good in each of us. Polygamy does bother me, I'm not sure that Prop 8 in california should have been passed - I have many friends that the passing of Prop 8 offended and understandably so. I don't have all the answers, as I am sure many, if not all, that have posted on here, don't either. When I do have all of the answers, maybe I'll start being so defensive and/or taking offense to all that has been written. As for now, I'm trying to figure out my own life - and that's enough for me. I do believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a blessing in my life and has never encouraged me to do/be anything but Christlike. I'm not perfect and neither is anything here on this earth, but so much more would be accomplished by admitting our own faults as individuals than pointing a finger at others to place blame.

Mikemass:

I can understand why you’re angry that you lost the marriage battle in California. The loss for gays and lesbians is a result of varied causes. What Mormons resent, rightfully so, is being targeted as the “scapegoat” for your loss. If you took every single Mormon vote out of the election in California, Prop 8 would have still passed.

One can only speculate whether Prop 8 would have failed if Mormons would not have donated their money and time to it. To argue that the Mormon’s influenced the election is also a matter of speculation. Generally, people in California are not influenced by the Mormon population on political matters. Did Mormons suddenly gain a new and permanent influence there before the election? No. But gays and lesbians are behaving as if they did and treating Mormons as if they “sole” the election from them – both untenable positions.

Mormons are an easy target. In this case, the agendas of the liberal media and gays and lesbians just happen to align perfectly: blame Mormons for gay marriage losses. Back in November, two other states also had similar measures on their ballots – Arizona and Florida. How did those measures pass without the big bad Mormons to help them?

What happened in California and also in Arizona and in Florida is that a majority of citizens reasoned through the evidence and the issues and determined that gay marriage is not a right after all, despite what gay advocates have said and what the left leaning media have tried to assert.

Black Americans in California, those who have a reason to be sensitive to civil rights issues, voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.

Mike, most, if not all of the missionaries you encounter did not vote for Prop 8. Connecting their religious fervor, ridiculing it to vent your frustrations over the loss of the gay marriage battle in California needs serious examination.

Mormons understand clearly that gays and lesbians wanted gay marriage to be legal. Naturally there is disappointment, hurt feelings, and anger. However, using that anger and venting frustrations because missionaries are walking the streets asking if anyone will listen to their message, is just evidence of sour grapes over a fair and constitutional vote.

My petition to you is – get behind the law and acknowledge the constitutional process. The people have spoken, and at present, the California Supreme Court seems to be leaning to uphold Prop 8 as a viable and legal amendment.

The issue of whether gay marriage will be legal has already been decided. The answer is no, it is not to be legal, despite what one extra California Supreme Court justice reasoned back in June 2008. Gay marriage in California was made temporality legal by one justice – a fallible human being – and a new social experiment was forced upon the people. The people of California responded with a legal amendment – their answer? No gay marriage. And so it is in 25 states which have Constitutional bans on SSM.

This isn’t a narrow Mormon problem Mike, it’s a national referendum on gay marriage. The people of the United States are speaking loudly and clearly to gays and lesbians that they are not in favor of the social experiment of SSM.

Can I fully understand gay and lesbian disappointment? I can try, but in that I am limited because I do not have same-sex attraction.

In an earlier post you asked why Mormons are against gay marriage. I would say that for Mormons, the main reason is because of their belief in the literal resurrection. God made two genders: male and female. These two genders have a specific identify in their perfection. In the resurrection, same sex attraction, a psychological contradiction against gender identity, will not be “resurrected” with it. Subsequently, there can be no gay unions in heaven.

For myself, there is also an important and necessary secular approach to this issue. It too takes its primacy based on human identity. Same sex attraction is contrary to the necessary identity and purpose of human gender. Same sex unions are not necessary for children, adults or for society. While many people desire same sex unions, (their perceived needs), it is not necessary for human society to survive or to thrive.

At present, most of the sociological data since the 1980s has been found to be flawed. Why? The data was skewed by the presence and influence of heterosexuals on children and other adults within the studies. The NEW science that is emerging paints a different picture of the influence that same sex unions have on families. Further, the theory of in-born genes causing same sex attraction has all but been invalidated, even by gay advocate scientists.

In human history, there have been many flirtations with same sex unions, but they all failed as social constructs. Why do they fail? Because they are not necessary for humans. Why must we replay the failures of the past, simply because a few desire the social construct today?

I’ll keep to social outcomes rather than other concerns. But from a religious point of view, there is a genuine concern over the potential loss of religious liberty and control over education.

You mentioned a couple of reasons – for stability between homosexual partners. However, there is no evidence that marriage stabilizes homosexual relationships. This is a stolen concept from heterosexual unions. The nature and general behavioral application of same sex attraction itself contradicts the principle and necessity for strict monogamy.

The emerging results from nations or states where gay marriage is legal comprises 1) fewer marriages among all groups, 2) increased devalue of the marriage institution, 3) increased separation of marriage from parenthood, and 4) increases in unwed birth rates.

From a sociological point of view, all of these social outcomes will significantly impact Americans ONLY in negative ways. Many of these outcomes will result in more crime, more child abuse, and more poverty.

So, why is gay marriage necessary or desirable for the human race again?

mikemass,

In Loving, marriage is declared a basic civil right, but I think you're taking that phrase out of context here. Consider that the entire case rests on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and then re-evaluate how this could be applied to same sex marriages. The law in Virginia prior to 1967 was that any white person entering into a marriage relationship with a non-white person was punishable by prison sentence not to exceed five years, but for a minimum of one year. There is no law on the books in California or anywhere else in the United States that punishes the attempt at a same sex union. The states simply choose to not recognize same sex unions as valid. Loving also delegates, in accordance with precedent, that the "state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment." And so, according to Loving, The Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the equal protection clause, says nothing of procurring entitlements to marry. It only protects against state sanctioned backlash against interracial marriages. There is nothing wrong with the amendment in California because it was voted on by the people of the entire state and because it doesn't penalize same sex relationships. All the civil benefits of a legal marriage can be obtained by legal contract amongst same sex couples. Blaming Mormons for donating money in support of Prop 8 is flawed because Mormons weren't the only group to donate financially to this cause. Furthermore, they weren't the only ones to vote on the issue. Blaming Mormon leaders is also not appropriate because they encouraged support from their members on an issue on which they have a firm moral stance. Whether they are wrong or right to support this cause, you can decide for yourself, but to oppose thier right to support the cause in the first place is fundamentally wrong. A fundamental right to speak freely is indisputably protected by the constitution. I'll support your right to criticize Mormon leaders provided you equally respect and support their right to openly oppose same sex marriage no matter how ridiculous it seems to you.

1 Nephi 8:33 "And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away."

Tom H. said:

"In fact, the LDS Church completes a new chapel building about every day. These buildings reflect real growth in the world and not just a revolving door statistic."

This may be true but it doen't account for population shifts and the chapels that are sold off due to poor attendence. In general conference you never hear about the wards and stakes that are dissolved or the wards that are reverted back to branches.

Sorry but these are the facts.

And as for the prophecy of the church filling the whole earth? Not going to happen. The mormon church is a drop in the bucket compared to the world population. The Jehovahas Witnesses the Seven Day Adventists and the Penecostals are growing at a more rapid rate than the mormons.

Maybe theirs churches will fill the earth. That prophesy was misplaced. Just like when Brigham Young said men live on the moon and the sun.

At any rate, many people have never even heard of the mormon church, let alone been approached by a missionary. Many in the U.S. have never even heard of the mormon church.

Too, the church is very busy processing many who do not want to be affilitated with the church. i.e resigning their membership. Gregg Dodge at the church office building had to hire more staff to stay abreast with the numerous members who no longer want any part of the mormon church.

All of you can type out your arguments, reason and debate until the cows come home; however, what it all boils down to is this: we all have our own experiences. I can not say how Stan or Dave or Mitch or Lola or anyone else on this blog came to their conclusions. I can only say how I came to mine. I am the only person who truly knows the intent of my heart. I feel no desire to pressure, condemn, or convince anyone else to feel the same. The footprint I leave on this earth is not only pretty insignificant, it's a fleck of dust through the sands of time. Why can we not be content to pace ourselves against ... ourselves? Why can we not attempt to do our best? To love and treat one another the way we would like to be treated? How about we stop pointing fingers (or wagging them), accept, and love one another. It's not a new idea, but it sure is a good one!

All the Momon naysayers are like the little kids who say, "I won't eat that. I know it's terrible." yet they've never tried it.

When I say "try it", I mean leave your preconceived notions behind. With an honest and open heart, learn about it. (and I don't mean from an ex-mormon or your baptist preacher). Then pray to God to know if it's true. That's it. Simple, pure, and honest. Let yourself be influenced by God, not by man.

If God tells you it's true, then it's up to you to decide if you'll listen.

TomH:

I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such depth. You've clearly put a lot of thought into this issue.

For the record, I explicitly stated that I did not solely blame Mormons for the passage of prop 8. If this were a forum of Catholics wondering why folks don't appreciate them, I'd have made similar points. It is unfortunate that Mormons have been shouldering most of the blame. But the fact remains that LDS leaders worked hard to ensure the passage of prop 8, using large amounts of money and influence. To deny responsibility for that by essentially saying "other folks helped, why not blame them?" is suspect. You said, "If you took every single Mormon vote out of the election in California, Prop 8 would have still passed." Possibly. But can you make the same statment substituting the word "dollar" for "vote?"

You also state: "...a majority of citizens reasoned through the evidence and the issues and determined that gay marriage is not a right after all..." I wish "reason" was the guiding principle here. Unfortunately I think fear and misinformation were more at play. This is one reason why I don't believe minority rights should be put to public vote.

I don't recall linking my irritation with being accosted by missionaries to prop 8. Not sure where you got that from. I listed it as a separate example of intrusion into others' lives. Please don't presume motivation where there is none.

You mentioned "social experiment" again. Please answer the points I made in previous posts in response to that. Likewise for the "necessity" argument. I made several previous points on that to which you did not respond. And I already answered your question about necessity.

You wrote: "At present, most of the sociological data since the 1980s has been found to be flawed." That's news to me. Care to support that statment with empirical fact? What exactly made pre-1980 data unflawed?

"The data was skewed by the presence and influence of heterosexuals on children and other adults within the studies. The NEW science that is emerging paints a different picture of the influence that same sex unions have on families. Further, the theory of in-born genes causing same sex attraction has all but been invalidated, even by gay advocate scientists."

Evidence please. Please cite reputable, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support your claims. I fully acknowledge that the genetic factors are not clear. But there is mounting evidence that homosexuality has biological origin. Read the wikipedia entry on homosexuality (and the studies it cites if you care to) for more on that.

"The nature and general behavioral application of same sex attraction itself contradicts the principle and necessity for strict monogamy."

Please explain. And then explain how opposite sex attraction conforms to the principle and necessity for scrict monogamy. I'm sure all the non-monogamous heterosexuals of the world will be interested to hear that one.

"The emerging results from nations or states where gay marriage is legal comprises 1) fewer marriages among all groups, 2) increased devalue of the marriage institution, 3) increased separation of marriage from parenthood, and 4) increases in unwed birth rates."

Please cite the studies in question and then, more importantly, explain how they clearly show a causal relationship between the phenomenon in question and the legalization of same sex marriage. Remember, correlation is not causation. Average global temperatures have also increased since the legalization of same sex marriage. That doesn't mean gay marriage causes global warming. In order for your argument to be valid, you need to clearly demonstrate that these phenomena were not already on the rise prior to same sex marriage. And for your last trick, please explain why Massachusetts continues to have one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, even after the legalization of same sex marriage here.

This is a great dialog. I just ask that you back up your statements with evidence and facts and I'll be happy to do the same.

Dave: (Andrew)

You wrote:

""In fact, the LDS Church completes a new chapel building about every day. These buildings reflect real growth in the world and not just a revolving door statistic."

This may be true but it doen't account for population shifts and the chapels that are sold off due to poor attendence."

Dave, yes the building of NEW chapels does take into account the population shifts and the ones due to poor attendance or demographic shifts. Every faith has its detractors and its individuals who want to leave. That individuals want to make a big statement when the leave the LDS Church, says something about the appeal to popular culture and not a new found truth they have discovered. I have never known any individual who could logically account for their departure from the LDS faith supported by a new faith that was superior to Mormonism. That is not a statement of arrogance but of experience.

On Church growth, the LDS Church is patient. Over the next 50 years, most of the dogma upon which traditional Christianity was founded (I am referring to those creeds and doctrines created around 300 AD and forward) will mostly be refuted by archeology and scientific evidence. The only faith that stands firm on solid philosophical ground, which is supported by scientific evidence, is the Mormon religion.

In time, whole religious belief systems will be swept from off the face of the earth, because the evidence will be so overwhelming. That process began about 150 years ago with evidence from the sedimentary layers of the earth.

You may not know this yet Dave, but the doctrines of the “6 (24-hour) day creation,” creation out of nothing, negative theology, God as pure consciousness dwelling outside the universe, and permanent human alienation from God, have all been disproved by scientific principles.

Certainly Jehovah’s witness and Seventh Day Adventists are growing at a rapid pace – but to what end? Their faiths share the same founding principles as the rest of the religions based on the primacy of consciousness – they are all threatened by scientific truths. It is only a matter of time.

Dave, you’re mixing of the present and the future is a bit interesting to watch. You appeal to what you want to happen as what will happen, but you present no reasons why you might be right. And no, Brigham Young didn’t “prophesy” that people lived on the moon or sun, he was responding to the truth that God created other worlds and peopled them before this one. Then, he speculated looking to the closest objects he could see with his naked eye. My suspicion is that you already know that.

Dave, let me introduce you to a Mormon principle before it was accepted by the scientific community – it was revealed by Joseph Smith: “matter is neither created nor destroyed.”

That one principle changes EVERYTHIING in traditional Christianity.

If matter is neither created nor destroyed, then:
• God has co-existed with matter for eternity.
• God didn’t create the universe out of nothing but organized it out of existing matter.
• God is not a pure consciousness outside space and time.
• God cannot destroy Satan.
• God cannot destroy the energy of the soul.
• God must exist inside space.
• A six day creation is figurative.
• The earth is billions of years old.
• “In the beginning” in the Bible must refer to the beginning of this earth’s creation, not the beginning of life in the universe.

If one holds to the proven scientific principle of the indestructibility of matter, then one must embrace a new reality about God’s existence. All world religions ultimately rest on the belief that God exists as a pure consciousness, outside space and time, that creates the world out of nothing.

While I respect the right of individuals to their own personal belief, and do not fault them for it, the time has come to put away fables and fantasies that cannot exist in the universe and at the same time be compatible with the indestructibility of matter and energy.

Bence:

"In Loving, marriage is declared a basic civil right, but I think you're taking that phrase out of context here."

Marriage is a civil right. All of your context and explanation do not change that fact. An earlier poster claimed that marriage is not a civil right. I corrected him. That's all. And whether someone is punished or not for trying to seek access to a civil right is irrelevant to the fact that it is a civil right. Not punishing someone for trying to vote, but still denying them access to the voting both is a violation of that person's civil rights. There is no "punishment test" in the determination of what constitutes a civil right.

"Blaming Mormons for donating money in support of Prop 8 is flawed because Mormons weren't the only group to donate financially to this cause."

As I've said repeatedly, I don't blame only Mormons. There's plenty of responsibility to go around. Does this mean Mormons should not be accountable for their actions? If you burn down a building along with two other people, would you say to an arresting officer: "It's not my fault because other people helped too?" Or to use a more positive example, if you build a house as part of a team, would you refuse any money for yourself on that basis that others helped build the house too?

"Blaming Mormon leaders is also not appropriate because they encouraged support from their members on an issue on which they have a firm moral stance."

Oh, I see. So we shouldn't hold folks accountable for their words and actions so long as they're acting out of a firm moral stance? So I guess it would be inappropriate to blame the folks who opposed women's suffrage, the end of slavery, etc.? After all, they were acting on a firm moral stance too.

"Whether they are wrong or right to support this cause, you can decide for yourself, but to oppose thier right to support the cause in the first place is fundamentally wrong."

I've never opposed their right to support or not support anything. Everyone has the right to free speech and to support whatever they want. And I am exercising my right to criticize their position and to try to make folks aware of the results of their actions. That's all.

I appreciate Rachel's youthful "search for truth." All the comments I read have some truth that divides us from one another. Jesus Christ IS TRUTH. If the focus of man was totally on GOD and HIS WORD instead of men and women defending religions created and interpreted by men and women to suit their imperfect understanding of God, we could be united in the will and purposes God has for us. That said, to be suspicious and flee from anything that deviates from God's Holy Word is prudent for all believers in Christ.

Over 1/3 of molestation cases are homosexual. Considering how many homosexuals there are (1-2% and rising), that percentage is far higher than it should be if homosexuality was not dangerous. People may try to dispute this data with other statistics which are agenda driven, but based on the cases in my community, I know this data is correct, if not a very conservative figure. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have great reason to fear this epidemic (homosexuality), as do all people. Everyone has to make a decision based on what they have observed.

response to #61 While I do not agree with the gay or lesbian lifestyle, I do not condemn them. I do however feel that by making it lawful for them to be married, it will start forcing churches to marry them in their church. If the churches do not allow it, then the churches would be held in contempt of the law for discrimination. I live in GA so I had no say in that CA decision, however, If I were, I do have the right to vote my own conscious. I do have the right to support the political stands for which I agree. Just as no one wants religions forcing their beliefs on them, why should religions be forced to agree to same sex marriages?

EVERY RELIGION IS A CULT! Religion is the true root of all evil! People have been fighting and killing over their beliefs since well before Jesus. In the end, they're all the same and those who are consumed with a specific route to God are mindless, without individual thought. Joe Smith is simply the most recent successful cult founder. LDS Church is full of good people who truly care for others. Living in the west, I know many Mormons and have never heard a bad word said about another group. Some of the most honest caring people you will meet are in the LDS church. That said, it is completely understandable why “outsiders” question their beliefs, rules and hypocrisy.

Ryan wrote:
Over 1/3 of molestation cases are homosexual.

I would like to see the origin of this study and why you take it for fact. Also, your community is a very small sample that is really irrelevant in this discussion. Here's a fact, 100% of child molesters are pedophiles, not homosexuals. Fear of gays & lesbians is as silly as fear of other religions or spiders. Don't create stats to justify your hate of another group.

Here’s a brain teaser, if 75%+ of the prison population is black does that mean all African Americans are criminals? Should we fear them because of their skin tone? Because at the end skin tone and homosexuality are both genetic.
Rick

FOR PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS AND VIEWPOINTS . . . An excellent way to learn more about what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) stands for, please go to www.lds.org. You can also chat online with a representative of the Church on www.mormon.org. I also recommend reading the Book of Mormon with an open and sincere heart and asking God if it is true and if Joseph Smith wrote the book or translated it by the power of God. Also, a Semi-Annual Conference of the Church can be viewed on April 4th & April 5th.by going to www.lds.org. Leaders of the Church will there speak on various topics.

I did not realize that there were already same sex marriages that would be affected by the proclomation 8. I did not realize either that the court went against the majority vote and legalized same sex marriage anyway. In that respect, it is the courts fault the marriages are not valid, not the public. The people only supported what they believe, that marriage should only be between man and woman. In the 1800s the LDS plural marriages were also revoked when plural marriages were banned in this country. Why is it ok for everyone else to deny plural marriages on behalf of beliefs but LDS members leaders are viewed as "wrong" and unethical or whatever else is said for using those same rights? I agree that it should notr be a tit for tat world but I am simply trying to make a point here.

Re: #93-- There’s an important difference between contending and standing up for one's beliefs. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Criticizing people for pouring out their hearts is sanctimonious and cruel. We all have a right to opinions. Even those who mock, hiding behind anonymity with the cowardice of all bullies, have that right. It's just too bad that their childish methods speak so poorly of them. And re #97-- it's sad that you assume everything is written JUST to YOU. The “anti” things you say aren’t the only “anti” things said, and you and yours aren’t the only ones hurt by the controversies at hand. There have been repeated acts of domestic terrorism, threats, hazing, violence, and other ugliness directed at people because they “dared” vote their consciences. Are victims not victims, simply because they disagree with YOU?
I hope you can stop jumping on points to argue instead of listening respectfully and trying to learn. (You don’t have to agree.) As any linguist will tell you, some words have certain connotations, leaving distinct impressions. No mature person wants to get into a childish “unh-unh!” “uh-huh!” match with you, and I’m done with this subject, but if you think you’re not being superior, judgmental ,and hateful, you’re fooling yourself. Arrogance and disdain ooze from your posts, and that’s really too bad. I hope you can find some peace. It’s truly sad to see someone stew in such bitterness.
terrahterrah

Sally, thank you for an open respectful conversation. I have always enjoyed your writings.
I appreciate a religious discussion. I am a Latter-Day Saint that was raised by a mother who attended Columbia University and Julliard in NYC and a father who attended Berkeley in California, a lovely balance of parents. My mother gained her testimony of the church reading and praying about The Book of Mormon, while attending Columbia. Both of my parents taught me that I would need to gain my own personal testimony through study and prayer, which I gained when I was 18 years old, which came through feeling the reality and personal love of Jesus Christ in an answer to prayer. As I study the Book of Mormon, I feel I have come home. It stands as a second witness of Jesus Christ together with the Bible. the last In the back chapters of The Book of Mormon is as verse of scripture that helps me listen to and understand others from other religions in the book of Moroni chapter 10 verse 5 , "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." In other words we can go anywhere and listen to others and know what is true. Our children went with friends to Hebrew school in New York and we have attended other churches meetings and have been enriched in understanding, and through the Holy Ghost we have learned from what the Lord has given to his children throughout the world to guide them. Do we believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the truest church on earth, yes.
We believe it is the Lord's restored church, with His guidance and authority. We also believe that our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ died for all of the people that were ever born on earth and that they will all be resurrected, and can repent and be forgiven because of His atonement for all, which was freely given. We believe through the pieces of truth that the Lord has given His children throughout the world, they will be able recognize the fullness of the truth. I find great peace and comfort in the Lord's Plan of Salvation, that continues the practice of baptisms for the dead in the temples, because it gives all of His children the same opportunity to choose baptism and to follow Jesus Christ, if it is their will to do so. To me it is merciful that all of those born on earth have the same blessings.

As a faithful latter-day saint, a convert of 36 years, the one thing we can all agree on is either The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true or it is not.

Has it made my life better than it was before I joined? Absolutely. There are so many experiences that would have been much more difficult to get through without my membership and all that has meant to me.

If you looked at the other segments, you would notice that the other participants gained something from their faith. I do not begrudge any of the blessings that they gained from those associations.

Truth is truth. Arguments, even persuasive arguments, do not change truth. Each of us can offer information and others can sift through the infomation to judge where truth may be found.

Because members of a faith recognize the benefits/ blessings that they receive, they often share their experience with a friend, neighbor or co-worker or even a stranger,. Please judge gently. When someone shares something so personal and precious to them, they don't do it to harm. So save insults for someone who is trying to insult. There are many ways to say; "I disagree".

It is interesting to read some of the comments made in reference to Rachel's video clip on the LDS religion. I, too, am a member (life-long with pioneer ancestry on both sides of my family) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. I have been sealed in the Temple and have also served a mission for the Church. Conversion to truth is a process for all members, and for anyone else who feels they have found the truth in what we know as, 'the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ'. Seeking, and finding truth is as easy for any human as it is for the members of the Church, Christian or non-Christian. In James, chapter 1:5, it
states: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all me liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be give him.' Next, some VERY important words: 'But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering'. If one REALLY wants to know, 'let him (or her) ask in faith'... How can we know? Let's go to John, chapter 14:26, where Jesus tells his disciples (and us, if we claim to be His followers): But the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. To recognize the fruit of theSpirit we can turn to Galatians 5:22-23, where we read: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. In my mind, there is no reason to contradict, argue, question, dispute, etc., when we ALL, especially in the Christian world, because we believe in God and His Son, Jesus Christ, have equal access to receive a witness of truth through the Holy Ghost, IF we 'ask in faith, nothing wavering.' Amen

Re: 114 - Melanie:
I respect your right to vote your conscience. But I do want to clarify that the recognition of same sex marriage applies to civil marriage only. There is no agenda to force any church to perform same sex marriages. Some churches may choose to perform them, others may not, as is the case today. This is only about legal benefits and government recognition, not private religious ceremonies. If any movement were to emerge to try to force churches to perform same sex marriages, I would stand by you in opposing it.

Re: 119 - terrah:
I never assumed that everything was written just to me. I was lumped in with a list of other posters in a previous message and wanted to clarify my position. That's all. For the record, there are "victims" on both sides of this debate with violence and threats directed at them, sadly. I never claimed any side had more right to that claim than the other. You really are reading things into my posts that simply aren't there. Especially untrue is the charge that I'm 'hateful.'

You wrote: "I hope you can find some peace. It’s truly sad to see someone stew in such bitterness."

Reread your own post if you want an example of someone 'stewing in bitterness.' Really, it's quite the rant. Nevertheless, I wish peace for you also.

Will you all please stop it??? I have read all 119, and now my life is just that much shorter.
I am willing to graciously praise all the folks of faith in either of two cases:
1. They agree that anyone born into a family of any particular faith is not allowed to belong to that faith as an adult; or,
2. That any "recruiting" stop -- especially, but not limited to, missionary stuff.
Strangely enough, my conditions mirror the fears of the faith community regarding gay folks.

Hm, I don't know that #93 was really that mad - sounds like he's trying to help LDS people see the gay/lesbian point of view. I voted for Prop 8 but I didn't expect them to be happy with me. I can see why they might be angry. I don't like making people angry and I'm not trying to interfere - I simply feel like a "no" would have an overall negative affect on families, including mine, so I need to vote according to what I feel is right.

I really appreciate all the posts that try to be civil and understanding to Mormons. Thank you for all of your kind efforts!

I don't understand why a greeting from missionaries is so bothersome, but as a former LDS missionary, I can say that self-righteous or not, the intent is usually quite sincere. As an example - I thought I had all that was wonderful and charming in my two sons and used to really want a girl, but just gave birth to another beautiful baby boy - I could not have imagined then how wonderfully different he could be and how happy he makes me, even though I already have two boys. I'm sure there are similar and probably better analogies that fit each person, but LDS people who try to share and even push really do believe that you can never know how great it is until you try it. Not to destroy the good you have, but add to it. I wonder if looking at missionaries like Sam-I-Am from Green Eggs and Ham might help someone understand if we get a little too eager to share.

I know we as individuals can come across (and often are) self-righteousness, maybe in trying to help others be happy (without assuming you are the exemplary model for others to follow, right?) I know we have a lot to work on, but honestly most people that try to share do so strongly believing that it could make people happier than they had imagined they could be, based on personal experience. Or to connect and be understood. I admire how well the young woman in the video articulated herself - after so many of my own failed attempts to explain how it really is, I just want to say amen to it all!

Again, I don't expect everyone to agree, but hopefully it helps someone understand...

Tom H. said:

"I have never known any individual who could logically account for their departure from the LDS faith supported by a new faith that was superior to Mormonism. That is not a statement of arrogance but of experience."

No faith (church) is superior to Mormonism? Then you deny that statement is arrogance? What planet are you from? Let's ask the various other sects if what you said is disgustinly prideful and presumptuous.

Along with what you said I laugh every time I hear Mormons say, "by their fruits ye shall know them". Of course referring to themselves. This is ludicrous and darn right embarrassing when one compares the wealth of the Mormon church to that of the Salvation Army and the amount of service that organization renders.

The Mormon church pales in comparison. Of the amount of money the Corporation of the President brings in it only proffers a small pittance to help the world. However, when it does offer assistance it blows its trumpet and says look at what we did (with our yellow shirts) so the world notices.

Whatever happen to doing your alms in secret?

Were is the superiority in that? There is none. Mormon people are nice and friendly to an extent. I know I was one. However, whenever anyone put the Mormon people and it's doctrine to scrutiny they rear their ugly head.

The thing I am disgusted with regarding Mormonism is that fact that when people are presented with what this religion is, they are not given the whole picture.
They are not told that Joseph Smith used a peep stone to supposedly translate the Book of Mormon. He was involved in other occult practices as well. Some of you will say, oh that's just anti-Mormon lies. The Ensign discussed this once (use of peep stone) and it wasn't to debunk it. So why does the church continue to teach that Joseph translated the plates in another manner.

Moreover, the church lies about when it never discusses any of Joseph Smiths numerous other wives and that he married women who were already married to other men. Yah, don’t believe it? Go to any Mormon apologetic s website and see what their tenuous response to these facts is. They don't deny it they just make up their proverbial excuses. " If a prophet does it, then it's not illegal," is almost their response.

I have never seen a Gospel Doctrine manual discuss the fact that Joseph Smith ever had any other wife than Emma. (I couldn’t even name one of them as a member.) Of course Emma didn’t even know herself that Joseph was sleeping with other women behind her back for quite some time. Much of this is why she never crossed the plains with Brigham Young and even denied that Joseph was a polygamist when her son started the Reorganized Church.

Furthermore, I think it disgusting that the church continues to lie about the Book of Abraham. Eminent egyptologists have read the papyrus not knowing it was suppose to be the BOA and all have concluded they were nothing other pagan funerary text,(The of The Breathings and Book of The Dead). They said nothing about Abraham and the papyrus were not of the time Abraham was supposedly alive. They dated closer to the 5th century BC. Many members don’t even know the papyrus was found in the Metropolitan Museum in NY by a University Of Utah professor in 1966 and that they have been translated as well as the facsimiles.
Today these facts are swept under the rug especially since the prophet today and during the time the (David O. Mckay) cannot translate these papyrus as mormon doctrine teaches they can. The Book Of Mormon says a prophet has the power to translate right? Then why doesn't Monson translate the BOA?

I think we all know the answer.

So if the Book of Abraham is a fabrication, does that still make Joseph Smith a true prophet? of course not.

What an interesting read. I am LDS and I am very impressed with the way this young lady has answered the questions posed to her with dignity and aplomb. She is an example to all who may view the video of how one can express one’s views clearly without seeking to offend or denigrate others.
My view – what a wonderful and different world this could be if we would all adopt one behavior – be kind. The world in which we live is filled with diversity. We can and should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs differ from ours – whatever those beliefs may be.
I like the way Joseph B Wirthlin expressed it;
“As Heavenly Father is kind, we also should be kind to others.
When we are filled with kindness we are not judgmental.
What if people are rude?
Love them
What if they are obnoxious?
Love them
What if they offend? Surely I must do something then?
Love them
Wayward?
Love them
The answer is the same. Be kind. Love them.
Who can tell what far-reaching impact we can have if we are only kind?”
Joseph B Wirthlin, Ensign May 2005

To all of you who believe in these silly stories be it from Joe Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or any other fiction writer please know this. YOU ARE BLIND! Organized religion was created for 2 reasons, keep society in line and profit. Churches, specifically the LDS church, print their own money. Why does the LDS church require 10% of your gross income? Why was caffeine Taboo until they became majority shareholders in Coke & Pepsi? Why the secrecy and vague writings that leads one in circles? Why completely ignore science and teach your kids ignorant stories on how we got here? Adam & Eve? PLEASE!!!

