One Sunday morning a few weeks back my pastor, discussing the relationship between science and creation, mentioned a newspaper hoax that took place in 1835. It seems New York reporter Richard Adams Locke wrote a six-part series of articles detailing new scientific discoveries that exposed the existence of life on the moon. From lunar forests to space animals to flying moon men who worshipped in a golden temple, Mr. Locke spun his story. Though he finally admitted the hoax, for many years people continued to believe that there was intelligent life on the moon. These people included early LDS leaders.
LDS author John Heinerman has compiled a lot of information regarding the universe in his book, People in Space (1990). Since he has pulled together early LDS teachings on the subject of life on the moon, I will quote him here:
According to a close ally and disciple of his [Joseph Smith’s], Oliver B. Huntington, people like the 19th-Century Quakers resided within the moon. Writing a short, one-page article in an 1892 Mormon Church publication, Young Women’s Journal (3:262), this is what Huntington reported:
“Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet (of God).
“As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this Earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do–that they live generally to near the age of 1,000 years.
“He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.
“In my Patriarchal Blessing,” given by the father of Joseph the Prophet in Kirtland (Ohio), 1837, “I was told that I would preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and–to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.” (Patriarchal blessings are given to worthy young Mormon men and women by Priesthood holders called church patriarchs. Such blessings are the worldly equivalents of getting your fortunes told with tarot cards.)
Philo Dibble, another early Mormon pioneer remembered Smith giving details about such lunar residents this way:
“The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the Earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like Quaker style and are quite general in style, or the fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years. This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer and he could ‘see’ whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see.
“I heard him say that ‘he could see what he would ask of the Father in the name of Jesus and it would be granted’ and I have no more doubt of it than I have that the mob killed him.” (Unpublished typescript, p. 166, located in the Utah State Historical Society archives and used with their kind permission.)
Yet a third Latter-Day Saint by the name of George Laub, who resided in Nauvoo, Illinois, remembered Hyrum Smith (Joseph’s older brother) saying that “the Sun & Moon is inhabited & the Stars” in an 1843 sermon on the “plurality of gods & worlds.” Laub’s entire diary with this quote in it was published in the scholarly journal BYU Studies (18:177)…
Even Joseph’s successor, Church President Brigham Young, taught similar doctrine in a sermon delivered to several thousand Latter-Day Saints on July 24, 1870. As recorded in the Journal of Discourses (13:271), he remarked concerning the world’s knowledge about such lunar residents: “When you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.” Basically he was saying that the world’s wisest men know just as much about the people in the moon as the world’s most stupid men know, which is absolutely nothing!
Those who find it hard to believe that people live inside the craters of the moon either don’t have much of the spirit of truth about them or else they just lack plain common sense…
A more complete history of these lunarians may be found in the archives of eternity somewhere. [People in Space, 8-11; all spelling, capitalization and parenthesis in the foregoing quote has been retained from the original]
In 1835 some scientists suggested there was life on the moon. Richard Locke “confirmed” it. According to Philo Dibble, Joseph Smith ran with the idea and today there are LDS Ph.D.s (or at least one) who believe it must be true.
No way. There is no way that the lds church would still allow this kind of material to be found out there…this is too much!!! ROFLOL…well … not loud laughter … but a heck of a good chuckle.
But you know what? You never know…maybe there are … ahhhh … people … ummmmm… living in the craters of the moon and everytime we pass by in the shuttle or lunar rover or whatever, they hide. Maybe we’ve just never seen them. In addition to being 6 feet high, and old, they’re very shy too.
I remember one of those gossip newspapers reporting that Elvis was found on the face of the moon…so you never know. Elvis Presley is still cranking out number one hits in Great Britain and the king’s been dead since what…77?
I quote from “Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately” by Jim Spencer, himself a former Mormon elder.
In speaking about Joseph Smith’s moon prophecies/teachings/musings/……..
“Of course no one believes that today. Well, almost no one. My friend Bob Bryant had a conversation with an otherwise intelligent engineer who found a way to believe in Smith’s “moon people.”
Bob and the engineer were discussing the prophecies of Joseph Smith. Bob mentioned several of Smith’s old prophecies that did not come to pass-including the prophecy that we would find inhabitants on the moon. Bob said, “Look, we’ve been to the moon. We’ve sent astronauts there. There are no tall Quakers.”
The engineer had to admit that it looked like Joseh Smith had been wrong on that one. But, a few days later, approaching Bob tentatively, he reopened the conversation. “I know you’re not going to like this,” he said. “But I’ve been thinking-maybe the men Joseph Smith talked about live under the surface of the moon. He may yet be vindicated.”
Bob swears the guy was serious. And I believe it, because I have had dozens of similar converstions with Latter-day Saints who were otherwise reasonable, but who became irrational when it came to their faith.
How, you ask, can a bright, educated person swallow something like that? How can he be so dedicated to a system that he is willing to believe almost anything? ”
This friends is the wonderful world of Mormonism and Mormon thinking. Mormonism produces in it’s members a thinking process that only a cult leader could truly admire. I’m guessing that when Joseph Smith said “moon” he was really talking about “Kolob” and the Quakers he was seeing were really spirit babies produced by the Mormon god and goddess. YIKES, I’ve been here too long!
I suppose prophets are not allowed to muse upon anything outside of religious matters or speculate or have opinions about non-spiritual things. I understand this stuff is prime picking for the LDS critic.
But consider the possibility that he was a real prophet and had received the revelations regarding “worlds without number.” It is easy to imagine a person wondering after receiving such revelations, and without modern astronomical knowledge, if the moon or other celestial bodies were actually some of those other populated worlds.
Anything to avoid truly testing the Book of Mormon.
fof
FoF said
Funny thing about this is, BY could not be out done by JS , So he said men lived in/on the sun. so I suppose BY was simply musing upon these matters also? rick b
FoF,
Myself and thousands of others have tested the Book of Mormon – extensively. I’ve read it more times than the Bible and applied the same methods that are prescribed in the Bible (testing and proving – 1 Thes 5:21). I’ve read the Book of Mormon very slowly…word-by-word. I’ve gone through the 1830 Book of Mormon too. Have you read that? If not, I urge you to do that and observe thousands of changes. So much for direct revelation from God via the seer stone in the hat? If that were true, Mormons would have no need for any updated version of the Book of Mormon.
Bottom line: the Book of Mormon fails the test – miserably. Moroni 10:3-5 is a psychological ploy built in with only one possible answer. If one comes up with the answer being “no”, then a person is told to read it again. I am not going to apply a special test to the Book of Mormon that I do not apply to the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are to pray about a book to find out it if it’s true. I know…I know…James 1:5. Use good Bible study skills and get the proper context, please? The context of James 1 is stated in verses 2 & 3 and again reaffirmed in verse 12. What is the context? Widsom in learning how to overcome “divers temptations”. Much more could be said about this when the appropriate thread presents itself.
Lastly, reading the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with this wacky teaching by Joseph Smith of inhabitants on the moon or on the sun. Joseph Smith loses credibility and his mental stability and health come to mind when he starts saying crazy stuff like this. I know that the LDS have to bear their testimony when they are under spiritual distress when the “spirit of contention” supposedly appears. Burying your head in the sand and thinking that these crazy teachings by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are all going to be okay and wash out in the end because you’ve received a burning in your bosom about a book that has no archaeological proof for starters isn’t going to cut it. You must test everything. Mormons must test the newest revelation (supposedly the Book of Mormon) with the oldest revelation (the Bible). If the newest revelation conflicts with the oldest, then we know that it is not from God because God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) and He is going to tell us the truth from the beginning. What kind of a loving God would withhold salvation doctrines from people until 1830 until Joseph Smith shows up? Not the God of the Bible!
