Some scandals of Mormonism

We continue our study of Mormonism according to the document that a Mormon sent to us.(*)

If you have followed the comments Stephen Douglas (the above mentioned Mormon) has submitted to the previous articles about his manuscript, you notice how he’s impatient to read a quick answer to his long document. And yet, as he explains in his manuscript, he began to write that document in 2004 and he finished it in 2007, and we just received it last week… Besides, his manuscript is full of errors in each line that need to be addressed. Stephen has no problem preaching erroneous doctrines in details in the introduction, and yet he doesn’t want our answer to his introduction to be at least as much detailed as the introduction itself…

Of course, our purpose is to give a detailed explanation about each erroneous teaching of the sects, so we peacefully continue our comments on the manuscript of Stephen.

Stephen already began to preach his wrong doctrines in the introduction, without waiting to reach the related chapters in his manuscript, so we give some needed comments on his introduction, as we already began to do in our two previous articles. And in this article, our subject is those scandals of Mormonism that Stephen mentioned in his introduction and tried either to justify or explain them, or to use them as a means by which he may deceive people concerning his objectivity.

1. Different and inconsistent accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision

Stephen said:

Another claim was, accounts other than this official account of Joseph Smith’s First Vision were not consistent.  Anti-Mormon website, www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml, has the text of each account known.  This web page’s claim of inconsistency is related to whether Joseph Smith saw One or Two Personages in said First Vision.  I will list the accounts here, but have given you the website address for your own research:

  • · In 1832, Frederick G. Williams, an early Church leader, gives the First Vision account formatted as apparent note-taking dictation recited to him by Joseph Smith.  The web-log writer claims it was written by both Williams and Joseph Smith.  However, its style, grammar, and spelling are not even close to published writings of Joseph Smith even in that early, uneducated stage of his life.  But please do not take my word for it.  Here is a simple remedy for conducting your own investigation: Read the account on the listed website and then read the Book of Mormon, published in 1830.  Williams’ fragmented account was obviously written in a hurry to keep up with the storyteller, Joseph Smith.  Williams cites him as having seen “the Lord.”  Two Personages are not mentioned, but emphasis is on the direction given, not on the make-up of the Godhead.
  • · On November 9, 1835, Warren A. Cowdery, Oliver Cowdery’s brother, makes a similar note-taking account of the First Vision.  In this account, Two Personages are mentioned.
  • · In 1840, Orson Pratt, an early Church leader, gives an account with more detail, also mentioning Two Personages.
  • · In 1842, Orson Hyde, another early Church leader, gives his account, also mentioning Two Personages.
  • · On March 1, 1842, Joseph Smith’s letter to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, was published in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons.  It was never published by Wentworth.  This narrative is a synopsis of the official version in the Pearl of Great Price.  It is consistent with said version and specifies Joseph Smith saw Two Personages.
  • · On September 23, 1843, the unnamed editor of The New York Spectator, a non-Mormon publication, gives a synoptic quote from Joseph Smith, showing, among other things, a lack of any serious inquiry on the part of the journalist and an obvious lack of note-taking during the interview.  However, it does mention Two Personages.
  • · On May 24, 1844, Alexander Neibaur, a German immigrant, gives his account in his broken English.  Even this less-than-literate account mentions Two Personages present at the First Vision.

The aforementioned website shows only one account out of six cited accounts, Frederick G. Williams’ account, as not consistent with Joseph Smith’s claim of Two Personages in the First Vision.  Had there been another account mentioning only “the Lord,” it would have certainly been cited on the website.  At the end of the website, a psychological summation is given to explain how Joseph Smith’s “repeated fabrication” grew with time, becoming “false memories.”  So, we can disparagingly psychoanalyze one dead man based on another dead man’s fragment note-taking not consistent, but still not contradictory, on one detail, a detail consistent in all other known and cited versions of the story.  I detect bias and personal agenda.  In our legal system, it requires more than slander to declare someone’s incompetence, sanity, or even fraudulent activity.

Stephen is working hard to prove a point that proves Mormonism wrong… We will see this in more details now, but first I would like to give you a very important document about this first supposed vision: Joseph Smith’s First Vision Tested by James R. White.

