Mormon Coffee

Ex-LDS Steve Kay, Saved by Jesus Christ

January 21, 2010

By Sharon Lindbloom

You can download the video here.

Comments (101)

101 Comments so far

iamse7en on January 21st, 2010

Ex-confused Ryan, Saved by Jesus Christ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKWM0hjQX5A
David Whitsell on January 21st, 2010

What is your point iamse7en?

This is why I tend to not like testimonies, at least for apologetic/polemical value. Someone else can just give an opposite testimony. However, can you agree with me that Steve has a testimony and it is just as valuable as those who testify to the Book of Mormon?
iamse7en on January 21st, 2010

I’m making the point you are by posting the opposite of what was made a featured post on this blog. I agree that concerning apologetics, there are more valuable tactics than testimony. On my mission, and even today, I would always quote the Bible to defend LDS doctrine.

I will agree that Steve’s testimony is as sincere as Ryan’s. I would only disagree with your choosing of the word valuable. If the Book of Mormon is true, then I’d say Ryan’s testimony is more valuable. If the Book of Mormon isn’t true, then I’d say Steve’s is more valuable. A testimony based on truth is definitely more “valuable” than one based on falsehood, especially come judgement time.
setfree on January 21st, 2010

“If the Book of Mormon is true, then I’d say Ryan’s testimony is more valuable. If the Book of Mormon isn’t true, then I’d say Steve’s is more valuable. A testimony based on truth is definitely more “valuable” than one based on falsehood, especially come judgement time.”

I certainly agree with you there, iamse7en
Sharon Lindbloom on January 21st, 2010

I see quite a contrast between Ryan’s LDS testimony and Steve’s Christian testimony. iamse7en titles Ryan’s testimony “Saved by Jesus Christ,” yet Christ is not mentioned much in Ryan’s story. Ryan’s testimony is that he was converted to Mormonism and the LDS Church by the Book of Mormon. He said, “I knew right there that I would follow the Church.”

Contrast that with Steve’s testimony where he talks about God’s mercy, forgiveness, the power of salvation, how important it is to love Jesus (“more than anything”) and the blessings found in a personal relationship with Christ. He quotes the words of Jesus multiple times, talks about the joy of giving your all for Christ, and explains, “Jesus is all that matters.”

There’s also an interesting contrast at the end of the testimonies. Ryan says “The Book of Mormon literally changed my life.” Steve says, “That freedom, that grace, and that gift of mercy [that Jesus gives me] has completely changed my life.”

Both testimonies are heartfelt, but for me, just give me Jesus.
Ralph on January 21st, 2010

I am at work and do not have time to listen to either testimonies protrayed here but I do have a valid comment on what Sharon has said.

People tend to do things the way they are taught and what they see others do/say. I have noticed that many in the Born Again, Evangelical, Pentacostal, etc movements talk about Jesus and mention Him a lot. (NOTE I am not saying there is anything wrong with this, just making an observation). They do this, from what I have noticed, because of their ‘upbringing’ in their community. They are encouraged to talk about Jesus, mention Him whenever possible. In their religious infancy they see others bare their testimonies only about Jesus. So this is one of the reasons they do it this way.

On the other hand, the LDS do mention Jesus in their testimonies, but they tend to focus on other things like JS, BoM, etc. In one respect this dilutes the word:word use ratio of the mention of Jesus to others, but it also appears that we focus on other things apart from Jesus. Those in their infancy in the LDS church see the ‘veterans’ get up and give a ‘testimony’ (more like a travelogue) and mimic this. In all of the teaching manuals I have read and taught from, they say this is wrong. A testimony should really only mention Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the atonement, the LDS church is true, scriptures are true, JS was true prophet and then close. But the new converts usually see the testimony meetings before having these lessons, thus the cycle repeats.

I have read a talk/article in the Ensign about how one of the GAs was visiting a ward and all through the meeting the only time he heard Jesus mentioned was in the prayers and the hymns. He stood up as the final speaker and said that this is not on. We are His church, we should focus on Him. 2 Nephi 25:26 tells us what we should be doing. Anyway I can’t find this talk to reference it, but I do try to live like this and when I teach I focus it on Jesus and what He has done for us.
rvales on January 21st, 2010

Ralph said:
“A testimony should really only mention Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the atonement, the LDS church is true, scriptures are true, JS was true prophet and then close. But the new converts usually see the testimony meetings before having these lessons, thus the cycle repeats.”

Isn’t it interesting that the new converts have to be ‘taught’ how to give a testimony? And Ralph you also help prove one of the Evs arguements…LDS give glory to the BoM and JS where glory should only be given to God. The BoM doesn’t save people God saves people. Isn’t this the idolatry that we are accused of when we reference the cross? Ralph, what has Jesus done for you? (please don’t misread tone I’m not trying to be hateful) It seems to the Evs that ‘after all you can do’ and declarations/songs/praises to the truthfulness of JS and the BoM seem to depreciate Jesus’ work on the cross. After all it seems all he did for the LDS was make it possible for you to prove yourself worthy of and the receipient of celestial glory.
setfree on January 21st, 2010

It’s true… when I was little, I was taught (in church) to say this: “I know this church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet, I know our prophet today is a prophet of god…” and then give filler (I love my mom and dad, etc).
I was never once taught to talk about Jesus.
And Sharon, I hadn’t watched the Mormon testimony yet either. I could have told you, however, that that would be the comparison.
What Ralph says… it’d be nice if that’s all there was to it. But Mormonism does not teach Jesus worship… it very much teaches Mormon church worship…
Ralph on January 21st, 2010

Rvales,

Acknowledging that JS was a true prophet of God is not putting any glory onto him – it’s just like acknowledging that Moses, or Elijah, etc were true prophets of God. The same applies to the BoM, it’s exactly like one of the Evs on here saying the Bible is true. It is not giving any glory to the object, just an acknowledgement that it is true. BTW, I said scriptures not just the BoM – this includes the Bible, D&C and PoGP. A testimony is declaring what one knows – it does not give glory to anything unless one wants to put it in there.

Setfree,

I disagree with you – the LDS church does teach Jesus worship, just not the way you want it to be. However, as I mentioned, the people in the LDS church can get side-tracked, but they are only human and make mistakes.

I guess one of the reasons is because of the past – when they were originally trying to stand up for the truth and show the differences between the LDS religion and others. To do this one would focus more on the differences (ie living prophet, more scripture, temples, etc) than the similarities (ie Jesus is the Christ, He is God’s Son, He performed the atonement for our salvation, etc yes there are similarities). But those are my thoughts – they may not be correct.

To me it’s a shame really to see that people don’t listen to their lessons and just follow the age old norm.
setfree on January 21st, 2010

this has to be my favorite Mormon testimony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0xvsp4tBDc&feature=player_embedded

what nice, swelling music during the whole LDS testimony given above (in comments). so like… like… all the rest of the sugar-coated stuff you see in the visitors centers and stuff. all very emotionally stimulated by music and pictures and syrupy sweet stuff
setfree on January 21st, 2010

Ralph, I didn’t have any desire for any kind of Jesus worship, when I was Mormon. I am not on some kind of quest to get the LDS to show Jesus-worship in a different way. I am simply telling what I know of Mormonism, verses what I have found in Christian churches. There is no comparison between the “I’m saved by His Grace” love for Jesus, and the “I’m working my way to heaven” kind
falcon on January 21st, 2010

In Acts chapter nine starting with verse three, the account is given of the Apostle Paul’s conversion. There was a bright light, he was knocked to the ground and Jesus spoke to him. Paul was temporarily blinded but recovered his sight when a disciple of the Lord laid hands on him. In the Book of Galatians, Paul writes that he was surprised that these folks had “….so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel.”
Paul straightens the Galatians out regarding the true revelation of Jesus Christ.
In verses eleven and twelve Paul tells the Galatians that “…I would have you know, brethren , that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
In the second chapter first verse Paul reports that he went up to Jerusalem after a fourteen year interval. The reason? “…it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.”
Two things; first of all Paul’s revelation was of Jesus Christ. Second, Paul submitted the gospel he preached to those in authority to confirm that he was indeed on track.
Christians receive a revelation of Jesus Christ, the same Jesus and the same gospel Paul preached. Mormons receive a “testimony” of Joseph Smith, the BoM, the LDS church and the current “prophet” and as an after thought, Jesus.
Having received the secret handshakes and a couple of secret pass words, Mormons feel prepared to meet Joseph Smith after death hoping he punches their ticket to get into Mormon heaven. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, “You foolish Mormons, I told you that even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a different gospel, contrary to “the” gospel, he is accursed.
Mormons put their faith in a false gospel of Joseph Smith.
WJ on January 21st, 2010

setfree: “It’s true… when I was little, I was taught (in church) to say this: “I know this church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet, I know our prophet today is a prophet of god…” and then give filler (I love my mom and dad, etc).”

Oh, well that was your problem. Every Mormon knows that the “filler” about loving your mom and dad goes BEFORE the reference to Joseph Smith, not AFTER. Your rhythm was off, its no wonder you left the faith.
falcon on January 21st, 2010

When I came to God, I did so because I had a revelation of Jesus Christ. He is the Son of God. He died for my sins. I did not have a revelation of the apostle Paul. I do not testify to Paul or Peter or John.
In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians the first chapter, verses eleven through sixteen He address the topic of hero worship. He admonishes the Corinthians for their singling out of certain men and says “……now each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
Part of the problem with the false gospel of Joseph Smith is that Smith is elevated to a role of having to give the thumbs-up to a Mormon if they’re going on to the big show after they die.
Mormons are stuck with this guy who’s is so easy to debunk that it’s truly amazing to Christians that anyone could be so foolish as to follow him. The end of this is spiritual destruction. But if someone desires to believe something and if they have swooned over a guy like Smith, their ability to get passed it and on to solid footing is pretty tough.
I’m always impressed with the exMormons who post here because they have heard the voice of God and responded to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and now have a testimony of Jesus Christ.
rvales on January 21st, 2010

I can’t think of the exact quote, and maybe I’m dreaming it (hopefully my more equipped siblings in Christ can help me out here…) but didn’t Brigham Young say that Joseph Smith would have something to say in who got into the CK and who didn’t?

And Ralph I have to disagree. I don’t think I give near as much reverence to the prophets of old as you guys give JS and the gang. I mean I enjoy reading the inspired writings of the prophets as much as the next person but when I give my testimony it’s not Isaiah who bridged the gap between me and God. It wasn’t the prophets who protected and called me back to God when I was wayward. When I talk about the 10 years I spent wandering around as a picture perfect rebellious prodigal child I make only one confession..that God in his infinite grace and mercy paid for my sins thru His death and resurection and ushered me into relationship with him, saving me when I was eyeball deep in sin.
grindael on January 21st, 2010

This thing about ‘testifying’ about Joseph Smith. Jesus once called John the Baptist (I believe) the greatest prophet to have ever lived… now, did the early Church worship him like the Mormons worship Joseph Smith? (remember worship means to revere someone – and they do that in church by singing hymns about him) Did they go around saying, thank God for the forerunner of Jesus, that He baptized him, that he preached of Him, etc. Did the early Apostles make mention of John in an excessive way the way that the Mormons do of Smith? Did they sing Hymns to John the Baptist? It is all this Smith is a god to us, and Brigham is a god to us that cropped up in the early days of the Church. I have literally seen this many many times. They were fixated on Smith, worshipped him, and even Heber C. Kimball, on his death-bed said to one of Smith’s plural wives that he had married, I treated you ok, didn’t I, you think when I meet Joseph on the other side he will be ok with how I treated you? -Words to that effect. Where do you think blood atonement came from? From wanting revenge for smith. Young’s last words were Joseph, Joseph, Joseph…I have to agree with setfree and sharon, it takes away from Jesus. All the ‘testimony’ stuff is just to promote smith and his book of mormon, which has never been and never will be needed for anyone to come to Christ. Just read the four gospels, that is all you need.
grindael on January 21st, 2010

rvales

“…no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).
mobaby on January 21st, 2010

Ralph – There are some other types of Christians that really talk about Jesus a lot. I would add to your list Bible-believing Presbyterians & Reformed, Lutherans, and Baptists.