BELIEVE IN GOD! Believe in anything larger than yourself. It's out there! Just don't blindly follow because you're too weak or lazy to find your own path. Do you really think GOD only communicates to a few and therefore you should pay him or her? CRAZY! Why would God not talk to everyone? He probably does if you would listen and not waste your time and money in meaningless profit centers known as churches, temples and mosques. Try believing in yourself!

to Dave, #125

Wow, the deep pain you feel is so evident. I guess it really is true that when people turn their backs on truth, they lose the light they had and more.

I don't need to know what happened in your life to fill you with such poison.
But I wonder why you feel a need to nitpick at the LDS Church. As a former member, you do know that it doesn't make any difference to the Church as an organization -- it has a mission to fill and will do it in spite of whatever human errors may occur.

I truly feel very sad for you and hope that you can find light, peace, joy, and happiness somewhere. Jesus Christ will help you start sorting out your pain. He suffered all and knows how to succor you and each and everyone of us. Please don't persist in your pain -- it will ruin your life. May God bless you.

90% of this is off-topic and belongs elsewhere.

I watched Rachel. Then I watched everyone else. She did well representing her faith, and more importantly, her personal experience. But so did most of the other speakers. Most of the comments here are raves about what she said, which would be fine by itself. The problem is they're really about her talk as a validation of LDS teaching. But comparisons are pointless (and I bet most of her fans didn't watch everyone else); you could argue some other people did "better." But what would be the point anyway? They should be free to talk without worrying about being sock puppets representing their entire belief systems or letting them downs somehow, and students they shouldn't have to carry such burdens.

She spoke well, and that's fine. But she's just one person among many who spoke well too. Take off the blinders and see people besides your own tribe. I have no problem with being critical of a teaching, but it wasn't necessary on the panel, and whether you're LDS or anything else, bet those Harvard students get along with each other much better than the people on the sidelines watching them.

In response to Dave's most recent post, #126,

I do not expect that I could influence you by responding point-by-point to your caricature of the "whole picture" of Mormonism. However, I cannot let your contempt for the words of our father Abraham and your attack on the character of the prophet Joseph Smith go unanswered.

First about the character of Joseph Smith: My great-great grandmother Nancy Naomi Alexander Tracy knew him personally and vouched in her memoir for his honesty, integrity, and his great love for the Saints. Joseph wasted an entire day of his short life selling some property so that he could repay a loan to her husband Moses, which Moses would gladly have forgiven. Joseph's voluntary return to face certain death at Carthage vouches for his pure love for the Saints. I love "brother Joseph" with all my heart and earnestly hope to someday meet him in the presence of the Father and the Son, of whom he bore faithful witness.

You speak as though faithful Mormons are ignorant of your charges. I have heard them again and again, have investigated them in depth, and am unpersuaded by them. I trust that only God has a knowledge of all truth, and I know by my own experience that men have a very limited grasp of the truth. The portion of truth that God confirms to me gives me confidence that he remains in control of his Kingdom and that those who falsely accuse his servants shall fail.

As for the Book of Abraham, nobody has the "whole picture" except God, and perhaps Abraham and Joseph Smith. I personally suspect that we do not have the portion of the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated. There is abundant contemporary evidence that the scrolls were much longer than anything that we now have, and that Joseph completed the translation of only a small portion thereof. I suspect the translated portion of the scrolls are missing for the same reason that I believe the plates of the Book of Mormon were returned to Moroni's custody: a translation that has been accomplished "by the gift and power of God" shall not be subjected to the contentious grandstanding of scholars.

Hugh Nibley didn't have the “whole picture” of the Book of Abraham either, but I respect his efforts to figure out as much as he did. His conjecture that the facsimiles are vignettes that Abraham removed from a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead to illustrate his own account makes much more sense to me than the "certainty" of scholars who pretend to have solved all the mysteries of Egyptian culture, language, and religion. I think it entirely possible that the Egyptian Book of the Dead retained true images (altered inevitably by generations of scribal errors) for which the Egyptians had lost the true original meaning. As Abraham noted, the Egyptians originally sought to imitate the true gospel that had been taught by Noah.

Note that the text of the Book of Abraham is in the first person, whereas the explanation of the facsimiles is in the third person, representing Joseph Smith's own prophetic interpretation of the illustrations that Abraham borrowed.
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=69

Because portions of Abraham's gloss on the facsimiles were not to be revealed to men, I believe that Joseph served with respect to the facsimiles much as Mormon served with respect to the plates of Nephi – to edit, abridge, comment, and also to withhold from the world.

Nibley probably knew as much about the Book of Abraham as any mortal, but as the above reference indicates, he was frank about the constantly changing nature of Egyptian scholarship – and humble about his own imperfect grasp thereof. Yet he held his own with the best of scholars, and he died in full faith and fellowship in the Church.

To me it seems possible -- and it would only strengthen my faith to learn that it is so -- that the "translation" of the Book of Abraham came through Joseph Smith in the same way that the Book of Moses came through his inspired revision of the King James translation of Genesis -- namely through a restoration of the original revelation, given directly to the prophet apart from his examination of the scrolls, just as the plates often remained hidden in the woods during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I can only imagine the dozens of variant editions of the Book of Mormon that we would have -- and how many more splinter groups of Mormonism -- if the Lord had allowed "scholars" to get their hands on the plates -- or on the original scrolls of the Book of Abraham. Let the scholars of fractious Christendom contend over the Bible -- for which we have no holographs, and let the the holographs of Nephi, Jacob, Mormon, Moroni, and Abraham, on plates and papyrus, remain far from mortal contention. Someday, after the trial of our faith, the original documents will be presented in a museum for us to peruse with infinite leisure – with the prophets themselves serving as docents and guides to their interpretation!

In the mean time, what we do have, both for the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, is the translation, brought forth by the power of God. Here are the words that spoke to my heart, the very first time I read the words of Abraham:

"And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers."

Receiving blessings and sharing them with others, obtaining knowledge, following righteousness, living in peace, receiving instructions from God, keeping God's commandments -- that is what motivated Abraham and should motivate all of us, for I truly believe we are all either descended from him or have the opportunity to be grafted into him.

When I first read those words, I knew by the power of the Holy Ghost that Abraham really lived -- that these were his own words and the sincere desires of his heart. Abraham truly spoke to me "from the dust." In an instant I knew him so much better than I could have ever known him from the remnants of his story in the Bible. That testimony, with which I was blessed so long ago, still motivates me to sincerely strive to honor the covenants made to our fathers, which have been restored to the earth by divine messengers.

GG said:

-[the Mormon church]..." it has a mission to fill and will do it in spite of whatever human errors may occur."

What are these human errors you are referring to?

And why do I have to be in pain to expose the lies covered up by the mormon church? If anybody is in pain it is the oppressed LDS people in UT. The use of anti-depressants is double the national average. If I am wrong about this prove it to me.

So stop projecting your pain onto me.

I have read many of these comments with interest. I have been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for forty four years. I was baptized in March of 1965. It was the best choice that I have ever made. I will not contend about the church. I know that it is true and that anyone who has a real desire, to learn the truth, can do so by study and prayer. The church has only brought good things to my life. It has blessed my husband and children. I hope that those, who have negative feelings about the church, will try to obtain the light, and truth, from reliable sources.

I am really tired .... This blog is really long, and in the end quite pointless. If you don't want to believe in the LDS church and are not a member, then just shut up and do something else worthwhile with your life. If you are a member of the LDS church, then also take the teachings to heart and go do something good with your life. There are a lot of people in this world that need help both from LDS and non-LDS members. It always amazes me that there are so many people so interested in telling LDS members that they are wrong but in the end - what are they actually doing with their lives to better society? I don't see the same types of reactions to Muslims, Jews, Seventh days, Jehovah's witnesses etc. As a member of the LDS church, I don't have to explain my beliefs to anyone. I am not forcing my belief system on you, and I don't need you forcing yours on me. So just go find some other group or belief system to pick on and leave the LDS church alone. Do the world a favor and find something more productive to do with your life. Peace out!

To JP, # 36, concerning your comments on baptism for the dead.

If we're wrong, what difference do these baptisms make?? NONE (neither HERE, NOR in the world to come)!!!

BUT, if we're right, what difference do they make then??? ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD (AND IN THE WORLD TO COME)!!!!!!!

Mike:

In response to post 109, I'll peruse through my links and sources and post something that responds to my views. However, I am not quite sure we'll agree on every point. Much of the research is new or incomplete. However, what must be done is scientific reduction - same sex attraction contradicts gender identity. This is a necessary starting point.

Do you accept that important bilogical analysis?

Dave:

From post 126:

You wrote:
"I have never known any individual who could logically account for their departure from the LDS faith supported by a new faith that was superior to Mormonism. That is not a statement of arrogance but of experience."
No faith (church) is superior to Mormonism? Then you deny that statement is arrogance? What planet are you from? Let's ask the various other sects if what you said is disgustinly prideful and presumptuous. “
I’ll make clear my comments above.

Please provide the name of the belief system or religious philosophy that you believe is superior to Mormonism.

Notwithstanding your criticisms, which can be easily refuted, if you cannot provide a more logically sound or superior religious philosophy to Mormonism what’s the point of our conversation?

Make an appeal to truth Dave, rather than an appeal to popular notions alone.

Dave:

You wrote:
“And why do I have to be in pain to expose the lies covered up by the mormon church? If anybody is in pain it is the oppressed LDS people in UT. The use of anti-depressants is double the national average. If I am wrong about this prove it to me.

So stop projecting your pain onto me.”

Here’s some information to clear up your confusion above.

http://en.fairmormon.org/LDS_use_of_antidepressants
“While Utah does have the highest rate of antidepressant use in the United States, there is no evidence that this is because of stress from the LDS lifestyle and culture. Credible research has shown that LDS women are actually more likely to identify themselves as "happy" than non-Mormon women.

Until further research is done, critics of the Church have no evidence that higher anti-depressant use in Utah is due to their claim of an increase in difficulty of the LDS lifestyle. “
And Dave, if there is a causal relationship between LDS and anti-depressant use, then why isn’t LDS anti-depressant use high in the rest of the U.S and the rest of world?

So, your best shots at Mormonism are:
• Joseph Smith being sealed to women who were married to other men
• Joseph Smith’s seemingly strange way of translating the Book of Mormon
• The Book of Abraham translation controversy, and
• High anti-depressant use in Utah.
These are the criticisms that sent you over the edge and led you to what end? Did you find another religious philosophy superior to Mormonism that answers the fundamental questions:

Who am I?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?

You say Mormonism is wrong, but you can’t tell us which religious philosophy is 100% correct?

And if there is no “one” religious philosophy that is correct, then haven’t you just demonstrated how far you can insert your foot into your mouth?

Response to 116 Rick, that's based on all the communities I've ever lived in. Who do you think your convincing, anyways? People only have to look around them.

The prophets have directed the faithful not to get involved in arguments about the tenets of the various faiths, but to simply testify that the Church is true and that this is known by the Latter-Day Saints by direct revelation from God. The first vision was essential because the Lord sent Joseph Smith on a path he had hitherto not considered. The fact that all others churches are arror strewn is clear to anyone who reads the Bible and religiously adheres to every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. That the priesthood is patriarchal is proof that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored because most nice Christ loving people think that women would not be prohibited from receiving said priesthood. However, the Word, and that means EVERY WORD, teaches that the husband is to be the priest, the elder and the bishop. It is not just in UTAH where this patriarchal order is in place, but wherever the Lord establishes HIS Church. The priesthod is also UNPAID and that disappoints those who want an easy life sitting in the Manse or Chapel House writing sermons for Sunday, but the priesthood cannot call upon the congregation to feed them and keep them properly dressed and able to afford the nice things of the world. The Lord commanded all mankind as Adam. In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, all the days of they life. It is awesome as a Scottish Latter-Day Saint to know that the lay priesthood works perfectly when the priesthood adheres to the precise word of God and all HIS holy prophets. Remember too that every divinty student knows that man cannot take upon himself the right to preach the gospel but only he who was called of God, as was Aaron. For those who are anaware of that calling, it is necessary to understand that Moses, a prophet of God, had a problem with his charge to speak the word to the world. He took his problem to God and God told him to call four men to be priests alongside him. Thus Aaron was called by direct revelation to a living prophet. So, if, as the evangelcals believe there are no living prophets, there CAN BE NO PRIESTHOOD. I delight to know that the priesthood of Aaron and Melchisidek have been restored and I delight to hold them and use the power of God within said priesthood to do good for all men, in and out of the Church, by testifying that God does not lie nor does he change his constitution of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelasts. One may throw rocks at the LDS Church, but these rocks will not hurt the Church and will be able to cover the bruises in the sure knowledge that I have done the Father's will by making this message available to all who have the faith to hear and heed the Word of God.
This is done in the name of Jesus Christ and for His sake.

Sorry Bob - but I think you missed they whole belief-thing with your comments. You mentioned it, but you flew right past it without totally acknowledging why LDS people accept the doctrines that Joseph Smith taught. That thing is called "personal revelation". How was Peter able to reply to Christ when he was asked "...who say I am..."? Because Peter had received a personal witness that Jesus was 'the Christ'. He had received personal revelation that this was a fact. Likewise - we as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints claim the same. God the Father does not live because Joseph said he saw Him. He saw Him because he lives.

let's send them to all the countries who hide and train terrorists to kill innocent children and adults in countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan,,Pakistan, and then maybe you could stop the extremists. but I think not because you are extremists as well and who like them ,hide behind the church or faith or whatever you want to call it

*************

To anyone who does not know, it is necessary to understand that LDS youth have no fear in going to Iraq or Afghanistan. They have also given their lives for their country and the LDS youth go to as many countries as will let them preach and proselyte. Sadly many Muslim nations will not allow anything other than Mohammed's word to be taught. So the preaching of the gospel in its fulness is NOT on offer to these areas where global conflict is the stated aim. There are many book burners in the world and they are not all found in the non-christian world. Many so called Christians delight in burning the Book of Mormon, unaware that it is the only book on the planet which purports to be the Stick of Joseph as prophesied to come forth and be added to the Stick of Judah (the Bible) and bring all mankind to a knowledge of the truth of all things. I have studied many religions as part of my LDS schooling and the message of that course of study was to show the LDS student the similarities between the worlds faiths, that their truths may be BUILT UPON and NOT torn down. Jesus Christ himself said he was not sent to destroy, but to build, and HE has sent HIS missionaries out with that self same messge today and indeed since the restoration of all things, prophesied in Acts 3:19-21 from before the face of Jesus Christ himself. Wow the truth is powerful, unto the convincing of men and women who seek truth and apply a modicum of faith in prayer. The veracity of the Restored Church will never change, regardless of the number of people who critique it erroneously.

If Mormonism is true does that not make all other churches less than wholely true which in common usage is false?

I think the real question is whether or not Mormonism is true and if not then why?
For it to be false we need real evidence not just because your pastor said so.

**************

If Joseph Smith was told by God and Jesus Christ that the other churches were an abimination to them, then that is good enough for me. The trial of one's faith is to put this bold statement to the test as I did. I read the Book or Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants from cover to cover. I knelt in prayer and told God that I loved the message I has read but needed to know if they were truly HIS WORD. I told him, that if the Holy Ghost made it manifest that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon was the Word of God that I would be baptized as quickly as could be arranged. My witness after making such a commitment came miraculously and instantly. 17 years later, I delight in the line upon line, precept upon precept message from the heavens to man, as proof that God speaks to man as long as man has the faith to ask and further faith to hear.

I admire Dave's persistence. Without a doctrinal point in his armour he attacks the men of the church in the full kowledge that the ad hominem attack is fallacious. Regardless of the frailty of men who were called as prophets and apostles, God's will is fulfilled and His Word goes out endlessly.

dommage qu'i n'existe pas la traduction en français

Such tolerance and love by those who hate people who strive to be self-reliant, give of themselves to the community, who give to world by choice, not by coercion or force from government, and so freely, joyfully.

Look and see. Mormons --as a people-- strive to be better themselves and try to give people the opportunity to be better, as well.

MikeD said:

"I am really tired .... This blog is really long, and in the end quite pointless. If you don't want to believe in the LDS church and are not a member, then just shut up and do something else worthwhile with your life."

Well, that sounds fine and dandy. But if you want people to shut up and stop talking about your religion, then the LDS Church can tell their people to shut up and stop telling us about it.

As long as you are talking and making insane assertions...expect that the people you talk to will 1)research the things you are talking about 2)come to an opinion about them (including possibly reading and prayer) and 3)voice their opinion.

It's the "you reap what you sow" principle.

If you can't work with a fact, like the fact that Joseph Smith married other men's wives in polyandrous relationships, with anything other than uneducated denial...then maybe you should reconsider who should actually shut up.

KBen:

You wrote:
"As long as you are talking and making insane assertions..."

The LDS Church does not make "insane assertions." Everything within Mormonism occurs in space and time and is a subject of matter and or energy. There is no "traditional mysticism" within Mormonism.

That Joseph Smith was sealed (heavenly relationship) to other men’s wives (who had an earthly relationship) does seem very strange to us, but apparently it isn’t strange to God. In the Bible, God himself took “wives” from other men and gave them to those who God deemed more worthy of them. And he did it through prophetic sanction.

While very strange to our cultural sensitivities, it is nevertheless a pattern that God himself established through a prophet in the case of King David, before his fall from favor with God.

So, by your own logic and criticism, aren’t you counseling God, tell him what he can or can’t do according to the cultural sensitivities of our day?

TomH said:

"The LDS Church does not make "insane assertions." Everything within Mormonism occurs in space and time and is a subject of matter and or energy. There is no "traditional mysticism" within Mormonism.

That Joseph Smith was sealed (heavenly relationship) to other men’s wives (who had an earthly relationship) does seem very strange to us, but apparently it isn’t strange to God. In the Bible, God himself took “wives” from other men and gave them to those who God deemed more worthy of them. And he did it through prophetic sanction.

While very strange to our cultural sensitivities, it is nevertheless a pattern that God himself established through a prophet in the case of King David, before his fall from favor with God.

So, by your own logic and criticism, aren’t you counseling God, tell him what he can or can’t do according to the cultural sensitivities of our day?"

No. I am counseling you. If you want people to stop thinking you are crazy, then stop talking.

Every religion seems crazy to outsiders. And indeed, Mormon assertions seem insane to me. If I were to share my religious beliefs, you would also find flaws in them because some of them are counter to your beliefs.

So, with that said, I think the jist of my message is to those LDS folk who feel like they are being attacked because when they speak up, people say, "Wait a second, that doesn't sound right. I'll go research this and that, and figure out what's up and get back to them about it."

It wouldn't seem so funny if they didn't get so defensive about it.

BTW, the "don't counsel God" argument is a fearmongering tactic. You needn't use it on the non-LDS, because we're not afraid of you. It works better on your own people, because they believe your leaders actually do speak for God.

KBen:

I am not asking any non-LDS person to "shut up" and one blogger doesn't speak for all of us. In fact, I am calling you out and saying, "Go ahead, take your best shot, and then let's test your criticism against 1) biblical doctrine, or 2) logic, or 3) scientific evidence, or 4) history, and let's see if your arguments hold up. Did you think that you weren’t going to be held up to a high standard here?

If we show that your premises are false, then it follows that your conclusions are false. If you don’t want your conclusions to be easily refuted then work on your premises.

You said, in essence, that if Joseph Smith was sealed to other men’s wives (heavenly relationship) that there is no chance that he could have been an authorized prophet of God, because such a pattern was contrary to the mind, will, and actions of God in the past.

I, in turn, showed you that God has, in fact, through his prophet, taken the wives of other men, and given them to another – King David.

You may “THINK” that sealings to other men’s wives disqualifies Joseph Smith from being a prophet, but in the same criticism, you condemn Nathan the prophet for doing so, and implicate God in a wicked scheme for instigating it.

Further KB, wouldn’t you have to argue that Joseph Smith was a “fallen” prophet since it doesn’t logically follow that the Book of Mormon would not be true because of a practice that came 7 years after its publication?

You wrote:
“If I were to share my religious beliefs, you would also find flaws in them because some of them are counter to your beliefs.”

We could easily find flaws in your religious beliefs because they are based on the primacy of consciousness which is an untenable philosophical position in evidence of the indestructibility of matter. We could also find flaws in them because they are inconsistent with the Bible or early Christianity.

Hello again TomH.

No. I didn't say Nathan was a false prophet. But, it's not a logical conclusion that if Nathan was a true prophet, then Joseph Smith was also a true prophet. I never said that polygamy disqualified Joseph Smith as a prophet, I actually only indicated many LDS apologists don't have anything to offer other than a testimonial to "truth" when the topic is introduced.

I think a better approach would be to not get defensive, and be able to give a coherent response not ridden with all kinds tangents and unfounded assertions. You may be just the person to do that...but this is not the forum for that.

You are arguing with me about something I said to people who think like MarkD, who don't think things work both ways. The LDS people are free to talk, and everyone else is free to talk back. And those who are surprized or feel defensive when people openly disagree, are in for a life full of persecution complexes.

The young lady from the article doesn't seem to be participating in a persecution complex. She seems cool. Hopefully her generation will embrace a new ideal of sharing and receiving criticism on the tough topics without claiming to be persecuted.

Also, TomH, you are not qualified to discuss my religious beliefs, because you clearly do not know them. I won't engage in an argument, unless you want to argue against my only point for commenting here: That those who want to tell us things, should expect us to respond.

KB:

You wrote:
“No. I didn't say Nathan was a false prophet. But, it's not a logical conclusion that if Nathan was a true prophet, then Joseph Smith was also a true prophet.”

Then you admit that Joseph Smith’s polyandrous temple sealings really don’t matter at all, right and your criticisms is just an appeal to your cultural sensitivities?

You also wrote:
"I never said that polygamy disqualified Joseph Smith as a prophet, I actually only indicated many LDS apologists don't have anything to offer other than a testimonial to "truth" when the topic is introduced."

LDS apologists can be readily found on the internet and we can quickly find that they have a great many things to say about Joseph Smith’s polygamy showing biblical justification for them – which is not an appeal to a “testimony” but to scripture and verse – an appeal to authority that Christians recognize.

KB, I don’t “feel” defensive and I am not upset about your posts. I don’t feel threatened by what you have to say. On the contrary, I am calling you out directly and CHALLENGING you that you really don’t have any valid arguments against Mormonism.

Many LDS feel persecuted because they are persecuted for their religious beliefs and are often, (even here) mocked and belittled for their beliefs, purely based on religious bigotry and not because their beliefs contradict tested principles.

However, my response to you is not because I feel you are “persecuting” me. I enjoy demonstrating that your arguments are groundless, baseless, and unfounded. And when your arguments are groundless, baseless, and unfounded, well… we know what happens to your conclusions.

In regard to religious beliefs, all world religions, except Mormonism are based on the primacy of consciousness. The flavors all differ slightly but, the foundational philosophical principle is the same.

Religious beliefs based on the primacy of consciousness alone cannot stand in evidence of the indestructibility of matter, ergo, either 1) matter CAN be destroyed, or 2) the belief that the origin of life began as God’s consciousness outside space and time is false.

If you oppose #1, your belief stands in direct opposition against the most important scientific truth we have.

If you oppose #2, you agree with number #1.

If you agree with #1… well… you see the problem.
What’s the answer? Mormonism. One of the most important foundational principles OF OUR RELIGION, not our VIEW of science, but is CODIFIED in our scriptural texts, is the indestructibility of matter and its eternal nature.

So, you really do have an important reason to be reasonable about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

Stan where are you man? I want to see what PWNED looks like on a persons face..

As I read through the posts, Stan posed his three greatest challenges to Mormonism and was promptly refuted.

Dear Heavenly Father,

Please bless this Blog and add the light of truth to those who
took the time to write & contribute their concerns.
May we in the practice of what is really on our minds as well
as in our hearts, bring us closer together as humans who were
made in your likeness & image. We are truly honest in expressing what is an issue we struggle with and seek answers that will help us gain the insight needed for true fellowship. Although I am a member and hold an office with a calling as Secretary of a High Priest Quorum. I also believe in the restored gospel and in the
fact of a living prophet who lovingly cares for not only us as a church body but sincerely cares for every living soul on the whole planet. As a Mormon I feel only Love for all
of my fellow man. I know that all the sorrows of being misunderstood are all part of the test. I also know that I say these things with a free mind that has been renewed
by reading the scriptures and praying for God's gift of understanding when ever something is difficult to grasp.

It is far too easy to forget that we are here because we chose to be with Christ in Heavenly Father's plan for all
of us to come to earth and experience the human state so that we could study and learn about all things in life keeping them in perspective to becoming like Heavenly Father. In our journey of studies of all the scriptures we
are diligently searching through them for wisdom, light, knowledge and truth about the principalities & powers we
will someday inherit in the Celestial Kingdom. When we are busy about the Lords work in our own life and not looking to some outside source for our sense of Joy we
find that we can find the goodness in all things and see the truth of the personality of God in all people. Honestly
we are all brothers & sisters - we're equal in the eyes of God. None of us can really do any wrong in his eyes. He
does truly hope that we as individuals choose to study all the scriptures… until we have gained enough spiritual sight to see each other as ourselves, for he Loves all of us "in spite of ourselves" unconditionally.

Personally I believe that everyone will eventually come to the same conclusions about who we are, why we're here,
where we are going and how we will get there. Then we will all be in understanding of what is true. Choosing to be a Mormon is obviously what I recommend because I
have found the practice more about Family & fellowship than any other I have found. I have spent most of my life in studies of world religions and my college education is based in Theology. I'm a well read Bible - New Testament Scholar. I became a member of the L.D.S. Church in the
summer of 1985. I can only offer my opinion that it is a
very highly unlikely fact that a 14 year old boy could have fabricated such a story of Christ's appearance in South America and ministering to it's people with the divine plan
of the restoration of the Gospel in it's fullness. Written and engraved in plates of Gold and translated into the book of Mormon. Anyone who thinks that the story is not true has not actually read the book and prayed to God asking him if it is indeed true.

I believe that God Loves people and that he has provided ample scriptures to prove both his existence, the need for more and constant revelation to we his people as his way of both loving as well as trusting us to choose what is right. Look around you… There are now 128 Temples
the Mormon Church is now the 16th strongest Nation on the planet! The message is about the atonement of Christ
the method is Loving fellowship of all mankind.

I invite you to read the book & pray before you do your book report… the same way you would do any other book report - Do you intend to get an A+ on this assignment or are you going to lightly thumb through the pages and be a C or a D student. Qualify yourself; You may find the same
pattern to be true… most C students don't do all the home work before they turn in their "honest" report of their findings. This is great-fully reflected in most things in their lives; such as their jobs, their choices of entertainment, their attitude towards others and the way the regard all others in their lives. If you're honest with yourself & find that you are not really being either fair to criticize others without a true evaluation of genuine concern. I Guess I
need to invite you get on your knees, ask God for forgiveness and ask him to send the Holy Spirit to guide you in your efforts to find the truth. Just by reading the scriptures I'm sure you'll find the real truth for you… I so
Testify in the name of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ
A-men. P.S. It is written: "No man can say Jesus is the Christ except by the power of the Holy Spirit"

Re: #132 Dave,

The title page of the Book of Mormon states "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement-seat of Christ".

I have no pain. My heart is full of love, joy and peace. Sorry to disappoint you; do not blame the Utahns for my remarks -- I am a Texan.

#131 - Thank you for your comments and validation of Joseph Smith's character.

I am a member of 29 years and over the course of two days have read every single blog posted. I was amazed how few mentioned the young LDS student and used this forum to attack or defend The Church, it's leaders and it's teachings.
Any belief or non-belief system is personal. As a church we offer to inform and teach those who are interested. Take a look at the beginnings of the Church and see if you can understand why the early saints had to escape to the wilderness of the rocky mountains. Thankfully the opposition and persecution is now mostly in the various media of the 21st century. My membership in the Church has blessed my life, given me a deeper appreciation for my wife, children and grandchildren and given me ample oportunities to serve my brothers and sisters(member and non-member) and not the least, has given me opportunity to learn more about my Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. For this I will be eternally gratefull and hope that I have the faith to "endure to the end"

TomH, I apologize for making you feel like you had to call me out into the school yard for a fight after school.

You obviously see only 2 options for any kind of world view, which is sad.

As to the young lady who is trying to share in a non-confrontational way. She is fully aware that not everyone will see it her way, but she still wants to share. This is a good way of viewing things. I think it will make her a more effective missionary for the Church.

As to the truthfulness of the LDS gospel spoken of by her and many others here, I invite all non-LDS to do what I did, and what their missionaries will tell you to do:

1)Take a sincere gander at The Book of Mormon and see how it lines up with the doctrine of Christ and His apostles. They will tell you to pray about the truth of it. But continue your studies. Much of the unique Mormon doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon doctrine actually does line up pretty well with New Testament teachings...and even quotes from the New Testament from time to time (and for you LDS out there, I know you wouldn't use the word quote, but some apologetic explanation. This is just my take.)

2)Read everything you can about the history of the LDS church. You can buy an LDS institute Church History manual online, or at least you could 8 years ago. But also read things published by the non-LDS crowd. The missionaries may try to tell you it's all lies and hatred, but really, a well-written and researched book contain facts, some of which are inconvenient to the Church's current goals.

3)Check out the Mormon Church. Show up on Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. (or 11:00 for you who like to sleep in) at your local LDS congregation building. Listen to what they have to say and attend all 3 hours. Make sure you attend at least one time on the first Sunday of the month, when members give impromptu testimonials. Listen intently to what they say during these impromptu testimonials.

4)Find out how the LDS church is run today. They believe in "continuous revelation," which mostly means the church founded by Joseph Smith may be totally different from the one which exists today. Policies and rules change all the time. You can decide if its current "fruits" are of the Spirit .

I think TomH was right about my fallacy. When I talked about the founder of the Church marrying other men's wives, it doesn't matter. Besides, he's long gone and many of his policies have been washed over by more contemporary "modern revelation".

5. Then, assuming the investigator is a God-fearing person, do what the Bible says, and what the LDS missionaries will ask you to do, and pray about it. Ask God for wisdom and clarity. Once you have the wisdom, God will give you the discernment you need. The Spirit will give you that discernment, and you will know the overall truth of the things you have seen and researched. Then you can decide what to do about the LDS church. And of course, by their fruits you will also know them.

Really, it's quite an interesting experience. I think the answers to my study and prayers have been clear during my posts here, and I know the LDS church is not the "only true and living church" (I think this is how the missionaries say it). I think it has many interesting philosophies and doctrines that are valid, however. So don't get me wrong. But I also think the Baghavad Gita has many doctrines that are valid, and the Upanishads, and the Tao Te Ching, etc...

I still have my LDS Church History institute manual. It's actually pretty well written and contains many of the controversial issues, although there's almost no mention of polygamy/polyandry and a few other extremely unpopular phases from the mid-1800s, which is kind of self-defeating, because it leaves the telling of that history to the church's enemies.

