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.
Great article, setfree!
I read the pdf you put a link to and the arguments FAIR made were abismal. Read this:
"The critics claim that Joseph’s story of his vision evolved and that the first recorded account tells of one personage, rather than two. Nothing in the 1832 account states, however, that there was only one personage. If you tell someone that you had visited with the President of the United States, does this mean that the Vice President and First Lady were not present Just because this early account mentions only one personage, we should not assume that there was only one personage."
This is one of the most stupid, stupid arguments i´ve heard in my entire life!!!!!!!
God is now relegated to first-lady/vice president status, that had to come from mormons! Unbelievable!
Shortly after that you find another super-stupid argument:
"Should we reject the Resurrection because the Apostles could not agree on how many angels were at Christ's tomb (see Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and John 10:12)?"
Really, are you saying that because Joseph Smith was accompanied by 20 more people when the first vision happened, and each one described what happened and that´s why you have "n" versions of the first vision?
Stupidity is the key-word when dealing with mormon apologists.
Wow, what an excellent article! That's a whole new way of looking at things.
"Listen" to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Richard Lloyd Anderson has observed that many of the criticisms against Joseph Smith’s vision apply equally as well to Paul’s vision."
Well, at least Paul got the personage who visited him right both times!!!!!
"The first record of Paul’s vision, however, which is found in 1 Corinthians 9:1, wasn’t recorded until two dozen years after it happened."
that we now of, since Paul would be talking about it with everyone he met, including the original Apostles! If anything should have come out of Joseph´s mouth it should have been the same thing throughout and it should be recorded him talking about it with lots of people as well. See, Joseph didn´t live almost 2.000 years ago…
and their chart comparing the items is lying about "Appearance of Deity", the 1835 account does not have any deities in it.
"here 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"
That bothers me to no end. Mormons should be anxious to dig that hill up, i mean, can you imagine if they found all of those weapons and bones and everything else, it would be like the Bible, nobody would be able to deny its historicity! How is it that Mormons are not annoying the first presidency to no end to completely dig that hill up?? It´s weird – are they afraid of actually having to face the truth? It has to be that, otherwise every mormon should have been buying a shovel and saving for a trip to Joseph´s house.
So simple, yet so hard for so many to accept. Love your to the point approach!
Good article.
It points out to me that it is the "desire" to believe the Joseph Smith myth that is the motivation for a Mormon's faith. I know Mormons will appeal to their spiritual experiences as proof that the "myth" is the real deal and I would say that the desire to believe the myth produces the hot flashes and tingles. That's why evidence isn't going to move a hardcore Smith believer out of the cult.
I was reading on another blog that's populated mainly by politically liberal exMormon atheists a thread where by an exer was trying to reconcile his spiritual experiences with the reality that Mormonism is false. The poster was wondering what to make of the spiritual experiences. Several other exMormons chimed in with their opinions but I thought it was interesting that the reported spiritual experiences couldn't keep these folks in Mormonism. Mormon stayers will ignore the evidence for a variety of reasons but I'm guessing that the spiritual experiences they had coupled with the desire factor make it tough for them to let go.
Hence we see the ridiculous explanations for such things as the ever changing account of Smith's vision. In some ways I think Mormons would be better off simply saying that they believe it because they want to.
My bottom line is that all spiritual experiences need to be tested by the Word of God. Mormons get around this one by claiming that the Bible can't be trusted. Personally, if I had a lot of evidence that what I believed wasn't true, I'd question my spiritual experiences and draw into question what may have caused them. However that seems to be beyond the capabilities of hardcore TBMs. I can understand it however because to question the spiritual experiences gets right to the heart of the matter.
I've stated several times on this blog in the last three years that I could be labeled a nondenominational Pentecostal. What that means exactly is that I don't claim an organized religion, but do take the NT, especially the Book of Acts seriously as normative Christianity. Having said that, I see the abuses that can manifest themselves with folks claiming all sorts of supernatural occurrences and specific types of direct communication from God.
Now the reason I've decided to write this here, at this time, is to appeal to the Mormon reader who has come to the point of significant doubt in Mormonism, but can't get passed their spiritual experiences and feelings. I would say you need to believe the evidence because it will lead you to coming to a knowledge of who God really is and what He has done through His Son Jesus Christ. He has reconciled us to Him through the blood of His cross. That's the truth whether we have a spiritual experience to confirm it or not. Faith is not a feeling, although it can produce feelings. Emotions aside, God wants to reconcile us to Himself and he offers the free gift of eternal life to those who will accept it.
I´m anxious to get a break long enough to read it! I´ll read it on sunday!
"It points out to me that it is the "desire" to believe the Joseph Smith myth that is the motivation for a Mormon's faith. I know Mormons will appeal to their spiritual experiences as proof that the "myth" is the real deal and I would say that the desire to believe the myth produces the hot flashes and tingles. That's why evidence isn't going to move a hardcore Smith believer out of the cult. "
Falcon, you couldn´t be more right. That´s exactly what happens to some of my family members! Someone in my family once told me all i had to do to get rid of those doubts was to pray to God saying that even though that stuff i read was bad i was willing to to open my heart to believe it anyways. That i had to show willingness to believe.
"The poster was wondering what to make of the spiritual experiences" – Been there, done that.
