This should come as no surprise.
Researcher Helen Radkey has recently discovered records in the Mormon Church’s genealogical database indicating that proxy baptisms for deceased holocaust victims continues, despite promises—and even formal agreements—consented to by the LDS Church.
The latest controversy is over the posthumous baptisms of the parents of famous holocaust victims’ advocate Simon Wiesenthal. The Jewish human rights center named for Mr. Wiesenthal issued a statement that clearly expresses frustration with the LDS Church:
“We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon Temples. Throughout his life, Simon Wiesenthal especially revered his beloved mother who was deported and murdered at Belzec death camp in 1942. Such actions make a mockery of the many meetings with the top leadership of the Mormon Church dating back to 1995 that focused on the unwanted and unwarranted posthumous baptisms of Jewish Victims of the Nazi Holocaust,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and who participated in many of the high-level meetings between Jews with Mormon officials.
“We note that these rites were undertaken and confirmed in Mormon Temples in Utah, Arizona, and Idaho. Further meetings with Church leaders on this matter are useless. The only way such insensitive practices would finally stop is if Church leaders finally decided to change their practices and policies on posthumous baptisms, a move which this latest outrage proves that they are unwilling to do. We are grateful to activist Helen Radkey for exposing the latest outrage.”
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the “Mormon church apologize[d] for baptisms of Wiesenthal’s parents,” though an explicit statement of “We’re sorry” was not reported.
LDS officials in Salt Lake City were quick to apologize Monday, saying that the Utah-based faith “sincerely regret[s] that the actions of an individual member … led to the inappropriate submission of these names,” which were “clearly against the policy of the church.”
“We consider this a serious breach of our protocol,” spokesman Scott Trotter said in a statement, “and we have suspended indefinitely this person’s ability to access our genealogy records.”
So after 15 years of broken promises to the Jewish people, the Mormon Church regrets that its protocol was breached. I doubt that this brings much comfort to those deeply wounded by the continuing LDS baptisms of their beloved deceased family members, especially when considered in light of a 2007 statement made by Church spokesman Mark Tuttle. When responding to reports that the Church had “apologized” for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Mr. Tuttle clarified, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.'”
As I’ve said before, proxy Mormon baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims is a very complicated issue. I understand the position of the Jewish community in regards to their deceased ancestors, and I understand the position of the LDS community in regards to their perceived religious duty. There is no easy solution that will fulfill the wishes of everyone. But one thing seems clear: When the Mormon Church makes promises it will not or cannot keep, in the words of Rabbi Cooper, “This wound remains open.”
The promise to the Jewish community about baptism is one empty promise coming out of Mormonism. Another–one that I find deeply troubling–is this: All men (in the company of their spouses) may follow the same path to Godhood as the God of this world, Heavenly Father, has done; the same as all Gods have done before Him.
“We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share” (James Talmage, The Articles of Faith, p. 430).
“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:93).
“Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 346-347).
According to the Bible, this is a promise that cannot be kept (e.g., see Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 46:9; Malachi 3:6; Psalm 90:2)–and its failure will cost those who trust in it their very souls.
I plead with those who cling to Mormonism’s empty promises to turn from them and instead place your faith in the One True God–the One who promises eternal life to all who trust in Him (John 3:16). With full confidence, place your faith in the One whose promises cannot fail.
For all the promises of God find their Yes in Him. That is why it is through Him that we utter our Amen to God for His glory. (2 Corinthians 1:20)
The end of Sharon’s article illuminates a two fold problem. First and foremost Mormons worship a god and a system of human deification that was simply invented by Joseph Smith. There is no foundation for it in either the OT, the NT, or the traditions of either the Jewish or Christian religions.
I’ve observed Mormons spinning their way into the ground coming up with fanciful and creative interpretations of Scripture that will provide them with some rationale for their beliefs. Like all things Mormon, Smith simply created, borrowed or modified a concept and called it “revelation”.
I really don’t know why Mormons don’t handle snakes in their temple rituals. There’s as much of a foundation for that in the Bible as there is baptism for the dead. But Mormons are compelled to continue their fruitless enterprise of baptizing the dead by proxy because to abandon it would be to eliminate a significant portion of their belief system. BTW, do the other sects of Mormonism conduct baptisms for the dead? If so, which ones. My guess is that this is where the FLDS and the SLC Mormons have much in common.
Finally, the Mormons are like Fonzie on the old TV series “Happy Days” who couldn’t say the words “I was wrong” stumbling over “wrong”. The Mormon hierarchy of course can’t say it because of their own egos and need to be right but also because it would be denying what they see as a fundamental part of their religion.
Actually Mormons got rid of polygamy which society viewed as abhorrent so maybe they could have a new revelation regarding dunking the dead.
This discussion can go a couple of different ways primarily, I guess, as to the “rightness” of baptizing the dead. That is, was baptizing the dead a significant practice within the primitive Christian church or was it a practice of an isolated sect of Christians? That answer is easy to find in the historical record.
The other way the discussion can go is in regards to whether or not the LDS church will stop the practice of baptizing the dead of religions that object (to the practice)? I guess what we could ask is what would Joseph Smith or his immediate successor Brigham Young do? The historical context has changed considerably since the early days of Mormonism. In the early days, Mormon leaders seemed to groove on confrontation especially as it could be used to draw distinctions between themselves and Christian denominations.
Mormons aren’t so quick to want to draw those distinctions now. In fact they are more likely to make the LDS church appear as the same as a Christian denomination. But remember, after the 1890 manifesto ending polygamy, Mormon leaders in particular, continued the practice. They were just very sneaky and dishonest about it.
So here we have some Mormons continuing the “unauthorized” practice of baptizing dead Jews by proxy. Didn’t these folks get the memo from SLC or is this one of those “wink-wink” deals that Mormons are so famous for?
