Evangelical Christians Could Be Wrong

This entry was posted in Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to Evangelical Christians Could Be Wrong

  1. mossface says:

    As someone who tries to be intellectually honest, I’ve often found religious certainty frustrating. I’m an atheist, and when someone says something such as “I know God lives”, they’re expressing a level of certainty I don’t believe it’s possible to have. Further, someone claiming absolute certainty necessarily disagrees on that point. Someone who claims to absolutely know God lives obviously feels justified in that certainty.

    I cannot claim to be certain God doesn’t exist. The strongest I can state my position is to say “I do not believe God exists”. On the surface, this sounds much weaker than, say “I know God does not exist”, but it’s the more honest position.

    I wish more theists (well, everyone really) could have the introspection necessary to recognize the distinction between being confident in your position and being certain of it.

    As the speaker above asserts, acknowledging the possibility of our own error indicates intellectual maturity and humility more than it does weakness.

    I recall a conversation I had while a teenager (and believing Mormon) in which I asserted certainty that there was an afterlife. I believe I said something like “I KNOW we will continue to exist beyond the grave”. I felt certain in that statement, yet when the individual I was talking with expressed doubt, and asked how I knew, I was at a loss. The certainty I felt was abstract, and not based upon anything of substance. I resorted to saying “I just know”. I could not back up my assertion in any way, yet that didn’t impact my certainty.

    It’s my position, and the position of the speaker in the video, that certainty is no predictor of reality.

  2. jeffrey b says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with his statements. I like the cut of his jib! (lol, don’t ask my why, i just like that statement).

    I don’t think anyone could really say that they know the truth because if you do, where does faith come in?

    It’s like gravity to me. It’s a scientific law that has been proven, gravity does exist. But who am I to say that I know that EVERY time I drop something it will hit the floor? Could gravity stop existing for that moment for whatever supernatural reason? Yes. (and in which case I’m sure something to do with the earth tearing apart would happen) Anything is possible. Now, I have 100% confidence/faith/belief that gravity will continue to remain the way it is, but I would never say I know gravity will always exist.

    Same goes with my faith in Christ and His Word. I am 100% confident that my doctrinal views are in-line with what God has revealed about himself through not only the Bible but His world. I would never let myself to be naive enough to use the word “know”.

  3. HankSaint says:

    Hmmm, well I know that Jesus is the Christ, 100%. I know this beyond just faith.

    Revelation 19:10

    10 for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

    That I can testify that a “truth” is so, by and through the Power of the Holy Ghost.

    My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

    “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intest, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”


  4. setfree says:

    spoken (about God) by a demon in C.S.Lewis’ “The Screwtape letters”

    He (God) wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct. And that is where the troughs come in. You must have often wondered why the Enemy (God) does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. ()

  5. subgenius says:

    clearly you have a much more limited definition of “knowledge” than others. Certainty is not limited to only scientific parameters.
    As admirable a trait as humilty in error is, what is its application in this forum?
    That being said, one of the basic rules in debate is to never admit you are wrong, rather admit you are mistaken…after all, it is just a debate.
    I do appreciate your call for introspection, looks like some Mormon traditions are harder to break than others.

    “….that certainty is no predictor of reality.
    are you “certain” of this, or do you just “believe” this?

    really? science did not “prove” gravity, it just describes it in a replicable manner.
    Faith is a belief in truth, to deny truth is to not have faith…like mossface, who seemingly has no faith but he does, just no religious faith. He believes in science as the source for truth, not the spirit of things.
    Knowledge comes from faith, intuition, discernment, reason, logic, emotion,experience etc.
    So, are you saying that one can never “know” anything? please, that is childhood semantics.
    There is nothing intelectually or spiritually dishonest about saying “i know” nor in saying “i was mistaken”.

    People who try to marry science and religion (like fund raiser academic Koukl) walk a dangerous line. This type of “thinking” is what pushes the Words and Teachings into apostasy…cultural dilutions and doctrinal compromises based on the ways of “natural man” are what are being advocated here.
    Quite simply science equals apples and religion equals oranges.

  6. jackg says:


    When I was LDS, I used to proclaim with vigor: “I KNOW the Church is true! I KNOW JS was a prophet of God! I KNOW the BOM is truly the word of God!” I was so certain about my testimony. It wasn’t until I wept before God on my knees and confessed that I didn’t KNOW anything that His power in my life became fully realized. So, what do I say today? I say, “I believe in Jesus Christ. Though I have never seen Him, yet I believe in Him.” When Jesus spoke to doubting Thomas, He used the word “believe” when referring to those who will believe in Him without ever seeing Him. To stand up and proclaim “I KNOW” is nothing more than bravado. Now, when I say I believe that Jesus Christ truly humbled Himself, emptied Himself, and took on the form of man and dwelt among us, and died for us, I am making these statements because the Bible is authoritative for me and my life, and I believe it to be the Word of God. I can say that I have experienced God, but then it would be fair for you to say that such experiences are subjective. That’s why faith is necessary. There will be those who will (and already have) try to bully you with their bravado. But, I think you make a valid point regarding your comment that certainty is no predictor of reality. I pray that you will be open to faith in Jesus Christ, because I believe He is wooing you into relationship with Him.

    Blessings to you and your family!

  7. I like Greg Koukl’s (is that how you spell his surname) approach.

    Here’s a confession. You’ve heard the phrase “to suspend one’s disbelief”. When I think of the truth claims of Christianity, I sometimes do the opposite; I “suspend my belief”. In other words, I take the position of a non-believer, or opponent, and see if the case for Christianity can sway me.

    To do this, I have to start from the position “I could be wrong”. I have to take a gamble on Christ.

    Another confession. As a Christian, I’m aware that my message demands a lot from others. At a fundamental level, emotionally and rationally, the Gospel requires us to change. How would my message sound to those of whom I require change, if I am not prepared to change myself?

    Opening a dialog with “I am confident, but I could be wrong and I am prepared to be pursuaded” is more likely to yield a fruitful exchange of ideas. Possibly, this is more likely to engage ex-Christians, ex-Mos or ex-any-other-religion, who are usually very wary of dogma.

    I know Jesus took an entirely different and unique approach (for example: “I am the way, the truth and the life” John 14:6). He claimed not just to speak on behalf of God, but to be God. As a believer, I accept Jesus’ claims.