"but I thought it was interesting that the reported spiritual experiences couldn't keep these folks in Mormonism"
Bingo! A spiritual(or not) feeling doesn´t change reality. That´s why my experiences weren´t able to keep me in mormonism either.
"I think Mormons would be better off simply saying that they believe it because they want to" – That would frustate the church´s mission of sharing the gospel…
"However that seems to be beyond the capabilities of hardcore TBMs" – Not, if God is involved though, praise be to Him for that, because i was one of those TBMs!
"the spiritual experiences gets right to the heart of the matter" – that´s 100% correct, since mormon belief is not grounded on reality. It also is a scary place very few people dare to go to. One of the things that gave me the strength was to know how much better my life would be outside of mormonism, and how i could actually spend my time with things that are truly meaningful.
"I would say you need to believe the evidence because it will lead you to coming to a knowledge of who God really is and what He has done through His Son Jesus Christ."
Something that is founded upon a mountain of lies is just another mountain of lies! Complementing what Falcon said, if any mormons that are re-evaluating their beliefs come across this, you have no idea the peace that it is to be able to be fully honest to yourself and to God. To not be bound by commandments of man, but to be free to let the Scriptures speak to you what they truly mean and to be free to live likewise. It´s exciting and challenging at the same time – it leaves you in God´s hands, in a place where you are completely vulnerable depending solely on God´s providence everyday.
Falcon, that was a great post, you hit everything right on the Bull´s eye – i wish i had that kind of capacity to get to the bottom of things with such clarity and understanding! Thank you for edifying me in the truth of Jesus, and for reminding me of key points i tend to ignore as i deal with my family!
Set free,
Great post. I am an engineer by profession, so I am particularly concerned about how "robust" any particular solution is to a problem. You can define robustness a number of ways, but the opposite is something that only stands up under a unique set of circumstances. If the wind blows from a slightly different direction, and the building fals down, you don't have a robust design.
The salvation that God offers through the Christian Gospel is the ultimate in robust solutions – the opposite of the Mormon myths, as you have rightly pointed out.
Thanks for the kind words f_melo.
In a way, I guess, we have to admire how much Mormons want to know, love and serve God as the answer to the question posed in my Catholic Catechism use to go. We'd also have to consider their devotion and form of piety. I remember listening to Grant Palmer's interview on "Mormon Stories" with John Dehlin and being impressed with how he seemed to ache for the Mormon people with his desire that they put Jesus first rather than the other aspects of Mormonism. He talked about feeling the closeness of Jesus the night right after he got dis-fellowshipped largely as the results of his book "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".
I keep wondering who Grant thinks Jesus is but there was no mistaken his love for and devotion to the Savior. Like setfree has done in his article above, Grant Palmer had the intellectual honesty to seek answers no matter where it would take him. I believe that's called integrity.
I repeat, it must be excruciatingly difficult for a Mormon, who wants to know, love and serve God, who feels they have had spiritual experiences in their life (answers to prayers, God's intervening hand in their lives, "miracles") to be faced with the reality that Mormonism is a fraud. Their problem is that they are confusing the Mormon religion with God. They are not the same thing. Mormonism can't contain God. First of all because the God they acknowledge isn't "God" and secondly because institutions are flawed. I've seen people in Christian denominations that appear to me are more dedicated to the institutional denominational Church than they are to God. They love the traditions and the customs and the identity they get from being a member.
That's a lot different than claiming membership in the "Church", the "mystical Body of Christ". That's not an institution it's a spiritual entity and a whole different reality.
I've surprised myself in the last three months. I've actually been going to church services sponsored by a group of believers that meets in a hotel conference center. I was involved in pastoring work as an avocation for several years and have the scars (some self-inflicted) to prove it. So I had stepped way back from involvement. But age and hopefully maturity shaped by experience has allowed me to have a more objective view of things as far as organized religion goes. So my point to the reader is, it's all about Jesus and your relationship with Him and knowing who God is and what He has done for those who are willing to receive his gift of eternal life through faith. As I often say, it's a one-on-one proposition that no organization has control over.
"Joseph also originally taught that of the three members of the 'Godhead,' only Jesus had a body."
This is the only part of the post that caught me off-guard. What's the source for that teaching?
Jon, I don't know what setfree had in mind, but Joseph Smith's Lectures on Faith (1835) Lecture Fifth states:
http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.ht…
Smith taught that the Father was Jehovah:
"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father." Times and Seasons 3 (15 November 1841): 578.
No one in the LDS Church up to the 1880's taught differently. The Lectures on Faith were accepted as doctrine by the entire Church for many years after Smith died. Dr. Thomas G. Alexander, a Professor of History at BYU wrote in a July-August 1980 "Sunstone" article, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," that:
.”.. Revision (of the Doctrine and Covenants) continued through July and August 1921, and the Church printed the new edition in late 1921. The committee proposed to delete the "Lectures on Faith" on the grounds that they were "lessons prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-35; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons." How the committee came to this conclusion is uncertain. The general conference of the Church in April 1835 had accepted the entire volume, including the Lectures, not simply the portion entitled "Covenants and Commandments," as authoritative and binding upon Church members. What seems certain, however, is that the interpretive exegesis of 1916 based upon the reconstructed doctrine of the Godhead had superseded the Lectures…”
Joseph Fielding Smith said (concerning the Lectures):
“They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.”
