Random Stuff About Mormonism

It has been quite a while since I’ve done one of these blog, but I’ve recently found some excellent articles exposing the LDS for the fraud that they are.  Enjoy!

A biblical response to Mormonism — good to know for when they come to your door.

Some bizarre teachings from Bruce McConkie.

Psalm 110:1 and Mormonism.  Good dismantling of LDS claims for three separate gods in the Trinity.

Mormons and ghosts — they should be afraid of them.

Do Mormons really believe in God’s grace for salvation?  Only after they’ve worked for their salvation to merit so-called grace.

Did Mahonri Moriancumr Discover America? The absurdity of the Book of Mormon exposed in just this one article.

Mormon baptismal fraud; Baptism is something that a person has to have for themselves, not by proxy.  And you can’t baptize a dead person!  Just more necromancy in the LDS doctrine.

Did They Really Say That?!?

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office.  It is just as plain and easy.  The Lord is in our midst.  He teaches the people continually.  I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.  Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

Brigham Young, January 2, 1870, Journal of Discourses 13:95

So, Brigham Young is still considered a prophet of the LDS, and he stated that his sermons are the same as Scripture, and yet the LDS now denies some of his teachings?!?!?  How can they justify that?  How can they say the Young was wrong about “blood atonement,” e.g.?

Did They Really Say That?!?

Now ask the Father in the name of Jesus whether I am telling you the truth about temporal things or not, and the same Spirit that bore witness to you that baptism by immersion is the correct way according to the Scriptures will bear witness that the man whom God calls to dictate affairs in the building up of this Zion has the right to dictate about everything connected with the building up of Zion, yes even to the ribbons the  women wear; and any person who denies it is ignorant.  There is not a man or woman in the world who rises up against this principle but what is ignorant; all such are destitute of the spirit of revelation and enjoy not the Sprit of Christ.

Brigham Young, February 3, 1867, Journal of Discourses 11:298

Brigham Young had several false prophecies that I’ve previously reported, which alone proves he wasn’t a man of God.  I’d like to know where in Scripture it says the Mormons would be building any “Zion” and where it says any leader of the church had authority as to even what ribbons a woman should wear!

A Conundrum for Mormons

Mormons often make an issue that the written standard works are to be the measuring rod for truth and that revelation cannot contradict them.  President Harold B. Lee stated, “If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true.”  Given the fact that Abraham 1:26 in the Pearl of Great Price was used as a proof text to ban blacks from the priesthood, the 1978 reversal appears to violate Lee’s admonition.

All of this raises other questions.  If the Mormon God has removed the curse that was once on the black race, why has he not also removed the physical mark?  If the sole purpose of the black skin was merely to identify those who should not receive priesthood blessings, and the no longer applies, why are people still being born with this mark?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg.275

False Prophecy!

At a Honolulu stake conference in 1961, Joseph Fielding Smith said, 

We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.

Granted that this was before he was the LDS President, but for the LDS to say this isn’t a prophecy because he wasn’t President yet flies in the face of that last sentence! 

Joseph Smith is needed if the atonement is to be “fully efficacious”

In the first volume of Doctrines of Salvation, tenth Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith made it very clear that there is “no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith” (1:188).  While some might think that Mormonism has matured and moved away from such a heretical notion, Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland assures us that this is not the case.

The April 2017 edition of New Era magazine, a publication geared for Mormon youth, reprinted a talk that Holland gave back on June 27, 2002 (the 158th anniversary of the death of Joseph Smith).  Delivered to a group of new mission presidents, the talk was titled “Testify of the Restoration” and stressed the importance of Joseph Smith’s role in the salvation of not only Mormons but all mankind.  After stating that the most important event in all of human history was the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Holland said,

“The next greatest accomplishment in making that atonement fully efficacious in the great plan of salvation was the appearance of the Father and the Son to the boy prophet Joseph Smith in the New York springtime of 1820. Had we never had what we have come to call ‘the Restoration,’ the great plan of salvation would have been forever thwarted, and the full blessings of the Atonement would not have reached most of God’s children, past, present, and future. . .  Take away Joseph Smith and the First Vision, take away the events which followed, take away a direct restoration from heaven, and what do we have?  We don’t have much—at least not enough to distinguish us from a thousand other good groups of people” (3-4).