I hang around with a lot of Prebyterian/Reformed folks and a few Baptists as well. I don’t name any Lutherans as friends, but I listen online to them a lot and have been to an apologetics conference put on by a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod congregation and all of these Christians talk about Jesus a lot – and His great gift of grace and redemption through His death on the cross. I think iamse7en provided a great opportunity to compare and contrast by posting the link to the Mormon testimonial – Sharon’s insight on the differences is real. I don’t really hear a salvation message in the video testifying to the Book of Mormon/LDS religion; but I do in Steve Kay’s video. Christianity is about Jesus. It’s about a God who loved us enough to live for us, He loved us with all His heart. A God who cared enough to die on the cross for us – that’s how much He loved us. He gave everything for us. He has done enough, rest in Him.
falcon on January 22nd, 2010

In Mormonism it’s all about Joseph Smith, the BoM, the Mormon church and the current prophet. It’s the cult of Smith worship. Mormons can’t deny this. That’s what the Mormon testimony is all about.
When I testify to my faith in Jesus, it’s about my faith in Jesus. It’s not about Billy Graham, the Bible, and certainly not about some Christian denomination. In fact a Christian who’d mention faith in anything but Christ would be seen as being weird and in need of correction.
I don’t hear the Lutherans singing songs to Martin Luther or the Methodists to John Wesley. Anyone ever hear of a hymn to the apostle Paul?
I grew-up Catholic and the whole veneration of the saints and Mary is a real put-off to me. The doctrine of Mary being coredemtrist with Christ makes me shudder. I remember singing “On this day oh beautiful mother; on this day we give you our love. Near thee Madonna closely we hover…..” Man, how did I remember that? That’s what happens when you go to mass everyday (except Saturday).
I can give all sorts of references to all of the spiritual manifestations attached to Mary. Does that make the Catholic doctrine true?
The Catholic church doesn’t do this, but there is someone who sells a statue of Saint Joseph to people wanting to sell their homes. What you do is buy this “kit” with the statue and a prayer. The person is suppose to bury the statue in the front yard and repeat this prayer everyday. Your house will then sell. People testify to this as working and being true. So I guess it must be true and would be part of an effective testimony.
setfree on January 22nd, 2010

WJ, THAT was funny

I’m not sure I’ve seen you out here before. Welcome!
Olsen Jim on January 22nd, 2010

It is interesting that ancient Israel missed the spirit of the Law of Moses- completely losing sight of the whole point. The modern Evangelical whose religion is hyper-believism makes a similar mistake, only to the opposite extreme. Apostate Israel saw no role for grace through the atonement, apostate modern EVs see next to no role for obedience to law and discipleship.

They like to think that when Jesus said “it is finished” on the cross, that meant nothing ever would need to be done after that. The next step in that thought process is that all activity stops- all decisions, behavior, choices- heck, why shouldn’t it apply to everything in the universe. No electrons moving around nuclei, etc. etc. You see how a thing can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

Funny how LDS are criticized for placing too much credit with the BOM, yet it is the EVs who literally worship the Bible. Should we compare how much credit is given to the Bible by EVs to the credit given to the BOM by LDS? And EVs hold Paul in at least as high esteem as LDS hold Joseph Smith.
Free on January 22nd, 2010

Hi OJ – Is there a possibility that your lens has become a little distorted … at least toward those who are followers of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures, and are not members of your church?

Is there a possibility that you lump all non-members of your church and followers of Jesus Christ as “hyper believers”? I understand how this can make you and your religion seem superior. Maybe…maybe not. Just asking. Such bigotry is not uncommon. I used to be a member of your church, and I have witnessed the smugness of lds leaders and members toward other faiths.

The earnest followers of Jesus Christ that I know of, believe the following scripture:

“For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH; and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God; not as result of WORKS, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God PREPARED BEFOREHAND so that we would WALK IN THEM.” (Ephesians 2:8-10}

Also: “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” –James 2:18

James is reminding us that the kind of “faith” which is required for salvation will produce actions. Painfully missing from the Holy Scriptures in the Bible is all the “hoop jumping” the lds religion requires.

You also wrote “Funny how LDS are criticized for placing too much credit with the BOM…”. What I have seen, experienced and witnessed is that your church doesn’t even resemble what is in the BOM. Your church more closely resembles your doctrine and covenants.

Question: Even though I disagree with your religion, would you consider me your brother?

Much love to all in the name of Jesus Christ. For He and only He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
grindael on January 22nd, 2010

Olsen Jim

That is a pretty funny image, ‘worshipping’ the Bible. Typical Mormon response of taking something to a ridiculous extreme… Like the cross, etc.. But I don’t see the Saviour saying take up your BOM and follow me… In fact wasn’t it smith that had the Bible fetish? He copied enough of it into the BOM didn’t he??

Your early church leaders did quite the opposite, they could not leave well enough alone & in their ’school of the prophets’ & other meetings had to expound on everything to make themselves look like prophets. There are whole discourses by Young & the Utah bunch about Kolob, and Adam & Eve being transplanted from other planets as ressurected beings, then Adam is God, and of course Jesus is the son of Adam who had sex with Mary. Brigham Young even told a story about there being giant caves under the Hill Cumorah with rooms full of plates, etc. But don’t try to find them without the seer stone that Young used to carry around with his diving rod he used to locate the place to build the Salt Lake Temple…

Paul had visions, but kept it at that. Smith and the Kirtland bunch went on and on, always trying to ‘one up’ the prophets in the Bible. EV’s don’t worship the Bible, we give it the respect it is due, because it testifies of Jesus, unlike the BOM which is a shadow copy used to lure unsuspecting marks into the shadow religion of Mormonism. Paul leads us to Jesus. SMith leads us to which god?? I can’t tell there are SO MANY of them…
falcon on January 22nd, 2010

OJ,
What religion are you talking about? I can tell that you pretty much repeat what you’ve been told by the Morg. A little independent study could straighten you out but then you’d have to leave Mormonism.
What more would you like to add to Jesus’ finished work on the cross? There’s more? Like what? It’s Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross plus what(?); going to the Mormon temple, dressing-up like a guy who works in a bakery and repeating Masonic secret passwords and doing secret handshakes. How arrogant are you Mormons?
Christians worship the Bible? I was always under the impression that we worship the God revealed in the Bible. Does it make you feel that Mormonism is the real deal because you create a Christianity that doesn’t exist. The Christianity you present is as fabricated as the Mormonism Smith created.
OK, pay attention.
*”Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:24-26)
*”….if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21)
*”Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’(Galatians 3:11)
How many times do we have to go over this with Mormons before they get it? “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1)
Man this gets tedious. I’ve come to the conclusion that Mormons don’t want to understand this because it blows the whole premise of Mormonism out of the water.
Salvation is a gift that God offers us through faith in Christ and the acceptance of his perfect sacrifice for our sins. Having repented and turned to God, we then walk in a manner that is consistent with our profession of faith. We’re not saved “by” good works, but “for” good works.
grindael on January 22nd, 2010

WJ

Here is Thomas Monson, advocating just that thing: don’t investigate, but believe what we teach you, & don’t rock the boat… what about smith’s quote ‘intelligence gained in this life will rise with us in the resurrection…” I guess it is more important NOT to be a scientist, NOT to try and understand the world around us, NOT to question why there is no scientific evidence to support the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham or anything smith ‘translated’ or had a hand in bringing forth…

“Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.” – Monson, quoted in the Ensign Magazine, Feb. 2001
falcon on January 22nd, 2010

grindael,
Yes indeed it is a mystery why anyone would believe Smith’s religion despite all of the evidence that he and it are a total farce and fabrication. We can never underestimate the desire of someone wanting to believe something. As I’ve mentioned several times, the more outrageous the claim, the more true believers cling to it. It’s a badge of great faith to continue on despite all the information to the contrary.
For exMormons, the tumblers all fell into place and they “got it”. As sure as they were that it was all true they now know just the opposite. Getting past the emotional hook is very difficult. Cults flip a person’s natural thinking and reasoning power.
I often think of what jackg has written; that it took him nine/ten years to get the Mormonism wrung-out of his brain. Even well into his recovery he had a set-back where he wanted it all to be true, but knew it wasn’t. It can take a long time for people to recover from such strong indoctrination especially if they are born into the sect.
But God is faithful and will keep those safe that are His.
Olsen Jim on January 23rd, 2010

Free,

Don’t recall you posting. Nice to meet you.

You ask me “Is there a possibility that you lump all non-members of your church and followers of Jesus Christ as “hyper believers”?

If you read my statement again, you see I referred to “The modern Evangelical whose religion is hyper-believism.” I hold your average Christian in pretty high esteem actually. But as usual, I refer in my comments to the self-righteous, hyper-judgmental evangelicals who spend their time criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ. I find it ironic that they subscribe to a gospel of hyper-believism- not needing obedience or work, yet they are so critical of others.

Your name here (Free) as well as the “hoop jumping” you claim is found in the LDS church leads me to believe that you left the church, like some others, primarily to escape accountability. I am sorry you left the church, no matter what the reason.

And yes- I do consider you a brother.

Grindael- Too many hyper-believers worship the Bible. They have so consistently and fully equated the Bible in so many ways with God Himself, they have become one and the same in their view. In doing so, they actually reject the God who gave the scripture in preference for their legalistic insistence on worshipping the creation (the bible).

And another thing Grindael- do you not get tired of hashing out your same talking points about polygamy, God having sex with Mary, etc. etc. in every thread?

Please come up with an original thought somebody.
Mike R on January 23rd, 2010

O.J.,

Did Steve Kay mention that he worships creation
(the Bible) ? If not, then why would you bring
that up? What does that have to do with Him?