If Smith had seen God & Jesus together in 1820, than just how did this DOCTRINE get in the Church’s Book of Scripture? Why would teachings on the Godhead not be ‘complete’ by 1835? In the light of this, Smith’s first version of the First Vision (written by him in 1832 in his Letterbook) makes much more sense:
“while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} light above the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life”
Given Smith’s Modalistic belief at the time, this version of the first vision makes perfect sense when taken with the DOCTRINE set forth in the Lectures on Faith. God the Father was manifesting himself to Smith as the Son. Of course he only saw one personage. But did it really happen? According to Oliver Cowdery, who with Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, (vol.1, no.3). we read this:
“You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr.’s age — that was an error in the type — it should have been in the 17th. — You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823. “I do not deem it necessary to write further on the subject of this excitement. … “And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. “… On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother’s mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind … all he desired was to be prepared in heart to commune with some kind of messenger who could communicate to him the desired information of his acceptance with God. “… While continuing in prayer for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven; endeavoring to exercise faith in the scriptures, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a purer and far more glorious appearance and brightness burst into the room … It is no easy task to describe the appearance of a messenger from the skies … But it may be well to relate the particulars as far as given — The stature of this personage was a little above the common size of men in this age; his garment was perfectly white, and had the appearance of being without seam. Though fear was banished from his heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard;"
Notice that it says here that in 1823 Smith wanted to know if a Supreme being did exist! Also that Cowdery specifically corrects Smith’s age to 17. This throws doubt on the 1832 Version in his Letterbook which some have ascribed as Smith’s attempt to assert his authority in his newly formed Church (see Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 1, p. 26) Given the above Official Published Version that Smith sought to know that God existed in 1823, and the inclusion of the Doctrine of The Father as a Spirit in the 1835 D&C, it becomes obvious that Smith invented the first vision.
But what happened after 1835 that changed everything for Smith? He began taking Hebrew lessons from Joshua Seixas, where he learned that the word elohim in Hebrew can be translated as ‘gods’. He had also met a young girl named Fanny Alger with whom he had an affair. Pair this with the arrival of Michael Chandler with some mummies from Egypt, and you have the Book of Abraham, and Smith’s plurality of God’s Doctrine. What a stroke of fortune for Smith! He could claim the scrolls with the mummies were actual writings of Abraham & Joseph (written by them personally), & justify his affairs as a teaching of Abraham (polygamy).
It would take a few years for Smith to crystallize this doctrine, and in 1838 he rewrote the account of his ‘first vision’ to include two personages, and by 1844 was teaching God was an exalted man & had commanded polygamy be practiced by all who wished to become gods.
After Smith's study of Hebrew in 1835-36, he began to use the name Elohim for the first time; he also began to use the name Jehovah more often. Jehovah appears for the first time in the Doctrine and Covenants after 1836. It appears twice in the first two chapters of the Book of Abraham, which was written in 1835. The Church at this time used Jehovah as the name of God the Father, and only occasionally used the name Elohim. They evidently also considered the Father to be the god who appeared in the Old Testament. ( In the History of the Church, the name Jehovah is used ninety-nine times to mean simply God, fourteen times to mean the Father, and three times to mean Jesus. The name Elohim is used nine times to mean the Father and three times to mean "head god" or "council of gods.)
The following was published in the Times and Seasons as DOCTRINE in 1841: "We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father." Times and Seasons 3 (15 November 1841): 578.
This Doctrine makes perfect sense set within the modalistic historical framework of Smith’s early beliefs about God. After hearing some remarks by Orson Hyde in 1843 about God dwelling in men’s hearts, Smith made this declaration, which was included in Section 130 of the D&C:
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
It begs the question that if this doctrine had been taught by Smith since 1820, there would not have been such confusion in the Church, especially by one of his own apostles!
Setfree is correct about these doctrines, and they can't be easily explained away. Couple what was said in the original post with the fact that Smith changed the Doctrine and Covenants and actually wrote in later the accounts of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John 'restoring' the Melchizedek Priesthood, and one can see that this was a pattern that Smith used consistently. He changed things as he went along, and the discarded doctrines and accounts have not been satisfactorily explained by any Mormons. They would rather label them as 'opinions' and 'speculation.' When doing so, they should take into consideration statements like this, by Moses Thatcher:
“Nothing to my mind can be greater sacrilege in the sight of the Almighty than to undertake to speak in His name without the inspiration of His spirit. We may talk upon the branches of human learning and knowledge, speaking after the manner of men with but little of this feeling of timidity, but not when we undertake to speak of the principles of life and salvation, of the plan of human redemption as it has always existed—as it existed before the foundations of the world were laid, as it will continue to exist until every child of God except the sons of perdition shall be brought back and exalted in a degree of glory far beyond the comprehension of the finite mind. It has sometimes been said that Mormonism, so called, is narrow, proscriptive and selfish; yet those who comprehend it, even in part, have never made such an assertion.