I followed the advice of Brigham Young: “Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will not stand the test.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, page 126)
…and it failed the test. What next?
Berean,
To go along with what you said, I have read all 4 standerd works, I prayed about the BoM, God replied with Acts 17:11.
Now here are some problems,
1. Many LDS have said, they never recived any burning in the bosom, they simply believe by faith. How can the Mormon “Test” fail Faithful LDS?
2. When I tell LDS I was told by God to search the scriptures Acts 17:11, they pretty much tell me, that never happened.
3. I have had many LDS tell me, If I did not recieve from the Lord that the BoM is true, then I must not be sincere.
Why is it, if we do not believe, even though we really did pray, then it is on us? Rick b
FoF: your point about “musing” is well taken BUT:
the problem, as I see it is that JS never, to my knowledge, started off a topic with
“well, beats the heck out of me, not really my area, but I’ll give ya my 2cents worth…….”
everything, and I mean EVERYTHING comes out “thus sayeth….” this is a pity, because as you and I (now) know, he obviously didn’t know jack about moon people or moon anything…… if he had just acted like he was musing, I’d give him a break……
I will give Joe extra credit points for imagination….the “dressed like Quakers” thing is rich……I can’t eat my Quaker Oats without laughing about that one……..
Berean,
I have copies of the original manuscripts of the 1830 version of the BOM. Yes, I know the changes in the publication that have been made. This is another topic that really goes nowhere to support your position.
Is your reading of the BOM anything like your visit to the stake center down the road from you. I am not a judge of hearts, but your description of your visit there didn’t exactly seem like that of a humble seeker looking for answers and truth. Are you telling me that you earnestly, humbly, sincerely read the BOM with a completely open mind, believing it might be true and knelt down before God and pleaded with Him to let you know if it is true? If so, I am impressed- rarely do critics do such a thing.
The promise of the Book of Mormon is not a “psychological ploy.” At least we believe people can find answers for themselves. And sometimes it takes a long time. My own father took 2 years of studying before he gained a firm testimony for himself. It sometimes seems that you would prefer people simply “take your word for it.” I have read the Bible many, many times and believe my interpretation is correct. I have the same book you do. Do you simply want me to change my opinion and interpretation because you say I’m wrong?
RickB- your verse from Acts 17 says basically, “read the scriptures.” Wow- that is not exactly a refutation of the Book of Mormon.
Germit- truth is- I don’t really have to explain or understand what the heck Joseph Smith was talking about. It simply doesn’t matter. I honestly could not care less. He had an opinion about something that we know today is totally goofy. From the revelations he had received, he came to some funny conclusions about trivial things that don’t matter.
By the way, I love Quaker Oats too and doubt I will be able to eat them in peace again!
fof
FoF,
I have read the BoM for many reasons. One of them was to see what Mormonism teaches and believes today. I soon found out that modern day Mormonism is more about the Doctrine and Covenants along with the Conference Reports printed twice yearly than anything Zeezrom, Alma, Mosiah, Benjamin or Korihor did in the BoM. I also wanted to find if the teachings of modern-day Mormonism could be found in the Book of Mormon. These are numerous, but my first and most important teaching was the one Joseph Smith referred to as the “first principle of the gospel” (King Follet Discourse). That teaching would be that “god is an exalted man”. Joseph Smith said this was the first principle. This must be the starting point. Well, the teaching is not there. The BoM is the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” but this fundamental teaching is not there.
Correct, you aren’t there at the wards when I attend Sunday school classes at the Gospel Essentials classes which is for people like me to come and ask questions so you really don’t know what is going on. I’m going there for many reasons. One of them is to get real, live LDS people to show me from the scriptures these teachings that I have numerous references for in the books, but somehow denied once it’s a live discussion face-to-face with Mormons who appear embarrassed when asked about these teachings. I made that very clear to people at the ward. I’ll be happy to tell you about what has taken place over the last few weeks including my conversation with the bishop and my questions for the class teachers that would not and cannot be answered all the while teaching it with no references and contradicting what is in the institute manuals.
I’m not going to hijack this thread any more than I have already with this BoM and ward/stake issue. If you contact Aaron or Sharon they will give you my email address and we can talk it over. I’ll even call you on my dime and talk about it on the phone. Better yet, if you live close to me I’ll take you out to lunch and we can discuss these things. I’d love to come to your ward so your brethren there could help me with these questions.
My question for this Sunday at the Gospel Essentials class is this:
“My name is ……. …….. and I go to a Baptist Church here in town. Thank you for allowing me to be a part of this class for all these weeks even though I am not a LDS Church member. I have read the LDS Standard works and would like to know what your Church can offer me that the Bible doesn’t already offer me and states that I have right now which is eternal life in Jesus Christ?”
Why couldn’t the people on the moon be dressed like Madonna?
FOF wrote “From the revelations [Joseph Smith] had received, he came to some funny conclusions about trivial things that don’t matter.”
Wow!
Let me follow your logic. Are you saying that JS received a “revelation” that may or may not have been about men on the moon, but he didn’t know how to interpret it correctly?
Are you suggesting that JS received some “revelations” that he had no clue about how to interpret, or at least convey to others?
Are you saying that he had received some “spiritual insight” into something that no-one could have seen by natural means, however, he came up with some “goofy” interpretation about men on the moon?
Sorry to ask again and again, but I find it hard to believe that this is what you’re actually saying.
Have you considered the consequences of your statement? Don’t you see that if you you question JS’ ability to interpret these “trivial” revelations, how can you trust any of the revelations JS received?
What about the whole Gold Plates episode – how do you know that they weren’t just laundry lists and JS came up with some “goofy” interpretation about the ancient Americas?
Talk about “truly testing the Book of Mormon”! We have truly tested it and found that the person responsible for its “translation” simply cannot be trusted to do the job.
Mormoism is stuck with their prophets. There “musings” or “revelations” or “blue sky speculations” reveal them to be self-indulgent narcissist that are totally full of themselves. Now, modern day Mormons have to come up with incredible mind bending techniques to maintain their faith in these guys. At some point, I would think that some would be embarrassed by their lack of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.
I’ve been reading the personal journey out of Mormonism stories that appear on websites like the ExMormon Foundation, Post Mormon.org and Mormons in Transition. There is a definite pattern to these accounts and the profiles of the exmos are somewhat similar.
1. They are smart people who were dedicated to Mormonism and on the fast track to the Celestial Kingdom.
2. Something happens to cause them to go “What?” It could be something they’ve read, a question they have that gets a less than satisfactory answer…..but it causes them to start asking more questions and do some investigating.
3. They spend 3 to 5 years pouring over and digging through every available piece of information they can find, starting with their original question, but then are led to numerous other questions.
4. The whole process is emotionally draining to the point of dispair.
5. They reach a decision point because they’ve concluded that the whole deal is just plain bogus and fraudulent.
6. They leave the Mormon church, often at great personal sacrifice, but with their integrity in tact.
7. They become atheists.
One very interesting story is by Tal Bachman on the ExMormon Foundation website. He goes through the process and discovers Mormonism was nothing more than a story. He tells his SP who basically confirms what he’s says. I’ve wondered how many Mormons there are who have figured it out but because of certain factors continue in the club.
What we see on display on this website, is a perfect example of what conditioned cult thinking is all about. I sit in wonder as I see the mental contortions those in Mormonism go through as they continue to try and maintain faith in something that screams out “fraud”.
Falcon: I like your post , but I think #7 is over-stated…yes , some percentage become atheists, but a large percentage do not….and I don’t think that’s news to you. It would be very interesting to see some kind of good stat on exactly who goes where.