Also, I for one do not get tired of the work
Grindael does here. It certainly sheds light
on the claims of Mormon leaders to be reliable
teachers. Holding leaders accountable for what
they teach, testing them, is nothing new [Rev.2:2
; Acts 17:11]. Mormon leaders have said that you
won’t be misled if you follow them. I think
Grindael has exposed that lofty claim to be
false.
falcon on January 23rd, 2010

OJ,
I don’t know what planet you’re living on, but I’ve yet to meet anyone in the ev. community or those related Christian groups that worships the Bible. I think this is just one more Mormon red herring that allows (Mormons) some cover in clinging to Smith’s invented religion. That’s the whole point of Smith needing a “restoration”. He had to declare Christianity wrong. If he didn’t do this, why would anyone need his “revelation”. They wouldn’t! So you repeat what you’ve been taught in a robotic fashion and it satisfies you as it does most LDS.
I’ve mentioned a few times on this blog, Lyndon Lamborn’s testimony regarding his journey out of Mormonism. He was a life long Mormon with ancestors that went all the way back to the handcart days. A nonMormon mentioned to him Jon Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven” and simply said, “There’s some interesting things about your religion in that book.” Lyndon had enjoyed Krakhauer’s other book “Into Thin Air” and decided to read “Banner”. Well, the rest is history because Lyndon wasn’t willing to surrender his integrity to cling to a religion that was not only false but has done it’s best to hide the truth from its members.

grindael,
I can always tell when a Christian poster is getting under the skin of the Mormons and is being effective. You keep doing what you’re doing. They can’t stand-up to the volume of factual information you present here. It buries their surface level Mormon mottos that they depend on to sustain their belief in the (Mormon) false gospel.
Janet on January 23rd, 2010

“…no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289).

I must agree with the above, and also our Great Beloved Leader Hinckley who stated almost the same.

“Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. … Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.” -Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp.70-71

It is by the Grace of God that all are saved, it is the teaching of JS and the true restoration of all ordinances that allow one to enter into God Kingdom. One can not escape Faith, Baptism, Repentance and the Gift of the HG.
falcon on January 23rd, 2010

Well Janet,
I must at least applaud your honesty even though the teachings of your prophets is wrong. You have made a choice to follow after the “vision/revelation” of Joseph Smith which bears absolutely no resemblance to traditional, orthodox Christianity. You have put your spiritual destiny at the hands of a man (Smith) who was a false prophet. I am always amazed at the excuses and alibis believers in Smith must buy-into in order to accept his claims. Not only does someone embrace a belief that after the first century the Church went into apostasy, but also that the reason Mormonism isn’t in the Bible is because a great conspiracy was hatched to keep it out. Then a follower of Smith has to ignore Smith’s personal history and character which reveals he was nothing more than a clever con man. And to top it off, the BoM, Smith’s revelation, has been conclusively proven to be totally fraudulent and all I can conclude is that someone really has to desire to belief the Smith fantasy to ignore all of the evidence.
Christianity is all about Jesus. Mormonism is all about Joseph. You’ve made your choice and it is Joseph. I’ve made mine and it’s Jesus.
falcon on January 23rd, 2010

So what Mormons have to do is forsake the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God proclaimed by the apostles, and embrace the false god proclaimed by a false prophet, Joseph Smith. This is not good and will end in spiritual destruction for Mormons. The fabric of Mormonism is full of snags, holes and stains.
Mormons have a testimony of a false prophet (Smith), a false book (BoM), a false church (LDS), a living false prophet (Thomas Monson) and a false Jesus (who bears no resemblance to the Jesus of the NT).
Steve Kay testifies in the video that the Bible made no sense to him until he realized that the LDS church and Joseph Smith were both false. He points to the Book of Romans as an example of scripture he couldn’t understand within the context of Mormonism. That’s because Mormonism is a false gospel. Once the cloak of deceit was lifted from him, the Holy Spirit illuminated his spirit and mind and the true Gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed (to him).
When a person’s understanding is clouded by a false belief system, it is not possible to think with clarity. If someone continues to deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ and substitute a false god and a false belief system, they become progressively more hardened against God.
The exMormons who post here have experienced both sides of the spiritual war that is being waged. When they rejected the false prophet Smith, his false gospel and false god he promoted, they were released into the light and a new relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

Lurkers

For a factual video on the First Vision, Go Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPooi2Kfx7o

Some posters here would deceive you with out of context quotes of their own leaders. Go out and purchase the whole Journal of Discourses and read it. If you do, you will seriously question your own religion, and if you are honest you WILL leave it.

What some Mormon posters here fail to notice that in all my posts, I am using many different sources, not the same ones over and over. These ‘talking points’ are not isolated quotes taken out of context, they are the basic fundamental teachings of the Mormon Church that they are now trying to hide, discount and change the meaning of. The reason for going back to ‘the basics’ of Mormonism, is that it was ‘founded’ on these principles. They have not been ‘disproven’ no matter what believing Mormons might say. Instead of countering, the Mormons say we ‘twist’ them, etc. not realizing we have read the material, believed in it and REJECTED IT for what it is, a shadow religion of True Christianity inspired by the fertile mind of Smith & the Dictators of Mormonism..
David Whitsell on January 23rd, 2010

Olsen,

I often find the labels and terms outsiders use towards Christians as illuminating as well as a source of pride for myself. Muslims call us “Um Al Kitab” and Um Al Injeel” The people of the book (Bible) and the people of the gospel. Thse are titles I do not mind.

I also do not mind the title of “hyper-believers”. Being guilty of believing something too much does not seem like a bad thing at all. Unlike you, I do not believe my works will spare me God’s wrath; I think God does that. I do not add to His sparring work with my obedience, even though I obey (not perfectly but I “follow” Him).

I do not hold to the false dichotomy between belief and works that you have. I believe the one will always, to an extent, be present with the other. The questions are “how much” and “in what manner”. I find it poignant that Christians are often accused of antinomialism yet it is they who historically have been the ones who are most evangelistic and the most prone to engage in charitable causes. The Asian Tsumani, and its subsequent relief effort, proved (if anything could ever be proven) that “easy-believism” Christians do works.

I see Mormons, and other religionists that hold that works are a necessary part of exaltation, as not taking their notions to their theological end. If Matt 5:48 really means, “You must become sinless in this lifetime in order to dwell with the fullness of the Godhead” then I would like to see a Mormon who would be honest and say that he/she will very likely be separated from the Godhead for eternity.
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

LURKERS

You can escape the ‘Mormon’ SHADOW VERSIONS of Faith, Baptism, Repentance and the Gift of the HG, by rejecting the false religion of Joseph Smith & the ‘restored priestcraft’ they claim for authority to do these shadow ordinances.

The Great Beloved Dictator of Mormondom will have you vote by rote, deny science and facts, turn a blind eye to history, & deceive you into believing a lie, starting with the phony first vision of smith until you become a robot, unable to think for yourself or do anything contrary to that which your ‘leaders’ prescribe for you to do. This is the great beloved dictatorship founded by smith & contiuned by young & all the rest. Here is a page from history that all should take notice of and impress upon the mind, for this is the real mormonism:
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

“I am sorry that no one has even taken a picture of the [General Conference] audience voting to accept the Church leaders for a new period of office. Every hand in the audience goes up simultaneously. The question of voting “Yes” or “No” on a particular candidate is so mechanical that the hands go up in a unison that is most dramatic.” No member is ever asked to choose between two individuals; he is asked to vote “Yes” or “No” on the official or on the policies of the Church, as the case may be… The officials would be highly indignant if there were any hands raised in opposition and there have been instances where one hand has gone up in opposition and the person attempted to explain the reason for his opposition but such a person is usually ejected…
“I do not want to bother you with the story but I am sure that any student of Sociology who is interested in the problem of authoritarianism would find the Mormon Church a laboratory rich in material for his studies.” - Dean R. Brimhall, letter to Miss Dorothy Kahn, April 17, 1939, Dean R. Brimhall Papers, Box 26, Folder 15, University of Utah Library.
Ralph on January 23rd, 2010

Grindael,

You wrote “deny science and facts, turn a blind eye to history”. I love it when Traditional Christians say this about the LDS church. It makes me laugh for ages – seriously.

I am a scientist, I have been through uni, done a PhD and do research as a profession. I mingle with many scientists from around the world. The split with regards to religion is about 50:50 (from my experience) of atheists/agnostics/skeptics to religious (Christian/Muslim/etc). Out of those who claim a religious background, many are skeptical of the Bible and their religion so are not practicing. The reason being is that there is no proof of God to be seen anywhere whether scientific, historical or archaeological. And science has ‘proven’ the Bible wrong more than once especially when it comes to the creation of the world and its age. Then there is evolution vs creationism for the living organisms on this earth.

As for historical value – yes there are people, events and places in the Bible that concur with history, but there is much that does not. It’s very much like Forrest Gump and other such historical fiction (look the term up in wiki – its been around for millennia). For example historians say that Jerusalem was a city kingdom, not a huge empire as the Bible states. There is contradictory evidence on whether the Israelites destroyed Jericho or a smaller city next to it. Although Moses was supposed to be the adopted son of a pharaoh and led a mass migration out of Egypt, there is no evidence of him or the migration. And the amount of food/water,etc for the exodus for 40 years proves to non-believers that it was impossible.

So Bible believers have to do the same as you claim us LDS do – forgo science and history to believe in it and God.
falcon on January 23rd, 2010

Steve Kay, the young man in the video, had a revelation of Jesus Christ. He didn’t get knocked to the ground as the apostle Paul did, however God revealed Himself to Steve, just like He did to Paul. Steve can apply these portions of Scripture to himself just as all true believers in Jesus Christ can.
“…that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe…..” (Ephesians 1:17-18)
Mormons do not have a “revelation” of God. What they have are the mental meanderings of a false prophet Joseph Smith. As I’m fond of saying, Mormonism isn’t a perfect counterfeit, but it proves to be an effective one when applied to some people.
There is no “continual revelation” in Mormonism; just the same error repeated over and over again. When a Christian receives a revelation of God and of Jesus Christ they are filled with the Holy Spirit and are led to a deeper knowledge and understanding of God. The relationship with Jesus grows deeper and more intimate with time as believers release those things that encumber them and they walk in newness of life.
The fresh revelation of the Spirit develops in those who will yield themselves to Him, the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Those in the Spirit also concur with Paul that, “…those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. (Galatians 5:24-25)
Steve Kay came to Jesus, not a religion, but a personal relationship with the living God.
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

Ralph

Your argument is disingenuous to say the least. Jerusalem IS THERE. How it is described by some is really irrelevant, is it not? Where is Zarahemla? Where are all the other cities from the BOM? Whether the Israelites destroyed Jericho or not, the city is a proven fact. There is no such proof for the Book of Mormon & it looks more hopeless every day. Mormon leaders have spouted off on every topic under the sun, even claiming men on the moon. Try to pin them down on the BOM geography & you have statements like this from George Q. Cannon in 1890:

“The brethren who lecture on the lands of the Nephites or the geography of the Book of Mormon are not united in their conclusions. No two of them, so far as we have learned, are agreed on all points, and in many cases the variations amount to tens of thousands of miles. These differences of views lead to discussion, contention and perplexity; and we believe more confusion is caused by these divergences than good is done by the truths elicited.”

Why don’t they ask God, as has been requested time after time? Even ‘Q’ says this:

“The First Presidency has often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so. Nor are we acquainted with any of the Twelve Apostles who would undertake such a task. The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest [a map]. The word of the Lord or the translation of other ancient records is required to clear up many points now so obscure….” – Juvenile Instructor, Jan. 1, 1890.

You have a ‘prophet’ handy, have him ‘reveal’ to us where the location is! Why have they not, obvious answer: they can’t tell us the location of a fictional place. The only thing left to do is say: “I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.”
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

The argument of science vs. the bible is an easy one and often overlooked by so many. Yes, there was a greater burden on those of former ages to accept things totally on faith, and when science conflicts with faith, then yes, we go back to faith as believing Christians.

