A Bad Religious Theory

Over at “Darwin’s God” is a link to a “survey of failed evolutionary predictions” – the website DarwinsPredictions.com. The featured article is a lengthy explanation of some predictions inherent in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and how they have failed. The logical premise of the argument is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A theory which becomes too complicated with modifications and falsifications should be scrapped in favor of a better and more parsimonious model. Such is the case with (Macro-)Evolution, according to article author, Cornelius Hunter.

I’m not going to rehash Hunter’s article; I leave it to the reader to enjoy the reading firsthand. What I want to do here is to use the same argument with the Mormon faith.

Man-made religion is and has always been an attempt to explain the overall picture and gain a correct worldview. Who we are, why we are, where we are going, and who or what put us here… there are factual answers to these questions. Each religious theory put forth by men will eventually fail because we human-beings are just too limited in our understanding. God must GIVE US the true religious model because He is the only one who knows everything.

Now, the LDS Church believes itself to be the one true church on earth, restored from fallen Christianity. If it is what it claims to be, we can then expect that its set of predictions will hold fast. If it is not the one true church, we can expect to see its predictions fail. Did God give Joseph Smith, Jr. the truth, or did Joseph build his church upon his own religious hypotheses? This is something we can know. Let’s look at some of the inherent predictions, and their outcomes.

If Mormonism were true…

1. … Joseph Smith would have been able to consistently, accurately, remember his visit from two separate supernatural beings, God the Father and Jesus the Son. We now know that is not the case (for more info, see here, here, and here).

2. …the LDS “truth” that there are at least two gods, our Heavenly (spirit) Father, whose name is Elohim, and Jesus (Elohim’s son), whose spirit-name is Jehovah, would have been consistent since Mormonism’s beginnings. Instead, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s first work, preaches that there is only one (modal) God (see Alma 11:26-31, 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5 for example). Joseph Smith originally taught that Jesus’ father’s name was Jehovah, and Brigham Young, Mormonism’s second prophet, taught that Heavenly Father was actually Adam, the first man on earth. Joseph also originally taught that of the three members of the “Godhead,” only Jesus had a body. That of course is no longer Mormon belief.

3. …the Book of Mormon, a book that is supposed to contain the “fulness of the gospel,” would teach on the plurality of gods, man’s potential for godhood, eternal marriage in Mormon temples, baptism for the dead, three degrees of heaven, and the other beliefs that separate Mormonism from orthodox Christianity. Not only does the Book of Mormon not teach these things, it and the other LDS scriptures frequently contradict current Mormon truths, and each other.

4. …there would be evidence of a large battle on or around the Hill Cumorah in New York, and other archeological evidence to support the notion of Book of Mormon life on this continent. Instead, LDS apologists are still struggling to locate and identify possible Book of Mormon geography sites (see also here and here).

5. …the Book of Mormon would not contain Greek and French words like “adieu” and “Jesus” and “Alpha” and “Omega.” It would not speak of things that had not yet been invented. It would not contain quotes from the KJV Bible, including KJV mistakes. It would not abuse the phrase “it came to pass” in all of its books but two. It would not contain country-boy vernacular. But it does.

6. …when portions of the papyri used to create the Book of Abraham were recovered and translated, the text would be very similar to what Joseph had written. Instead, just as you would expect if Joseph Smith had bought merely a couple of random mummies that had been found in an ordinary catacomb from a man with many mummies and scraps to sell, the papyri has been discovered to be common Egyptian funerary documents.

I could continue making this list, but I think I’ve made my point. If Joseph Smith did not actually have the “First Vision,” if he personally wrote (instead of translated from ancient golden plates) the Book of Mormon, if he personally wrote the Book of Abraham… these things are Mormonism’s foundational blocks. Are they missing? The failed predictions indicate that they are, indeed, missing. Thus the “restored” doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a bad religious theory, and should be scrapped.

About setfree

God trusting, Bible believing, Jesus lover.
This entry was posted in Book of Mormon, LDS Church, Mormon History and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to A Bad Religious Theory

  1. falcon says:

    I got this from Andy Watson aka Berean. I thought I'd post it here to get his take on the topic at hand.