One BIG problem, not just for ex-mormons , but ANY ex-one-true-church person is the “poisoning of the well” effect…..after leaving the “one true church”, many assume (falsely) that church, esp. christian church of ANY kind is just not for them. I’ve seen that happen with former ev christians if that group taught some flavor of “we’re really a notch or two or three above everyone else”. Leaving that group leaves people understandably very disoriented until they figure out the “one true group” thing was a lot of bull, but there still is Christ’s church here on earth……just not in the form they were expecting.
Interesting list, and good post.
GERMIT
Oh, my other observation in reading these stories and interacting with exMos. It seems that Christians have very little to do, directly, with their exit out of the maze. In-other-words, it’s not like a Christian witnesses to a Mormon, forms a relationship and leads them to an understanding of the things like the nature of God and salvation through grace. The exMos, on-their-own, do the investigation that leads them to understand what Mormonism is and isn’t. I find this quite curious.
I for one, would be interested in hearing some stories of Mormons who became Christians and learning how that happened. I know in reading Jim Spencer’s book “Beyond Mormonism” he followed the path that I enumerated above but at the end, gave his life to Christ. No one led him in the sinners prayer. He came to believe. Very curious stuff and it leads me to wonder how that happens. That is, how some end up being atheists and others get saved by trusting Christ. OK, OK I’ll stop because pretty soon we’ll start talking about election and predestination and double, triple, quadruple predestination, and free will and irresistable grace and perseverance of the saints and a whole bunch of stuff that really ends up by us shrugging our shoulders and still wondering how it all works. I guess God is soverign is my conclusion.
Every time I read/hear about reading the BOM and being “sincere”, I cannot help but think about Linus in the pumpkin patch.
Falcon: here’s some scripture to consider while pondering your question:
Luke 11:23-26 the last state of the man is worse than the first, but it’s worse , EVEN THOUGH SWEPT AND PUT IN ORDER, because it remained UNOCCUPIED. Ditching the FIRST unclean spirit was OK, but not enough. I’m wondering if this might apply here……it’s not enough to NOT have bad theology, or wrong ideas……these must be replaced by relationship with the living GOD. Sadly, as you noted, many LDS ditch the unclean spirit, but that doesn’t always translate to the house filled with the life and joy of the LORD.
hope this helps GERMIT
Falcon: I like #2, #5, and #6 the best out of your list , esp. #2. this interruption of the status quo, I’m guessing is probably very global. the interesting thing to me, my theory based on reading a lot of accounts, is that this interruption can take many forms.. Think back to the Adam’s Road guys……sometimes a christian was an ingredient….gradually ONE guy started turning…..and then a close friend said “what the…….” and started looking ETC.. For other guys, the big deal was personal study of the NT, without that outside christian voice. It seemed to vary within their little group. my point being, there doesn’t seem to be one neat formula that will describe the process and how it went down….this seems to make sense in light of a very creative GOD , WHO does “whatever pleases HIM”
knowing that a christian is NOT always the ‘lynchpin’ in this process is actually very freeing ……remember the LDS quote from a month ago where one of the GA”s said something like “if you missionaries dont’ grab your unique opportunity, that person may not get saved” AND THIS IS A PARAPHRASE. so don’t crucify me upside down, my LDS listeners, of GERMIT is off a word or two……..please…….
this topic is kind of “in house”…..feel free, FALCON, to reach me by e-mail (get that from AARON or SHARON, I guess) and pursue this thot farther……..if you want
PS from what I can tell, the atheist ex-mo’s seem to congregate to the same websites, so I’d be careful of “sampling error” when making a generalization from that group.
VWB: well said about “sincerity” ; even within christianity, sincerety just does not count for much…..many strong ideas are just sincerely WRONG….seen that a zillion times.
Hay germit……….you’re talking my language. I think you’re on to something here.
When talking about Joseph Smith’s pronouncements of men dressed like Quakers occupying the moon, we must remember that Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was cocreator of the world along with Peter and John and Jesus……I believe the tale goes. I suppose he passed through that very Biblical state known in Mormon lore as the “veil of forgetfulness” out there in the preexistance, so maybe it just slipped his mind or perhaps he was really talking about Kolob and misspoke.
The point is, what did Joseph Smith claim as the source for his revelations? He started out a pretty conventional guy doctrinally when he crafted the BoM and later, as he was feeling his revelatory oats, came up with all of this goofy stuff. The source of Joseph Smith’s revelatory powers comes right out of the occult. This goof ball stuff, however, I believe just came out of his very fertile imagination. The more goofy it is, the more Mormons have to suspend credulity and jump deeper into the fire. It’s like that story of the frog in the luke warm water. He loves it and doesn’t realize that the temperature is being raised incrementally until he’s cooked. Had he jumped into the water when it was boiling, he’d have jumped out and saved himself. The people who figure out the fraud of Mormonism, are the ones that have the ability, when the temperature is being raised, to jump out before it’s too late.
Martin,
Sorry if I was not clear. By “revelations” I was referring to the Pear of Great Price in which Moses is taught by the Lord that He has created “worlds without number” with people just like our earth. After learning such things, I think it would be sort of natural to wonder where those worlds were, even wondering if those you could see with your naked eyes could be such places (before modern scientific discoveries). I was not referring to any revelation specific to the moon. Make more sense? Hope so.
Your approach in “testing Joseph Smith” instead of the Book of Mormon is the M.O. for Book of Mormon critics. They spend 99% of their time attacking the translator for a million different events, weaknesses, etc. But they refuse to see the enormous elephant in the room. They will not deal with the Book of Mormon. It is the true test of Joseph, not the other way around. But it is easier to follow the common path you are advocating.
falcon and germit,
I see the process of a person leaving the church a little differently. I think of the sower of the word and the tares. The tares arise and choke the wheat, destroying faith and hope. Do you not think intellectualism is one form of the tares? A person can let go of what we call the “iron rod” or “true vine” and instead buy in to the narrow and biased arguments of LDS critics and philosophies of man- this is perfectly consistent with the unfortunate process about which Christ taught.
It is a little humorous to me how critics cite Bible principles and stories and think they somehow prove their specific point about LDS and their doctrine. This is a good example. It can fit both ways. You can think that a person leaving the LDS church is coming to the truth, and I can see it as the wheat being choked by tares.
falcon- you mention the wonderful stories of people leaving the church. Ever notice the venom and malice accompanying so many of those stories? Have you ever wondered why so many of these people feel so nasty about the church? It seems just a little bit inconsistent when you look at the church, its activities, and the lives of its members. Of course, not all feel so sour, but a great many do. While I admit that the members of the church are certainly not perfect, all in all, I personally think they are a pretty good bunch of folks trying to do good things in their lives, their families and in the world. And I think it says something of those people who leave that community with such horrible feelings.
But to you, the church is categorically false from the start, so those individuals must be right. Right?
fof
Falcon, I have noticed the same exact pattern on the Recovery From Mormonism website. I think the thing is, when people feel that they have been deceived, it fills them with a deep sense of shame and they don’t want to make the same mistake again. It’s sort of a “once burned, twice shy” kind of thing. I think atheism/agnosticism is probably appealing because it seems more rational and may appear to “protect” them from being hurt again. It would be hard to make another leap of faith But the thing about Christianity is that while there is certainly an element of faith involved (as there should be), reason can and should go hand in hand with faith. It drives me absolutely nuts when other Christians (just thinking of people I’ve met throughout my life) just go by their feelings only. Or, even worse, if they are suspicious of intellectual thought because it seems to “secular”. I think there is a real strain of that throughout the Christian world. But, I am off on yet another tangent.
