Monday, March 11, 2019

Did They Really Say That?!?

It is written of the Savior that he descended below all things. If he did, he descended in capacity. I will merely tell you what I believe on this point. I believe that there never was a child born on this earth with any less capacity than dwelt in the child that was born in a manger of his mother Mary. I believe, according to the natural ability which he received from his mother and from his supposed father Joseph, that there never was a child that descended lower in capacity, or that knew less.

Brigham Young, Great Salt Lake City, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:286.

The Bible never said Jesus “descended below all things.”  Never. The Jesus of the Bible is God in the flesh from the time of birth. Therefore, as he acquired cognizance as he aged he would know more and more automatically. He was never limited in his knowledge and could not have know less than any other child.  This Jesus of Mormonism is more man than he is God, while the Jesus of the Bible if fully God and fully man.

What a weak Jesus the Mormons have!


H/T: Michelle

Friday, March 8, 2019

Random Articles to Educate About Mormonism

Should Mormon missionaries tell the truth about children?

The Mormon temples have absolutely no relation to the Jewish temples in the Bible.  Mormon temples are places for blasphemous and pagan ceremonies.

Joseph Smith’s D&C 132 was nothing but justification for serial adultery.

The Holy Ghost is the Only Begotten of God?!?

The continued lies, distortions, and contradictions of the LDS church proves it is not of God.

According to the LDS, a woman who does not marry a Mormon man in a temple for “time and all eternity” will spend eternity as a servant without her husband or children.  It’s obvious, of course, that according to the Bible there is no marriage in heaven, nor is there any servant status!

WOW — a new Bible translation for the LDS.  Now what?!?!

Oh the obsession with sex in the LDS.

Mormons continually deny that Brigham Young taught the doctrine of blood atonement, or else they say he did not receive it from God.  But Young himself said it was a rule of God, and Young was a Mormon prophet of God, so they can’t pick and choose. Here is more evidence of said teaching, a teaching straight from Satan.

Some problems for Mormons which they don’t even think about!


Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri? Absolutely not!  Missouri didn’t even exist as a specific part of a continent prior to the Flood.  The LDS fairy tale captures the minds of their gullible members. Their “modern day revelation” is nothing but lies. (And Adam’s altar survived the Flood?!?). Mormons seem to be devoid of common sense.

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Did They Really Say That?!?

Where there are prophets, salvation is available; and where there are no prophets, there is no hope of salvation. It is no wonder that Lucifer hates prophets and seeks their destruction.

Bruce McConkie, The Promised Messiah, pg.33.

H/T: Michelle

Does this mean Jesus is impotent to save unless there are prophets on the earth? Could an LDS member please show me from the Bible where salvation is not available when there are no prophets?

And just who is “Lucifer” but an LDS-made-up-person, because Scripturally there is no such person, again proving the LDS is a fraud.

It is the LDS “prophets” who are minions of Satan and who seek the destruction of the REAL Church by deceiving them to the false church of the LDS.

Friday, March 1, 2019

Did They Really Say That?!?!

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the  chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, page 110.

First, nothing in Scripture says that the curse God placed on Cain was black skin; this was made up by Mormons. In fact, the Bible never even says God placed a curse on Cain; all it says is that God put some sort of mark on Cain to protect him from being killed.

Secondly, there is no record in Scripture that any descendent of Cain entered the Ark with Noah, so if there was any curse, how did it pass through the Flood?

Thirdly, this is just abject racism, claiming that God desires the death of any “white” person having sex with a black person.


This just another example of the rampant racism in the doctrines of the Mormon Church.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Did They Really Say That?!?

Alma 31:15Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.” 
The Book of Mormon (God as spirit is also found in Alma 18:2-5, 26-28; 22:8-11; Mosiah 15:3-5)

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”  
Joseph Smith, April 1843

So The Book of Mormon plainly declares that God is a spirit and yet D&C 130 declares that God has a body of flesh and bones; so which is it, Mormons? Is God really a man or is he a spirit?  

I’ll give you a hint; read John 4:24


H/T to Michelle.

Friday, February 8, 2019

2 Nephi 29 Anachronism

2 Nephi 29 is all about a “Bible,” which “Gentiles” will claim they have and so they don’t need another “Bible” (referring to The Book of Mormon). And God says the Bible will come from the Jews.

Here’s the big question: The Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from “reformed Egyptian,” so why is the word “Bible” even in it?

The word “Bible” is a middle English word derived from Old French, via ecclesiastical Latin word biblia, which is from the Greek word (ta) biblia, which means "(the) books.” Now according to those who study languages, the Greek “(ta) biblia” is from their word biblion, which means “book.” And even that word is originally a diminutive of biblos, meaning “papyrus” or “scroll” and is of Semitic origin.