Mormons wonder why Christians see them as being dishonest people when it comes to their “up-front-ness” regarding their doctrines, beliefs and practices. Is it any wonder why Mormons have this reputation when they continue to violate an understanding that was reached with Jewish groups?
Helen Radkey has an obsession about uncovering this practice and publicizing it. Mormons never learn, it seems.
Why do the Jews get special treatment from the LDS church? I’m sure the Catholic church isn’t impressed by them “dead dunking” (as falcon puts it :)) their Popes. I certainly don’t want to be dunked back into the religion. Check out the Baptismal Registry of the LDS church. You would be surprised who has been baptized and sealed posthumously. This is one of those verses in the Bible where Joseph Smith cherry picked and created an entire doctrine around it. Jesus has the power to Save us with or without baptism. He doesn’t need help from the Mormons. I’m wondering why they need a Savior at all? It would seem that they can get to Heaven on their own works, and hey if Aunt Betty was a horrible person not doing her works and rejecting the church, we’ll just wait until she dies and do her work for her and viola…Saved! That is, IF she accepts it over there. Somehow I don’t think it works that way. Once again we see how Jesus and his work on the Cross is diminished through Mormonism. I’ve said before that it is illegal to do anything with deceased person’s name, this should be no exception.
It’s instructive that the Mormon church would be willing to enter into an agreement with Jewish leaders that would end the Mormon practice of baptizing by proxy, Jews that have died. It makes you wonder how dedicated the Mormon church is to it’s post- mortem missionary program and it’s supposed purpose if they are willing to give it up?
In the Book of Acts, Peter and John are instructed by the Jewish leaders to quit preaching in the name of Jesus. Peter and John said forget it, we’re going to keep preaching. They understood the Great Commission and the instructions Jesus gave them to go therefore into the whole world………
The Mormon practice of dead dunking is basically for the purpose of allowing those in the after life the opportunity to become gods. It’s not about salvation since Mormonism teaches a universalist form of (salvation).
The book “Temple Manifestations” written by a Mormon, tells the tale of Wilford Woodruff who claimed that the signers of the Declaration of Independence appeared to him demanding that the temple ordinances be performed for them. He referred to them as “choice spirits”. He even said that these men waited for him to get on with it for two days and two nights. Spooky stuff huh?
And yet Mormons are willing to give up this wonderful opportunity to bring all of these dead people to Christ? No, not to Christ, to Mormonism, the system that claims it can, through a system of works and ordinances, provide entry into the Celestial Kingdom for dead people where they might become gods.
Christianity is about bringing people to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mormons waste a lot of time worshiping a false god in a false system that does little more than get people wet who participate.
Despicable, ugly, and utter heresy.
grindael,
That would be true if Mormonism was a Christian religion. But since it’s not, it’s just weird cult rituals and behavior. Mormonism doesn’t rise to the level of heresy. It’s a bizarre concoction of odd beliefs strung together by an occultist with a huge ego and an over-active imagination.
Here we have another example of how the LDS Church hides things from us. (Wink, wink)
Given the technology of former years, I have never found that the LDS Church has ever gone out of its way to hide stuff.
Of course my knowledge is only based on study that started in the early 70’s, and I have always wondered about the claims that I could not do what I was doing, you know, getting access to all that “hidden” material.
fred
falcon
Have you ever taken the time to read what you say and how you say it?
fred
fproy,
Yes I have and believe it or not I read it over carefully several times before I post it. My hope is to provoke some Mormon to a degree that they begin to investigate their religion objectively and in depth in order to prove me wrong. I know what the result of that venture will be.
As for your claims that the Mormon church doesn’t hide things, why is that the main claim made by folks who leave Mormonism? That’s what is said by your own former members. They continually talk about having that jaw-dropping moment, for example, when they learn that Joseph Smith put a magic rock in his hat, shoved his face in the hat, and claimed to be getting “translation” of some supposed golden tablets (that we learn he didn’t even have present during the process).
Or what about Joseph Smith’s proclivity for “marrying” women in the church who (some) where married to other men or (others) who were barely in their adolescent years when he seduced them. Or that Joseph Smith drank and used tobacco. Why is their an affliction in Mormonism called “shaken faith syndrome”.
You need to ask yourself why the Mormon missionaries find it necessary to hide from prospects, the Mormon view on the nature of God. Why do they hide the fact that the LDS church teaches that there are many gods and that men can become gods?
You have a view of the LDS church that has no basis in reality.
Unlike most writers, this one included the fact that the Baptism for the Dead is only an invitation to the person who has passed on and did not have the chance to do it here.
“Mormons believe they have a spiritual mandate to offer the faith to those throughout human history who didn’t have a chance to embrace it while they were alive. They see proxy baptisms as invitations, not compulsions. Those who have passed on can either accept or reject the ordinance.”
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13926671
fproxy,
If you wonder where I came up with the characterization of the temple rituals as weird? That’s the word used to describe it by a former Mormon who was telling me about it.
He was a convert to Mormonism while his wife had been a life long member. When he joined the church he thought he was joining a branch of Christianity not knowing even the most basic of facts like say Mormons having a totally different god.
Anyway he and his new bride got called to come down to the temple to pull their shift. So off they merrily went to do their duty. After completing their assignment they left the temple in silence. They got into the car and stared straight ahead continuing without saying a word. About ten minutes into the drive home they simultaneously looked at each other and in unison shouted, “Wasn’t that weird!”
Needless-to-say they always had a schedule conflict when it was their day to go down to the temple and repeat the activity. They soon left the Mormon church and it was during the process of leaving he learned the things that you tell us the LDS church doesn’t hide from its members.