What Mormons have done though, is box themselves into a corner with the statements of their prophets & Smith’s BOM. There is just no historical setting for it AND THERE SHOULD BE. There is nothing there, even with all of the science we have today. Why? Again, obvious answer. Read, for example this quote:
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

“The terms cattle, horses, sheep and so on are mentioned at several points in the Nephite record. And it is dismaying to some who wish to be dismayed, I believe and a few others who (honestly) wish an answer could be provided why there are not cows like we mean cows, horses like we mean horses, sheep like we mean sheep. The fact is that all the ancient studies say those animals simply were not present in the New World. Period. They were not here.” – John Sorenson, LDS Apologist, FARMS article from their website

Is anything scientifically going to ‘magically appear’ to clear up the obvious lies of Smith? I’ll leave that to your scientific mind to rationalize. You have a whole lot of Mormons now trying to explain away geography, and science & say that these are spiritual books and faith is all you need. That is fine in the time of Smith, but we do not live then.

As for creationism Vs. what is in the Bible, again, we have our faith in Jesus, and things NOT necessary for our salvation are often bandied about. Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, the BOM is necessary, and they are stuck with it and the statements made about it by their leaders.
grindael on January 23rd, 2010

How does ’science’ reconcile this quote? (One of many like it) Again, you have them from apostles & prophets who are supposed to know what they are talking about…

“The Lamanites, now a down-trodden people, are a remnant of the house of Israel. The curse of God has followed them as it has done the Jews, though the Jews have not been darkened in their skin as have the Lamanites.” – Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, v. 22, p. 173

The darkened skin brought on by sin, is just plain ignorant. The Mormons have tried to purge out of the BOM & the references to them becoming ‘white’ and delightsome… Which hasn’t happened at all, even to those Indians that have become Mormons…

And then we have DNA:

“So far, DNA research has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Instead, genetic data have confirmed that migrations from Asia are the primary source of American Indian origins… While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested in the Book of Mormon.” – Thomas Murphy, Mormon anthropologist, American Apocrypha, 2002, p. 47-48

“I don’t think there is one iota of evidence that suggests a lost tribe from Israel made it all the way to the New World. It is a great story, slain by ugly fact.” – Michael Crawford, anthropologist at University of Kansas, as quoted in Thomas Murphy, Mormon anthropologist, American Apocrypha, p. 53

Smith made up the BOM. It is so obvious, even a cave-man can understand it.
falcon on January 23rd, 2010

We really don’t have to go any further than Smith’s invention of a new form of gods. But if someone is taken in by Smith’s “revelation” then they’ll buy any part of the program including the rejection of the God revealed in the Bible. This is the real crux of the difference between Christianity and the false religion of Mormonism. We can discuss works righteousness and grace and any other subject until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is that all discussions other then “Who is God?” are moot. Since Mormons have chosen to follow a false prophet and his false god, there really isn’t any basis for any other discussion when it comes to religious doctrine.
Now grindael has done a good job of pointing out how the BoM is a work of fiction. Notice I didn’t say a “good” work of fiction. I believe Samuel Clemens called it “chloroform in print.” Another critic said that if you removed “and it came to pass” from the BoM, there would be nothing left.
The Community of Christ has figured out the deal and have given their members the option of seeing it as a “spiritual” book. Grant Palmer said that the BoM is 25% King James Bible, 25% Christian revivalism, 25% things that were common in the environment of the time, and 25% Smith’s own creativity. He also said that when people respond to the “spirit” (I’d say ambiance) of the BoM its the revivalism.
So, in Smith, we have a guy who rejected Christianity and God and invented his own god and his own scripture. As we see from the Mormon posters here, the emotional hook of Mormonism is deeply set.
Janet on January 23rd, 2010

“Horse. There have been a number of horse bones discovered in America that might date to Book of Mormon times. The surviving remains from such finds are currently undergoing testing to determine their antiquity.”

Source,
John L. Sorenson, “Once More: The Horse,” Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed., John W. Welch (Salt Lake C

Claims are one thing, not everything that ever existed has been found, to argue logical surety, is arguing from ignorance or silence. Some were convinced that Camels were unknown in Egypt. Not true by todays research, scholars now realize camels did exist, and state that from prehistoric to the present is now a known fact.

Janet.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 24th, 2010

Olsen Jim wrote

They have so consistently and fully equated the Bible in so many ways with God Himself, they have become one and the same in their view. In doing so, they actually reject the God who gave the scripture in preference for their legalistic insistence on worshipping the creation (the bible).

This is laughable; a Mormon who claims to speak on behalf of the “God who gave the scripture”.

OK, OJ, which “god” gave us the scripture? Jesus? Heavenly Father? Heavenly Father’s Father? Heavenly Father’s Father’s Father?

Maybe it was the Egyptian deity Min (who appears on the Book of Breathing …ahem… Book of Abraham).

Which one of these distinct and separate persons are you speaking for?

What happens when they present mutually opposing obligations on us as believers? How can I keep them all happy?

And, how do you regard this “god’s” creation (the Bible)? All I have ever seen posted from you and other LDS is that when it contradicts you, you simply ignore it.

I can only infer that, like Steve Kay, whenever you saw something you didn’t like, you binned it under the heading “improperly translated”.

That’s laugh out loud funny. If you really want “improperly translated”, take a look at the Book of Abraham.

Does that mean I can ignore everything that Joseph Smith wrote? I mean, what JS wrote was supposed to be the Word of God too. So, what’s the difference between his writings and the Bible?

You berate Evs for not taking the Word of God seriously (and you so want to be true, despite all that has been posted here). Your case, however, might have not be so ludicrous if you would at least attempt to abide by your own advice.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

(Matt 7:3).
Janet on January 24th, 2010

Who is God? http://www.paluxybaptist.org/pdfs/Teaching/CL_Mormon_Concept_of_God.pdf

“A being who is subject to the
laws and principles of a universe He did not create.”

“Here, then, is
eternal life—to know the only wise and true God;
and you have got to learn how to be gods
yourselves, and be kings and priests to God, the
same as all gods have done before you, namely, by
going from one small degree to another, and from a
small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace,
from exaltation to exaltation, until
you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are
able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in
glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting
power.”

“Mormonism therefore teaches that certain basic
realities have always existed and are indestructible even
by God. In other words, God came from the universe; the
universe did not come from God (although he did form
this planet out of preexistent matter). For Mormonism,
God, like man, is merely another creature in the universe.
In the Mormon universe, God is not responsible for
creating or sustaining matter, energy, natural laws, human
personhood, moral principles, the process of salvation (or
exaltation), or much of anything. In fact, instead of the
universe being subject to Him (which is the biblical
view), the Mormon God is subject to the universe. The
Mormon God is far from omnipotent. He is not the God
of the Bible.”
falcon on January 24th, 2010

Janet,

You are a beauty and breath of fresh air here on MC. I continue to give you credit, you do have a firm grasp on the Mormon god, such as he is. And Mormons think this god will save them? Evidently not given the need for a personal contribution of sweat and toil on the road to personal deification.
You provide a very good explanation of the false god of Mormonism. Could you please go on an advertising campaign and alert the world as to who the Mormon god is and how he defers from the God of both the OT and NT. This is indeed a monumental day here at MC. Your last two sentences should be posted on billboards across the nation. The message would be:
“THE MORMON GOD IS FAR FROM OMNIPOTENT. HE IS NOT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.” Approved by the General Authorities of the LDS church and its prophet Thomas Monson.
Mormon missionary like to give out the line, when they encounter Christians that, “we believe what you believe” or some derivative of the same.
It’s plain to see why Mormons have to degrade the Bible. It doesn’t support Joseph Smith’s fantasy limited god theory.
There it is, plainly spoken. Mormons have made a very bad choice in rejecting the God of the Bible for a false god of not much substance and power. He can’t even save them. They must save themselves with a little help if needed to reach the god pinnacle. Everyone else gets saved regardless of their faith or lifestyle. This Mormon god is quite a guy!
Mike R on January 24th, 2010

Janet,

I have to agree with Falcon that it sure would
be great if Thomas Monson stated what you just
posted.If he would publically read your post at
next Gen.Conference, or advise the missionaries
to read this during their first visit with people
they contact, it could only help non-Mormons know
where Mormons are coming from etc.
Janet on January 24th, 2010

I would whole heartedly support Thomas Monson in this, to be sure the whole of Christianity has lost the concept of what was once known to the Church of God, I will continue to promote the light and knowledge that at least for me is acceptable and believable. I do not, nor can I speak for others, but the doctrine of a Universe that existed without beginning or end fits nicely with the concept of Eternity. Evangelicals need to articulate what eternity is to them, when they try to refute that God organized, but firmly believe that he created into existence all that is.

Janet.
falcon on January 24th, 2010

Hay Janet,
The bottom line for Christians is that God is sovereign. That’s the God that is revealed in the Bible. I have no problems with Mormons in regard to what they believe as long as they don’t try to promote it as original Christianity. As a side note, Joseph Smith held to a traditional view of God when he started his religion. He later began to mix in other ideas and it was essential that he get people to accept a concept of a defective corrupted Bible. That way he could free flow with his “revelation”. Incidentally, revelation is the tool/tactic that those wishing to go a direction other than the established Christian norm go in developing their own unique religions. That’s why there needs to be a test, a standard by which to hold these folks accountable.
Paul, in his last few sentences to the Romans writes:
“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen” (Romans 16:25-27)
This passage of Scripture gives us a standard by which to judge Joseph Smith’s revelation. Contrary to what Smith said, the Bible tells us that the revelation has taken place already. It has come forth as the prophets foretold in the Scriptures. Paul says “the eternal God”. Emphasis on the word “eternal”. “The only wise God”; emphasis on “only”. Now you have made a decision to follow a revelation that runs contrary to God’s revealed Word. Without a standard by which to compare a revelation, folks will fall head-long into error and apostasy.
mobaby on January 24th, 2010

I was thinking today about religious ideas and testing them for truth while listening to a song – “Bedtime Stories” by Madonna. In this song she says something like “Let’s get unconscious. Words don’t stand for anything, especially sentences…” Okay, you’re probably wondering where this is going. I thought about the Mormon “gospel” and how people are pushed to pray for a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon – which really is an odd proposition. It’s like they are endorsing the spiritualist or Madonna approach to truth – get unconscious – don’t test the BOM based on any facts, just go with a feeling, a sense, an inner testimony – “words don’t stand for anything.” Which is EXTREMELY odd when you think about it. Madonna is endorsing some kind of oneness with the cosmic force spiritualist agenda, but Mormons are asking for belief in a concrete real book and history – with a COMPLETE LACK of actual historical evidence, rather, one should test it based on a feeling or inner spiritual testimony. Don’t trust in the words in the BOM, or look to discern it’s accurate representation of the world – instead trust in a feeling to validate a written history. Odd. Historical evidence can be found in the Americas – why not use those to test and confirm the BOM rather than rely solely on an inner testimony? I think the Madonna approach to truth and religion is completely backwards and opens one up to all kinds of potential deception.
David Whitsell on January 24th, 2010

Mods,

I am hoping that by now you have cross listed all of HankSaint’s ISP’s with all of Janet’s ISP’s. If any of them match, or are even from the same area, I would be more than suspicious. It seems clear to me that they are the same person. It takes more than a mere denial for me to accept that he is not she (if you look at the grammar of the “denial” it is no denial at all); just like a false book will tell you it is true, a false person will tell you he/she is true as well.