Now, the Bible clearly says that NO ONE has ever seen and can ever see God:

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17)

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15)

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18)

It is the Son who was incarnated. The Father and the Holy Spirit were never incarnated. The above quoted verses show clearly that no one has ever seen the Father, and that it is the Son who revealed who the Father is. So as Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God the Father with God the Son, then he’s a false prophet. Anyone who has studied the Scripture should have told Joseph Smith: You’re telling us about another god that we have not known, not about the true God about whom the Scripture tells us. And thus we apply on this false prophet the following warning of the Word of God:

“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.” (Deuteronomy 13:1-4)

So dear Stephen, you tried hard to prove that Joseph Smith indeed saw two personages, thus making it clear that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who told you about a visible god who is not the invisible God of the Bible. Don’t believe the false prophet.

So listen to the Word of the Lord: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.” (Colossians 2:18-19)

2. The issue of the Egyptian Papyri

Stephen said:

I will not address the claimed issues of the Egyptian Papyri from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.  There is already an excellent commentary, The Pearl of Great Price: A History and Commentary, by H. Donl Peterson, available from any Latter-day Saint bookstore.

I would like to ask: what does this commentary of yours explain? That the experts in old Egyptian hieroglyphics are wrong so that your false prophet be right?… When Joseph Smith “translated” that book, the scholars had not yet discovered how to translate the Egyptian hieroglyphics, so he could say anything he wanted and no one could prove him wrong. But now that we have found the way to translate the hieroglyphics, Joseph Smith is shamefully proven wrong! he has deceived you! Read the following article to see how Joseph Smith has deceived you: The Book of Abraham Papyri and Joseph Smith.

3. The Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Mark Hofmann case

Stephen said:

The final chapter deals with non-doctrinal issues of our Church, which cannot be explained or even excused by Scripture.  I will answer the controversy over the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Mark Hofmann case, both of which are violent, bitter pills for any Latter-day Saint to swallow or even address.  I believe the reader will be pleasantly surprised at my candor and honesty with respect to these incidents.  As a veteran peace officer and former apostate, I have a unique perspective that sheds light on both these incidents.  And no, I do not excuse these acts.  Nor do I demand to know why there was not Divine Intervention to protect the innocent.  I simply place blame where it belongs and allow Universal Justice to answer what I cannot, in its own due time.

And he also said:

—The LDS Church has had two major incidents involving violence committed by “active” members of our faith.  One occurred in the 1800s; the other occurred in the 1900s.  The names of John D. Lee and Mark Hofmann will live in infamy for both LDS people and non-LDS people who have studied our faith.

—Some LDSs claim loss of faith over the acts of these men and the lack of inspiration given to Church leaders to prevent them.  Other LDSs refuse to address them.  And yet other LDSs, including General Authorities, apologize for the Church for their acts.  With all due respect for the sincerity of my fellow LDSs, none of these stands should be taken.  In the end, blame will fall where it should, on the perpetrators of the crimes.

I don’t think we need to add anything to these words… The scandals are obvious, although not explained in details yet. Stephen says that his final chapter will deal with these scandals… We’ll see what he will still have to add about these scandals… For now, read about these obvious scandals on wikipedia: Mark Hofmann, John D. Lee, Mountain Meadows Massacre.

And the scandals continue…

4. False teaching indirectly allowed by official Mormonism

Stephen said:

At this time, I make the following disclaimer: This book is a work of my own understanding of LDS Church doctrine and will never become one of its official publications.  Our Church steers away from controversy and contests with other faiths.  However, I know there are individuals who have been indoctrinated by their own ministers and have dismissed our faith without a fair evaluation.  Some might give audience to a bold explanation of our beliefs, if given to know it exists.

As I previously said in our article An email from a Mormon, it is a characteristic of Mormons to hide their true teachings from the general public, as they are afraid to reveal their true identity and doctrines, as we have seen about false prophets. It is a well known characteristic of Mormons that they don’t have a common and unique creed, but each of them may very easily disagree with another and claim that his or her doctrine is the true one… And then when we test them for what they said, they can easily tell us: “This is not the official teaching of Mormonism”… So it serves Stephen well not to publish his explanatory document, but to send it by personal emails. Besides, Stephen cares to clarify that the official Mormon cult is not responsible of what he will write in this document…

So this disclaimer of Stephen can mean one of two things: either official Mormonism indirectly allows novice “teachers” to tell us about its beliefs thus opening the way to some possible false teachings about what Mormonism really believes, or Stephen Douglas is telling us the truth about Mormonism and yet official Mormonism says something else… In both cases, Stephen is defending a lost case.

5. The issue of Plural Marriage and its cessation in the 1800s.

Stephen said:

Chapter Seven deals with Eternal Marriage.  I will therefore address the issue of Plural Marriage and its cessation in the 1800s.  Plural marriage and the extension of Priesthood to our Black brethren are the most controversial of the four.