    However, I could be wrong, in which case the guy was possibly the greatest psychotic nut-case in recorded human history with massively over-estimated delusions of deity.

  8. Mossface,

    I don’t recall seeing you post here before, so welcome, and please stick around.

    One question I have always wanted to ask an atheist is “what kind of god do you not believe in?”

    I suspect (and you might prove me wrong) is that the kind of god you don’t believe in might look very similar to the kind of god I don’t believe in either.

  9. falcon says:

    What the speaker is suggesting is what Dale Carnege in his book “How To Win Friends and Influence People” wrote about seventy years ago. It’s one of the many communication/human relations techniques that provide for an openness in a discussion.

    “I could be wrong. I frequently am. However here are some things to consider.”

    Something else to consider, however, is “timing”. Wisdom is making the right decision at the right time. Knowing what to say, when to say it, how to say it to the person we are communicating with is tricky. The Book of Proverbs in the Bible gives us advice on how to do this. For example Proverbs 26:4-5 says, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
    So knowing the answer to give to a fool in a manner that his folly deserves takes knowledge, discretion and discernment.
    Here on MC we encounter Mormons who, because of their rejection of God, Jesus and the Gospel of the Good News, behave in a foolish manner. Despite all of the evidence that they are following a false prophet and a false religious system, they cling to it with a death grip. There is very little we can say to people who act in such a foolish manner and have an inexplicable emotional attachment to a lie.
    Communication techniques, in my opinion, will not convince someone of the errors in thinking they possess. What we can do, however, is hold to our Christian witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and proclaim the Gospel of Salvation that God offers as a gift through faith. The Bible tells us that a person cannot come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. If someone steadfastly refuses to come to Christ, there’s very little that communication techniques will do to pull back the shroud of deceit that Mormons are under. We’re dealing with a spirit that’s not going to be overly impressed with our manner of speaking. We need to accept that when it comes to the spirit of Mormonism, we are in a spiritual battle. That spirit needs to be bound and cast out in the most direct and noncompromising manner possible.

  10. HankSaint says:

    As stated by one of our good Christian posters:

    “Opening a dialog with “I am confident, but I could be wrong and I am prepared to be pursuaded” is more likely to yield a fruitful exchange of ideas. Possibly, this is more likely to engage ex-Christians, ex-Mos or ex-any-other-religion, who are usually very wary of dogma.”

    Wow, what a Golden opportunity as we Mormons Missionaries would say. An open mind, willing to hear the message of the restored Gospel, the Book of Mormon, and First Vision. Faith to believe is the first seed of one willing to gain even more light an knowledge, one who is willing to test everything spiritual, proving the scriptures to find truth that comes from the witness of the Holy Ghost. Someone who still believes God can answer prayers and revelation is not dead but the most important factor in anyones testimony. Peter is a living example of how one gains a testimony, for it is not flesh and blood, but comes from Father in Heaven. James 1:5

    Faith, Study, Repentance, Humility, and a sincere desire to know.


  11. Rick B says:

    Mossface said

    As someone who tries to be intellectually honest, I’ve often found religious certainty frustrating. I’m an atheist, and when someone says something such as “I know God lives”, they’re expressing a level of certainty I don’t believe it’s possible to have.

    Funny how you can say this about Christians, yet I have talked with many Atheists who are both 100 percent certain God does not exist and are 100 percent certain that Evolution is true.

    Their was an atheist a while back posting here her daughter is Mormon so the mother came here, I have been on her blog for the past 2 years, She lies so much I keep calling her out on it and giving specif examples of how she lies, yet she lies to try and defend her faith.

    I’m not saying your like that, But she even quoted from Steve benson about God being cruel and hateful, I went to talk to him via his blog, Him and everyone else could only attack me, call me names and never even try to answer my questions.

    I’m just saying, their is over whelming evidence that God exists, yet atheists for the most part from my experience want nothing to do with it and cruelly attack those who defend the gospel.

    I used the movie expelled as an example since this women saw the movie, All these God hating atheists could only start with the idea that life was here already and evolved they could not explain how life came from non life via the big bang.

    Many an atheists attacks my belief and God, yet they cannot be certain of their own belief. It’s one thing to claim I know with zero evidence, it’s another to claim I know for fact with over whelming evidence. I really believe the Enemy the devil uses people like you and others to say just as he said in the garden, Can you be sure, Did God Really Say….

    Then when we start to doubt we tend to walk away. Rick b

  12. subgenius says:

    i often enjoy the extent some will go to not answer a question. And through a lack of brevity draw out their inability to respond as being the fault of the question….but at least, this time, they seemingly avoided cut-and-paste from other websites (like mazeministry.com) ……….. foolish indeed.

    Martin of B
    as you may well be aware, atheism is logically flawed, simply because it relies on an absolute knowledge, in other words they must assume that God is not a possibility. This “disbelief” in the supernatural also relies on a view that human beings are merely bags of chemicals, thus being entirely reactionary beings, thus individuality and freedom are non-existent.
    Atheists are parlor entertainment, but any enlightenment you may bestow upon them may be lost, for they are predisposed that this elightenment is somehow “trickery”.

    perhaps lather, rinse, and repeat has been excessive…let us just concentrate on lather.
    The irony, being…that as a conver to the LDS church, i can honestly say that posts from falcon actually convinced me that my choice was the right one. I initially came to MC when i was researching the LDS church. This was about 2 years ago. MC encouraged a deeper inspection of the church, both LDS and non.
    However, the particular venom and intolerant tone of some posts (not to mention any names) acually enlightened me to the nature behind these particular posts…and those posts have gotten not just the LDS church wrong, but they also have the Gospel wrong….a more obvious cry for help i may have never seen.

  13. Rick B says:

    Sub said

    as you may well be aware, atheism is logically flawed

    I agree with you on this, Unlike Mossface who admits God “Might” exist yet he can only hope God does not, because if he is wrong he will be called to account, then spend eternity apart from him.

