Is Mormonism false?

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

The linked Wikipedia entry goes through some of the criticism of Mormonism. Including:

[T]he Book of Mormon narrative do not agree with modern archaeology and point out that archaeologists and anthropologists view the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction.[6][7] The Book of Mormon contains an account of peoples who, in succeeding groups between 2200 BC and 600 BC, traveled from the Middle East and settled in the Americas. Many critics cite the following accounts in the Book of Mormon which are not supported by modern science:[8]

* There were pre-Columbian peoples that were white, literate, and had knowledge of Hebrew and Egyptian languages and writing systems. (E.g. 1 Nephi 13:23 et. seq.)
* They smelted metal and made tools and weapons of iron, steel, and brass. (E.g. Ether 7:9, 10:23)
* They owned domesticated horses and cattle (see Horses in the Book of Mormon).
* They possessed chariots. (E.g. Alma 18:9-12)

[T]he conventional Mormon view that Native Americans are solely descended from Hebrews in Jerusalem is inconsistent with genetic findings.[10][11] In the late 1990s, scientists developed techniques to determine a person's ethnic background and history. Thus, it is possible to compare genetic evidence of the ethnic background of Native Americans with hypotheses of the origin of Book of Mormon peoples. The Book of Mormon suggests that Native Americans descend from Middle Eastern peoples. Studies show that Native Americans have very distinctive DNA genetic markers inconsistent with this hypothesis.[12] Most genetic studies show strong relations between Native Americans and Siberian peoples

[C]ertain linguistic properties of the Book of Mormon provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith, rather than divinely inspired.

The original version of the Book of Mormon contained hundreds of grammatical errors (removed in later editions), providing evidence that the book was not divinely inspired, but rather fabricated by J. Smith.

Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and that it was not divinely inspired.

And it just goes on.

All this information looks pretty damning to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Is there anyway to harmonize Mormonism with objective reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormonism

[Der Trihs]

Is there anyway to harmonize Mormonism with objective reality?[/url]No, but it's a religion. Denial of reality is basic to such things. It only looks extra silly because most people haven't been fed that particular brand of silliness since childhood.

[Billdo]

I would respectfully suggest that a comparison of any book of scripture with our understanding of "objective reality", or at least scientifically provable historical facts, will reflect some significant disparities.

To the extent a religion is a system of ritual and belief, demonstrating those disparities in scripture does not make the religion "false."

[petew83]

Is this a rhetorical question?

[John Mace]

Is there anyway to harmonize Christianity with objective reality?

[madmonk28]

As everyone has pointed out, if most (all?) religions are taken to be literally true, they do not stand up to scientific rigor.

Personally, Mormonism doesn't seem any stranger than other religions, so I'm not sure why it is so often portrayed as nutty.

[dangermom]

If you're looking to seriously debate these issues, why not do some deeper reading on them than you'll get on Wikipedia? And then head off to one of the myriad message boards dedicated to discussing the questions in great detail?

Or, if you're just looking to get agreement that Mormons are crazy, you can get that most places, including here.

[panache45]

Is there anyway to harmonize Mormonism with objective reality?
Religious beliefs have little to do with objective reality; that's practically the definition of religion. Otherwise "faith" would be unnecessary.

[Der Trihs]

Personally, Mormonism doesn't seem any stranger than other religions, so I'm not sure why it is so often portrayed as nutty.Because it's not the dominant religious belief in this part of the world. The Catholics and Protestants and so on have beliefs that are just as nutty as the Mormons, but being so powerful and common their nutty beliefs are taken dead seriously, and calling them nutty is seriously looked down upon.

[E-Sabbath]

Mormonism does appear to have a good number of false-to-fact points in its mythology. However, generally, Mormons are good people. So... meh. Admittedly, they're ruining the Boy Scouts and CIA, but it's self-correcting over time.