Despite the fact that many Latter-day Saints continue to insist how they are Christians just like us, Holland does not hide the fact that in order to receive the full benefits of the atonement, it is necessary to add Joseph Smith to the mix.  Regarding their claim to be Christian, Holland cautioned the members to be “careful and sensitive and kind as we must be in how we say it, we declare that we are dramatically different in quite a few particulars” (4).

Whereas Christians look to the New Testament as being completely sufficient regarding the way of salvation, Holland says it is not enough.

“The rock upon which the latter-day Church of Jesus Christ rests is not solely the revelation of Christ to Peter or to Adam or to Enoch or Moses or Abraham.  It is the revelation of Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith coupled with the revelation of Christ to Joseph Smith’s successor prophets and apostles, and indeed the revelation of Christ in the heart of each individual member of this Church” (5).

You can see why Mormons are so protective of the image of their founding prophet.  Once Smith’s veneer of authority and virtue is stripped away, there is no reason to be loyal to the Mormon system. The task ahead is convincing Mormons who have come to this point (and there are many) that the New Testament demonstrates how Joseph Smith is not needed to make the atonement of Christ fully efficacious in the lives of Christian believers.

Bill McKeever, Mormonism Researched, May-June 2017

Don’t Pray About the Book of Mormon!

A [Mormon] missionary resource explains, “In order to know that the Book of Mormon is true, a person must read, ponder, and pray about it.  The honest seeker of truth will soon come to feel that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” . . .

Yet there are problems with this challenge.  First of all, the test is skewed.  A person who “prays” but doesn’t get the same answer as the missionary is viewed as not getting it correct.  If prayer is the correct means of testing the book’s authenticity, why is a negative outcome immediately rejected as a plausible response? . . .  However, Jeremiah 17:9 says a feeling that one has can be disastrously wrong because “the heart is desperately wicked.” Praying about a religious book, especially if it is fictional and not historical, is hardly an objective test.

If the Book of Mormon is just one of four LDS scriptures, why should it be prayed over and not the other three scriptures? For that matter, why shouldn’t a seeker after truth pray about the Qu’ran (Islam), the Vedas (Hinduism), or the Tripitaka (Buddhism)?  Where does praying about a particular religion’s scripture stop?  If praying about a book is a way to determine truth, then why have many Mormons never even thought about expanding their prayers to more than just one religion’s scripture?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 135

Mormons, I’m Waiting for an Answer

A garden atonement seems odd for a couple of reasons.  One, Paul always points to the cross where this event happened; never does he give any indication that the atonement was divided over two locations.  In addition, the Bible only refers to the garden twice—never once in association with the atonement.  Two, if Christ actually atoned for all of the sins of mankind in the garden, what would be left for Him to atone for on the cross?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 158-159

Some Random Stuff Proving Mormonism False

What about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon? Something is “rotten in Denmark”!

Is salvation only “after all we can do”?

The deception by the LDS continues in regards to Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Mormon.  The LDS was conceived in deception, so I’m not surprised at this.

The Creator-Gods of Mormonism.

Additional perspectives and insights on Joseph Smith’s “First Vision.”

Mormonism’s “priesthood power” is how even God can do everything!

The origins of the Mormon Endowment Ceremony.

Mormon space program launches first manned mission to Kolob.  I saw it on the Internet.

Did They Really Say That?!?

And after the flood we are told that the curse [black skin] that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed.  And why did it pass through the flood?  Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representative upon the earth as well as God. . . .

Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil?  Why did the Lord not kill him long ago?  Because he could not do without him.  He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence upon God, and trust in him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments.  When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth.

LDS President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 22:304, 23:336

Where oh where to begin!  

Firstly, we are not told in Genesis 4:15 exactly what was the mark that God gave Cain, but it certainly wouldn’t have been black skin color or it would have said God gave him more than a “mark.”  