So, TomH, was I fair enough to the church this time around? Read, research, attend and pray?

KBen:

Thank you for tuning down the vitriol. I disagree with how you characterized the direct challenge I made to your conclusions. Blogging together on this forum is not like a school yard fight. So far, there is no debate between us. You criticize LDS doctrines or positions but you only make appeals to your personal consciousness. (Which I am happy to demonstrate, point by point). You don’t make any appeals to standards in reality. For you, popular notions (that can change tomorrow) are your standard of measurement.

On the other hand, I am directly challenging your beliefs AND the conclusions of your beliefs based on existence – eternal scientific truths in reality. Do you see the important distinction?

Let me reassure you that you don’t have to be sad. In truth, I am aware of many “world views” of God and religion. I have studied many of them and can appreciate their variation from a poetic and literary point of view.

Now, I am sure you’d love this argument to be about “variation” and how “variation” somehow “proves” that there are many paths to God. But my assertion isn’t about variation. Why? Variation is interesting but it doesn’t answer the fundamental question of which one is the “right one.” The popular notion of the day, now, is that there is no “right one.” Do you hold this view?

You seem to espouse it, but then again, you’re here claiming that Mormonism isn’t “right” but then you’d have to admit, that there is no “right one” anyway, but then again, you’re here claiming that Mormonism isn’t right…. see the problem?

So, let’s make this simple. A necessary question for you to answer is, Are there IN REALITY, many paths to God’s greatest blessings or is there just one? (The word “are” in the last sentence refers to actual paths that exist to God that can be verified in reality, and not to the many opinions of the theoretical paths to God, see the distinction?)

I believe that I was acting kindly when I attempted to bring you back into reality and away from the primacy of personal consciousness when I said:
“Religious beliefs based on the primacy of consciousness alone cannot stand in evidence of the indestructibility of matter, ergo, either 1) matter CAN be destroyed, or 2) the belief that the origin of life began as God’s consciousness outside space and time is false.
If you oppose #1, your belief stands in direct opposition against the most important scientific truth we have.
If you oppose #2, you agree with number #1.
If you agree with #1… well… you see the problem.”
More variation of religious beliefs based on the primacy of consciousness does not solve the philosophical dilemma above. KB, once you reduce any religious belief to its beginning premise, you’ll see that I am right.

Now, certainly you don’t have to accept reality. But then you’ll have to admit that you’re appealing to philosophical fantasies and not to realities that exist in the real “indestructible” universe.

Hello again TomH.

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your statement: "I am calling you out directly and CHALLENGING you" as being similar to a schoolyard fight. It's probably more like a rogue midnight Star Trek trivia match. But sorry, I'm not going to show up for it. I have an all night Star Wars poker match with my buddies on the east side.

My original reason for posting here is because the article behind this thread, and the accompanying video, makes Mormons seem less confrontational and more interesting than the common picture painted in our society. Then I came to read the comments, and noticed how defensive the LDS folk were being. I expressed my opinion, because after that young lady's discussion, which was quite reasonable, and non-defensive...a whole bunch of her counterparts were acting just like our society expects Mormons to act. I don't agree with everything Mormons do, which is why I used the word "insane". In hindsight, I shouldn't have used that word. It was combative...So I can clearly see why you called me out and challenged me.

Can an average LDS person have a reasonable discussion with a non-LDS person without thinking he needs to convert people by backing them into a perceived philosophical corner? Even you have done this TomH: It's the Mormon way, or no way.

I repeat, you do not know my world view. I'm sorry you don't seem to know that you will never know my world view.

Do I think there is a Kingdom of God on the earth? Or do I think all religions can be the kingdom of God? You will never know. What is my reality? Is it based on a fixed set of premises or is it founded in the popular notions? Again, you will never know that.

Also, the false dichotomy you keep bringing up is...well...a false dichotomy. I'm sorry to tell you that. It's a "philosophical fantasy". Furthermore, I never heard your particular argument during any of my LDS studies, nor did I hear it in any Sunday School or even a priesthood class.

So, are you sure you're not looking beyond the mark here. I mean, if your prophets don't talk use this dichotomy. If it's not something taught in your Sunday classes or in your publications, do you think it's an effective tool to teach people about your religion? Especially since I never heard it taught in your religion (at least not in the way you are doing it). Have you had great conversion success with it?

Anyway, best wishes to all of you. This Harvard girl is pretty cool, and I think more LDS folk should follow her example.

KB:

In your first post you said:

“It's the "you reap what you sow" principle. If you can't work with a fact, [like the fact that matter can neither be created nor destroyed] with anything other than uneducated denial...then maybe you should reconsider who should actually shut up.”

After reading your last post, I can hear your cry for mercy. You said:
“Can an average LDS person have a reasonable discussion with a non-LDS person without thinking he needs to convert people by backing them into a perceived philosophical corner? Even you have done this TomH: It's the Mormon way, or no way.”

Most of the posts on this forum are from reasonable people, including myself. I am acting very reasonable. You make claims against Mormonism that I believe are false. I don’t just say they are false, I demonstrated why they are false. I am employing reason to your arguments and your posts. These posts may be too direct for your style. I can understand why you might feel intimidated.

But that doesn’t mean that we step away from the arguments or the premises just because they make you feel uncomfortable. You state there is a false dichotomy but don’t provide any arguments or evidence why you believe that I have presented a false dichotomy. In fact, you make an appeal to ignorance as evidence that I have presented a false dichotomy.

In order for my argument to be a false dichotomy, there must be genuine alternatives to the two options that I have stated that exist in reality. You have not demonstrated that there is a third viable and philosophically sound option.

Perhaps we’re both talking past each other? One on hand, I willingly concede that there may be other views about creation, matter, energy, God’s consciousness that are outside the world view held by Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. But, like I said, variation on the process of creation doesn’t result in a origin of creation.

You cite the Bhagavadgita as an alternate source. Although you don’t explicitly state it, I know that it rejects “creation ex nihilo” as the source of the universe. But, you fail to substantiate the Bhadavadgita as evidence that God is not merely pure consciousness. Hinduism asserts that matter is eternal only because it was created OUT OF God’s consciousness. When we reduce this creation reality to the condition before its inception, we find yet again only a pure consciousness. In the Hindu view, matter only holds the property of “eternal” only because it came “out of God” and not because it stands independently eternal, apart from God, co-existing side by side with Him.

The reduction to pure consciousness is necessary in all religions, except Mormonism. Only within Mormonism do we find complete compatibility with the laws of Conservation of matter and energy.

You assert that LDS prophets or Sunday school lessons do not explicitly teach the “argument” that I am making and therefore I can’t use it. And it is therefore “looking beyond the mark?” Huh? You’ve never heard it in your LDS studies?

KB, you’d have to admit that you haven’t engaged in serious LDS studies that are peer reviewed by professional scholars or researchers. You’ve merely sampled the latest body of anti-Mormon polemic and called that a “study” of Mormonism.

Have you read B.H. Roberts’ “The Mormon Doctrine of Deity”, 1903? How about Sterling M. McMurrin’s “The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion?”, 1965?

How about the Doctrine and Covenants? (Here’s an important excerpt:))

D&C 93: 29, 33
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

It is significant that the teachings of the restored gospel (LDS) on the eternal nature of physical matter, along with a parallel in the spiritual realm, embody these conservation principles. These are the key statements:

"The elements are eternal" (D&C 93:33). "The spirit of man [intelligence] is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity" (Joseph Smith, in HC 3:387).

Addressing the issue of creation ex nihilo, Joseph Smith asserted in one of his final sermons: "Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end" (HC 6:308-309).

No other religion has a founding principle that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, and that God has always existed inside the universe (and at no time has existed outside space.)

This brings us to the scientific laws and principles of the Conservation of Matter, and Conservation of Energy. Do you recall who discovered the formula for this law? What’s that Einstein? Right. It was Einstein: E=mc**2. And when was this? Early 1900’s a full 60 years after Joseph Smith published his “cosmological revelations” in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Einstein came to the United States in 1921. When asked where he got his scientific ideas, Einstein explained that he believed scientific work best proceeds from an examination of physical reality and a search for underlying axioms, with consistent explanations that apply in all instances and avoid contradicting each other.

When Joseph Smith was asked where he got his ideas about the eternal nature of matter and the creation of the universe as an act of “organization” rather than creation out of nothing, he explained that God had revealed it to him, “as one man speaketh to another.” Compare that process with the origins of Hinduism or any other “ism” from which you derive your world of cosmological view. How do you know it represents reality?

The First Vision of Joseph Smith, wherein God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared as separate, physical beings, forever dismissed the notion that God is merely pure consciousness without body, parts or passions, who dwells outside space and time.

This brings us back to the primacy of consciousness which is that all things, including matter were “created” by or emanated from God.

Matter is either “created” or it is “uncreated.” It only recently came into being, or it has always existed as such. This statement is not a false dichotomy but an identification of the properties of matter itself.

I still find it highly curious that you espouse a religious world view wherein there are many paths to God, but you then fight against Mormonism and believe that its tenants are insane or incorrect.

You’ve created quite a paradox for yourself. Best of luck with that and I hope you find lasting happiness.

KB:

You wrote:

1)Take a sincere gander at The Book of Mormon and see how it lines up with the doctrine of Christ and His apostles. They will tell you to pray about the truth of it. But continue your studies. Much of the unique Mormon doctrines are not found in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon doctrine actually does line up pretty well with New Testament teachings...and even quotes from the New Testament from time to time (and for you LDS out there, I know you wouldn't use the word quote, but some apologetic explanation. This is just my take.)

My comments:
The Old Testament and New Testament don’t necessarily agree in practice and doctrine and we find doctrines in the New Testament that weren’t fully developed in the Old Testament. But how or why does it matter? What standard are you appealing to KB?

The Book of Mormon purports to be primarily a history of a family that descends both from the tribes of Joseph and Judah of the House of Israel. It chronicles their religious history, their keeping the Law of Moses, and the doctrines leading up to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his visitation to the American continent. (Most likely located in Guatemala.) Critics argue that the “unique doctrines” not developed in the Book of Mormon include baptism for the dead, and the degrees of glory in heaven, among others.

Yet they fail to also mention that the Book of Mormon purposely doesn’t contain all things that the Lord has in store for those who will follow him:

“The prophet Mormon explained that he only recorded "the lesser part of the things which [Jesus] taught the people," for the intent that "when [the Book of Mormon reader] shall have received this...if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them" (3_Ne. 26:8-9; compare Alma 26:22).”

The self-described purpose of the Book of Mormon is “the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

Those who claim that the Book of Mormon needs to contain all blessings or all doctrines in order to be considered “the fulness of the gospel” try to force the Book of Mormon to be something it does not purport to be. The Book of Mormon is a primer to bring people to Christ through faith, repentance, baptism by immersion, sanctification through the Holy Ghost. If a person can’t accept that message, then the other blessings are a moot point. Within God’s plan, there is a principle of line upon line and precept upon precept.

The point that should be clearly made however, is that the unique Mormon doctrines in question, that are not explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon are not inconsistent with the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

So, is this a valid criticism? Not really – it’s more of a complaint based on a standard that is unclear and unbiblical.

This girl did a great job representing her faith and answering all of the questions asked. I do wish more was said of the significance of Joseph asking God with a sincere heart to know about the questions he had about religion. There were many religous leaders debating and arguing the reasons why a person should attend their church. I'm sure at least some of those arguments were very logical and intelligent, yet Joseph put his trust in the Lord, knowing that He anwers faithful and sincere prayers.

Likewise, there are many arguments on this post which are logical and intelligent concerning many aspects of the LDS faith (Polygamy, Priesthood ban, Book of Mormon, etc...) Anyone who has ever done extensive research on any one of these subjects know that they have been debated for quite some time, and both sides for and against have strong and intelligent arguments for their side. After many years of digging through many of these arguments, I realized that I had never done what Joseph did. Simply go to the Lord in sincerity and faith, knowing that the Lord will answer. I have since done this and have found my way. I have nothing against deep research, in fact I encourage it so that one may be familiar with the different topics at hand. However, I don't believe it is wise to base your beliefs or criticize the belief of others based on what you have found. Respectful and intelligent debate is always needed. The Lord loves us all and is willing to reveal certain truths to us at the proper time. If you don't believe in God, I would still inite you to give it a shot......God Bless!

Tracy Hall Jr. (#131) said>

“You speak as though faithful Mormons are ignorant of your charges. I have heard them again and again, have investigated them in depth, and am unpersuaded by them.”

Yes, I do speak as though faithful Mormons are ignorant of my charges. Most members have never heard of Joseph Smith marrying numerous teenagers and other men’s wives after he sent the men on missions. Further, this is especially sordid because the church teaches as a reason for polygamy was that there were many widows who needed someone to take care of them. So tell me, why would 14, 15 and 16 year old girls need someone to take care of them other than their parents?

Why would women already married to faithful mormon men need to be married to Joseph? The answer is that Joseph was a libertine and such is part of the reason he was almost castrated by some angry people after being caught in the barn with the Johnson girl.

Now Tracy, you say you are not persuaded by these things? That’s fine. But when investigators are taught the discussions they should be apprised of these facts. Too, they should know that Brigham Young and others advocated the murder of blacks and those who married them, as well as their children. How can any sane person believe it is okay to murder a person simply for marrying another?

Moreover, I believe investigators of the church should be aware of the numerous versions of Joseph’s “first vision”. His own mother tells a different story than what was later written some 15 to 18 years after it supposedly happen. His stories would never hold up in a court of law, there are too many inconsistencies.

Also, this idea that Joseph was 14 when the religious revivals were taking place is an utter lie. He was 17 and not 14. The news papers of the time attest to this and so do the writings of individuals. Many Mormon apologists even agree to these facts but the church still perpetuates the lie of Joseph being just a 14 year old boy during the revivals.

Investigators also should be made aware of what went on in the temple in the past and how much the ceremony has changed due to polling of members and public pressure.
Like in the 20s when it was found out that the members had to pledge an oath to avenge the deaths of Joseph, Hyrum, Parley, and others who were killed. After a public out cry, this was removed from the ceremony.

The blood oaths were removed in 1990 which each patron had to mimic slitting the throat, cutting open the chest and the bowels if covenants were not observed. Of course these are the same oaths found in Masonry, which Joseph copied. If members and potential members learned this macabre ceremonial nonsense they would be reticent to participate. Further, it should be imperative that those in temple prep learn that they must give everything they have to the church before they make their solemn promises.

Lastly, Tracy, if you think it was okay for past prophets and their henchmen like Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman, Hosea Stout and others to kill those who left the church, committed adultery, stole, counterfeited, spoke ill against the leaders. Yes, they drug the offenders out of their homes and their throats slit or cut their heads off. Now, for those of you who know nothing about this, you need not go to a Baptist minister, nor to an exmormon, but to the archives of the church. Or you can, read books written by faithful believing members who wrote the truth and were later disfellowshipped or excommunicated for being honest about church history. Look up the September 5 and Mormonism on google and see what it has to say about these BYU professors and intellectuals. Of course the church has done everything to sully the character of these individuals in a desperate attempt to lessen the affects of the truth.

So Tracy, it’s perfectly fine you are not affected by all this, but all need to know as much as possible before making a decision to join the Mormon Church. If potential converts are fine with it then the more power to them, I highly doubt they will be.

I am a 5th generation "Mormon." My great-grandparents knew the early prophets. and walked across the plains with Brigham Young. They endured indescribable hardships. It's the only thing I know. I have attended other churches over the course of my life and I always leave with a hollow, vacant, feeling. I observe their rituals (it's ok for other churches to have their rituals and beliefs, but not the LDS church?) I recognize truth when I hear it because truth is truth no matter where it's found. However, listening to "preachers" preach ,who have not been set apart by those in authority, do not inspire or encourage me. They leave me with a cold
empty feeling. I have often wished that I were wandering in the world looking for truth and then suddenly have missionaries converge on me in a subway or knock at my door and teach me the principles of Christ's Church. What a marvelous feeling that must be for those seeking truth and light.
As for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, I had an experience in Mexico many years ago. We had gone to the pyramids outside Mexico City and as our Mexican guide was explaining the symbols/symbolism of the carvings and writings on the pyramids, I realized he was explaining the history of the Book of Mormom, to a "T". He had no knowledge of the doctrine of the church. Not that I ever doubted it , but
that had a huge effect on me.
People ask me what happens when I get to the other side and I realize this all wasn't for real? I tell them that it was a great way to live. The church gives us guidelines, when followed, will bring peace and joy into our lives. It gives us goals for which to work and achieve, it gives us a law of health to protect our bodies from the harmful substances of the world, it brings families closer together , it answers the questions of where we were before coming to the earth, why we are here and what awaits us if we live the principles we deem true. I have taught school for several years where there isn't a big LDS population and the students I get who happen to be LDS stand out over and above all the rest. They are happy, positive, always good students, respectful, clean cut, well-groomed, modestly dressed, (which is a welcome sight when compared to the dress of 85% of high school students.) and have a light in their eyes other students don't have. The pregnancy rate among the LDS where I am is almost non-existent because they practice abstinence until marriage, and obviously the STD rate is very low.
Our society needs to let the polygamy issue GO. It's been outlawed for 119 years. Who cares what happened in the 1800's. It was done for a purpose, only understood totally by the Lord. Why does it matter if we wear temple garments under our clothes?? Who cares? It certainly gives me a feeling of warmth, safety and security knowing that they are there to protect me if necessary and to remind who I am and what my responsibilities in this life are.
I believe we as a nation have many more serious concerns on which to focus, than the petty comments I read in the previous blogs. If you don't agree with and can't or choose not to live as a worthy Latter Day Saint: DON'T. But don't find issue with those of us who love our religion and our God and our Savior and believe that Joseph Smith restored Christ's church back to the earth after the Apostasy. If you can't believe that "faith is the belief in things not seen", then let it go. Go do your thing that will make you happiest. I know we have a just and loving Father in Heaven, who has everything under control and the truth of all things will someday be revealed.

Dave,
You may be proud of yourself for trying to "expose" the LDS church, but I want you to know that I have a testimony of the gospel. Maybe you need to do more searching for the truth instead of searching out things on anti-LDS sources.

Perhaps Mormons wouldn't have such a credibility problem if they didn't devote TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAX FREE CHURCH DOLLARS toward bashing gays over the last 20 years. Even worse, after decades of gay bashing they then outwardly claim "oh we're not bashing gays..." YEAH RIGHT.

Here in 2009, I don't buy into the stories of Mormon persecution. Here in 2009, they bring it on themselves, much like Evangelicals frequently do.

Bottom Line: When you spend your time flinging "dirt" on other people, don't act surprised when it flings back on you.

#165 Eric Said:

"Dave,
You may be proud of yourself for trying to "expose" the LDS church, but I want you to know that I have a testimony of the gospel. Maybe you need to do more searching for the truth instead of searching out things on anti-LDS sources."

Hey Eric, if your call church history anti-LDS sourses than so be it. I've quoted and detailed information directly from the non-whitewashed church history.

Stating you have a testimony is so cliche' too, I remember as a missionary, I was instructed to bear solemn testimony when all else fails. The whole bearing of testimony and testimony meeting every fast Sunday is nothing more than repeating the propaganda. If the propaganda is repeated often enough the members start to believe it., right? This is classic Joseph Goebbels stuff from Nazi Germany.

So the trite spewing of," I know the church is true," has no effect on most people, so don't waste your time.

Dear TomH,

I've enjoyed reading this thread over the past week because it's interesting seeing how people interact with each other.

You seem to want so badly for me to tell you my mental positions, so that you can try to make me defend them. But this will never happen, at least not here. You do not know my mental positions. You've tried to extrapolate my positions from the vague things I've written, but you've been unsuccessful.

I feel no need to defend something that needs no defense. Only you feel the need to do that, for whatever reason. You don't (and won't) even know if I agree or disagree with you on matters of how things are created. But chances are, I just might agree with you : ) Let's say I do...It's still not a logical conclusion that the LDS Church is true. It's logical to say that I agree with something Joseph Smith taught, I suppose. But it's not a logical conclusion to say that since I believe with something Joseph Smith taught, all else in the LDS Church must be the truth. Besides, you don't really know what I believe, and you never will. Sorry.

Anyway, gotta go. Have a great life TomH. Get out and do some bike riding today, or something. It's supposed to be beautiful out.

Tracy Hall, jr.

Can you hear the desperation in Dave’s post?

Dave wants to play the role faith-spoiler to Mormons and that he’s got some devastating “inside” scoop that threatens Mormonism. For him, faith isn’t something that necessary leads to peace but more of a comfort because everyone else believes like he does. His post is full of fallacious statements and straw man attacks. He appeals to popular notions, Mormon folklore, and his own biases to inform him. His standard is popular cultural rather than the Bible.

And, if he doesn’t make an appeal to the Bible but doesn’t believe in God or absolute morality, then why bring it up at all?

Whatever questions there are from Mormon history, Dave fills in with his own imagination. For religious people like him, “filling in the gaps” with appeals to one’s personal consciousness is a weakness of the philosophical underpinnings of his faith.

This has been really interesting to read...of course I couldn't read all the posts, mostly the first ones and the most recent ones.

As a lifelong member of the LDS Church, I've come across all the strange historical events that have been mentioned here. I've dealt with them in my own mind, and worked them out in my head.

I understand the fallacies employed by apologists, as well as the fallacies employed by non-LDS people against the Church. We've seen various fallacies employed here on this thread.

KBenjamin, you obviously know quite a bit about the Church. Why did you study it for so long? What was there about it that kept you coming? Are you a closet believer? You've already said you won't tell more about your beliefs, so I suppose we'll never know. But I would be interested in knowing. You seem friendly at times, even jovial, but I also sense some anger coming from you towards the Church.

TomH, are you trying to convert people? Or are you just trying to fight? The people want a fight with members, but responding with a fight is not the right thing to do in most cases. That's my opinion anyway. Reading your posts, I just don't get the sense that God's spirit is in it. I know you mean well, and I certainly know where you're coming from. I just don't know if it's an effective strategy for bringing people to Christ.

I hope all can pray about the things posted here, and come to a knowledge of the truth.

Jim:

There are many ways to be brought to Jesus Christ. And I don't feel that "fighting" is a good thing either. However, healthy debate is wonderful and causes people to evaluate the premises of their conclusions. Many members thank me for my posts in helping them deal with complicated accusations in their minds too. For many that journey has just begun, so in that way, the spirit is most certainly there, helping them understand what they believe are complex issues.

Some people aren’t ready to pray yet, but they are willing to think correctly. Logic, reason, sound arguments, and valid premises are a necessary part of thinking correctly.

Joseph Smith Jr. said: “It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.”

Brigham Young, said: “Well, then, we ought, in the first place, to train ourselves to believe correctly, to think correctly, and to practice [act] correctly, and instill correct principles into the minds of the rising generation.”

I don’t mind if your style is different than mine. Considering the type of forum we’re in, I think it accommodates many different styles.

I was once an active Mormon and an active defender of the faith. But after a while, you can only rationalize so much inconsistency between the story and the actual history. It is a fact, and in Joseph Smith's own handwriting in the church archives he gives two accounts of the First Vision. Neither of these first two accounts mention God the Father being there and he certainly did not go to pray to ask God which church to join. He was asking for forgiveness for his sins. It wasn't till 20 years later did the story evolve into the current version we find in the Pearl of Great Price. The truth is 99% of Mormons believe what they are told to believe. They rarely look beyond publications that are sanctioned as acceptable by the church. It is getting so rigid now that any Sunday School teachers or Quorum teachers are urged to use only LDS scriptures as references for teaching the lessons from the lesson manual produced by the church. The fact is that most Mormons are like the O.J. jury. It doesn't matter what evidence you present them....no matter how factual, they just can't accept anything that doesn't square with what they have been taught since they were 2 years old. In general, they are a very happy people because they believe they have a "special deal" with God. They can't help it they are right and everyone else is wrong. The thing they forget is that the Catholics, Protestants, Scientologists, Muslims ad nauseum all feel the same way. People who believe in Santa Claus are happier than those who don't. However, it does not make Santa real! Mormons are very good to those who are not of their faith, but if you have been on a mission and to the temple and then you decide it is not for you, they treat you with great contempt and scorn...like you are the anti-Christ.
I will say this for the church though...it is a great story....I just wish it were true!

I'm a BYU student and practicing LDS, and I read every post on here. Guess what? I still have faith. All of the anti-Mormon bashing is old news, it's gonna be here forever. You can find fault with anything; Obama, Lincoln, Microsoft, the USA, ANYTHING. People are not perfect, I don't know of a single LDS (or any scripture for that matter) source that says that people are infallible, so quit trying to tear down my beliefs by saying Brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff or whoever did some thing 150 years ago. I don't care. It doesn't affect the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anyone ever read the New Testament? "By their fruits ye shall know them" sound familiar? Look at the LDS Church and its "fruits." I think the girl in the video was totally right. Sometimes, LDS people get caught up in dogma. That's not an expression of the faith, that’s an overzealous exception to the rule. Most LDS people don’t stick out like a sore thumb. You probably go to work with a LDS, work out with one, or encounter one sometime during your week. Are they trying to attack you in an attempt to accept their faith? Are they making you vote for what they deem to be the right cause? Are they trying to steal your wife? No. We have a knowledge of the truth, and we want to share it with the world. The LDS church doesn’t teach that all other churches are false or are the church of the devil. The Church teaches that it holds, in its ENTIRETY (important point) the Gospel. Evangelicals, Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Taoism (in addition to many other faiths) all have truth in their religion. That’s not the issue here; the issue is who was all the truth. We believe we do and we want to spread exaltation to all of our brothers and sisters. I just received my mission call to serve for two years in Detroit, Michigan, and I count it as the greatest blessing of my life to be able to tell people the truth that I know. Oh and P.S. It would be really super awesome if everyone could learn a little grammar and spelling instead of butchering what we know as the English language.

And now, to quote Brigham Young,

My religion teaches me to embrace all truth in the heavens, on the earth, under the earth, and in the bottomless pit, if there is any there. My creed embraces all truth. If you have truth that I have not, let me know it, and it will come to where it belongs; and if I have truth which you have not, you are welcome to it.

As someone who attended LDS Seminary, served a two-year mission for the Church, married in the Salt Lake Temple, graduated from BYU (MBA), and served in many capacities for the Mormon Church, I now rank of the ever-growing "former Mormon and Ex-Mormon" population.

My wife and I resigned years ago, when we could no longer accept the many absurd claims of the Book of Mormon. I have no doubt it was created by the convicted conman and pedophile Joseph Smith. The evidence against Mormonism are many:
- Many plants, animals, and mined metals the Book of Mormon claims were in ancient times, simply didn't exist in the Americas at that time
- DNA science has rebutted the church claims that Native Americans are Semitic
- The Book of Abraham is a blatant fraud; Joseph Smith had numerous accounts of his "first vision" story, some having Jesus only, God and Jesus, an angel with neither God nor Jesus
- Black people are cursed with dark skin due to the curse of Cain and not allowing black people their priesthood until years after the Civil Rights Movement
- 3,900+ changes to the Book of Mormon since it's first publication
- Changes to many LDS temple ordinances (Mormons claim are "eternal"), including cutting of throat and disembowling motions until they changed that in 1990
- Excommunicating authors and scholars for publishing their studies about church history or the Mormon scriptures. Excommunicating people who simply voice their opinions on church history, church practices regarding women, blacks, and gays.
- The list is endless

I found that as a Mormon, I had to jump through one aburd hoop after another in order to maintain a belief in the irrational and implausible. Being forced to do that for years, does something to a person's psyche and intellectual well-being. On many levels, I'm embarrassed to admit that I believed much of that as an adult. Even so, since leaving the Mormon faith, I am now much more at peace with myself than I ever was as a Mormon.

The coinage of the term "anti-mormon" is an adolescent and jejune attempt to coopt a genuine social phenomenon: anti-semitism, and bend it to the purpose of mormon apologetics. Its use is part of a deliberate strategy to stifle debate and shame anyone who would dare even discuss the absurdities, inconsistencies, and outright fabrications that are bundled under the rubric of "mormonism".

**** Every mormon who has ever used the term "anti-mormon" owes an abject apology to the Jewish people, a people who really _do_ know something about what "anti" means. ****

Shame on every one of you.

Jim said,

"KBenjamin, you obviously know quite a bit about the Church. Why did you study it for so long? What was there about it that kept you coming? Are you a closet believer? You've already said you won't tell more about your beliefs, so I suppose we'll never know. But I would be interested in knowing. You seem friendly at times, even jovial, but I also sense some anger coming from you towards the Church."

You are probably right about the anger. There is a reason I studied the Church for so long. I was a sincere investigator. I prayed and did as I was asked. Again and again the Spirit answered "no". The missionaries kept at me for a long time. I really wanted it all to be true. I had an LDS girlfriend whom I really loved, and I would love to have been what she wanted me to be (all I lacked was being LDS, I already didn't drink or smoke, etc...).

But in the end, how many "no" answers does a person have to get from God, before he realizes the answer is "no"? The missionaries were good, but they didn't accept "no" for an answer, because they believed the only answer was affirmative. TomH reminds me of them: There's only one true way to experience spirituality; my way.

I understand your beliefs and have been to numerous meetings, and I know you are sincere. Despite what I said in my first post here, I actually respect your sincerity. I just don't ascribe to some of your required beliefs, and God has confirmed this to me through His Spirit.

So, I'm not a crazy Mormon-hating anti-Mormon. I'm just not a Mormon, although the topic is still interesting to me. And you may be right, there is a bit of sadness, maybe anger, involved with my former brush with the LDS Church.

Also, Jim, as unChristian as it is, it's fun to watch people like TomH work so hard. But, I think Christ would have never wished me to comment on this board in the first place, honestly.

So, I'll say goodbye now. Best wishes.

I have read through the posts and it seems there is still a lot of misconceptions about former Mormons. I was a missionary in Brazil, returned to marry a descendant of Orson Pratt. Was in Bishoprics, Stake callings and a temple officiator. I was so busy between family and work I never had a chance to do anything else. I considered myself to be happy. I was held up as an example of success in the wards I attended.

I started talking with a friend about Mormonism. This friend is very bright and is faculty at a major university. The friend started questioning me on certain tenants and historical items in Mormonism. I said that can't be right and started to study. Over the next two years I bought and read the Journal of Discourses, Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, collections of the Times and Seasons, Elders Journal, Millennium Star and a series of other books. I got Dan Vogel's collection of early Mormon documents. I also read the papers from FARMS and FAIR. I found that the questions being asked were legitimate, and if the apologist's papers were reviewed and traced to source documents, they were generally without basis.

After two years of study I resigned from the Mormon Church. I thought it interesting that it takes a notarized formal resignation to leave. I chose Smithmas day for my resignation. December 23, 2005. The bicentennial of the birth of the founder of Mormonism. I am a former Mormon, not an "anti-Mormon." I was a good missionary for the Mormon Church and now feel an obligation to let people know what I discovered in my research. I don't seek people out, but am active in presenting historical Mormon information.