So there was plural marriage in Mormonism prior to this cessation in the 1800s… Either plural marriage was right, and thus Mormonism is now wrong, or plural marriage was wrong, and thus Mormonism was wrong and is constantly changing its doctrines and thus it is proven that it is not from God.

Stephen says:

Plural marriage and the extension of Priesthood to our Black brethren are the most controversial of the four.  Neither are these issues nor the changes in policy related to them an admission they were wrong.  Policy changes; doctrine does not.

It seems that the policies of the Mormons are not based on doctrines inspired by God, but on human wishes… Once again, Stephen insists on a point that proves Mormonism wrong. By the way, official Mormonism abandoned the practice of plural marriage in 1890 after the United States Congress dissolved the church and seized its assets… So it is clear that this new policy was inspired by the Congress, and not by God, and it would continue to be applied if the Congress didn’t make troubles…

I would like to note that plural marriage continues to be applied in Fundamental Mormonism, so Stephen’s group of Mormonism disagrees with the fundamental group… For more details, read Mormonism and polygamy.

6. No priesthood for the black people

Stephen said:

Plural marriage and the extension of Priesthood to our Black brethren are the most controversial of the four. Neither are these issues nor the changes in policy related to them an admission they were wrong. Policy changes; doctrine does not.

Then he said:

For the sake of argument, hypothetically, if these statements are all true, then no one should be offended by the doctrines, practices, and policies of the LDS Church, as they are not ours, but the Lord’s. Certainly many of my Black brothers in the Priesthood (and my Black sisters in the Relief Society) have accepted the unhidden policy that withheld the Priesthood from them prior to 1978. These righteous men and women magnify their callings in the Priesthood and Relief Society today. They do not do so in ignorance, but through faith and the witness they have received through the promptings of the Holy Spirit of God. No one in his or her right mind could accept and aspire to belong to an organization that withheld such blessings without knowing it was of God. Again, in order to understand this concept, you must be acquainted with the doctrines of Pre-Existence and Free Agency, as my contention is that all of us, including the ancestors of our Black brothers and sisters in the Church, made a choice in Pre-Existence as to whether or not they would accept the responsibility associated with the Priesthood. I will also address in Chapter Five a statement given by a Black Protestant minister in the aforementioned Frontline program, a paraphrased quotation of President John Taylor, successor to Brigham Young. Taken out of context and jumping to conclusions, he was not questioned by the producers, nor were our leaders given opportunity to answer him, demonstrating intent to purposely misinform viewers. I will therefore give President Taylor’s statement in its entirety, giving you an opportunity to fairly evaluate it.

So he justifies the racist doctrines by the doctrines themselves. In addition to that, he says again that the policies changed… How interesting: policies change, as they are not based on any divine doctrine…

Then Stephen, seeing that racism is obvious in the previous lines, adds:

What you will find by reading Chapter Five is that, of all Christian faiths, ours is the only one whose understanding of Biblical doctrine does not discriminate based on race.

“Christian faiths”?? How many Faiths does the Bible present? Let’s see:

“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jude 3)

There is ONE Faith, and it was handed down to the saints once for all. Mormons want to introduce a new faith and they want us to accept it as another “Christian faith”. And that’s not strange, as the Bible explains:

“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.”
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

And how funny that Stephen says Mormonism is not racist… We don’t need to comment on this after what we read above…

Stephen continues:

Unbeknownst to many said faiths, given its silence as to why it does, the Bible itself prescribes what appears to be discrimination based on race alone. I will expose this fact, but explain the true reason for the Biblical exclusion of Priesthood. Again, I can assure you it is not based on race, but on issues relative to our premortal life and on personal choice. And these facts are only available through modern revelation.

So Stephen even wants to accuse the Word of God, the Bible, of racism in order to justify the racism of his cult… But as he knows very well that the Bible does not back up his case, so he adds that the racism that he talks about is something based on facts that are only available through modern supposed revelation. Stephen needs to explain to us whether this was already available in the Bible, or it was only made available through modern revelation…

7. For Stephen, faith means lack of objective truth

Stephen said:

Even after I explain the Biblical bases for these doctrines, it is still a question of faith.

This is a confession that according to Mormons faith is not based on biblical objective truths, but on uncertainties and human wishes, as we have seen above.