Secondly, the mark wasn’t a curse — it was a mark of protection!!  Thirdly, there is no evidence from Scripture that Ham’s wife was a descendant of Cain—that is just a made up idea by the Mormons.

Thirdly, nowhere in Scripture does it say that Cain was representing the devil, or that his offspring were representatives of the devil.  This, again, is an idea totally made up by the Mormons.

Fourthly, the idea the God can’t do without the devil certainly puts limits on God and His sovereignty!  The Mormon god proves to be incompetent.

Fifthly, how is it that the devil can do God’s bidding “to keep men straight”?  Isn’t that the work of the Holy Spirit in believers?

Lastly, explain why the devil needed “to be properly represented upon the earth”?

All this unbiblical nonsense comes about in order to shore up the false teachings of Joseph Smith.  These teachings include the lie that Satan is a brother of Christ rather than a being created by Christ (as the Bible teaches), that spirits in the pre-existence were all brothers and sisters (the Bible teaches NO pre-existent spirits); that these spirits chose to follow Christ or Satan and those who remained neutral received the curse of dark skin when they come to earth (pure racist ideology), and that Cain was apparently the first earthbound soul to have this curse (which begs another question about when this so-called rebellion took place); and that those who followed Satan became demons (whereas the Bible teaches that the demons are fallen angels, which are a different created being than are humans).

Mormons, you’ve been fed a lot of science-fiction fairy tales which totally contradict the truth of the Bible.  Learn the truth and leave Mormonism.

First Vision Contradictions

Over the past 2 1/2 years since starting this blog I have linked to articles about Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” as well as posting various information discussing the topic.  In this post I’m going to provide a synopsis of some of the various accounts, citing a section from Alvin J. Schmidt’s book, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pages 56-57. 

There are different accounts of Smith’s first vision in which a divine personage(s) appeared to him.  One reportedly occurred in 1820, when he was only in his fifteenth year.  This one is recorded in Smith’s History of the Church, 1:5-8, but some scholars question whether this really was his first vision.  For three years later (1823), another report says he was visited by an angel that told him about some hidden gold plates.  And the Angel said he had to wait four years before he could obtain them.

In 1832, he wrote an autobiographical account of his first visionary experience, much of it in his own handwriting.  In this version he says, “there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraved by Maroni [the angel] & his fathers the servants of the living God. . . .”  As this citation shows, Smith spelled Moroni’s name as Maroni.

In still another version, written in 1838 by one of Smith’s scribes, but not published until 1842 (now the official LDS version), states that one evening in his bedroom an angel from heaven appeared to him in “a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.”  He said this happened September 21, 1823.  The angel in this rendition is named Moroni who told him there was “a book deposited, written upon golden plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and source from whence they sprang.”  Although this account does not give the name of the place where these plates were deposited, it does state they were to be found near the village of Manchester in Ontario County, New York, in “a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood.”  This was Hill Cumorah.

Then on September 22, 1827, according to Smith, he was able to obtain the plates along with the Urim and Thummim, with which he began to transcribe the contents of the plates into English.  He did this by “reading” words illuminated on his seer stone.

While these examples are only a few of the many versions of the “First Vision,” they should be enough to demonstrate that the whole “First Vision” story was concocted long after any supposed vision took place, and the story is nothing more than a story of out the imagination of Joseph Smith.

Translation of a Translation!

Not even the LDS Church leaders can claim that their non-English Book of Mormon translations are taken from a first-generation source since the original gold plates are no longer available.  All of the dozens of foreign translations of the Book of Mormon have been derived from the admittedly second-generation English rendition (see Ensign [May 1995]:10), making these translations third-generation texts.  It would therefore appear that those who mistakenly claim that the Bible is nothing more than a translation of a translation or a translation would better apply their criticism to the Book of Mormon.

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 118, note 7.

Mormon “Unpaid” Paid Clergy

Mormons have a history or pridefully telling Christians that the LDS doesn’t have paid clergy and condemning Christian pastors who are paid.  