Of course all of their close, personal and good Mormon friends dropped them from their social calenders and they were in the process of making a life for themselves outside of the Mormon church. He told me that they were being contacted by other questioning Mormons and that the bishop was somewhat disturbed by that.
Fortunately they lived in an area where Mormons don’t dominate the culture so they were able to start building a new social network and life free from the encumbrances of the LDS church.
(This post has been reread, examined and approved my me.)
fproy,
So it’s merely an invitation to accept Joseph Smith’s religion?
And the basis for this belief and practice is what? Like I wrote previously, there’s as much evidence for this in the early church as there is for snake handling.
You need to come to grips with the fact that Joseph Smith was a religious entrepreneur who had a propensity for taking all kinds of ideas and throwing them in the cauldron of Mormonism and making them part of the stew.
Folks of other religious traditions reject Mormonism because they have concluded that it is false. They object to Mormons using their dead members as pawns to an individual Mormon’s quest to becoming a god. That’s the whole point of the exercise after all.
If you want to knock yourself out getting wet in the hope that your work is going to get you one step closer to the Celestial Kingdom and personal deification I guess that’s your business however the rest of the world doesn’t buy into the belief system.
Maybe Christian religions ought to start collecting the names of dead Mormons and put them via proxy through the confirmation process. Perhaps Jews could Bar Mitzvah dead Mormons.
As Christian we hold to the truth of the gospel that tells us that it’s appointed once for a person to die and then the judgement. That’s a sobering thought and a reason to understand who God is and what His plan of salvation entails. It doesn’t include the relentless pursuit of dead people thinking some how there’s a provision for them to come to faith after death.
If you want to knock yourself out getting wet in the hope that your work is going to get you one step closer to the Celestial Kingdom and personal deification I guess that’s your business however the rest of the world doesn’t buy into the belief system. So if someone does not believe in what we are doing why should they care? We do not have much knowledge of the process that one goes through after death.
Where does it mention snake handling in the bible?
clyde,
Because it’s insensitive and insulting.
Where does the Bible talk about snake handling? A simple google search will get you there but in order to help out, it’s to be found in Mark 16:18. I watched a documentary one time on these snake handling sects in the mountains of West Virginia or some such place. Unfortunately some have died as a result of their activity but I’m sure that’s chalked up to a lack of faith.
Over the centuries there have been people who’ve done all sorts of bodily mutilations in response to Jesus’ words that folks should cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes if they were an aid to sin. These people don’t quite get it that Jesus was using hyperbole to make a point.
As for handling snakes, I think the “snakes” actually refer to a type of people. However in the Book of Acts, while marooned on an island and sitting by a fire, a snake emerged and bit Paul and he shook it out into the fire. The natives concluded that Paul must have been some sort of bad guy for that to happen. When he didn’t swell up and die that came to a different conclusion; that Paul was a god. (Acts 28:3-6) Therefore the Mormon church is true, right?
All sorts of strange rituals will spring-up in religious sects that have nothing to do with the gospel of the Lord Jesus but people get carried away by false prophets with false teachings and away they go. Thus is Mormonism and the ritual of dead dunking. It has meaning within the context of the Mormon restored gospel according to Joseph Smith but it had no real tradition in the early Church.
falcon says:-February 17, 2012 at 6:16 am – (As for your claims that the Mormon church doesn’t hide things, why is that the main claim made by folks who leave Mormonism? That’s what is said by your own former members.)
I know I have not meet all who have left God’s Church, but from those I have seen the answer is simple. THEY DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO LEARN THESE THINGS UNTILL AFTER THEY DECIDED THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE A MORMON ANY MORE.
fred
fred,
That’s it? They decided to leave the church and then they learned all of these things. What in the world kind of lame explanation is that. fred that’s right up there with:
1. They were offended.
2. They fell into serious sin.
3. They will never be happy outside of the Mormon church.
4. They will fall into serious sin.
fred why did they decide to leave the church in the first place as you contend and then begin to study the religion? What was the motivating factor in the decision making process?
Lyndon Lamborn was approached by a fellow employee who told him about the book “Under the Banner of Heaven” and said that there was some interesting information in the book regarding Lyndon’s religion, Mormonism. Lyndon picked-up the book and started reading and was shocked to find things in the book about Mormonism that he, a life long Mormon who had served a mission and completed successful callings in the church and who had relatives going back to the handcart days, had no idea about.
Lyndon was floating along in the Mormon church perfectly content and happy. Take the three minutes and see what Lyndon has to say. He doesn’t sound abit like your scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-cn6cK6GA
fred, I understand the mindset of the naive Mormon.
Some of us DID take the time to learn about the REAL doctrines and HISTORY of the Church before we left. Your wishful thinking Fred, is amusing.
grindael,
Your comments have greater impact than mine since you actually lived through the leaving process while my information is based on what ex-Mormons have told me or what I’ve read. One thing I will say is that they report similar experiences with the associated feelings.
I also know that for someone like fred, the idea that the Mormon church is not “true” is beyond comprehension. For someone like myself it was pretty easy to see through Mormonism and its founder Joseph Smith. For folks such as myself, we have something to compare the claims of Mormonism with. Also the Joseph Smith story and his history are so preposterous that a person doesn’t have to dig too far to uncover the ruse.
I do feel sorry for Mormons though because of their misplaced sincerity, devotion and zeal for what they believe to be true. It’s too bad that they see this as an all-or-nothing proposition. As those such as yourself have discovered, a person doesn’t reject God by rejecting the Mormon church and its claims. I can relate to this because I threw the baby out with the bath water when I left the Catholic church as a young college student. Thankfully God was faithful and led me to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit. Once I came to know Him in a personal way, it seemed all of the questions and objections I previously had, melted away.
Mormons need to learn who God is and in doing so understand that a false religion won’t save them, no matter how sincere they are.