    Many an atheist claims they know for sure God does not exist, Funny how they can know 100 percent for sure about something, but we as Christians cannot. Then they would have to be God to say for sure without evidence God does not exist. So your correct, they are flawed. Rick b

  14. falcon says:

    I believe it was setfree who posted the link to the five young Mormon missionary men who came to Christ, at least one, while he was on his mission. One of the interesting things that Micah, I believe his name was, talked about were the communication techniques that he was taught in the LDS Missionary Indoctrination Camp. One of these techniques was that the missionary was to always sit on the edge of his chair, lean forward and never take his eyes off the prospect while giving the LDS pitch. The idea was that this technique would communicate confidence in the message being delivered. Actually, it could also be a not so subtle form of intimidation.
    Mark R. was kind enough to send me a booklet recently titled “Enticing Words of Man’s Wisdom: A Survey of the Mormon Missionary Mind-Manipulating Methods” by Wesley P. Walters.
    Under the section titled “The Manipulative Methods” it says, “The whole presentation is an extremely well tuned sales approach incorporating sales techniques that have worked successfully for unscrupulous salesmen from wheeling-dealing car hucksters to clever encyclopedia peddlers, but usually avoided by more reputable salesmen.
    At least seven manipulative devices appear in loaded questions designed to maneuver the prospect into the response that will lead him eventually into membership in the LDS church”
    1. Feed the concepts in the questions.
    2. Misdirection questions.
    3. Attitude building.
    4. Desire stimulation.
    5. Testimonial reinforcement
    6. Feeling development.
    7. Emotive closing.
    Now I’m sure that the presenter in the video posted here is a sincere fellow, hardy and well-met. But admitting that you could be wrong, which Mormons don’t do, is a disarming technique and leaves the door open to discussion. That’s fine if a person is sincere. But what we have with Mormons are direct lies, avoidance lies, and obfuscation all delivered in a sweet syrupy manner that is larceny no matter how sincere.

  15. Setfree, thanks to my parents, my wife and I are going to see Max McLean perform The Screwtape Letters tonight at a nice theater in Washington D.C.!

  16. Sub,

    “i often enjoy the extent some will go to not answer a question”

    This is how I view you,

    I don’t really see the “I could be wrong” phrase as being necessary. Most, if not everyone assumes the other person is wrong. It is common knowledge we could be wrong about many things. Is the guy in this video willing to admit he could be wrong about using the phrase, “I could be wrong”?

  17. JesusFreek says:


    Based on your posts it appears that you are an Agnostic rather than an Atheist. Agnostics admit that there could be a God, while Atheists generally say there isn’t a God.

    We could all be wrong, but something has to be true. As God’s creation we should strive to determine truth wherever it leads. This is why I personally can’t follow the LDS faith, or any other strictly controlled religious system. This is why I really love non-denominational Christian churches. There is freedom of thought within. I’m not afraid to tell my Pastor things that we disagree on and have an open discussion. In fact he encourages input, suggestions, etc. The ultimate authority is not church leadership, but God’s Word (the bible).

    I would encourage you to be like the Bereans, in Acts 17-11. I can tell that you are independent, in thought. I see similarities between you and I.

  18. subgenius says:

    David W
    “This is how I view you”
    nah nah nee boo boo, what a revelation! you think i am a heretic and i know you are blasphemous.
    Are there questions of yours that i have left unanswered? I have tried to respond, nay, answer any honets question. Besides my comment was directed at cut-and-paste falcon. This is the second Ev poster who has revealed their true lack of intellectual integrity by either plagiarism or manipulating facts in order to mount an attack against either LDS cuhrch…and fortunately, i am not the only one who notices the integrity of such a tactic.
    To answer your question here, i have no way of even speculating about whether Mr. Koukl would admit he is “wrong” about using that phrase, but my guess (after seeing his website which has his image on every page) would be that he would admit it if it either raised money, suited his ego, or otherwise furthered his agenda.
    i do agree with you “i could be wrong” is not a necessary qualifier here.

  19. falcon says:

    So when the Missionary boys come out of the LDS Indoctrination Camp they are all set to use their newly acquired communication techniques on unsuspecting prospects. The phrase, “We could be wrong” or “We might be wrong” is no where to be found in their LDS sales manual.
    We will, however, find questions that feed certain concepts. For example: “In your opinion, Mr. Brown, why do you feel it would be helpful and important for God to give us direction and help today?” This question feeds the Mormon concept into the question and in attempting to answer it, Mr. Brown is already buying the idea that he needs continued revelation today. He is, in effect, asked to think up his own reasons why the Bible is not a sufficient guide and why he needs further revelation, which the Mormon church claims to supply through a living prophet.
    As a follow-up after the story of Joseph Smiths’ magnificent vision is presented and when Jesus is claimed to have said that all churches “taught the doctrines of men,” the question is asked, “How does this help you to understand why the churches today teach so many conflicting doctrines?” Now the point of having Mr. Brown answer this question of course is that another Mormon idea that all the churches are wrong. Now of course the dirty little secret is that the Mormon church has probably taught more conflicting doctrines then all other churches combined. Would Mormons ever say, “we were wrong” regarding all of these conflicting doctrines?
    Another question: “Do you feel, Mr. Brown, it was important for Joseph Smith to receive proper authority before proceeding to establish the Church in the Lord’s name?” A “yes” answer and we are off and running because “Mr. Brown” has virtually accepted the idea that Smith had the authority to restore the true church.
    So the idea is to plant suggestions in the prospects mind through the concept-feeding questions and then commit him to his own suggestions.
    This is not an honest dialogue of course.

  20. subgenius says:

    Many enjoy painting the LDS in the colors of a large complex conspiracy. They litter this board with propoganda that dissects either the missionary experience, church doctrine, or member fellowship as a nefarious undertaking.
    This is an elementary tactic of “deceivers”. It is easy to paint anyone’s actions as less than honorable.
    For example, these numbered methods:
    1.Deceptive sources rely on inducing feelings of doom at the onset of their post. This undue fatalism is not offered in positive sources.
    2. Deceptive sources rely on falsehoods which sit on the shoulders of truth. Positive sources provide verifiable acts, not rhetoric.
    3. Deceptive sources rely on pointing out inadequecies, whereas positive sources have a goal of humble understanding, with no need to exalt or repress the individual.
    4. Deceptive sources often rely on the cattle prod attack. They constantly atack in order to manipulate into a position of their liking.
    5. Deceptive sources often provide cunningly flawed facts and sources.
    6. Deceptive sources will always cloud judgement by highlighting the worst risks of the best path against the best promises of the worst path.
    7. Deceptive sources always insist that “intuition” is useless, because intuition is what sees through the superficial truths put forth by the deceiver.

    when i review these points and apply them to a post above which first opens with a “credible” source of a LDS missionary conversion…then leads into an alternative view of ‘sitting on the edge of seat – eye contact’ – saying things are not as they seem, rather they are something i say they are. Then a pamphlet of is presented, with sources to once again give it “credibility”. Then a list of ‘guilt by association’ is aligned with the LDS missionary. No evidence is given in support of the thesis, just a careful list tailored to the “point”, and presented as if it came from the LDS church itself.
    The deceiver is predatory indeed…
    but hey, i could be right.