Now, the word “Bible” (capitalized as a proper noun, and shown that way in 2 Nephi 29), was not used for referring to the Christian scriptures until at least the 3rd century when all the various books were collected into one unit. So how does it show up in a BOM text which is supposedly from the 6th century B.C.?  The word wouldn’t have meant anything to the people at that time

This is just one of the many anachronisms in The Book of Mormon, proving it was just the concoction of Joseph Smith.

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Beyond Mormon judgment in the temple

The following article from Religion News Service was sent to me by the Utah Lighthouse Ministry.  I thought it was well worth reading to help readers understand how the cultic actions of the LDS harms its members, and yet the members still remain members of the cult!

Columns • Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood • Opinion
Beyond Mormon judgment in the temple
January 25, 2019

I went to the temple earlier this week, and it was (mostly) lovely.

It was my first time attending since major changes were made to the endowment ceremony (see here), and I found myself awash with gratitude for the adjustments. I was thinking about them quite a bit as I sat there, remembering the women who had gone through various, less female-friendly, versions of the ceremony. I was also praying for a few people I know who are sick or battling serious issues.

In other words, I was having a spiritually refreshing experience, by and large.

Until a woman sitting behind me poked me on the shoulder to whisper that my veil was twisted and needed to be fixed. Right then.

I was able to mostly ignore this by whispering back that the veil was not bothering me, but if she wished to untangle it from where she was sitting, she was welcome to try. She didn’t pursue it.

But the veil must have been pretty darn convoluted because after I had exited the celestial room after the session, one of the temple matrons actually called me back to her in the hallway because she had something to say.

Smiling all the while, she asked, “Now, I wonder if I can tell you something and you won’t be offended by it?”

Uh-oh. Just for future reference, can we not begin conversations this way?

I didn’t give her the nice-Mormon-lady answer she was obviously expecting (which, for the candid and healthy among us who do not make women swallow legitimate annoyance, was supposed to be: “Why, of course! I could never be offended by anything you wanted to tell me!”).

Instead, I told her I couldn’t make any guarantees about offense or non-offense until I actually learned what she had to say.

Then she took my veil in her hands and told me it was “all wrong,” and she was going to show me how to put it on correctly for the next time. Which she proceeded to try to do, and even she wasn’t able to (that veil has always been a bit wonky; I’m a cheapskate). It got her a bit flustered.
“Well, I don’t think this meant that you invalidated the ordinance or anything,” she said, handing back the obstinate veil. “I mean, I don’t think so.”

At this point I just stared at her. Of course a veil being twisted would not invalidate a holy ordinance, particularly an ordinance that has nothing to do with veils. How could she even imagine it would?

And that’s when my irritation began melting into something else, something like sorrow for this woman and the culture that produced her. What would it be like to walk through life as this sister? What would it feel like to be so afraid of judgment all the time—from other people and from God—that you default to the notion that even tiny and insignificant mistakes might threaten your eternal value in the eyes of heaven?

I’d like to say I was able to express all this in a kind way to her in the moment, but I don’t think it came out that well. I replied—probably a bit sanctimoniously, to be honest—that my heart had been very full with important matters in the temple, and that my clothing was absolutely not one of them. I told her to have a good day, and then I walked away to change into my street clothes, thinking all the while about women and judgment.

I’ve written before how, in the Next Mormons Survey research, we discovered that the #1 reason women cite for leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was feeling judged or misunderstood. It’s particularly high among younger women.

Overall, four in ten former Mormon women said judgment was one of their top reasons for exiting the fold, versus only about two in ten men. (For men it ranked sixth overall among thirty different possible reasons for leaving. So it’s not like men do not experience judgment or feel it has pushed them out the door, but not to nearly the same degree as women, apparently.)

Judgmental interactions, and the policing of women’s appearance, are all too common in patriarchal religious cultures. But when we hear the word “patriarchy” we tend to assume it’s all about how men control women, when the reality is far more complicated. Patriarchy rests on women themselves patrolling the boundaries of acceptable behavior for other women—and internalizing those boundaries in the deepest parts of themselves.

And it’s particularly tough for them when those boundaries suddenly shift.

It’s fascinating to me on a metaphorical level that it was my veil—a symbol of female submission—that was a stumbling block for not just one but two women I encountered in the temple. One of the changes that has just occurred in the endowment ceremony is that women no longer have to veil their faces even though they veil their heads; the overall message of many of the temple changes in aggregate is that women do not need male mediation when they approach God.

But maybe, this message is more unsettling than empowering for some. Adapting to sudden change can be hard. Sometimes our fear galvanizes the urge to police boundaries, judge others, and demarcate what is acceptable and unacceptable—especially for women.

I just wish it didn’t happen in the temple.

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

More Challenges to the Mormon Faith

The lies from the Mormon Church never cease.  They can’t exist without lies.