What does the Mormon Church hide?
The salaries it’s top leaders get paid.
Their finances.
“The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment….” Boyd Packer
Here is a detailed analysis of the changes (omissions & otherwise) to Smith’s History of the Church:
http://utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech13.htm
From lds.org about the JOD:
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.
Direct lie. Brigham Young Jr. (authorized by his father to publish them) in the preface to Volume XI called them “a vehicle of doctrine, counsel and instruction”, that the “saints” could not do without. Every single sermon was gone over by all who had them included in these volumes, especially Brigham Young. It is a blatant lie that the Church perpetuates that they are mistakes in them, and that they were ‘mistranscribed’.
To publish this on their website is tantamount to “hiding” what is recorded there. By changing people’s perspective, they accomplish the goal of hiding the truth. It may be out in the open (so to speak) but they tell you it can’t be trusted.
When people baptize dead by proxy, they are sending a message that our way is right, yours is wrong and we are going to disrespect the belief you had in your way. If Mormons were too lazy to get to the whole world, it’s on them. They don’t need to baptize everyone in it. It’s Christian heresy, and if Mormons don’t get that, well…
grindael,
As I read your latest post the word “transparency” came to my mind. That’s the problem with the Mormon church as so well documented by you with the games they play with the JoD. This work is truly a treasure trove of information regarding the odd, bizarre and nonsensical utterances that have poured forth from those whom Mormons consider “prophets”.
In the light of today’s world these sermons lend perspective as to what Mormonism was at its founding and why Mormons have to come up with the usual lame explanations to excuses to brush aside what is presented there.
The foundation of Mormonism is so tenuous that the least wind of opposition blowing against it causes it to tumble. That’s why there is a steady stream of people leaving Mormonism. In this day and age access to information published by the church itself causes it to tumble in the minds of those who once accepted (the LDS) church as true.
On pp. 58-63 of his book “Beyond Mormonism”, Jim Spencer recounts going through one of the rituals in the Mormon temple in LA. Jim writes, “I drove home in paralyzed shock and wonder. I had absolutely no comprehension what had happened in the temple. It made no sense to me. It repulsed me and angered me……..I did not understand. I must be wrong. It was a s simple as that. In the morning I would wake up and understand…..In the morning, however, I felt no better.”
As this point Jim had been a Mormon (convert) for a year. He instinctively knew what he had gone through was wrong and not of God and certainly not the restoration of anything that had ever been apart of the Christian faith.
Thankfully Jim eventually concluded that the Mormon church isn’t true.
It does truly saddens me to hear the posthumous baptizem of people against the will of there living family members still happens. I’m sure the person that set this into motion was well meaning and I doubt they even realized who she was or that she was Jewish, but ignorance shouldn’t be an excuse.
For my Lds friends that are reading this and wondering what the big deal is think about this;
Imagine that there was a religion out there that started teaching the Lds temple rites to there members. They did it with love and respect, truly feeling that what they did was right, but even when the GA’s asked them to stop the rites kept being taught in a small number of there congregations. When there was still an uproar from the Lds people would the answer “well you don’t feel this is doing anything for us so why does it mater?” really be good enough for most members?
falcon says: – February 17, 2012 at 10:41 am – (Lyndon was floating along in the Mormon church perfectly content and happy. Take the three minutes and see what Lyndon has to say. He doesn’t sound abit like your scenario.)
First I do not know this fellow, so all I am going on is what he said in 3 minutes and any firm determination would take more interaction. Yet there is a very strong indicator that he was already not happy with something, even though he was hiding it from himself; look at the way he said he suppressed himself.
So the next question to ask is what was he hiding from himself and why was he hiding it from himself? That little list of yours would be a good start; after all he did talk about one of them as being a big problem to him. It would be interesting to find out what he was really hiding from, he may have been able to correct it instead of accepting false conclusions about the Church. He has been relieving the symptoms instead of working on the root problem.
Fred
TjayT, thanks for your comments on this issue .
grindael says: – February 17, 2012 at 9:15 pm – (Some of us DID take the time to learn about the REAL doctrines and HISTORY of the Church before we left. Your wishful thinking Fred, is amusing.)
Over the years one of the biggest problems I have encountered is which “original document” is correct. Like today there were people writing about what went on around them and they gave their conclusions as to what happened. So if I have a firsthand account about something, and a second or third hand account that disagrees, I must decide which is correct. Both accounts were recorded during the same timeframe, so who was correct.
It even becomes harder when there are two accounts by people who were at the same event, yet their accounts and conclusions defer.
Then today there is the problem of people who want a given conclusion so bad that they cherry pick only the accounts that agree with what they want the truth to be. A lot is said about how the LDS Church does this by people who what to keep you looking at something other than how they choose what to use to back up their own claims of the Church being wrong.
fred
falcon says: – February 17, 2012 at 9:54 pm – (I also know that for someone like fred, the idea that the Mormon church is not “true” is beyond comprehension)
A little sloppy on your conclusions, I would say. You have made up something about me so you can fit me in your already decided conclusions. A very good indicator as to how you got to the rest of your conclusions. I am sorry for you.
fred
PS. To bad you see religion as less than the most important part of your life.
(It’s too bad that they see this as an all-or-nothing proposition.)
Or are you one of those “do as I say, but not as I do” folks?
grindael says: – February 17, 2012 at 10:02 pm – (preface to Volume XI)
Please send me a copy to the preface to volume XI; My electronic version of The Journal of Discourses does not have it.
Off topic
Sharon, why has Bill McKeever stopped receiving comments about his podcast of The Miracle of Forgiveness? He stopped taking comments just after I said the people should read the book for themselves and see if they agree with him.
fred
Oh come on fred!
