What is considered "being led astray"?

[silverfox]

So we have heard it over and over as members. A prophet will NEVER lead us astray. So just what does that mean?

I debate this with hubby all the time. Although he isn't active he firmly believes a prophet will not lead us "astray".

My argument is that there are countless victims within the church who have spiritually and otherwise abused. I would consider them being led "astray".

So what truly does the church mean when it says "astray"?

What is YOUR definintion of "astray"?

[nate]

So we have heard it over and over as members. A prophet will NEVER lead us astray. So just what does that mean?

I debate this with hubby all the time. Although he isn't active he firmly believes a prophet will not lead us "astray".

My argument is that there are countless victims within the church who have spiritually and otherwise abused. I would consider them being led "astray".

So what truly does the church mean when it says "astray"?

What is YOUR definintion of "astray"?

The only way that I can interpret it is this:

The prophet, under no circumstances, through actions, words nor deeds, will lead the people down a path other than the path intended by God.

Now, there is only one way that I can interpret that:

The Profit is INFALLIBLE.

[peter_mary]

March, 1997: Interview with Don Lattin, religion writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Musings of the Main Mormon," published April 13, 1997.

Lattin: "Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

PRESIDENT Hinckley: "I wouldn't say that...That get's into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about."

Hmmm...

August 4, 1997: Interview with TIME writer, David Van Biema, "Kingdom Come."

Van Biema: "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the Church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

PRESIDENT Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

These answers, from the President of the Church, tell me one thing very, very clearly...the Church leadership is not only ABLE, but WILLING to deliberately deceive. If we can't trust what the President of the Church says publicly in one venue, how can you know when you can trust him? To me, this is evidence that the Prophet is VERY capable of leading the people astray. :(

Peter_mary

[flotsam]

March, 1997: Interview with Don Lattin, religion writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Musings of the Main Mormon," published April 13, 1997.

Lattin: "Don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?"

PRESIDENT Hinckley: "I wouldn't say that...That get's into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about."

Hmmm...

August 4, 1997: Interview with TIME writer, David Van Biema, "Kingdom Come."

Van Biema: "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the Church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

PRESIDENT Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."

These answers, from the President of the Church, tell me one thing very, very clearly...the Church leadership is not only ABLE, but WILLING to deliberately deceive. If we can't trust what the President of the Church says publicly in one venue, how can you know when you can trust him? To me, this is evidence that the Prophet is VERY capable of leading the people astray. :(

Peter_mary

I can't quite see how those quotes make Hinckley a deciever, at least in those cases. They sound to me like classic examples of avoiding the question. Politicians do it all the time when they want to distance themselves from an unpopular idea without outright rejecting it.

Now if you're talking about previous GA's interpretation of things, like BY's Adam/God theory that McConkie later crusaded against, where it's accepted at one point and rejected at another - that I can see as a problem under the TBM "never lead us astray" paradigm. Especially if truth is seen as an unchanging set of principles. That's why polygamy has such a power to bring people out of the mainstream church and into fundamentalism. It's a principle that is quite charged with a convoluted history. So it's open to interpretation.

To take an optimistic view of those quotes, perhaps we could see Hinckley as opening the question up. As saying, well I was hoping the members of the Church would do a bit of thinking on their own about this question. Why do I have to be the final authority on everything?

Another view is to see that he knows he's talking to an audience that is going to be more critical of his ideas than his Mo audience. And since he knows he only has a paragraph to explain himself, it's just too big an idea to treat well. Besides, as a former news reporter, I know that a lot of times what the interviewee thinks he or she said, isn't exactly what gets written because it gets put into the writer's context, which brings out some quotes, and glosses over others.

Now if were writing an aritlce for Dialogue where length was no object, I think he'd probably be willing to treat the question a little more seriously.

[flotsam]

So what truly does the church mean when it says "astray"?

What is YOUR definintion of "astray"?

To me it means that when the prophet turns the church in a particular direction, he probably has the support of the hierarchy for the most part. Which means that the Church is going to go in that direction. If the Church is going in a particular direction then no one is going astray right? Because the way the Church is going is by definition, the right way to go.

That's why people who lead a few people off into their own church are said to "go astray." It's just because they aren't going the way the Church is going.

Interestingly, people who do "go astray," do often find themselves in difficult straits because a huge support system that once held them up is suddenly withdrawn. Suddenly they see the shortcomings in their own leadership, the shortfalls in finances, the difficulties of keeping their flock united to the cause. And there they are, in exactly the same position as the leaders they left, except without a bunch of money, a sound infrastructure and huge social momentum. So these ventures quite often fail miserably. Giving the mainstream Church some great reasons to say, "See, they went astray and they failed."

I read an interesting book called "Laboratory Life." They have an interesting theory of scientific knowledge in there. Basically, a theory becomes scientific knowledge once it becomes too expensive to disprove the theory. The authors of the book were studying scientists who try to isolate particular chemicals from brains. So they were decapitating hundreds of lab rats every day for years in order to get their results. It cost money of course. So those who got funding could pursue their theory. Those who didn't, couldn't. So the theories with the most money ended up being much more likely to enter the world as scientific knowledge simply because no one had the finances to contend it with persuasive data.

I think the same things goes on with the Church. It's simply too expensive to mount a counterattack and expect to have history bear you out as correct. It's just too big. It has a truth of its own - the truth of momentum.

Anyway, that's my theory. The prophet can't lead the Church astray because wherever the Church goes is, by definition, correct.

[silverfox]

I can't quite see how those quotes make Hinckley a deciever, at least in those cases. They sound to me like classic examples of avoiding the question. Politicians do it all the time when they want to distance themselves from an unpopular idea without outright rejecting it.

Now if you're talking about previous GA's interpretation of things, like BY's Adam/God theory that McConkie later crusaded against, where it's accepted at one point and rejected at another - that I can see as a problem under the TBM "never lead us astray" paradigm. Especially if truth is seen as an unchanging set of principles. That's why polygamy has such a power to bring people out of the mainstream church and into fundamentalism. It's a principle that is quite charged with a convoluted history. So it's open to interpretation.

To take an optimistic view of those quotes, perhaps we could see Hinckley as opening the question up. As saying, well I was hoping the members of the Church would do a bit of thinking on their own about this question. Why do I have to be the final authority on everything?

Another view is to see that he knows he's talking to an audience that is going to be more critical of his ideas than his Mo audience. And since he knows he only has a paragraph to explain himself, it's just too big an idea to treat well. Besides, as a former news reporter, I know that a lot of times what the interviewee thinks he or she said, isn't exactly what gets written because it gets put into the writer's context, which brings out some quotes, and glosses over others.