In regards to this claim, Bill McKeever had an editorial in the March-April 2017 edition of Mormonism Researched, the newsletter of Mormonism Research Ministry, exposing this lie.  The editorial, titled Paycheck stubs expose “unpaid ministry,” is as follows:

For much of its history, Mormon leaders have been very critical of Christian pastors ho receive compensation for their service to their congregations.  But when photographs of pay stubs from the year 2000 documenting payments to Henry B. Eyring (at the time a Mormon apostle) appeared on social media, along with a January 2, 2014 letter notifying Seventy Bruce D. Porter that he would be getting a raise from $116,400 to $120,000, Mormon apologists immediately went into damage control mode.  Ignoring the numerous denials made by LDS leaders who insisted that the LDS Church paid no ministry, they chose instead to defend what they felt was a rather modest amount, given what executives in the corporate world make.

Though the six-digit figure mentioned above does not include all of the other benefits LDS general authorities receive, haggling over the amount is really a red herring meant to deflect a person from the blatant deception that Mormon leaders have been practicing every time they proudly announce that the LDS Church had no “paid ministry.”  While that may be true for local leaders, full-time general authorities are most certainly compensated for their time and service.  And while it may be a modest amount compared to the corporate world, it is quite a bit when the public has been led to believe these leaders receive nothing.

With complete disregard to the fact that the “sons of Aaron” who served in the spiritual affairs of ancient Israel received compensation for their full-time service, and despite the fact that the apostle Paul cited Deuteronomy 25:4 in his robust defense of a paid clergy in 1 Corinthians 9, the Mormon Church likened this practice to being in the employ of Satan.  Members who experienced the temple ceremony prior to 1990 heard this dialogue between a character representing Lucifer, and another character representing a “trained” preacher:

LUCIFER: Good Morning sir!

PREACHER: Good Morning!

(The minister then turns and looks into the camera as if he is facing the Mormons participating in the ceremony.)

PREACHER: A fine congregation!

LUCIFER: Yes, they are a very good people.  They are concerned about religion.  Are you a preacher?
PREACHER: I am.

LUCIFER: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?
PREACHER: Certainly!  A man cannot preach unless he has been trained for the ministry.

LUCIFER: Do you preach orthodox religion?

PREACHER: Yes, that is what I preach.

LUCIFER: If you will preach you orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.

PREACHER: I will do my best.

Certainly this dialogue was meant to paint Christian pastors in a negative light.  While I see nothing unbiblical about compensating ministers for their full, or part-time service to their congregations, it is both hypocritical and misleading when any member of the LDS Church knowingly insists that their church has no such thing as a paid ministry.

[For more on this topic, see Sharon Lindbloom’s excellent article at

http://www.mrm.org/mormon-business-paying-its-unpaid-clergy ]

How Do We Know Anything Is True?

Before Latter-day Saints unduly criticize the accuracy of the Bible, perhaps they should first consider the following:

1.  How do we know if James 1:5, the verse that Joseph Smith used to draw him to the “Sacred Grove,” was indeed correct?  For that matter, how can anyone trust other biblical proof texts used to support Mormonism?  It would deem reasonable that whatever test for accuracy that could be applied to James 1:5 could also be applied to every other Bible verse as well.

2.  If the LDS Church has a prophet who has direct communication with God, then it would seem plausible for him to fix these alleged errors.  After all, D&C 107:92 states that one of the “gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church” is the role of translator.  If the God of Mormonism was able to help Smith translate the Book of Mormon from the golden plates, he could also be able to help the prophet with these alleged errors.  Although the LDS Church does not officially publish the Joseph Translation as a bound volume, Smith’s alterations are included as footnotes and endnotes in the LDS-published version of the King James Bible.  Many Mormons are unaware that Joseph Smith failed to “correct” many of the so-called problematic verses.

3.  If Mormons want to scrutinize the small percentage of questionable material in the Bible—none of which affects essential doctrine—shouldn’t they also have a problem with the many changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, "Mormonism 101," pg.115-116

The Test of Antiquity

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient holy book.  But is it really ancient as the claim?