FOF,
You just don’t get it. It has nothing to do with all the wonderful things people who are members of the Mormon Church do, but has everything to do with the false teaching by a false prophet that the Church leaders perpetuate today. It has everything to do with relegating grace to an appendage of your works, and the fight for works to prove a human’s worthiness. The Mormon Church teaches a god that has a beginning. That right there ought to raise a red flag. It teaches a god that is incompatible with the revealed word of God, which we Christians call the Bible. We see it as authoritative; you see it as only one book in a canon of scriptures, and that it isn’t even the most important book even though it contains the history of God and His people, including all the promises to God’s people that become our promises when we believe in Jesus Christ. We leave the Mormon Church because God’s grace has opened our eyes to the lies of JS et al. You have every right to stick with the program and find ways to explain heretical teachings; that’s your prerogative. It’s my right to tell those who are in the Church that it is not true, and that its road leads to an eternity of suffering. That”s in your face bold, I know, but what else can I say after being delivered from the bondage of the false religion known as Mormonism. I hope you see that my outburst is not aimed at you or at any other member of the Mormon Church because I see you all as victims in need of liberation. My outburst is against an institution that calls herself the true church of God, yet denies the basic biblical teachings regarding the character of God. God has always been God; there has never been a time when He wasn’t God. He did not once live as a man; to teach such a blasphemous doctrine is dangerous. So, please, this is not about how good people behave; and, BTW, your characterization of former Mormons is unfounded. For most of us, we live with betrayal. And, for those who become atheists, and I know quite a few who have left the Mormon Church to become atheists, it’s because they can no longer trust RELIGION, which they equate to not being able to trust God.
FOF, I so pray for you. You sound like a great guy with a pure heart who is sincere in your beliefs. I hope you don’t take personally. Remember, I want to see you saved by the grace of God poured out on the world in the Person of Jesus Christ God is knocking at your door with the offer of Truth and Grace and Salvation, FOF. All you have to do is open the door wide open to receive it, and that’s my prayer for you.
Peace and Grace!!
falcon: I like your list. It reminds me so much of my journey out of the lds corporation, with the exception (in my case) of number 7. I’m certainly not an athiest. My faith and love of Jesus Christ is now much less muddied, much more pure…it is now “faith in and love of Jesus Christ ” because of what *He* did, not because I faithfully followed the lds checklist. Sure it’s a tougher road because my actions are not monitored 24/7 by the lds cult, but it is a much more genuine form of love, worship, freedom and *life* of and in Jesus Christ. And yes…believers and followers of Jesus Christ outside of the lds cult can do just as many good things on their own and from their hearts, as do the mormons.
FoF, (sigh) … Please re-read Alma Ch. 38: vs 14 – Do not say: O God, I thank thee that we are better than our brethren; but rather say: O Lord, forgive my unworthiness, and remember my brethren in mercy—yea, acknowledge your unworthiness before God at all times.
Maybe these people you are criticising above have a reason to be angry and bitter for a season.
I was out snowshoeing this morning, attacking the slopes with great vigor, and asking God the same question I seem to be always asking which is, “Dear God, how do we tell the difference between a spiritual experience that comes directly from your Spirit, one that is a deception of the enemy and one that has come out of our soul, psyche, or emotions?” So I’m topping out over this steep incline, the sun is shinning brightly and the panoramic view was spectacular and His voice says, “What’s the source?” I shouted alleluia. I really did.out loud in the woods and then looked around to make sure the squirrels didn’t think I was nuts. God answered my question with the same question I asked. But I got it!
Jesus asked “Who do men say that I am?” Peter gave the right response. Not to be egotistical, but I read the accounts of Mormons who spend years studying and working their way out of the maze. I got it in about ten minutes. The minute I knew who Mormons claim as God, bango, end of discussion. I knew their source. Mormons who accept things like Quaker moon walkers from Joseph Smith, accept it because they have accepted the spirit of Mormonism that he claimed as his authority. So under this spirit, Quakers on the moon and people occupying the sun (see B. Young) makes perfect sense.
So really the subject of this thread is “Why do Mormons accept and defend this nonsense?” I haven’t a clue because I can’t think Mormon. I don’t want to think Mormon. Because to think Mormon is to end up accepting a false god.
I apologize for the back to back posts, but I’m a little p.o.’d right now:
I also seem to remember Joseph Smith saying: “The devil flatters us that we are so very righteous, while we feed upon the faults of others”.
FoF said
I guess you missed my point, My point was God said, Search the Scriptures, Guess what, I did, and I found more holes in Mormonism, than the Boat in the BoM that needed to have the air holes plugged up. I cannot believe the BoM when it contrdicts the Bible, the LDS prophets, the D and C and the PofGRP, None of them agree. Rick b
Megan and FoF: this “intellect vs. knowledge of GOD/faith” thing is really a false dichotomy…..and Megan touched on it. OF COURSE, using an intellectual argument and the collection of favorite “facts” can build a fine, fine, wall against GOD and against the supernatural……but Spirit-less emotionalism and groundless subjectivity can do the same.
as an aside, I dont’ think Satan really cares WHAT kind of wall it is, one is as good/bad as the other…. and perhaps those who are more academically bent are more prone to fall into the “ideas against GOD” trap (see R.Dawkins, et al)
the fallacy is to generalize about the dangers of the mind or the dangers of the intellect….bad idea:
Mark 12:30 Thou shalt love the LORD your GOD with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your MIND, and with all your strength.
this is part of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT…….I’m not saying that MIND is the biggest item on GOD’s agenda, I doubt it, but it’s not chopped liver, to use an old expression. there is no need to make the MIND the “fall guy” for a sin problem, this is bad theology, of course neither is having the right mind the solution to everything, and smart people do NOT necessarily have a leg up over simple minded people.
To Megan: yes, many of our christian bros and sisters want to shelve the whole Rom 12:2 thing, or over spiritualize it, and make the Godly pusuit of information the red-haired step-child of christian experience………mention C.S. Lewis to these fuzz-brains and their eyes glaze over as they nod…” Oh yeah…..he did the Narnia thing………..nice cartoon…….”
G
jackg,
So do you think Thomas S. Monson believes the doctrines of the church are false and continues to teach them for some big, dark, conspiratorial reason? Or does he teach them because he really believes them? If you believe the former, then I have a list of good websites on the illuminati for you that can provide you with good instructions on how build a good bunker. If it is the latter, how can you criticize somebody who is living according to their conscience and honest belief? Your explanation does not explain the hostility in former members. (of course, not all of these folks are hostile, but a disproportionately high number, in my opinion) So they believe they belonged to a church that was incorrect- so what? You feel betrayed? Who betrayed you? Who are you blaming?
I believe they are hostile for a couple of reasons. First, the literature I consider critical of the church (I will avoid that horrible, evil term detested here) breeds hostility. It breeds a cutting, haughty, judgmental, unforgiving, and faught-finding spirit that mocks someone following the spirit. Of course you will disagree- I know- you are simply looking for the truth and trying to share it with others. Simply look at the words and phrases used on any thread on this site used to describe Joseph Smith and his successors and those who believe in the BOM, etc. (I have a fairly thick skin and am accustomed to this- but your average person would see this as pretty aggressive language).
Just on this thread- which I don’t really consider toxic, we hear the following:
“I’m guessing that when Joseph Smith said “moon” he was really talking about “Kolob” and the Quakers he was seeing were really spirit babies produced by the Mormon god and goddess”
“this is too much!!! ROFLOL…well … not loud laughter … but a heck of a good chuckle.”
“I remember one of those gossip newspapers reporting that Elvis was found on the face of the moon…so you never know.”
“Moroni 10:3-5 is a psychological ploy”
“Joseph Smith loses credibility and his mental stability and health come to mind when he starts saying crazy stuff like this”
“I know that the LDS have to bear their testimony when they are under spiritual distress when the “spirit of contention” supposedly appears. Burying your head in the sand…”
Mormon Prophets are “self-indulgent narcissist that are totally full of themselves.”