Now if were writing an aritlce for Dialogue where length was no object, I think he'd probably be willing to treat the question a little more seriously.

Hinkley has answered with his "I don't know about these things" on several occassions.

What amuses me about this is that leaders encourage members to be diligent, stand up for their beliefs, share them, don't worry about what people think, don't be ashamed of what you believe or about being a member, blah blah blah. So I've always been taken aback when Hinkley answers with "I don't know or we don't know or we teach it but....." Hell, are you gonna stand up for what you represent or not? Practice what you preach.

I don't know how it all works but as a foremer reporter, do you think any of his responses may have been glossed over or edited during his Larry King interviews?

[dogzilla]

I don't know how it all works but as a foremer reporter, do you think any of his responses may have been glossed over or edited during his Larry King interviews?

I'm not a former reporter (unless you count the high school paper) but I do have a degree in journalism and am a professional editor (as you well know silverfox, but I know not everyone reading this will know that). In my humble guesstimation, yes, probably some of his resonses were glossed over or edited, depending on what light producers wanted to show him in.

Incidentally, I'd love to see this interview. Anybody have it on tape or CD or something?

[peter_mary]

Here's why I consider those quotes to be relevant in terms of "leading astray."

1. If indeed you are speaking for and on behalf of the Lord, then what have you to fear if the audience might be critical? If it's doctrinal, and people need to know it, then a national or international forum is a great place to put it out there. If indeed it's "too deep" to handle in a sound bite, then you can say that without deliberately misleading the audience. See, this is not a case of avoiding the question, (and the transcripts for the TIME interview are available on-line...you can read the context, and there is no contextual error). This is a case of deliberately putting a different face on what you know to be something you don't want seen.

2. If the Prophet speaks for and on behalf of God, how can he be so "unaware" of a basic doctrinal tenet? "I don't know" is a far cry from "I don't think we should talk about it," or "this is too deep for an interview of this nature." Where is Samual the Lamanite standing on the walls of Zarahemla while the Nephites sling arrrows at him, declairing fearlessly that "he knows" and that "you all should repent!"? The doctrine of the exhaltation of man to become as God is the most basic, and frankly, interesting part of the Plan of Salvation. Are we to believe that the Prophet of God "doesn't know about it?" That's not evassiveness...that's deception, because we ALL know he knows full well what the doctrine is. Are we to believe that the gospel is only as good as any other religious message, that get's you to heaven? No, the "good-news" of Mormonism is that you are Gods in embryo, your destiny is divine, and your legacy will be worlds without end, just like God. I think Gordon B. Hinckley knows that...

3. The reason this is relevant to leading people astray is simply this: If you can't trust the Prophet to be honest when it's uncomfortable, when can you trust him? It's a basic thing I teach my children. "If you want me to believe you, you better be honest with me at all times, or you'll teach me to not be able to distinguish the times you're being honest and the times you're not." If I can't trust the prophet to be honest, then I can't trust him to lead me honestly. If he can't always be honest, then I have no real choice but to sit back and consider what he says on its merits alone, and not on any special inspiration he might claim from Heaven. Subsequently, his leadership is only that of a man, and not of God, and he can therefore easily lead us astray.

It is clear from the comments I quoted, as well as countless other statements from Prophets and Apostles, that they recognize the need to keep their people ignorant of their own history, and at times, their own doctrine. Why? To lead them blindly, without them asking those pesky questions. Why would you need to lead anyone blindly? Because you are leading them astray, and if they ever pull their hands off their own eyes, they'll see it...and challenge the authority of the Prophets. And if you're a Prophet, there's a very technical word for that situation. "Bad."

I use those examples to demonstrate that wayward leading of the members of the Church was not a condition limited to the early Church, but persists today.

Peter_Mary

[silverfox]

I'm not a former reporter (unless you count the high school paper) but I do have a degree in journalism and am a professional editor (as you well know silverfox, but I know not everyone reading this will know that). In my humble guesstimation, yes, probably some of his resonses were glossed over or edited, depending on what light producers wanted to show him in.

Incidentally, I'd love to see this interview. Anybody have it on tape or CD or something?

You can google Larry King Interview Gordon Hinkley and find them all in text. There have been a couple interviews with Larry. I have never seen them on CD or anything like.

[peter_mary]

Anyway, that's my theory. The prophet can't lead the Church astray because wherever the Church goes is, by definition, correct.

That's an interesting way of thinking about it, and it has some merit. Here's where I personally struggle with it.

The Church claims itself to be full of integrity and honesty. It is God's Kingdom on Earth, and the Prophet is claimed to be the very mouthpiece of God. The assumption, therefore, is that honesty is a given. They claim it to be one of the determining measures of worthiness for entering the temple: "Are you honest in all your dealings?"

So if you allow the Church and yourself as Prophet to be perceived by the people as honest, but you have a demonstrated willingness to be deceptive, then have you not misrepresented yourself to the very Church you claim to be leading?

This is the very reason I asked to be released from the Bishopric...because I was representing myself to the Ward in a way that was inconstent with what I actually was. They had a right to believe that my testimony was intact, and that I believed as they did. When I sat up on the stage and pretended I was something I was not, I was "misleading" the Ward.

Well, I believe that's exactly what's happening with the Prophet. I remember while I was still in the Bishopric, sitting in Primary and noticing on the board some Church provided materials for the year that the Primary theme was "Follow the Prophet." There was a poster of Jesus and Gordon B. Hinckley standing high on a mountain, overlooking the people of the Church below. The message was clear...Jesus and Gordon are side by side, LITERALLY, as they lead the people. Now, we all are pretty clear that that image is patently not true. The recent interview of Hinckley on Larry King in which he admitted that revelation for the Prophet was like it was for anyone..."Impressions come into my mind," is what he said. Well, that's a far cry from standing arm-in-arm with the Savior of the world, yet he continues to condone and even promote the idea that it is exactly that way. That's deliberately misleading.

So relative to the idea of the Church being a closed system, and whatever it is, that's what it is and therefore, by definition, can't be anything else is all well and good. But relative to what individual Church members believe and how the Prophet actually behaves, I think you can make a strong case for deliberately misleading people...letting them believe something that isn't true. That's "leading astray." Astray from truth and integrity.

::steps down off soap box::

Peter_mary

[flotsam]

And if you're a Prophet, there's a very technical word for that situation. "Bad."
Peter_Mary

I love it!