Your desperation is way too obvious. What Lyndon Lamborn is talking about is the suppression and stifling nature of Mormonism. He’s now free of that and able to more aptly grow as a person freed from the encumbrance placed on him by the LDS church. In Mormonism a person is stuck in a box with a prescribed way of living and viewing the world. You just can’t seem to accept the fact that former members just don’t believe that the LDS is the one true church as they had been taught. I should say brainwashed because that begins with small children repeating over and over again the five points of the Mormon testimony.
fred the conclusions I draw concerning you come from your own posts here. It’s pretty easy to see where you fit into as regards to the types of Mormons that are out there. You provide the profile for us yourself.
I’m not sad at all about not being involved in “religion”. My testimony is of Jesus Christ and how faith in Him brought me from the lost state I was in, to total acceptance from the Father. I’m in Christ Jesus. Paul said the same thing when he testified that whatever he had gained in religion he considered garbage in comparison to knowing Christ.
fred the Mormon church is losing the truth battle. There’s not enough guilt, shame and fear to hold people in bondage to the Mormon religious system once they know the truth regarding Joseph Smith’s concoction.
I would invite you to throw off the shackles that bind you and come to the saving knowledge of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It through Him that you will find true peace with the Father and entry into the family of faith.
As to contemporary accounts. They are the best, and what I strive to use whenever I write about Church History. Take this long article I wrote about F.A.I.R.’s deceptive practice NOT doing this:
http://mormonitemusings.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/playing-f-a-i-r/
The issue at hand there, is a very good example of how the Mormon Church deals with history, and those who recount it later. I have found (for example) that Wilford Woodruff was a great contemporary source for history, but that in his later years, he “recounted” many events (reconstructed rather) that he never wrote about in his very detailed diaries. These “remembrances” are some of the “evidence” that F.A.I.R. tried to use to verify the 1842 “prophecy” of the Rocky Mountains that Smith supposedly gave that NEVER HAPPENED, and in which a detailed analysis of the evidence proves (the point of the “Playing F.A.I.R.” Article).
If one reads (for instance) the newly published diaries of Abraham Cannon, one comes away with the REAL Mormon History at the time he was an Apostle, and it was NOTHING like what it is portrayed to be by the Church today. That is why, after the Reed Smoot Hearings, Jos. F. Smith FORBID the recounting of Meetings of the QOT12 & First Presidency Meetings any longer. He was afraid (rightfully so) that the would be used to expose the Church for what it is. Unfortunately for him, this edict came after those like Cannon & Woodruff and others had penned their diaries and left them out of total Church control.
The Church still refuses to release all of William Clayton’s diaries from the Nauvoo period, and those that have been published are heavily edited by George D. Smith. As for the JOD, George D. Watt’s descendant, has written an excellent biography on him …
that explains the EXACT procedure he used to collect, and publish Young’s discourses. It is at great odds with what the Church promulgates on their “official” website.
As for the JOD Quote, that they are a vehicle of doctrine, I have pictures and would be happy to oblige anyone who emails me at [email protected] for them. _johnny
Personally, I’ve seen instances of “cherry picking” by some critics, but more by Mormons that cherry pick the Early Church Fathers to try and support their heretical doctrines. (Hugh Nibley was a MASTER at this). As for me, I’ve been accused of it, but it comes with Mormons looking at my articles and telling me they won’t read them because they are too long. Go figure.
I see lots of Mormons claiming “cherry picking”, but FEW who can explain how they are applying it. For instance, here is the ENTIRE quote by Brigham Young Jr. (the then publisher of the JOD, who wrote the preface to Volume XI, AND, I’ve seen this quote attributed to Brigham Young Senior, which is an error, (not that it makes much difference):
“Each successive year the power of God is manifestly increasing upon His people, and more especially upon his ministers in the Holy Priesthood, whose duty it is to build up and instruct the Church in His most holy will.
The “Journal of Discourses” is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints. It follows, then, then, [sic in original] that each successive volume is more and more valuable as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth, and its doctrines become more abundantly developed and are brought into practical exercise by His peculiar people. Every step of its advancement is fraught with the greatest possible importance to the human family. No Saint can afford to do without these precious precepts until they are able to exemplify them in their daily lives and conversation. The Publisher.
VOL XI
LIVERPOOL:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY BRIGHAM YOUNG, JUN., 42, ISLINGTON.
Latter-day Saints’ book depot, 30, Florence-Street, Islington. 1867
If you doubt me, go to the F.A.I.R. source for this, it is here: http://pt.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/11
Fred, thanks for the question. As I understand it, the podcasts do not solicit comments. Once or twice the comment option was set incorrectly at the time of posting, and then corrected soon afterward.
Grindael, Thanks for your labor in shining a light on the teachings of those who claim to be
God’s sole channel of truth to mankind today—- Mormon leaders. You’ve exposed them for
who Jesus said they are — Matt.7:15. The precious rank and file Mormon people deserve
better spiritual guides . Just over 30 years ago I was looking at the claims of these men . I
decided to give them a fair shake and proceeded to purchase a wide variety of the doctrinal
works, these included the JofD . I compared the teachings of Mormon apostles from 1830 to
the late 1970’s with the teachings of Jesus’ apostles in the N.T. since Mormon leaders claimed
that the same Jesus appointed both etc. The difference was stark . I dismissed Mormon apostles.
Included with my set of the JofD was a insert of testimonies from various Mormon authorities,
Andrew Jensen, ( Assistent Church Historian ) and one by B.Y. ( his picture was on the front of
the insert) . Another statement said : ” Every LDS should take this opportunity of owning the
written record of remarkable teachings from the great servants of the Lord. To the clear and
vigorous exposition of LDS doctrine is added the unmistakeable authority of divine inspiration.”