“Mormons have to come up with incredible mind bending techniques to maintain their faith”
Mormons have a “lack of intellectual honesty and personal integrity”
“the whole deal is just plain bogus and fraudulent.”
“What we see on display on this website, is a perfect example of what conditioned cult thinking is all about. I sit in wonder as I see the mental contortions those in Mormonism go through”
“Every time I read/hear about reading the BOM and being “sincere”, I cannot help but think about Linus in the pumpkin patch”
“as he was feeling his revelatory oats, came up with all of this goofy stuff”
“The more goofy it is, the more Mormons have to suspend credulity and jump deeper into the fire”
Again- I can tolerate much of this stuff usually, but you get my point? And this website is not unique. This is the underlying tone of much of the criticism of the church. It is locker-room mentality that appeals to the juvenile elements in all of us, and some will be won over to this form of the “tares.” There may be valid points that may appear to connect to some, but the whole undustry- and it is an industry- breeds this feeling. That, I believe, explains much about the hostility in former LDS.
The other reason for hositility is sin, and this is a voodoo topic that is never allowed, so I will not go there. And no, I am not saying that everybody that leaves the LDS church does so because sin. I refer to those who are hostile and vocal.
Lastly, the church is full of imperfect people who offend others, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally. Some simply leave and feel hostile after being offended by another person.
I find “testimonies” of fomer members contain consistent statements. They almost always will start out by saying, “when I left the mormon church and became a christian….” It reveals hostility- they say this largely to offend LDS, because it is offensive and dishonest. But because it supports the critics argument, it is welcomed with open arms.
I should probably sign off before becoming inappropriate.
keep the faith
fof
FoF: you asked an EXCELLENT question:
Your explanation does not explain the hostility in former members. (of course, not all of these folks are hostile, but a disproportionately high number, in my opinion) So they believe they belonged to a church that was incorrect- so what? You feel betrayed? Who betrayed you? Who are you blaming?
in the large majority of cases, I’d say way over 80% tho I admit I don’t have a hard stat on this, the answer is
NO ONE PARTICULAR PERSON……..not their biship, exactly….not JUST the prophet…..not their LDS relatives, exactly but the WHOLE THING…..what some call the MORG…..the SYSTEM…..yes, some have an individual beef with the bishop, but most often the CLAIM is that this was symptomatic of something much, much bigger…something more institutional and global
it is disingenuous of you, and I’ve RARELY said that of you, to try and connect this feeling to “the critics”……and the literature of the critics… this just does not wash, because many of these people leaving didn’t read all that much of MC or Richard Albanes or whomever…..the Adams Road guys mostly read the NT….. so yes they feel hostile, and somewhat embittered….they feel like Bernie Madoff (sp?) had been handling their 401K…….OK, YOU feel like your “investment” is doing quite well……these people feel VERY strongly otherwise….. you give the critcs WAY too much credit.
AARON is pusuasive, but if he were THAT pursuasive, he’d be blogging from the white sands with his ltlle boy playing in the blue surf……there’s a picture….maybe a prophetic word…….
I’m at a loss to give you many options as to the hostility……we’re talking about people who are TYPICALLY pretty mild mannered……..either they are colosally fooled and duped (NOW) and foolishly angry over nothing…….OR (you connect the dots)
as usual, I appreciate 1)your intense honesty
2)your ability to not attack personally , though I’m sure you are tempted.
GERmIT
germit,
falcon outlined what he thought was the typical exit sequence of former LDS, which I think you expressed some agreement. Central to this process supposedly is searching for answers to questions that reveal “the truth” behind all the fraud in the church. Where do these people find their answers? Typically, from critics of the church who out of the kindness of their hearts reveal such liberating information. And it is the literature, videos, etc. from such critics I am referring to. They foster the feeling I discussed above. Do you disagree? Maybe it doesn’t explain all the hostility, but it certainly contributes to it.
Somewhere back there I had an original point- which was that the hostility within ex-mos is disproportionate to the people and institution they have left. Again, I make no claim to perfection among our people. But really- what is there to be so worked up about. Point me to the group within the church who are so deserving of hostility. The leaders are an easy target, but take a look at the lives of these guys- they are not perfect, but are sincere, honest guys who are really trying to do good. Is it the looking after your neighbor in the form of home teaching, the tithing, the health code, the praying as families and having family home evening? I know it is all such horrid stuff to base a life on. I truly believe you are not recognizing an element in that “switch” process that occurs when people leave. Rather than the “systemic, global, institutional” failure or offense, I think you overlook the personal responsibility and betrayal against the church, not by it.
You frequently allude to a “systemic, global, and institutional” element to the church that somehow keeps the little guy down or keeps people from learning truth, or oppresses the members, or something negative and dark in general. Please expound on this for me if you would. It is common among some critics.
You have also alluded several times to the idea that the devil was behind Joseph’s work and the work since his day.
Correct me if I am wrong- you believe the church was formed and has been under the influence of the devil in a very direct way since its creation.
Gotta run. Sorry so negative. But just being honest about what others bring up.
fof
FoF: this is approaching my post limit, hope it “flies” thanks once more for your posts, you have, as usual, no hidden agenda
you wrote:
And it is the literature, videos, etc. from such critics I am referring to. They foster the feeling I discussed above. Do you disagree? Maybe it doesn’t explain all the hostility, but it certainly contributes to it.
I just don’t think this is as key an element as you think it is. Do people on the way out check out some of the An– websites and books, etc.?? Sure, but I’m guessing that they ALSO check the LDS sources quoted, which are prevalent, AND check out the Bible itself to “see if these things are so…..” It’s POSSIBLE that those that end up in the atheist camp are tilted toward the critic literature, that would be something to pursue….. the lines that stand out to ME are: “I finally started reading the whole NT and ……..was just not in there……..or: “I finally checked out LDS history FOR MYSELF and couldn’t believe that …….really happened….I asked my bishop about it and he didn’t have much of an answer….”
I don’t want to give you dozens of this kind of thing…..I think you catch the idea. It is WRONG on your part, in my opinion, to lay this at the feet of those who put out critical literature……maybe on this point we might agree: THOSE MAKING THE PERSONAL DECISION TO STAY OR GO ARE ACCOUNTABLE. I agree with Megan, that these folks DO carry a lot of shame and its first cousin: ANGER. Anger over missed years and missed opportunities……I know that statement is gibberish to you because this is Christ’s restored church we’re talking about…….right ?? But isn’t that the ex’s common refrain…..how could I have been so…….???? all that time, effort, and money and for what ???? Do you feel what they are saying ?? It’s not that Bishop Smith is doing something so BAD, it’s that the enterprise he’s in (and ex-mo USED to be in) is just FALSE= therefore swing and a miss….to use a baseball analogy. I know that sounds stark……there’s no way I can , or will, put something sweet over it to make it go down easier.
As to the devil: his BEST work, in my opinion, is to give people VERY GOOD OPTIONS instead of the real gospel. Let me give you a similar situation, in my mind: the AA offers a life of sobriety , a life without the living hell of alcohol addiction (excellent things, we can agree) and MANY christians do so with God’s help….BUT the AA ‘contract’ has the addict agree to “god as you understand him……” in other words, YOU fill in the blank, we aren’t going to tell you who GOD is, or is not. Very Tolerant. Very PC. Very Wrong: God is who HE is, not who you, or I, make HIM out to be……in this case something GOOD has been bought into (freedom from booze or drugs) at the expense of something even better: freedom from all that and more PLUS the saving news of Jesus’ blood shed for ALL my sin…….let me be clear, there are many AA and NA folks who have the gospel…….but that is IN SPITE OF the “word” from the Big BooK: which is “god as you understand him…..”