Incidently, I agree with the general tenor of your ideas Peter_Mary. Being ignorant of the way current ideas/doctrine came about is quite an irresponsible thing to do. And organizations are set up specifically to be anti-historical, because organizations want to get things done. The thinking has been completed, a course of action has been planned, and now everyone needs to follow it. Questioners are annoying at best, destructive at worst.

So, you're right. It's to the Church's advantage to keep things simple. To reinterpret the past to fit the needs of the present. And at that present time, HInckley probably thought he was reinterpreting the past in a manner fitting to the context. And to me, getting rid of the past is indeed a sin, though politically well advised. Orwell made a wonderful analogy of that procedure in 1984, where the government could contradit itself from one day to the next and everyone would go along with it.

As a side note, I see Brave New World as an accurate critique of modern popular culture (where pleasure rules), and 1984 as an accurate critique of religion and corporations in general (where authority rules).

[elder_nomo]

I can't quite see how those quotes make Hinckley a deciever, at least in those cases. They sound to me like classic examples of avoiding the question. Politicians do it all the time when they want to distance themselves from an unpopular idea without outright rejecting it.
When he says "I don't know", he is either deceiving because he DOES know or he is deceiving because he DOESN'T know and yet says he's a prophet (and a prophet WOULD know).
To take an optimistic view of those quotes, perhaps we could see Hinckley as opening the question up. As saying, well I was hoping the members of the Church would do a bit of thinking on their own about this question. Why do I have to be the final authority on everything?
Because he SAYS he's the Living Prophet of God for the One and Only True Church. Could there be a more final authority?

[peter_mary]

So, you're right. It's to the Church's advantage to keep things simple. To reinterpret the past to fit the needs of the present. And at that present time, HInckley probably thought he was reinterpreting the past in a manner fitting to the context. And to me, getting rid of the past is indeed a sin, though politically well advised.

::stepping back onto soap box::

Here's a possibility that I wonder if the Church would be well advised to consider. It only makes sense to reinterpret the past to fit the needs of the present if in fact what you're doing is trying to redefine your present into something you aren't and never have been.

I just finished a book that suggests that perhaps the Church would be smart to QUIT trying to define itself as Christian, and accept the possibility that it is in fact "something else," much as it's founding elders clearly stated. Just as many other religions conceive of the role of Jesus as different than mainstream Christianity (Buddhism and Islam come to mind), so too does Mormonism. If it quit trying to "Christianize" itself, it could probably stand on it's own two legs as an alternative to Christianity. Then you don't have to reinterpret your history. You don't have to try to cover up and hide.

The Church feels the need to misrepresent itself because it is trying paint over the tenets that distinguish it from Christianity. Well, they should quit riding on the coat tails of Christianity and stand up for what they believe in! Quit trying to be the little brother trying to butt into his big brother's club...go make your own club!

But as long as the Church feels compelled to define itself in Christian terms rather than on it's own terms, then it will have a lot of covering up to maintain...

::stepping off soap box yet again::

Peter_mary

[free thinker]

::stepping off soap box yet again::

I like it when you are up on that box man!! No need to step off. Give em hell man, give em hell!! :cool:


If you dont like the stuff above, you just simply are not alive!!! IMHO.

I too, cut Hinckley no slack!! Not one damn inch. I taught the DOCTRINE of eternal progression clearly, for two hard years in the mission field, and now the PROPHET is "not sure about it". Well Gordon, you better damn well get sure about it, or I'm leavin the fold!!! :mad: Hey,wait a minute, I already left the fold!!

NEVERMIND!! :D

Free Thinker

[moonboy]

[stray".

My argument is that there are countless victims within the church who have spiritually and otherwise abused. I would consider them being led "astray".

So what truly does the church mean when it says "astray"?

What is YOUR definintion of "astray"?[/QUOTE]

I would think that the meaning of 'being led astray' would have to do with ones frame of reference. After all, what the church might consider astray, I might consider right on.

While I haven't been around too many church people except my family for many years, some how this conects with either self responsibility or being shepherded. If I were to allow myself to be led by anyone, I would consider that to be astray since I would not be true to myself.

Part of being a good church member is to be obedient. But even here obedience would have its pitfalls. If I were to read the wrong book or listen to someone with opinions divergent to the 'authorities' that would be being led astray.

I am gratefull that I don't have to worry about such nonsense.

Moonboy

[miss taken]

I can't quite see how those quotes make Hinckley a deciever, at least in those cases. They sound to me like classic examples of avoiding the question. Politicians do it all the time when they want to distance themselves from an unpopular idea without outright rejecting it.

Now if you're talking about previous GA's interpretation of things, like BY's Adam/God theory that McConkie later crusaded against, where it's accepted at one point and rejected at another - that I can see as a problem under the TBM "never lead us astray" paradigm. Especially if truth is seen as an unchanging set of principles. That's why polygamy has such a power to bring people out of the mainstream church and into fundamentalism. It's a principle that is quite charged with a convoluted history. So it's open to interpretation.

To take an optimistic view of those quotes, perhaps we could see Hinckley as opening the question up. As saying, well I was hoping the members of the Church would do a bit of thinking on their own about this question. Why do I have to be the final authority on everything?

Another view is to see that he knows he's talking to an audience that is going to be more critical of his ideas than his Mo audience. And since he knows he only has a paragraph to explain himself, it's just too big an idea to treat well. Besides, as a former news reporter, I know that a lot of times what the interviewee thinks he or she said, isn't exactly what gets written because it gets put into the writer's context, which brings out some quotes, and glosses over others.

Now if were writing an aritlce for Dialogue where length was no object, I think he'd probably be willing to treat the question a little more seriously.

Okay Flotsam, what the flippin eck does um.... encomium?... mean?????

Would an LDS president ever lead the church astray??

Would that be in respect of prophecies on the future, or doctrines??

Early Christians expected christ to come 'within a generation' if I remember right. It didn't happen that way. I think JS made certain prophecies that did not infact occur, but some that did. (If I remember right he prophecied on the civil war)

Did they lead the people astray on doctrine. I couldn't argue it on polygamy, because it was the life blood of the early church and probably the main thing that ensured its survival.

On the policy on the blacks. I think I would strongly argue from my own perspective that that was not a doctrine that God would ever condone, even in a society that accepted people of colour as inferior and property.

If Joseph taught the BOM as a story which sets out mainly to prove a point, that Jesus is son of God literal, then okay. It's a good story, and it should be taught as that.

If B Y ordered men to kill men, women and children, then I believe he lead them astray.

If JS ordered men to give him their legal wives, then I believe as a prophet he led them astray.

If dissenters were ordered to be murdered for not agreeing with all things LDS in the early history of the church, then I believe that they were being led astray.