  21. falcon says:

    So does the phrase “I could be wrong” ever appear in Mormonism? Let’s see 4,000 changes in the BoM followed by the statement (We were wrong). The introduction to the BoM is changed from suggesting that all of the American Indians are the descendants of Jews to what, some? (We were wrong.) The sacred temple rituals changed in what, 1990, because the throat slitting and bowel dissecting motions were offensive, especially to women. (We were wrong.) Polygamy (We were wrong.) Blacks and the priesthood. (We were wrong.) Adam-god, (We were wrong.)
    I’m sure more could be added to the list but the one thing that the Mormon church or Mormons don’t dare ever admit is, “we were wrong.” So we get progressive revelation so that nothing can ever be said to be wrong. It’s just a matter of getting more knowledge and light even if it contradicts previous truth.
    So our Mormon missionary boys, trained at the LDS Missionary Indoctrination camp will ask Mr. Brown, “Since the church that Joseph Smith was commanded to restore is the church of Jesus Christ, do you feel it should be directed today as it was anciently through apostles and prophets. Now, this is really wrong, but Mr. Brown isn’t going to know that the early church was not directed in the dictatorial manner of the LDS “prophets”. Nor will Mr. Brown know that the present structure of the LDS church does not even agree with the structure set out in the BoM. Is the BoM wrong? Not by Mormon standards.
    Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear “We were wrong” by Mormons. They are incapable of it!

  22. falcon says:

    The Mormon missionary boys, well trained in how to sell Mormonism at the Mormon Indoctrination Training Camp, will ask the prospect “Mr. Brown” if “he feels that reading and studying the BoM would be a good way to determine the truth of the message?” Pretty funny since the 4,000 changes would indicate that the BoM is wrong. The present message of SLC Mormonism is vastly different from what is set forth in the BoM. Something is wrong some where.
    *there’s nothing in the BoM about progressing from one to another of Three Degrees of Glory taught by the Mormon church.
    *the BoM teaches that you leave this world either saved or eternally lost and there is no second chance (Is that wrong?)
    *there are no plural gods, and polygamy was “abominable before me, saith the Lord”.
    *the BoM was the fullness of the gospel right? No mention of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Somethings wrong.
    If someone wants to determine the truth, the Mormon message should be compared to the Bible. Doing that will reveal that Mormonism is not from God.
    The fact of the matter is that the restored gospel of Mormonism is “wrong”. No amount of prayer can bring God to change His will and truth already revealed in the Bible. When God has spoken on a matter, it’s useless to ask Him to show whether something is contrary to what He has already revealed. God doesn’t need to say “I was wrong.” He spoke through His Son as revealed to His apostles and the message has been protected by the Holy Spirit.
    (attribution: “Enticing Words of Man’s Wisdom”)

  23. falcon says:

    Now if we look hard enough, I’m sure we can find a Mormon leader somewhere at sometime that could admit wrong doing. What about John Lee? Wasn’t he one of the Mountain Massacre guys who took the fall for Bringham Young. Bruce McConkie sort of said that BY was wrong about Adam-god.
    Joseph Smith’s son who headed-up the rival Restored Church of LDS, now known as the Community of Christ, had trouble coming to grips with the fact that his old man was committing adultery with married women and at least one adolescent girl, said that if Poppa Joe was involved in polygamy he was “wrong”.
    Because historical investigation, archeological research, DNA and linguistic evidence and Biblical studies have discredited Mormonism, Mormons are left with only an inner feeling that they are right and the whole world is “wrong”.
    So what the Mormon missionaries are left with is to get prospects to “feel good” about the Mormon message.
    *”Let’s suppose for a moment that what we have told you is true. Do you ‘feel’ that the message or mission of these heavenly messengers would be important to you and your family, Mr. Brown?”
    *”Let’s suppose that what we have said is true and that our Heavenly Father really has restored his church. Do you ‘feel’ that he would want to tell everyone who was willing to ask him sincerely that this is his church?”
    If someone has feelings, how could those feelings possibly be wrong? Bad feelings of course in Mormonism are “wrong”, good feelings are “right”. That’s the determining factor as to if something is true.

  24. subgenius says:

    People always overdo the matter when they attempt deception charles d. warner

    “Pretty funny since the 4,000 changes would indicate that the BoM is wrong…”
    pretty funny indeed. with this logic, the Bible would also be indicated as ‘wrong’, since there are several documented changes amongst the several versions..eg- “firstborn” in Matthew 1:25 does not appear in 9 of the 16 versions i have avail…and this type of omission/revision occurs in about 300 verses in the NT. (i do not subscribe to this reasoning, but the above post does?)

    That post “omits” that most of BoM “changes” have been typographical and punctuation in origin. (see Deception 2,3,5 above)

    “We will, however, find questions that feed certain concepts…“In your…Mr. Brown….God to give us…help today?”

    I have searched Preach My Gospel, but i can not “find” what you say can be found.
    please, provide referece (unless this is a pearl?)(see Deception 5 above)

    “Mormons don’t dare ever admit is, “we were wrong””

    Ah, mea culpa. wrong, wrong, wrong,
    (see Deception 4 above)
    The admission by any Church that it is “wrong”?…interesting concept, especially for scientists. What is the form of admission? written declaration?, footnote?, supplemental text in back of scriptures right before index?
    The logic being applied is since you did not do this it means you are this. The problem is that “wrong” is an objective term being applied to a relative situation.
    (see Deception 2,3)

    But lets look at the “assumptions of guilt” above – like Polygamy.(we were wrong?) i would think the church would “admit” such a thing, if in fact in that time they were wrong. The practice of polygamy was discontinued due to revelation. Just as Levirate marriage is no longer practiced without a fireworks of apologies and admissions of “wrong” stapled on every post.