I did not leave because of sin, it was not laziness and I was not excommunicated. My lifestyle is pretty much the same as it was. I did start a business helping people with significant disabilities get off of public benefits. I feel I owe something to my fellow man after wasting so many years as a Mormon. I find what happened to me is typical of the people leaving the Mormon Church. There is an estimated 100,000 per year actually resigning and approximately three times that number who simply stop going.

If you read the Mormon missionary guide "Law of the Harvest" you will find that Mormonism is not the fastest growing religion and is actually struggling to maintain the existing level of "active" members.

A lot of various points and arguments have been made here, I wish to make 2 simple questions

1 Why is it that the LDS seem to always lead with the book of mormon when most of their doctrine is not from it and often is contradicted by it.

2. Since the Book of Mormon claims to be a true history,why has the LDS Chuch NOT done proper archaeological digs for physical proof of the book of mormon.

For those not well versed in bom history hill cumorah in New York State is the only site that the LDS Church has stated IS the location of a presumed historical event. That being the death of over 2 million jeradites (Ether 15:2) in appx 600 B.C
and 230,000 Nephite warriors 421 A.D. (Mormon 6 ) the number of non combatants is not stated. With in excess of 2.2 million people killed in such a small geographic area it should be a trove of artifacts.

Jim:

You and I have a similar background in Mormonism. I too have served in many Church callings, served a mission, and I also read the standard works, the Journal of Discourses, Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, collections of the Times and Seasons, Elders Journal, Millennium Star and a series of other books. I got Dan Vogel's collection of early Mormon documents. I also read the papers from FARMS and FAIR, and also add “The Mormon Doctrine of Deity," by B.H. Roberts, and "The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion," by Sterling McMurrin. I, too, have read David Stewart’s “The Law of the Harvest.”

Yet, I am a believing Mormon. I have found nothing in my research that is the “death knell” of Mormonism – either particularly or universally. And it’s not because I haven’t thought it through deeply or haven’t done “enough” research. I know the about the Church, warts and all.

Do you believe that a personal infallible standard for prophets or scripture may have led you to just giving up on religion altogether?

Trey:

I would like to address your criticism of the Book of Mormon.

When making an appeal to archeology, you’re asserting that you believe strongly in scientific principles of carbon dating, sedimentary layers in the earth, and other necessary principles that accurately identify times, locations, and events from the past.
I, too, believe strongly in scientific principles and accept them as valid. You rightly cite a lack of evidence a reason why we should question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Many critics cite a lack of evidence for the wheel, or the horse or other “favorite” items from the “nout found” list. The book after all does refer to chariots (although wheels are not mentioned), and it does mention horses, but not in the context as an animal used to pull vehicles or for riding. The Book of Mormon does not claim there is an extensive horse culture or that they were used in battle. In fact, just the opposite is the case, within the text. There are many other things that have yet to be found in the Americas, including, wheat, metal swords, remains of sheep, goats, swine, cattle, cows, and a few other items on the list of predictions.

However, instead of remaining open to new discoveries, critics of the Book of Mormon claim that we must find them “all” NOW before anyone can take the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient record. I could certainly understand this position if NOTHING had been found to support the Book of Mormon.

If we go back to 1830, and ask the archeologists, scientists, researchers, and theologians of that time, for evidences for the Book of Mormon, they will all answer in the affirmative – there is no evidence.

This knee-jerk reaction of claiming, “no evidence” for the Book of Mormon has been passed down from one generation to the next. To complicate matters, many Mormons formed their own opinions over the last 170 years about where the Book of Mormon cities are actually located and have all tried to advance their own opinions using this argument or that argument or this model or that model.

But what has been really happening in archeology? Just the opposite. Every year, steadily, more evidences are found that support the Book of Mormon narrative. There has been a narrowing down of hypotheses and geographical models in agreement with the “text” (not necessarily Mormon folklore) to find the actual location of the cities and the culture of the Nephites and Lamanites which represent a small part of the overall history of the Americas. Remember, there is a time line in the Book of Mormon – it has its own chronology recorded in the text from 2200 BC to 400 AD. We can verify cultural features, events, new technologies using this internal time line.

In recent years, the following evidences have been verified or found:

• The modern wheel found (wheeled toys found in ancient Mexico)
Modern horse remains found (recent discovery in an ancient MesoAmerican well produced horse teeth – carbon dated to be pre-Columbian)
• Elephant found (discovery of an Elephant head carving with tusks, trunk and ears)
• Barely in pre-Columbian America
• Ancient silk making in MesoAmerica
• Ancient honey bees found
• Ancient glass making verified
• Writing and recording on metal plates
• Brass plates in 600 BC
• The ancient practice of burying plates
• Genes linking Eurasians and Native Americans
• The ancient practice of altering Egyptian or reformed Egyptian
• The use of cement in building (the rise of cement use in MesoAmerica corresponds to the time period in the Book of Mormon.)
• Olive culture
• Volcanism near geographical model
• Ancient war fortifications as described in the Book of Mormon
• Hebraic language structures
• Hebrew Book of Mormon names that were not known in 1830
• Weights and measurements corresponding to ancient MesoAmerican systems.

Some interesting links on Book of Mormon archeology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology_and_the_Book_of_Mormon
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

There have been many attempts to explain away the Book of Mormon text as plagiarism from different sources, or other reasons that
1) do not fit into the history of Joseph Smith or other scribes for the Book of Mormon,
2) do not honest admit that some portions are deliberate quotations from the Old Testament or repeats of Jesus' own words from the New Testament,
2) do not account for the evidences above (where did Joseph Smith get them – when 1829 archeology didn’t know them yet?) and
3) don’t take into the account the statistical improbability of Joseph Smith getting so many things correct in combination.

Now add to that the recent discoveries of two Book of Mormon settlements that match the correct time period, the names, the cultural features and the geographical features, and we observe that the claim that there is “no evidence” is simply an untenable position.

To claim that the Book of Mormon can only be authenticated when a certain list of our “favorite” archeological evidences are found is to make a straw man arguments. Why? The Book of Mormon text can be authenticated using other evidences.

One last point on the Book of Mormon. There is a clear and measurable distinction between Bible archeology and Book of Mormon archeology. That cities have been found to support the Bible as a record is not impressive to atheists or non-believers. Why? The Bible was recorded over 1000s of years at the same time when recorded history was also chronicled. The Bible is not the single source for the history of the cities or the people. This is not to say that the Bible isn’t valuable, it is. But, if we equate the Bible and the Book of Mormon archeological discoveries, we’ve made an identification error. Discovered archeology that supports the Book of Mormon carries much more weight and authenticity. Why? The specific predictions made in the Book of Mormon were contrary to known archeology, science, and tradition of 1829. Joseph Smith went against, what was known history of his day, making a very bold statement about future discovery and his blessing from God to recall and chronicle real history. Now jump ahead to 2009. Not only are the multiple discoveries for the Book of Mormon artifacts, culture, and settlements, evidence – the discoveries are strong evidence.

Does this mean that there is 100% proof for the Book of Mormon? There will always be skeptics, critics, and cynics. These approaches do not arise because the evidence is lacking, but because belief is not guaranteed in the face of evidence.

One last point on archeology. Does biblical or Book of Mormon archeology PROVE that Jesus Christ is the son of God? No. There are witnesses only. Faith is required using both witnesses because there is no “archaeological” evidence for the miracles of Jesus or for his resurrection.

I am glad that you acknowledge scientific truth. I believe that it represents the way things were, the way things are, and the way things will be.

For better or for worse for faith traditions, the truth is what I seek.

TomH

What good is a prophet if he is only right part of the time? My horoscope is that accurate. The Old Testament measure of a prophet was 100% correct. If someone claimed to be a prophet and was not reliable he was killed.

Now, are you completely comfortable putting your life in the hands of someone who is right part of the time? Someone that a future contradiction from another man can negate what was said? I grew up with the idea that Blacks were fence sitters. They were an inferior class of people. This was taught and leadership completely supported the idea. Most people had a "testimony" of that truthfulness. The last official release on the subject was a statement from the First Presidency that reiterated the position. This reiteration was in 1969 and was drafted for signature by the First Presidency by Gordon B. Hinckley. I happened to be on my mission when the "prophet" said that they had been wrong all of those years. Now everyone who said that was suddenly "speaking as a man." I see the same drama being played out with the Gays who are now somehow sub-human according to the Mormon Church.

The prophet speaking as a man was a small part of why I left. I feel that Mormon leadership is deceitful. Boyd K Packer as well as Nelson and others have many times stated that history should only be taught if it is faith promoting. Real history is not discussed. Founding doctrines are ignored. In my opinion that is lying by omission. God should not have to hide history or twist words or jump through hoops as the Mormon Church does. When was the last time you heard a discussion in a Mormon Church explaining that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to "translate" the Book of Mormon? This is just one simple example among hundreds. I have hundreds of pages of my own research and questions. I found that the "anti-Mormons" were much more accurate in their presentation of history than the Mormon Church was. I am not here to debate the fallacies of Mormonism, but rather to point out that the standard answer of someone becoming "offended", "wanting to sin" or "being lazy" is not an accurate characterization of why people leave Mormonism. I have proven to my own satisfaction that it is a 19th century fabrication by a seriously flawed man. God had nothing to do with it.

If you have a testimony and want to hang your hat on it, that is your business. I see more validity in the Invisible Pink Unicorn than I do in Joseph Smith and the Mormon God.

Meh. Nothing spectacular. I bet there are dozens of handsome/beautiful 20 year old baptists, methodists, catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses etc... who can enunciate their faith just as well if not better than Ms. Esplin. What makes her so special? So she's a member of a small-time grass roots religion who can talk clearly and string together semi-coherent yet somewhat apologetic thoughts about mormonism, big deal. If she wasn't mormon this wouldn't even be a news story. I wish her well in her Harvard endeavors.

Jim:

Old Testament prophets got angry, were impatient, lied, and some denied knowing God when their life was threatened. Yet, they were chastened, forgiven, and recalled to their office over and over again.

The idea of prophet infallibility is an amalgamation of the Orthodox Christian concept of Biblical inerrancy, prophetic calling, and divine revelation. God knows that fallible men will make mistakes. They could even make mistakes when he’s called and authorized them.

We see in the Bible that revelation was a process, usually involving several hundreds of years of different messages given at different times. There isn’t a single time in Biblical history when there wasn’t a period of divine institution of laws, adjustments, apostasies, and new restorations.
Changes were made along the way. One law would supersede another law – fulfillment of one practice was the institution of a new one.

So it was in the Old and New Testaments, and so it is today.

To my knowledge Jim, the latter-day Saints in the 1800s, 1900s or even today, do not place their “life” in the hands of LDS prophets per se.

LDS prophets, from Joseph Smith to the present, have revealed principles on which to base our conduct and upon which we base our faith in God and the associated laws and ordinances that teach us how to have faith and exercise faith. Prophets make declarations about this or that reality. The declarations that are voted unanimously upon by the councils of the Church are considered scripture and are canonized. I can take those principles and test them with reason, and with prayer, all by myself.

However, only from an outsiders view would this seem like a “one-man show.” From the beginning of the Church, there is no such thing as a one man show in Church doctrine or practice. The councils of the Church, including the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12 and the Seventy make up the authorities of the Church. By their unanimous voice and then vote, the LDS Church institutes doctrines and laws. The prophet or the President of the Church is the spokesman for the “Church” according to the deliberations of the councils of the Church. The scripture that governs this law in the Church is Doctrine and Covenants 107 which was revealed in 1833.

Therefore, according to LDS doctrine, practice, and scripture, there IS such a thing as a Church authority speaking “as a man” and not speaking for God or for the Church. Current and past LDS authorities have the right and the obligation to correct past statements or beliefs of individuals within the Church – including those who sit on those councils. Is there a scriptural precedence for this? Yes. Paul and Peter didn’t always agree, yet as a unified body they acted on behalf of the Church.

My point in telling you that I too had read all of the Church materials that you said you had read was to talk about the “death knell” in Mormonism. You respond with criticisms from anti-Mormons and from former Mormons who don’t “like” the way Church authorities run the Church. You believe that there is something inherently valuable with airing out past mistakes of leaders and claiming that it’s the ‘right” thing to do.

You claim that the Old Testament is a clear standard for truth wherein we find no ambiguity but then are confronted with Genesis chapter one where Moses records the “literal” account, or what was thought to be the literal account for the creation of the world. Jim, six days? Really?

Were the prophets from Adam to Jesus Christ wrong all of those years? Why didn’t Jesus clear it up? How about Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? Were they wrong all of those years?

While no biblical documents exists to supersede the literal 6 day creation interpretation, modern science has since dispelled that as a figurative reading. Were all of those prophets lying by omission? Or were they speaking with limited knowledge that God chose not to given them at that time? Either way, prophet infallibility is a figment of someone’s imagination. Should Churches across the globe make it known to all of the adherents that the past teaching for the last 6000 years about the creation was all a lie?

Or should they say, obviously those Old and New Testament prophets and apostles spoke with limited knowledge?

The science related to the creation of this world is very important. Why? It helps us identify which religious philosophies are based on existence and which ones are based on personal consciousness alone. It is interesting that you would say a prophet is only good if he’s right 100% of the time. Old Testament and LDS prophets are also right 100% of the time when they reveal unconditional prophecies or predictions.

But let’s talk about Joseph Smith and the founding principles of religion – all world religions. When we boil down doctrines, dogmas, practices, and interpretations – we must reduce religion to its founding principle. In Mormonism, it’s existence. In all other world religions, it’s consciousness by itself which exists outside space and time. Within your own philosophy or religion, go to the moment just before the creation – was matter created by God out of nothing or was matter co-eternal with God himself? Science has proven that matter is neither created or destroyed. It is indestructible. So it was in the eternities past and so it will be for eternities in the future.

Joseph Smith, the prophet, revealed that this principle is a RELIGIOUS principle to all the earth. It is a principle of existence.

You may not realizes this today, but this one principle of being correct about the most important truth related to salvation and exaltation, will make all of the difference in the century to come. Mormonism doesn’t have to make itself compatible with existence – it’s found upon it. All other religions, while containing some truth, are just an argument away from being swept off the face of the earth by the indestructibility of matter.

For if God is co-eternal with matter, then the foundations of all other world religions are made of sand.

Matter is in fact eternal, so.… you can state the conclusion for yourself.

On your ancillary issues:

Blacks and the priesthood:
Joseph Smith was the first American theologian of an all white Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood in 1836. Two other blacks received the priesthood between 1836 and 1848. The descendants of Elijah Able, (the remaining black man to hold the priesthood between 1836 and 1873,) also were ordained to the priesthood in the 1900s.

The priesthood ban was clearly a policy and not a doctrine as previously thought by some who were called to the highest offices of the Church. In 1954, President David O. McKay cleared up the confusion when he stated:

"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it
(“David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright) This statement was also reprinted in the Salt Lake Tribune in 1970.

What is clear is that you have misunderstood the history and practice of the priesthood ban.

Hiding Church history:
I think you fail to make a distinction between Church authorities hiding Church history and choosing not to emphasize Church history that does not agree with Church practice of doctrine such as the priesthood ban, polygamy, or other opinions by Church leaders that some members believed as doctrine. To date, there are no founding doctrines that are ignored. Unless you are choosing the “founding” doctrines, Jim. How about we consult Joseph Smith on what the founding doctrines are:

'The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it' ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121).

Don’t you mean the appendages to the founding doctrines?

Joseph Smith translation of the Book of Mormon.
Discussion of Joseph Smith’s “seer” stones are a topic of discussion in Church history classes across the world wide Church – they are referred to as the “urim and thumim” which is the proper name for “special rocks” or rather stones.

But you treat this as some sort of an embarrassing event in Church history. Jim, have you figured out why Joseph Smith put the “stones” into a hat? Allow me to explain.

The stones illuminated by God’s power, much like a computer screen is illuminated by electricity. When the outside light is too bright, a person dims the outside light to allow a clearer reading of the illuminated screen. So it was with Joseph Smith. He placed the stone into the ha and “held the hat over his face to prevent the outside light from dimming the light from the stone. But here’s the history that you’re going to have to account for that is much harder than dismissing thee Book of Mormon translation using plates. There were several eyewitnesses that watched Joseph Smith place the stone in his hat, and shield his eyes.

Guess what came next Jim? Yep, while the outside light was kept from coming in, Joseph Smith spoke aloud EVERY WORD of the Book of Mormon as the scribes wrote what he said. That process continued for about 2 months – day after day – word after word.

Now, here is a fair question, Jim. If the outside light was prevented from illuminating the inside of the hat, and the stone wasn’t illuminated, where did the words come from that Joseph Smith was speaking out loud for hours on end without interruption?

About Anti-Mormon accuracy and credibility:
Jim, there are no historians (LDS or non-LDS) or peer reviewed scholars who use anti-Mormon polemic sources for accurate LDS history.

Recently, even Evangelical scholars, having been stung by the unreliability of anti-Mormon sources said this:
“On a personal level, over the past half-dozen years I have been a member of a small group of evangelical scholars who have been engaged in lengthy closed-door discussions about spiritual and theological matters with a small group of our LDS counterparts. We have not been afraid to argue strenuously with each other, but our arguments have been conducted in a sincere desire genuinely to understand each other-and in the process we have formed some deep bonds of friendship.
I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.” (November, 2004)
Richard Mow, President at Fuller Theological Seminary, Professor of Christian Philosophy.

Jim, you’re correct in saying that I have a testimony, but you’ll notice that I haven’t “borne my testimony” a single time in the normal “fast and testimony way.” Instead, I have used logic and refutation to respond to your criticisms.

In truth, Mormonism is on sound philosophical ground and is defensible.

Jim, I am open to any appeals to standards that can be found in existence rather than those made up in the personal consciousness of doubting individuals.

Daniel Peterson said:

"It always astonishes me to see how vocally hostile some people are to my Mormon faith.

I think I can truthfully say that I feel no such hostility toward anybody else's. In fact, quite the contrary. (And I spend much of my time thinking and speaking and writing about other faiths.) Nor do I hear such hostility in the Mormon services that I attend (and have attended on every inhabited continent)."

Mr. Peterson, though I doubt you are still following this, I wanted to address this statement.

I find this statement strains the bounds of credulity. If you really spend much time speaking and writing about other faiths, (and had properly researched them) you would find almost identical criticism leveled at nearly all religions. Many of the so-called “New Atheists,” are hostile to all kinds of belief-systems. Apologetics, as you are aware, is the result of answering criticism of religion. I have been to Evangelical revivals preaching against Islam. I have read what some Muslim’s think about the Jewish faith. I have read and listened to what science has to say about all forms of superstition.

Daniel Peterson said:

"It always astonishes me to see how vocally hostile some people are to my Mormon faith.

I think I can truthfully say that I feel no such hostility toward anybody else's. In fact, quite the contrary. (And I spend much of my time thinking and speaking and writing about other faiths.) Nor do I hear such hostility in the Mormon services that I attend (and have attended on every inhabited continent)."

Mr. Peterson, though I doubt you are still following this, I wanted to address this statement.

I find this statement strains the bounds of credulity. If you really spend much time speaking and writing about other faiths, (and had properly researched them) you would find almost identical criticism leveled at nearly all religions. Many of the so-called “New Atheists,” are hostile to all kinds of belief-systems. Apologetics, as you are aware, is the result of answering criticism of religion. I have been to Evangelical revivals preaching against Islam. I have read what some Muslim’s think about the Jewish faith. I have read and listened to what science has to say about all forms of superstition.

Surely you are not astonished that Mormonism, a relatively newcomer to the game, is included in hostilities that have been going on for centuries?

I have seen it claimed that Mormonism likes to play the victim. I don’t know whether or not that is true, but as a known apologist, surely you know the history of your craft?

Dave,

Your post is like reading “Alice in Wonderland,” a collection of unrelated images, unsubstantiated claims, and poorly crafted conclusions.

Your claims can be boiled down to 13 separate accusations. I’ll gladly address each one.

#1. Some of Joseph Smith’s sealings (marriage: some for time and all for eternity) were to women who were 14 but younger than 17 (3 to be exact), and to women who were already married (civil ceremony) Therefore, Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet because these relationships are offensive to our cultural sensibilities or marriage laws.

TomH comments: Isn’t the larger question here whether or not Joseph Smith’s reintroduction of polygamy (or different marriage practices) offended God? To what standard do we make an appeal? Ancient standards? The Bible? 19th century marriage practices? 21st century standards to one’s personal views?

No one can know for sure what’s in your mind Dave unless you tell us. Obviously you see a contradiction between the word “Prophet” and the words or concepts of “polygamy”, “polyandry”, and what we would call, “underage marriage.”

Criticism of Joseph Smith’s relationships can be categorized into three different types of relationships:

• Marrying single women for time and eternity.
• Marrying women “for eternity” who were married for “time” to other men. Joseph Smith was sealed to these women for a relationship “after” death.
• Marriage to underage girls according to the law in 2009.

Mormons can easily make an appeal to the Bible for Joseph Smith’s reintroduction of polygamy and polyandry, and for underage marriage:

• Old Testament polygamy by Prophets (Abraham, Jacob and Moses)
o Abraham, Jacob (Israel) and Moses all had more than one wife – all polygamists prophets.
o God reestablished and perpetuated his strongest covenant with a polygamist and with the children of polygamists for many generations thereafter.
• Old Testament polygamy and polyandry where God is the author of it (David)
o King David was given the wives of other men, through the Prophet Nathan.
• Old Testament polygamy regulated in the Law of Moses (God)
• Abraham lied about his marital status in the Court of Pharaoh to save his life.
• Jacob had 4 wives – he had 12 sons – the 12 tribes of Israel.
• Scholars estimate that Mary was between the age of 12 and 17 when she 1) conceived and 2) was married to Joseph.
• Peter, chosen Apostle of Jesus, lied and denied the Lord three times, and yet was still chosen and called.

Mormons can make an appeal to early Christian and later Christian interpretations/traditions:
• Absence of New Testament doctrines that forbid polygamy for all (Bishops restricted)
• The Continued cultural practice of polygamy by Christian Jews (30 A.D. – 300 A.D) (Greeks and Romans had multiple sex partners but abhorred polygamy)
• Early Christian tolerance of the practice of polygamy among converts such as Jews & Hindus.
• The response of Early Christians to Old Testament plural marriage
• The response of Reformation leader, Martin Luther, regarding plural marriage.
• Acceptance of Orthodox Christian converts in modern times who are allowed to keep their plural wives.
• Smaller issue of Christians practicing polygamy today.

Mormons can also make an appeal to the marriage practices in Joseph Smith’s time. In 19th century America, the norm was for older men to marry younger women. Here are a few examples:

• Johann Sebastian Bach was 36 when he married his bride – she was 19. (Anna Wilcke)
• William Clark (Lewis & Clark) was 37 when he married his bride – she was 16. (Julia Hancock)
• Grover Cleveland (22nd & 24th US Pres) was 49 when he married his bride – she was 21
• John Milton (Paradise lost) was 34 when he married his first wife – she was 17. He married his second wife when he was 55 – she was 24.
• In 1850, according to the Census, 41% of women married as teenagers compared to 4% of men. The percentage was higher and about the same for men, in the 1830s.
• The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. (1880s)
• In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten years old. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!

Incidentally, Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball who was 14, was a dynastic marriage, Todd Compton describes the reason for the marriage:

• “The prophet’s marriage to her seems to have been largely dynastic—a union arranged by Joseph and Heber to seal the Kimball family to a seer, church president, and presiding patriarchal figure of the dispensation of the fullness of times" (Compton 1997, p. 486).

• According to Helen Kimball, her father wished to create an eternal link between his family and the family of Joseph Smith, Jr. (Anderson & Faulring 1998)[1]

• Helen was ‘’sealed’’ to Smith in May 1843. The marriage was kept secret, and Kimball continued to live with her parents (Anderson & Faulring 1998).

The point is, it was a different time and to try to apply our standards on Joseph Smith or anyone else from that time, using our legal age limits or cultural views today is 1) irrelevant and 2) disingenuous.

Mormons can appeal to Joseph Smith’s treatment of the marriages:

• Joseph Smith married all of his wives with the consent of the wife and her parents or family.
• All of Joseph Smith’s marriage proposals were arranged through the woman’s family members.
• Joseph Smith believed his marriages were going to be for eternity – the ultimate commitment.

Mormons can make an appeal to the Bible for “eternal marriage:"

• In agreement with the Apostle Paul's teaching that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:11), Mormonism teaches that marriage is not only divinely instituted, but eternally necessary and significant. Neither a man nor a woman can attain the fullest exaltation by themselves.

Mormons can make an appeal to non-Mormon scholars:

George Bernard Shaw:

“Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him.”

[Bernard Shaw, The Future of Political Science in America; an Address by Mr. Bernard Shaw to the Academy of Political Science, at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, on the 11th. April, 1933 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933) as cited in Richard Vetterli, Mormonism, Americanism and Politics (Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing, 1961), 461–462.]

Dave, apart from your cultural sensitivities having been offended, can you make an appeal to another authority that indicates that God would have not called or left Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the practice of plural marriage?

When we look at the Dead Sea scrolls we get corroborating evidence for the Bible. We have archaeological evidences for many sites listed in the Bible.

When we look at the Book of Mormon, we find no archaeological evidence to support that text. No evidence whatsoever of epic battles that supposedly took place on the Hill Camorah in New York State. No city of Zarahemla, no cities with cement structures, no remnants of horses or chariots. The only archaeological artifact that might support Mormon scriptures, did just the opposite. The parchment containing the Book of Abraham turned out to be nothing more than a common funeral script, written centuries after the time of Abraham and given a phony translation by Joseph Smith, who thought he could easilly pull of thie sham.

TomH March 10, 09 12:24 AM, #89 writes:

=============
...

The LDS Church grows by about 250,000 new members a year, gaining converts from mostly other Christian churches. That figure doesn't include the 8 year baptisms or children of record (members of existing Mormon families).

Go to www.mormons.org to sample the average Mormon convert.

LDS believe that the LDS Church will one day fill the world – and while rates increase and decrease, we’re confident that it will continue to grow despite the internet.

In fact, the LDS Church completes a new chapel building about every day. These buildings reflect real growth in the world and not just a revolving door statistic.
Posted by TomH March 10, 09 12:24 AM
=============

I don't recall ever having a faith-related conversation with LDS folks in which growth & construction projects didn't play a role, often a prominent one. Indeed, when the mormon missionaries stopped by a few months ago, they prattled on about representing "the fastest growing religion."* And who cannot admire the chutzpah of an institution erecting a 2 billion (with a "B") dollar shopping mall in Salt Lake City, while simultaneously laying claim to a "Christian" tradition? And the same institution owning a 400+ square mile cattle-ranch outside of Orlando, Florida? Was Jesus a cowboy - I thought he was a carpenter?

Is the message, "growth equals authenticity"? A strange "spiritual" ethic, to be sure. Can non-members invest in the mormon Real-Estate Investment Trust? That religious tax-exemption makes for an attractive opportunity for small-time investors. Big ones, too, I imagine: wouldn't AIG like a piece of that action?

"LDS believe that the LDS Church will one day fill the world" - Doesn't that just bring a tune to mind -
"Deutschland uber alles". Do you think that Jesus whistled that tune? I wonder ...

"we’re confident that it will continue to grow despite the internet." Hope does spring eternal, but many a totalitarian ship has run aground on the shoals of free access to unfiltered information.

*Fastest growing religion: the mormon church's own statistics, as reported in The Yearbook of Canadian and American Churches, show a two-decade long decline in growth rates, making growth a completely unreliable foundation for mormon "faith", as it is for any faith.

As I read through the comments visions of pinheads and various numbers of dancing angels traipse through my mind's eye. The real issue is much more fundamental than most of the posts address. Why your god out of the hundreds claimed by various religions? What of the lack of evidence and indeed the volumes of countervailing evidence concerning much of the Old and New Testaments? Arguing about Jews populating the Americas approximately 400 BCE is a rather dubious endeavor as the land of Canaan was still sparsely populated with Canaanites at the times in question. These Canaanites leveraged myths from earlier cultures to create their own fictional history contained in roughly the first half of the Old Testament. The archaeological and historical evidence is quite clear on these issues.

There are also the questions surrounding the historicity of the purported Jesus. Perhaps he lived however "he" was most likely a compilation of several individuals mixed with descriptions of previous deities such as Mithra. One poster was concerned that we understand the official name of the religion in question. There is a high probability that it is more correct to call it "The Church of Mithra of Latter-day Saints." I quite like many of the tenants of Christianity but that is rather beside the point of concrete truth apart from religious philosophies. Christianity appears to be a more modern instantiation of the ancient Iranian religion Zoroastrianism with various influences sprinkled in throughout the past two thousand years. Nothing wrong with that but the current discussion seems to be one of literalism rather than the mythical nature of Christianity and Judaism.

What is being argued is nothing more than a 19th century myth based on a Canaanite myth which in turn is based on Babylonian myth. The arguments in this thread perhaps provide fodder for an interesting discussion for a comparative religions class or philosophy but it should be remembered that archaeological finds and historical records indicate most of the events occurred only in several authors’ minds.