Can a church not even bearing the name of the Redeemer, and having neither Apostles nor Prophets, bear the fruits enjoyed by the disciples of our Lord in the days of and subsequent to His ministry? Do any of them ever claim to have such fruits? Who among them have the endowments of the Comforter, whose mission it was and is to bring the teachings of Jesus to the memory, show things to come and lead into all truth? God neither changes nor is he a respecter of persons; the causes, therefore, which lie ordained to produce certain results in one age will produce them in another.” (Moses Thatcher, JD:26:303-4, 10 [1885]) _johnny (grindael)
You've done such a beautiful job here with your posts but I've been at his long enough to know that dedicated Mormons will dismiss it with a wave of the hand and simply say Smith was practicing "progressive revelation". That's why it is so frustrating attempting to have an honest give and take with a TBM. Given their form of reasoning anything and I mean anything can work when it comes to defending Smith and his bogus religion.
I've seen Christian posters give enough documented solid evidence that you could paper the inside wall of the Mormon temple in SLC and Mormons will blow it off and say something like "that's the wisdom of men".
But I always remind myself that we write for the person who is seeking a path out of Mormonism and needs information in order to make the psychological break. Mormonism can't hold in it's grasp, the person who has been called by God and is being led out of the cult by the Holy Spirit.
My comments appeared out of order, they are exactly backward. Note this is reading them. Thanks.
This is off topic but I was reading an article about the Washington Post covering the Republicans reading the Constitution in Congress and there was a mention of LDS thinking the USA Constitution is divinely inspired with this link.
http://lds.org/ensign/1987/11/our-divine-constitu…
I thought I knew a lot about Mormonism but I had never heard of this before. Any insights on this topic?
1. Censored according to his willingness to share information.
2. The Book of Mormon is consistent, interpretations aren't. Joseph neither wrote the BoM nor followed. See #3.
4. The geography has been identified in Western New York, see bookofmormongeography.org for over a hundred confirmations.
5. Either Joseph was so smart he inserted key KJV passages, or he was so dumb he couldn't withhold his " country boy vernacular" from sneaking in. Which is it?
Btw, who did he steal the preaching from? Why are there more references to Jesus in the BoM than the NT? Why is Alma 7:11 more accurate than the KJV? How to you explain the 20+ witnesses of the dictation process?
Your logic is flawed. You arguments yesterday's news – no offense.
Did you EVER testify that the Holy Book of Mormon was true?
This is old news… i´m not sure, i think it was Lorenzo Snow that said he saw George Washington in temple once… please if anyone remember this, correct me.
They say that God prepared the United States to be a free country so that Joseph could "restore" the true church, it consequently follows that the American Constitution is an inspired document that made possible the religious freedom, etc, etc.
I do believe the U.S. constitution is a huge blessing from God, it provided freedom like never seen in the history of the world before and it shaped the culture and lives of almost the entire planet and i wish the Constitution had continued to be respected as such.
but that´s not what Mormons have in mind, they want to establish a theocracy while pretending to uphold the Constitution.
"The Book of Mormon is consistent, interpretations aren't"
Well, wasn´t the Book of Mormon commanded by "God" to bring clarity to the Bible and missing parts of it? It shouldn´t have come to bring even more confusion, don´t you agree? That´s the whole point of having it, and if it doesn´t fulfill its purpose you might as well throw it in the garbage can.
"see bookofmormongeography.org for over a hundred confirmations"
What confirmations? They cherry pick some stuff that remotely relates to anything in the Book of Mormon. So what they found cooper plates somewhere with "hieroglyphs"? I didn´t even take the time to confirm those "evidences", especially because the mormon church would be crying out-loud for the whole world to know they were able to prove the Book of Mormon archeologically, and that´s not the case. Even if that "evidence" were true, what relation does that have with the Book of Mormon?What date are the writings from? Are they "reformed egyptian"? and the list of questions go on and on… that website is pathetic.
Under the topic "deception" the writer explains how people are deceived by false spirits and false inspiration and lists a bunch of testimonies about people feeling the spirit about Book of Mormon geography and the three nephites as an example of that. That´s funny, because that´s exactly what you´d expect from members of a church that establishes truth through feelings and "spiritual" experiences – how does that guy know those experiences that he lists were false? How can he discern between deceiving spirits and the real Holy Ghost? I´d be interested to see him answering that question.
"5. Either Joseph was so smart he inserted key KJV passages, or he was so dumb he couldn't withhold his " country boy vernacular" from sneaking in. Which is it?"
Well, both. But let me correct you – he wasn´t so smart he inserted KJV passages. He was so dumb to copy those verses straight from the Bible from which there are actual ancient manuscripts which would eventually show that KJV translation had some minor errors in it. So if the Book of Mormon Isaiah passages were from unadulterated writings of Isaiah, they shouldn´t contain those translation errors, especially when one remembers the "gold plates" were translated by the gift and power of "God".
"Why are there more references to Jesus in the BoM than the NT?" Well, because the BoM was made up by a guy in a predominantly Christian culture that talked about Christ all the time… i can write a book talking more about Christ than the New Testament(how´s that possible anyways since the NT contains Jesus´ history).
"Why is Alma 7:11 more accurate than the KJV"
More accurate how?
"How to you explain the 20 witnesses of the dictation process?"
You mean the rock in the hat gazing? lol!!! I like it though that you used "dictation", because there was no revelation or inspiration from God, JS was just dictating the book, didn´t even use the supposed plates at all.
"Your logic is flawed. You arguments yesterday's news – no offense."
Same to you.
"Did you EVER testify that the Holy Book of Mormon was true?"