  25. HankSaint says:

    Subgenius, amazing find, “mazeministry.com” until you posted this site I was unaware of what a gold mind of misrepresentation, gossip, borrowed snippets, and just unbelievable statements that not even most Mormons would recognize. I was suspicious of the many borrowed talking points, and just outright plagiarism we find here at the Church of Scholars posting on MC. 🙂

    My hat is off to you, and also your take on the absolute benefit one derives from coming here to read the whacked out criticisms along with the many false accusations. It does tend to boost ones testimony, how some one who once belonged, beheld the truth and now fled for less green fields, reminds me of the Book of Mormon story about the tree of life and those who fled to be part of the spacious building where we see finger pointing and ridicule of those who stayed the course, as for me I find it a badge of honor to be one of the few who realize that the Gospel that once was is now again restored in its fulness.


  26. subgenius says:

    If someone has feelings, how could those feelings possibly be wrong? Bad feelings of course in Mormonism are “wrong”, good feelings are “right”. That’s the determining factor as to if something is true.”

    see Deception 7
    Deceptive sources always insist that “intuition” is useless, because intuition is what sees through the superficial truths put forth by the deceiver.

  27. HankSaint says:

    This is really good, found it at mazeministry.com

    Seems as though Church Unity isn’t exactly what our Evangelical Creedal Christians want us to believe. LOL.

    by Eric Barger

    For some time now, I have been tracking something called the “Emergent Church Movement” (also known as the “Emerging Church”). I don’t want to assume that everybody here is up to speed on what I’m talking about so first, a few words of definition. At some point in the mid-1990’s the moniker “Emerging Church” surfaced out of the Young Leadership Network. It came from the notion that because the culture has changed a new church should emerge in response. Claiming to be the answer to reach the so-called postmodern generation, Emergents claim to have explored all of the avenues of what the Church has historically been only to find that little or none of it satisfied them. The common bond of the Emergents was and still is a general dissatisfaction for Bible believing Christianity – though nearly all of them claim to be “Evangelicals!”

    Wow, no satisfaction and yet they claim to be Evangelicals, how does all this add up with the following scripture. Emerging Church? Dissatisfaction, Unity? Hmmm, interesting.

    “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:11-3)

  28. falcon says:

    Grant Palmer, author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” said in an interview that the Mormon church was in need of reform. Well, in order to have reform there has to be an admission that something is “wrong” which we know will never happen in the SLC Mormon church. Now we know that the Community of Christ is much more forthcoming regarding the history of the Mormon church and confronting the errors they see that were introduced into the sect. To say it another way, these folks have moved on. The Brighamites are however stuck with what they’ve got. They can’t bring themselves to say the “wrong” word, even though it’s very obvious that the SLC sect is a false religious system. The evidence has stacked-up so high against this aberrant and heretical cult that if there was an admission of the bogus nature of the belief system, the entire structure would collapse.
    The foundation of Mormonism is deceit and that continues today but the false system must be protected at all costs because it is feelings based. As Christians we need to keep our communities informed regarding not only the false teachings of Mormonism, but the tactics used by the missionaries to sell a defective product that should be recalled.

  29. JesusFreek says:


    If the bible were originally written in english your point on different translations might be valid. If people start changing the original hebrew, greek, or aramaic text of the biblical manuscripts that’s when I will start to worry. Have you ever studied the bible in the original language or at least considered certain words and why different translations might choose there wording differently?

    The difference with the BOM is it was originally written by a direct translation in english from golden plates. It is called “the most correct book on earth” by the LDS church.

  30. grindael says:

    Speaking of MISTAKES, and how changes in the BOM are ONLY TO TYPOS, here are some interesting changes in the Book of Mormon from 1 Nephi: (I have a photocopy of it & how are these ‘typos’?)

    1 Nephi 8: (1830 version first, changes below)
    18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.

    18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the SON OF God, after the manner of the flesh.

    21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, EVEN THE ETERNAL FATHER! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

    21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the SON OF the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

    32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, THE EVERLASTING GOD, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

    32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the SON OF the everlasting God…

    Chapter 13:

    40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God IS THE ETERNAL FATHER and the Saviour of the world…”

    40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the SON OF the Eternal Father…

  31. grindael says:

    Jeff Lindsay says this of BOM changes:

    “Critics mock the change[s] as a way of cover-up of a contradiction. It is possible that the change was not needed and that the original text was correct. Alternatively, it is possible that an ancient scribal error existed in the original text, which was conveyed through the translation but later corrected.” (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml)

    On the translation of the BOM, this is how it was claimed to be done:

    Martin Harris (Edward Stevenson’s 1881 account):

    By aid of the seer stone, SENTENCES WOULD APPEAR and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, “Written,” and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but IF NOT WRITTEN CORRECTLY IT REMAINED until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.

    David Whitmer (Eri Mullin interview, 1874):

    “. . . the words would appear, and if he failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then pass away; another come, and so on.”

    Since this was the method of translation, any changes in the text after this, are an admission that God made the mistake, not the translator (smith). This would also cover mistakes in the original plates. It is well known now that smith used his magick peep stone to translate the BOM, (which later was called the Biblical Urim & Thummim). It should be noted that the mention of the Urim and Thummim in Doctrine and Covenants 10:1, dated “summer of 1828,” WAS WRITTEN BACK INTO THIS REVELATION AT A LATER DATE. In its original form as Chapter Nine of the 1833 Book of Commandments, the revelation makes no mention of the Urim and Thummim. The mention of Urim and Thummim in what is now designated D&C 10:1 first appears in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Commandments, where it is found as Section 38.

  32. grindael says:

    Apparently the Church took that action to cover up the ‘peep-stone’ accounts, and replace it with something that sounded Biblical, rather than occultic.

    It is notable that the term “Urim and Thummim” is not found in the Book of Mormon and was never used by Joseph Smith with reference to producing the Book of Mormon until after 1833. In that year, a close associate of Smith, W.W. Phelps, speculated that the ancient Nephite interpreters mentioned in the Book of Mormon and by Joseph Smith might be the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament.

    Phelps wrote in the LDS publication The Evening and Morning Star (Jan. 1833) that the Book of Mormon had been translated, “through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles — (known perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim) …”

    Phelps words, “known perhaps in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim” show that it was merely speculation on his part that associated Joseph’s magic seer stone with the biblical Urim and Thummim. Phelps’ speculation gained quick popularity to the point where LDS writers used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to both the mystical interpreters Joseph Smith said were with the gold plates, and to the seer stone Joseph placed in his hat while dictating the Book of Mormon. As a result, many LDS writings used the term Urim and Thummim synonymously for seer stone. An example of this confusion of the terms is provided by Joseph Fielding Smith:

    “The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church.”