I hope that analogy makes some kind of sense, this is prob. my limit today, I’m happy to flesh any of this out on Sat. , depending on……you know Saturdays !!!!
In discussing the hostility of former Mormons, I suggest that hostility may be in the eye of the beholder. Fof wrote: “I find ‘testimonies’ of fomer members contain consistent statements. They almost always will start out by saying, ‘when I left the mormon church and became a christian….’ It reveals hostility- they say this largely to offend LDS, because it is offensive and dishonest.”
I don’t question that Mormons may see this statement of faith as hostile. Nevertheless, I think that such an interpretation might be driven more by the view of the hearer than the speaker. For someone to describe his faith journey in the terms given above is not necessarily hostile. People say, “I once was blind, but now I see.” This is a statement meant to reflect where they have come from, not meant to antagonize co-workers or family who have not experienced the same enlightenment.
I was raised in a churchless home, but taught minimally about Christ. I sometimes refer to my early life as B.C. – before Christ. This is not expressing hostility toward my parents; it’s merely a statement of how I was different in those days, how being given new life in Christ radically changed me.
If making a simple statement like the one above puts the former Mormon in the category of hostility, it is no wonder some Mormons believe that “hostility within ex-mos is disproportionate to the people and institution they have left.
People don’t like to feel like they been treated like fools and lied to. It agitates them and makes them hostile towards those that perpetrated the fraud on them. This is especially so for people who have been faithful, done it all as required and then found out that the boys who guard the magic rock haven’t been shooting straight. The TBMs come here, for example, and in essence defend the Quaker moon walker pronouncements of Joseph Smith. Anything to protect and defend the fraud. The folks who walk away from the Morg, just can’t do this anymore. They’ve figured it out. It is flat out goofy, embarassingly so. It’s a painful, agonzing process for those who have been faithful Mormons and who finally connect the dots. It is also painful for me personally, to observe the TBMs just swing away blindly. Trying, as Brother Rick intimated, to plug all of the holes in the boat as they are slowly sinking.
There is hope. Turn to the living God. You’re here reading this for a reason. God is sending you the message. Don’t keep turning away from Him. Eternity is way too long.
Well there has to be someone up there to eat all that cheese.
Sharon,
While I understand what you are saying, those who leave and make such claims know that we are indeed Christian. And they know it is very irritating to us to hear people say we are not Christians. Their saying it is so disingenuous, and it is the first thing they say. They know it is the thing evangelicals and some others just love to hear.
Another point to germit et al. Much has been made here of the work done by mormons- the high expectations. Setting aside whether all that is warranted, do you see how a person could feel a little enticed away if they felt an easier “salvation” and pat on the back were available? In other words, can you see how a person could think being a part of a different Christian religion is easier than being LDS? I am throwing this out there for an honest opinion. If so, can you see how a person may try to justify jumping to another religion that they think is easier to live? I am not saying this is what happens to all those who leave at all. I am simply saying I think this may contribute to the decision of some who leave. (This would especially apply to those who feel they have betrayed certain expectations of the church).
Another point (probably too many for one day)- What would you honestly have someone in my position do? Would you really want me to accept your interpretation of the Bible and accept your version of the gospel even if I do not believe it? I have the same scriptures as you. Does a person just change their belief because others say they should? I have heard ALL the same arguments as everybody here and more. And I honestly, completely disagree with your conclusions and judgments. Leaving my belief and faith would be a betrayal of my conscience and everything God has meant to me. Is this what you folks desire? The only way I could ever come to the same conclusions is if I betrayed everything God has given to me and every impression I have ever felt from the Holy Ghost. No offense intended in saying this, but leaving my faith for anything else, including that which you embrace as far as the LDS church goes, would be no different from me cheating on my wife, or giving in to the desire to strike someone who makes me angry, or cheat on my taxes, etc. Do you get what I am saying?
The difference I see between us in our discussions is that I simply desire others to test the Book of Mormon the way IT proscribes, not the academic, worldly test. And so few if anybody on the other side has done this. Yes, I know Berean, you have read the BOM, but everything you say about your experience suggest you were reading it to find fault with it and prove it wrong. That will simply never result in the inspiration that is available.
You guys want me to read the New Testament, which I already do all the time.
Makes any sense?
fof
FOF,
There is a basic thing I find wrong with the Moro. 10: 3-5 proposition. I would agree with others that it looks kind of like a psychological ploy. It does go beyond that however. It implies that one already believes, as it takes faith to pray and ask something like that. If one is atheist, it would be difficult to have “real intent” and exercise “faith in Christ”. If someone is jewish it might be even more difficult to exercise this faith and intent, especially given cultural notions about religion.
1 corinthians 1:23 “…but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness…”
It might sound odd to read on this board, but what if the nazarene never existed? Praying so specifically to an incorrect god, or someone that didn’t exist isn’t going to lead you to the truth. You might come to believe it, but to me it seems like its only because one wants to believe it, or already does believe it.
Enki,
If we cannot get such answers from Heavenly Father, than I suppose we should not attempt such a thing. We should just figure out on our own who has the best argument for what is true and follow them. Jerusalem is a true historical city, I guess there is some proof there for Christianity; actually Judaism too, and Islam. But wait, what about Egypt? We know their civilization existed too- look at the pyramids, so maybe their ancient religion is true. This sounds crazy, but that is what you are left with after dismissing personal revelation on such matters.
You are making the Moroni promise way too complicated. It is in essence- study this text, immerse yourself in it, consider it with a REAL desire to know if it is true, and pray humbly to God in the name of Christ and ask Him to reveal to you whether it is true. It requires no degree or previous religious knowledge or training. It doesn’t matter what religion you come from, or even if you have a religion. What is so scary about that? This is fundamental to any relationship with God- seeking help and knowledge from Him. I suppose the requirement for a person to have faith that God cares enough or will really answer prayers will keep some from attempting such an endeavor.
But I do not expect anybody to believe the book is true who has not done the above. It is no surprise you and others here do not believe. You will not know until you personally engage in this way. A person can resist for a million different reasons, including simple pride and needing to be right.
It is free and only requires sincerity, humility, and desire.
fof
FOF,
You almost have my point, but it seems almost too close for you to see. I never said praying and asking the question was scary. I just said that people believe because they already believe.
In examining Moro. 10: 3-5 you will notice that it appeals to a belief in christ, that it takes faith. Although you say it does not take previous experience with religion or philosophy, it appears that the passage appeals to someone who is already christian. It appeals to someone who has the understanding that the christian religion is the true faith.
Sealing a prayer in the name of christ pretty much limits what answer you expect to be true. The proposition also expects that the answer will be ‘yes’, more specifically to the BOM. Its not an unbiased way of determining what is true and what isn’t. To be purely objective, there is a possibility that the BOM is not true. There is also a possibility of no god. There is a possibility of a god outside of christianity, as you pointed out. The prayer makes it clear that one must exercise faith in christ, and pray in the name of christ. And as I said before this won’t lead you to the truth if its outside of the christian faith.
Faith and Sharon,
Both of you have good comments about the ‘angry/hateful’ way ex-LDS tend to be toward the LDS church. I feel Sharon is correct in that it is in the eye of the beholder – we do have control over how we hear and accept messages. However wording also has a part in it and in this I feel Faith is somewhat correct.
Lets look at someone who has converted from traditional Christianity to the LDS church. They are asked and most do go and find their friends and relatives and try and have them listen to the LDS gospel – the one and only true church. They are in essence telling their friends and family that they are wrong and the LDS church is right. This can be seen as anger and hate by some people just by saying “I’m right – you’re wrong.” But most do not go on to say that the pastor is a representive of the devil, that he is a charlaton, a ring master, etc. They do not say that the members of otheer churches are brainless dopes or brianwashed, etc. Why? Because that is not what they are taught about their old religion, neither is that kind of language used in usual circles of the LDS church.