Yes, i actually did when i was a mormon! Now i´ve realized it is a forgery, and that the church is completely false from its very beginning until today!
F_melo had some good responses, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents' worth.
#1. Smith has numerous versions of the First Vision with very little consistency. That is a fact of recorded history.
#2 & #3 "The Book of Mormon is consistent….."
I'm not really sure what you mean by interpretations of the BOM. Smith did indeed write the BOM; there is plenty of internal and external evidence that it was written by an American in the early 1800s. The BOM consistently contradicts the Bible, the D&C and POGP. Or shall I say the others contradict the BOM? Something I will be addressing on my blog in the future.
#4. There is no such thing as BOM geography. Nothing remotely meeting BOM descriptions has ever been found. Mormons like to point to S. American and the Aztecs, Incas, etc and claim those are BOM place, but that is abject nonsense base on actual historical data. I went to that site and found nothing but assertions and speculations but no facts of BOM geography being located.
#5. f_melo hit the nail on the head on this one. Explain how "reformed Egyptian" can translate word for word to the exact same English as Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translated to 1611 English, especially when the English of 1611 was already becoming obsolete. Why wouldn't Smith translate into 1830 English? And how did the italicized words from the KJV, words added by translators to complete the sense, show up in the BOM? Lots of Smith's own "country boy" vernacular was used because not everything was copied from the KJV!
Explain how Alma 7:11 is more accurate than the KJV. Explain also how Alma 7:10 got the birthplace wrong – without resorting to the bogus claim that Bethlehem is in the area of or part of Jerusalem.
I am also an ex-Mormon and testified to it. But that was before I began reading a whole lot of the Bible. And how can you really testify that the BOM is true? Do you have factual evidence that it was translated from plates of God other than unreliable/untrustworthy "witnesses" (http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-about-book-of-mormon-witnesses.html)
Tell me, if someone told you to pray about an adulterous relationship you were about to enter into to see if it would be okay, would that be something one really needed to do, since God has already told us adultery is wrong? Likewise, should I pray about the BOM, a book contradicting what God has already told us? Do I really need to ask God if a book leading to spiritual adultery could be true?
I
Ryan. Priceless. Its like a gold mine of insight. Thank you. My four favorite paragraphs.
(see below) base of operations for His restored church.' 'The Lord's latter-day base of operations. . ' ??
Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church.
My next three favorite paragraphs (regarding dead and I guess just 'regular' spirits):
President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words: “Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God’” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, p. 160).
After he became President of the Church, President Wilford Woodruff declared that “those men who laid the foundation of this American government were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits … [and] were inspired of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1898, p. 89).
Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City).
See The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon. You Tube. Regarding flying to a city in the Book of Mormon. Let's go. The cities, rivers, hills, valleys, everything is still there and that was 2000 years ago. The bom is a blip in history, only 200 years ago, and nothing remains. How is that possible?
@GlennChatfield, thank you for being honest. You're cursed for not following the Book of Mormon and for mocking the Word of God. Either you lied when you testified, or you're now lying.
@f_melo, Same.
Question: what would your life be like if you followed the teachings of The Book of Mormon?
"You're cursed for not following the Book of Mormon and for mocking the Word of God. Either you lied when you testified, or you're now lying."
Being cursed by a false god doesn´t make much difference, really.
"Question: what would your life be like if you followed the teachings of The Book of Mormon?"
To be honest the doctrine a Mormon follows is what the current prophet tells you to follow. It doesn´t matter what the Book of Mormon teaches, in the end it will only teach that the church is true and that Thomas Monson is a prophet and the only one with authority to run Christ´s church.
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.
The commandments that get the most emphasis on the church are: Law of Chastity, service in the church, temple attendance, tithing, family home-evening, scripture reading with family and family prayer. That´s it – anything outside of that scope is pretty much ignored.
Johnny, you have again listed yet another reason why those who really desire to follow Jesus
should not either be following , or seek to follow, Mormon prophets and apostles. These men
claim to be authentic and accurate spiritual guides who reveal the mind of God to their people,
yet 180 years of their teachings reveal a inconsistent pattern of scriptural interpretation. The
Lectures on Faith is another example of this. Thanks for your posts.
ww
BMOC
Are you serious or is this a put-on?
I can't believe you're serious!
I think that this is one case, if you're serious, where there's little to say.
I just find myself squinting at the screen, scratching my head and saying, "What?".
Please keep posting. The more the better. It is very insightful and instructive.
Whew!
I'm going to go to the kitchen now and make some hot chocolate. If I was a drinker I'd put something in it.
To you exMormons, are there a lot of people that think and believe like this running around the wards or are we experiencing an anomaly here?
I'm not trying to belittle this guy. It just kind of blows my hair back.
How can someone follow the bom? I thought all the 'rules and legalism' were in the word of wisdom. I thought the Word of God (the Bible) was not 'translated correctly' so how can a mormon 'follow' the Bible?
"To you exMormons, are there a lot of people that think and believe like this running around the wards or are we experiencing an anomaly here?"
Falcon, are you kidding? 😛 If you´re referring to the attitude of members of the church towards ex-mormons, they are all exactly like that in my experience… they only change when you start pushing them with facts(in a talk by a church leader or with a BYU logo on it) and then they start to beat around the bush and make excuses.