If you have already done this then fine, but if you have then please let us know. If you have not then prudence suggests that you do so. If you tell me that you have done so, then I will not insist that Janet is Hanksaint.

However, until you tell me that someone at MRM has done so, then I am not addressing Hanksaint/Richard/whatever as “Janet”. Richard or Hank is a dude’s name and it is more than creepy to call a dude “Janet”.
Janet on January 24th, 2010

There seems to be some confusion as to whom I am. I have no idea who Hanksaint is or what he is accused of. This will be my last reply to any who doubt that I post as Janet, not my real name, but a very fond name of someone who meant a great deal to me in a earlier life. Female true and and though this evangelical seems want not to post to a dude, then he is privileged to not respond to any of my post, it matters not.

Janet.
grindael on January 24th, 2010

The quote Janet uses about horses from Sorenson comes from a book published in 1982. In a more recent book, ‘The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of North America’, published in 1996, it shows that any horse ‘fossils’ found in North America, (Yucatan) were identified as extinct Pleistocene animals, gone LONG BEFORE BOM times:

“Currently, only one site in Mesoamerica supports the hypothesis of human occupation in lowland environments before 12,000 years ago. In the Puuc Hills of northern Yucatan, the lowest levels of excavations reported by R. Velazquez at Loltun Cave have produced some crude stone and bone tools along with the remains of horse, mastodon, and other now extinct Pleistocene animals. Felines, deer, and numerous rodents round out the archaeological assemblage. No radiocarbon dates have been forthcoming for this proposed early components that underlies later ceramic occupations. On the basis of stone tool typology and faunal association, MacNeish has proposed that the lower levels of Loltun Cave are somewhere between 40,000 and 15,000 years old.”

This is taken from an excellent article affirming my first quote by Sorenson that there IS NO EVIDENCE of horses in BOM times. The evidence is JUST NOT THERE, NO MATTER WHAT FARMS SAYS. It also addresses and debunks the ‘Huns’ story they promote at Farms.

Also, the link to the Farms article I quoted from Sorenson has been taken down by Farms. Wonder Why???

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm
Janet on January 25th, 2010

Here we have a Evangelical who is sympathetic to the idea of an older earth then what the Bible claims or many Christians believe, so scientific means and proof are acceptable to a least the idea that earth may be millions of years older then many are want to believe.

http://www.stanford.edu/~jsdaniel/BoM_Meso.html

“What is archeological proof? Due to the nature of archeology, we can never hope to know everything about an ancient civilization. Often believers use this fact to dodge contrary archeological evidence. Only a fraction of the physical implements of a Mesoamerican civilization can possibly be recovered, since the vast majority are biodegraded, buried, or otherwise destroyed. Archeologists do the best they can with the available evidence, but few pretend that the evidence is complete or that a theory is infallible. Thus, archeological evidence is generally positive; in other words, it is very difficult to show that something did not exist archaeologically. Some believers in the Book of Mormon would say, for example, that just because remains of horses have never been found in any site in Mesoamerica does not prove that horses did not exist definitively, since next week horse remains might be found. This seems a bit absurd when carried to such an extreme, but the because new archeological discoveries are constantly being made, it is admittedly difficult to prove the absence of something. Adding to this quandary is the tendency of early Mesoamerican groups to eliminate all remnants of a conquered group, which is attested archaeologically and alluded to in the Book of Mormon. Finally, the majority of the Book of Mormon record concerns 34 A.D., before the better-understood post-classic and classic periods of Mesoamerican archeology. In short, Book of Mormon believers have several forms of rationalization to insulate their belief from the lack of archeological evidence in its favor.
falcon on January 25th, 2010

Romans 16:25-27 should be a wake-up call to anyone holding to Joseph Smith’s revelation(s). A common tactic of false prophets is to declare the accepted revelation and Scripture as false and instead propose that the revelation they have is not just new and improved but the “original” (revelation) that has been lost and now found. The declaration that the accepted Scripture has been tainted or corrupted gives the false prophet free reign in promoting his particular new view.
The above quoted passage of Scripture is plain regarding what the revelation is and who the God is that reveals it.
Paul constantly refers to “my gospel” in his writings. This gospel is not hidden but very plain in all of Paul’s writings. He tells us that the gospel is all about “Jesus”, that it was a “mystery” a “secret” but now it has come forth by the Scriptures of the prophets. This mystery, we are told, has come to us by the command of the “eternal God”. The meaning of eternal is plain. He is the first cause and is not subject to anything but Himself because He is the omnipotent God. Paul further describes God as “the only wise God”. “Only” means he stands alone. There are no others.
In order to get to where Mormons want to go, the Bible has to be ignored. In-the-end Mormonism basically borrows a little from the Bible, a little from folklore, and a lot from the imagination of Joseph Smith and his propensity to take various ideas from others and mold them into his own particular brand of religion.
Steve Kay came out of the darkness of a false gospel into the light of God’s love. Through Jesus He found eternal life and peace with God.
grindael on January 25th, 2010

“This seems a bit absurd when carried to such an extreme,”

It is, especially with all the Mormon quotes the guy uses in his paper. This has all been refuted, nicely, by this website:

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm

All apologists…all the time…
Ralph on January 26th, 2010

So Grindael,

Are you saying that some of the stories in the Bible are just that – made up stories? The Bible describes the Israelite kingdom ruled from Jerusalem as a large kingdom, but most archaeologists say that is false, it was just a city kingdom, and that’s OK with you? The Israelites destroyed a city down the road from Jericho, whereas the Bible states it was Jericho – another fictional story from the Bible and your willing to still believe the Bible is true and infallible.

I also agree with Janet, you are willing to agree with and use scientific evidence that supports what you want to say about the BoM, even though it proves the Bible wrong. You come up with the ‘DNA evidence does not support the BoM’ statement. If you really did the research into it, the DNA evidence you are using to prove the BoM wrong also proves the Bible wrong. I went to the original manuscripts in the journals that many LDS critics use to make these statements and have read them. They place the last mutations at over 12000 years ago – far outside the Biblical range. The fall was 6000 years ago, which means that any fossil evidence can only be that old as that is when death first came into this world through Adam and Eve.

So if you want to use DNA evidence you also have to hold the Bible to the same standard.
Janet on January 26th, 2010

“Archaeological artifacts are not found on demand; their discovery is essentially due to chance. A classic example is the lion. The Bible mentions lions in the Holy Land in the time of Samson (Judges 14), David (1 Samuel 17), Jeroboam I (1 Kings 13), Ahab (1 Kings 20), and at the captivity of the ten tribes (2 Kings 17). Yet no lion remains were found in Israel until 1988, and the single specimen found at that time remains the only one to date.2 In other words, archaeologists had been excavating in Israel for more than a century and a quarter before they found the first evidence for lions.

Similarly, excavations in Mesoamerica have not yet turned up convincing evidence for horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon. But since archaeological work in that area has been going on for a much shorter period of time than in the Holy Land, with less than one percent of the Preclassic (Book of Mormon period) sites having seen excavation, this should not surprise anyone. In a recent discussion published in Biblical Archaeology Review, a representative of the biblical maximalist camp advocated a wait-and-see attitude on biblical archaeology.3 LDS scholars recommend a similar approach to Book of Mormon archaeology.”

Insights: An Ancient Window

Insights Volume – 17, Issue – 5
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute
Janet on January 26th, 2010

[Janet, please review the Mormon Coffee comment policy. Please note the section that reads "Rule #3: Unless permission is otherwise granted by a moderator, links or references to Mormon apologetic material by Mormons must be accompanied by a summary (in your own words) of the key arguments made." Thanks.]

In the nineteenth century, some archaeologists made a concerted effort to find evidence for the Bible. They had some success, especially in the first decades of this century. But most of what they discovered neither directly supported the biblical story nor contradicted it. Then came discoveries at Jericho that disclosed that none of the walls dated to the time in which archaeologists had placed the conquest of Joshua.

Because of such discoveries, the term “biblical archaeology” has fallen out of favor. Most archaeologists no longer look for evidence to support the Bible, but are content to let the sherds fall where they may. Even the maximalists tend to reject the historicity of some parts of Bible, especially in the accounts of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan.

Source,
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=17&num=5&id=49
falcon on January 26th, 2010

If someone, anyone, comes to me and says they have a “revelation”, I’m going to check it out by testing it. My test isn’t whether or not I’m getting a confirming “feeling”. Now I know in Mormonism the confirming feeling is a huge deal as it supposes the person receiving the feeling is hyperspiritual and super-connected to God/god. Believing in and trusting one’s feelings as a test for spiritual truth is a sure formula for disaster and a perfect set-up for being misled.
Notice when Steve Kay was challenged regarding his Mormonism he responded by studying the Bible. In fact he took quite a long time to do this. It’s especially noteworthy that when he took off his Mormon glasses, he began to see the Word of God clearly and understood it like he hadn’t before.
Trusting in Joseph Smith’s visions/revelations won’t lead anyone to God. If fact, trusting in Joseph Smith will lead someone away from god and into a false religious system of paganism. In Smith’s religion there are many gods and men may progress to become gods. This in effect usurps the authority and recognition of the One, true, eternal God. In Smith’s system, the gods are subject to universal laws. The Smith gods are not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. These gods are pretty much limited by whatever universal principles and laws that happen to be there. What a marvelous snare Satan developed and the bait is irrisistable.
Our Mormon friends would probably rather discuss whether or not horses and whatever else that are mentioned in the BoM really existed. All I have to know is who they think God is. Everything after that is pretty trivial.
falcon on January 26th, 2010

“From its inception, the revelatory tradition in Mormonism engendered strife. The doctrine of modern, continuing revelation, begun by Joseph Smith and accepted by most groups claiming descent, leaves social order open to counterclaims that strike at the heart of ecclesiastical order. If one person may speak for God, why may not another? By claiming an ongoing dialogue with divinity, Joseph Smith opened the door to a social force he could barely control.” (Richard L Saunders, “The Fruit of the Branch)
In his book “Under the Banner of Heaven”, Jon Krakauer explores the revelatory impact on Mormonism and what it has wrought.
In the seventh chapter of the book he presents the prophet Robert Crossfield. He was a devout convert to Mormonism, married in the temple, very active in the religion. In March of 1961 “the still small voice of the Lord” suddenly came to him, revealing that he had been chosen to serve as God’s mouthpiece-that he was a holy prophet of the Lord. And the very first words God uttered to him that day affirmed the correctness of D & C 132 and the principle of plural marriage.”
He had more revelations and it confirmed what his mentor had said. That is, “….the leaders of the LDS Church had ‘cut themselves off from the voice of the Lord’ and betrayed some of Joseph Smith’s most important tenets-including the sacred principle of plural marriage”.
It seems that by 1972 Mr. Crossfield had received twenty-three revelations. He collected them into a single volume titled “The First Book of Commandments”.
One revelation that he received was: “I will raise up one mighty and strong among you, having the scepter of justice in his hand, who shall grind in pieces all those who would oppose My work, for the prayer of the righteous shall not go unheeded.” He believed he might just be “the one”.
Well, I guess if he had a revelation, and he sincerely believes it, it must be true. What can anyone test it against anyway?
falcon on January 27th, 2010