Now lets look at the ex-LDS that convert to traditional Christianity. They get their wordage from other Christians. Since they (the standard Christian) use the kind of language as seen on this site, they (the convert) start using that language to describe the LDS church. It comes from a conviction of belief from the traditional Christian party that they are the only true church and any other are hell-bound. So its just a learned ‘response’ from the background that they end up going into.
As far as the ones who ‘misrepresent’ our religion after they have left as the example from above that they say we are not Christian – again it is just a learned response from the background they are entering. Traditional Christianity have adopted a narrow meaning of the word ‘Christian’, so yes according to that meaning the LDS church is not Christian – neither are many other churches that claim to be Christian and believe in the NT (eg modalist, JW, Church of god, etc). However if we go on the worldly meaning than the LDS church is Christian. So its just a point of view, not a misrepresentation.
Falcon,
Don’t you love it when God speaks to you! He uses few words to say so much. The “source” is key. Does JS seek to glorify God or himself? LDS has created a slippery slope. If the Bible needed to be restored, then how can they quote from it to prove their teachings are true? It goes back to trusting JS. It always does.
FOF,
My loving question to LDS: if your god produced a bible that needed to be restored, and then even the BOM needed to be updated and changed, and JS made prophesies that did not come to pass and were “goofy”, doesn’t that say to you that your god is not that great, and his messengers are not that great?
The God I worship got it right the first time. The Bible does not need to be restored. Jesus got his message across while he was here. He did not leave out huge portions of doctrine and teachings. All prophesies in the Bible came to pass.
You can and should expect absolute perfection from God, great healing, great love and truth. You don’t have to settle for anything less.
True story: I was looking something up on the internet regarding either the Apostle’s Creed of the Nicene Creed and as I was reading it through, I got this incredible feeling. It was euphoric. I’m not making this up. So using the Mormon test for truth, that which I felt, confirmed that what is in the Creed is true. I also remember one time when I was a Catholic kid in eighth grade our parish had a twenty-four hours of adoration event. This is basically when they display the “host” on the alter in this golden container for all to see for twenty-four hours. A couple of alter boys have to stand guard, kneeling before the alter in one hour shifts and people come in through out that twenty-four hour period to pray. I remember going in and all the lights were basically off except for the candles. I can still remember the glorious feeling I had being there. The ambiance was fantastic. So whatever was going on there, had to be true because of what I felt. If someone reads the Mormon church’s account of Joseph Smith’s first vision and they get an emotional rush, then the account has to be true, right? If I visit Fatima and go to the shine of the Blessed Virgin Mary and I get that feeling, then that must be true also, right? Confirming feelings prove the truth of a matter. If I pray and get a burning in the bosom about six foot men dressed as Quakers walking around the moon, then it must be true.
When I was snowshoeing yesterday and praying and the sun was shinning brightly and the panoramic view was beautiful beyond compare and God gave me an answer and I had this unbeliveable feeling, that means my thoughts on what I was praying about were true, right? These thoughts and feelings prove that Mormonism is false, right?
Here’s the deal on my most recent experience. The feelings were a bonus. Whether I had had them or not doesn’t tell me anything about the truth of the matter of what I was praying about and the answer I was given. I am grateful for the answer and for the experience, but I know that thoughts produce emotions. I think about God and what He did for me through His Son Jesus Christ on the Cross and I get feelings; conflicting feelings of joy, gratitude and also sadness knowing that my sin put Him there. It doesn’t really matter one way or another regarding the truth of a matter, what I feel as a result of thinking about it. I’ve had lots of spiritual experiences with accompanying feelings. Those feelings have nothing to do with whether the experience witnessed to the truth or not. John Wesley sat in that little chapel and realized he was saved and felt a burning in the bosom as a result. The feelings didn’t confirm the fact of the Gospel as being true.
As long as Mormons accept this “burning in the bosom” as a test for truth, they are subject to any wind that might blow across their minds.
I completely agree, Falcon, the feelings are not “IT”, or the main attraction. They are a bonus. God can and does use feelings to shed light, but he always uses other things that go hand in hand with feelings to confirm truth. Sometimes I go to church and the songs and worship are so glorious that I have been moved to tears. But if I am not as emotionally moved on other Sundays, it doesn’t make God or the Bible more or less true.
I completely agree, Falcon, the feelings are not “IT”, or the main attraction. They are a bonus. God can and does use feelings to shed light, but he always uses other things that go hand in hand with feelings to confirm truth. Sometimes I go to church and the songs and worship are so glorious that I have been moved to tears. But if I am not as emotionally moved on other Sundays, it doesn’t make God or the Bible more or less true.
Mormonism, with its “burning in the bosom” is, as I see it, a reflection of 19th century Christian evangelicism and revival sentiment and practice. Going off to the woods to pray, waiting on the Lord, trevailing in the spirit, the anxious bench were sinners who were beginning to feel convicted would go and sit during a revival meeting, it was all apart of the experience. Go and read the stories of Finney, Spurgeon and Wesley. Read about the Welsh Revival and the experiences of the man who led it. Out of the burnt over district were Smith came from, was also a strong occult presence.
From Issue 58 of Christian History magazine talking about revival:
Though many consider the 1906 Azusa Street Revival as the birth of modern Pentecostalism, speaking in tongues took place at two earlier Holiness gatherings, one in Topeka, Kansas, in 1901, and another in Cherokee County, North Carolina, in 1896………most of the meetings were electric, loud, and unlike the services of ‘any company of fanatics, even in Los Angeles, the home of almost numberless creeds.’ The meetings began at 10A.M., and continued for at leat 12 hours, often lasting until two or three the following morning………..At various places, some would be ‘slain under the power of God;’or entranced………Though reports of the miraculous were sometimes exaggerated, the church didn’t mask the revival’s problems. Seymour wrote several letters to Parham asking advice in dealing with spiritualists and mediums from occult societies, who were trying to conduct seances in the services…..’While some in the rear are opposing and arguing, others are at the altar falling down under the power of God and feasting in the good things of God. The two spirits are always manifest, but no opposition can kill, no power in earth or hell can stop God’s work.’
Now friends, when Mormons report seeing the spirits of the dead that they are being baptized for in the temple, when there are occult symbols on the temples, when they eschew the Cross of Christ, when we know that Joseph Smith was a medium scrying with a magic rock on and on and on, is it real difficult to determine where the “burning in the bosom” and various other “spiritual” experiences are coming from? As I’ve said before, the spirit of the god of Mormonism is about as strong a decitful spirit as there is. We just need to be in prayer that God will break the chains of bondage for those encumbered by this spirit.
Enki,
MORONI’S PROMISE DOES PRESUME ONE HAS READ THE BOOK OF MORMON, and therefore does have the knowledge and understanding of Christ and His gospel witnessed to in the text. It seems you think I am saying a person can just pick up the book and immediately kneel down and get an answer from God. The whole endeavor involves immersing oneself in the book and studying it. Knowledge results from reading. So it is not as if one has no idea about faith in Christ, and asking God in His name for inspiration or blessings.
Linda,
You are blurring man’s imperfection with God’s perfection. Yes, God is perfect in every way. Man is not. Man can be very irresponsible and wreckless. God can give a gift to us and we have the freedom to deny that gift or not show appropriate respect. You seem to be saying everything that God makes or creates is perfect. Then what about us- why then are we not perfect? Using your logic, this implies an imperfect God if He makes us so flawed. God provided the inspiration and Holy Ghost that resulted in the original thoughts and writings of the prophets of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of these writings that had been best preserved and were available to those that compiled the present form of the Bible. This does not necessarily mean that it is straight off of God’s heavenly press with every word God has ever uttered.