So I believe it is completely possible for a leader to lead his people astray.

I actually like Gordon B Hinkley. He comes across as devoted, humble, and loving. He seems to be a good example of a person trying to follow christ and live a good life. Though I no longer can believe in the historical veracity of the BOM or BOA, and many of the doctrines and history of the church, I still think he is a good man. I do think that the efforts to put Jesus back to the centre of the church is a good thing.

Mary

[free thinker]

I actually like Gordon B Hinkley. He comes across as devoted, humble, and loving. He seems to be a good example of a person trying to follow christ and live a good life. Though I no longer can believe in the historical veracity of the BOM or BOA, and many of the doctrines and history of the church, I still think he is a good man. I do think that the efforts to put Jesus back to the centre of the church is a good thing.

It's hard not to look at Gordon B Hinckley and have some respect for him. I wonder though, and I mean no malice here, does he know about the BoA and BoM problems historically. If he does, isn't that a bit duplicitous? Do you think it would be advantageous to let all members know precisely what the truth about those issues are? Grant Palmer seems to think the answer is yes. I paraphrase what he said when asked the question. He stated that " only the complete truth is good enough for the latter day saints" , . See I think the church has a responsibility to present the facts, and let the chips fall. I would be interested to know how you feel about this Mary.

Free Thinker

[miss taken]

I actually like Gordon B Hinkley. He comes across as devoted, humble, and loving. He seems to be a good example of a person trying to follow christ and live a good life. Though I no longer can believe in the historical veracity of the BOM or BOA, and many of the doctrines and history of the church, I still think he is a good man. I do think that the efforts to put Jesus back to the centre of the church is a good thing.

It's hard not to look at Gordon B Hinckley and have some respect for him. I wonder though, and I mean no malice here, does he know about the BoA and BoM problems historically. If he does, isn't that a bit duplicitous? Do you think it would be advantageous to let all members know precisely what the truth about those issues are? Grant Palmer seems to think the answer is yes. I paraphrase what he said when asked the question. He stated that " only the complete truth is good enough for the latter day saints" , . See I think the church has a responsibility to present the facts, and let the chips fall. I would be interested to know how you feel about this Mary.

Free Thinker

I absolutely agree 100% with Grant Palmer on that issue.
The church should not go burning records, and the suggestion is that some of the most embarrassing stuff has already been burned. I know members are prolific journal keepers though, so I am pretty sure there is stuff in most journals that will give a clear pointer to what went on.

I was surprised at some of the stuff that Steve Benson wrote about the private conversations he had with General Authorities, he suggested that in private some of them were not half so sure about things as they are in public. I was also very interested in Hugh B Browns response to the BOA, and admired him for it. Indicates that there are lots of different views and mindsets even amongst the GA's which is exactly how it should be really.

If Gordon B, and the rest know the full history of the church then they should tell it.

I think though that to them, the truth is that Joseph DID have a first vision, that Peter James and John did visit him, that the proper authority has been restored, and so everything else, no matter how damning it is, has to fit that somehow.

Has anyone utterly disproved the BOM so far. 100%?
I don't believe that it was based on real people in real life, but then I also don't believe that most of the Old Testament was based on real life, particularly the further it gets back into history, ie Adam and Eve, Noah, and so forth. Probably a collection of myths and stories consolidated together to make an argument that proves a point or teaches a lesson.

Do the records of the church paint very embarrassing pictures? Probably. I know they wont publish John Taylors journals because there is lots of stuff in there. He was one of the men who was shot but not killed at Carthage Jail.

I don't like that they hide history, it makes one wonder why, and probably does a heck of a lot more damage than good.

But what evidence would it take to disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Any takers?
Mary

[free thinker]

But what evidence would it take to disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt?


Mary

Let me give this a go. I am aware that there are others who could probably do a better job than me, but I will offer what I think is substantial evindence that this church is not TRUE as it is said.

1 Form what I have read it is obvious that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from other sources to create the BoM . He then said it was a record taken from gold plates delivered by a heavenly messenger. This would be a lie, and one started by the originator of the faith.
Strike one.

2. The mitochondrial DNA evidence is conclusive that the ancient Americans are not descended form Hebrews.
Strike Two

3 The BoA is an obvious fraud, adding to the earlier assertion that Joseph Smith was a prevaricator rather than a revelator.
Strike Three

Your Out!!

Remember that the above were reasons that the early church members joined, and were sustained in their faith. This is the foundation of mormonism. I dont think it is any more complicated than that.

That's the way it looks from where I sit!
Free Thinker

[silverfox]

Has anyone utterly disproved the BOM so far. 100%?

But what evidence would it take to disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Any takers?
Mary

I look at this way, both with the BoM and the Bible...has their authenticity ever been proven? 100%? (not really asking, just thinking out loud)

[darkslider]

But what evidence would it take to disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt?


Mary

Let me give this a go. I am aware that there are others who could probably do a better job than me, but I will offer what I think is substantial evindence that this church is not TRUE as it is said.

1 Form what I have read it is obvious that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from other sources to create the BoM . He then said it was a record taken from gold plates delivered by a heavenly messenger. This would be a lie, and one started by the originator of the faith.
Strike one.

2. The mitochondrial DNA evidence is conclusive that the ancient Americans are not descended form Hebrews.
Strike Two

3 The BoA is an obvious fraud, adding to the earlier assertion that Joseph Smith was a prevaricator rather than a revelator.
Strike Three

Your Out!!

Remember that the above were reasons that the early church members joined, and were sustained in their faith. This is the foundation of mormonism. I dont think it is any more complicated than that.

That's the way it looks from where I sit!
Free Thinker

I think I can cover this for you as well.

Where do you want to start? How about the start of Mormonism. . . The First Vision.

First Vision v.1.2.3.9?

According to LDS scripture, when Joseph Smith was 15 years old, he was confused as to which church was true. He claimed this confusion was sparked by an 1820 religious revival in his neighborhood. His heart was powerfully impressed one night when he read James 1:5, and subsequently he went into the woods near his house to pray that God would tell him which of all the Christian sects was right. As he began to pray, he claimed that he was nearly overcome by "some power" of "astonishing influence" that prevented him from speaking. As he called out to God, he was miraculously delivered by two beings who identified themselves as Jesus Christ and God the Father. Joseph Smith claimed that he was told the following: "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" (Joseph Smith – History 1:19).