TomH – if there was a prize for verbosity, you would definitely win. Having been an active Mormon for 40 years, I know the Mormon position on these things. I know the excuses. In reading through this I am wondering who you are trying to convince.
TomH said:
“To my knowledge Jim, the latter-day Saints in the 1800s, 1900s or even today, do not place their “life” in the hands of LDS prophets per se.”
In a recent interview with Mormon authorities concerning Proposition 8 with Ballard and Cook, Ballard said “If the leadership tells us to do something we do it. We know how to get things done.” Direct quote Sparky. Does that sound like cult speak or what?
TomH said:
However, only from an outsiders view would this seem like a “one-man show.” From the beginning of the Church, there is no such thing as a one man show in Church doctrine or practice.
Ether you have not read the same history I have or you are being disingenuous. If you have any doubt read how David O McKay did as he liked and didn’t let the 12 know. Read about Brigham Young’s heavy handed methods. Joseph Smith regularly re-wrote approved scripture You are not being honest at all. .
TomH said:
Therefore, according to LDS doctrine, practice, and scripture, there IS such a thing as a Church authority speaking “as a man” and not speaking for God or for the Church.
So your prophets are no better than a palm reader, or a “Glass Looker”
TomH said:
You claim that the Old Testament is a clear standard for truth wherein we find no ambiguity but then are confronted with Genesis chapter one where Moses records the “literal” account, or what was thought to be the literal account for the creation of the world. Jim, six days? Really?
That was reiterated in the D&C as being 6,000 years as the correct number. 6,000 years TomH? Really? This is suppose to be the “TRUTH”? You are arguing with yourself here.
TomH said
Science has proven that matter is neither created or destroyed. It is indestructible. So it was in the eternities past and so it will be for eternities in the future.
Really? Physicists would be interested in this because as I recall from physics, the conversion from matter to energy and energy to matter under certain circumstances, is pretty commonplace, but had not really been explored in detail at the time of Joseph Smith. At that time the prevalent thought was matter always existed. How about some examples of science from the Book of Abraham. The Earth “fell” out of orbit from Kolob. The sun “borrows” it’s light from Kolob. This is from Mormon scripture. Please explain the scientific thought to back this up.
TomH said:
Blacks and the priesthood:
Joseph Smith was the first American theologian of an all white Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood in 1836. Two other blacks received the priesthood between 1836 and 1848. The descendants of Elijah Able, (the remaining black man to hold the priesthood between 1836 and 1873,) also were ordained to the priesthood in the 1900s.
The priesthood ban was clearly a policy and not a doctrine as previously thought by some who were called to the highest offices of the Church. In 1954, President David O. McKay cleared up the confusion when he stated:
"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it
(“David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright) This statement was also reprinted in the Salt Lake Tribune in 1970.
Have you read Joseph Smith’s statements on race? How about Brigham Young’s?
President Joseph Fielding Smith:
"[Because of Cain's] wickedness he became the father of an in¬ferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning." (The Way to Perfection, p. 101)
President Harold B. Lee:
"The privilege of obtaining a mortal body on this earth is seem¬ingly so priceless that those in the spirit world, even though unfaith¬ful or not valiant, were undoubtedly permitted to take mortal bodies although under penalty of racial or physical or nationalistic limi¬tations." (Youth and the Church, p. 165)

President Joseph Fielding Smith:
"...is it not reasonable to believe that less worthy spirits would come through less favored lineage? Does this not account in the very large part for the various grades of color and degrees of in¬telligence we find in the earth?" (The Way to perfection, p. 48)
I can go on with this all day. Do you really want to go down this road?
TomH said:
To date, there are no founding doctrines that are ignored.
Let me see. You must not have read Brigham Young’s sermons on polygamy. You must not be aware of the oaths against the US Government in the temple. How about the teaching of the Adam God doctrine in the temple? Isn’t the temple ceremony “doctrine?” I was taught it was unchanging and perfect – I guess not. I was also a temple officiator pre 1990 and am well aware of the changes at that time. These aren’t founding doctrines?
TomH said
Discussion of Joseph Smith’s “seer” stones are a topic of discussion in Church history classes across the world wide Church – they are referred to as the “urim and thumim” which is the proper name for “special rocks” or rather stones.
A rock found in the bottom of a well is NOT a urim and thumim which he retrieved from a rock box on Cumorah.
Harris said that the seer stone Smith possessed was a "chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum." Harris went on to say it was by using this stone that "Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates" (CHC 1:129).
This chocolate-colored stone was the same one he used for treasure hunting.
Tom H said:
But you treat this as some sort of an embarrassing event in Church history. Jim, have you figured out why Joseph Smith put the “stones” into a hat? Allow me to explain.
The stones illuminated by God’s power, much like a computer screen is illuminated by electricity. When the outside light is too bright, a person dims the outside light to allow a clearer reading of the illuminated screen. So it was with Joseph Smith. He placed the stone into the ha and “held the hat over his face to prevent the outside light from dimming the light from the stone. But here’s the history that you’re going to have to account for that is much harder than dismissing thee Book of Mormon translation using plates. There were several eyewitnesses that watched Joseph Smith place the stone in his hat, and shield his eyes.
Yea, right. The stone he used for treasure hunting – but he never found any treasure until he struck it rich with the book. If you believe this I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you.

TomH said:
Jim, you’re correct in saying that I have a testimony, but you’ll notice that I haven’t “borne my testimony” a single time in the normal “fast and testimony way.” Instead, I have used logic and refutation to respond to your criticisms.
In truth, Mormonism is on sound philosophical ground and is defensible.
Mormonism is only defensible if you take the position of “prove it wrong.” Let’s turn that around and see how illogical this is. I believe there is a teapot in orbit around the earth. It is too small to be detected, but I KNOW it is there. Prove it is not.
There is a dragon in my garage. I can’t go in there because it will eat me. I can’t look in there and I don’t trust anyone to look in and report to me. PROVE THE DRAGON DOESN’T EXIST.
I KNOW the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. This is based in both logic and faith. I KNOW she is invisible because I can’t see her and I have FAITH that she is pink. Prove me wrong.
These are three basic models for what Mormons require of people who disagree with them. You can see the flaws in the logic. It is the responsibility of the person making outrageous claims to deliver proof. Where is your proof? If you ignore what this guy said and overlook what happened here and keep your eyes half closed you can keep on pretending, but it doesn’t make it true.
I am not nearly as bombastic as you, so I will close by simply saying that I have proven to my satisfaction that Mormonism is a fraud from the beginning to end.

I honestly forgot that I posted anything here until somebody pointed out this conversation was still going on between Rachel Esplin's faithful Mormon fans, and those who are trying to inject some realism into this conversation.
So I came back and saw my post here, along with a bunch of replies, which are about what I would expect from the faithful, having been one. I was the same way. I would start with the conclusion, what in Mormon jargon is referred to as “my testimony” every Mormon child is indoctrinated to parrot by the time they are old enough to stand up at the microphone and with their mothers whisper into their ears,
A. Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. ( did more for humanity than any other human being who ever lived, except Jesus, who doesn't really count, to be fair, since he did after all have the unfair advantage of being God,
B. The Book of Mormon is true.
C. The Church is true.
D. God lives and answers prayer and
E. Jesus Christ loves me

and then they force every bit of information to fit that conclusion, because the implication of admitting the obvious, losing the love of your Mormon loved ones, is just too painful to ever critically examine your most deeply held beliefs. It’s a form of indoctrination that has been going on generation after generation and continues to go on, without anybody ever stopping to really critically examine the beliefs they inherit, which are inextricably bound to the social constructs that make up Mormonism.

Until I was able to emerge from Plato’s Cave of Shadows, into the full spectrum of the light of day I was unable to objectively examine my most deeply held beliefs.

"How do you examine yourself? What happens when you interrogate yourself? What happens when you begin to call into question your tacit assumptions and unarticulated presuppositions and begin, then, to become a different kind of person? The Socratic imperative of examining yourself requires courage in a way William Butler Yeats used to say it takes more courage to examine the dark corners or your own soul than it does for a soldier to fight on the battlefield. Courage to think critically. Courage is the enabling virtue for any philosopher, for any human being, I think, in the end: Courage to think, courage to love, courage to hope."

Cornel West, The Examined Life
My motivation for contributing to the discourse on the issues facing the faith I inherited, Mormonism, is to inject some reality into the discourse, which often seems to me like polite, small talk at a tea party, with everybody avoiding the elephant in the room.
Why is it that intelligent people like Rachel Esplin end up discovering that the religion she was born into, just happened to be the absolute truth, and the Muslim sitting next to her came to the same realization, and the Jew, and the Christian? How can they all be simultaneously absolutely true? They can’t. Yet each person at that table believes that the beliefs they inherited, have the ability to save them and ensure that they will be saved and all the ‘other’ people sitting at the table will not be saved, or worse yet, are doomed to damnation, unless they accept their beliefs?
Why is it that never in the history of mankind has it been “them” who are saved and “us” who are damned? Why is it always “us” who are saved and “them” that are damned? Because we need to have a common enemy, ‘them’, others, to unite ‘us’ against.
Like Carl Sagan said, “religion is nothing more than a community of people who gather together on a regular basis to convince one another that it is ok to continue believing in absurdities.” and “For me it is far better to see the world as it really is, rather than persist in delusion, no matter how comforting that may seem.”
I like seeing the world as it really is, with reason and common sense, rather than persisting in delusion just because that is what I inherited. We’re not sheep people, we’re people. Time to wake up.
The fastest growing religious identity and the only religious identity to experience growth in every state of the US, is “No Religion”.
Imagine.

I have a few things in common with Ms Esplin. I have Mormon roots in Blackfoot, Id and as a young college student I was as sincere in defending Mormonism as she is. That all changed when I discovered the disturbing past of my religion. Joseph Smith had over 30 secret polygamous wives some as young as fourteen years old. His first polygamous marriage is absolutely shrouded in salacious secrecy. Try doing a search on his first polygamous wife, Fanny Alger, on any of the church’s official websites and guess what you will get, ‘your search has returned 0 results’. When I first ran across the disturbing story of Joseph Smith marrying his teenage housemaid without his first wife’s knowledge, I proceeded straight to lds.org and josephsmith.net to understand the “real” story. Certainly, the non-Mormon writers were taking the story out of context or twisting the details to make it sound tawdry.

I was unable to find a modern prophet, apostle or general authority explain why he had married this young girl believed to be 16 who was working and living in Joseph’s home. First of all it was ten years prior to the official revelation on polygamy of 1843. But yet there is not one iota of official documentation. It seems completely unreasonable that something so charged with sexual impropriety would be treated with no special attention to transparency and not recorded and explained, taking great pains to document everything. I believe that if this were truly requested by God, that Joseph marry this little servant girl that every detail would not be documented and treated with complete openness and still be discrete

Oliver Cowdery believed that their relationship was an affair calling it, “a dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny.” Cowdery was a witness and scribe to the Book of Mormon and technically second in authortity to Joseph as the Second Elder. If anyone should have been in the loop on this it would have been Cowdery. Eventually one of the reasons he was excommunicated was his declarations that Joseph and Fanny had an affair.

It has been speculated that she may have been pregnant when Joseph’s wife, Emma, finally found out. The Webb family took Fanny in when Emma found out about the relationship. Chauncey Webb recounted, “Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house”. Eventually Fanny returns to live with her parents and marries a non-Mormon and fades from history. Again this seems completely unbelievable that this was such a priority for God just a few years after the church is founded. God’s top priority is that Joseph secretly marry a little servant girl without anybodies knowledge including his wife?

I can think of no reasonable explanation why Joseph “married” Fanny Alger. Apparently the church can’t either. There is absolutely no mention of her in any official church publication. If there is no impropriety why is there no discussion about her? Isn’t she the first women to restore the wonders of middle-eastern polygamy. She is like Hagar to Abraham and Sarah from over 4000 years ago. Why did I finish years of Sunday school, Seminary, Institute with not one mention of her or any of Joseph’s teenage brides? The answer is not because it is sacred but because it is disturbing and disgusting.

Jim Huston has it right. As a lifelong member of the church who finally could not rationalize any more of the inconsistencies, I am now on the sidelines. (Read my post 172) The problem and dilema is how do you deal with your children who you have taught from infancy the same dogma you were fed your entire life. Having 3 sons who are RM's and another who can't wait to serve, it would be extremely devastating to sit them all down and tell them you now believe it all to be untrue. It is interesting to listen to the defenses of Joseph Smith. By the way, who I greatly admire...he was really P.T. Barnum squared! What a charismatic he must have been. It is amazing what you can get away with when you say, "Thus sayeth the Lord!" The parallels between Joseph Smith and Mohamad are eerie. Both were uneducated. Supporters of both point to being unlearned as evidence of their being a true prophet. Both felt the Bible was inaccurate and incomplete. Both claim and angel inspired them or gave them the tools to write their revelations. Both practiced polygamy and were married to young girls. Joseph Smith had to of been a genius with an incredibly creative mind. How did he write the Book of Mormon...they same way he wrote the Book of Abraham. We have that source document and his supposed translation is a complete fraud. He obviously had talent for making things up. Everything he did evolved over time to suit his purposes....from the story of the first vision to polygamy. Do you really think God inspired him to go be sealed to women who were already married at the time. That would be immoral in today's immoral world....let alone in the 1830's. Was a whole race of people cursed because of Cain's act? What about the Article of Faith that man will be punished for his own sins? Kind of flies in the face of that. I love the way the apologists accuse those who present facts that don't agree with their view of the world as, "being critical and finding fault." They act as if it doesn't matter when a Prophet of God is wrong. Bruce R. McConkie admits in a letter to Eugene England that Brigham Young taught false doctrine....then he uses incredible verbal gymnastics to claim that he is still a prophet of God. It doesn't matter that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham....really? Also, Huston is absolutely correct....one of the biggest lies out there that the mainstream media is too lazy to figure out is that the Mormon church is the fastest growning religion on earth. It is losing members rapidly. The activity rate around the world is lucky to be 10%. It is also a fact that 85% of the 18 - 30 year olds in Utah are inactive and hence the new YSA (Young Single Adult) program to try and herd this wayward group back to the iron rod. More people need to read "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. They should fast and pray about it....and they will get a real testimony of what is true in life! It is far more interesting to me why people believe what they believe...not the differences in doctrine.
The Mormon church is a business. They are getting more concerned with their real estate than truly using their vast resources to help those in need.
I did not leave because of sin....I left because there were too many lies for me to live with. It is quite liberating! I feel so much more true to myself. Now to figure out how to get the rest of my family OUT!

The inconsistencies, anachronisms, lack of supporting physical evidence, misrepresentations, alterations, revisions, unacknowledged plagiarism, and sequestered historical documents associated with the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants, and many revelations and pronouncements by LDS Church leaders are nothing short of are staggering.

There is abundant falsifiable evidence that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price are fraudulent. This evidence is valid, reproducible, and has not been shown to be false by appropriate experiment or observation. By these well accepted scientific and logical criteria for determining the validity and truth of a proposition, the hypothesis that these books are as claimed by Joseph Smith can only be rejected.

I see that the anti-Mormons and the embittered apostates are here in force. They typically show up at places like this.

Well, happily it's a free country.

I just wanted to briefly register my own viewpoint: I find plenty of historical evidence to make my belief in Mormonism a rational, defensible choice, and, from the time I first encountered it in any serious way, I've found Mormonism enormously rich and intellectually satisfying. Besides which, it's a healthy and happy lifestyle.

I'm delighted to commend it to anybody here who might have an interest.

Jim:

Just a few comments before I lay my head down with the peace and assurance that the Book of Mormon is an authentic record of a real family, their history and the eventual visitation of Jesus Christ to the Americas, allow me to share some additional personal thoughts.

In all of your responses, you continue to make an appeal to your unbelief as evidence for your unbelief. Don’t you see this as circular?

Further, you continue to make an appeal to the “infallible prophet” standard which does not exist in Mormonism or Christianity anywhere in scripture or in religious history. God allows prophets to be fallible humans and still be called. If they make mistakes, he chastens them and still calls them. In other words, that there were changes in LDS Church policies, or that this prophet or that such and such prophet made vocal their own opinions, doesn’t remove priesthood authority from apostles. But if you’d like to make an appeal to a real standard in history – by call means, knock yourself out. I am all ears. (Appeals to your personal consciousness, can’t be counted as a valid standard, sorry.)

Further, your premises and criticisms against Mormonism do not account for these facts:

1. Joseph Smith was the first American theologian to ordain a black man to an all white Church in 1836. From 1836 to 1848, the policy on the priesthood was to give the priesthood to all men, as approved by the Church according to Church laws. In 1848, the policy changed and remained so, with some exceptions, until 1978. If racism was “doctrinal” then why did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young approve the ordinations for three black men between 1836 and 1848? Why did some black men continue to be ordained to the priesthood from 1848 to 1978? Account for the history.

2. In my last post, I said that Church leaders had differing interpretations on the priesthood ban policy. You quoted only the ones in favor of your view, which I acknowledged, but you didn’t account for the ones who disagreed. Please account for those who disagreed and for President David O. McKay’s statement made in 1954.

3. On one hand you complain that Mormons don’t talk about the details of Joseph Smith’s seer stones, but when we begin talking about it, you dismiss it because you don’t believe it? An appeal to your unbelief isn’t a method for accounting for history. Anciently, the “urim and thumim” were stones. They could have been colored, or clear – but they were stones – and as you call them “rocks.” Nevertheless, they were used to receive revelations from God (see Bible history.) How do you account for this historical use of rocks being used anciently by prophets to receive revelation? Can you acknowledge that God communicated with ancient prophets through rocks? Or will there be more appeals to your “unbelief?”

4. I don’t think you understand the weakness of your argument here. You claim that we should publish that Joseph Smith put a brown rock into a hat but that we shouldn’t share the rest of the history? Who wants to censure history? It is you. My guess is Jim is that you’re only interested in accuracy only as it makes Mormonism look funny, not because you’re interested in sharing all of the details. But you didn’t comment or have a rational explanation how Joseph Smith dictated 531 pages of complex and rich literature, complete with chiasmus, unknown Hebrew names, about two separate civilizations spanning a time period from 2200 BC to 400 AD, a narrative that now enjoys some archeological verification, all by looking into a dark hat. From the “dark hat”, as you claim it was, Joseph Smith spoke aloud all of the words of the Book of Mormon while the scribes wrote it – word after word, without ever asking the scribes so much as to read back the last sentence. This is LDS history – the same history that you say must be published and that everyone should know about. You claim that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by looking into a dark hat with no light to read anything. Fine. Please make a rational argument then how he produced the text of the Book of Mormon in the dark – without access to any materials, day after day for two months as his scribes wrote down the words he spoke.

I am very interested to see how you form rational arguments to account for history.

"People are bloody ignorant apes."

Samuel Beckett, "Waiting for Godot'

Enlightened Christians who open their hearts and minds to see the lies and deceit from the early apostles of the Mormon church are not necessarily embittered. My wife and I both served missions. My wife was relief society president, I was Elder's Quorum president and executive secretary for more than 10 years. The temple ceremony has changed dramatically! If there was revelation then why not reveal it right the first time instead of needing to remove the slitting of the throat, eliminating males embracing females at the veil, and numerous other changes? I was raised in the Mormon church and gave my life devoted to it. I ached to discover from deeper study of church literature of the terrible animosity of the church including Bruce R. against the blacks. They said that anyone with even a drop of negro blood was not eligible of the priesthood. It still aches. I loved the stories of the Book of Mormon and the incredible family oriented programs. There are many incredible Mormons, but all of the lies and deceit couldn't be explained away.

#183 TomH. Said:

“The priesthood ban was clearly a policy and not a doctrine as previously thought by some who were called to the highest offices of the Church. In 1954, President David O. McKay cleared up the confusion when he stated:”

"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it
(“David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright) This statement was also reprinted in the Salt Lake Tribune in 1970.

My comments:

David O. McKay cleared up the confusion? It’s more like he brought out the schizophrenia so prevalent in the church with regards to doctrine, ordinances and ceremonies.

Let’s take a look at what the First Presidency said about the dark subject in 1949.
In 1949, the First Presidency issued a public statement on race that began:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”

The ban was obviously doctrine in 1949, as stated by its leaders.

Put that in your jello and eat it, Tom.

Danny Peterson said:
I find plenty of historical evidence to make my belief in Mormonism a rational, defensible choice,....

Should the "TRUTH" require a defense? "TRUTH" requires apologists? If it is the "TRUTH" wouldn't people be flocking to it? Wouldn't it have more than a .67% of the world population in active members? Is God so small that this is the extent of his compassion?

Regarding Mr. Peterson's note #194:

Post #175 awaits your inspection. It seems that your vocabulary requires a purge of its fatuous elements ...

What an interesting array of comments. I was born into Mormonism and managed to escape after 46 years of them trying to run my life. For the posters that actually "believe" what they're saying about how wonderful the Church is, what is really being said is "I have no idea what the history of the Church is but what the heck, I'm in."
Mormonism is a cult.
It's founded on layers and layers of lies and deception.
The religious doctrine of Mormonism borders on the realm of silly.

A brief comment on a phrase used by TomH #195, item #1 ...

Joseph Smith an "American theologian"? Now there's a breathtaking premise.

A vulgar, unemployable, sexual adventurist, magic man and con man is a "theologian"?

OK - but having opened the door to the character-impaired, we must now admit Jim Jones, David Koresh, Bagwan Shree Rajneesh, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Swaggert, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Baker, etc. - in short, the entire spectrum of North-American parasitic 'religionists', to the Academy of Theologians.

A strange and motley crew for any _man_ to associate with, much less a Creator of All Things Great and Beautiful.

But perhaps you were thinking of annointing Mr. Smith with a certain exclusivity of entitlement? (Dare I say, sole entitlement?)

I think you will find that notion, or any lesser rendition of same, soundly, roundly, and utterly, rejected by those not enrolled in mormonism, Mr. Smith striking them as just a wee off-putting, to phrase it extraordinarily mildly. In the final analysis, the prophetic "credentials' of Mr. Smith find little acceptance outside of that organization which he and his associates created.

Danny Peterson said:
I find plenty of historical evidence to make my belief in Mormonism a rational, defensible choice,....

More thoughts on this statement. The operative phrase in this statement is "YOU FIND." My feeling is you must have a very low threshold for the rational. If you start from the position that Mormonism is true, the I FIND is very easy to achieve. It is simply a matter of arranging the facts to support your position. This is not rational critical thinking. I, on the other hand, find that it is not rational and find that it is not true. I have plenty of historical evidence to support my position and I don't have to resort to saying things like "he was speaking as a man" and "he was a product of his time" or the "current prophet trumps a dead prophet" I did not start with the position that Mormonism is true or false, but that I was going to look at the facts and come to a decision based on a critical review of those facts. I came to that conclusion without overlooking, discounting or justifying those facts. That is the difference between a former Mormon and an apologist.

To discover any truths about God, one must ask Him directly (usually through the means of prayer) and recieve; because it is His rightful place to reveal His truths.

To debate or attempt to discover these truths through any other means is the foolishness of man.

All are invited to ask God concerning the truth of any and all things. If the "Mormon" church indeed be true, God will reveal that truth as such to he who has an open heart who is not against the possibility of the church being true. The same process can be taken with any other church, faith, sect, philosophy, scientific method, or idea.

Answers are revealed to all those that ask. That is how truth has been discovered throughout the ages since the dawn of time.

The answer is easy people. There is no such thing as God. Plain and simple. Once you come to that realization that the Bible is a fabrication, the BOM is a fabrication of a conman, it's easier to sleep better, live happier and a more fulfilled life. I used to believe all of the nonsense until I became an adult and could think for myself. You cannot say that prophets can be human and make mistakes. Well no, if a man is claiming to be a prophet he cannot, therefore they were all charlatans and or mentally ill.

Dave:

I hear you loud and clear. You think I am eating Jello. I used to enjoy Jello when I was younger, but in later years have given it up altogether because of its high sugar content.

Thankfully, I had parents who taught me to reject the idea of apostolic/prophetic infallibility along time ago.

Why haven’t you given up this fallacious doctrine – an amalgamation of the concepts of biblical inerrancy, prophetic calling, and divine revelation?

Your argument follows something like this:

1. True and authorized apostles and prophets can’t make mistakes – they are infallible.
2. LDS apostles made a mistake by banning blacks from the priesthood from 1848 to 1978 (with some exceptions), and were inconsistent about the reason.
3. Therefore, LDS apostles can’t be true apostles and prophets and are not authorized by God.
4. (Therefore, accept Orthodox Christianity or become an atheist.)

The problem here is premise 1. It is fallacious.

There is no such “doctrine” in Mormonism and there isn’t one in the Bible either. That you continue to attack Mormonism using this belief amounts to a straw man argument.

There is no such thing as a perfect or infallible apostle or prophet. Apostles and prophets can make mistakes. They are mortals and are prone to mistakes by nature. The question is whether or not their mistakes cut them off from God’s authority. See the distinction?

Take Peter for example. He denied that he knew Jesus Christ, the Lord, three times. He lied – three times. Jesus even warned him about it before hand. He willfully disregarded God’s counsel and denied knowing his friend and his Lord, three times. How do you think this affected the others who were with Peter, who knew he was 1) an apostle, and 2) knew he was lying? Do you think they lost faith? Do you think they pointed out the inconsistency to others later, saying how can we believe Peter in the future if he had such an error in the past?

How did Jesus react? Did Jesus reject or continue to choose Peter? We all know the rest of the story – it was upon Peter that the Church was built.

So it is with Mormon apostles and prophets. They can make mistakes and still retain their calling from God and their priesthood keys to direct God’s work.

Mormon prophets and apostles are fallible men. They have tempers, don’t always say things in a way pleasing to everyone, hold personal opinions, have sons and daughters who make mistakes, and are subject to the same infirmities as most mortals. But God authorizes them nonetheless.

So, I can freely acknowledge that the statement in 1949 and the statement in 1954 seem to contradict one another. But so are these commandments:

“Don’t take the gospel to the gentiles”
“Take the gospel to the gentiles”

It’s not a perfect existence – human life and administration of the Church. But there is always repentance, renewal, and enlightenment.

You purposely chose the 1949 quote to show the seeming inconsistency among the LDS leaders regarding the “reason” for the priesthood ban from 1948 to 1978.

President McKay’s quote in 1954 was made to illuminate or dispel interpretations of the 1949 statement. In other words, President McKay was doing what he was supposed to be doing, keeping the doctrine clear, coherent, and accurate. In 1954 was the beginning of the reversal on the priesthood ban policy. It began with Brigham Young in 1848, it officially ended in 1978.

The 1978 revelation was the expression of keys and blessings as a result of fully relying on the unity found within the Councils of the Church according to DC 107.

Why the time delay? No one knows for sure. I am confident that it has something to do with 1) LDS Church members, 2) guaranteed civil rights for blacks, 3) a change in the cultural view of blacks across the United States and the world, beginning in 1964.

Critics of the LDS Church will be quick to say that the priesthood ban was merely a result of racism. They’ll conveniently forget the history of Christianity, the U.S. cultural and racial oppression, even beyond the Civil Rights movement.

However, are they just as forthcoming to discuss the motives for ordaining blacks to the priesthood in an all white Church in 1836? Can they intellectually give credit to Joseph Smith, the American theologian, for instituting a beginning that was completely in harmony with a reestablished truth published in the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi. 26: 33

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. “

No. Critics of the Church can’t do that because accounting for previously set doctrinal precedents by Joseph Smith, dispel an the myth of an inherently racial doctrine. Joseph Smith’s religious views about blacks and the priesthood were revolutionary; and to which Brigham Young was a party, having approved the ordinations of black men between 1836 and 1848.
Account for this part of LDS history, if you dare Dave.

Leon,

How do you explain my praying in earnest, fasting and asking God if it is all true. All I heard back was my own rational mind confirming it is all nonsense. You cannot base belief on good feelings. It's simply ludicrous.

I am a convert to the church, and I will simply state a few things:

The number one reason I joined is because of the Book of Mormon. Now, for anyone who doesn't understand the power of prayer, you'll never understand how I came to believe in it. But for those who require more evidential proof - think about this: How is it possible for an uneducated young adult to produce one of the most intricate books in all of existence?

From LightPlanet: ...circumstantial evidence in the English text suggests that the translation was quite precise. For example, the independent and identical translations of 1 Nephi 1:8 and of Alma 36:22 (precisely quoting twenty-one of Lehi's words in 1 Nephi 1:8) typify the internal accuracy manifested in this long and complex record. Moreover, several formulaic terms, Hebraisms, stylistic indications of multiple authorship, varieties of parallelism and extended chiasmus (see Book of Mormon Authorship; Book of Mormon Literature), as well as certain Semitic proper names and some textual variants, not at all evident from the King James Bible, corroborate the claim that the translation was faithful to a consistent underlying text.

The only people today that would be able to reproduce something similar are scripture scholars who've studied the Bible in enough detail to replicate it. Not a teenage boy living on a farm in rural America.

TomH said:
No. Critics of the Church can’t do that because accounting for previously set doctrinal precedents by Joseph Smith, dispel an the myth of an inherently racial doctrine. Joseph Smith’s religious views about blacks and the priesthood were revolutionary; and to which Brigham Young was a party, having approved the ordinations of black men between 1836 and 1848.
Account for this part of LDS history, if you dare Dave.

How about if I comment on this
"Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization."

Actually, what Joseph Smith wanted to do was have the United States government purchase all the slaves in the country from their "owners," and send those blacks back to Africa.

That view actually fits in quite well with the quote above; sending them back to the lands of their ancestors would do quite a good job of confining them "to their own species," so to speak, and to "put them on a national equalization"

Joseph Smith only made those comments during his short-lived campaign as a
presidential candidate from the non-slave state of Illinois. Smith uttered a more truthful statement about his feelings on Negroes in 1838:

[Joseph Smith Jr., Editorial, Elders' Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints,1 (Jul 1838): 42-44]
"[p.43] Question 13th. Are the Mormons abolitionists?
Answer. No, ... we do not believe in setting the Negroes free."

And of course, Smith's 1830 "Book of Moses" and his 1842 "Book of Abraham" make it very clear what he really thought of the Negro race and its origins.

This was not a radical or unusual view of a Northerner during that period of history.

Jennifer,

Rationality is what combats religion. If everything was rational, there would be no use for faith. It's not by rational means you come to know these things.

Jennifer,

Our responses to God are not limited to just feelings, for God is more than capable of responding in any form and in any way he chooses to. That's up to Him.

If a man were to ask another a question only to hear just the response he himself is willing to give, what purpose does he have in asking?

Belief in anything will always begin simply. It grows with time and effort into knowledge, and cannot be as such before such measures are taken. With time and effort we come to find that a belief is true or it is false.

For those of us that declare God doesn't exist declare it from the perspective of, "We have asked an He has not answered, therefore He is not." For those of us who take such a stance, we stand by our words alone; having recieved no other witness.

Often there are large groups who believe in the same idea, but popular view has never determined what truth is or is not.

Jennifer:

You wrote:
"You cannot base belief on good feelings. It's simply ludicrous."

I don't think you meant to make such a general statement here. You probably believe that you love another person based on your feelings, and you "know" that you love them based on your feelings as well.

All knowledge is some kind of “feeling” in our minds or a part of our personal consciousness. There are different kinds of knowledge and methods for gaining knowledge.

In philosophy, there are many approaches to how we know what we know.

In Mormonism, there is no such thing as “mysticism” in the classic sense. Every connection with God occurs in space and time and is composed of matter and energy – no negative theologies.

So while I can experience “chills” or be touched by a wonderful movie or good novel, it doesn’t necessary mean that I have received a witness of God from the Holy Spirit.

According to Mormonism, God states that he will reveal truth to us if we experiment as he has directed. We plug in the formula and he promises to respond. The formula is not “fasting and praying” only. Instead, the formula involves a humble attitude, fasting, praying, acknowledging events in history as real human experience and representative of real existence, thinking deeply about these truths, and accepting them on face value as valid.

Philosophically thinking, God is not going to “confirm” your doubts or your half-belief. Why? This would be akin to confirming the contradiction in your mind. You would be left thinking,
is God confirming my doubt, my desire to believe, or is he confirming that something is true? That approach is inconsistent with God’s mind and will. Thus, there is an important and necessary formula that involves exercising faith and believing what you want to be “confirmed” in your mind.

Critics who believe that this is all a bunch of wishful thinking will tell you that this method and process is impossible to confirm. Well said from a person who has never experienced it.

The Book of Mormon contains the formula above and a promise on how one can “know” from God whether the Book of Mormon is true, Moroni 10:3-7

(Formula 1 - 12)

"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read (1) these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men (2), from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things (3), and ponder it in your hearts. (4)

And when ye shall receive (5) these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, (6) if these things are not true (7); and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart(8), with real intent(9), having faith in Christ (10), he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God (11); for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men (12), the same today and tomorrow, and forever."