    Mormons' minds are turned off regardless of what you tell them. They are dead in their sins (Ephesians 2:1) and are blinded by their master – Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). It also doesn't matter what you tell them when it comes to reading their scriptures (and I say "scriptures" loosely). I've read the BoM and their other standard works more times than I have read the Bible. The Holy Spirit has told me that their scriptures are in error and heretical (John 16:13). It was easy to come to that conclusion just from the mere fact of contradictions from one work to the next: Monotheism in the BoM, then it's polytheism in the other books…and on it goes.

    I've completed all their checkpoints that they would ask one to do after years of studying this particular cult. If one doesn't get the correct answer from their bingo prayer in Moroni 10, then they tell you to start over and keep going until you do get the right answer. This is psychological trickery with a fixed, one-way answer. Keep praying and playing "bingo" until you get the bingo. This isn't how the real God operates and this is not the mandate for determining truth in the Bible. When Satan is your (the Mormon's) master it is easy to see and understand their horrendous, sloppy and pathetic exegesis of texts like James 1:5 to desperately try to find a way to make Moroni 10:3-6 work. Keep trying!

    Mormons are spiritually lost and a deceived people on their way to the lake of fire. The only hope for them is the Sovereign God as proclaimed in the Bible who would grant them repentance so they would come to their senses (2 Timothy 2:25-26) out of His kindness for His own glory (Ephesians 1:5-6) merely because He wanted to (Psalms 115:3). Mormons that are in this cult have deliberately suppressed the truth and are accountable to God for it. They have the Word of God (the Bible). Mormons are right where God wants them to be (in their cult and spiritually dead) until He brings these rebel sinners to life spiritually through the preaching and proclaiming of His Word through the good Christian people on this blog. God is sovereign. Man is responsible.


  2. f_melo says:

    "I don't doubt you" – Don´t worry about it, "you of little faith". hahahhaha :P, it´s true though…

    just today, i was having lunch together with my family and we had had another "gospel" talk before the food was served and someone actually told me almost the exact same thing BOMC said("You're cursed for not following the Book of Mormon") but instead the person warned me saying to not badmouth the BoM or God would curse me.

    One of the friends i talked about the real history of the church was a seminary teacher at the time. She gave me the exact same hollow assertions, borrowed knowledge-like answers. It seemed she was answering right out of a church manual – i even complained to her about that.

    For example, i was defending the reliability of the Bible and how it was enough to lead us to God. She answered back saying "well, if that´s the case, why was there so much confusion among so many different denominations" and she also meant that nobody could agree upon any single doctrine of the Bible just by studying it, which is what the church teaches. I told her that that confusion was about some teachings of the Bible that are not so clear, the same kind of confusion that occurred in the beginning of the church and it happens even today in the church itself but very few people challenge the established authority like it happened in the past(which created all those splinter groups). Even so they all believed the same things concerning the Godhead, Jesus, etc. I then mentioned the Creeds showing that they all agreed upon the major points of doctrine required for salvation. She couldn´t answer that…

    I know it´s hard to believe but, in my experience, most of the church members i´ve talked to are like that, with very few exceptions.

  3. falcon says:

    A Mormon isn't going to be real impressed with a Christian who tells them that they've read the BoM. That's not the game, reading the BoM. The game is getting the physical/emotional reaction that Mormons interpret as a sign from God that the BoM is true. So a Mormon will see the Christian as just not spiritually up to speed yet. It's all a game like Andy called it- Bingo. So don't play the game.
    A Mormon at the contemplative stage will be ready to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ regardless of whether a Christian has read the BoM or not. A Mormon not at the contemplative stage isn't ready to hear, they don't have spiritual ears.

  4. RalphNWatts says:


    You said –

    ”As a member i´d read passages such as Alma 18:26 "And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? 27And he said, Yea. 28And Ammon said: This is God." and then my seminary teacher would explain that Ammon wasn´t really teaching God was a spirit but he was building on common beliefs – seriously!!!!

    So, the Book of Mormon is just a bait… nothing more, because if any mormon took it seriously they woudn´t be mormons.”