This story is referred to in the LDS Church as the "First Vision." It was this vision that ultimately led Joseph Smith to organize what is today known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whenever LDS missionaries meet with potential converts, their message always includes the "First Vision" story. This vision is obviously the cornerstone upon which the LDS Church is built. In fact, the ninth president of the Mormon Church, David O. McKay, said that "the appearing of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith is the foundation of the Church." (Gospel Ideals, p. 85). Preston Nibley, a descendant of an early LDS apostle, once wrote that "Joseph Smith lived a little more than twenty-four years after this first vision. During this time he told but one story..." (Joseph Smith the Prophet, p. 30).

So important is this vision that it is published as scripture to the Mormon people in a book known as The Pearl of Great Price. This official version was taken from the early LDS publication Times and Seasons, which originally published it on April 1, 1842 (pp. 748-749). Joseph Smith wrote this account of the vision in 1838, 18 years after it supposedly happened.

However, contrary to what Mr. Nibley claimed, this is not the only version Joseph ever told. In 1965, a BYU student named Paul Cheesman found a different version of the first vision. He noted that the accounts differed in significant details. This led others to start looking into the matter, and a surprising detail came to light. There are at least nine different versions of this first vision, each of which differs in the more significant parts of the story. Here is a brief look at them, starting with the latest known account, and working back to the earliest one.

Version 9. On May 24, 1844, Alexander Niebaur wrote the first vision in his journal as Joseph Smith told it to him. In this account, most of the details are the same as the official version, except that Joseph was not told that all of the Christian sects were wrong. Instead, he was specifically told that the Methodists were not God's people.

Version 8. In 1843, Joseph Smith gave an interview to the Pittsburgh Gazette, which was reprinted in the New York Observer on Sept. 23, 1843. In this version, Joseph said he was 14 years old, and there was no mention of any dark power trying to overcome him.

Version 7. This is the officially accepted version of the first vision, published in Times and Seasons on April 1, 1842.

Version 6. On March 1, 1842, the Times and Seasons published contents of a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth. This was published one full month before the account that is accepted as the official version today. In this one, Joseph Smith did not give his age. He mentioned no evil power overcoming him, and he said two personages visited him, though he never identifies them. It is significant that he did not mention the evil power that played so prominently in the story and also that he omitted that the personages visiting him were supposedly God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Version 5. In 1841, Joseph Smith's brother William Smith told the story to James Murdock. This account is published in A New Witness For Christ In America (2:414-415). This account lists Joseph as being 17 years old when he received the vision, and rather than God and Jesus appearing to him, William states that it was only a "glorious angel." Admittedly, this account is third hand, and William could certainly have been mistaken about Joseph's age. But it is not likely that he would forget that God Himself and Jesus Christ visited his brother, unless he was never told that to begin with.

Usually we dismiss third-hand accounts in our research, believing them to usually be very unreliable. However, this account is substantiated by other sources. For example, in the early LDS publication Times and Seasons for December 15, 1840 (Vol.2 pg. 241), Oliver Cowdery stated specifically that Joseph Smith, Jr. was 17 at the time of the first vision - specifically placing the year of the vision in 1823. And in at least seven other places in the Journal of Discourses, early LDS leaders shared that it was only an unidentified angel that visited Joseph, not God and Jesus (2:171, 196, 197; 10:127; 13:78, 324; 20:167).

Brigham Young even stated specifically that the Lord did not visit young Joseph. In reference to this vision he said "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven...But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun...and informed him that he should not join any of the religions of the day, for they were all wrong;..." (Journal of Discourses 2:171).

William Smith's account was also printed in part in the RLDS Church publication The Saints Herald (Vol. 31 No. 40, page 643, 6/8/1884). No correction or retraction of the information published there was ever printed. We must keep in mind that both the LDS and RLDS (now known as the Community of Christ) share the same history for the first several years of Mormonism's existence. Contradictions regarding Smith's Vision would affect the credibility of both groups.

Finally, this account is also worthy of special consideration because it was first brought to light by a Mormon researcher from the LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. As mentioned earlier, Paul Cheesman wrote his master's thesis in 1965 entitled "An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions." In that study he discusses this differing account of the first vision in detail. It was subsequently discussed by LDS scholars in the publication Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for Autumn 1966. None of these researchers and scholars dismissed the account as mere gossip; rather they discussed it as a valid account worthy of consideration. There is no reason, then, for us not to consider it as well.

Version 4. In 1837, William Appleby recorded the vision story as given by Orson Pratt in his diary. In this version, the revival was not until 1822, Joseph was 17 again, and the visitors were not God and Jesus but beings who identified themselves only as angels who claimed to have forgiven Joseph's sins. Again, this is a third-hand account, but the most important details of the vision are left out or completely different.

The differing details of this vision account have been verified by other statements of LDS leaders throughout the early years of the LDS Church. George A. Smith and Orson Hyde both stated that Joseph was visited not by God but by angels (Journal of Discourses 6:335; 12:334). This corroborative information makes this third-hand account worthy of our consideration. In addition, the discourses and statements of the early LDS apostles and prophets, as published in many books by the LDS Church, were mainly recorded from the diaries and journals of the early Mormons. The LDS Church considers these third-hand accounts to be valid enough to accept for "inspirational" material. It would be inconsistent for the Mormons to accept only those accounts that support their teachings and to disregard those accounts with which they disagree. Since Orson Pratt was a first-hand witness to the early events of Mormonism and to the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., his version of the events are of significant importance for consideration – even when recorded in a listener's journal.

Version 3. In 1835, Joseph Smith dictated his own account of the first vision for his personal diary. There is some question among scholars, even those who are LDS, as to who the scribe was for this part of the diary. Some believe it was Warren Parrish, but others believe it was Warren Cowdery. Regardless of which man physically wrote the account, the fact is that it appears in the official diary of the Prophet, and this journal entry is accepted as accurate and valid. In this account, which was first published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (VI, No.1, pg. 87), the evil power is mentioned for the very first time. In all previous published accounts (listed below), no evil power was ever mentioned by Joseph. Also, he does not claim that the messengers were God and Jesus, just that many angels visited him. That seems to be a very curious omission.

Version 2. In February 1835, the LDS publication Messenger and Advocate recorded the account of the vision that Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery. In this account, Joseph was 17 years old, the revival is in 1823, and no mention is made of James 1:5. Instead, Joseph claimed he had been wondering if there was a God and if his sins could be forgiven. His only reason for praying was to ask if God did exist. After "11 or 12 hours" in prayer, he was visited by "a messenger from God" who forgave Joseph's sins. While this vision is given in the Messenger and Advocate as the first vision of Joseph Smith, this story was later revised and published as a second vision from the angel Moroni preparatory to giving Joseph Smith the golden plates.