Conclusion

Even before we began to study the chapters of Stephen’s manuscript, we have already proven Mormonism wrong… But of course we continue our answer to that manuscript by the Lord’s Grace, as our purpose is to explain the important truths of the Word of God so that people may not be deceived by the lies of the devil.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 4 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript, Religious Movements. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Some scandals of Mormonism

  1. Stephen Douglas says:

    I won’t address your suppositions on my “fear” and “impatience.” I already told you what I await. I think your readers can see for themselves how your presumptions are not substantial answers to our doctrine.

    I INTRODUCE the doctrine and policies related to plural marriage and Priesthood extension in the Introduction, hence the name of the section,”Introduction.” I don’t address them until the chapters. As for being racist, again, in the chapter, I prove, Scripturally, the LDS Church is the ONLY Judeo-Christian religion that does not discrimiate based on race itself.

    After you actually read my exposure to Biblical exclusion of Priesthood, based solely on genealogy, i.e., race, it will be YOU who will have to explain why there is Biblical Silence as to WHY God excluded Hamitic tribes from Priesthood.

    I look forward to THAT response. Again, send me an email when you address it.

  2. Stephen Douglas says:

    As far as the Invisible God is concerned, we know He is invisible to the natural man. Anyone who has seen God, and lived, saw Him from a transfigured state of being. Once you get to the chapters, you will find I address this very subject, proving, Biblically, some have seen the Invisible God, and lived and how the Scripture had been redacted in John 1:18 to exclude text Joseph Smith correctly corrected.

  3. I won’t address your suppositions on my “fear” and “impatience.” I already told you what I await. I think your readers can see for themselves how your presumptions are not substantial answers to our doctrine.

    Yes, don’t worry, the readers can see what’s happening.

    I INTRODUCE the doctrine and policies related to plural marriage and Priesthood extension in the Introduction, hence the name of the section,”Introduction.” I don’t address them until the chapters. As for being racist, again, in the chapter, I prove, Scripturally, the LDS Church is the ONLY Judeo-Christian religion that does not discrimiate based on race itself.

    Then previously the doctrines of Mormonism were wrong? The Mormon god changes his mind from time to time?…

    Note: Don’t worry, we will give your explanations in the chapters the attention they need. But just as you have the right to introduce your false doctrines, we also have the right to correct the errors of your introduction. Just be patient…

    After you actually read my exposure to Biblical exclusion of Priesthood, based solely on genealogy, i.e., race, it will be YOU who will have to explain why there is Biblical Silence as to WHY God excluded Hamitic tribes from Priesthood.

    Don’t worry about that: the Bible explains everything.

    But I don’t see why you hate the Bible so much… Is there any resentment against it that you want to replace it with your human teachings?…

    I look forward to THAT response. Again, send me an email when you address it.

    No, if you are really interested in knowing the truth, you will come back without anyone sending you an email.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  4. As far as the Invisible God is concerned, we know He is invisible to the natural man. Anyone who has seen God, and lived, saw Him from a transfigured state of being. Once you get to the chapters, you will find I address this very subject, proving, Biblically, some have seen the Invisible God, and lived and how the Scripture had been redacted in John 1:18 to exclude text Joseph Smith correctly corrected.

    We have seen how the Bible clearly says that God is invisible and no one can ever see Him, and that the only way we could see Him was in His incarnate Son. It’s your problem if you don’t believe God’s Word.

    As for Joseph Smith, we have seen how much accurate are his translating skills when he translated the supposed “Book of Abraham”…

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  5. SoldierofChrist777 says:

    As far as the Invisible God is concerned, we know He is invisible to the natural man. Anyone who has seen God, and lived, saw Him from a transfigured state of being.

    Stephen, what do you mean? Do you mean that the human eye can see God in all His fullness? Can anyone really see God in all His glory?

    This is a way of thinking that attempts to limit God to an image for humans to easily imagine. Friend, the true God is not like some god in Greek Mythology …

    One good reason why I reject Mormonism …

  6. Stephen Douglas says:

    Soldier,

    Is it okay to call you by your first name as well? I answered your post on the other topic and offerred my manuscript to answer those questions. Guess what?! I have an answer for your post here, too… Did you ever hear of man from the Old Testament by the name of Moses? Yeah, he was kind of close to God, in fact they conversed, Face to Face. Yes, he had to be transfigured to withstand the presence of God, and carried the glory of that transfiguration with him back to the Israelites. It was so intense, the Israelites could not look on Moses for some time! Imagine that! Then their was his ancestor, Jacob, the namesake for the founder of this site. He too saw God, Face to Face, and his life was preserved! And then there was this really poetic cat named Isaiah who said, “for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” I figure you probably believe it was just artistic license on Isaiah’s part, that he really didn’t “see” God. Because that seems to be at odds with John 1:18, does it not? In fact, it’s an outright contradiction, unless you can admit the Bible may be wrong in either case…

    One good reason why I reject Protestantism… (Didn’t that sound childishly condescending?)