In the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, the supreme leader holds the titles of President, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. According to Jon Krakauer:
“This is because from its inception, Mormonism was a faith in which religious truth and ecclesiastical authority were supposed to be derived from a never-ending string of divine revelations. In the beginning, Joseph Smith had emphasized the improtance of personal revelation for everyone. Denigrating the established churches of the day, which were more inclined to filter the word of God through institutional hierarchies, he instructed Mormons to seek direct ‘impressions from the Lord,’ which should guide them in every aspect of their lives. Quickly, however, Joseph Saw a major drawback to such a policy if God spoke directly to all Mormons, who was to say that the truths He revealed to Joseph had greater validity than contradictory truths He might reveal to somebody else? With every one receiving revelations, the prophet stood to lose control of his followers.”
Joseph Smith was very good at receiving revelations to solve all sorts of organizational and personal challenges. Low and behold Joseph got another revelation from the Lord; “No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations n this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.” Well the genie was out of the bottle (Krakauer perceptively tells us) and “many of these Saints quietly ignored the edict and continued to heed the voice of God, whether He was talking to them about matters of theology or personal issues.” The result of course was that since 1830 there have been at least 200 splinter Mormon groups from Smith’s original creation. This is an on-going process within Mormonism.
In order to make his religion “take” Joseph Smith had to convince people that the Bible was not a reliable standard for judging revelation. He also had to convince them that the established Christian faith had gone into error and apostasy.
falcon on January 27th, 2010

Well, in a direct way, Joseph Smith and the SLC LDS church is getting a taste of their own medicine when it comes to getting labeled “apostates”. The many splinter groups would be quick to apply that label to not only Smith but the mainline LDS church.
“On the night of August 27, 1894, the angel Moroni-the same Moroni who had given the gold plates to Joseph Smith sixty-seven years earlier-visited (John) Koyle in a dream. Moroni guided Koyle to the top of a nearby mountain, where the ground opened to admit them deep into the earth. There, Moroni led Koyle through nine enormous caverns over-flowing with gold. It had been gathered by the Nephites of the BoM, but all that wealth had made them prideful and covetous, so God had taken it away from them some two thousand years ago and hidden it deep beneath this mountain, along with ancient records documenting the entire history of the Mormons forebears.” (“Under the Banner of Heaven” p.81)
Now John Koyle got some startling “revelations” from Moroni. The gold, you see, would stay hidden in the mountain until the Second Coming of Jesus. Now there would be all sorts of calamity on the earth but not to worry. At precisely the right time John Koyle would dig up the Nephite gold and provide for the faithful. Moroni was good enough to tell Koyle where to start digging. So in September of 1894 Koyle got a claim on a hillside east of Salem a community twelve miles south of Provo, Ut. It became known as the Dream Mine and Koyle got the financial support of many faithful Mormons for the venture. How many shares of stock were sold? Try seven hundred thousand. A shaft was dug and by the mid-1940s it reached 3,400 feet. Well no gold was found but remember Moroni revealed it wouldn’t happen until right before Christ’s return.
Koyle was eventually excommunicated by the Mormon church but today thousands of his followers still believe the prophecy. Who would be so naive? The same ones who believe Joseph Smith’s “revelations”.
Enki on January 27th, 2010

falcon
“If fact, trusting in Joseph Smith will lead someone away from god and into a false religious system of paganism.”

Well, not really. That person would still be worshiping jesus.
falcon on January 27th, 2010

Enki,
Sorry, we’ve been down this road before. The Jesus described in Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Mormon Jesus, in fact, bears no resemblance to the Biblical Jesus. I think even Mormons would agree with this. Mormons have a different god(s), a different Jesus, and a different Holy Spirit.
Joseph Smith made a decision to reject the God of the Bible for his own (false) god. Mormon leaders have been plain in expressing this. It’s a fact, however, that they don’t like to announce openly because their missionary efforts would be hampered if people knew the truth up front.
Steve Kay reached a point where he had to make a decision as to if he should continue following the Mormon false god or God. He chose the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ. Having believed he then was saved and the Holy Spirit came to indwell him as God promises all those who receive the free gift of eternal life He offers us through faith.
The Mormon “jesus” is not the Biblical Jesus. Mormonism is a religion that defies God, teaching that men can become minigods.
grindael on January 27th, 2010

Ralph

You can ‘hold out’ for evidence on the BOM. That is your prerogative. As for the Bible, there is enough evidence there to show that what those writers described did take place. Faith fills in the blanks in history. In the case of the BOM though, there is NOTHING there. ZIP. Even looking at the Maya and the Aztecs, it is obvious to all that those societies did not spring from a society that worshipped Jesus. There is no correlation and you have no evidence to prove it otherwise. There have been many many discoveries verifying the Bible, while there have been NONE for the BOM. Why are your prophets so strangely silent about BOM locations? Seems to me they could put the matter to rest easily, but will not. Why? Because they can’t because the BOM is fiction.
Ralph on January 27th, 2010

Grindael,

Here is an interesting quote for you about Biblical archaeology from one of the world’s leading Biblical archaeologists William G. Dever, –

“Archaeology certainly doesn’t prove literal readings of the Bible…It calls them into question, and that’s what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so.” From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the “archeological revolution.” Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that’s very disturbing to some people.”

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the ‘larger than life’ portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence….I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed ’stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information…

(bold mine)

Yes, we can find things that concur with history and places like Jerusalem, but we also know that Washington DC is a city and that the Vietnam war occurred – does that make Forrest Gump true?
Ralph on January 27th, 2010

You asked where Zarahemla was – just because we can’t go into the jungle and find a sign saying ‘Zarahemla This Way’ does not mean that it did not exist. If you read the BoM, 3 Nephi 8, you will find that a great many cities were totally destroyed after the Crucifixion. Some were burnt to the ground, others were sunk into the earth or ocean, while others were taken up into mountains. Zarahemla was burnt to the ground, so there would be very little left showing its existence these days.

As far as there being no evidence of the BoM, there is a book called ‘Discovering Lehi’ which follows the journey from Jerusalem to the land of Bountiful on the Arabian Peninsula. This shows that many of the things that happened on the journey in the BoM are plausible including the land of fruit and wild honey. Many of the things described in the BoM about this journey are things that very few if any people knew in JS’s days. Even today very few know that there is an area on the Arabian Peninsula that is not desert but has plenty of rain and is fertile and full of trees.

The city Nahom has been found on the Arabian Peninsula – you can say it’s a coincidence or just good research by JS, but it was described in the BoM as a place where there were mass burials. The city NHM found on the Arabian Peninsula was used as a burial place in ancient times – is this also a coincidence besides the name? But wait – going on your comment about Jerusalem and how we can find it today then the Bible is true – well we can find NHM today so the BoM must be true.

Why doesn’t the GAs ask for revelation? It does not work that way – we do not dictate to God what to give us in the way of revelation. If He wants to give it to us He will. But the Bible and the BoM are books of faith. Ultimately they will be proven true to all, including the non-believers.
Janet on January 27th, 2010

Fiction or true. Mormons still believe that it is the capstone of our religion. Many have tried to disprove the BOM and come up miserably short. What is so frustrating to those who are investigating is the volume of different theories that have been used to criticize the BOM, when it would seem obvious that only one theory is needed. There are those who have tried to prove plagiarism of Eighteenth and Nineteenth century books, but when the single two and thee word phrases are compared it still comes up short as to thoughts and ideas.

So what is your theory.

Janet.
grindael on January 27th, 2010

Ralph,

Your comments are … interesting. As to revelation in the Mormon Church, it is just not done that way now…by convenience. Look at your history. Smith was asked constantly about this and that, and always had an answer…to things that could not be proved. Is asking for a revelation…dictating to God? Gee, with the fate of the world resting on whether this is the true church or not, I would think your God would be happy to oblige… but as it is all fiction, why should He be bothered? Your prophet hinckley got around this by saying you ‘had enough’ revelation.
Again, NHM could mean anything… and I have to laugh at the ‘grasping’ of your Mormon scholars. Let’s keep to the evidence in this hemisphere, where THERE IS NONE. NADA. ZIP. ZERO, and SILENCE from the one man on earth who could, but chooses not to … enlighten the world. And just like every other mormon i’ve encountered, you attack the Bible when backed into a corner on the BOM. Gee, could you get original, like you claim I am not?
grindael on January 27th, 2010

janet

Can you say NOVEL? View of the Hebrews? Treasure hunting, peep-stone looker? Adulterer? The ‘capstone’ of your religion came from a c-h-a-r-l-a-t-a-n. Who is frustrated? I have not heard one refutation of the above evidence, only the denigration of the Bible, and your cutting and pasting skills from apologist sites. When it comes down to meaty comment, you are lacking. When any real evidence comes along (take a look at the Kinderhook Plates & the BOA) smith comes out to be what he was, a liar and a phony. P.S. The plagiarism is proven.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 28th, 2010

It looks to me like Janet and Ralph are holding out a mythological view of scripture.

What I mean by a “mythological” view is a kind of “the important thing about these stories is that they tell me whom I am”, in contrast to a “literal” view, which is kind of “the important thing about these stories is that they are a factual record of what actually happened”.(Maybe these are the wrong terms, and someone else has a better definition, but I’ll use them).

The way I read it is that Ralph and Janet are saying something like “if its OK to believe the Bible in a mythological sense, then its OK to believe the BoM in a mythological sense too”. It follows, then that if we believe in Bible/BoM mythologically, then the question of evidence is irrelevant.

How does this fit with the Bible? My view is that different Christians fall into the whole spectrum, from those who believe it mythologically, to those who believe it literally. I suspect that in each of those individuals, there are a range of mythological/literal perspectives on different aspects of the Bible.

I don’t have a problem with this. I also suspect that the Biblical record is more accurate than William G Dever might believe, but I’m willing to take the archaeological evidence into account in my interpretation of scripture (and vice versa).

How does this fit with the BoM? Well, it becomes much more problematic. The problem is that the LDS movement wants us to view the BoM literally. This is apparent in Joseph Smith’s statements and, more recently, the excommunication of the (Australian) geneticist who contradicted the BoM’s genealogy of North America’s indigenous population.

I wonder that if the LDS movement had stopped at the BoM, and not expanded its One True Prophet/Church paradigm, then Christians might be presented with a real dilemma. For example, we might view the BoM apocryphally, like the Shepherd of Hermas; in other words, an interesting read, but not theologically authoritative.

…ctd…
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 28th, 2010

…ctd…

However, it is LDS HQ that has attached all the baggage about Joseph Smith being a prophet, the LDS being the One True Church, such that we can’t accept the one without accepting the other. Indeed the BoM is presented as the proof of Joseph Smith’s prophetic credentials, and there appears to be little point in promoting it for any other reason.

So, in taking a mythological view of the BoM, Ralph and Janet are going in a different direction to the movement that they claim to represent.

Further, by consigning the Bible to the purely mythological realm in an attempt to establish the veracity of the BoM, they do a great disservice to it. This is because, as the archaeological evidence shows, the Bible does record factual events, at least in part, and as such it cannot be viewed as a purely mythological fiction.