I’m sure one day that current Conference Addresses and such will be bound together and sold
to the world in similar manner as the Jof D. The one thing Mormons like Fred should know
is that the more his leaders have sought to be accepted as another christian church the more
they have resorted to excuses to downplay the seriousness of many past teachings as in the JofD.
Chameleon behavior ? More and more think so.
Grindael;
Here is what you sent me-thank you for sending it———
““VOL XI
LIVERPOOL:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY B. YOUNG, JUN., 42, ISLINGTON.
LONDON:
LATTER-DAY SAINTS’ BOOK DEPOT, 30, FLORENCE STREET, ISLINGTON.
1867.
Preface
EACH successive year the power of God is manifestly increasing upon His people, and more especially upon His ministers in the Holy Priesthood, whose duty it is to build up and instruct the Church in His most holy will.
The “Journal of Discourses” is a vehicle of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people, but especially to the Saints. It follows, then, then, that each successive volume is more and more valuable as the Church increases in numbers and importance in the earth, and its doctrines become more abundantly developed and are brought into practical exercise by His peculiar people. Every step of its advancement is fraught with the greatest possible importance to the human family.”
No Saint can afford to do without these precious precepts until they are able to exemplify them in their daily lives and conversation.
THE PUBLISHER””
Please show the twisted path you had to go through to show that this backs up your thinking the first statement is a lie.
You say; (Every single sermon was gone over by all who had them included in these volumes, especially Brigham Young.)
Please show how “ALL WHO HAD THEM INCLUDED” could have proofed all pages of type before each page was printed in ENGLAND with return trips every few years over a 25 year period.
fred
fred,
Are you sure you have the sequence right? It appears you have the papers or people traveling back and forth to Liverpool. I don’t know, is your point that the documents are fraudulent? Is this what the Mormon church believes and teaches regarding the (documents). Are you suggesting that grindeal is saying that the typeset pages were proofread or that the documents were proofed before publication?
So the JoD does not accurately reflect the thinking of those whose work appears therein? What are we to think of the BoM then? Which edition accurately reflects Joseph Smith’s thinking? Are we to suppose also that the BoM fell into the hands of mischievous type setters who took the “truth” out of it? And what of the BoA. Were the parchments that Joseph Smith used to create this work of fiction also in error or was Joseph Smith totally clueless about what the parchments really revealed but didn’t think anyone would actually come along who could do a legitimate traslation some day?
Bottom line is that Mormonism can’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s why eventually you’ll end up bearing your testimony and leaving this forum in frustration.
It’s very difficult to face when something is over and Mormonism is over for numerous Mormons on a daily basis. grindael’s credentials are well established regarding his time in Mormonism and his journey out. Do you think he wanted Mormonism to be false when he believed so heartedly in it and wanted it to be true? The fact-of-the-matter is that when people have integrity pretending that something is true when it isn’t or trying to grasp on to any confused explanation just isn’t going to cut it.
falcon says: – February 19, 2012 at 9:56 am- -( Are you sure you have the sequence right? It appears you have the papers or people traveling back and forth to Liverpool. I don’t know, is your point that the documents are fraudulent?)
My point was and is that grindeal’s statement in his proof of his assumption that there is a lie; he said that “Every single sermon was gone over by all who had them included in these volumes”: is one of those bad conclusions that you’ll typically use. The talks were given in Utah over a twenty year period. The JOD was printed in England over the same twenty some years.
Given the technology of printing at the time, I am saying that grindeal’s “proof” is typical of those who wish this Church to be false. Normal false proof.
(The fact-of-the-matter is that when people have integrity pretending that something is true when it isn’t or trying to grasp on to any confused explanation just isn’t going to cut it.)
I see this in the way people like you refuse to see the truth when it comes to the Church.
fred
PS I notice you like to use the shotgun method of confusion by the way you asked a lot of additional questions designed to keep those who want to learn the truth confused, off guard, and not focused on why you are wrong.
Falcon, you say- (Bottom line is that Mormonism can’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s why eventually you’ll end up bearing your testimony and leaving this forum in frustration.)
The frustration comes from repeatedly correcting bad conclusions about God’s Church only to see them repeated again, as if they were true.
My Testimony;
My belief that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is truly of God comes from much study and personal revelation from Heavenly Father. I must thank all the people like you because in finding how you’ll are wrong led me to God’s truth.
FRED
fred,
What is the truth in regards to the LDS church? Please explain to us this “truth”.
You notice I ask a lot of questions? I notice you don’t answer a lot of questions which is pretty typical of Mormons who post here.
Tell me how I’m wrong about the Mormon church. I’m really interested.
Here’s the truth of the matter concerning Mormonism.
1. The BoM is not an actual history of an actual people and events.
2. Joseph Smith was not a prophet. This is proven on several levels including the Biblical test which tells us if a prophet prophecies something and it does not come to pass that prophet is a false prophet.
3. The Mormon church is not led by modern day apostles and a prophet chosen by God. It is led by some savy business men who are also good at church politics.
4. The Mormon church is not the one true church. The one true Church was founded by Jesus Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit, God’s gift to the Church.
and finally
5. The Mormon Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus. The Mormon Jesus is a created being, the off spring of one of the Mormon gods and one of his many wives who live on or near the planet Kolob. The fact that God, who reveals Himself in the Bible is not acknowledged by Mormonism speaks volumes.
That fred is the truth of the matter. Mormonism doesn’t appear in the Bible, in Church traditions or in the writings of any of the Church Fathers or the heretics for that matter. Mormonism sprung out of the imagination of a practitioner of folk magic Joseph Smith. The evidence is over whelming that Mormonism isn’t true. I don’t care how sincere and pious a Mormon is, without Jesus he/she is lost.