  7. Stephen,

    Finally you begin to try to answer our arguments with an argument. But, sorry for you, you make a joke of yourself again, as you display to us all the lies of your teachers in Mormonism. Let’s see how.

    You say Moses saw God. Go ahead, quote the Bible saying that he saw God. I am ready to discuss that passage with you, but IN CONTEXT. Until you find that passage, I will make an important comment about what you said concerning the supposed “transfiguration” of Moses when he saw the Lord. Did you ever hear about something called “Scripture interprets Scripture”? We have said it to you many times till now. I don’t know if you have been sleeping all that time. As only the Scripture interprets the Scripture, so let’s study that fact under the light of Scripture, and we will see how it is NOT true that Moses was transfigured IN ORDER that he may see God, but that he was transfigured AFTER seeing the Lord. Let’s see it together:

    “(But if the ministry of death, in letters, graven in stones, began with glory, so that the children of Israel could not fix their eyes on the face of Moses, on account of the glory of his face, [a glory] which is annulled; how shall not rather the ministry of the Spirit subsist in glory? For if the ministry of condemnation [be] glory, much rather the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory. For also that [which was] glorified is not glorified in this respect, on account of the surpassing glory. For if that annulled [was introduced] with glory, much rather that which abides [subsists] in glory. Having therefore such hope, we use much boldness: and not according as Moses put a veil on his own face, so that the children of Israel should not fix their eyes on the end of that annulled. But their thoughts have been darkened, for unto this day the same veil remains in reading the old covenant, unremoved, which in Christ is annulled. But unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil lies upon their heart. But when it shall turn to [the] Lord, the veil is taken away.) Now the Lord is the Spirit, but where the Spirit of [the] Lord [is, there is] liberty. But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by [the] Lord [the] Spirit.” (2 Corinthians 3:7-18)

    Note how that glory that Moses had on his face was the glory of the Old Covenant, and not a transfiguration that Moses received BEFORE the Covenant!
    And note, in the last verse, how the transformation is received BY LOOKING to that Glory of the Lord, and not before looking.

    So once again, we see how cultists fail when they try to interpret the Word of God with their cultist carnal mind.

    As for Jacob, I wait for your quote of the passage where it is said that he saw God, and I am ready to study it with you IN CONTEXT.

    And now, the most interesting part: Isaiah. By the way, he’s not a poetic cat… Let’s see what’s so interesting about his example…

    Do you really think the vision of Isaiah contradicts John 1:18?? How poor are the unbelievers who think that God may contradict Himself… So let’s see if Isaiah really saw God without the sole Mediator who is JESUS CHRIST.

    You said Isaiah said that his eyes have seen the King? Great! And who’s that King?… Let’s first see where Isaiah said that:

    “And I said, Woe unto me! for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:5)

    Great! So Isaiah said this in Isaiah 6:5. Well, who can tell us WHOM Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6? Of course it’s not you (a cultist) nor any other human, but the Bible. It’s the Bible that can tell us whom Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6. Let’s see together whom Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6:5:

    “But though he had done so many signs before them, they believed not on him, that the word of the prophet Esaias which he said might be fulfilled, Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? On this account they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (John 12:37-41)

    Did you read carefully? Did you concentrate on this last verse that I have put in bold? So whose Glory did Isaiah see? JESUS CHRIST’s Glory! Isaiah saw the Glory of Christ who is the King, the Lord of hosts, and he spoke of HIM!! So how do you say that this contradicts John 1:18?? Doesn’t John 1:18 also say that no one can see God unless through the Son?? But a Mormon who doesn’t know that God is One, how can he understand these things? And how can he understand that Christianity is not Protestantism?…

    Poor Mormons… They follow the teachings of their masters, instead of obeying the Word of God alone.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

  8. SoldierofChrist777 says:

    Stephen,

    Moses didn’t see God in ALL His glory and FULLNESS. Neither did Jacob and Isaiah. No man can.

    Fortunately, man can see God [u]through[/u] the Man: JESUS CHRIST.

    By the way, what does Protestantism have to do with all this?

Comments are closed.