[Voyager]

Religious beliefs have little to do with objective reality; that's practically the definition of religion. Otherwise "faith" would be unnecessary.
Alas, that is not how most religious people see it. Religion is useful in many ways, yes, true, no. Unless you stretch the definition of true beyond all reason, that is.

[Voyager]

If you're looking to seriously debate these issues, why not do some deeper reading on them than you'll get on Wikipedia? And then head off to one of the myriad message boards dedicated to discussing the questions in great detail?

Your response would be just as correct for questions about the truth of just about any religion, don't you think. Fortunately, when someone asks a question about the charge of an electron, he doesn't have to be sent off to a site where fifty people argue about which of several charges is the right one.

Or, if you're just looking to get agreement that Mormons are crazy, you can get that most places, including here.
You know, it is not necessarily true that someone question the truth of proposition X are calling the holders of X crazy. How would you feel if I accused you of calling me crazy for not believing?

[hajario]

Any more crazy than a loaf of bread spontaneously growing and feeding hundreds of people? Than hundreds of dead people rising from their graves all at once, looking like they did in life and being recognized by their families? Than the Earth ceasing to rotate for a few hours so a battle could be won? Than a huge boat containing at least two animals from every living species floating around for a over a month and the those individuals repopulating the Earth? It's all crazy. Mormonism's events just supposedly took place more recently.

I'm pretty impressed with Mormon culture and the people it has produced. They tend to be well educated and very industrious. They're kind of like us Jews but more polite.

[BrainGlutton]

Is Mormonism false? Who knows? Mormonism has neither more nor less material evidence in its support of its spiritual beliefs than any other faith. Some of its historical claims are disprovable, but the same is true of Judaism, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9300472&postcount=40) therefore of Christianity and Islam. Mormonism has, compared to other religions, a recent and highly suspicious origin story based on a set of golden plates found in a cave which only Joseph Smith and maybe a few of his closest associates ever got to see -- but if you can swallow camels like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, why strain at gnats? Mormonism, at least, always has an out in form of a tradition of living prophets pronouncing a living (and evolving) revelation -- they even had the recognized authority to ban polygamy, a practice Smith himself had decreed (and enthusiastically practiced) -- so, in the face of archaelogical evidence incompatible with the Book of Mormon's narrative of pre-Columbian America, they can always decide the BoM is being metaphorical or something. Just like the Catholics have the pope and cardinals, who can adapt doctrine and practices to contemporary sociocultural circumstances as they see fit, and have.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "false." If the Mormons are right, all other faiths are false, or at least don't have the whole truth. (But don't worry, you can still be saved via posthumous Mormon baptism. :) How many religions offer a second chance like that?) If the atheists are right, then all religions are false as descriptions of the-Universe-as-it-is -- but they still might contain elements that are "true," or valuable, in a spiritual or ethical sense. I mean, who could quibble with the Noble Eightfold Path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#The_Noble_Eightfold_Path)?



Another view, just for the halibut. (http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0118.asp)

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Aside from the outright factual errors in the Mormon Scripture (e.g., the false claims about Native American ancestry), there is the moral aspect. It wasn't until 1978 that the Church admitted (in response to 'revelation' from God) that blacks were the equal of whites. Folks, that's 14 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mormons claim their prophet has a direct line to God; and yet the Church was 14 years behind the federal government on racial equality issues. If the US government is smarter than your God, then I have doubts about your religion.

[Kalhoun]

You can line up the bizarre behaviors and beliefs that are dictated by any religion and one is goofier than than last. I was never indoctrinated into any religion, so I find them equally amusing. Some are more entertaining than others (it's pretty tough to beat magic underwear in the grins department).

[OneCentStamp]

(FWIW, I was raised Mormon and attended until my early thirties, including going to Mormon-run BYU and serving a full-time mission.)

Two and a Half Inches of Fun, it seems we go through this argument here on the SDMB about once every six months or so. The prevailing sentiment is generally that Mormonism is equally as plausible (or impausible, depending on your POV) as any other religion, but has the misfortune that it makes historical and scientific claims that are easily disprovable, since it is such a new religion.