    So what do you have to say about Paul talking to the Greeks when he said –

    Acts 17:23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. (NIV)

    For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD ' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. (NAS)

    For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. (KJV)

    All of these translations show that Paul used their ‘unknown god’ to teach them about the true God. Paul is saying – you believe in and acknowledge an unknown god so you don’t miss and disappoint any one that is in existence, well I know who this God is and I will tell you about Him. Paul is building on common beliefs – or does this scripture mean that the God of Paul is actually part of the Greek pantheon of gods and was the Greek ‘unknown god’? If you read the verse properly Paul did say “Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you”.

    But what Paul did in this verse, is exactly the same as what Ammon did with the Lamanites.

  5. setfreebyjc says:

    Dale, I’m not sure about Johnny’s source, but the second volume of the “History of the Church” contains the information about the beginning of Joseph’s attempts to study Hebrew, including Oliver Cowdery’s purchase of a Lexicon <a href="http:// (http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_II,” target=”_blank”> <a href="http://(http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_II,” target=”_blank”>(http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_II, search on Lexicon (occurred Friday, 20th of November, 1835). You’ll notice that Joseph recorded that he was studying Hebrew several times after that. Note: this volume also contains the bizarre story about how he began the Book of Abraham

    On Thursday, January 14, 1836 Joseph records the teacher Joshua Seixas.

  6. setfreebyJC says:

    Thanks Sharon, I was indeed referencing the Lectures on Faith. There is another passage, in fact, where it says that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (just like the Father).
    For more info, see http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/lecturesonfai

  7. setfreebyJC says:

    Thanks for your terrific comments out here. I have enjoyed them, as usual.
    The whole leadership thing… I've wondered about it so many times. I can only come to two conclusions. They are totally blinded (and I suspect that much of that has happened by their visits to the temples) or they know they are lying, and know that they cannot back out. Look at Mormon Inc. The state of Utah, even. What would happen if the Mormon church came to an abrupt halt?
    By the way. I believe that Johnny was an LDS man, studying to be an LDS historian, when he unearthed the truth that would set him on the course to leave the Mormon church behind.
    I also think that to a large degree, being a member of the Mormon church is a much religion as the average Mormon wants. They are literally free to do, think, and believe whatever they want, as long as they look the part when they need to. Religion…. an attempt to circumvent God. Right? It's not the majority of people who want anything to do with God. Mormons or otherwise.

  8. setfreebyJC says:

    This is exactly what my post is about. The falsifications and modification needed to keep a bad theory afloat for those who cannot bring themselves to abandon it.

    Here's a question: why is there so much info out on FAIR/FARMS/NAMI? Why do those guys have SO much work to do? lol

  9. setfreebyJC says:

    Hi friend. Thanks for taking the time to come out here. How are ya?
    You're using the "Unknown God" argument again. I was thinking we'd already been through that?

  10. @ Jon B The Lectures on Faith. I have written a pretty good article on the Evolution of the Mormon Gods, that can be read here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=13608615… I invite you to read it, it's pretty definitive. (grindael)

  11. It is hard to take 'mocking the word of God' seriously when one is speaking of the Book of Mormon. This is the 'book' that Smith 'found' by looking into a peepstone that he found with another peepstone that he was using to scam people with. This is the 'book' that Smith uncovered on a Hill that the 'book' said a massive battle of millions took place on, yet no evidence of any kind has ever been found to back it up. This is the 'book' that came from 'gold plates' that when Smith tried to take them, "something that looked like a toad" prevented him from doing so, because the spirit of the bloody ghost that led him to the plates said that his brother Alvin (who had died) was not there with him to get the plates. This is the 'book' that Smith translated from those 'gold plates' with a peepstone, for which he got arrested for scamming people with, and was to stand trial – but 'took leg bail'. This is the 'book' that is full of anachronisms, full of false history, full of plagiarisms, and has never been proven to be a real historical account and never will be. This is a 'book' that tells people to trust their feelings to know it is true, and that Mormon Authorities have said will never be proven historically. I don't think anyone should be too worried about anyone throwing curses around when it comes to the Book of Mormon. (grindael)