By employing study, coherent reason, humility, faith, and this formula, I can say that I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true: a real experience from God inside space and time – touching my mind and personal consciousness – through matter and energy- of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Rachel you rock!

Jim Huston's contemptuous belligerence is nicely captured in his petty alteration of my name from "Daniel Peterson" to "Danny Peterson." Civil conversation is difficult, if not impossible, with such folks.

Fair-minded observers will draw a lesson from that, I think.

FredK:

As you invited me to do, I "inspected" Post #175.

I wasn't very impressed.

The preposition "anti-" merely means "against," and it shows up in lots and lots of English expressions besides "anti-Semitism." Among those that readily come to mind are "anti-cancer," "anti-aging," "anti-missile defense," "antacid," "anti-Catholic," "antagonist," "antihistamine," "anti-American," "anti-Communist," "anti-slavery," "anti-abortion," "antidepressant," "anti-lock brakes," "anti-Masonry," "anti-aircraft," "anti-venom," "anti-Hitler," "anti-establishment," "antitoxin," and "anti-segregation."

Your attempt to portray me as disrespectfully trying to hijack the historical suffering of Jews, merely because I used the expression "anti-Mormon," is both misguided and rather weird.

Wow - lots of back 'n forth here. TomH says (I think) that we can't rely on "primacy of consciousness" (was that the phrase, TomH?), but rather must base our beliefs on a conclusion reached through "reality." Jim (et al) say that the facts speak for themselves, when you add it all up. There's just too much "evidence" against the message of Mormonism for it to be true.
Instead of endlessly debating points of policy, doctrine and history, how about this:
I'm an adult, sane, (usually) rational, logically thinking human being living on the earth today. A seemingly religious and very impressive person comes to me with a message that (to briefly summarize) describes the experiences of a historical figure he has studied - Joseph Smith. He tells me that JS had a vision in 1820, in which the God of all creation informed him that ALL the extant churches on earth were an abomination to Him, and that JS was now called to re-establish God’s true church. JS calls himself a Prophet of God.
DOUBLE Wow! Hadn’t I better find out if the message is true? I mean, I can’t afford to be mistaken, right? So, since JS is dead now, I can’t interview talk to him. But another, living man, Thomas Monson, says that he now leads the same true church re-established by God through JS. So now, I think to myself, I need to find out if TM is telling the truth, or not. Hadn’t I better find out if TM is really a prophet who speaks for God?
He (Thomas Monson) says to me, “You can find out by study and prayer.” He’s quick to add that I had better not study anything that disagrees with him. And that I should pray only about whether or not his message is true. One of his associates adds, “The Prophet” (meaning him, or whoever is heading up the church at the time) “will never lead the church astray.”
So, if I were to follow his suggestions, I just might find myself subjectively convinced. That sounds dangerous to me. It sounds one-sided. Especially since only a few million people on the earth claim to believe it. Granted, some of them are highly educated and well meaning and sincere and do a lot of good things. But those things, in and of themselves, don’t make me want to believe the Mormons. Obviously, many people who DON’T believe in Mormonism are also highly educated and well meaning and sincere and do a lot of good things.
It all boils down to my opinion about what is REAL.
Did I REALLY study the Mormon message (scriptures, books, GC talks, publications, attend meetings, pay tithing, attend the temple)? Yes, I REALly did.
Did I REALLY experience any good feelings? Yes, I REALly did. I thought, at the time, that these were supernatural messages being sent to me from the Holy Ghost. But when I HONESTLY evaluated them, I could see that they were INDUCED FEELINGS born of a desire to be accepted and acceptable within the fold of Mormonism. They were not REALLY messages from a supernatural being.
Did I since that time REALLY receive any supernatural message that I was sure was a message from God? No, I REALly have not, as of this moment.
Did I REALLY study OTHER messages that conflict with the message of Mormonism? Yes, I REALly did. And with good reason. Why would I want to confine my study to only the ONE side which purports that Mormonism is true? Doing that could lead me down an erroneous path. To illustrate: Someone I know made a statement that “if even only 1% of what Fawn Brodie wrote in NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY is true, it’s enough for me to not accept Mormonism.” That attracted my attention, and so I decided to read her book. But I was frankly worried, back then, that HER message might be one-sided. So, before I read it, I purchased Hugh Nibley’s NO MA’AM, THAT’S NOT HISTORY. I read Brodie, and then I read Nibley. Her presentation seemed to me to be factual, honest and straightforward. She seemed to have done quite a bit of research, and wanted to present the facts that were generally unknown to Mormons at the time. Nibley’s response seemed to be full of what I’d call “fluff.” He used somewhat derogatory language, and many footnotes and references that didn’t quite apply to the issue she was discussing. I waded through it all (it’s not too long, but seemed like “forever” to read), and concluded that he was not disagreeing with Brodie so much as trying to distract me from her arguments.
After 35 years IN Mormonism, and another 20 OUTSIDE of Mormonism, I have concluded that the REALITY is: Mormonism is NOT what it claims to be – it is NOT the “only true church on the earth.”
But I could be wrong. It would take a REAL personal revelation from God to change my mind. So far, God has been silent.
Wouldn’t it make a whole lot more sense to study & pray about the TRUTH? Some have argued that there is no other church that offers a better or happier environment than Mormonism. Who was it who said, “The truth will make you free, but first it will piss you off.” Well, I’m not happy in the same way that I was happy as a Mormon. I’ve gone through a bunch of stages, some of which were distinctly UNhappy.
But with the passage of time, I’ve come to realize that if I’m true to what I KNOW is true, I’ll be better off than I would be if I pretend to be true to what Thomas Monson says is true. I’m following that MIA slogan from the 50s – “BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF.” Are YOU being honest with yourself? REALLY honest?

Sigh. In #215, above, I meant "prefix," not "preposition." Of course.

A trivial thing, but some of the less fair-minded here may well try to exploit it as proof that I'm an idiot. Which I may be, obviously. But they'll have to adduce better evidence than THAT to prove it.

Jim:

I wrote:
"Joseph Smith’s [revelations on equality and ] religious views about blacks and the priesthood were revolutionary;"

Were ordinations to the priesthood of black men into an all white Church, a new approach to the idea of equality among mankind in 1836?

Is this action consistent and in agreement with the 1830 Book of Mormon scripture:

2 Nephi. 26: 33

“and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

There is a logical progression here:

1830: “all are alike unto God.”
1832: First black man baptized into the LDS Church
1833: Mormon leader publishes, “Free People of Color” outlining procedures for the migration of free blacks to Missouri, a slave state.
1833: Missourians write “Manifesto of the Mob” against Mormon teachings in favor of blacks.
1833: LDS scripture declares that it is not right for one man to be in bondage to another, (DC 101:77)
1836: Unprecedented ordination of black man into an all white Church. Elijah Abel becomes the first black Elder in the LDS Church.
1836: Elijah Abel ordained to the Quorum of Seventy.
1836: Non-discrimination rules published in Kirtland – blacks can enter the Kirtland Temple.
1840: Joseph Smith teaches that people of every color should be able to worship in Nauvoo Temple.
1842: Joseph Smith writes in his journal that slaves should be set free.
1842: Joseph Smith writes famous letter about slavery, saying the practice, “makes his blood boil.” He writes:

“it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"

1843: Joseph Smith contradicts Christian doctrine held by many protestant Churches of the day:
I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on. "Elder Hyde remarked, 'Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.' I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me.

1844: Green flake, and Samuel Chambers, black men baptized into the LDS Church.
1844: Walker Lewis ordained an Elder.
1844: Joseph Smith runs for President of the U.S. on an anti-slavery platform.
18:46: William McCary, a black man ordained an Elder.
1848: Brigham Young institutes priesthood ban.
1867: State of Deseret Constitution grants voting rights to blacks.
1869: Brigham Young refutes blacks as fence sitters in the pre-existence.
1879: After Brigham Young’s death, Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted priesthood ban.
1883: Elijah Abel still has the priesthood. Is a member of the quorum of Seventy, and is sent on a mission.
1885: B.H Roberts speculates on the origin of the priesthood ban.
1895: Joseph F. Smith claims that Elijah Abel was ordained under the direction of Joseph Smith.
1900: Elijah Abel’s son ordained an Elder.
1908: Joseph F. Smith reverses his position. Historians don’t know why.
1912: LDS First presidency refutes blacks as fence sitters in heaven.
1934: Elijah Abel’s grandson ordained a priest.
1935: Elijah Abel’s grandson ordained an Elder.
1940: Church committee studies spectrum of the black issue (black south Americans could always receive the priesthood.)
1949: First presidency statement affirming priesthood ban as a commandment.
1954: President McKay clarifies position as one of “policy” and not “doctrine.”
1955: Melanesian blacks are given the priesthood under David O. McKay.
1958: Joseph Fielding Smith reaffirms Church’s position on equal rights

“No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

1962: Famous black Mormon in Ghana, A.F. Mensah becomes a believer and converts many to Mormonism.
1963: Apostle Hugh B. Brown tells the New York Times that the Church is study the issue to allow all blacks [negroes] to receive the priesthood.
1963: Elder Brown makes statement on Civil Rights in October General Conference:

“We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed. “We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

1970: President David O. McKay reaffirms 1954 statement that there is no “doctrinal” ban on blacks and the priesthood.
1978: Priesthood ban lifted.
1990: First LDS black General Authority in the 20th century, second to Elijah Abel.
2002: First black student body president at BYU, Robert Foster.
2005: First South African black Stake president called.

Why don’t anti-Mormon publications include more about LDS Church history regarding this issue?

KenT:

You said:
"After 35 years IN Mormonism, and another 20 OUTSIDE of Mormonism, I have concluded that the REALITY is: Mormonism is NOT what it claims to be – it is NOT the “only true church on the earth.”

Oh please share.... can you name any other "true" Churches that has the correct interpretation on how to be saved?

There is NO evidence to the historicty of the Book of Mormon, in fact quite the contrary. The Mayan civilzation flourshed for over 2000 years during the exact time of the so called Lamantes and Nephites, but there is NO mention of this powerful great nation called Mayans in the Book of Mormon. Folks, the Mormon Church is based on a fraud, the practices are based on lies and go contrary to the Bible. Lucifer is Jesus's brother? Hardly....Polygamy is required to gain the highest kingdom of our Lord? Hardly....This is just a tip of the ice-berg into the fraud called mormonism.

KenT:

You wrote:
"“BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF.” Are YOU being honest with yourself? REALLY honest?"

Yes. I am “really being” honest with myself. I believe that the Book of Mormon is authentic history. Mormonism, as a religious philosophy, is sound and valid.

The scariest truth out there Ken, is the law of Justice. It awaits everyone after this life whether we like it or not, whether we think about it or not. It is the ultimate reality that each of us must face.

God prepared a way to escape the demands of justice through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

How one receives that gift and how one is assured that justice will pass over, has everything to do with Mormonism.

Faith, repentance, baptismal covenant, and sanctification through the Holy spirit are the way in this life, and in the life to come to escape the demands of justice.

One of the most profound blessings that I regularly partake of because of my membership in the true Church (authorized by God) is the blessing of the emblems of the Sacrament and the renewing of my covenant with God for the remission of sins.

That is the kind of peace that no one can offer outside the “True” Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mosiah 4:
“ 2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.

3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.

8 And this is the means whereby salvation cometh. And there is none other salvation save this which hath been spoken of; neither are there any conditions whereby man can be saved except the conditions which I have told you.

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.

12 And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true.”

LDS-A: "There is NO evidence to the historicty of the Book of Mormon."

Actually, there IS evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. People might reasonably disagree about whether it's sufficient or not, or about whether the evidence against the Book of Mormon outweighs the evidence for it.

But the claim that there's no evidence for the Book of Mormon at ALL is unserious.

To Phillip:
You wrote: “Oh please share.... can you name any other "true" Churches that has the correct interpretation on how to be saved?”

My response: I'd rather be honestly faithful to what I KNOW is true, than to be dishonestly faithful to your "correct interpretation on how to be saved." And, FWIT, I'm not focused on "how to be saved." I'm focused on living an honest life.

To TomH:
You wrote:
“Yes. I am “really being” honest with myself. I believe that the Book of Mormon is authentic history. Mormonism, as a religious philosophy, is sound and valid.
“The scariest truth out there Ken, is the law of Justice. It awaits everyone after this life whether we like it or not, whether we think about it or not. It is the ultimate reality that each of us must face. “

My response: Scary or not, I will stick with the truth that I KNOW is the truth. And NOT what YOU might say it is, or what Thomas Monson might say it is. If, as you say, the “scariest truth out there” is the law of Justice, I am not afraid of that. Why would that “scare me” if I’m being honest? Maybe YOU find it scary, and if you do, then an interesting thing would be to know why. One more thing: A good phrase to keep in mind when you’re looking for truth is, “sayin’ it’s so don’t make it so.”

TomH you seemed to have missed a few of the greatest hits of racism

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)

Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. JD, Vol.11, Pg.272, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. JD, Vol.7, Pg.290 - Pg.291, Brigham Young, October 9, 1859

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. JD, Vol.22, Pg.304, John Taylor, August 28, 1881

What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the linage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them. Though nearly six thousand years have passed and gone, this mark is visible to the whole human family. Yet the fool and the infidel say there is no God, and they ridicule the Bible. Collected Discourses (CD), Vol.1, Wilford Woodruff, April 7, 1889
...
"...those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who there¬by had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes." (McConkie Mormon Doctrine (1958), p. 476)

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin.... ("Race Problems - As They Affect The Church," address by Mark Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, BYU, August 27, 1954)

"Surely no one of you who is an heir to a body of more favored lineage would knowingly intermarry with a race that would condemn your posterity to penalties that have been placed upon the seed of Cain by the judgments of God..( Harold B. Lee Youth and the Church, pp. 168-69)

It ap¬pears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.... Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God?.... The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence.... He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of ex¬tension of the curse (2 Nephi 5:21).... If there is one drop of negro blood in my children... they receive the curse. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it.... But let them enjoy these things among themselves.... what God hath separated, let not man bring together again. ("Race Problems - As They Affect The Church," address by Mark Peter¬sen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, BYU, August 27, 1954)

A News Reporter asked “When will the Negroes receive the Priesthood?” to which President McKay said “Not in my lifetime, young man, nor yours.” David O. McKay TV Interview Nov. 17, 1964.

Now Mormon racism was not confined to the Blacks

The Lamanites, on this continent, suffered a similar experience. They went to war against the Nephites; they thirsted for blood, and they painted themselves red; and the Lord put a curse of redness upon them. Hundreds of years have passed since then, but wherever you meet the Lamanites today, you see that mark upon them. Collected Discourses (CD), Vol.1, Wilford Woodruff, April 7, 1889

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. SPENCER W. KIMBALL
General Conference Report, October, 1960.

Can you make a Christian of a Jew? I tell you, nay. If a Jew comes in to this Church, and honestly professes to be a Saint, a follower of Christ, and if the blood of Judah is in his veins, he will apostatize. He may have been born and bred a Jew, have the face of a Jew, speak the language of the Jews, and have attended to all the ceremonies of the Jewish religion, and have openly professed to be a Jew all his days; but I will tell you a secret--there is not a particle of the blood of Judaism in him, if he has become a true Christian, a Saint of God; for if there is, he will most assuredly leave the Church of Christ, or that blood will be purged out of his veins. Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2 (1854), p. 142.

Danny Peterson

Danny, Danny, Danny

It never bothered you when you thought you had a response, and I have never seen when you didn't have some kind of response. Are you slipping?

Jim:

Yes Jim. We’ve all read how anti-Mormons take those quotes and “prove” that some statements by LDS leaders were “racist” by the definitions of some people.

But those statements only indicate that there were LDS leaders, not unlike their contemporaries, you held their own personal views on racial issues.

You seem to be claiming that these statements preclude them from priesthood keys, but you don’t make any logical connections.

Peter denied Christ three times, and he was still called as an Apostle. Why is this mistake of Peter overlooked by God but you claim that God wouldn’t overlook LDS leaders for their personal errant views based on their own culture and time?

Can you make an appeal to the Bible or any other standard that indicates that the LDS leaders above would be rejected by God for their errant personal views?

You make an appeal to our cultural sensitivities today but fall short of demonstrating how these views are somehow damaging to Mormon theological positions.

While you’re contemplating that problem, take into account the statements by these black Mormons:

Renee Olson
"I started out an anti Mormon certified in Mormonism by the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Through lots of love, patience, understanding and non-judgmental friends I came to see the real “truth” behind the LDS Church. I realized I had been brainwashed before and started doing my own thinking. The “truth” is that I have found more tolerance, acceptance and genuine Christ-like love among the Latter-day Saints than any other body of believers. Through the LDS Church I’ve come to know and understand what it means to have a personal relationship with my Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ."

Jim? Why can a vitriolic anti-Mormon Baptist who has read every one of your so called, "racist" quotes and still join the LDS Church? Comments?

Gladys Knight: Renowned black singer and entertainer said:

“Since I joined the Church, I desire to be more and more obedient to God. As I do so, many people say to me, ‘I see a light in you more than ever before. What is it?’…During one performance at Disney world…[a member of the audience asked,] ‘Could you please tell us…how you got that light?’ “The question was direct. So I gave a direct answer: ‘I have become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Jim, why can Gladys Knight, a black LDS woman find more peace and light in the LDS Church than you can?

Thurl Bailey: Black musician, former NBA star said:
“I had an opportunity to really delve into and learn in-depth what the Church was all about….So, here I am. It hasn’t been an easy process, but I’ve learned a lot about patience and forgiveness. A lot of people I’ve encountered insist on telling me this is a racist Church, but I say, ‘Hey, there’s racism everywhere in the world. You can’t spend your time blaming imperfect people.’ I searched for my answers with an open heart, without blame, and I got them. Anyone can do the same.”

Jim, why can a black man like Thurl Bailey acknowledge “imperfect people” but still acknowledge that LDS apostles still have priesthood keys, but you can’t?

Grow up, Mr. Huston.

I've was Born in the Church and come from the lineage of the first members of the Church. I bought into the garbage. No you cannot base beliefs on good feelings and saying I base Love on good feelings alone is a misnomer. I base love on mutual respect, healthy relationships and a feeling as well. There is nothing healthy about the church. If you as converts and people born in the church base your belief in the doctrine and the Book of Mormon, then you haven't read it. The book of Abraham says enough right there. Its a fake translation. What about the Kinderhook plates, the lack of evidence of any part of the book of mormon. Im not talking about apologetics lame attempts at explanations. I used to be like you guys. I used to buy into the garbage they spill out. I used to feel sorry for people like you. I don't any longer. You have no valid arguments for it, all you have is quoting the Book of Mormon which is not a real book and was clearly written by a man by using a peep stone. Its pathetic and sad that you continue to be duped and give your life and your money to that institution. I went on a Mission, married in the Temple and went to seminary and held many callings. I am SO glad I got out before it destroyed me. Use your brains.

Hey Daniel Peterson you should really look yourself in the mirror and ask if the Lord will hold you accountable for lying to so many people about the Book of Mormon evidences. My challenge to you is simple, show me one piece of anything Semitic found in the Americas pre-Columbus and I will give you 10,000 dollars. Now I challenge you openly to this and I await your reply. Let’s settle this once and for all. Let’s find out who is the liar, you Mr. Daniel Peterson or the Lord.

Jim mocked...

"Danny, Danny, Danny
It never bothered you when you thought you had a response, and I have never seen when you didn't have some kind of response. Are you slipping?"

I think Jim might be the most juvenile person on this blog.

The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, Krister Stendahl, proposed three essential rules when trying to understand the faith of another.
1. Go to the source of the religion, not it's enemies, for an accurate depiction of what is believed.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst. In other words, if you are a Christian seeking to learn about Islam, don't assume that all Christians go to soup kitchens every week to volunteer and that all Muslims are terrorists. All religions have their worst and their best.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." In other words, if there is something of value in another religion, then don't be too prideful to admit it. It seems that in American we are too quick to polarize and assume that one religion, political party, or whatever is full of hate and that it has nothing of good. We need to raise the level of public discourse, especially when talking about things so personal as religion.

Daniel Peterson: # 215
...
Your attempt to portray me as disrespectfully trying to hijack the historical suffering of Jews, merely because I used the expression "anti-Mormon," is both misguided and rather weird.
-----

Daniel Peterson: # 217

Sigh. In #215, above, I meant "prefix," not "preposition." Of course.

A trivial thing, but some of the less fair-minded here may well try to exploit it as proof that I'm an idiot. Which I may be, obviously. But they'll have to adduce better evidence than THAT to prove it.
------

Relax Mr. Peterson, a conversational slip is of no consequence. Your cute dissertation on the prefix "anti" is quite disingenuous however, since it is the coined phrase "anti-mormon" under discussion, not its constituent parts, and in particular its use as a shaming-device, discourse-arresting technique, and tool of obfuscation.

The charge stands:

the phrase "anti-mormon" is a cheap hustlers trick, a cynical attempt to create a sympathetic resonance where none exists, all in the furtherance of "faithful" apologetics.

To all of you potential Mormon converts, let me lay it out for you. To be a Mormon you must believe in all of the following:

You must believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob (yes, God is a Kolobian)
You must believe that the sun gets its power from Kolob (gee, and I thought that it got its power from nuclear fusion)
You must believe that you cannot get into Mormon heaven if you drink coffee or any coffee related drinks (God must really hate Starbucks)
You must believe that God wanted your founding prophet Joseph Smith, age 38, to marry lots and lots of young women as young as 14.
You must believe that there was a war in heaven and blacks did not fight valiantly in it. That is why they were cursed with dark skin. (For some unknown reason God changed his mind and allowed black men to have the priesthood in 1978.)
You must believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri.
You must believe that you cannot get into heaven, the celestial kingdom, unless you know all of the secret handshakes learned in the temple.
You must believe that God does not want women to wear more than one pair of earrings. (This is according to the 15th prophet of the church, Gordon B Hinckley)
You cannot get into the temple unless you pay 10% of your yearly income to the church. THIS ALONE SHOULD SEND UP A HUGE RED FLAG.

I kid you not- these beliefs are a part of the Mormon belief system. I am a 5th generation Mormon. I believed all of this wackiness and more until last year.

Danny, lets take a trip down memory lane at some of the high points. As I recall you called Tal Bachman Taliban Bachman and One Hit Wonder. There was also some vitriolic attachs on the character of Bob McCue, saying in part that life was too short to argue with him. You have charged Steve Benson with being rude to people who disagree with him, when you are in fact the master of that tactic. There is also the thread in which you participated in attempting to slander my wife and I on the FAIR board after you had me banned from that board.

It is not the time to try to take the high road Danny. Too much time and too many people are aware of your tactics. You simply are unable to refute what I said, so you are pretending to be offended. Good plan if it had worked.

OK folks, this has gotten way too personal. If you want to comment on the video, fine, but from here on out the insults are over. Please try to stay on topic, and to stay civil; if you don't, your comment will not be approved.

TomH
It is very easy to say today that statements made in the past were Mormon leadership speaking for God, because they agree with what Mormons want to believe today, while other statements, often from the same men are discounted because they no longer agree with what Mormons want to believe today. It is like prognosticating the final score of last week's big game. I really don't care much about Mormon racism, but it is disingenuous to say that it did not exist.

I was a missionary in Brazil in 1978 - I know what was going on and was part of it. Hugh B Brown tried to get it changed in 1969 but was over ruled. A statement was issued at that time reiterating the racism. Was that also them talking as men? Gordon B Hinckley drafted that release for the signature of the First Presidency.

Chris Vlachos received a letter from LeGrand Richards (spokesman for the First Presidency on this issue) which said in essence the change in 1978 was because they did not have enough confirmed pure blooded whites to open the temple in third quarter of 1978. There was a newspaper interview in the Deseret News which stated essentially the same thing. This was my understanding from the conferences and temple dedication in Sao Paulo at that time.

Now, you question if people can join knowing of the racist history. I don't know. I know that when many people find out about it they are less than happy. That is why there is a young ex-Mormon Foundation that has recently been chartered in Africa. That is why members are being lost in Jamaica. The racist past is part of the history I talked about earlier where the missionaries and leadership do not talk about it, do not mention it.

It is the same thing with the Mormon lesson manual on the teachings of Brigham Young. All references to him being a polygamist have been removed and "sanitized." In going through the Bee Hive house last year I was very surprised to learn that Brigham Young lived with one woman and all the other marriages were dynastic, and the children from the other women were not his children, but adopted by him. Mormons are working very hard to whitewash, sanitize and mainstream their beliefs. It would work, but there is too much documented history in too many places for them to be successful. People are finding the truth every day.

The thought process for an apologist is very simple. Today racism is not good, and the leadership is infallible when talking for God, so therefore any statement that is racist cannot be inspired. Anything that does agree with today's position was inspired. What of today's truths will turn out to be uninspired using this method? Using this logic, of course it is supportable. Doctrine moves to where ever it is pushed. There is no rational thought or critical thinking skills required. "the Church is true and therefore"
>he was talking as a man
>he was uninspired
>the scribe wrote it down wrong
or any one of a dozen different excuses.
Wordsmithing, justifying and using faulty logic does not change what was said and believed by the leadership and the members. In 20 years or less the Gay thing will be resolved and the men who perpetrated the activities on Prop 8 will have been speaking as men and uninspired. As I said in my first two posts, it was not my intention to comment on doctrinal issues. I wrote about my exit from Mormonism. The respondents to me on the first two posts (including you) tried to justify their belief and use doctrinal points. As far as I am concerned Mormonism has no doctrine. It changes as science and sociological forces make it change. You brought up science, so I responded and asked you to explain a couple of items. This was ignored by you because Mormon scripture is in direct conflict with science.

I will again say that the person making the fantastic or outrageous claims bears the burden of proof. That is not my rule, it is the rule of science and of the world as a whole. The claims of Mormonism are fantastic and outrageous by the standards of the majority of the people in the world. I am waiting for your proof. Not what you do and don't accept, not which facts or statements you choose to include, but some real proof.

Mormons dig out their testimony when confronted with this, because it is all they have. They want the "investigator" (mark) to read and pray and hope for a "good feeling." Having spent a number of years overseas, I know that most world religions rely on exactly the same feelings. I knew Muslims in the Middle East who were ready to strap bombs to their body because of their spiritual experiences. I knew Hindus and Buddhists who described spiritual experiences in much the same words as Mormons. I live in the South East US now and have had employees that handled snakes and drank poison as part of their spiritual experiences. Mormons are not unique in their claims of the influences of the spirit.

I have plenty of historical evidence to support my position and I don't have to resort to saying things like "he was speaking as a man" and "he was a product of his time" or the "current prophet trumps a dead prophet" I did not start with the position that Mormonism is true or false, but that I was going to look at the facts and come to a decision based on a critical review of those facts. I came to that conclusion without overlooking, discounting or justifying those facts. That is the difference between a former Mormon and an apologist.

I find it interesting that Ms. Esplin proclaimed in her interview with Mr. Paulson that she wants to show, “that we love everyone.” I guess that I missed all of that love from my family, friends and neighbors when I no longer believed in this religion. Leaving the fold in Utah is paramount to committing social suicide. Mormons love you as long as you are a believer or they think that they can turn you into one. Once they decide that you will never believe in Mormonism they will slander, shun and hurt you anyway they can. I also failed to see all of this so-called love to my gay brother-in-law. As a young Mormon gay man he nearly committed suicide because of the “love” Mormons showed him. Mormons are extremely intolerant of their own who choose not to conform. They make Puritanism look like a fun loving religion.

Jim:

In #196:

"4. I don’t think you understand the weakness of your argument here. You claim that we should publish that Joseph Smith put a brown rock into a hat but that we shouldn’t share the rest of the history? Who wants to censure history? It is you. My guess is Jim is that you’re only interested in accuracy only as it makes Mormonism look funny, not because you’re interested in sharing all of the details. But you didn’t comment or have a rational explanation how Joseph Smith dictated 531 pages of complex and rich literature, complete with chiasmus, unknown Hebrew names, about two separate civilizations spanning a time period from 2200 BC to 400 AD, a narrative that now enjoys some archeological verification, all by looking into a dark hat. From the “dark hat”, as you claim it was, Joseph Smith spoke aloud all of the words of the Book of Mormon while the scribes wrote it – word after word, without ever asking the scribes so much as to read back the last sentence. This is LDS history – the same history that you say must be published and that everyone should know about. You claim that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by looking into a dark hat with no light to read anything. Fine. Please make a rational argument then how he produced the text of the Book of Mormon in the dark – without access to any materials, day after day for two months as his scribes wrote down the words he spoke.

I am very interested to see how you form rational arguments to account for history."

Jim:

You wrote:
“I have plenty of historical evidence to support my position and I don't have to resort to saying things like "he was speaking as a man" and "he was a product of his time" or the "current prophet trumps a dead prophet" I did not start with the position that Mormonism is true or false, but that I was going to look at the facts and come to a decision based on a critical review of those facts. I came to that conclusion without overlooking, discounting or justifying those facts. That is the difference between a former Mormon and an apologist.”

Your dismissals of Mormonism are borne out of your need to justify your departure from it. We understand that. Your appeals are made to standards that you’ve made up in your mind.

There isn’t a single historical or philosophical argument that you can make that I can’t refute with more history and philosophy.

TomH
You will have something to say, no matter what I say. The difference is I don't have to jump through hoops to try to justify what I say. You did not mention science. Can you justify the science presented in the Book of Abraham? Earth "falling" from orbit? The sun "borrowing" light? How about the rotational speed of a planet being in direct relationship to its size? The 6,000 year old earth? In an earlier post you talked about the six day creation in Genesis. Actually the 6,000 year old earth is the viewpoint of mainstream fundamentalists. Mormons are no different on this point.

My original post was to refute the idea that all of the people leaving Mormonism were lazy, weak or offended. You are now attempting to characterize that as me trying to justify my departure. If that is what helps you to be able to sleep at night, believe that. You have brought up people who have joined the Mormon Church. The people who are important to me have left. My three adult children, a brother, four sisters and a wife are either not members or are in the process of resigning. I have also helped a number of people decide NOT to be baptized. This is atonement for the people I did baptize on my mission.

You are trying very hard to justify your belief and spend a great deal of time writing to "prove" to people you are right. I have no such need. You can post what you like and attempt to refute everything I say, but you are simply trying to justify your own feeble testimony. Shouting someone down, creating pages of blather does not make Mormonism any more true. You are not going to influence anyone with it. I know I will never influence you, so what is the point?

I have posted what I have posted to present what you would like to ignore. I will let the readers of this thread and history determine which of us is correct.

TomH said
"There isn’t a single historical or philosophical argument that you can make that I can’t refute with more history and philosophy."