That guy´s apologetic points are the exact same you´re going to hear from any every-day, never read or research about my religion, mormon. Well, actually most people i´ve confronted actually couldn´t compare the Bible with the Book of Mormon, so maybe that argument isn´t in the list.
f-melo,
I don't doubt you but what I'm hearing from our Mormon friend here sounds like hollow assertions and borrowed knowledge. In-other-words it's just simple Mormon speak. Stuff that's kind of like slogans that are passed out at Mormon meetings and through individual conversations but doesn't go very deep in terms of getting at the truth. But then I guess there's no interest in the truth but just maintaining the myth.
f_melo wrote
We had a thread on this blog, a few of years ago, along the lines of raising the funds for an archaeological dig. Maybe we should raise it again. If the BoM is true, then the physical evidence should be there, and it will be the most important find in human history.
I'll pay for the backhoe (seriously).
Someone else suggested raising funds by selling tee-shirts with the slogan "Where on earth is Cumorah?"
As I recall, all the offers of help came from the skeptics.
You're absolutely right, though. If the LDS movement is serious about its promotion of the BoM, why are they doing absolutely zip to prove it's veracity? Does everything turn on this book, or doesn't it? Why should they expect us to take it seriously, when they can't take it seriously themselves.
In other posts here, Johnny Stephenson has done yet another meticulous job of exegeting early Mormon teachings.
Why should it be up to the skeptics to unearth this stuff (physically and metaphorically)?
The present LDS leadership is impotent in the very areas that it relies on for it's leadership credentials.
That's important, because if the Mormon leadership fails, then Mormonism fails.
In the OP, setfree wrote
I really like this sentiment. I don’t know if this is exactly what setfree meant, but what I get from it are;
* Only God can know the “fulness” of the Gospel. We can see the start of the road, and even travel some way down it, but only He knows the whole journey. For example, Evangelicals typically start out understanding the Gospel in terms of what I call the “courtroom metaphor” (we are found guilty, and Jesus pays the penalty by his death on the cross). There’s nothing wrong with the “courtroom metaphor”, but there are more dimensions to the Gospel, for example, the theme of the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us of John 1:14, or the Redemption, or the Atonement, or the reconstitution of the People of God, or the rebirth of each individual believer into a new inheritance.
Note that in the Christian Gospel, the foundation that is laid at the start doesn’t get dug up in favor of a newer “revelation”. What I’m thinking of are multiple ways of looking at the same thing (strictly, the same person – Jesus), not similar ways of looking at multiple things. I fully agree with John Piper, when he says that the Christian journey never leaves the cross of Christ (how many times did he say “never” on that YouTube clip?). Christians don’t “graduate” from Christ – you’d think we’d get the message after reading John 13:16.
* It’s up to God to reveal the “way”. It’s not up to us to find, or create a “way”. I’ve been a Christian for many years, and I never understood it when other people talked about finding their own way to God. If God says, “follow this way”, you’d be an idiot to try to go some other way or, worse, try to invent your own. Jesus said “I am the way” John 14:6. Listen to him!
Note that Jesus does not say “I have come to show you the way by laying out a set of Ordinances and Principals”. If you want to get to the God, you’ve got to go through Jesus. He should know, because he is fully and wholly God. (It’s from the horse’s mouth, so to speak).
* The ultimate “religious model” isn’t actually a religion. It’s Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is God’s ultimate act of self-expression. He shows us what it means for God and humanity to be reconciled, living together in the dirt and dust of the “real” world. He has done it! That’s why Christians put their faith in Christ, and not in the Christian religion.
* Finally, Jesus Christ is God’s free gift to humanity. There’s nothing we can do to earn it or deserve it, but God has given His Son to us anyway. Why…?
John 3:16 (yeah, I know this verse been over-used, stereotyped and caricatured, but it’s still good).
No amount of tithing, church attendance, missionary effort, chastity, or any other “good” work can bring God “down” to us, and it certainly cannot raise us “up” to him. However, God has made himself known to us through his son and everyone who calls on his name will be saved (this is how I read Romans 10:5-13).
BOMC, the question you asked concerning how our lives would be like if we followed the teachings
of the Book of Mormon, is a fair question. For me it's a question of the Bible providing the information
about Jesus Christ and living a life that would glorify Him. It's not so much the Bible vrs the BM, but
do I really need the BM as a " second witness" to the Bible. I personally do not. What the New Testament
teaches about Jesus, and a lifestyle that glorifies Him is abundant and satisfying . Jesus warned of
future false prophets that would introduce teachings that He would not approve of , His apostles whom
He trained, cautioned the people that false teachers would arise from within the Church to lead people
away from the gospel truth, to supposedly "add to" the gospel message of salvation in Jesus. This, I
believe, describes Mormon prophets and apostles. So where does this leave the BM ( and N.T.) ? Well,
to use a phrase Mormon leaders like to use, " follow the living prophet" . ( the BM is from dead prophets ).
Set Free, I enjoyed your post. It did remind me of the how similar this scenario is with not only the
Mormon church, but with other churches/organizations which have a prophet at the top type of
arrangement. Theories or "scripture truth " on vital issues that are constantly needing to be
"adjusted" or " modified" are a sign that they , and those who promulgate them, are not be followed.
Mormonism seeks to establish it's authority by teaching the need for a prophet today, the O.T. book
of Amos is appealed to ( 3:7 ). Other prophet led groups likewise use this strategy. One such religious
organization, with the same authoritative claim of exclusiveness as the Mormon church, was one that
my wife was once a member of. She faithfully followed the prophet despite numerous doctrinal changes
which came with the alibi of " adjustments" , also a scripture verse was always employed as " proof " that
these changes had God's blessing etc. If that somehow did'nt convince enough people then veiled threats
were used. Notice how this was done : [ cont… ]
I'm reading Lyndon Lamborn's book (e version, $2.99) about his exit from Mormonism. I'm about half way through it and what popped into my mind was the question, "Was Lyndon more angry with what he learned about Mormonism or that the Mormon church lied to him about Mormonism." My other impression is that what got to Lyndon was not so much theological questions but the misinformation regarding topics like Smith's polygamy. I'm just working my way through this so my impressions might change however Lyndon came to the conclusion that the Mormon church isn't honest…..period. I think that's something that those in Mormonism need to confront, not just the information. The hardcore TBMs are able to come up with their own rationalization for the information itself, but what I want to know is, how can they deal with the lack of integrity within the organization?
It's no small thing to cover-up Smith's womanizing and seduction of women under the guise of a "spiritual" practice. The bottom line is that polygamy was an excuse, a method for Smith to full-fill his own sexual pleasures. The LDS church has to lie and cover it up because Smith's the prophet. The prophet Smith is portrayed as this pure and holy paragon of virtue. Then they discover that he drank and used his position to seduce women for his own lustful purposes. So it's not only Smith but it's the organization that must lie to cover-up his sins that is called into question. And the church is suppose to be perfect. The clear evidence is that the LDS church is not only compliant in Smith's sinful behavior but is diligent in trying to rewrite history. They do this while demanding sinless perfection on the part of members. What religious hypocrites these leaders are.
This group appeals to Matt. 24:37 , and uses the rendering " faithful and discreet slave " instead of
" faithful and wise servant " [ KJV] to establish their place of authority as God's sole spokesman today.
With that in mind notice how " the slave" [prophet] keeps doubters in line : " … appreciating our
relationship to the visible theocratic organization, remembering the fate of those like Korah,and Achan
…..and others who forgot the theocratic order. Are we assigned as individuals to bring forth the food for
the spiritual table ? No? then let us not try to take over the slave's duties. We should eat and digest and
assimilate what is set before us, without shying away from parts of the food because it may not suit the
fancy of our mental taste….Jehovah and Christ direct and correct the slave as needed, not we as indiv-
iduals. If we do not see a point at first we should keep trying to grasp it, rather than opposing and
rejecting it and presumptuously taking the position that we are more likely to be right than the discreet
slave. We should meekly go along with the Lord's theocratic organization… Now some may ask, ' Should
we accept as from the Lord and true the food provided through the discreet slave , or should we
withhold acceptance until we have proved it for ourselves. ? ' " Notice that to question the prophet will
lead to questioning God's will. Now consider the threat that Mormon leaders use; [ cont…]
" It should be remembered that lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls
that the General Authorities of the church are as likely to be wrong as they are right . This sort of
game is Satan's favorite pastime , and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. "
[ Deseret News 5-26-1945 ]
I think the truth of Eph.4:14, and 2 Pt.2:1 is appropriate here.
falcon, you said, " My bottom line is that all spiritual experiences need to be tested by the Word
of God . " If only all seekers of Biblical truth would follow that advice !
[ a quick note : I've been having problems with my computer, it was down for a week and is still not
up to par. So if I " disappear" that's why . ]
One of the interesting things about those defending Mormonism and the BoM in particular is their question, "Have you ever read the BoM?" My unapologetic answer "NO!" The retort then is "Well then how can you criticize it?" I tell them it's very simple. Number one, I already know it's not true so why should I read it? I'm not really interested in reading a book promoted by a religion that thinks that there are millions if not billions of gods and that teaches that men will become gods. Secondly, whatever a person does isn't ever enough for a Mormon. What I mean is if you read the BoM and say to them, "It's a farce!" They will say, "You need to read it prayerfully and with a sincere, honest and humble heart." If you tell them you did that and nothing of a physical nature occurred as a supposed witness that it's true, they tell you, "Keep reading it until you get the inner witness" (with of course the occupying shakes, shivers, tingles and hot flashes).
For Mormons there is only one correct answer and that is, the BoM is true. What they don't quite understand is that the whole thing is a set-up. There is the prereading suggestion of what will occur so when some naive person reads it and gets some sort of physical reaction, it's not God but the power of suggestion. In addition, we might ask our Mormon friends if they've read any other religious book, prayed about if it's true, and kept reading it until they got the shakes. I might suggest that they try the Apostle's Creed for example.
Johnny, that was some great information! Thanks for sharing. Where did you get the info about his language tutor?
falcon, as soon as you say you haven't read it, they turn their minds off. It's like critiquing a novel you never read. I wouldn't listen either. LOL!
Here's an example:
I hate The Wizard of Oz!
Which part?
I don't know. I've never seen it!
LOL
Johnny Stephenson's posts are some of the best I've ever read on here. Thank you!
Just recently stumbled onto this site and I appreciate what you guys are doing. I've studied Mormonism for years on a surface level, and the posts you have here and the site you have bookmarked are excellent resources. Thank you for your love for those of the Mormon faith and desire to lead them to the Truth.
Accurate spiritual guidance ? Church curriculum : " With grateful hearts, Saints the world over sing the
hymn, ' we thank Thee O God for a prophet to guide
us. " [ Gospel Principles, 1997, p.47 ]
This guidance is declared to be trustworthy. " A prophet teaches truth and interprets the Word of God."
[ ibid p.47 ]
An example of this reliable spiritual guidance from the Mormon prophet . Members of the mormon heirarchy
were assembled in Brigham Young's office to help a fellow apostle ( Orson Pratt) see the error of his way in
opposing certain doctrines advanced by prophet B.Y. . Apostle Wilford Woodruff testifies that a key point for
him in evaluating the truth of a teaching is that if the prophet advocates it then even if it 's against his own
personal views, then he submits to the prophet , since he is God's mouthpiece and thus God would reveal it
to the prophet before He would to him [Woodruff] . Woodruff goes further : [ cont.]
Sorry Dale but I can't agree with your assessment or your analogy. We are talking about false scripture here. Would you suggest I read the Satanic Bible in order to witness to Satanists?
Mormonism is an affront to God. Joseph Smith was an occultist who was said to have "translated" the BoM plates by the use of a magic rock, also known as a seer stone. This is nothing more than an occult medium for contacting spiritual entities of darkness. Why would I read anything produced through occult means? How does that edify God or in any way make me a more effective apologist for the Christian faith.
I don't care if other people want to read the BoM. I've read the critiques and have a good working knowledge of the problems related to the text. I don't intend to become an expert on the BoM because I've got a good understanding of the history of Mormonism and its doctrines. Reading the BoM isn't going to add anything to it because, as I said, I know the mind games Mormons play with it and I know a couple of things about spiritual warfare. If you tell them you've read it, they up the ante. "Did you pray?" "Did you read it with a humble heart?"
I don't play Mormon games or let them set my agenda. I preach Christ and Him crucified and spend my time in the Bible, the Word of God.
I want to add one other note to my comments to Dale above.
I talk with Andy Watson often. He use to post here under the handle "Berean". Andy has a better working knowledge of Mormonism than anyone I know. He use to have a satchel with all of his reference materials in that he'd have with him in case he had a chance to witness to a Mormon. That satchel was stuffed full of materials that were right from the LDS church so it had the LDS stamp of approval. Andy talks about having invested countless hours in studying Mormonism and said he probably read the BoM more times than the Bible. After several years Andy came to some conclusions that I don't think he'd mind me sharing here.
First of all he says that he wished he wouldn't have devoted the time he did to the study of Mormonism. He contends that a Christian needs to know the highlights and after that the best use of time is knowing the Bible and the doctrines of the Christian faith. He also says that the missionaries and often the rank and file Mormons are not interested in a dialogue. The minute they determine that you know anything about Mormonism, they shut down, pack-up and are on the way. This is partly due to the idea propagated in Mormonism that anything that isn't pro-Mormon is of the devil and you should flee from it. The other thing has to do with the missionaries. If you're not a good prospect, they're not going to waste their time with you.
So I don't really care what the Mormons think when I tell them I haven't nor do I intend to read the BoM. I concentrate on knowing the Christian faith and being prepared to share Christ to those whose hearts God has prepared to hear the Gospel. I'm not going to wow them or impress them with my knowledge of Mormonism or the BoM.
Andy says, and I agree, that it's God's sovereign election that draws someone to Him. There is a ton of information available to Mormons regarding their faith and normative Christianity. They've got plenty of resources available to them on their quest out of Mormonism.
Whether I read the BoM or not isn't going to get a Mormon saved or even get them engaged in a meaningful discussion. I believe God uses us as He wills, when He wills and how He wills. Letting someone else set the contingencies is folly.
" Brother Orson Pratt, I wish to ask you one or two questions. You see that the spirit and doctrine which
you possess is entirely in opposition to the First presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and all who are
present this evening and it chills the blood in our veins to hear your words and feel your spirit. Should not
this be a Guidance to you that you are wrong……Everyman in this room who has a particle of the Spirit of
God knows that President Young is a prophet of God and that God sustains him and he has the Holy
Spirit and his doctrines are true…." [ cited in Adam is God ? by Chris Vlachos ,p.16 ].
What we learn from this , and other examples, is that the Mormon prophet gives the correct doctrine
position. This prophet ,on another occasion , taught that Adam was God, and the father of Jesus.
Yet today LDS side with Orson Pratt, who was being chastised for not submitting to the prophet's
doctrinal guidance ! Others in the Mormon leadership testified that the Holy Spirit confirmed to them
that prophet Young's teachings were accurate. This is reliable spiritual guidance ? Dear LDS :
what truths from your prophet are you believing right now, that will at any time be changed into being
considered as false by the next prophet ? Can you be sure that you're not now believing error on a
fundamental doctrine ? Your faith has a lot going for it, but the reliability of your leaders as spiritual
guides is not one of them. Walk away from them , and lay your moral lifestyle at Jesus' feet , and fully
submit to Him as your complete spiritual guide and so much more ! Please consider Heb.1:1-2 ; 7:25
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.