J.Warner Wallace wrote an excellent article about examining the claims for the antiquity of books.  Read the article, copied below, and you will learn that the BOM fails all tests of antiquity, proving it was just written by Joseph Smith (with a lot of plagiarism from the KJV Bible) in the early 19th century.

The First Question to Ask of an Ancient, Holy Book: Is It Ancient?

January 25, 2017/3, by J. Warner Wallace

Many of the world’s best-known religious texts are silent when it comes to claims about history. Many Eastern religious scriptures, for example, describe spiritual principles devoid of historical location or setting. Texts such as these are proverbial in nature, proclaiming ancient wisdom without any connection to historical context. The Abrahamic religions are very different, however. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism make claims about ancient history. For this reason, these religious worldviews are both verifiable and falsifiable. We ought to be able to corroborate the historical claims of ancient religious texts just as we could other historical documents. Such verification would certify their antiquity, if nothing else. On the other hand, if the claims of an ancient holy book are consistently incorrect related to the ancient world it allegedly describes, we ought to consider the text with suspicion.

It’s also important to remember that not every ancient text makes a claim about “divinity”; there are many texts from antiquity that are ancient, but not “holy”. If a text claims to be both ancient and holy, it needs to pass the first test related to antiquity before it can hope to qualify in the second category as holy. After all, a book cannot be holy or divine if it is lying about ancient history.

The test of antiquity was incredibly important to me as a skeptic examining the claims of scripture for the first time. As I became interested in Christianity, my Mormon family encouraged me to examine Mormonism as well. I read the entire Book of Mormon before I completed the Old and New Testament. I wanted to determine the “antiquity” of the Gospels and the Book of Mormon before I could examine the question of “divinity”. I needed to know if the New Testament gospels were written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses who were actually present to observe what was recorded in these accounts. Similarly, I needed to know if the Book of Mormon was an accurate account of the history of the American continent from 600BC to 400AD (as it claims). My first investigation was centered on the foundational question: Are these ancient holy books truly ancient?

What kinds of questions can an investigator ask when trying to answer this important question related to antiquity? I considered the following:

Are historical events cited in (or omitted from) the text in a manner that is reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to language, proper names and titles reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to culture, government or civilizations reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to geography, native animals and plants reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the other corroborative documents that are reliably and accurately ancient?

Are there additional, successive historical references that are reliably and accurately ancient?

I asked these questions of the gospel accounts and the Book of Mormon and came away with two very different sets of answers. There are many good reasons to accept the early dating of the gospels and their reliability as eyewitness accounts. In each of the above listed criteria, the gospels pass the test. I’ve written an entire chapter in my book examining the evidence for early dating and the historical reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts. After examining the accounts using the tools that are employed by historians and detectives, I concluded that the gospels are reliable. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon doesn’t withstand evidential scrutiny nearly as well. Written in the first half of the 19th century, it fails to record anything about the ancient past that can be verified in any of the ways I’ve described. In fact, in each of the categories of inquiry I’ve offered to answer the issue of antiquity, the book of Mormon fails miserably.

I once asked a Mormon Scholar to tell me how she knew the book of Mormon was a true, reliable account of the ancient past. She told me that she had asked God about it and she believed that God had given her a “spiritual confirmation”. It struck me that this method for determining antiquity was misguided. While prayer might be one way to determine if and ancient holy book is holy, there are other, better established investigative approaches that ought to be employed to determine if an ancient holy book is ancient. We shouldn’t attempt to answer questions about divinity before we answer questions about antiquity. If a text is lying to us about events in the ancient past, it cannot be from God. For this reason, the first question we ought to ask any text that claims to be an ancient, holy book is simply this: Is the text truly a work from the ancient past?

So, Mormons — How do you explain the Book of Mormon failing the antiquity test?

If Not “Living” Prophets, Are They Valid?

Good questions from Mormonism Research Ministry when you use dead Mormon prophets for explaining LDS teachings and they dismiss the teachings because they are not “living.”

Were the prophets living when they said these words?

Were they supposed to be believed at the time they said them?

If the quotes of deceased presidents are no longer authoritative, why has so much energy been invested in producing the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series that features deceased prophets?

Excellent questions!