The reverse of this is true as well. There is not a single historical argument that you can make that I can't refute with more history and philosophy. So what is the point of all of this? Leaving Mormonism was not easy for me. It is difficult to walk away from something to which I had devoted much of my life. I decided I could no longer be a member of a group that was so patently dishonest. For a period of time I was angry and wanted to lash out. At this point rabid apologists such as you and Danny simply make me laugh. Trying so hard to defend the indefensible. Trying to find obscure references and developing your arguments. Studying the tactics of former Mormons. I don't have the luxury of that kind of time. I do not have a university paying my salary so I can sit and post on a board like this. I am not a student. I run a successful business.

Something that strikes me as interesting is how Mormon apologists, who spend most of their time on this kind of nonsense, can't do better than they do. I am simply a business man with very little time to develop arguments and hone the skills required to defend a position on a board like this. You should be able to roll over me without a problem, but what I see is you ignoring points and trying to concentrate on issues that you think are defensible. I am sure you have reams of responses at your disposal.

I have watched Doctor Peterson's tactics and have engaged with him several times. I am sure your tactics are very similar. You want me to post something, then you look for and exploit any mistake I might make in a scripture, wording, a date or anything else. Never putting yourself out with any "proof" simply taking pot shots at whatever someone else might say. Writing long answers which say very little, then require that the other person respond in detail point by point. I have no interest in your games.

TomH:

in 238 you asked for comments on the translation process. The scribe for pretty much the entire book after the initial pages were lost was Oliver Cowdrey. There is evidence that he knew the Smiths long before his association as scribe. This fact is not disclosed in the official history. There is also evidence that both Oliver and Joseph knew or had knowledge of Sydney Rigdon. What I believe is that the Book of Mormon was compiled by this troika. These men would of course hide the fact that they were confederates and plan "official" meetings.

You can present "official" meeting information, you can present testimony that Joseph Smith was seen with Oliver Cowdrey during the translation process (my favorites are the ones that say they had books spread on the table between them.) You can present whatever you like, but it is evidence of your point of view, it is not proof of the action. You present your "proof" then I come back showing that a man was brought in from Ohio on a treasure hunting expedition with a name very similar to Rigdon. I will show the evidence that the Cowdreys were members of Ethan Smith's congregation and that BH Roberts was struck by the similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. There is also Oliver Cowdrey's tenure as a teacher prior to the "official" meeting when Hyrum Smith was on the school board that hired him and Lucy Mack Smith's relation by marriage to the Cowdrey family. I could even get into the evidence for Solomon Spauding - he wrote exclusively in Chismus, he was in the Dartmouth school of divinity at the same time as Ethan Smith, while Ethan Smith was developing his ideas on the View of the Hebrews. There is also the evidence that Sydney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding shared the same printer and post office. None of this will have any affect on you and you will drag out your quotes and information to attempt to refute it. It all comes down to a matter of opinion.

You can't prove anything and neither can I, so it is simply who can shout the loudest and longest. The problem is, you have the burden of proof. Joseph Smith was a documented re-writer of history, so your proofs are questionable at best.

I did not leave Mormonism over the translation method, or any other single thing. The best analogy I have is that of a bookshelf hanging on the wall. On my mission I encountered the idea that our position and lot in life was because of how we behaved in the preexistence. This is well documented in conference talks from the 12. It took me a little time, but I accepted that and put it on the shelf and ignored it. Then with the "revelation" in 1978 where it took leadership more than a month to officially notify missionaries that we could begin teaching people with African blood. We were suppose to be the Lord's emissaries. I put it on the shelf. When my daughter was molested at age 5 and covered up by Church authorities up to and including a General Authority, I put it on the shelf. I find information about a historical fact and put it on the shelf. At some point the shelf can no longer support the weight. My shelf broke while I was trying to find answers to justify Mormon history and beliefs to a colleague. I spent the next two years in very intensive research, first to try to get the shelf back on the wall, then to try to find out how deep the deception ran. There are hundreds of items. On an issue by issue basis, you can probably bring up some legitimate points. I have no doubt of that. The problem runs much deeper. In court you deal on the basis of a "preponderance of evidence." If it was one, two or even a hundred issues it would not have the same effect. It is relatively easy to justify one, two or even a hundred. When taken as a whole, me as a juror find the evidence overwhelmingly against Mormonism.

The thing I find the most ASTOUNDING in this discussion is the blatant arrogance with which Mormon apologists present their ideas. They takes the Mormon admonition to "Preach as one having authority" to new levels.

Jim:

I have a full-time job as well, I too own a business. You can stop posting comments anytime you feel like it. Taking pot-shots at Daniel Peterson doesn't belong in the discussion. If you have arguments to refute his premises, then by all means, produce them in short order but please set aside the personal, and juvenile remarks.

Most of your arguments and your objections rest upon a religious view called prophet infallibility.

You make a direct appeal to this view when you criticize Mormonism. When we remove this false standard, your arguments crumble. So far, you’ve only demonstrated that prophet infallibility is a standard in people’s minds but not one that God himself instituted either in doctrine or practice.

In truth, Mormonism has remained very consistent in regard to its fundamental religious and philosophical principles. Your criticisms are mere complaints against this policy change or that policy change, and you claim that change can never take place in a dynamic organization such as religious faith; an appeal to yet another untenable principle.

For you, the Mormon religion must remain static from the day that it is borne – or at least you place a time period, which you alone can define, in which it can change, receive more light and knowledge, or enlightenment, and then once that period is over, (when you decide) then no more enlightenment, revelation, or insights can be received by God. You complete ignore that the LDS faith and body of revelation is BUILT upon the cosmological principle of, “line upon line and precept upon precept.” You give a pass to all other religious traditions and do not hold them to the same standard. Those religions still claim their way is the “right way” to God and that their doctrine is more efficacious than Mormonism or any other “isms” and therefore, they believe that their “faith” is true too.

You complain and whine about this nuance or that nuance in 19th century polygamy or uncouth statements about blacks that were common to the time, and you ask your readers to compare those practices and statements to 21st century cultural norms and sensitivities today. Don’t you think this is rather a cruel anachronistic trick? Isn’t this merely a game you play to prey on people’s biases and sensitivities?

For you, prophets should know everything and be everything in all ages and at all times. In essence, you want prophets to be gods themselves. You alter Mormon doctrinal views (according to the Bible and other scriptures) on what a prophet can or should do, create a fictitious standard and then measure LDS leaders with it. We get it Jim. We just know that it’s a fallacious argument. We know it appeals to you because it is supported by other ex-mormons, who you have spoken to in the past.

Your criticisms are old and worn out – rehashed over and over again over the last 50 years. Take notice Jim, the points below are not “obscure.” They are necessary to the discussion concerning your criticisms.

These criticisms can be reduced to (more or less):

1) Your charge of a racist Church and the change in policy in regard to the priesthood ban, but ….

a. You fail to acknowledge account for “cultural” views of early Mormons and their Christian contemporaries in regard to race issues and their Christian curse of cain/ham doctrines.

b. You fail to account for baptisms of black men and women since the 1830s, completely dispelling the myth of prophetic doctrinal racism against blacks, and contrary to strong religious, cultural, and societal dogmas prohibiting such acts.

c. You fail to account for priesthood ordinations of black men in the early 1830s

d. You fail to acknowledge that a black man was called to one of the highest councils of the Church in the 1830s.

e. You fail to account for doctrine and practice between 1836 and 1848 of baptizing black men and women and ordaining black men.

f. You fail to account for a policy change by Brigham Young in 1848

g. You fail to account for black men retaining their priesthood status in the Church after the policy change.

h. You fail to account for statements made during the policy change that all black men would eventually receive the opportunity to be ordained into the LDS priesthood.

i. You fail to account for continued ordinations of black men already members, or their descendants since the 1848 policy change.

j. You fail to account for the disagreement between Church leaders whether the 1848 policy change was doctrine or a policy.
k. You fail to account for statements made in 1954 that settled the “doctrinal” issue.

l. You fail to account for how black members view the changes and how THEY continue to remain faithful to the LDS Church in spite of the policy change from 1848 to 1978.

2) the change in policy in regard to plural marriage, but….

a. You fail to account for LDS LAW that states that prophets can rescind commandments, or practices, REGARDLESS of the admonitions to keep the law while it is in place.

b. You fail to acknowledge the fact that the power to rescind PRECEDED the controversies in question.

c. You fail to account for the fact that CELESTIAL marriage is the doctrine and that the practice of plural marriage is a subset of CELESTIAL marriage – therefore the doctrine (the new and everlasting covenant) continues in the Church just the same.

d. You fail to account for the non-polygamous Celestial marriages solemnized between 1848 and 1890.

e. You fail to account for the fact that plural marriages represented a smaller percentage of the over all celestial marriages performed in LDS temples between 1848 and 1890.

f. You fail to account for priesthood keys that authorize plural marriages – that the practice of plural marriage without priesthood keys is adultery, according to LDS doctrine.

3) the change in Temple rituals

a. You fail to account that the Temple ritual, while some elements are essential, others are not essential to the “teaching” method found in it.

b. You fail to acknoeldge that it is the decision and purview of Church councils to decide what is essential and what is not essential.

c. You fail to acknowledge that Joseph Smith made changes to the Temple endowment - paving the way for more changes in the future.

d. You fail to account for the fact that LDS application of the ritual is one of fluidity and is dynamic and not static.

e. You fail to acknowledge the license that the Councils of the Church have to change the Temple ritual as an instruction method, as the culture changes.

f. You fail to account for changes in rituals from the Old Testament to the New Testament

g. You fail to account for the similarities of LDS temple rituals and those of early Christianity including celestial marriage, handshakes and tokens, prayer circles, ascension ceremonies, a new name, just to name a few.

4) The problems with the Book of Abraham, but…

a. You fail to acknowledge the disagreement over the translation among scholars.

b. You fail to acknowledge that your criticism rests on whether or not the Biblical Abraham was ever depicted in a lion couch scene.

c. You fail to acknowledge the recent ancient Egyptian document that connects the Biblical Abraham with a lion couch scene.

d. You fail to acknowledge the 23 points about Abraham’s life found in the Book of Abraham but not found in the Bible.

e. You fail to account for extra-biblical texts that agree with or support the 23 details revealed by Joseph Smith that support the Book of Abraham translation as authentic.

f. You fail to acknowledge that Book of Abraham cosmology is not necessarily definitive or completely descriptive of modern astronomy as we understand it.

g. You fail to acknowledge that Joseph Smith’s revelation on the Book of Abraham was to restore Abraham’s account, not

5) the lack of YOUR SPECIFIC kind of evidence for the Book of Mormon, but…

a. You fail to acknowledge LDS history on how the Book of Mormon came to be, based on the testimony of corroborated witnesses, and that I have outlined above.

b. You fail to acknowledge and account for the rich and complex nature of Book of Mormon literature, minus the direct and deliberate quotations from the Bible.

c. You fail to acknowledge the picture of archeology in 1830 compared with the predictions made in the Book of Mormon.

d. You fail to acknowledge the many archeological realities that have been discovered over the last 179 years that support many of the predictions made in the Book of Mormon.

e. You fail to account for the many Hebrew names Joseph Smith put into the Book of Mormon, claimed as “inventions” by critics in 1830, but now found to be genuine and authentic ancient Hebrew names.

f. You fail to account for new archeology that DIRECT supports two Book of Mormon settlements, that provides direct support for the Book of Mormon narrative, in part.

Jim, I could go on for days about the points of LDS history or evidences of LDS theology that you continue to ignore and make no rational accounting for.

You’ll notice that I haven’t employed a “tactic” here. Instead, I have made simple and necessary identifications of facts, points relating to LDS history, or LDS doctrine that invalidate your conclusions.

Your premises cannot be true in view of the points above.

Jim:

Thank you for your attempt to respond to my question about the translation process. But I feel like you’re responding, but you’re speaking past me. All me to explain.

How does the conversation jump from the translation process to theories about the origin of the “text” and “story” of the Book of Mormon?

There is no evidence that Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, or Oliver Cowdery collaborated to commit fraud about the how the manuscripts, whether lost or not, were created in 1829, that eventually were given to E.B. Grandin, the publisher for the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, all attested to the reality that Joseph Smith placed a stone in a hat, held the hat up to his face, and shielded the outside light from his eyes.

This historical testimony of this process has ridiculed and mocked by anti-Mormons, in print and even with animation to indicate that it was weird or occultist.

What is not shared by anti-Mormons is the next list of realities that are a necessary part of the history:

• At the time of the translation, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, and Oliver Cowdery were people of impeccable integrity, as witnessed by the townspeople of Palmyra.

• Joseph was raised on a farm in upstate New York and was only twenty-four years of age at the time he completed his translation of the Book of Mormon from reformed Egyptian to English.

• Joseph Smith provided a copy of some of the characters.

• At the time of the translation, he had little financially and was busy supporting his wife and family. Of necessity, he planted and harvested crops, chopped wood, hauled water, and cared for animals.

• The conditions under which Joseph translated were less than ideal. His life was threatened and mobs tried to rob him of the plates, requiring him to hide the ancient records and often move them from place to place.

• Joseph had no telephone, no dictating equipment, fax, word processor, or copy machine—not even electric light.

• Joseph had little formal education, perhaps no more than three years of elementary school.

• He belonged to no professional societies, had performed no extensive research projects, nor did he have learned colleagues with whom to discuss the ancient text of the plates.

• While Joseph Smith had his eyes buried in the hat, he spoke out loud the entire text of the Book of Mormon or 268,163 words.

• Some of the earlier manuscripts were written by Emma Smith.

• In an interview she responded to questions about the translation process:
o “Q. What is the truth about Mormonism?
o A. 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.
o Q. Had he not a book of manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?
o A. He had neither manuscript or book to read from.
o Q. Could he not have had, and you not know it?
o A. If he had anything of the kind, he could not have concealed it from me.”

• The manuscripts are in scribe handwriting, principally of Oliver Cowdery.

• Oliver Cowdery stated: “Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated … the history, or record, called ‘The book of Mormon’ ”

• These sessions continued day-to-day for about 60 days.

• Joseph’s original English translation, produced on manuscripts written principally by Oliver Cowdery, except for a few minor grammatical and textual emendations, remains the text that is used today.

These are not statements of faith, but statements of fact according to the testimony of those interviewed, and according to the historical record.

Now let’s compare other theories with those testimonies from history:

Additional materials:
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith had any additional materials from which to create the Book of Mormon. Further, even if there were, he would have had to have purchased them or received them from someone. He would have had to have reduced them to shreds of paper small enough to fit inside his hat. The shreds would have had to have been in perfect sequence and order, one after another, and he would have had to have put them into the hat without anyone noticing. Placing new ones in the hat every sentence or so, many times a day. But, even if he had pulled this off, he couldn’t have read them because inside his hat it was completely dark or very difficult to see.

View of the Hebrews:
Joseph Smith would have had to have digested the entire book, memorized the text, used similarities, created a complete Book of Mormon text from memory and then would have had to have regurgitated his entire memorization word for word over a 60 day period without interruption.

Sidney Rigdon Theory
The same requirements for the translation process would have had to have been met above, even if Rigdon was a contributor to the text. However, Rigdon eventually was rejected as a leader of the Church after Smith died and could have easily claimed copyright access to the Book of Mormon or had claimed that he was a part of the translation process to bolster his claim to the Council of the 12 and the highest Church office. However, he never made any such claims and never alluded to knowing Joseph Smith prior to the historical account given by him and others regarding his introduction to Mormonism.

Jim, do you see what is involved in accounting for history? My analysis above is by no means exhaustive, and there are many details that strengthen the positions above, which I have not included.

Claiming that the Book of Mormon translation process is a fraud or a sham is merely an appeal to your disbelief in the Book of Mormon.

In response to: Samuel Wilkinson March 18, 09 08:04 PM, #231; item #1

"The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, Krister Stendahl, proposed three essential rules when trying to understand the faith of another.
1. Go to the source of the religion, not it's enemies, for an accurate depiction of what is believed."
...
==============

That advice (item #1) contains on-topic implications that are very much worthy of discussion. It is not particularly cogent advice, and in fact it is actually quite dangerous.

A. When, in the history of homo sapiens, could any institution, religious or otherwise, be relied upon to tell the whole, unadulterated truth about itself? There is a perfectly obvious reason why we citizens have come to rely on a free, even adversarial, press (fractious and opinionated as it may be) rather than the official pronouncements of our own government.

B. "Enemies": its use in this context is clearly perjorative, playing on the tradition of the Adversary himself, the Great Satan, essentially dismissing a non-confirmational viewpoint as "of the Devil".

C. Lurking in the background is the unstated First Premise: that which is religious is Divine and above scrutiny. Also unmentioned is the issue of who or what is entitled to proclaim itself a "religion" in the first place.

--------------

History, even recent history, is filled with examples of religious malefactors, both individual and institutional - hence a thoughtful consumer is well-advised to be cautious and dubious. An alert investigator will use due dilligence in validating the authenticity and quality of the "product" - and will most certainly utilize extra-institutional sources of information in that process.

That marvelous medium which we know as "the Web" makes it a trivial matter to research the subject under discussion, at least for those who have the access.

A new day is not only dawning, it is here already. The day of ecclesiastical dispensation from scrutiny is over, finally and forever. The very Pope himself learned that to his dismay just last week.

Imagine the lives that might have been saved if the Web were available prior to the rise of that Great and Godly man, Jim Jones.

Imagine the pain and suffering that might be avoided, if the self-serving pseudo-churches and prophets of today were recognized as such before an individual became emotionally entangled.

TomH
Most of what you have said here has no relationship to anything I said. For example, I questioned the science of the Book of Abraham. I never said a word about the erroneous interpretation of the facsimile. I am not interested in responding point by point to arguments which you are now choosing to interject. This is simply to try to avoid responding to the few items which I questioned. It is obvious that you have pasted this in from some other document in an effort to get me to respond point by point to all of your claims. Read my last two posts instead of randomly posting items that are clearly going in directions that were not discussed. You are not even consistent with the points you were attempting to make in your previous posts.

Nothing you have said "invalidates" my conclusions or "refutes" what I have said. I also don't recall "complaining" about anything. I have posted my position and my experiences. I have done years of research from both sides to come to my conclusion. You have simply pasted in a large number of unrelated items you feel give you enough comfort in your testimony to continue believing. I have responded to these at other times on other threads, so your attempt to draw me in to a point by point refutation of your "beliefs" has failed. It is you who must prove your beliefs, not I that must refute them. You have yet to prove anything. Your arguments are old and tired and were used back when I was posting on the FAIR board until the day I took on Doctor Peterson and was banned for a week. Interestingly, the ban was never removed. Go back to my post on the tea pot circling the earth, the dragon in my garage and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. These are all classic examples of what you are trying to accomplish. There is no way to disprove something that someone believes based on faith.

I have previously said that if this was based on verbosity you are the clear winner. I don't think that is an honor I wish to have. Other than that, I don't see you have much to offer.

Like Mr Huston, I left the LDS church when I figured out it just didn't make sense. I have never been much into 'sin' or being offended.

I could never figure out why a loving God would only offer His one and only true church to just 99% of His cherished children. Even those who have heard of it are required to do endless legalistic ordinances to be fully saved.

I don't understand why Mormons want to label me offended. Judging from Mr Peterson, taking offense easily is something they understand from personal experience, eh?

I find it laughable that Ms. Esplin believes that women are equal in the Mormon church. “At age twelve, boys become members of the Aaronic, or lesser priesthood, and at nineteen become eligible for the Melchezedek, or higher priesthood. Members of either priesthood are higher authorities on everything than are non-members. Women are, of course, excluded from the priesthood. This practice in effect says that a woman's prepubescent son is more qualified to advise her than she is to advise him.” (Jessica Longaker)

Women are instructed by the prophets to stay at home and bear and raise children. This is it. I am sorry, but Ms. Esplin has deluded herself if she thinks that she can go on and get her law degree and work outside the home and also be in compliance with church authorities. This has not only been taught over the pulpit in countless talks but is in canonized scripture. Women’s only responsibility is to bear children in this life and the next. Doctrine and Covenants Verses 62-63:

"And if he [Joseph Smith] have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.... for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."

Ah...Jim...

After reading through Dr. Danny P's arguement, it seems as if he is suggesting that Mormonism is the one true faith because the people that say it is a sham are mean to him.

It's like much about mormon culture. Dr. Peterson wants to *appear* civilized in front of a more general audience, but anyone who has read him in his native habitat (a.k.a. Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?s&showforum=11) can tell he's a particularly nasty creature.

Putting on a self-righteous face for the public almost covers up the oppression and mistreatment of marginalized member of mormon culture...Almost...

Too bad the mormons really blew their cover with Prop 8, huh? ;)

I suspect that the only people watching this thread right now are embittered and monomaniacal apostates from the so-called "Recovery" board (and perhaps a few places like it).

Normal people, never very interested in the first place, undoubtedly tuned out long ago.

I'M not even paying much attention to it. (Sorry, Mr. Huston. I realize that you and your RfM fans think you're absolutely killing me with the essays you've been posting here. And maybe you ARE. I wouldn't know, though, because I haven't been reading them. Nor, I'm guessing, have more than a small handful of other people -- if that many -- besides your RfM fan base.)

That's just the way it is.

I wish everybody a great day.

"Danny"

I think some of the commentary has strayed from the original artical. I grew up mormon, and was mormon througout my undergraduate education, and through most of my doctoral education.

What was unusual about me was not the advanced degree, but the fact that I was a woman, a feminist, well-educated, and at the same time a devout mormon.

While I applaud Esplin's efforts to share her perspective and experiences in the mormon faith community, I also understand the many double binds that someone in her position is likely to experience. At 20 years old, an interest in her studies is considered "spunky." But as she ages, if she chooses to pursue her education and a career in her chosen profession, there will be very real conflicts with the mormon community that are likely to cause her some distress. I remember when I was called by someone who was recruiting newly minted Ph.D.s for faculty positions at the BYU campuses. When I asked her how many other women were on her call list, she paused for a couple of minutes. I heard papers shuffling as she scanned through her list. I heard her stunned voice tell me that I was the only one. I asked about her call area. She indicated that it covered parts of NM, AZ, and TX. And I was *the only woman* graduating with a Ph.D.

While the mormon church may like to parade it's exceptionalities in front of the general public, as a way of projecting some sort of normalcy to main stream culture, it should be made clear that these are exceptionalities. It should also be intuitively clear that unmarried, Harvard-educated Esplin's experiences are not even typical of mainstream Americans, let along mainstream mormon women.

It is easy to be civil to and curious about a people or religious community with whom you only have a passing familiarity, and who make an effort to appear friendly. It is another thing to have lived as a mormon, and to have found it so offensive that you were forced to leave even at great personal sacrifice.

I wish Esplin nothing but joy on her journey, wherever it takes her. I was in her place, once upon a time...

LDS growth among adults in U.S.: Per Amercian Religious Identification Survey 2008 with references to 1990 and 2001
1990 2,487,000 1.4% of U.S.
2001 2,697,000 1.3% of U.S.
2008 3,158,000 1.4% of U.S.
absolute numbers increase from 1990 to 2008 = 671,000 percentage increase = 27% (average 1.5% per year). not taking over, but hardly stagnating.

Cutiegirl:

Obviously you’re at odds with the Bible, as God’s first commandments to mankind was to “have children.”

We also find in the Bible, that Abraham, Moses, and Jacob were all polygamist prophets. Also, God gave David and Solomon many wives.

Cutie girl, you also said

"Women are instructed by the prophets to stay at home and bear and raise children. This is it. "

And

“Women’s only responsibility is to bear children in this life and the next.”

While heavy emphasis is on bearing children in the LDS faith, there is no indication in LDS doctrine or scripture that having children “is” or “will be” the “only” responsibility of women now or in the next life.

Your phrases, “this is it” and “only” are not part of LDS Church doctrine or belief.

Daniel Peterson writes:
"Normal people, never very interested in the first place, undoubtedly tuned out long ago."

Dan, I guess that is why you are still on the blog, continuing to use childish ad hominem attacks and innuendo as to a persons psyche and character.

I have a number of your apologetic writings and simply find them irrational, illogical, and downright absurd. IMO.

Okay Samantha, as an LDS woman (I'm assuming), what's your degree in, and what's your current profession?

To Samantha

"woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband" (p. 844 McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City, Bookcraft Inc., 1966)

Lest you forget, McConkie was an “apostle” a member of one of the Mormon church’s highest ruling bodies. I guess that if the directions of the authorities of the church are dismissible as non-doctrinal then what is the point of heeding ANY of their directions? I wasn’t aware that you could pick and choose when to obey the apostles.

“But a mother's role is also God-ordained. Mothers are to conceive, to nourish, to love, and to train. So declare the revelations… Do not use the reasoning of the world, such as, "We'll wait until we can better afford having children, until we are more secure, until John has completed his education, until he has a better paying job, until we have a larger home, until we've obtained a few of the material conveniences," and on and on.
This is the reasoning of the world and is not pleasing in the sight of God. Mothers who enjoy good health, have your children and have them early. And, husbands, always be considerate of your wives in the bearing children.” 13th prophet Ezra Taft Benson, “To the Mothers in Zion”, 1987

There are oodles of sexist, demeaning comments regarding the place of women from Mormon church leaders.

And yes, Samantha, I take great exception with the Bible. It is also filled with vile things regarding women.

Numbers 31: 1-54 Following God’s instructions Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males and take the women and children captive. Moses finds out that they left some alive; Moses has a great idea "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." They went back and killed everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins. Yippee for Moses, virgins are a great reward.

Numbers 22:23-24 If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn't cry out loud enough, then "the men of the city shall stone her to death."

I only opened my Bible to a few chapters in Numbers. Trust me there are lots of lovely thoughts on the equality of women in the scriptures. (I am being sarcastic here)

I stand by my original post,

“Women are instructed by the prophets to stay at home and bear and raise children. This is it. I am sorry, but Ms. Esplin has deluded herself if she thinks that she can go on and get her law degree and work outside the home and also be in compliance with church authorities.”

Jim:

2,487,000 U.S. members (1990) is 78.8% of 3,158,000 U.S. members (2008). There was a 21.2% increase in U.S. membership from 1990-2008, not 27%.

I think the "stagnant" growth comes from the comparison of total U.S. members to the total population of the U.S. in 1990 with the total U.S. members to U.S. population in 2008. From a population comparison standpoint, it would appear to be stagnant even though it is increasing. It's just not increasing at the rate that shows any "wow" factor like many members and leaders of the church propound from the pulpit.

It would be interesting to get actual numbers for WORLDWIDE growth and see where they compare to the comments about the fastest growing religion, etc. The devil is in the details and some of those details are numbers. Why the church is so mum about the details is odd and a little disconcerting and disingenuous.

Jim, post 252
So what you are saying is that in the United States the Mormon Church is growing at the same rate as the population? With the large Mormon families and the push for conversion, wouldn't you expect it to be at least a little higher than the population growth rate? With the claim to be the fastest growing, aren't you just a little embarrassed by your post? Atheists are beating the crap out of you and they couldn't organize themselves out of a wet paper bag. They have doubled since 2001 and getting Atheists to agree on anything is like trying to herd cats.

With the large families and organized missionary programs, wouldn't you think you would have growth even minimally higher than the Godless hordes?
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

Exactly.
How is it that the fastest growing religious identity and the only one to grow in every state in America over the past decade is "no relgion" when Atheist/agnostics don't maintain a standing army of 60,000 full time missionaries to go out and brainwash people into their cult, like the Mormons, who are conversely just keeping even with the rate of population growth?

Why does a tiny provincial cult like Mormonism, which only claims 1/10th of 1% of the world's population, deserve a such a dispropotionate amount of attention and legitimacy?
Jehovahs Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists are far more sucessful at attracting and retaining paying customers, despite the fact that they don't maintain an army of 60,000 full time salesmen, yet you don't see them getting near the attention as this relativly tiny sect.

Julia Roberts on Motherhood:

"Julia Roberts if returning to the screen as a leading lady in "Duplicity," out next month and costarring Clive Owen. She talked to March's Allure about her marriage to Danny Moder and the joys of being a mother to her three kids, four-year-old twins Hazel and Phinnaeus and younger son Henry, almost two.

"I will never be bored again," Roberts tells the magazine. "Danny and I talk about, 'What did we do with all the time we must have had?' Because you don't recognize it as such, until you have all these little ... time thieves running around your house."

Actress Sigourney Weaver,58, mom to Charlotte,18:
"It's a very humbling experience. Parenting has changed and evolved so much since I was parented. Parents enjoy their kids much more. It's just fun. It's a potentially blossoming time, because you have to be everything. You have to be a great storyteller. You have to be very organized, very supportive and still. You can't believe you have this without a license, without any training. You learn as you go. You're getting to know your child, who is a complete individual at birth, and you spend years getting to know who that person is and making sure that person is as supported as possible."
Actress Thandie Newton, 35, is mom to Ripley,7, Nico,3:
"I've learned the value of stripping it down to the basics: love, respect, compassion, stillness, to be interested, to be able to absorb the moment. I remember the first time Ripley saw her shadow. My god. It was like shadows had just been invented. It was the most exquisite moment. And it was just dish to me. To actively attempt to be a good mother is basically attempting to be a good person. I never look at my kids and feel that they're mine. I am their caretaker. They own the joint. It's a privilege to be able to take care of them. With my first daughter, I remember waking up and thinking, 'My god, I get to be her mum again today. Wow. It's amazing.' They just take my breath away. All I do is serve themselves back to themselves. My job is just to provide a secure environment where they can just be themselves. It's the cycle that keeps going forward. You give to them, so they can give to their kids. You have to be delighted by that."
Helen Hunt, 44, has a 3-year-old daughter, Makena:
"It gives me real motivation to try and be the person I want to be. You tell them to be patient. But they'll do what you do and not what to say. If I want her to be relaxed, I have to be relaxed. Or at least try as hard as I can to seem relaxed. If I want her to be patient, I have to be patient. If I want her to be kind, I have to be kind. I have a deep wish for her to be happy and serene, and it makes me want to do everything I can to be happy and serene."
Salma Hayek, 41, gave birth to Valentina last year:
"You learn so much. Listen to her. She's in the background. Do you hear that strange noise she makes (like a purr, or a rolled r)? It's the French in her. (Dad is businessman François-Henri Pinault.) It's hilarious. What I learned as a mother is that I have a strong love for things. But the quality of your love gets jaded over the years as you get beat up. What motherhood did to me, when she was born, the amount of love that started pouring out of me was completely pure. Anything anyone ever did to me was erased by this energy. I relearned how to love everything around me, too. My baby is the best thing that has happened to me in my life. It's the most amazing thing."

Um, Samantha a couple of thoughts;

First of all, I am not disputing that motherhood is wonderful. I have two small children. I have chosen to stay at home with them while they are little. I adore them and have gladly put my career on hold to be with them. I agree with all of the quotes that you posted on motherhood. My difficulty with the quotes that you provided is that they are from strong women who have CAREERS and children. This is not acceptable behavior for Mormon women. Did you read my quote from the apostle McConkie, “woman's primary place is in the home….” This is offensive to me. Although I have chosen to be a mother, I find it disturbing to be told that this is my place. I fully intend to go back to work when my children are in school. And what if I had decided to work while I had young children like the actresses you quoted?