I find the history of the Bible incredibly interesting. Given that it was written over several centuries by people from a wide range of backgrounds, I find it fascinating to read how the later authors related to the writings of their ancestors. A particular concern of the NT authors appears to have been to consider the stories (“myths” if you like) that they had received in scripture, and take them to their ultimate, logical conclusion. One way to view this is that the Bible underwent a very prolonged peer review, spanning many generations, and it includes “real” history.

The BoM, by contrast, was written by a small group of people at a single point in history (1830’s North America) with no historicity whatsoever. It is the quintessentially pure mythological fiction.

It is wrong to tar the Bible with the same brush as the BoM.
Janet on January 28th, 2010

Straw-man tactics, stating an assumption as a fact. How important is it to Evangelicals to make up manufactured criticism, and then state it as fact? As a believer both in the Holy Bible and all other LDS Scripture, never did I not believe in a literal historical story and I am completely opposed to the mythological realm. Even thought archaeological evidence is in a constant progress of findings and research. I have conviction that eventually even hard evidence will be forthcoming in all areas of Biblical and BOM studies.

It’s also interesting that DNA is brought into the study with the express disapproval assumed of the GA’s in which it is supposed someone is excommunicated for bringing forth evidence that contradicts our beliefs without mentioning names or source. Why not just state that DNA by a LDS scientist was examined and found to be a contradiction of LDS claims of Hebrew Genetics. Unless you show proof that he was excommunicated for his or her beliefs it is all irrelevant to making your point.

Janet
Aaron Shafovaloff on January 28th, 2010

On the Jericho issue, here is a newly uploaded talk by Dr. Bryant Wood on YouTube.
Ralph on January 28th, 2010

Martin,

Did you miss my last sentence? I wrote “Ultimately they will be proven true to all, including the non-believers.” I believe in them fully as true and factual, not myths. All I am pointing out is that for anyone to believe in the Bible properly, they have to ignore scientific and archaeological evidence, just as Grindael accused us LDS doing to belive in the BoM. But since Grindael chooses to use scientific evidence to refute the BoM which also refutes the Bible, then I am wondering about how he believes in the Bible, whether he thinks some things are stories or if he believes that it is all true.

Janet,

Martin is referring to a Dr Simon Southerton who works for the CSIRO in Canberra. He is a plant biologist but has done paper research into the DNA evidence from around the world and has come to his own conclusion that it does not support the BoM. He has written a blog (and I believe a book) about it. He and his family and siblings and their families have left the church when he discussed his findings with them. He has since been excommunicated. I have met his stake president and found that there was much more to the excommunication story than just him looking into the DNA evidence. Exactly what, the stake president did not say, as that is confidential information, but the DNA fiasco did play a part, but there were other things in play.

Martin,

DNA evidence disproves the Bible, as well as migratory evidence and archaeological evidence. The fall took place about 6000 years ago. That is when death first came into the world – meaning that all fossil evidence of dead animals and humans can only be 6000 years old. Scientistat are finding skeletons that are 100000 years old. Big discrepency. That last major mtDNA mutation that is used to distinguish between races occurred more than 12000 years ago and the first about 50000. Unless Adam and Eve were procreating that long ago with everyone of their children immortal, how did these mutations occur?
Ralph on January 28th, 2010

Then there is migration to consider. The last migration that can be found to the American continent occurred about 10000 to 15000 years ago. There were others before then, but that was the last. This does not concur with the Bible as Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden until after the fall some 6000 years ago. Unless they had immortal offspring that decided to move house. Hell, the Australian aboriginals were supposed to have been here in Australia between 40000 and 70000 years ago. This was done by dating skeletons found in archaeological digs. Now this really contradicts tha Bible. So using the ‘DNA evidence proves the BoM wrong’ is shooting one’s self in the foot as it also proves the Bible wrong. Why use it then?
falcon on January 28th, 2010

“Gone With the Wind” or any other historical novel has more credibility than the BoM. I can’t believe that seemingly rational people would even consider the BoM than anything other than a work of fiction. I’ve had contact with someone from the Community of Christ and have been told that their members have a choice as to whether or not the BoM is a “spiritual” book or actual history.
Well even as a “spiritual” book it fails miserably. Smith copied the Bible a bunch, grabbed some ideas that where common regarding Indians being descendants of Jews, threw in some Christian revivalism and a bunch of homespun ideas and had himself a tome that Samuel
Clemens called chloroform in print.
A person has got to really want to believe this fiction in order to go through all the mental gymnastics necessary to believe and defend it. That’s why the test is a “burning in the bosom”. A person could generate the same emotion reading other books and no one would claim it as a witness or revelation from God.
Again, this discussion reveals that if someone has a desire to believe in something or somebody they will do all the mind bending necessary to make it work. This is a good discussion to reveal the psychology of the true believer.
grindael on January 28th, 2010

An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.

After a 3 hour disciplinary council meeting on Sunday in Canberra, Simon Southerton, author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Book of Mormon, was informed his relationship with his religion of 30 years would be officially severed, Southerton said in an email to The Associated Press.

Southerton was charged by church authorities with adultery, but finally excommunicated for “having an inappropriate relationship with a woman,” he said.

Southerton doesn’t deny the relationship, which occurred two years ago, while he was separated from his wife. The Southertons have since reconciled, & his wife testified on behalf of her husband.

Southerton said he refused to discuss his personal life with church leaders on Sunday, instead asking them why he was not answering to charges of apostasy for having widely published on the internet and in his book his doubts about the church and his beliefs about DNA science. AdvertisementAdvertisement

Church leaders responded, Southerton wrote, by saying they were not avoiding the “issue of apostasy & that the charge they were investigating was more important.”

“I am now convinced that they were intent on avoiding a council on the charge of apostasy,” Southerton said in his email to the AP.

“I was clearly instructed before the meeting that if I attempted to talk about ‘DNA’ and my apostasy that the council would be immediately shut down and that it would be completed in my absence.”

A former church bishop, he voluntarily left the Mormon church seven years ago, after deciding he could no longer believe some of its teachings.

His book, published in 2004, outlines how existing DNA data for American Indians does not support the beliefs that the continent’s earliest inhabitants were descendants of Israelite Lehi.
grindael on January 28th, 2010

The church teaches that Lehi was an ancient seafarer who came to the New World about 600 BC, according to church founder Joseph Smith’s 1830 Book of Mormon. Smith claimed to have translated the text from inscribed gold plates unearthed from an upstate New York hillside. His book is viewed by many members as a literal record of God’s dealings with early Americans.

Australian church authorities have discussed the book at length with Southerton, who works as a plant geneticist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and believes church concerns about his writing are the underlying reason they sought his excommunication.

“I also told (church leaders) that it was extremely unusual for the church to pursue someone who hadn’t had anything to do with the church for the last seven years,” Southerton wrote.

Southerton plans to appeal the decision to the Mormon church’s Salt Lake City-based leaders, known as the First Presidency.

Ultimately, if the decision stands, Southerton’s name will be removed from official church rolls in Salt Lake City.

Southerton’s excommunication makes him the seventh author from the Salt Lake City-based Signature Books, a publishing house for Western and Mormon studies, to be released from the church after publishing a work critical of Mormon beliefs.

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_simonsoutherton.html

Here is the story that Martin was referring to. Whatever this janet person might say, these are the FACTS, that many authors are being ex-communicated for dis-believing the ‘official’ church history propagated by the current church hierarchy. Why did they pursue this man for adultery, when smith was doing it with knowledge of the church for years? How hypocritical is this? The man admitted his apostasy, but the church would not pursue it, even though they had no proof of the adultery. Again we see the devious and loveless tactics of a cult worried more about image than it’s members.
grindael on January 28th, 2010

Perhaps Ralph

You ought to re-evaluate the DNA quotes I used above from MORMON Thomas Murphy:

“So far, DNA research has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Instead, genetic data have confirmed that migrations from Asia are the primary source of American Indian origins… While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested in the Book of Mormon.” – Thomas Murphy, Mormon anthropologist, American Apocrypha, 2002, p. 47-48

These are MORMONS making these claims…why? Here is a quote from the MRM site:

“While speaking on this subject at the 2002 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, Murphy cited others who have come to conclusions similar to his. For instance, Dr. David Glenn Smith, a molecular anthropologist from the University of California Davis, said, “Genetic research, particularly that using mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers, provide quite emphatic refutation of any such relationship between Jews and Native Americans.”

Murphy closed his remarks by asking, “Now what do we as Mormons do? We’ve got a problem. Our beliefs are not validated by the science.” Murphy believes that Mormons have a moral and ethical responsibility to relegate this notion as a “mistake of men.” http://www.mrm.org/dna

Obviously all the evidence is not in on the BIBLE, but as Christians we believe it. Mormons are the ones tearing down their own BOM because they see the TRUTH. Smith & his statements about all the descendants of this continent coming from Lehi or Hebrew (middle eastern migrations) are just wrong.
grindael on January 28th, 2010

Lurkers

For a great video on DNA vs. THE BOOK OF MORMON, GO HERE AND WATCH IT FREE:

http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dnavs.html

Do not let other Mormons sway you with redundant disparagings of the Bible, which IS the WORD OF GOD.

Take the Challange: Pray to Jesus and make HIM the centerpiece of your life, not the mythical BOM and the false prophet Joseph Smith.
grindael on January 28th, 2010

To Clarify

“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.” -Helaman 3:8

“The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.” -Mormon 1:7 about 322 a.d.

Many LDS writers, including Apostles & Prophets, have emphatically stated these ’scriptures’ to be true.

In the light of ‘millions’ of people, & building covering the whole face of the land (including North America) cf. D&C 54:8 there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, linguistic, archeological, dna, etc. to verify any of the above statements. This is the ‘keystone’ of the Mormon Religion, based upon fiction and shown to be false in every way.
falcon on January 28th, 2010

I’m kind of waiting for Ralph to do his rap on the type of boats the Jews used to sail across the ocean.
Look folks, the DNA evidence doesn’t matter because in the mind of the Mormon, the (LDS) church is true. Mormons can make anything work. Let’s face it, anyone who can look at Joseph Smith and think the guy was a righteous prophet, ignoring not only his sexual sins but things like the phony BoA, and on and on, isn’t going to snap out of it. It’s the mind of the true believer and as I’ve said countless times, the more absurd the better for the typical cult member. It’s just too hard for them to give it up. So they’ll make it work.
Having never been in a position that calls for this type of suspension of reality, I have no idea what it’s like. ExMormons like jackg and the others who post here, know what that mind set feels like.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 28th, 2010

Ralph asked

So using the ‘DNA evidence proves the BoM wrong’ is shooting one’s self in the foot as it also proves the Bible wrong. Why use it then?

Why not? Look, there is a large audience of skeptics out there, and we’d be fostering their skepticism by refusing to engage with the evidence (fossil record, DNA etc).

Further, if we take the theological position that God intends us to search out the truth through what we can see, then we’d be acting un-Christianly not to do so. However, this is a orthodox Christian position that LDS have traditionally rejected in favour of their “revelations”.