Of course the LDS also can’t exist without their continued focus on sex.  Notice that the only modesty comments are about females.

If the Temple ceremonies were given by God, as I understand Mormons to teach, then why do they keep being changed by Mormons to be more politically-correct?!? Here is a summary of the changes. Here is an excellent, short commentary on the problem of making such changes.

Joseph Smith is known to have plagiarized not only the Bible for writing the Book of Mormon, but other books as well.  Here’s an excellent examination of how he used The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain.  The “coincidences” are just too many to have just happened bye chance.

In my series on the false prophecies of Joseph Smith in October and November 2014, I examined about 50 prophecies. Michelle has 120+ false prophecies!!

Interesting examination of Orson Pratt and BOM lies about the birth and death of Jesus.

Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriages.

I agree with MichelleIf the [Book of Mormon] plates were real, why would it take faith to see them?

Here’s an interesting anachronism in the Book of Mormon which I’ve never previous read about! Just another proof that the BOM is a fake.



Book of Mormon Geography doesn’t exist, because the BOM is a fake story.


Did you know that Jesus’ return depends on us, that he can’t return without our help?!?

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

You've Got to be Kidding Me!


Adam learned that the Savior’s name would be Jesus Christ (see Moses 6:51-52).

Gospel Principles, pg.51 (LDS publication)


First, the Christian Savior’s name is actually Joshua.  The N.T., which was written in Greek, translated the Hebrew Joshua (and that is and English transliteration of Y’shua). What language was Moses written it? How did it end up with the Greek “Jesus”?

Second, “Christ” is not part of Jesus’ name.  “Christ” is the Greek for the Hebrew “Messiah,” and is the title of Jesus’ position, the “anointed one.”

Third, the Bible never gives any evidence that Adam was told what Jesus’ name would be, only that the Savior would “crush” Satan’s “head” (Gen.3:15).


Moses is a book made up entirely out of Joseph Smith’s imagination, with some plagiarizing from the KJV Bible, which is why this statement cited above is a lie.

Friday, January 11, 2019

Did They Really Say That?!?!

There is a little matter I want to speak upon to you, my sisters. It is a subject that is very obnoxious to outsiders. … “Oh.” Says one, “I know what you mean, my husband has two, four, or half a dozen wives.” … This doctrine so hateful and annoying to the feelings of many, was revealed from heaven to Joseph Smith, and obedience is required to it by the Latter-day Saints, — this very principle will work out the moral salvation of the world. Do you believe it? It makes no difference whether you do or not, it is true. [my emphasis-GC]

Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, August 9, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12:261

Firstly, as I demonstrate in my article, God’s View of Polygamy, God would NEVER require the institution of marriage to be corrupted in this manner. So there is no way God would reveal this to Joseph Smith, making this just another one of the thousands of lies told by LDS prophets and teachers over the decades since 1830.

Secondly, how would immoral behavior “work out the moral salvation of the world”?!?  Anyone studying polygamy would see the horrendous treatment of women in such arrangements.  

Thirdly, using Smith as an example, many of his “wives” were already married to someone else, so what Smith was practicing was serial adultery, and he lied about a revelation so as to defend his sexual predation.

Young’s last statement is about as absurd as it gets. It DOES matter whether one wants to believe a lie—it matters as to whether one wants to allow himself to be deceived.  This lie of Young’s (and Smith’s) was for one reason only, and that was so that these men could satisfy their sexual lusts.

Smith’s lie about polygamy, and Young’s promotion of it with more lies, came straight from Satan and not from God.


H/T:  Michelle

Thursday, January 3, 2019

Enoch: A Conundrum For Mormons

What does the Bible say about how long Enoch lived? 
Genesis 5:21-24:
And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

So let’s now look at the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.169-170:
If Cain had fulfilled the law of righteousness as did Enoch, he could have walked with God all the days of his life, and never failed of a blessing. “And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah 300 years, and begat sons and daughters, and all the days of Enoch were 365 years; and Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.””
Apparently Smith agreed with the Bible here, even citing it.

Ah, but now let’s take a look at Doctrine & Covenants 107:48, 49
Enoch was twenty-five years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam; and he was sixty-five and Adam blessed him. And he saw the Lord, and he walked with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God three hundred and sixty-five years, making him four hundred and thirty years old when he was translated.
Notice that Smith has added 65 years to Enoch’s life! It looks like Smith was a wee bit confused and has Enoch being 65 when “Adam blessed him,” but then adds Enoch’s total time to that!

Of course that now means the Smith had to use the same time frame for the rest of his false teachings: Moses 8:1 and Smith’s version of the Bible at Genesis 7:78.

Okay, Mormons, which is correct? Is Smith correct when he agrees with the Bible or is he correct when he makes up his own age for Enoch?

Just more evidence that Smith was a bonafide false prophet!

H/T: Michelle