  33. grindael says:

    This overlap of terms is also reflected in the testimony of some of the witnesses to Joseph’s dictation process. But, according to David Whitmer, the entire BOM text we have today came through Joseph’s seer stone & not through the Nephite interpreters. In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints’ Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his “Peep stone” to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

    … he used a stone called a “Seers stone,” the “Interpreters” having been taken away from him because of transgression. The “Interpreters” were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on & translate by use of a “Seers stone” which he had, & which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English.

    Again, we ask the question what is a prophet & WHO is running the show? If smith ‘transgressed’ & the ‘interpreters’ were taken away, why did God not just give them back? Why did smith use a stone in a hat? Why did smith himself never elaborate and continually dodge the question on HOW he translated the BOM? If the BOM was dictated by the ‘gift and power of God’ why did smith need a peepstone in the first place? (Whitmer said the stone was for convenience & that he did not NEED the plates for they were not in the room with him for most of the translation.) It was ok to keep translating with a peepstone, but not with God’s ‘holy interpreters’?

    This is utter nonsense. Why, if he never really needed the plates did the ‘angel of light’ who revealed the BOM to him, give them to him in the first place? (The term ‘angel of light’ has been removed from the D&C later additions for obvious reasons). If the original text was correct, as Lindsay professes, ( as does smith) Why then, these changes in 1 Nephi?

  34. grindael says:

    Smith believed (when he ‘produced’ the BOM) that God was a Spirit, Jesus was the Eternal Father in the FLESH, & the Holy Spirit was the mind of God (the Spirit) and Jesus [The Eternal Father] incarnate. (Lectures On Faith from the 1835 D&C), He then REVISED who God was to justify polygamy.
    Like Brigham Young, Smith CHANGED his views on God. If a proclaimed prophet of God does not know who GOD is, how can ANYTHING that comes from them be believed?

    As for such STRONG denunciations of science, the more men learn about the creation of the universe, the more it becomes obvious that it was orchestrated by GOD from NOTHING. Stephen Hawking, (an agnostic who was an atheist) in trying to answer the question of the BIG BANG theory, espouses the view that the Big Bang occurred from a small molecule.

    “In his book, A Brief History of Time, he refers to a 1984 work with James Hartle, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Using an elegant vacuum fluctuation model, they were able to provide a mathematical rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time. This is also called the “universe as a wave function.” They were using very simple models and while such mathematical exercises are highly speculative, they may eventually lead us to a deeper understanding of this creation event.” – Dr. Henry F. “Fritz” Schaefer, III

    “For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I’m sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang.” –Stephen Hawking

    Science and Religion are not necessarily apples and oranges. It is when men like smith ‘jump the gun’ and make blanket statements like God ‘organized’ matter that it becomes so.

  35. Sub,

    “i am not the only one who notices the integrity of such a tactic.”

    Because it is not happening. Where do you get,
    “This is the second Ev poster who has revealed their true lack of intellectual integrity by either plagiarism or manipulating facts in order to mount an attack against either LDS cuhrch” from this, “This is how I view you”? FYI the second, part of the post was not directed at you.

    Sub, there are several questions I have raised (not in this thread though) that you have neither commented on or answered. Where is the fight here? Indeed, where have I blasphemed? Coming from a person who rejects the plain testimony of gospel writers, I consider the “blasphemy” charge to be a compliment.

  36. falcon says:

    There’s a major difference between saying something like “I may be/could be/might be wrong” and “I am/was wrong” or perhaps “What I previously believed was true, I have now concluded is false (wrong).” This last statement is generally what comes through when reading the exit stories of those people who have left the Mormon church. The statement is often accompanied by strong emotions, generally anger.
    No one wants to feel that they have been hoodwinked and taken advantage of. This is exactly what happens to folks caught in the trap of Mormonism. From the beginning the missionary boys are taught to develop strong emotions in the prospect. These strong emotions are than suggested to be from God, confirming the truth of the Mormon message. This is a dishonest practice but must be used because if a prospect finds out the truth about Mormonism, they won’t take the trip into the baptismal tank.
    Fortunately, the Christian Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on a much firmer basis that that of feeling. It’s foundation is God’s Holy Word the Bible; a book with an authentic, verifiable history. The inner witness of the Spirit, for the Christian, is the witness as to a living relationship with the Risen Savior. The Mormon prospect is asked to get a “feeling” about the BoM and the LDS church. The history of both are verified as being totally bogus and a religious scam perpetuated by an occultist with a magic rock.

  37. HankSaint says:

    One of our posters from the Church of Scholars is promoting the following line.

    “No one wants to feel that they have been hoodwinked and taken advantage of. This is exactly what happens to folks caught in the trap of Mormonism.

    LOL, this is hilarious especially in a day and age when any and all information is just a mouse click away. This same Creedal Christian wants you to believe this is all a cult and most if not all Mormons are brain dead or brain washed. Now we have this newest criticism that most or all feel trapped. Hmmm, wonder why so many Converts to Mormonism first read the BOM, then follow the counsel therein to pray and ask.

    Lets see, do they pray and ask President Thomas Monson, or do they pray and ask the Missionaries, maybe they pray and ask a evil spirit 🙂
    Then it is suggested we are directed to get a feeeeeeling. After reading the BOM we are promised a FEEEEEELING, I wonder where that is written or maybe suggested, being a long time member I hear so many new stories outside Mormonism it’s hard to tell which one is the most recent fabrication.

    Scenario, Jesus asks Peter, how do you know I’m the Christ? Peter, well it sure wasn’t the Missionaries since it can’t be flesh and blood. It wasn’t the fact that I walked with you and witnessed you performed miracles, no none of these were as important as my personal prayer, and the revelation I received from Father in Heaven. I would suggest to all says Peter, Faith, Study, Humility, and prayer.

    Regards, Richard.