I can’t help concluding, however, that your objections are a smoke-screen. As I posted earlier, there appears to be no reason to promote or defend the BoM other than to establish Joseph Smith’s credentials as a prophet. Following your implied directions, the route you and Janet appear to have mapped out is something like this;

* Get me to doubt the historicity in the Bible so that I view it as pure mythology

* Introduce the mythology of the BoM as an equivalent to the mythology of the Bible

* Move me from a mythological understanding of the BoM to a literal understanding of it, and when I have affirmed the literal truth of it…

* …believe in Joseph Smith as a true prophet…

* …and commit my self to Mormonism

…which is ironic, because you don’t find Mormonism in the Book of Mormon (and its a myth anyway).

So, I’ve got to abandon the historicity of the Bible in order to embrace the un-historical BoM. I’ll have to ignore what I can see, in order to see what I can’t. Its the topsy-turvy world of Mormonism where black is white, war is peace and love is hate.

No thanks.

BTW, I wonder how long I would last in the LDS Church if I got up regularly and said “I believe in the BoM in the sense that it is a myth that has no relation to actual historic events”.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 28th, 2010

Relating to Ralph’s point about the fossil record, DNA and the Bible, here’s my brief response.

One of the hurdles we have to overcome is the common perception that the Bible is a homogeneous block of literature that was written by a small group of people at a single point in time. This is a common idea in the promoters of the “Great Apostasy” theory (such as Dan Brown and Joseph Smith), and it usually comes across as “the Bible was re-written by the Council of Nicea in AD325″.

It’s actually a collection of literature, spanning several centuries, cultures and languages. Some of this literature is clearly intended to be understood mythologically (e.g. the parables of Jesus, which have never beed regarded as actual records of real events), and some is intended to be regarded historically (e.g. the Gospel of Luke). The in-house debate on the creation narratives hinges on whether they are intended to be regarded mythologically or mythically.

I tend to think the creation narratives are more mythological; my main reason being the symmetrical and poetic structure of Genesis 1. I know that won’t satisfy some of the posters here, but there it is.

What is important to me, however, is how the later authors related to the writings of their ancestors. I have no doubt that they regarded these ancient writings mythologically (“these stories tell us who we are”), and they may have even regarded them literally (“these stories are an accurate account of what happeded”). Importantly, by NT times the writings of the OT had been established and accepted as authoritative.

So, what we see in the NT is the authors viewing the same scriptures that we have today, and taking them to their logical conclusion, which is the worship of Christ. As NT Wright argues, the Christian Gospel invites us to live in the same story, in which we come to the same conclusion.

That’s not to say that this story has no historicity in it, rather that it is a mix of myth and history. Just like me.
jackg on January 28th, 2010

How sad that Ralph has chosen to fight for the existence of the BOM by fighting against the authority of the Bible. Very Mormon.

Peace…
Enki on January 28th, 2010

Ralph,
“So using the ‘DNA evidence proves the BoM wrong’ is shooting one’s self in the foot as it also proves the Bible wrong. Why use it then?”

Have you considered that perhaps they are both wrong?
Ralph on January 28th, 2010

Martin,

So which parts are mythology and which parts are real history – and how do we know or determine this? If the creation and the fall are mythology as you have stated then why does Paul teach that through Adam death came into the world and because of this we needed Jesus and His resurrection, if it wasn’t true? Why does Jesus and His disciples believe in and teach the Creation if it wasn’t true? That is the argument against the BoM – if it’s a myth then why believe in it? So too with the Bible, if its historical fiction (ie part mythology and part true) then why believe in it?

Jackg,

I am not fighting against the authority of the Bible. I have never said that it is not true. I am pointing out the double standard of the argument against the BoM that it has no scientific, historic or archaeologic evidence so it is false so don’t believe in it – but then believe in the Bible when it too has very little evidence and has been proven wrong in some things by the scientists, historians and archaeologists.

Enki,

No I have not considered that both are wrong. I know that both are correct and true and the Word of God. I have received my evidences for this from God, who is the author of all truth, so what more do I need? As I said earlier, I know that some time in the future both books will be shown to be true to all believers and non-believers, and I look forward to that time.

Grindael,

Thanks for putting in the evidence that it was not just the DNA that got Dr Southerton excommunicated. At least he’s man enough to tell all what he did wrong. And as I said, the DNA had a part to play, but it was not the whole story. It’s easier to rejoin the church if ex’d for adultery than apostacy, so I think they were giving him an easy out.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 29th, 2010

Ralph asked

So which parts are mythology and which parts are real history – and how do we know or determine this?

Its not difficult. You look for the history that can be verified by the archeaological record. For example, if there’s a real city called Jerusalem that had a temple in it in NT times, its not difficult to verify the context of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.

This highlights another problem with blanket statements about the historicity of the Bible. Whereas the archeaological evidence for the early historical narratives (or “pre-history”, as some scholars call it) is obscure, absent, contrary or disputed, the available evidence for the later narratives generally confirms their context. I’m thinking particularly of the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles in 721 and 587 BC respectively, and the cultural environment of the NT narratives. So, if you assert that the Bible is not historical, my reaction is which parts of this collection of literature are you referring to?

Another issue is the use of the term “myth”. I wish I could find a better word, but I can’t think of one. You see, we tend to associate “myth” with “fiction”. I’m trying to describe “a story with meaning”, so the “story” can be historical but the important dimension is the “meaning”. A modern equivalent would be the story of the Anzac landings at Gallipoli in WW1. The “story” dimension relates to the actual events, and the “myth” dimension relates to the Australian sense of self-identity. For the non-Aussies out there, this is THE story that Australians use to tell what it means to be Australian.

In the same way that “being Australian” means living in the Anzac “story”, “being Christian” means living in the Gospel “story”.

So, what’s more important, the historicity of the story, or the myth? I don’t think I can answer that adequately, though I don’t think you can have one if the other is completely missing.
grindael on January 29th, 2010

Ralph

Dr. Southerton’s wanted to be tried for apostasy. The Mormon Church backed off because of what would have come out in the trial. How many inactive members does the church pursue on charges of adultery? It was all about his DNA views, and the way they handled it was loveless and despicable.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 29th, 2010

Regarding Dr Southerton’s excommunication,

Even if, for sake of argument, his adultery was the primary cause of his excommunication, how did the charge of apostasy come about?

Wasn’t it because he posted evidence against a “literal” reading of the BoM?

The clear message from this is that the LDS leadership have no tolerance for people who prefer a metaphorical or fictional reading of the BoM (such as, for example, the RLDS, as falcon has noted previously).

So, you have to regard the BoM as a real account of ancient north American history, with genuine historicity, or you get expelled. This puts the question of evidence very much in the spotlight.
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 29th, 2010

PS

Hi Enki, nice to “see” you again.
jackg on January 29th, 2010

Ralph,

The very essence of Mormonism is grounded in painting the Bible as unauthoritative. Just look at your 8th AOF. Your entire belief system is built on the teachings of JS and NOT the Bible. You might claim that you never said it is not true, but the mere fact that you are Mormon says that for you. If the Bible were truly authoritative for your life, you would leave the Mormon Church and holler for your name to be removed from its records.

Praying for you…
setfree on January 29th, 2010

Sorry, I gotta put my two cents in here on Ralph’s apostasy/adultery thing.

“I have met his stake president and found that there was much more to the excommunication story than just him looking into the DNA evidence. Exactly what, the stake president did not say, as that is confidential information, but the DNA fiasco did play a part, but there were other things in play.”

When my parents ASKED to be excommunicated, they asked for a hearing. In it, they shared the gospel message, and all their reasons for leaving (which were doctrinal, not sin-related). The bishop, WHO WAS AT THAT HEARING, stood up then, in Sacrament Meeting, and told everyone that my parents had been excommunicated, w/o saying why. He and the other persons at the hearing told many people not to talk to my parents anymore. As you might can imagine, Ralph, having done this in a small rural community, the rumors were immediate. My folks had decided to join a polygamist group. My dad had forced my mother out against her will. Etc etc. I’d call this a sin of omission, wouldn’t you?

My point? that your stake president assured you that there were “other issues” is just EXACTLY what I would expect him to do. This is how the church acts… It’s not OUR fault, it’s… god’s, their’s, someone else’s

Check out that latest article in Mormon Times about the english errors in the bom being the scribes fault. i’m telling you… it’s the same thing over and over and over and over
Enki on January 29th, 2010

Falcon,
Yes, there is a catholic jesus, the evangelical jesus, the essene jesus, bahai jesus, hindu jesus, the LDS jesus etc. etc….

I don’t think the LDS faith is any more tolerant of other religions than any other version of the christian faith.
Enki on January 29th, 2010

Ralph,
If you compare two statements you made, there is a conflict of information.

“No I have not considered that both are wrong. I know that both are correct and true and the Word of God. I have received my evidences for this from God, who is the author of all truth, so what more do I need?”

“Hell, the Australian aboriginals were supposed to have been here in Australia between 40000 and 70000 years ago. This was done by dating skeletons found in archaeological digs. Now this really contradicts the Bible.”

I am missing something. What did you do with this information which you say contradicts the Bible?
Enki on January 29th, 2010

Martin,
“Hi Enki, nice to “see” you again.”

Thank you for noticing and commenting. How have you been?
Martin_from_Brisbane on January 30th, 2010

Enki commented

Yes, there is a catholic jesus, the evangelical jesus, the essene jesus, bahai jesus, hindu jesus, the LDS jesus etc. etc….

Enki, thanks for asking. We’re beginning to cool off here after a fairly hot summer.

A quick note on the different “species” of Jesus out there.

There’s actually a considerable consensus of opinion on who Jesus was (his person and his mission) and the environment he lived in, in those religions that regard the canonical Gospels as being better sources than the rest.

For example, N T Wright (Anglican Bishop of Durham) came to lecture at the Catholic University here a couple of years ago (dang, I missed him), and you can download his discussions with Anne Rice (Catholic, author of the “Christ the Lord” trilogy). I have also finally finished Theophylact’s “Explanation” (Commentary) of Matthew’s Gospel. He was Greek Orthodox (12th Century Bulgaria), and I found his description of Jesus immediately recognizable.

So, here we have Greek Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants with a common understanding of whom Jesus was and what he set out to do. I guess that’s not surprising if you consider that they are all getting their information from the same sources.

Other religions differ because they get their information from other sources, for example the Gnostic Gospels. So, it becomes a question of which sources you look to most.

For me, it’s fairly simple. I rely on the sources that were closest to Jesus in time and space. They have been reliably recorded and preserved in the New Testament, and there is a robust case from the historical evidence that these sources are closer to Jesus than anything else.

When the best information we can get is in the Bible, why tolerate information from lesser-grade sources, when it contradicts what we know from Bible?

I know he’s not “my” Jesus, but if someone came along and said Jesus played Scott Joplin on piano, I’ve got to wonder where they got their information from.
Enki on January 30th, 2010

Martin,
That is funny, Jesus playing Scott Joplin. The visual of him playing ‘The Entertainer’. I am sure thats coming next!

“So, here we have Greek Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants with a common understanding of whom Jesus was and what he set out to do.”

The question is why are there different organizations? Also why is there such an ugly attack on some branches? I have seen one against catholic teachings on the webpage ‘jesus is lord’.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Ex-LDS Steve Kay, Saved by Jesus Christ

101 Comments so far

Leave a reply

Subscribe

Join the Discussion

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Links

Stay Updated

Categories

Archives