The changes in the BOM you refer to resulted from mere mortals translating, transcribing, typesetting, and publishing a 500+ page book. The changes have been made to match the original manuscripts more closely. I think many have an unrealistic view of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
I believe your claim that “God got it right the first time” referring to the Bible is naive. Is the Bible a one time occurance? Did God hand over the Bible in its current form to man? When did that happen? This is on par with saying John’s warning at the end of his revelation (Book of Revelations) was saying in essence- do not add to this Bible or God will curse you.
By the way, I don’t remember saying Joseph made prophesies that were “goofy.” Either I was unclear, or you misunderstood, or both.
falcon- I am glad you are free to believe as you choose. A fundamental difference between us is that I believe revelation can stand on its own, you do not. I find this ironic since you give absolute authority to the Bible, a compilation of revelations. It is circular logic to the core. One conclusion from such logic is that it is hopeless for individuals who do not have now or who did not have the Bible available in their lifetimes. But maybe you don’t have a problem with this since your religion doesn’t, to my knowledge, make any accomodations for those who never had the chance to hear about Christ. Are those people damned to burning hell?
Are you saying we can place some trust in inspiration, but not complete trust? I am sure glad none of the prophets ever followed that guideline. You say God told you to consider the source. The Holy Ghost is the greatest source.
fof
Ralph: very good post, I like most of it ; you wrote
. Traditional Christianity have adopted a narrow meaning of the word ‘Christian’,
Do you really believe that our view of “Christian” is more narrow , restrictive, and exclusive, than the LDS view of “the ONE TRUE Church”?? Most, if not all, who post here would include all these and more under the christian umbrella: Roman Catholics and their ‘cousins’ in the Eastern Orthodox traditions…..protestants (at least most of them) of both the reformed and anabaptist traditions…..charismatics…..non-denominationalists (most of them)…….I could go on. Are some groups excluded ?? Sure…..but whose umbrella is bigger, our “Christianity” or your “one true church??”
the perception of LDS as being “more tolerant” in these ways is, to me., pure cotton candy GERMIT
Germit,
There is a big difference in saying that we are the one true church and you having a narrow definition of Christian. I don’t mind/care if you say that you are the one true church and all those who believe the same as you belong to that church. But when it comes to the term Christian, you do not have a monopoly on believing in Christ, so you cannot exclude others that do, even if they have a different belief in Christ. As for your comment on who you think fits into the Christian banner, I know a few on this site who do not believe that the Roman Catholic church belongs – so why the discrepancy? Does the Roman Catholic belong as Christian or not?
I am not saying that we LDS are more tolerant with our definition of Christian, I just said that under the world’s definition of Christian the LDS church is listed as one. I have seen our church’s name listed in many books in the library that discuss the Christian faith. The world’s definition of Christian is basically one who believes in and follows the teachings of the Jesus of the NT. That is not my nor the LDS definition of Christian that these writers are using – however it agrees with it.
Take the Azaria Chamberlain case – years ago a family lost their baby daughter near Ayer’s Rock. The mother said she saw a dingo take it. The Australian population was split – did a dingo take the baby or did the parents kill it? If a friend of mine and I disagreed on what happened, does that mean we believe in a different Mrs Chamberlain? No, we believe in the same one, we just decide to believe in her in different ways. It is the same with Jesus Christ – we believe in the same person from the Bible, it is His deity that we choose to believe differently. That is why the world places us, and JW and Church of God and Modalists under the banner of Christian. if you know nothing of the Chamberlain case there is a movie staring Meryl Streep and Sam Neil called ‘Evil Angels’ that is all about it. My genetics lecturer, Prof Boetcher was a key forensic witness in that case and is referred to in the movie.
Ralph: you should take a breath and listen to your own argument:
it sounds like you are saying: it’s OK for some group , or groups, to say “we’re the one true church” all other churches are beneath us…… but it’s NOT OK to say “we’re christian, and this other group who has a radically different belief (according to us, at least), is not christian….” who, pray tell, gave YOU the monopoly on ‘one true church” ?? If you can make THAT claim, which is stronger and MORE specific than ‘christian”, how can you disallow others like myself from saying “this is what’s christian, and this is what’s not…”
Ralph, your religion is not going to let you wear the robes of modern day tolerance that easily……though by PERSONALITY and temperament and even nationality, I can tell that you are very tolerant. Yes I know about the layers of heaven and how many groups have “some measure of the truth”, but your claim to be top dog still puts you in a more restrictive and exclusive category , one that you made for yourselves, and the other christ-believers get the lower rungs of heaven…… I say big deal, this is every bit as selective, OR MORESO , than the set up that ev. christians hold to.
as to the roman catholics: far and away, the great majority of ev’s would hold that the RC”s are part of the greater body of Christ, part of the holy, catholic (universal) church. some do not, James White comes to mind……..I won’t get into all the reasons he and others have for drawing that boundary, but I’ll just say 1) I don’t hold to that 2)he is in the decided minority within the ev.christian community 3)check back with Mr.White in a decade or so: a VERY popular Christian musician, Keith Green, came out very strong against the RC;s some 20 yrs or so and published tracts against them….and then after a few years repented of his words….so that’s happened before……
one last aside: it matters very little how “the world” defines christian…..I care what they think, and how they see things, but I get those definitions a different way, so what’s in this book or that is interesting……but not binding (to me). Maybe similar to how you view “mormon”.
FoF said
I have a few problems with what you said here, Many LDS Teach and believe that JS stuck his head in a hat and saw a letter, Told his buddy on the other side of the sheet the letter, and if his buddy wrote the letter down correctly is disappeared.
So if that is true, and many LDS believe it to be true, then their should be zero problems or zero changes, not 4,000 plus changes. Then when you were talking About making changes to the Bible or the Book of revelation, Why would God say at the end of Revelation, do not make any changes let your cursed and have your name blotted from the book of life, then God turns around and tells JS to “correct” IE Change the Bible and the book of revelation.
Also when you were talking about the moroni challange, the problems I have with that is, The Bible NEVER tells us to pray about the truth of Gods word, It tells us in acts to search the scriptures to KNOW if THESE THINGS ARE TRUE, Not PRAY FOR TRUTH.
Then it seems to me about the challange that it is set up to be either you believe it despite any facts or it is on you not wanting to believe it. The Bible tells us not to rely on feelings because are hearts are dectiful and wicked, the Bible tells us that satan can come in the form of an angel of light and that their is a false gospel and false gods.
The Bible tells us to test the spirits to see if they are of God, Not pray about them. Then you can ask Falcon, I make my own hot spice called “happiness” that will give you a burning in the bosom. So If you can get a burning in the bosom from food, how can you tell if the mormon burning is from God? Rick b
Fof said: Using your logic, this implies an imperfect God if He makes us so flawed.
God is not imperfect just because He gave us free will and we chose sin. That’s the beauty of God’s love for us. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. I don’t have to be perfect or worthy to receive His free gift. I never will be. Yet I rest in His love and forgiveness.
Falcon and Germit,
I’m a little behind your earlier threads about ex-whatevers.
I heard a great piece of advice from an ex-JW, who is now a minister in the Presbyterian Church. Like you, he was concerned that most people leaving a movement totally jacked the whole Bible and God thing all together.
His advice was; Evaluate what you believe but don’t throw out anything unless 1 there’s a very good reason to reject it or 2 there’s a better explanation.
He also identified with the difficult task of untangling and differentiating between what his movement taught and what was Biblical truth. Most cult members have no clue that what they’ve been handed is a mixture of truth and fallacy. The fallacies don’t make the truths untrue. The truth does expose the commonest fallacy, however, which is to misdirect a persons faith from faith in Christ to faith in the religion/cult/movement.