It should be noted that this account was printed not only in an LDS publication but also during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. No statements by Joseph against the accuracy of this account have been found, indicating his approval of the information given. It was also a second-hand account given by Oliver Cowdery, a witness to many of the key events in LDS history. The same account was also copied unchanged into Joseph Smith's Manuscript History of the Church and subsequently into the LDS publication Times and Seasons. Since it was copied into so many LDS publications and records without any changes, the account must have been considered accurate and valid to Joseph Smith at that time. This adds quite a bit of significance to the differing details of this version.

Version 1. The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in Joseph Smith's own handwriting. This was the version made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965, published later that same year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in Joseph Smith's Strange Account of the First Vision. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults – presumably because it differs so greatly from the official version. In this account, Smith claimed to be 16 years old and that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins.

We are left, then, with various differing stories of this important event. Joseph never did tell "but one story" of the first vision; he told several, as already shown by the various published statements of early LDS leaders. There is no way to tell, then, if any of the details of the vision really happened. Was it one angel or several who visited Joseph? What was the identity of the heavenly visitor to Joseph – Jesus and God, Jesus alone, Peter (JD 6:29), Nephi (Times & Seasons 3:753; 1851 PoGP, pg.41; Millennial Star 3:53, 71), or Moroni?

Was he 14, 15, 16 or 17 years old when it happened? Was his reason for praying to get forgiveness, to determine if there was a God or to find out which religion was correct? Was he overcome by a dark and evil power or wasn't he?

All these variations – particularly in the accounts that came directly from Joseph Smith himself – lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the official version of Joseph Smith's "first vision" is, at best, unreliable. Though unproveable, Joseph may have had some kind of a vision in his younger years that he expanded upon and/or changed the details of each time he re-told it. Eventually the story was developed into the heart-rending official version that the LDS Church publishes today as fact, though it clearly is not.

More to follow. . . Stupid character limit!

[darkslider]

The Problems with the "Official" First Vision

The well-publicized story of Joseph Smith's First Vision is not a true account of the origin of the Latter-day Saint movement. The facts are decided against it! First, the historical evidence shows that Joseph Smith, Jr. could not have been stirred by an 1820 revival, to ask which church was true. Second, early Mormon statements do not support his claim that in 1820 he learned through a visitation of the Father and the Son that all existing churches were wrong. Third, the details known about Joseph's early life contradict his assertion that in 1820 he had such a divine visitation and was persecuted by the community for telling such a story.

No 1820 Revival

First, his neighborhood in 1820 experienced no revival such as he described, in which "great multitudes" joined the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches. The Presbyterian records for the Palmyra Presbyterian Church show that it experienced no revival in 1820. (See Geneva Presbytery "Records," Presbyterian Historical Society.) The local Baptist church gained only six on profession of faith the entire year ("Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra," American Baptist Historical Society) while the Methodists actually lost members that year as well as the preceding and following years (Minutes of the Annual Conference).

Joseph Smith claimed that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, four years before he made this claim, his own church paper had stated that the revival in which his family had been led to join the Presbyterian Church took place in 1823 (Messenger & Advocate I, pp. 42, 78). In fact, that account says it was the same 1823 revival that led him to go to his bedroom (not to a sacred grove) and pray "if a Supreme being did exist" and to know that "he was accepted of him." An angel (not a deity) is then reported to have appeared and told him of his forgiveness and of the gold plates.

Joseph's mother, likewise, knew nothing of an 1820 vision. In her unpublished account, she traces the origin of Mormonism to a bedroom visit by an angel. Joseph at the time had been "pondering which of the churches were the true one." The angel told him "there is not a true church on Earth. No not one" (First draft of "Lucy Smith's History," LDS Church Archives).

Furthermore, she tells us that the revival which led her joining the church took place following the death of her son, Alvin. Alvin died Nov. 19, 1823, and following that painful loss she reports that, "about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings" (p. 55-56).

She adds that although her husband would only attend the first meetings, he had no objection to her or the children "going or becoming church members." There is plenty of additional evidence that the revival Lucy Smith refers to did occur during the winter of 1824-25. It was reported in at least a dozen newspapers and religious periodicals. The church records show outstanding increases due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. No such revival bringing in "great multitudes" occurred in 1820.

It is clear that the revival Joseph Smith, Jr. described did not occur in 1820, but in 1824. Joseph Smith arbitrarily moved that revival back four years to 1820 and made it fit a First Vision story that neither his mother nor other close associates had heard of in those early days. The historical facts completely discredit Joseph Smith's First Vision story. (For further details, see "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.)

Bible Reading Vs. Revelations

Furthermore, about 1832 Joseph Smith, Jr. began an account of the origin of the Mormon Church (the only one written in his own hand) that contradicts the official First Vision story he dictated some six years later. The account was never finished. (See the text in BYU Studies, Spring 1969, pp. 278ff.)

In this version Joseph presents himself between the ages of 12 and 15 as being a committed and perceptive reader of the Bible. He claims that his study of the Scriptures led him to understand that all of the denominations were wrong. He wrote: "By searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament."

Six years later, when he set forth his official First Vision story, he decided that he never had reached the firm conclusion that all churches were wrong from his study of the Bible. Instead, he claimed that it was during a vision of the Father and the Son that he first learned this information. He presented this as coming as a great surprise, for he added parenthetically -- "for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong." That statement even contradicted what Joseph had said a few paragraphs earlier in the same account. There he claimed that "I often said to myself ...Who of all these parties are right; or are they all wrong together?" Although the former statement appears in the original manuscript (see BYU Studies above, pg. 290), such a serious contradiction could not be allowed to stand, and after Joseph's death the embarrassing words were edited out.

Even without those words, however, the 1838 official account is in conflict with the 1832 version. In the 1832 account it is his Bible reading that stirs him to seek God, while in the 1838 story it is a non-existent revival that motivates him.

In the 1832 version he claims to have seen only Christ, while in the 1838 rendition both the Father and the Son appear. In the 1832 account he already knows all the churches are wrong, while in the 1838 story it is the dual deities who first inform him of this. Different people may have different views of the same event, but when one person tells contradictory stories about an event, he completely loses his credibility.