The church visibly opposed the ERA movement mobilizing members and raising money in opposition. The church even excommunicated Sonia Johnson for her involvement in the movement. “Johnson’s unpardonable sin (at least to the covered eyes and ears of Mormonism's patriarchal and predatory prevaricators) was to blow the whistle on the Brethren’s secret political designs to torpedo the ERA” (Steve Benson). Another notable feminist who was excommunicated was Margaret Toscono“For me, my feminism started because I loved my religion and because I read the Scriptures and because I wanted to be a good person. It was in the process of that spiritual quest that I became the feminist and started questioning roles. I only questioned roles because I felt so negated as a woman who had desires for spirituality and for intelligence.” (Margaret Toscono)
The church apparently doesn’t tolerate politically active femininst women.

“A recent study by Mental Health America, the country's oldest independent mental health advocacy organization, ranked Utah the most depressed state in the country. Another survey released last week by drug distribution company Express Scripts found that residents of Utah were prescribed antidepressant drugs more than those of any other state and at twice the national average…nationally women are twice as likely to be diagnosed with depressive disorders as men, experts told ABC.” (News Study Calling Utah Most Depressed, Renews Debate on Root Causes ABC News By Russell Goldman, March 7, 2008 )

Yes, the church is trying to combat the image that the world has of Mormon women. Sadly, that image is correct. Women are not equal to men in this organization. Women are instructed by church authorities to stay at home and have children. If they speak out they are excommunicated. The price that Mormon women pay for stifling their careers and simply breeding may be evident from the high rate of antidepressant usage found in Utah.

ExGirl:

I think what you struggle with here is a primacy issue. Both motherhood, and working within a career is the lifestyle for many LDS mothers. Some choose this lifestyle and others would choose to just stay at home to be with their children. A smaller percentage would probably never want to be at home and work full-time and not raise children..

The ideal sociological situation is where mothers can focus their attention, love, and nurturing on their children without the rigors or responsibilities of a full-time career. If women had sufficient financial resources, a majority would choose to spend it with their families.

Therefore, Elder’s McConkie’s counsel that a “woman’s place is in the home” relates to the family and how a woman supports the family in raising children and creating an environment for learning, fun, safety, etc His statements cannot be reasonably read any way other than in harmony with the explanation I just gave.

There is no Church counsel or directive that a woman’s place in society can only be found in the house in which she owns or rents. I believe this is how you have come to interpret it.

The Church believes in the natural identity of women. Women naturally are happy when they have a positive environment wherein they can have and raise children. However, the time when a woman has small children doesn’t usually last more than 10 -15 years. These years are the most important for her small children – the ideal is full-time motherhood for the children.

The Church in fact encourages citizens everywhere, women and men, to be active in the political process. However, the Church cannot tolerate doctrinal dissension which results in apostasy. Both women and men are treated equally in that regard.

About depression in Utah, studies show that faithful LDS women are more likely to list themselves as happy than those who are not faithful or that are not Mormon.

In truth, all of the Rocky Mountain states, including Colorado, have high rates of depression. So, the position that LDS belief makes a woman more depressed is an untenable position.

In regard to religious influence of women within an organization, the LDS Church would be a leader in that category.

Show us another religious faith where they are more involved in the day-to-day teaching and preaching than the LDS faith.

At the local and general leadership levels – organizations within the LDS Church are led by women:

Ward Organization (300-500 members)

• The Relief Society: (4 women lead the organization, a council of women support the 4)

• The Young Women’s organization (4 women lead the organization, and a council of women support the 4)

• The Primary Organization (4 women lead the organization)

• Other women lead other organizations as well: employment, welfare, and activities.

• Anywhere from 24-30 women are engaged in leading, organizing, teaching, and preaching.

At the stake level (2400-3000 members)

• The same organizations exist above

At the General Level
• The same organizations exist above for the whole church.

In spite of a patriarchal priesthood, women leader their organizations as they see fit within the frame work of Church laws. However, they are called to lead according to the revelation that God imparts to them as they pray, fast, and strive to focus individuals on the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Equality of women is a global problem, not one instituted by the LDS Church. Notwithstanding its patriarchal priesthood, the fundamental unit of the Church is the family. Within the family, men and women are equal partners and have an equal say – such is the counsel of the LDS Church.

Samantha, I'm delighted to read that you can cut and paste comments of successful working actresses about motherhood. As a mother of two young children, it is delightful to see this tribute.

Perhaps you would like to share about what you do *outside* of motherhood and homemaking? In the LDS culture, women are commanded to mother, and often neglect developing their educations or professions. Is that the case with you?

I certainly did not get support for pursuing both a profession and family from the mormon church.

Equality of women is a global one, and one that is *worse* in the LDS church, TomH.

In your own comments you assert that you know the most "ideal" situations for all women and children...and, *surprise* it is at home together while the male works outside the home. Leave it to an LDS male to recommend an out-dated industrial, nuclear family structure to the post-industrial non-nuclear general population as the "ideal" for *everyone*. TomH, most people outside of your church don't view "priesthood" holders as having special authority or insight about what *everyone* should do.

I applaud Dr. Punky and the information she has provided. I agree in every respect. I want to add my voice with the following comments.

The Mormon idea of separate but equal between men and women is not only outdated, but has been proven to be wrong in the general population. The idea that a woman with children is viewed on the same footing with a male Priesthood holder is ludicrous. The Supreme Court found separate to not be equal. The one size fits all approach of the Mormon Church means that if a woman does not have children she is of no value.

From the pre-1990 temple ceremony:
"Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee in righteousness."
"Inasmuch as Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, if she will covenant that from this time forth she will obey your law, and will hearken unto your counsel as you hearken unto mine."

Some of the most blatant phraseology has been removed, but it still requires the woman to "hearken unto your counsel as you hearken unto mine"

You use statistics from the Relief Society which functions essentially as a 19th century ladies aid society. The mission and important features have actually changed from the time of Joseph Smith, giving them fewer rights and less control of their own organization than they had at the time of Joseph Smith. At the time of Joseph Smith the Relief Society was not subject to the whim of the leadership. They could have their own money and could raise funds independently. They could also give blessings. Viewed in the context of the 1800s, the Relief Society was quite progressive. Viewed in the world of today, it is completely archaic.

Relief Society

Female Church members ages 18 and older belong to the Relief Society. The Relief Society was founded by the Prophet Joseph Smith on March 17, 1842, in Nauvoo, Illinois. In the days of its founding, it had two main purposes: to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ. The organization continues today, staying true to those original guiding principles as women in the Relief Society meet together on Sunday and in other settings as needed.

Throughout the world, sisters in the Relief Society work with priesthood holders to carry out the mission of the Church. They support one another as they:

Increase their testimonies of Jesus Christ through prayer and scripture study.

Seek spiritual strength by following the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Dedicate themselves to strengthening marriages, families, and homes.

Find nobility in motherhood and joy in womanhood.

Delight in service and good works.

Love life and learning.

Stand for truth and righteousness.

Sustain the priesthood as the authority of God on the earth.

Rejoice in the blessings of the temple. Understand their divine destiny and strive for exaltation.

One way that members of the Relief Society can contribute to the mission of the organization is to accept an assignment to serve as a visiting teacher, a calling in which Relief Society members visit and serve their assigned sisters, taking time to teach the gospel and nurture friendships. In addition to serving individuals, visiting teachers can play an important role in strengthening families.

Leaders in wards and branches ensure that visiting teachers are assigned to each sister age 18 or older. Priesthood and Relief Society leaders follow up with visiting teachers to help meet each sister's spiritual and temporal needs.

Women in Relief Society are members of a worldwide sisterhood, united in devotion to Jesus Christ. They join with other daughters of God as a woman of faith, virtue, vision, and charity, with the sure knowledge that their life has meaning, purpose, and direction. Through their participation in Relief Society, they have opportunities to enjoy sisterhood and companionship, give meaningful service, develop and share their testimonies and talents, and grow spiritually.

Jim:

The concept of obedience to God or obedience to man probably strikes at the core of your psychological view of Mormonism. For you, freedom of choice, and obedience clash to render them completely incompatible. However, your views are contrary to what is meant by the term social order. Societies cannot maintain social order without obedience to laws, counsel, or advice. And so it is within the family, the fundamental unit of the LDS Church.

In their attempt to make obedience unfashionable or down right evil, detractors will quickly blur the concepts and assert that all obedience is blind obedience and therefore lead only to one thing: suicide bombings. It doesn’t take very long for the anti-Mormon or the disaffected member to make this necessary leap, especial if one has just read John Krakauer’s book.

However, that approach just represents lazy and incorrect concept formations. There is a clear distinction between blind obedience (which is inherently lazy) and intelligently willful obedience as a result of thinking clearly. Mormon doctrine emphasizes and requires the latter.

In very rare cases, there are occasions when one must take a leap of faith and “obey” another because there isn’t enough information to accurately predict the consequences of choices, but this is a normal part of life in many respects including government and private sector positions within the necessary hierarchal structure of society.

In Mormonism, God revealed that he holds the father and husband ULTIMATELY responsible for the welfare and salvation of his family. This is what is meant by the patriarchal order.

Will there be 5th and 6th generation LDS men or recently converted LDS men who will try to usurp a position of unrighteous authority over their wives or children regardless of Temple covenants that spell out familial responsibilities despite their heavy weight upon the father and husband? Yes. Such is the nature of most men and some women.

If an LDS woman lives with an unrighteous and ungodly LDS man, who is not leading his family in love and living the principles of God himself, then by the terms of the covenant, there is no divine mandate of obedience.

To the degree that an LDS man hearkens to the commandments of God, is the same measure of loyalty that an LDS woman can reasonably expect to offer to her husband within the framework of their matrimonial partnership.

But like I said Jim, such relationships and dynamics in relationships directly conflict with your ideas about “freedom of choice” where loyalty to self-interest always reigns supreme regardless of the responsibilities and sociological outcomes of individuals and families.

In Mormonism, everyone always has the freedom to do whatever he/she wants – but doesn’t get to choose the necessary consequences of those choices.

Hmmm…. that’s the advice that I have to constantly provide to my teenagers. Interesting.

TomH
Mormonism is inherently bias towards men. It was originally based in polygamy, which devalues women, treating them as second class citizens. At one point Brigham Young said he did not give any more thought to his next wife than he did to the purchase of a cow. This is a very apt analogy, because women were viewed as breed stock. Polygamy ended somewhere around 1920, but the attitudes did not. There is never a partnership where one of the partners has "less value" than the other. Being valued as "breed stock" is demeaning and prejudicial. Your discussion of the partnership of marriage is a ridiculous argument. You might actually believe the drivel you have posted, but I sincerely feel sorry for your wife.

I know a couple very well in which the wife is a medical doctor and the husband left his career (a geologist for the state) to take care of the children. They have four small children, one of which is a special needs child with Downs Syndrome. My wife and I have often discussed the role reversal in this marriage. The wife devalues the husband's opinions and feels she has the right to correct him and make judgments on his management of the children's behavior, scholastics, and other items in which she is minimally involved. She has devalued him because he is the care giver, so her opinion and desires are more important. I have very often seem Mormon husbands do exactly this same thing. They have the "right" as breadwinner and head of the house. There is no such thing as separate but equal.

In Mormonism there is no "free agency." Google it and check it out. Free Agency has dropped out of favor in favor of "Agency" or "Moral Agency." Summarizing the Mormon definition of agency and moral agency, you have the right to do it the Mormon way, or do it wrong to the end of eventual punishment. Hardly promoting the idea of freedom of any type.

You can continue to blather on trying to justify and quote and try to twist the words to support your position. You can even claim "victory" as you have twice before. You and I both know the reality of this. There is no victory, only opinion. You present reams of information trying to baffle people with BS, thinking that will make you look more believable. What comes to my mind is a quote from Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

In response to TomH March 21, 09 09:37 AM, #269

"The concept of obedience to God or obedience to man probably strikes at the core of your psychological view of Mormonism. For you, freedom of choice, and obedience clash to render them completely incompatible. However, your views are contrary to what is meant by the term social order. Societies cannot maintain social order without obedience to laws, counsel, or advice. And so it is within the family, the fundamental unit of the LDS Church.

In their attempt to make obedience unfashionable or down right evil, detractors will quickly blur the concepts and assert that all obedience is blind obedience and therefore lead only to one thing: suicide bombings. It doesn’t take very long for the anti-Mormon or the disaffected member to make this necessary leap, especial if one has just read John Krakauer’s book."
----------------

Marvelously simplistic and generalized beyond the realm of sensibility. I especially note the specious subterranean premise that rejection of mormonism implies a lack of personal responsibility and a disregard for social order, as if those principles required mormonism in even the slightest proportion.

That premise is absurd - and fortunately so, because virtually no one outside of the mormon faithful recognizes the LDS organization, its founder or heirs, as having the slightest legitimacy from which to offer moral pronouncements.

Non-mormons have found their humanity and principles of living from other religions (Christian and not), from disparate spiritual paths, from humanist philosophy, and even from the simple pragmatism instilled by their own parents: "Do unto others ..." The crackpot fancies of self-annointed North American "prophets" simply do not register on the national scale, either for ordinary citizens, or for trained moral philosophers.

Wow. Two weeks later and you guys are still going at it!! Clearly, you have boundless time and energy. You should focus that energy on something productive.

Perhaps you could start a world-wide network of former members of various religions. There could be a website, regular newsletters, sections on the problems with religion X etc, etc. It could be called something like: i_am_so_glad_i_left_those_guys.com

There is, of course, only one problem with such a fanciful idea. Only former members of one religion would be bothered.

I think TomH illustrates well the underbelly of mormon culture. You may have a handful of Esplins that are trotted out as bait and switch examples of the "progressive" nature of mormonism. But beyond the occasional Esplin is an ocean of TomH's that want everyone to embrace OBEDIENCE to mormon patriarchal order, and warn us of the doomsday consequences of a culture of equality with women working alongside their male counterparts. People like TomH are the norm, and their overwhelming presence undermines any superficial claims of egalitarianism made by Esplin. People like xzy987 may want to distract readers from this, but it is what you'll find every time you spend more than five minutes discussing gender equality with a mormon.

I lived in southern Utah for 18 years and was very glad to leave. Nowhere else had I ever been asked in a job interview "What ward are you in?" - note, a ward is a local small meeting place for the LDS members. Of course that is against the law, but what do the laws mean when the majority of those in law enforcement, the judiciary and employers are LDS? Over 80 per cent of the top officials in Utah are LDS, too.
Would I want to go back? No, thank you. Of course, I am one who does not believe that ANY organized religion has all the answers.

Well done by Rachel, this is the things then we have to do the LDS, Say the true whith conviction.

Joseph Straw
Saying it is "TRUTH" don't make it so.

Well Jim...Just wait until Esplin speaks an inconvenient truth with conviction during a Gospel Doctrine class. Watch the mormon community pride in her evaporate.

I've been a mormon golden girl. And, when I figured out some uncomfortable things, the response by other mormons towards me changed. It's what you say on the outside, not who you are on the inside that is most valued by that culture. Like I said, my thoughts are with her. She's got an interesting journey ahead of her.

"I am not in awe of your faith. I am appalled by your arrogance, by your unreasonable certainty that you have all the answers."

Daniel C. Dennett

Racism in any form, in any church is not acceptable, particularly in the LDS religion. I have read the comments on this blog about LDS racism. I find it particularly noteworthy that virtually every American Religion, Baptists, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc. practiced institutional racism for hundreds of years. Baptist ministers justified slavery from the pulpit and ministers of nearly all faiths used Christianity to control slaves. None of this justifies racism in the LDS church, but why isn't there an equitable assault on religions who practiced racism?

Mr. Smith
You are justifying Mormonism because "everyone did it?"

The Mormons have never admitted that they were racist. They deny that racism ever existed from the pulpit as emphatically as they promoted it from the same pulpit. Read the denials in this thread. There has been an admission of guilt and wrongdoing by the other groups, but not the Mormons. Mormons continued their racism long after other religions had accepted and apologized for their racism. Mormons claim they have the "TRUTH" and is therefore held to a higher standard. Does God change his mind? Evidently the Mormon God changes his mind continually.

When it comes to a needed apology I agree with you. Where the Mormons have been racist there needs to be an apology. But there also needs to be an apology from people who carry your bigotry. The Mormons were killed, raped and plundered because they would not vote for slavery in Missiouri. There is no recognition of this. On this blog, Brigham Young is quoted as if he were member of the KKK. However, a few paragraphs in the same discourse he states the following, "If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have
been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like humanhuman beings, and not worse than dumb brutes.
For their abuse of that race, the whites
will be cursed, unless they repent.
beings, and not worse than dumb brutes.
For their abuse of that race, the whites
will be cursed, unless they repent.

If you look at numbers and abuse, compare the numbers killed at Mountain Meadows and at Haun's Mill. Read the Salt Creek address by Sydney Rigdon which the Mormons had published in regional newspapers in Missouri. Sydney Rigdon declared war on Missouri. Read also how Mormons felt it their right to steal from the Missourians, because it was their promise land so it was all their's anyway. Later that year the Mormons attacked the state militia at Crooked Creek. Mormon history is very one sided when it comes to these events.

Mormons cry bigotry, but more often than not their actions provoked the people where they lived. In Kirtland a large group of non-Mormons lost everything due to the Kirtland banking fraud of Joseph Smith. He was convicted, appealed and then skipped bail while waiting for the appeal. I have already discussed some of the events in Missouri, and Nauvoo ran as a separate country from the rest of Illinois, pardoning people, harboring fugitives, and operating as though they were not subject to the laws of the state.

BTW you should be more careful with your cut and paste. I don't know who you are copying, but writing is more effective if you have put thought into it rather than copying.

Jim, for all that mormons like to claim they are the "one true church" and are the only people that have "the truth," are god's "chosen" people, with superior values...as much as they like to use their religion to take credit for having a superior religion, when they are confronted with all of the problems in their religious community it's interesting how often they claim "everyone was doing it..."

If they have God's ONLY prophet guiding them, you'd think that they'd avoid the same social problems of "less holy and inspired" people. ;)

I study all religions, and thus will not disclose of which religion I am until a later time; but this young woman was excellent in describing the LDS church, and answered every question asked where as others have a more difficult time answering similar questions. She is extremely admirable, and she herself admitted that she is not in full knowledge of the LDS church, but LEARNS CONTINUOUSLY. She also informed us that the LDS church is Central to Chris, and that it incorporates parts of other religions and traditions as well. She was very well educated in more than just the church if you couldn't tell by her manner of speaking and diction.

Regarding comment #284:

"I study all religions, and thus will not disclose of which religion I am until a later time..."

The tone of your post makes it perfectly obvious where your religious loyalties lie.

Further "disclosure" would be superfluous.

Wow! I am so impressed with Rachel's comments. She did a great job describing her faith in what most people would consider a tough or uncomfortable setting. I think it would be remarkable if everyone in any given faith/religion was that solid in their understanding and practice of the principles of that faith/religion

Michael, I was at your talk at UVU...I really enjoyed hearing your perspective. And, you are absolutely adorable. What a great smile. :)

Kudos to Rachel way to be a witness for Christ in all places. She followed the counsel of the prophet Joseph Smith "We should not contend with others on account of thier faith on systems of religion, but persue a stead course." (History of the Church 2:431) in regards to our relationship with other churches, the wise counsel of elder B.H, Roberts (conference, April 1906) is as follows:

"Let it be understood, we are not brought necessarily into antagonism with the various sects of Christianity as such. So far as they have retained fragments of Chrstian truth- and each of them has somje measure of truth- that far they are acceptable unot the Lord; and it would be ppoor policy for us to contend against htem without discrimination. whereever we find truth wherether it exists in complete from or only in gragments, we recognize that truth as part of that sacred whole of which the Church of Jesus Christ is the custodian; and I repeat that our relationbhsip to the religious world is not one that callsfor the denunciation of sectarian churches as composing the churhc of the devil. All that makes for untruth, for unrighteousness constitutes the kingdom of evil- the church of the devil. All righteousness- the empire of Jehovah; and, in a certain sense at least, constitute the church of Christ. With the latter- the kingdom of righteousness we have no warfare. on the contrary both the spirit of the Lord's commandments to His servants and the dictates of the right reason would suggest that we seek to enlarge this kingdom of righteousness both by recognizing such truths as it possesses and seeking the friendship and cooperation of the righteous men and women who constitute its member ship."

A couple corrections and a short comment.

The Lord did NOT say to JS that "all RELIGIONS were an abomination". Rather, He specified their CREEDS.

JS did not tell his mother that Presbyterianism was false, but that he had learned for himself that Methodism was not the true church.

Finally, I can't believe that someone is quoting the atheist philosopher Daniel Dennet as relevant to this particular discussion.

Jesus Christ And His Mom are WHITE in the Book of Mormon-->

13...I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly FAIR and WHITE.18...the virgin...is the mother of the Son of God...(Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 11:13-18)

30...and behold they were WHITE, even as Jesus. (Book Of Mormon 3 nephi 19:30)

Mormons Believe The Lamanites are American Indians who were Cursed Black for rebelling-->

"...cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing...the Lord God did cause a skin of BLACKNESS to come upon them(Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 5:21)"

"And the skins..were DARK,according to the MARK which was set upon their fathers..which WAS A CURSE upon them...(Book of Mormon,Alma 3:6)"

The American Indian Lamanites Repented so the Mormon God Turns there Skin back to White-->

"12...the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord...
15 And their CURSE was taken from them, and their SKIN became WHITE like unto the Nephites(Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 2:12-15)"

LDS Mormons Believe BLACK Africans are of the SEED OF CAIN AND HAM which these Mormon Scriptures are talking about.The seed of Cain and Ham where Cursed Black in the LDS Mormon Pearl of great Price Scriptures-->

". . . there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people . . . (Pearl of Great Price Moses 7:8)."

"And . . . they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them (Pearl of Great Price Moses 7:22)."

SEED OF HAM IS THE SEED OF CAIN And The Seed of Cain and Ham were Cursed from the Priesthood-->

(Pearl of Great Price Abraham1:21-27)
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

24...from HAM, sprang that race which preserved the CURSE in the land.

25...Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of HAM...

26 Pharaoh...but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,

Illegal Player

I think that your own examples show that your accusation of racism in the Book of Mormon or elsewhere do not hold ground. You quote, "...and behold they were WHITE, even as Jesus. (Book Of Mormon 3 nephi 19:30)." It seems apparent that even on a cursory reading, the color white is here used to describe a state of purity and innocence. It is likewise used to say that the Lamanites are turned White when they repent. Save for some genetic mutation or strange aberration, a persons skin color can not magically be transformed, but what can be changed is the purity of ones heart and soul.

The rest of the passages you quote are taken out of context and given your own worst of interpretation. It is true that some church leaders did advocate similar positions. it is unfortunate that human bias and apologetic efforts were able to color and introduce racism into the pure gospel of Christ. That is perhaps the lesson we most should learn as Christians. We should not let our own biases against groups or actions be read so deeply into the scriptures where they do not belong. Our own understanding is always less than that held by our heavenly father whom is perfect in all things. My belief in Latter Day Revelation tells me that when we stray far off path we can always turn to our heavenly father for guidance and direction and that he never leaves us solely to our own devices. That is the power and the beauty of the restoration.

I'm a convert to the LDS Church, and served a mission in Japan. I also study other religions and philosophy, and I am an attorney. I am also a Freemason. I think it is difficult to pigeon hole "Mormons."

However, before we start discussing which religion is true or false, we need to prove the existence of God. Until this is done, which can't be, then there is no reason to pontificate about religious beliefs -- all are taken on faith. Since religious people accept the existence of God based on faith alone, then Mormons allow everyone to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience.

"[Mormons] recognize the truth that exists everywhere. That which is true is part of our religion; for it embraces all truth. Our Church is truth's magnet; truth from anywhere and everywhere is attracted by it, comes to it, assimilates with it, has an affinity with it. Truth from every source is recognized by our Church... If Catholicism has any truth that we have not, we will be glad to have it. If Protestantism had any truth that we have not, we welcome it. If Mohammedanism has any truth that we have not yet learned, we will be pleased to get it. If truth should come from any part of the world that we have not yet obtained, we will receive it and rejoice in it." Charles Penrose.

And Mormons believe: “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and is one of God's instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive.”(See Brigham H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints [Deseret News Press, 1907], 1:512-13.)

As for secret temple ceremonies, the early Christian Fathers taught, for example:

St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, who was born in 340, and died in 393, wrote in his work De Mysteriis: "All the Mystery should be kept concealed, guarded by faithful silence, lest it should be inconsiderately divulged to the ears of the Profane. . . . It is not given to all to contemplate the depths of our Mysteries. . . . that they may not be seen by those who ought not to behold them; nor received by those who cannot preserve them." And in another work, he wrote: "He sins against God, who divulges to the unworthy the Mysteries confided to him. The danger is not merely in violating truth, but in telling truth, if he allow himself to give hints of them to those from whom they ought to be concealed. . . . Beware of casting pearls before swine! . . . . Every Mystery ought to be kept secret; and, as it were, to be covered over by silence, lest it should rashly be divulged to the ears of the Profane. Take heed that you do not incautiously reveal the Mysteries!"

St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was made Bishop in 412, and died in 444, wrote in his 7th Book against Julian: "These Mysteries are so profound and so exalted, that they can be comprehended by those only who are enlightened. I shall not, therefore, attempt to speak of what is so admirable in them, lest by discovering them to the uninitiated, I should offend against the injunction not to give what is holy to the impure, nor cast pearls before such as cannot estimate their worth. . . .I should say much more, if I were not afraid of being heard by those who are uninitiated: because men are apt to deride what they do not understand. And the ignorant, not being aware of the weakness of their minds, condemn what they ought most to venerate."

Religion is fascinating, but once we start thinking what we believe is categorically true, and not just a speculative believe based on faith, we can get in a lot of trouble and cause a lot of unnecessary harm.

Peace.

This was a previous post and may have already have been addressed but since I have not had the time to read all 291 posts, please pardon me if my post is a bit redundant.

"One thing that does offend me about Mormonism (and believe me, there are lots of things that offend me about other faiths -- but this is not the topic here) is the practice of baptizing the dead (and living) in the Mormon faith. I know that this would deeply offend my ancestors (and also those who are not Christian) -- given that when alive, they CHOSE of their own free will to practice/believe something different. And, I am deeply offended that any church would have the audacity to baptize me into its faith. That is paternalism is at its worst, but Mormons are not alone in practicing that.
Posted by JP March 9, 09 01:44 PM"

JP let me correct the easy misunderstanding first. The only living persons that are baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are those who have chosen to have that ordinance performed while exercising their own free will. At least that is true to the best of my knowledge and experience over the 24+ years since I converted to the faith. That is also what I have been continuously taught as church policy.

Now your second misconception. We (living Latter-day Saints) are baptized on behalf of the dead. We don't actually baptize dead people. That would really be weird and morbid.

We are usually baptized for our own ancestors or for the ancestors of other members of the church who's names have been submitted by their kindred. However, for that ordinance to become effective for them, they have to accept it through the exercise of their own free will as spirits awaiting their resurrection. That is why Christ went to the spirit world after His crucifixion but before His resurrection. (See 1st Peter 3:18-20 and 1st Peter 4:6) ..."that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

Now, if that offends you, I'm sorry. It is what I believe. I will continue to exercise my constitutional right to practice what I believe to be true. At the same time, I would fight to protect you right to take offense.

Most likely, what I'm about to say will offend quite a few people who have written on this site, non-mormons as well as some members of the church. I'll preface what I am about to say by stating that it is my personal conclusion only.

Christianity believes that there is one God. That that God is omniscient. That He created the earth and the universe as we know it. He has certain qualities. He is a God of truth and, basically, what He says goes. Although there is much debate about what he has said and whether what He said a long time ago still applies. Still He is a God of reason and knowledge.

Most (Christians) would agree that He established a church when he came to earth as Jesus Christ. Presumably that was the "only true church" since it was established by God himself. Now the Jewish leaders of the day didn't believe this to be true. So they eventually arrested Christ and crucified Him as an impostor and a blasphemer. On the third day after His crucifixion (inclusive), He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. Thus Christianity was born. He called 12 apostles while he was in His mortal ministry. He commissioned them to carry the Gospel unto every nation, kindred, and tongue. Well, all but Judas, who betrayed Him and killed himself. Matthias was chosen to fill Judas' spot in the 12.

I know most of you (Christians) know this and you believe it, apparently, or you wouldn't call yourselves Christians. My point is this: either Christ established a Church or he didn't. If he did, their are only three logical possibilities regarding the correct "Christian" church. (Note:This presumes the each Christian church has, at least, one unique doctrine or practice or belief that distinguishes it from all "other" Christian churches. Otherwise, they'd be the same church wouldn't they? A rose, is a rose, ...)

They are:
1) The Church He established is, by definition, the only true Church since it was established by Jesus Christ (God) himself. Therefore, one of its descendant churches must be the only true church. I'm not sure which one that would be. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. Certainly no protestant church can claim that distinction. Since they were formed during the reformation and broke away from their mother church, based upon some perceived inadequacies or corruption and neither have nor can they claim any divine authority. (If they do claim divine authority, they would have had to obtain it though modern revelation which they say no longer occurs.)

2) There is no "true" Christian church anymore.

3) God reestablished His Church though a prophet which He called after the corruption of the Church He originally established during His ministry.

Again, I apologize if this offends you but if you're a Christian, these are the only three possibilities.

I was raised as an Episcopalian. I was active in my church. I took confirmation classes and passed them. I was an acolyte. (An acolyte is a youth that helps the priest during services.) I believed that the greatest day in Human history was the day Christ was born. I said His birthday because He couldn't have carried out the atonement had he not been born. Otherwise, I would have said the day He was resurrected thus completing the atonement. But even with all that, I knew there were some things wrong with what I had been taught about God. I knew God was a loving God. I knew we were all His children. I didn't believe a loving God would let a large number of His children go to Hell just because they were born at the wrong place or the wrong time. He doesn't.

I figured that there should be modern prophets. Why would a God that had had prophets all the way from Adam down to the Apostles say they weren't needed anymore? He wouldn't.

Why would a loving God only talk to a small group of His children around the middle east when He has lots of other children all over the world which He loves as well? He wouldn't.

I'm not saying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Christian Church on the earth today. Although I feel strongly, that it is. I don't want anyone to take my word for it. Like many others have said on this site, find out for yourself. Read the Book of Mormon including the title page and the introduction plus all 531 pages of it of the actual text. Yeah, it takes time and effort but it's worth it. Read it with an open mind. Be skeptical if you want, I was. Think about what you read. Compare it to what the Bible teaches (What you think it teaches not what somebody else tells you it teaches.) Study it, thoroughly. Then pray about it. You'll know. I promise. You might not want to know but you will. You'll then either accept what you know or you'll convince yourself that you don't "really" know. It took me 5 years to accept what I knew to be true but I finally had to accept the truth. Because, to quote Joseph Smith Jr., "I knew it, and I knew God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation."