An Interesting Discovery: A Map of the Travels of Moroni

In the ongoing Mormon Apologist Wars on the location of the Book of Mormon lands, one advocate of the LGT (Limited Geography Theory) is Michael Ash. In February of this year, he published an article entitled, How Moroni and the plates may have made it to Hill Cumorah.” He postulates that Moroni traveled from Mesoamerica to New York, and could have done it in under a year.

In fact, we are told that Moroni, while on his way to drop off the golden plates he lugged all the way to the Hill Cumorah in New York (named he says, after another hill of the same name located somewhere in Central America), Moroni stopped in Arizona, then went on to Salt Lake; afterwards going to Missouri (Independence & Adam-Ondi-Ahman) and then he journeyed to Nauvoo and Pike County in Illinois, and, before getting to New York, stopped in Kirtland Ohio!

Mr. Ash comes by this information from a map allegedly drawn by information that came directly from the Prophet Joseph Smith. Says Ash,

“If the map is genuine and accurately reflects the thinking of early Latter-day Saints and/or Joseph Smith, it supports the theory that Moroni traveled Northward along what became the El Camino, continued traveling north-northwest to Arizona, and then worked his way north through Utah (where we learn that he dedicated the spot for the Manti Temple as well as other temple sites) and eventually found his way to upstate New York.”

Fascinated by the idea of this map, I followed the link Mr. Ash provided in his article to another one, which was an article by H. Donl Peterson, called Moroni, the Last of the Nephite Prophets,” where he provides a copy of the map. Here is a picture of the map (Figure 2 from Dr. Peterson’s article):

Actually, there are two maps, virtually identical to each other, with only minor differences that Dr. Peterson explains:

“Several years ago, I came across two copies of a map in the Archives Division of the Historical Department of the Church relative to Moroni’s North American journeys… On the back of the map in Figure 1 is written the following:

“’A chart, and description of Moroni’s travels through this country. Got it from Br. Robert Dickson. He got it from Patriarch Wm. McBride at Richfield in the Sevier and also from Andrew M. Hamilton of same place. And they got it from Joseph Smith the Prophet.’”

Dr. Peterson continues with a detailed description of both maps, included here to help readers better understand what the map depicts:

“On the map ‘land Bountifull [sic]’ is listed in ‘Sentral [sic] America.’ The cartographer wrote ‘starting point’ below the reference to Central America. Above the ‘land Bountifull’ is ‘Sand hills in south part of Arizona,’ and above it to the left is ‘Salt Lake.’ To the right is ‘Independens, Jackson Co, Mo.’ and above that is ‘Adam on Diamon, Davis Co, Mo.’ To the right of that is ‘Nauvoo, Hancock C.Ill.’ Below that is ‘Mound Kinderhook, Pick, Co, Ill, 6 Plates Bell shape were found’ (were was was on one copy). Then to the right and above that is ‘Kirtland, Ohio,’ and to the right of that is ‘Commorre [Cumorah], N.Y.’ Below this on the right-hand side of the map is written: ‘Moroni’s Travels starting from Sentral America to the Sand hills Arizona then to Salt Lake U[tah], T[erritory], then to Adam on Diammon Mo, then to Nauvoo, Ill, then to Independence Mo, then to Kirtland Ohio then to Cumoro NY.’

“The second map appears to have been drawn by the same hand and is quite similar to the first, though it twice spells Arizona as Arisony (one ‘y’ has an ‘a’ written over it); ‘eden’ is written near the circle identifying ‘Independense’; ‘where adam blessed his posterity’ is written near the circle identifying ‘Adam on Diammon’; the ‘missisipy river’ is listed near Nauvoo; Kirtland is twice misspelled ‘kertland’; and Cumorah is misspelled ‘Cunora’ and ‘Cumora.’”

Dr. Peterson writes this conclusion about the maps:

“It is interesting to note that the brethren mentioned on these documents were contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and they credited him with the notion that the travels of Moroni began in the land Bountiful, which was in Central America, and went through the western New York. Why Moroni took the route he did is still without answers. These men stated that the Prophet Joseph believed Bountiful is in Central America while the Hill Cumorah, the burial place of the plates, is in New York State.”

Peterson references a comment Brigham Young made in 1875 on the day of the dedication of the Manti temple site. Young reportedly said, “Here is the spot where the prophet Moroni stood and dedicated this piece of land for a Temple site, and that is the reason why the location is made here, and we can’t move it from this spot…” Then Peterson states,

“That Moroni dedicated the Manti Temple site is one of the few statements the Brethren have made connecting a Book of Mormon figure with a specific current place and action. This aids us in documenting one of Moroni’s travels and priesthood assignments.”

I find it incredible that these same men, who discount statements by Joseph Fielding Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others, that there was only one Hill Cumorah, and it was in New York, would give credence to a statement by Brigham Young about Moroni going to Utah, and this map purported to have been drawn at the direction of Joseph Smith, while discounting the multitude of statements that locate the Hill Cumorah in New York.

What I found the most interesting about all of this was the side trip that Moroni took to Pike County Illinois. If anyone is familiar with Mormon History, they will remember that an interesting discovery was found there, known as ‘The Kinderhook Plates’.  If this map is genuine, and Moroni went there, why would he go to a place where phony plates were buried in an attempt to fool Joseph Smith? And if this map was drawn at the direction of Smith, does this prove that he was taken in by the Kinderhook hoax?

This entry was posted in Book of Mormon and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to An Interesting Discovery: A Map of the Travels of Moroni

  1. falcon says:

    Man, all I can say is that these folks have way too much time on their hands. Why don’t they just give it up? Maybe it’s the same mentality that drives people to spend countless hours on convoluted conspiracy theories. These Mormons must just love the story. Isn’t this embarrassing? I guess not. Do they actually get together and discuss this nonsense, write about it and delve into endless speculation about how and where it happened? I think it boarders on some sort of strange pathology.

  2. setfree says:

    LOL, terrific post grindael.

    I wish that the LDS were taught how to take into consideration the cumulative evidence, instead of being taught to be drawn into the myriads of hopeful rabbit trails to possible defenses. Indeed, they (esp. Mormon apologists) step right over such a large pile of garbage right on their front porch (evidence against their beliefs), on their way out to chase a flea to the middle of the desert somewhere (“proof” for their beliefs).

  3. Kate says:

    Seriously??? If this map is legit then why wasn’t I taught this in a church lesson? Why hasn’t it even been heard of??? You would think that if the LDS church has had this map in it’s possession all this time, they would have put it out there, screaming that the BoM is true and the BoM lands are in Mesoamerica and here’s the proof! What about the third hill comorah that the apologists say are in Asia?? Did moroni travel from Asia, landing in Mesoamerica and then take the route on this map? Where’s the Asia part of the map? How convenient that the map took moroni through all the places significant to the LDS. Too funny! If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith isn’t the one who decided to bring the saints West. Well part of the saints anyway. How many stayed? I would think that if Joseph Smith is responsible for the map, wouldn’t there be some sort of writing by him, concerning the travels of moroni? I don’t remember reading or hearing anything from him about Arizona or SLC. Just one more thing for the LDS to get a “feeling” and “testimony” over.

  4. Kate says:

    You know, the more I delve into this weirdness, the more ashamed I am that I bought into it all! I just trusted the prophet, he could never lead me astray. How naive I was. I’m so thankful that God opened my eyes to His truth. Once again, WHERE IS JESUS IN ANY OF THIS!

  5. falcon says:

    Well maybe, just maybe Moroni was teleported!
    He didn’t actually walk or ride a camel to get from here to there. He was transported spiritually. In fact he may have actually gone to these places spiritually and not physically. It could have been a vision. How’s that? Am I thinking Mormon now?
    Remember how the witnesses to the gold plates saw them in their mind’s eye instead of physically “seeing” them. That’s why there is no archeological evidence for the big battles etc. in the BoM, right? It all happened “spiritually” not “physically”.
    Someone help me out here. Didn’t the ground open up and there was this huge cave with mounds of gold plates on tables of stone; so many that there was like a huge over-flow.
    A lot can be explained if someone wants to spiritualize it. Angels appear. Figures from Bible times, apostles for example, materialize right before your eyes. God and Jesus and even an angel with a sword can be seen. All explanations are valid because they were achieved via revelation.
    Smith and company practices second sight vision. They claimed to be able to see with a third eye into the spirit world. Seer stones and magic glasses and incantations said on nights when the full moon is present can aid in these excellent spiritual adventures.
    The power of suggestion, persuasion, just the right ambiance and a highly charged emotional scene can all help along the way. A little group think and a form of mass hysteria can all set the mood and get folks to swear they saw angels with flaming swords swooping here and there.
    Yup, Moroni was quite the traveler. Must have been some back pack to carry all those gold plates.

  6. grindael says:

    Kate, don’t feel bad. I not only bought it, I was a fanatic. I was converted at 12, read everything that I was fed about Smith, and bought it all. I was the golden boy of the Ward, had pretty much the whole BOM memorized by the time I was 16, and would never miss my morning dose of Seminary through High School. Did the mission, B.Y.U. then learned about all the history that had been craftily kept from me. I don’t doubt that there are some very intelligent people in the Mormon Church.

    This map, I think was “re-discovered” fairly recently, but the thought behind it, was this: credence by way of Smith. During the formative Utah years, these men that knew him, to legitimize something, would always say Smith taught it. It’s in all the diaries I read, and Young, Cannon and many of the others were constantly stating that what they taught they got from Smith. A classic example of this: Adam-god. One of his classic statements:

    December 16, 1867: At meeting of School of the Prophets: President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel, and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and was our God and that Joseph taught this principle. ~Woodruff Journals.

    I wonder though (and this is up Falcon’s alley) what they have to do to try and justify using this map. Well, they only put Kinderhook on it because… (then fill in the blanks with whatever outlandish excuse you can think of). Since, of course the Apologist’s take on Kinderhook is this:

    “The bottom line is that there is no proof that Joseph Smith fell for the apparent fraud of the Kinderhook plates. He apparently showed no interest in them after his initial exposure if he even personally saw

  7. grindael says:

    them at all.” (

    That’s an incredibly misleading statement, which I will address tomorrow. So, what is a map said to have been dictated by Smith doing with the Kinderhook location on it? Why the fervor surrounding that hoax, that they included it in the History of the Church, and someone went to the trouble of trying to show that Moroni stopped there as part of a ‘priesthood assignment’? How did ‘no interest’ generate so much interest? In that same article by Lindsay, he quotes a Mormon Apologist who asks 5 questions about the plates that I will address tomorrow. This classic statement, in the light of that map, begs investigation:

    “But then he never followed through because the hoax was revealed to him. Therefore, he sent the conspirators on their way, and never said anything else about it.” But what WAS said, was so indelibly impressed on someone’s mind that they drew that map with that location on it, and claimed it came from Smith himself. If the hoax was revealed to Smith as they claim here, the ‘prophet’ obviously forgot to tell his followers, who claim that he told them that Moroni stopped there on his way to New York. _johnny

  8. I’ve never heard of the Kinderhook hoax. Looks like I’ll be doing more researching. Fifteen+ years being exposed to this stuff, and there’s STILL more to it?? What struck me as really funny was the same at Kate… how the map took Moroni through all of the major Mormon landmarks. How coincidental!

  9. Kate says:

    grindael and marriedamormon,
    This is such a fascinating subject! It just amazes me that people can’t see how easy it is to back track in history. It’s so easy for the LDS church to say “Oh look, Joseph Smith prophesied of these things! Didn’t they all come true, these things that happened thousands of years ago? What I would like to see is Thomas Monson prophesying of something in the future and having it come true. That would be more amazing than coming up with a fictional story that incorporates past history into it! Hind sight is 20/20!!! I’ve read a little about the Kinderhook plates. I think he tried to translate them. I don’t care what Mormons or apologists say. If you have to twist, and spin, (or as falcon so humorously said “spin the tires, do a few wheelies and a one leg ramp jump over a few model cars” LOL!) then something is wrong. I agree that there are some really smart and educated people in Mormonism. I’ve often wondered how a history teacher of any kind can be a devout, faithful Mormon.

  10. falcon says:

    Kate and Friends.
    You may want to trip on out to this website and read the interview with Michael Coe. I would say he’s very respectful of Mormon archeologists but knows where the line is drawn.

    You asked, I think, how can really smart people believe this stuff. I guess I could counter with, “If they were really smart they couldn’t possible believe it.” But I don’t think it’s really much a matter of IQ. Really smart people believe some really unbelievable things. Take for example Scientology. Smart people spend a lot of money going through the “auditing” procedure in this “religion”. They may as well buy one of those weight loss systems that are advertised late at night on TV. You know the ones where you put this inflatable plastic belt around your waist, hook a hose up to your vacuum cleaner and just sit there and watch the pounds melt away.
    There are a lot of people today who believe in reincarnation. Perfectly smart people. I saw some of them interviewed on a news show. They love telling the story of who they were in another life. I guess they aren’t all that happy about what’s coming down for them in their current episode in their life. So if they want to think they were beautiful, handsome, rich, famous, smart what ever in a past life, it may be enough to get them through the boring (life) they are currently living.

  11. Ralph says:

    Excuse my ignorance on American geography and history, but was Salt Lake Utah actually known as that in JS’s time? I thought the name ‘Utah’ was given to the state after the LDS pioneers had established themselves over there, well after JS died. Just a question.

  12. falcon says:

    Well, let’s see. I just watched an episode of “How the States Got There Shapes” on the History Channel. I’m doing this from memory but I think it was called “Deseret” by the Mormons and they wanted to claim a major amount of land. The U.S. government stepped in and kept trimming back the territory to its current size, and they weren’t about to let the Mormons have their own picked name for the territory. So it’s named after the Ute Indians.
    Mormons, as I’m sure you know, had no chance at all of the place becoming a state while they practiced polygamy. You know the rest of the story.
    There were long hearings in the Senate regarding seating the Senator from Utah because of polygamy. I’m trying to remember the guys name. I think it was Smoot. Anyway they called the “prophet” Woodford and he made news saying he didn’t hear from the Mormon god any more than anyone else in the sect. That caused quite a stir back in Utah when it was reported in the paper. I’m doing this from memory as I’m in a hurry because my wife and I are going to take the inside dog for a ride in the car. The outside dogs will not be pleased at the favoritism!

  13. Sandi B. says:

    Yes Kate you are not alone. I was 17 when I bought into it and did my time at both Ricks College (now BYU ID) and BYU. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of because when you end up in the LDS system, yiou are constantly warned that everything contrary to what they teach is “anti mormon” and from satan. I would be interested to know if there are any mormons or former mormons out there who were actually exposed to the Bible and than joined the mormon church.
    Grindale, when did yiou attend BYU? I was therre from 78-81 (just gave away my age) I feel like my time there is not wasted, if I can minister to other mormons, but it is one frustrating task. Thankfully I din not get my MRS degree while there so I never made it into the temple and got more entrebnched in their really weird stuff (as if their doctrine alone isn’t strange enough!)

  14. falcon says:

    When we talk about the history of Utah, it must be remembered that the state had zero chance of getting admitted to the Union as long as the Mormons practiced polygamy. They had a choice to make; either give-up a central doctrines of their religion or face some pretty stark consequences. Those consequences would include the seizure of their property I think. So they dumped polygamy in order to join the rest of polite society and bought themselves some peace.
    Of course no Mormon since has entered the Celestial Kingdom and become a god because of the wicked behavior on the part of the Mormon prophet Wilford Woodruff who pronounced the manifesto. The only Mormon gods are coming out of the FLDS.
    But anyway the Mormons in the mid 1850s wanted their own theocracy. They wanted dominion over their own land. Brigham Young wanted to run the show.
    Here’s a quote from an article in the June 2008 Smithsonian magazine.
    “The US government used polygamy as a wrecking ball to destroy the old theocracy…..By the 1890s, Mormons were hanging on by their fingernails. But when Wilford Woodruff delivered his manifesto repudiating polygamy; he went further: he said that from now on, Mormons would obey the law of the land.” Statehood for Utah followed in 1896. Their dreams of dominion over, the Mormons began to enter the American fold.”
    It’s kind of funny but it was at that point that they went from collectivism to capitalism. Something that has served them well.

  15. helenlouissmith says:

    Question, the map shows the name Salt Lake Utah, so historically when can we first state the date of that usage or title?

    Helen 🙂

  16. Ralph says:

    Thanks Falcon,

    That’s what I have been taught in the church. Look at what I have written – I am questioning why ‘Utah’ is on the map if it was drawn by JS or in his time period. Is that map truely from JS or from another person in a later period?

  17. I agree with Falcon. It really doesn’t have much to do with IQ a lot of the time, mainly because everyone at some point is spiritually susceptible to being deceived by the enemy, whether it’s by a cult or selfishness or hanging with the wrong crowd. This is why it’s SO important to be constantly in the Word, to help arm yourself for the attacks. If you already KNOW the Word and what God has already revealed about Himself, it’s easier to detect the phonies. Like falcon said, I’ve seen incredibly intelligent people believe some weird stuff. There’s one guy (who is actually mormon) who believes that the city of atlantis was inhabited by aliens. And IQ-wise? He’s considered smart. Go figure.
    I think it was Jim Spencer who said he’d met some incredibly intelligent men and women who had every aspect of their lives handled well. They were successful at their jobs and could speak eloquently when asked about business, finance, etc. But when it came to religion? Completely different person. All logic had been thrown away.
    I don’t see it as time wasted at all for any of you ex mormons. You have a point of view none of us regular Christians will never have (I hope!). You can be (and are) so useful to reach those hard cases for Christ.

  18. Kate says:

    Well Ralph, that is something that you are going to have to ask your leaders. It would seem that LDS apologists are putting it out there. Maybe ask them. I would be interested in what Thomas Monson has to say about this. I know he will never address it.

    It was the Reed Smoot hearings. I researched that a few years ago and I do remember that the LDS leaders lied under oath ( if I remember right, Wilford Woodruff lied to a Grand Jury several times during the hearings ) about still practicing polygamy. In fact they still practiced it and lied openly about it until way into the 1900’s. Now I can see where it would be really hard for a man who had 20 plus wives with 60 kids to just abandoned them and stop the practice all together, I’m sure it was hard, but to lie about it wasn’t from God. I was taught that the reason the LDS stopped practicing polygamy was because we were to obey the laws of the land. Of course I now know it was to gain statehood. Hey! I just had a thought, maybe this map is something left over from the Mark Hoffman days! Wouldn’t that be something?

  19. falcon says:

    Here’s a short article that you may find interesting since it has to do with mapping of the Salt Lake Basin in 1844.

    I’ve recounted a couple of times the story of how I took my daughter to a presentation by the “Amazing Randy” (James Randy) who debunks paranormal and other such phenomenon. During the question and answer portion of the program someone asked him, “Why do people believe this stuff?” His answer? “Because they want to.” He recounted how the actor Peter Sellers died of medically treatable heart disease. He chose to go to psychic surgeons.
    Once someone wants to believe something, they will go to great lengths to justify it, rationalize it and protect it. If someone is fed-up with Mormonism and questioning it, all of the information is there for them to make a decision based on fact that (Mormonism) is false. For the person who can’t bear the thought of it being false, there is no end to which they will go to maintain their faith.
    It’s kind of sad I think since all they could ever want is contained in Christ Jesus. They don’t need a church or a religious system to get them right with God. Christ did it on the cross.

  20. helenlouissmith says:

    An OK topic but what does it really reveal? Maps, theories, suppositions, hypothesis, etc. etc. All of these are impossible to verify, so what does it reveal? guesswork based on inconclusive evidence.
    The whole OP does nothing more then excite our imaginations, meaning the imaginations of the LDS and does absolutely nothing for those who have a agenda, to find something that they can claim or preach as ridicules stories.

    Then we have the ex-mormons who parade out the same old tired rhetoric:

    “entrebnched in their really weird stuff (as if their doctrine alone isn’t strange enough!)

    “I would like to see is Thomas Monson prophesying of something in the future and having it come true.”

    “the more I delve into this weirdness, the more ashamed I am that I bought into it all!”

    Have the ex-mormons no shame? What exactly have any one of you added to this Topic, seems to me nothing of value, nothing more then — “see here is another example of weirdness!” Except for grindael, you all need to get a life or find some facts that can support your apostasies from Mormonism. It’s so transparent that you all left the Church and now are trying to find a reason for doing so.

    Helen/Louis 🙂

  21. Sandi B. says:

    Thank you Helen, I have all of the Life I need in my now firm foundation and Rock, The Lord Jesus Christ. I never needed an “excuse” or “justification” for my apostosy from the mormon chruch. Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life and I gladly worship Him in Spirt and in Truth and I pray that some day you will too.

  22. helenlouissmith says:

    Kate stated Woodruff lied.

    These circumstances weighted heavily on President Woodruff. He sought the will of the Lord on the matter and eventually received a revelation that Latter-day Saints should cease the practice of entering into plural marriage. Obeying the Lord’s command, he issued what came to be known as the Manifesto — an inspired statement that remains the basis of the Church’s stance on the subject of plural marriage. In this public declaration, dated September 24, 1890, he stated his intention to submit to the laws of the land. He also testified that the Church had ceased teaching the practice of plural marriage. On October 6, 1890, in a session of general conference, the Latter-day Saints sustained their prophet’s declaration, unanimously supporting a statement that he was “fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto.” (xxxii-xxxiii)

    This statement seems to me to be quite carefully worded. With respect to the legality of polygamy before the 1880s, for example, the text never explicitly claims that polygamy was permitted. Instead, it leaves this claim as an implication, thus avoiding a potentially false explicit statement. Likewise, with respect to the practice of polygamy after the Manifesto, the text never states that polygamy stopped on or before September 24, 1890. Instead, it correctly states that Woodruff said polygamy had stopped on or before that date. The only relevant fact that the text omits is that Woodruff was being less than candid in these public statements.
    Polygamy and the Wilford Woodruff Manual
    By RoastedTomatoes

  23. helenlouissmith says:

    Sandi B. says:
    July 7, 2011 at 9:36 pm
    Thank you Helen, I have all of the Life I need in my now firm foundation and Rock, The Lord Jesus Christ. I never needed an “excuse” or “justification” for my apostosy from the mormon chruch. Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life and I gladly worship Him in Spirt and in Truth and I pray that some day you will too.

    Your stating that and being a part of MC is the transparency I see of the why you’re here. Justification.

    Helen 🙂

  24. Sandi B. says:

    I couldn’t agree with you more Helen on your last statement. 🙂

  25. 4fivesolas says:

    Helen – I think that’s why all the Christians are here: Justification.

  26. helenlouissmith says:

    Reasonable grounds for complaint, like misrepresenting what you once believed, justifying for lack of any evidence or facts except that one has lost their testimonies or never really had one in the first place. Seeking out a agenda of deception only shines the light back on the one who has to sensationalize or manipulate.

    Helen/Louis 🙂

  27. falcon says:

    You provide a wonderful glimpse into the mind of the true believing Mormon. In your world all of the evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mormonism is a shame and a fraud is dismissed as made-up or misrepresented.
    You see those who figured out that Mormonism is false as having lost their testimonies or never had one. This is all pretty standard boiler plate Mormon stuff. It’s the sloganeering taught down at the wards to try and protect the faithful from the realization that these folks figured it out. You may have added that the exMos have fallen into serious sin, they will fall into serious sin, and they can never really be happy after leaving.
    You do bring yourself, however, to admit that grindael has the goods on Mormonism. He left the Mormon church because he figured out is false based on the evidence. So if you think that grindael has offered solid evidence of the falseness of Mormonism, then you too must conclude the same and leave the Mormon church immediately. God has brought you to this place and time to receive the salvation He is offering you through faith in Jesus Christ.
    Based on what the exMormons have revealed about themselves, including grindael who was all out for the Mormon church, they all thought like you do at one time. I don’t think you can look into their hearts and minds and measure what their commitment was to Mormonism. What you’re doing is the old Mormon “sour grapes” routine where by the true believer can’t imagine anyone not believing the Joseph Smith fable.

  28. Yep. ExMormons? Are you sure you didn’t just sin really bad? Or maybe you were offended by someone in the church? haha I kid. 🙂
    Seriously, I think it’s so interesting how every Mormon displays the same rhetoric, no matter where they’re from or how old they are. Somewhere, someone is pumping all the acceptable excuses for why people leave in their heads. And I love how these former TBMs are accused of being insincere in their previous religious beliefs. Fascinating.

    Personally, I enjoyed hearing a small piece of grindael’s testimony. I don’t know if it’s normal to request something like this, but what about some of the exmormons who are on here regularly sharing their stories sometime? Only if they’re comfortable with it of course. Unless maybe they already have and I missed it? Anyway, just a thought. Maybe for a slow lds news week. 🙂

  29. helenlouissmith says:

    Interesting that you can’t convince your own husband of the rhetoric you claim we spew. Is your husband ready to leave? and if not why? since you seem to think sharing some stories by the ex’s is going to somehow miraculously change how us TBM, (totally brainwashed mormons, :-)) will react too, “Oh my Gosh, we have a story of a ex that is complaining he/she was accused of sinning”. How about them just giving us the apostate version of why they don’t believe the Book of Mormon to be true, the Keystone of our religion which seems to be the key to either bringing the Church down or us converting even more Christians. 🙂


  30. helenlouissmith says:

    Falcon carries on about, ” In your world all of the evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mormonism is a shame and a fraud is dismissed as made-up or misrepresented.

    LOL, so I correct the non-evidence you guys polyester together, using adjectives such a misrepresented or made up, but usually first proceeded by my requesting clarification or references to source material where verification can be made. I’m told to do my own research, a very nice out too problematic issues first brought up by some talking point that always leads with, “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Hilarious mumblings of a committed agenda promoter, who like you loves to talk about such very well enhanced agenda driven stories that Mormons will have continuous sex in the eternities, Christ and Satan are brothers, God has a wife or many wives, and Joseph Smith is a liar, adulterous, convicted of fraud and glass looking. LOL.

    Do yourself a favor Falcon, learn too debate with standards that Aaron used with Jared, none bashing, civil and intelligent. 🙂


  31. Helen.
    First off, my husband’s personal beliefs and convictions are none of your business, especially since he’s not on here to answer that himself. You can ask me anything about myself, but leave my family out of this. That’s crossing a line for me. I actually question your motives of coming here. You claim to “correct” the “misrepresentations” on here, yet I haven’t seen an iota of anything that would convince anyone otherwise of what’s been said. The teachings are there, the doctrines are there… you can twist it any which you want to make it sounds prettier and fluffier and say “this is the correct way”, but garbage called by any other name is still garbage.

    I’m interested in hearing their testimonies, not because I think it’ll somehow prove to you or any other Mormon lurker of the falsity of the lds religion. I’m just interested in hearing them in order to get to know them better and rejoice with them in their discovery in salvation in Jesus Christ alone.
    And really, if all this just gets your feathers ruffled a tad too much (“sweet” Helen is slowly turning into “aggravated, name calling” Helen), simply don’t come here anymore. I say this hesitantly in the hopes that something on here will get you to see the truth for what it is (Jesus), but really, the lds church doesn’t recommend Mormons being involved in and reading “anti” literature. So why is it you keep coming back? You certainly shouldn’t feel it necessary to defend your Church. They’re big boys; they can come do the work themselves if they like. And we’re all apostate or avid story tellers anyway according to you. What does it matter to you if you think this stuff is all in our heads anyway?

  32. falcon says:

    Oh now Helen,
    Calm down a little. I think our buddy Rick has done a marvelous job pointing out how you have no arrows in your quiver. About the best you have to offer is an occasional cut and paste job from FARMS but nothing of any substance except to say that folks like me have an agenda which, by the way, is the first accurate thing you’ve had to say.
    Everything I’ve said can be backed-up, as it has been, by me and the other posters. Helen you continually evade the points made here and just repeat meaningless and empty phrases that everything said here is a lie. So you made a little list in your last paragraph do you deny all of those things are true? Just a simple yes no answer will do.
    And on another topic, I was wondering, “Why in the world does Helen have her magic underwear in such a bunch over the exMormons”. Well it came to me that it’s because they left “THE CHURCH”. That’s the major crime. The unpardonable sin. Because to you Helen, THE CHURCH is the whole enchilada. The people, the culture, the Relief Society, the cos play in the temple, home teaching and of course food storage!
    I would have thought you’d be happy that the exMos have come to that place in their spiritual life where they have the assurance of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. What’s it any skin off your nose if they don’t belong to your club any more? That’s what really sticks in your craw Helen. They left THE CHURCH!!!!!!

  33. falcon says:

    My buddy Andy Watson use to go and visit Mormon Wards and sit in on what I’d call the inquiry classes. So this one time the class is being taught by an elderly gentleman and he does the lesson and then opens up the floor for questions. Andy raises his hand and when called on he says, “My name is Andrew Watson. I’m a born again Christian. I believe I have eternal life based on my faith in Jesus Christ. What can the Mormon church do for someone like me?” The elderly gentleman ponders the question, looks at Andy and says, “The Mormon church can do nothing for you”.
    And ladies and gentleman that is the correct answer. Besides the fact that the Mormon church worships a false god, a religious system can add nothing to what Jesus did for us at the cross. The first lie of Mormonism is that there are millions and billions of gods. The second lie is that men through clean living, paying 10% of their income to the organizations, fulfilling all callings to the church, serving a mission and the practice of religious rituals can also become gods.
    The Mormon testimony is not about Jesus Christ. It’s about Joseph Smith, the BoM, the current prophet and the LDS church. As an after thought Jesus is tagged on at the end.
    So the real problem that current Mormons have with exMormons who have an assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ is that they’ve rejected the Mormon system. Dropping out of the club is the real problem. And it can never be that they found the system untrue. There had to be something wrong with that person because the system is perfect. How could someone reject it?
    Easy, I’d say!

  34. Kate says:

    Helen you said,
    “This statement seems to me to be quite carefully worded. With respect to the legality of polygamy before the 1880s, for example, the text never explicitly claims that polygamy was permitted. Instead, it leaves this claim as an implication, thus avoiding a potentially false explicit statement. Likewise, with respect to the practice of polygamy after the Manifesto, the text never states that polygamy stopped on or before September 24, 1890. Instead, it correctly states that Woodruff said polygamy had stopped on or before that date. THE ONLY RELEVANT FACT THAT THE TEXT OMITS IS THAT WOODRUFF WAS BEING LESS THAN CANDID IN THESE PUBLIC STATEMENTS.
    Polygamy and the Wilford Woodruff Manual
    By RoastedTomatoe

    Once again Helen, lying by omission is still lying. I don’t have time to get into my research notes about the lying he did to the Grand Jury during the Reed Smoot trials. I’m heading out for the weekend. It’s all there for anyone to see, go have a look at it. It is also a fact that the LDS continued to practice polygamy for many years after the manifesto was given. Who cares what he said in general conference? What they actually DID is way more important. As I have told you before, you have no idea why I or anyone else could EVER leave the beloved LDS church! I’ll tell you AGAIN. Jesus. Period. You don’t know the true and living Christ of the Bible so you can’t possibly understand. You see Helen, you need to let go of the lies and false teachings of men and search out the real Lord. Stop trying to JUSTIFY their lies and deceit and come unto Christ. The real one.

  35. falcon says:

    I’m guessing that the map cited in grindael’s article above was a fabrication by an earlier version of Mark Hoffman the forger who pulled the wool over the Mormon leadership a couple of decades ago.
    From what I’ve found, there was a rough draft type of map of the Salt Lake Basin around 1827. John Fremont came up with the first map that was widely disseminated around 1844. Except for the cursive writing, the map in the article looks like a treasure map drawn by a nine year old. The time frame seems to me to be a little tight to have Smith produce it.
    I got to thinking about what Joseph Smith knew about the west when he was running away from Nauvoo after ordering the destruction of the printing press which was revealing his polygamy. He got across the Mississippi river and into Iowa and was heading some where.
    BTW, the June 2008 Smithsonian article I referenced previously “The Brink of War: One hundred fifty years ago, the U.S. Army marched into Utah prepared to battle Brigham Young and his Mormon militia”. It’s a very good article and chronicles a brief history of the early Mormon movement and how the Mormon church finally capitulated, ended polygamy and found peace with the civil authorities.

  36. grindael says:

    Some seem to be missing the point about this map and my interest in it. The links I provided answer the questions about it’s history. What is important here is the fact that these men say it came from Joseph Smith, and try to use it to prove LGT, and Pike County is listed on the map.

    Sandi: I spent 81-82 there, didn’t finish cause I left the Church in 82.

    H/L No one is trying to prove it is/was written by Smith. This map, was trotted out by Mormon Apologists, who make the claims about it. I learned about it from going to Mormon Apologetic material, A habit of mine to get ‘both sides’ of issues. And maybe a little bit of understanding as to what ex-Mormons go through, might enable you to see why some say the things they do. For you, it’s as simple as believing what others (we ex-Mormons) call lies. For us, we have enough evidence (and more, for that matter) to convince us of the fraudulent nature of Smith and his ‘restored’ gospel. Justification is every reason for this site. And the comments about “sensationalize or manipulate,” are interesting coming from one who to my investigation, has provided little to rebut the claims made on this site. After I’ve posted about Kinderhook, I’ll take ya all down memory lane and the Smoot Hearings & the Manifesto (I have a copy of the Smoot transcript – and the blatant lying that went on there is staggering).

    The early Church leaders claimed many things gotten from Smith. This is one of them. One could add, like I did, Adam-god, also, the priesthood ban, polygamy, (which Smith never admitted publically & there is no actual revelation extant from 1843-– it was torn up,

  37. grindael says:

    & written later from memory, by Clayton, so I hear). Many of the teachings of Mormonism have to be verified by later documented evidence. and there are no gold plates to verify the BOM either.

    Funny how all accept the reality of the claimed First Vision, which supposedly took place in 1820, but there is nothing at all written about it until 12 years later. And as for those claims about Moroni and them labeling the map with ‘Utah”, didn’t Smith put in the Book of Mormon that they knew the name of Jesus Christ 100’s of years before he was born? In fact, Smith wrote himself into the Book of Genesis, which is widely accepted as true. Is this map much different?

    So really, is the Mormon acceptance of this map so strange? My thing, is why, if it is a true story, did Moroni stop at Pike County? Now, for those Kinderhook questions. _johnny

  38. grindael says:

    I have one more comment, and this is about Falcon. H/L said: “learn too debate with standards that Aaron used with Jared, none bashing, civil and intelligent.” (And that would be ‘to’ not ‘too’ – since you are speaking to intelligence, but we all make typos right?) I’ve been on this forum since 2008 off & on. I’ve seen most of what Falcon has posted, and he is actually very intelligent and civil. It is when Mormons (that come & go here) try and obfuscate the truth that gets his dander up. I would invite all to go back to this thread and read Helen’s entrance into this forum for a look into how Falcon acted towards her. (and that he stayed out of the firestorm that Helen brought with her).

    How things developed AFTER that, between Falcon & Helen, might be more to what Helen has posted… and it typically has not been very much different than this very first Post that she replied in depth on. The claims about Brigham Young speak volumes, like:

    “I was not there so how can I know that what was recorded was actually the thoughts and words of BY.. do we have anything in BY own handwriting? not that I know of.”

    Gee, so you must not know if the Book of Mormon, which was NOT written in the hand of Joseph Smith either, nor the plethora of ‘revelations’ by him, were his thoughts or words. What an inane argument, one that surely (and justly) brought out the responses on that Post, which even Sharon had to get on and make a plea for civility.

    I think someone here protests a little too much at rhetoric, while avoiding the real issues of Mormonism itself, and the massive amount of documentation available to show

  39. grindael says:

    that it is a false gospel, which many TB Mormons deny, obfuscate, and try to downplay as ‘opinion’, or far worse, not really their words at all. As for Young and his penchant for accuracy, I have many, many quotes by Young to show that he was very diligent in regards to what was printed in Mormon publications, including the JOD. Those who would try and say otherwise, are naïve at best, and untruthful at worst. The constant harangue of ‘twisting’, ‘agenda of deception’, ‘sensationalize’, ‘manipulation’ and other less tasteful descriptions (without a whit of proof) show all by itself who here, is really ‘intelligent’, when it comes to Mormonism. _johnny

  40. helenlouissmith says:

    Can someone please help poor old Falcon get it right. Apostasy or one who leaves the Church on grounds they don’t believe the Doctrine, Book of Mormon, or JS as a Prophet does not in any way mark one as having committed the unpardonable sin. Like I said, just here to correct little mistakes like sticking your foot in your mouth and making a claim like, “Everything I’ve said can be backed-up, as it has been, by me and the other posters”, well here’s you opportunity to show me as being incorrect.

    Lets see, so far no one has given me any information claiming proof of JS being convicted for fraud.
    Showing that BY only stated that plural marriage is the only way to exaltation.

    Your correcto master, Helen 🙂

  41. helenlouissmith says:

    marriedamormon says:
    July 8, 2011 at 8:21 am
    First off, my husband’s personal beliefs and convictions are none of your business, especially since he’s not on here to answer that himself. You can ask me anything about myself, but leave my family out of this. That’s crossing a line for me. I actually question your motives of coming here. You claim to “correct” the “misrepresentations” on here, yet I haven’t seen an iota of anything that would convince anyone otherwise of what’s been said. The teachings are there, the doctrines are there… you can twist it any which you want to make it sounds prettier and fluffier and say “this is the correct way”, but garbage called by any other name is still garbage.

    I apologize, but you kind of leave your self open for comments by others since your I.D. is “marriedamormon”, sounds like your making a statement with your name, just speculating. 🙂


  42. 4fivesolas says:

    Look back through the threads – the quotes where Brigham Young talks about plural marriage being necessary for exaltation are there. If he was inconsistent, that’s not our problem.
    Also, the evidence for Joseph Smith’s peep stone activities has been outlined and well documented through even Mormon historians who are honest about that aspect of his life. If you choose to dismiss it out of hand, once again, that’s not something we control.
    I think the larger problem for yourself is that your theology bears no resemblance to the true faith delivered to the Saints and recorded in God’s Word. When one understands the sacrificial system, the atonement, and the truth of justification by faith through the bloody cross of Our Lord and Savior, then empty temple rituals, and endless speculation about innumerable gods and goddesses is seen for the empty shell that it is. God clearly revealed the sacrificial system, and then fulfilled all the law with His own sinless life and Sacrifice. I pray that your eyes would be open to the true message of Scripture, and the forgiveness won by Christ. We are all desperately sinful, and our only hope is in the free grace of Christ.

  43. grindael says:

    Joseph Smith was found guilty of ‘glass looking’ a FRAUD, in 1826. There is your ‘proof’ though you do not want to admit it, Helen. As I wrote on the Brigham Young thread:

    “President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife,with many wives and with no wife at all. ” (Woodruff Journals, Feb. 12, 1870). But there are three levels to the Celestial Kingdom, and Young clarifies this with:

    August 31, 1873: At Paris, Idaho: President B. Young spoke one hour and 18 minutes. In his remarks he said that a man who did not have but one wife in the resurrection, that woman will not be his, but taken from him and given to another. But he may be saved in the Kingdom of God, but be single to all eternity. Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam. (Woodruff Journals)

    Hmmm. So yes, there are those who will go to the Celestial Kingdom, but those who do not practice polygamy, ‘will be single to all eternity’ his wife being ‘given to another’. He also said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” (JOD 11:269) The Mormon Church as a whole rejected polygamy in 1890. Gonna be a lot less ‘gods’ in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, it seems. _johnny

  44. grindael says:

    Someone has foot in mouth, but it’s not Falcon. Brigham Young said:

    “Brother Kimball asked whether there were liars and thieves in heaven. It is recorded that the Devil is somewhere there, accusing the brethren and finding fault with them. Men in the flesh are clothed with the Priesthood with its blessings, THE APOSTASIZING FROM WHICH and turning away from the Lord prepares them to become SONS OF PERDITION. There was a Devil in heaven, and he strove to possess the birthright, that of the Saviour. He was a liar front the beginning, and loves those who live and make lies, as do his imps and followers here on earth. How many devils there are in heaven, or where it is, is not for me to say” (JD 8:279-280).

    This made Young leery of giving endowments to the young, saying he only wanted to give them

    “to old people, as they would not be likely to apostatize, but then if we were to carry out that rule, we would not ordain any one, only those who would not apostatize. And to carry the thing still further, we expect all who are faithful to take the place of Adams in the worlds to be created; then if there were no apostates, WHAT WOULD WE DO FOR DEVILS? As we have to get our devils from this earth, for the worlds that are to be created”? (Historian’s Office Journal: Vol. 23:27, Aug. 1859; JD 4:363-364, 372; 8:179, 204, 279)

    Brigham Young made a few statements about this, that sons of perdition eventually lose their bodies, become sprits again and are used in this way. According to Young, they eventually, disincorporate completely and dissolve back into their native element (intelligences) to be recycled at some future time. As Wilford Woodruff recorded:

  45. grindael says:

    “I attended prayer meeting in the evening circle. President Young asked Elder Orson Pratt what he thought of his preaching that intelligent beings would continue to learn to all eternity. O. Pratt said that he believed the Gods had a knowledge at the present time of everything that ever did exist to the endless ages of all eternity. He believed it as much as any truth that he had ever learned in or out of this Church. President Young remarked that he had never learned that principle in the Church for it was not taught in the Church, for it was not true. It was false doctrine, for the Gods and all intelligent beings would never cease to learn except it was the Sons of Perdition. They would continue to decrease until they became dissolved back into their native element and lost their identity.” (WWJ Feb 17, 1856)

    Young also stated that:

    “The rebellious will be thrown back into their native element, there to remain myriads of years before their dust will again be revived, before they will be re-organized” (JD 1:118).

    Not a grand fate for apostates. What is ironic (and typical) of Mormonism is that another prophet, Joseph F. Smith, said the opposite:

    “… all men will be raised from the dead ; and, as I understand it, when they are raised from the dead they become Immortal beings, and they will no more suffer the dissolution of the spirit and the body . . . the first death which came into the world; also the last death which shall be pronounced upon the sons of perdition. What is it? Banishment from the presence of God . . . Banishment from all progress.

  46. grindael says:

    Banishment into outer darkness. Banishment into hell, which is a lake of fire and brimstone, where the worm dieth not, amt the fire is not quenched, because the soul lives and is bound to live on, suffering the damnation of hell. This is what I understand spiritual death is. I do not understand it to be the separation of the body and spirit again. I do not understand it to be the dissolution of the spirit into its native element. I understand the second death to be the same as the first death, spiritual death . . . The idea of annihilation, to no longer exist as souls, would be a glorious prospect for the sinner, Then he could say, ’Let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, and the next day we shall be annihilated, and that will be the end to our sorrow and of God’s judgment upon us.’ Do not flatter yourselves that you are going to get out of it so easy. This Book of Mormon is replete, all the way through, with the testimonies of the servants of God, that men are born to be immortal; that after the resurrection, their bodies are to live as long as their spirits, and their spirits cannot die. They are immortal beings, and they are destined, if they commit the unpardonable sin, to be banished from the presence of God, and endure the punishment of the devil and his angels throughout all eternity. I think that the wicked would prefer annihilation to the sufferings of such punishment and end to being. This view cannot be reconciled to the word of God” (Improvement Era, vol. 19 no. 5, pp. 386-391) _johnny

  47. grindael says:

    “Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I KNOW IT IS FALSE. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith… an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed…

    If then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it on earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one….

    I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that EVERY MAN IN THIS CHURCH , who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned.

  48. grindael says:

    I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.” (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp. 28-31).

    Look up Benjamin F. Johnson’s History and his telling of Smith’s ‘Parable of the Talents’ how one wife will be taken from the man who does not live plural marriage and given to another in the Mormon Heaven. This was re-iterated by Erastus Snow, written down by Wilford Woodruff:

    “Joseph Smith said that the parable that Jesus spoke of that the man who had one talent and hid it in the earth, was the man who had but one wife and would not take another. Would have her taken from him and given to one who had more. F. M. Lyman thought it would not do to seal dead women to him.” (October 14, 1882)

  49. falcon says:

    Ah Helen,
    If you haven’t noticed I use hyperbole to make my points thus the “unpardonable sin” comment. I know it’s a little difficult for you to keep up but the rest of the posters seem to be able to read between the lines. These are literary devices. If you’d put down the book you’re coloring and actually spend some time in intellectual pursuits you’d grow a little.
    What your posts basically come down to is that everyone is lying and haven’t proven anything, this after volumes of information have been presented. Helen, quite frankly, you’re dishonest. The “Joseph Smith fraud” allegation is just one such instance. With one click of my computer mouse I found a substantial amount of information on that topic, all from reliable sources. I’m not going to mess around with you on this because you’re playing a Mormon game that’s well known to anyone who is involved in Christian apologetics with Mormons.

  50. Great job, grindael! I wasn’t aware of the wife getting taken away from the guy that only married one. But this means there’s no way he’d be able to go to the highest degree, since he HAS to be married to do that, right?
    Like Kate says, “Where is Jesus in any of this?”

    And Helen, the name I chose was simple. Being with my husband is what opened the door to this world that I would’ve otherwise been completely ignorant of. I needed an ID, and it was the first thing I thought of. I don’tthink that necessarily leaves me open to any kind of personal speculation any more than anyone else on here. I don’t recall anyone has asked you about who Louis is and how he feels about you spending time on an “anti” site, yet his name is attached to yours. Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t have anything to do with anything we’re discussing.

    Making it personal is just another way of avoiding the obvious issues with the lds church on this post (and others), which you are obviously having trouble processing. Turning it into an interrogation on my personal life and accusing us of being big meanies and calling you brainwashed and all that isn’t really helping your case or the discussion on here.

Leave a Reply