Persecution Vs. Acceptance

The 1838 First Vision story not only runs into trouble with Joseph's earlier 1832 version, but it is also contradicted by what we know about his early years in Palmyra. In his official version Joseph claims he was persecuted by all the churches in his area "because I continued to affirm I had seen a vision." However, Orsemus Turner, an apprentice printer in Palmyra until 1822, was in the same juvenile debating club with Joseph Smith. He recalled that Joseph "after catching a spark of Methodism ...became a very passable exhorter in evening meetings" (History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase, 1851, p. 214). Thus, instead of being opposed and persecuted as his 1838 account claims, young Joseph was welcomed and allowed to exhort during the Methodist's evening preaching. Furthermore, no one, either Mormon or non-Mormon, seems ever to have heard of Joseph's encounter with two divine Personages until after 1838. (See this admission in Dialogue, Autumn 1966, pp. 30-31; Saints Herald, June 29, 1959, pg. 21.)

From all available lines of evidence, therefore, Joseph's First Vision story appears to be a fabrication. There was no revival anywhere in the Palmyra area in 1820. Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted, by the Methodists. His 1832 account represents him as perceiving from his personal Bible study that all the churches were apostate, while his 1838 account said it "never entered into my heart that all were wrong." His 1832 version claimed only a vision of Christ, while the 1838 story transformed this into the Father and the Son. No one ever heard such a story until after he dictated it in 1838. In the light of such strong contradictory evidence, the First Vision story must be regarded as only the invention of Joseph Smith's highly imaginative mind. The facts and Joseph's words discredit it.

[darkslider]

Changes to "The Most Perfect Book"

"... we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, 'These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.'" (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 1, pp. 54-55)

Joseph Smith once made the claim that the Book of Mormon was "...the most correct of any book on the earth ... " (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461). Over the next 170+ years, Mormon apologists have defended the book and this bold claim by saying that the first Prophet of this dispensation was merely saying the doctrines of the Book of Mormon were "the most correct of any book on the earth" and that the thousands of changes made to the book were, almost without exception, minor grammatical and/or punctuation changes. Men like Joseph Fielding Smith had said things like,

"...enemies of the Church...have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement." (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pg. 924)

Frankly, I believed the leaders of the church when they said things like this. After all, these men were Prophets and Apostles of God. Surely they would have no reason to lie about things such as changes to the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t until after I left the church that I took a much closer look at the claim that there had been nearly 4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon.

Should we expect perfection?

Surprisingly, the answer to this question is “Yes”. We have detailed information as to exactly how the Book of Mormon was translated. It was, quite literally, supposed to have been the first book ever written with the aid of God himself. Considering the methodical means by which the gold plates were translated, there was little, if any, room for error. Consider the following quotes:

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English." (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, page 12)

"'Martin [Harris] explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven (sic) on the plates, precisely in the language then used.'" (Myth of the Manuscript Found, Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883 edition, page 91)

George Reynolds, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy, 1890-1909, made this statement in 1883:

"But at the outset it must be recollected that the translation was accomplished by no common method, by no ordinary means. It was done by divine aid. There were no delays over obscure passages, no difficulties over the choice of words, no stoppages from the ignorance of the translator; no time was wasted in investigation or argument over the value, intent or meaning of certain characters, and there were no references to authorities. These difficulties to human work were removed. All was as simple as when a clerk writes from dictation. The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly transcribed the next would appear." (Myth of the Manuscript Found, 1883 edition, page 71)

Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that in 1881 Joseph F. Smith, who became the sixth President of the Mormon Church, taught that the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon:

"Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith the Prophet and Seer, which was as follows as near as I can recollect the substance of his description. Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. So it is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith, and it was done in this way .... The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver B. Huntington, page 168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society)

Major changes

The four following revisions occur in 1 Nephi. Since passages in the rest of the Book of Mormon which described Jesus as Father and Supreme God were not changed, is it possible that Joseph Smith intended to revise the whole Book of Mormon to reflect tritheism but only barely began the project? He may have given up, realizing that revising the Book of Mormon's theology would often require major rewriting rather than simple insertions or word replacement.
1830 Edition
1837 Edition (emphasis added)


1 Ne. 11:19
the virgin whom thou seest is the
mother of God, after the manner of
the flesh

1 Ne. 11:19
the virgin whom thou seest is the
mother of the Son of God, after the
manner of the flesh.

1 Ne. 11:21
Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!


1 Ne. 11:21
Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even
the Son of the Eternal Father!

1 Ne. 11:32
[the Lamb of God] was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world.

1 Ne. 11:32
[the Lamb of God] was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world.

1 Ne. 13:40
[these records] shall make known to
all … that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world.

1 Ne. 13:40
[these records] shall make known to
all … that the Lamb of God is the Son
of the Eternal Father, and the Savior
of the world.

The original text of Mosiah 21:28 reads: "And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice."

The problem, of course, is that king Benjamin was dead by this time (Mosiah 6:5). This reference was changed to 'Mosiah' in the 1837 and subsequent editions. However, it appears that this was not the only
place where such a change was made. The original text of Ether 4:1 reads: "...and for this cause did king Benjamin keep them, that they should not come unto the world until after Christ shew himself unto his people."

Again, Benjamin was changed to "Mosiah" in subsequent editions. The fact that there are two such changes leads one to speculate that Joseph Smith may possibly have had a slightly different course in mind for the life of King Benjamin and had perhaps killed off Benjamin prematurely while rewriting the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon.

The original text of I Nephi 12:18 reads: "...yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God..."

The problem here is that the name 'Jesus Christ' was not revealed to the Nephites until II Nephi 10:3.
"Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name--should come among the Jews..."

In order to correct this contradiction, the text of I Nephi 12:18 was changed to read 'Messiah' instead of 'Jesus Christ'. How does the church explain that?

The original text of I Nephi 20:1 reads:
"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel; yet they swear not in truth, nor righteousness."

In 1840 this verse was changed to read:
"Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism , who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness."

The phrase "or out of the waters of baptism" was inserted in the 1840 edition. Why did it take God ten years to decide to introduce the ordinance of baptism into Old Testament text?

The original text of II Nephi 16:2 reads:

"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly."

This is a quotation from the King James Version of the Bible, specifically Isaiah 6:2. In a rare grammatical mistake, the KJV has an incorrect plural for 'seraph'. The correct plural, of course, should be 'seraphim', as the later text of II Nephi 16:2 reads. How does one explain that Joseph Smith would make the same exact spelling error in the BofM "translation" that the writers of the KJV of the Bible made centuries before?

Conclusion

So, it would appear that Joseph Fielding Smith was telling a bold faced lie when he said,

"...enemies of the Church...have made the statement that there have been one or two or more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published. Well, of course, there is no truth in that statement." (The Improvement Era, December, 1961, pg. 924)

It is quite improbable that a person as high ranking as Joseph Fielding Smith would have been unaware of the fact that nearly 4,000 changes had been made over the years to the Book of Mormon. Sadly, it has been shown time and time again that when church leaders say something, the rank and file believe it without question.