  12. “In the month of June, 1827, Joseph Smith, Sen. related to me the following story: ‘That some years ago, a spirit had appeared to Joseph his son, in a vision, and informed him that in a certain place there was a record on plates of gold, and that he was the person that must obtain them, and this he must do in the following manner: On the 22nd of September, he must repair to the place where was deposited this manuscript, dressed in black clothes, and riding a black horse with a switch tail, and demand the book in a certain name, and after obtaining it, he must go directly away, and neither lay it down nor look behind him. They accordingly fitted out Joseph with the suit of black clothes, and borrowed a black horse. He repaired to the place of deposit and demanded the book, which was in a stone box, unsealed, and so near the top of the ground that he could see one end of it, and raising it up, took out the book of gold; but fearing some one might discover where he got it, he laid it down to place back the top stone, as he found it; and turning around, to his surprise there was no book in sight. He again opened the box, and in it saw the book, and attempted to take it out, but was hindered. He saw in the box something like toad, which soon assumed the appearance of a man, and struck him on the side of his head. – Not being discouraged at trifles, he again stooped down and strove to take the book, when the spirit struck him again, and knocked him three or four rods, and hurt him prodigiously. After recovering from his fright, he inquired why he could not obtain the plates; to which the spirit made reply, because you have not obeyed your orders.

    “… In the fore part of September, (I believe,) 1827, the Prophet [Joseph Smith] requested me to make him a chest, informing me that he designed to move back to Pennsylvania, and expecting soon to get his gold book, he wanted a chest to lock it up, giving me to understand at the same time, that if I would make the chest he would give me a share in the book. … “A few weeks after this conversation, he came to my house and related the following story: That on the 22nd of September, he arose early in the morning, and took a one horse wagon, of someone that had stayed over night at their house, without leave or license; and, together with his wife, repaired to the hill which contained the book. He left his wife in the wagon, by the road, and went alone to the hill, a distance of thirty or forty rods from the road; he said he took the book out of the ground and hid it in a tree top, and returned home. … He then observed that if it had not been for that stone [Joseph's money-digging seer stone], (which he acknowledged belonged to me,) he would not have obtained the book. A few days afterwards, he told one of my neighbors that he had not got any such book, nor never had such an one; but that he had told the story to deceive the d—d fool, (meaning me,) to get him to make a chest. His neighbors having become disgusted with his foolish stories, he determined to go back to Pennsylvania, to avoid what he called persecution. His wits were now put to the task to contrive how he should get money to bear his expenses. He met one day in the streets of Palmyra, a rich man, whose name was Martin Harris, and addressed him thus; ‘I have a commandment from God to ask the first man I meet in the street to give me fifty dollars, to assist me in doing the work of the Lord by translating the Golden Bible.’ Martin being naturally a credulous man, hands Joseph the money.” – WIllard Chase, 1833

  13. f_melo says:

    "So what do you have to say about Paul talking to the Greeks when he said"

    Sure, but Paul didn´t use that as a reference to God´s nature. He used that as an opportunity to talk about a God they didn´t know anything about – it´s not the same thing. Paul didn´t affirm God was part of the pantheon of Greek Gods at any moment, yet He preached Him as the only true God. but Ammon said twice that God was a Spirit while he should have corrected the King´s misconception by the second time.

  14. RalphNWatts says:


    Ammon never said that God was a spirit, he asked the king if he believed in the Great Spirit (which was the god of the Lamanites) and then said that that Great Spirit was God. This is how it is referenced both times Ammon used the phrase 'Great Spirit' in conjunction with 'God'.

    Paul did exactly the same thing. When he saw the alter and possibly statue to the unknown god of the Greeks he said to them "you are ignorant of the very thing you worship — and this is what I am going to proclaim to you"(NIV). Paul says that they ARE WORSHIPING God but are ignorant about Him so he will teach them about God. So Paul is taking one of the Greeks' gods which they worship and saying that this god is The God.

  15. steve says:

    And Moses did not speak to God "face to face" as the Old Testament says because "no man has seen God" according to the New Testament. And on and on and on.

  16. Steve Smith says:

    And Abraham was a dirty old man because he had Sarah and Hagar. Even worse, Jacob had four wives. How dare God command any man to have more than one wife. Who does He think He is?

  17. Kate says:

    Please show me where God "commanded" Abraham or Jacob to have more than one wife.

Leave a Reply