Falcon said
Fred, Just going off of this, let me say this. The BoM is supposed to be translated from the reformed Egyptian language, yet that language does not exist.
I have asked for archeology evidence, none is given, and the reply usually is , the BoM has only been around 200 plus years, that is why we dont have any. But that reason does not stand up when you read the BoM. Their is an account in the BoM that mentions the tower of babel. If the BoM people go that far back, then how come the Bible never mentions BoM people or places? Jesus and the apostles quote back to Adam and Eve and many places in the OT, Yet BoM people are never mentioned, Why? Then the Battle of the hill curmoah keeps getting moved due to lack of evidence, but 2 million plus people is a huge battle for have zero evidence found. So keep telling yourself your church is true. Sadly you will regret it after you die and find yourself cast off from God.
fred,
Are you trying to tell us that many of the prophets/leaders of the LDS church who endorsed and taught out of the Journal of Discourses didn’t know they were approved? Why would they do that if there was even a hint that the Publisher messed it up? Here’s a few other quotes by LDS leaders:
“We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … the Journal of Discourses, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and WE CAN CONFIDENTLY ASSURE THEM that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.” (Apostle Albert Carrington, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 15.)
“Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives their children’s children will find that they are still unexhausted, and rejoice that this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.” (Apostle Orson Pratt, Preface. Volume 3.)
“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)
“DESERVEDLY RANKS AS ONE OF THE STANDARD WORKS OF THE CHURCH.”
It would seem the leaders believed in them. You should too.
Ralph, a few more reasons why I wont call you a brother or say your a christian simply from a different denomination is.
Your Prophets get it wrong on so much they are proven false. They claim to be the only people who can speak for the Lord, yet they never come forth in any way, shape or from what so ever and address at length these issues that supposedly divide us.
They never address the major issues we have mentioned before like, The 9 first vision accounts, lack of archaeology evidence, Why former prophets said one thing and now they are dismissed, etc.
You guys claim their is evidence for all of this, yet LDS are divide over who can claim this is “official” or not. I have been to a number of LDS church services and have asked if I can speak to a church leader, every time I am told NO, That is what the Missionary’s are for. I reply with, they cannot answer my questions to which I am told, To bad.
Why is it so hard to have the prophet go before God and address these questions? The reason is, they are false prophets and God is not speaking to them, so they put in onto the average joe mormon who then cannot answer or if they come up with and answer, it gets called into question by other LDS who dont agree. Their is so much confusion it is not funny. Yet sadly no if this seems to bother LDS at all.
falcon says: – February 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm – (You notice I ask a lot of questions? I notice you don’t answer a lot of questions which is pretty typical of Mormons who post here.)
I notice that you ask a lot of questions so you can cause confusion and avoid what is being talked about in the discussions, then claim it is me that is doing it. You repeatedly use the shotgun method of confusion.
Is that to confuse others, or do you use it so you do not have to face the truth yourself, ie, do you do this with forethought and knowledge, or is it a habit you learned but do not know you do?
fred
Kate says: – February 20, 2012 at 9:52 am – (fred, Are you trying to tell us that many of the prophets/leaders of the LDS church who endorsed and taught out of the Journal of Discourses didn’t know they were approved? Why would they do that if there was even a hint that the Publisher messed it up?)
If you take the time to reread what I have said you will see that what you say does not follow what I said, unless you are only trying to prove the Church wrong and you do not care how you do it.
Since you will not believe me, it is time you do your own study about how printing was done in the mid 1800’s and compare it to the “proof” grindael tried to fake on you.
fred
Obviously Fred, you don’t know anything about how the JOD were published. I advise studying the FACTS, before you speak and judge others. (Just sayin’)
John A. Widtsoe in the preface to Discourses of Brigham Young says, “This book was made possible because Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses… All that he said was recorded…. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so FAITHFULLY AND FULLY PRESERVED… The corrections for the printer, as shown by existing manuscripts, were few and of MINOR consequence.”
And who was the chief stenographer? George D. Watt. In his Book,The Mormon Passage of George D. Watt (researched by descendant Ronald G. Watt for 30 years, published in 2009), he writes:
“When Watt suggested to Brigham Young that he publish a journal of sermons from which Watt could receive his salary, Young and Richards agreed. The Journal of Discourses ensured that all Mormons and even non-Mormons would know what the Lord wanted through the speeches of his representative, Brigham Young. From then on, Watt had a permanent desk in the president’s office and the Tabernacle, taking down the speeches in his SWIFT, curious symbols.”
“On the first day of the new year, [1852] Watt also began teaching a class in Pitman shorthand. His students included Brigham Young, Thomas Bullock, Thomas W. Ellerbeck, William C. Staines, Nathaniel H. Felt, Albert Carrington, and Daniel Wells, some of the most influential men in Salt Lake City. He probably received a dollar from each student. To prepare for this course, Watt wrote and published his own exercise book, a shortened
version of the Pitman manual. He included within it instructions in phonography and some lessons. Young began to practice shortly after his first lesson, and on January 5, he spent all day with his shorthand studies. (pages 126-7)
So Young, and others were very familiar with Watts and his process, and had full confidence in his abilities, not only that, he taught it to others, who used it to transcribe those sermons, that Widtsoe and others KNEW were accurate, and approved. As R. Watt elaborates,
“Watt’s potential employment must have been on the mind of Brigham Young. Finally, Watt wrote a letter to Young early in May 1853. He suggested that he be allowed to prepare “a few of your sermons which have not yet been in print with Elder P. P. Pratt’s two discourses at the conference on the spirit world and birthright to send to England for publication in the form of a magazine of about 150 or 200 pages to sell.” He suggested that part of the profit go to satisfy his economic necessities and the rest be used for Young’s purposes. Almost immediately his suggestion brought assent from the members of the First Presidency. It would enable Brigham Young and the First Presidency to have the written word to send to the members of the church and the missionaries.