Keep in mind, virtually none of Joseph's mistakes were simple misspellings (those were almost always fixed by the typesetter) and Joseph Smith is told to have "translated the plates by the gift and power of God". Apparently, it wasn't Joseph who was lacking in a formal education, but rather it was God who seemed to lack in basic grammar skills. After all, let's not forget that Joseph F. Smith said that the Book of Mormon " ...is the work of God and not of Joseph Smith."

Please note: This list does not include the additional 35 words that appeared in Alma 32:30, sometime between 1977 and 1985 (I have not been able to narrow it down farther than that).

[darkslider]

Is that enough evidence to "disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt." ?

We have all heard the quotes from the General Authorities about how the validity of the Church rests upon Joseph Smith. . . I just gave you enough evidence to prove that Joseph Smith made the entire thing up. So, using the logic of the GA's. . . I have also just disproven the Church.

[flotsam]

Is that enough evidence to "disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt." ?

We have all heard the quotes from the General Authorities about how the validity of the Church rests upon Joseph Smith. . . I just gave you enough evidence to prove that Joseph Smith made the entire thing up. So, using the logic of the GA's. . . I have also just disproven the Church.


I'm interested, who actually wrote the text for those long posts? Was it you darkslider? Or were you borrowing from another source?

[miss taken]

Is that enough evidence to "disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt." ?

We have all heard the quotes from the General Authorities about how the validity of the Church rests upon Joseph Smith. . . I just gave you enough evidence to prove that Joseph Smith made the entire thing up. So, using the logic of the GA's. . . I have also just disproven the Church.

I read your posts with great interest darkslider, thanks for taking the time to write them.

I (in the spirit of empathy) always try to go back, on occassion, to the mindset I had as an active member of the church.

I was always under the impression that the changes to the BOM were only grammatical (there was some bad grammar in the temple also, wonder if that's been taken out!!!).

So it is interesting to find out that some of the changes were rather more fundamental.

I had also heard about the seer stones, and the translation process.

I don't think changes or different accounts would have done it for me though (as an active member of the church). I would have thought of the various revisions of the Old and New Testament, and the differing accounts of Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament Gospels. If I throw out mormonism on that basis, I would also, as an active member, throw out christianity with it.

From the evidence where I stand, it seems that Joseph had another scribe/scribes, so he wasn't working alone, someone else knew what he was up to. He had in front of him a King James version of the Bible, and he also had a map of the United States and Canada. He may also have had, was it Ethan Smiths? book, 'Views of the Hebrews' something like that, if my memory serves me right?

He then wove, what is often an extremely good story of ancient peoples, and one has to ask the question of WHY he wanted to do what he did. He was a fantastic visionary wasn't he. Joseph could have been an adulterer without polygamy, he could have carried on treasure hunting and so forth, but something in him wanted to create something bigger than himself. He wanted to create a church based on his evolving and developing ideas of what it meant to be a 'christian', one surely can say this at the very least.

Sadly I think that the BOM is a work of fiction, that is what the evidence seems to suggest. But that does not mean that is a work of fiction without value. There is some good stuff in it don't you think???

Mary

[darkslider]

I read your posts with great interest darkslider, thanks for taking the time to write them.

I (in the spirit of empathy) always try to go back, on occassion, to the mindset I had as an active member of the church.

I was always under the impression that the changes to the BOM were only grammatical (there was some bad grammar in the temple also, wonder if that's been taken out!!!).

So it is interesting to find out that some of the changes were rather more fundamental.

I had also heard about the seer stones, and the translation process.

I don't think changes or different accounts would have done it for me though (as an active member of the church). I would have thought of the various revisions of the Old and New Testament, and the differing accounts of Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament Gospels. If I throw out mormonism on that basis, I would also, as an active member, throw out christianity with it.

From the evidence where I stand, it seems that Joseph had another scribe/scribes, so he wasn't working alone, someone else knew what he was up to. He had in front of him a King James version of the Bible, and he also had a map of the United States and Canada. He may also have had, was it Ethan Smiths? book, 'Views of the Hebrews' something like that, if my memory serves me right?

He then wove, what is often an extremely good story of ancient peoples, and one has to ask the question of WHY he wanted to do what he did. He was a fantastic visionary wasn't he. Joseph could have been an adulterer without polygamy, he could have carried on treasure hunting and so forth, but something in him wanted to create something bigger than himself. He wanted to create a church based on his evolving and developing ideas of what it meant to be a 'christian', one surely can say this at the very least.

Sadly I think that the BOM is a work of fiction, that is what the evidence seems to suggest. But that does not mean that is a work of fiction without value. There is some good stuff in it don't you think???

Mary

As I am very fond of saying, "There is truth in all things."

I have taken all the truth from Mormonism and found it to be lacking. Sure, the current church teaches a very watered down version of its doctrine. . . that doesn't change the doctrine, though.

You made the statement about disbelieving all other Christianity-based religions. Myself, I would classify Mormons as anything but Christian. Why? Because they follow a different God than the God found in the scriptures. The believe in a different Jesus than can be found in the scriptures. They ignore Jesus' only commandment and replace it with a bunch of silly rules that have no bearing on eternal salvation. Think about it, what does it matter if you drink tea or coffee (neither of which is mentioned in the Word of Wisdom, I might add)? Matthew on the subject of dietary limitations:

Matt. 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Matt. 15:17-20

17. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:


Oddly enough, of the things that can "defile a man". . . Joseph Smith falls neatly into each and every category.

[moonboy]

Is that enough evidence to "disprove the church beyond a shadow of a doubt." ?

We have all heard the quotes from the General Authorities about how the validity of the Church rests upon Joseph Smith. . . I just gave you enough evidence to prove that Joseph Smith made the entire thing up. So, using the logic of the GA's. . . I have also just disproven the Church.


The problem is that religion is something that people take on faith so proof doesn't really enter into it. There is no way to disprove it to someone who is entrenched in it.

[darkslider]

The problem is that religion is something that people take on faith so proof doesn't really enter into it. There is no way to disprove it to someone who is entrenched in it.

Again though, it is the teachings pertaining to faith that causes this problem.

Faith as explained in the Bible is "things hoped for and evidence of things not seen".

Faith as explained by Mormonism is "We know what we are talking about, so don't listen to anything else. . . even yourself."

If the Mormons followed any aspect of the Scriptures (and I only include the Book of Mormon because it is a catalyst for having the religion), they would be nothing more than another protestant religion. I have to debug a site real quick. . . so I will post the article that I was leading up to, later.