  38. falcon says:

    There’s a big difference in making a claim that something is translated accurate and claiming that what has been translated is “true”. They are two different things all together. When it comes to the subject of Biblical translation, we are asking here, “has it been done accurately”. In order to translate the Biblical text accurately, several things have to be considered. The goal of hermeneutics is to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God. What we do know that when it comes to Biblical interpretation that the cults and sects employ one or more specialized principles of Biblical interpretation which makes their basic hermeneutics a different species from that of the Reformers and historic Protestantism.
    The only way to clear the atmosphere and to determine what is right and wrong, proper and improper, orthodox and heretical, is to give one’s self to a careful study of the science of Biblical hermeneutics. Otherwise we deal with symptoms, not with causes; we debate about superstructure when we should be debating about foundations. (Protestant Biblical Interpretation; Bernard Ramm)
    When it comes to this topic or any other for that matter, I am continually amazed at the warehouse of misinformation that is housed in the intellectual storage houses of Mormonism. With just a little hard work, diligence and a desire to get it right, it is possible for a person to get accurate information. But the problem is, of course, that Mormons have to protect their emotional equilibrium. That’s why we get these fantastic and faulty explanation on just about any topic we discuss. They are religious UFO believers.
    But that’s how cults survive. They get people to buy their nonsense emotionally and from than on everything is done to discourage real grown-up thinking. There are Mormons who know it’s all a sham but they stay with it rather than say it’s wrong, out loud and in public at least.

  39. HankSaint says:

    Some more from the Religion of Scholars, “They get people to buy their nonsense emotionally and from than on everything is done to discourage real grown-up thinking. There are Mormons who know it’s all a sham but they stay with it rather than say it’s wrong, out loud and in public at least.”

    Hmmm, if I remember right there was once a Great Consul of Bishops and one Sun Worshiping Dictator.

    “Many denominations have rejected all or part of an earlier orthodoxy but are still considered to be Christian. Furthermore, the historical exclusion is invalid because it makes the New Testament inadequate for communicating Christian faith unless it is supplemented by later nonbiblical traditions. But most of all, the historical exclusion is invalid because it proposes a test for being Christian (namely, acceptance of the later historical church with its councils, creeds, and customs) that the New Testament Saints themselves could not have passed, having lived centuries before these things came to be.” Source http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/general/christians/

    The well used word Cult by our worthy Creedal Christian hints at the following: Cult is a subjective word meaning, to the particular person using it, “a religion I don’t like.

    Regards, TBM Richard.

  40. Hank,

    Within the pages on the NT there are people who claim Christianity but are not Christin according to the NT. The early Church continued this practice and hence the councils. Even your church excludes people who call themselves “Mormon” and even has a doctrinal creed (the articles of faith).

    Normally, I do not use the word cult because it has lost most of its meaning. However, there are parasitic faith groups in any religious sphere. Islam has the Nation of Islam that is regarded as an Islamic heresy, or worse – “not Islam”. We, Christians, have you and you guys have Mormon groups that draw most of their converts from the “apostate church” (your church).

    So yeah, Islam is a religion I do not like, and Mormonism is a cult.

    P.S. I am sure you are wrong about this:
    “Jesus asks Peter, how do you know I’m the Christ?” – Jesus did not say that.

  41. falcon says:

    On the road to recovery, people coming out of aberrant sects and cults have to come to grips with the fact that the organization and leader(s) they have given their time, treasure and emotions to, are wrong. Sometimes it’s a gradual thaw over time and sometimes it is one cataclysmic event that pushes them over the edge and to this conclusion. It’s sobering and sad to come to that place where the organization no longer has any credibility with the adherent.
    In some ways the exit stories of exMormons take on a familiar ring and similar process. But the one consistent with each story is that the person begins to lose faith in the organization. Once that happens, the control exerted by the sect is no longer effective in holding on to the faithful.
    I was listening to a testimony of a woman who had, after several years, made her way out of a polygamy “arrangement”. Her break-away moment came when she no longer feared the threat of hell held over her by the cult. She said, “I figured hell couldn’t be any worse than what I was living in.”
    Once the cat is out of the bag and the person is no longer held by fear and intimidation, they gain a new life. Unfortunately too many exMormons end-up as atheists. Having been burned by the Morg they don’t want anything to do with God or religion. There are many sad outcomes of Mormonism, but this has to be one of the saddest.

  42. subgenius says:

    David W
    Honestly, i try to respond to every earnest question posed inmy direction. I actually reposnded to your question yesterday, but that entire posts seems to have disappeared.
    Nevertheless, if i have missed any feel free to ask me direct (no more than 3 at a time), and i assure you i will do my best to respond.

    Do i believe in the virgin birth, etc..
    of course i do, it is in my church’s canonized doctrine/scriptures – BUT that does not mean it is beyond my inspection, as are many tenets of the OT, NT, and BoM.
    Funny how so many post here that i “denounce” the Gospels, or i don’t believe this or that…yet none of these posters can quote where i do this.
    But i suppose those posters “feel” like i do (paying attention falcon?)

    The plagiarism and manipulation accusation did not apply to you. I had caught grindael(i think) posting a definition which he admittedly manipulated to serve his position…and falcon has cut-n-pasted complete sections from mazeministry.com without reference (unless of course he is the original author)..seemingly making the post his “own”. 2 examples of less than admirable intellectually integrity, i hope you agree…however in the wild west of the internet i suppose i expect to much.

    Jesus Freek
    obviously you missed the thread about ‘chinese telephone’ because your Ev peers here would require that you retract your translation thesis above. Personally, i think you make a good point…about some versions of the Bible.

    i recommend the no more tears, no more tangles brand of shampoo.

  43. Sub,

    If you do believe in the Virgin birth why are we just hearing about that now? If this is the case why do you think Matthew, Luke, and Joseph Smith rendered “almah” incorrectly? I can assure you that saying a Biblical writer got something wrong will definitely win you the charge of “denouncing the gospels” – at least around here.

    “i recommend the no more tears, no more tangles brand of shampoo”

    Again, childish. Try to elevate the conversation. And if I see Falcon write anything childish I would call him on it too. If I write something childish feel free to call me on it – though you could be wrong about it.