The next day Young notified Watt of the First Presidency’s agreement, and Watt began transcribing and editing sermons. On May 25 and 26, YOUNG SPENT MOST OF HIS TIME EXAMINING THE WRITTEN DISCOURSES. On June 1, 1853, the First Presidency officially granted Watt the privilege of preparing and publishing Young’s discourses in magazine-like form, recognizing that “Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent
much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to ACQUIRE THE ART of reporting in Phonography which he has FAITHFULLY and fully accomplished.” Since publication would be less expensive in England, the sermons were to be sent to Liverpool as Watt had suggested. All the profits from the venture would go to Watt, who would also take care of all the costs. The First Presidency encouraged all church members to purchase the journal for Elder Watt’s benefit. Watt now had a permanent income and a place of employment.
More importantly for the church, the Journal of Discourses was a watershed, essentially the beginnings of a worldwide publication. Even though the Journal of Discourses was a private venture, it was an OFFICIAL CHURCH PUBLICATION and the most important source of President Young’s and other church authorities’ sermons. Watt also joined OTHER CLERKS in the First Presidency’s office. Albert Carrington was Brigham Young’s clerk and attended to his correspondence. Thomas Bullock, an early convert from England, was also there.” (pages 133-34)
The JOD was an OFFICIAL publication, and was reviewed beforehand by those that gave the talks:
“In November the Deseret News announced that Watt’s service as a reporter was available not only to the News but anybody who wanted CORRECT reports, and “if the brethren will employ him, and sustain him in his employment, time will prove it a BLESSING to all concerned.” (p. 135)
“With permission to publish speeches of the church authorities, Watt needed to concentrate on the Journal of Discourses. The process of publishing each volume was laborious. He needed to be at all the meetings, recording the speeches in shorthand. Then, WITH THE HELP OF PRESIDENT YOUNG, he chose the talks that would be transcribed.
In the first volume, twenty-six of the fifty-three sermons were by Young. Heber C. Kimball and Parley P. Pratt had the next most sermons published with six each. In the second volume, Brigham Young had composed seventeen of the fifty-six sermons. Young’s sermons were spoken without notes and from memory. The phonographer had to work very hard to keep up with each speaker. Watt grew accustomed to the delivery style and speed of each speaker. If Young was not the first speaker, Watt sometimes did not arrive at the Tabernacle on time, and when he arrived late for the meeting, he slipped into his desk very quietly.
On July 2, 1854, he noted in his shorthand notes, “Phineas Young spoke but I was too late to report it.” At the same meeting, Young called upon Watt to speak. After he recorded the speeches, Watt transcribed them word for word, spending many hours at his desk. NEXT HE READ THE SERMONS TO THOSE WHO GAVE THEM, AND THEY CORRECTED THEM. Sometimes Thomas Bullock read Watt’s transcribed sermons, and Watt corrected them again. Albert Carrington copy-edited them, and then Watt sent the final collection of sermons by post to Liverpool for publication. The president of the British Mission also wrote a short preface. The sermons FIRST came out in pamphlet, serial form and were sold to church members both in Britain and Utah by subscription. The publication of the Journal of Discourses meant that the sermons of the Mormon leaders were some of the first religious works to be available for potential world consumption. It helped both the missionary effort and membership.” (135-136)
Here, we see that the sermons were read back to those
that gave them, and they were corrected BEFORE they even went into print! Another Mormon Myth that is debunked, that these were ‘off the cuff, sloppy transcriptions, that had many errors’. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Hence we have this statement by Brigham Young, WITH THE FULL MEANING VERY CLEAR:
“I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95.
Those sermons WERE copied and approved by Young, and even corrected beforehand. And yes, this was the procedure for the whole series of the JOD. (Later, they went to Conference Reports). So, what have we learned? The JOD is a vehicle of DOCTRINE. They are ‘as good as scripture’, according to Brigham Young. The Mormon leaders understood the difference about speaking as men, and with the ‘Holy Ghost’. Young was involved in every aspect of what was published by the Church, and was very adept at ferreting out what he thought false ‘doctrine’. From the above, we see that any who say they are not Doctrine are mistaken, and that what Mormons define as doctrine and scripture is in error. Any who say they are not, are LYING.
The Mormon Church is a false edifice, a façade of man-made heresy that must re-invent itself every generation to keep it’s whitewashed image looking acceptable to the masses. They will use any tactic to hide the truth, and will lie with impunity to do so, as we see with the Journal of Discourses. What is sad, is that Mormons will not do the necessary research to understand this, but instead attack those that have done the research, and know the truth.
“They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. … So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” ~Paul, 2nd Thessalonians.
Mormons don’t even believe what their own “prophets” taught and wrote down and approved for publication AND CALLED SCRIPTURE. They have to lie about what they did publish, because they know it is full of heresy. _johnny
grindael,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to post the above regarding the truth of the JoD publishing procedure.
Guys like fred demand evidence and when it’s given, it over-whelms them to a degree that all they can do is pronounce the evidence “fake”. The freds want so badly to believe the Mormon myth that they will sacrifice their own integrity and suspend credulity to continue living in a fantasy world.
In their minds Mormonism just can’t be false. They’ve invested themselves so heavily in the program that it’s easier to deny the facts than face the reality that their investment in emotions, effort and treasure has been for nothing.
We’ve had enough freds post here over the years that their response to having the cold, hard facts stare them in the face is to come-up with some fantastic explanation that ranks right up there with “the dog ate my homework”.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that they demand evidence and the evidence is never enough or it’s the wrong kind or to simply do a “hurrumph” and sulk away with the paint chipped off of their testimony.
Again, thanks for your efforts here grindael.