  44. falcon says:

    Thankfully more Mormons are coming to the conclusion everyday that there’s something radically wrong with Mormonism. The steady flow of adherents out of this sect is encouraging in that they are uncovering the seedy side of the founder of the religion and the inconsistent nature of the proclamations of the prophet-wolves. The hardcore will always be the hardcore but these are the folks whose capacity to process information has been seriously compromised as we see demonstrated here on a daily basis.
    With a little digging, it’s pretty easy to find information that indicates that something is certainly “wrong” in Mormonland. On February 20, 2002, the LA Times reported the results of a study showing that Utah led the nation in antidepressant drug use. Anti depressants are prescribed in Utah at a rate double the national average. Use of such drugs in Utah is twice that used by residents of California and three times that of residents of New York. Striving to become a god must definitely have a downside.
    There’s something called “the Mother of Zion” syndrome in Utah. In Mormondom, it seems, there’s a social expectation-particularly among the females-to put on a mask, say “Yes” to everything that comes her way and hide the misery and pain. For the women, they are supposed to be perfect because the lady across the street can do it and she has three more kids than you and her hair is always in place.
    Saying, “this is wrong” and escaping is a challenge but it’s also very liberating.

  45. subgenius says:

    i respond to falcon at the same level as his posts..and i do believe that the solution is as simple as i state.
    elevate the conversation? there is no conversation with falcon..by falcon’s own admission. Are plagiarism, vile rhetoric, and baseless insults the qualities of elevated conversation?

    Yes, there is a possibility that “almah” was translated incorrectly. Yes, i am a mormon, like most of them, that does worship JS.

    one can find God’s hand in everything, no matter how shallow or deep you investigate. Science does not “reveal” God, but rather the opposite is true, right?
    still apples and oranges. Though there is a value to science, that value is irrelevant to religion.
    To further attempt this modern day “christian science” hybrid is the breeding ground for apostasy. the scientific method does not apply to noah’s ark…but morality and God do apply to science. They are seperate and not equal. To imply that the two can be reconciled is absurd and impossible….apples and oranges

  46. HankSaint says:

    Wow another misrepresentation of facts and evidence by the usual Church of the Scholars.

    “The steady flow of adherents out of this sect is encouraging in that they are uncovering the seedy side of the founder of the religion and the inconsistent nature of the proclamations of the prophet-wolves”.

    Aw, something is wrong in Mormon-land; drugs, sex, and lies. So many are leaving that the Church is experiencing a exodus that would make Moses journey in the desert seem tame.

    “Critics charge that the rate of antidepressant use is much higher among Mormons than the general population. They claim this is evidence that participation in the LDS Church is inordinately stressful due to pressure for Mormons to appear “perfect.”

    Utah ranked seventh in total prescriptions overall. This indicates that Utahans are heavier than average users of all prescription medications.

    Utah also ranked high in use of penicillin, insulin, thyroid hormones, antirheumatics, and anticonvulsants. Is Mormon culture also responsible for higher incidences of infection, diabetes, hypothyroidism, arthritis, and epilepsy?

    Idaho and Arizona, the two other states in the “Mormon Corridor” with large LDS populations, did not rate high in antidepressant use. If LDS culture is responsible for high levels of stress leading to antidepressant use, why didn’t those two states rank closer to Utah?

    For studies involving members of the Church of Jesus Christ specifically:
    70% were positive; 24% had neutral effects on mental health (thus, only 6% showed a negative effect);
    LDS women were less depressed than other women; LDS men were no different from non-LDS men.
    Thus, the available research does not support the contention that religious people have more mental health problems than non-religious people, or that being a Latter-day Saint religious person is mentally unhealthy.

    Research and Source 🙂 http://en.fairmormon.org/Statistical_claims/LDS_use_of_antidepressants 🙂

  47. HankSaint says:

    For our Christian Scholars, Mormons may be going through a little hiccup so we will have to wait for future results. I havn’t seen any figures by our misrepresenters that would document the number of members leaving compared to those who are still being converted and also to all other denominations that surly are seeing a decline in membership. But what he hay. Critics or liars can figure, but figures never lie.

    Projected Church Membership
    2000 11.203

    2001 11.607
    2002 12.016
    2003 12.431
    2004 12.849
    2005 13.271
    2010 15.414
    2015 17.546
    2020 19.584
    2025 21.460
    2030 23.128
    2035 24.565
    2040 25.770
    2045 26.757
    2050 27.552
    2055 28.182
    2060 28.676
    2065 29.059
    2070 29.354
    2075 29.580
    2080 29.752

    Warmest regards, Richard.

  48. Sub,

    So Joseph got it right?


    In honor of my current, favorite Mormon – youtube star Shay Carl, a.k.a. Shaytard, I hearby dub the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
    Saints . . . the Church of the Tards. It is about as mature and as meaningful as the “Church of the Scholars”. So mods, please be consistent and delete this post along with any of Hank’s that refer to the “Church of the Scholars” or allow it to stand with Hank’s. If we are going to go to the gutter lets go there fast and deep.
    Happy New Year!

  49. Mike R says:


    You made a good point here , and on the other
    thread [ your article on the Virgin Birth ]
    I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much evasive
    manuvers such as attempts to go off topic and
    accusations of misquotations, as I have from
    Hank there.

    Happy New Year to you as well.

  50. falcon says:

    The Norman Rockwell image of Mormonism that the Salt Lake City based sect likes to project, just doesn’t match reality. The fact of the matter is that the Mormon church works feverishly to cover-up the early history of the sect and to present a sanitized version of Joseph Smith that never existed. And woe to the Mormon who is honest in writing or speaking about the Mormonism that the Mormon church tries to keep neatly tucked under a shroud of secrecy.
    Grant Palmer, author of “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” wrote honestly about the Joseph Smith the Mormon church doesn’t want folks knowing about. For his honesty Palmer was disfellowshipped from the church. In an interview Palmer said the LDS church is in need of reform. His hope was that this might happen. I say, “Don’t hold your breath Mr. Palmer”. It would require for the church to fess up to something it clearly wants to ignore. The fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith and his prophet-wolf successors are the elephant in the LDS living room that they all try to ignore.
    In his presentation “Why People Leave the LDS Church”, Mormon John P. Dehlin discusses the information that is generally hidden from Mormons by the Mormon church concerning Joseph Smith and the early history of the LDS church. They certainly don’t want to discuss the disfunction within the present day Mormon church and the problems facing Mormon families caused by the structure and practices of the Mormon church.

    Dehlin’s presentation can be accessed at:

    It’s a very refreshing presentation but I LOL when Mr. Dehlin, after presenting information that would give the most ardent Mormon pause, states, “Now this is not a reason to leave the church.” To me it would be like telling a woman whose husband is an abusing, philandering jerk not to leave him. A real disconnect I’d say.
    Everyday the rolls of the “inactive” Mormon grows as more Mormons figure out that this “church” is not true.

Leave a Reply