Example:

Judaism: God killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt, including the firstborn of all the livestock, after which Pharaoh let Moses' people go.
Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth rose from his tomb two days after his death and appeared to several hundred people before ascending into heaven.
Mormonism: From 600BC-400AD, there was a thriving civilization in America, complete with horses, paved roads and steelmaking. These people were descended from the Jews.
Scientology: Xenu sent the Thetans to Earth in spaceships that looked like DC-8s. They deposited the Thetans around several volcanoes, then blew up the volcanoes with nuclear weapons, thus dispersing them all over the world.

While these claims may vary in how absurd they seem to us, I think that's probably a result of our background and biases. The big difference between them is that the Mormon claim can be contradicted, or at least be shown to have a conspicuous lack of support, through modern archaeology.

[TV time]

Just don't nobody start knocking us Druids. We make sense!

[BrainGlutton]

Aside from the outright factual errors in the Mormon Scripture (e.g., the false claims about Native American ancestry), there is the moral aspect. It wasn't until 1978 that the Church admitted (in response to 'revelation' from God) that blacks were the equal of whites. Folks, that's 14 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mormons claim their prophet has a direct line to God; and yet the Church was 14 years behind the federal government on racial equality issues. If the US government is smarter than your God, then I have doubts about your religion.

Can't find a cite, but I read once that it took until 1972 for the RCC to drop its official position that the Jews killed Christ and all Jews inherit the guilt.

[BrainGlutton]

Just don't nobody start knocking us Druids. We make sense!

There once was a daring young Druid
Whose manner of living was luid
He'd engage Druid lasses
In small talk -- no passes --
But the next thing they knew they'd been scruid!

-- either Isaac Asimov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_asimov) or John Ciardi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ciardi), I'm not sure which

[Napier]

Oh, come on, folks - what about that religion that holds that two huge green lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith are flying around in outer space? I doubt it's true, but we could certainly make it true if we wanted, just by scheduling a Space Shuttle mission with a couple of Wood's Hole's finest. That religion is surely more plausible than any of the examples you're citing.

[BrainGlutton]

Just FTR, BTW, there really is One True Faith. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgenius)

[dangermom]

Your response would be just as correct for questions about the truth of just about any religion, don't you think. Fortunately, when someone asks a question about the charge of an electron, he doesn't have to be sent off to a site where fifty people argue about which of several charges is the right one.

You know, it is not necessarily true that someone question the truth of proposition X are calling the holders of X crazy. How would you feel if I accused you of calling me crazy for not believing?
True. I simply felt that the OP was remarkably shallow and just looking for people to agree that yep, them Mormons are nuts. All he did was cut and paste some passages from a Wikipedia article. He didn't ask whether the passages accurately reflect LDS beliefs or scholarship. He didn't seem to have any thoughts of his own, there doesn't seem to be much of a debate here. I don't see much substance or thought, so I don't want to invest time or energy in actually answering any of the issues so briefly listed--why bother when no one wants to hear it?

[jshore]

(FWIW, I was raised Mormon and attended until my early thirties, including going to Mormon-run BYU and serving a full-time mission.)

Two and a Half Inches of Fun, it seems we go through this argument here on the SDMB about once every six months or so. The prevailing sentiment is generally that Mormonism is equally as plausible (or impausible, depending on your POV) as any other religion, but has the misfortune that it makes historical and scientific claims that are easily disprovable, since it is such a new religion.

...

While these claims may vary in how absurd they seem to us, I think that's probably a result of our background and biases. The big difference between them is that the Mormon claim can be contradicted, or at least be shown to have a conspicuous lack of support, through modern archaeology.

I think this summarizes it well. Just within the last couple months, this topic came up at the lunch table when one of my colleagues who I knew to be a religious Christian said that Mormonism is a false religion. After nearly gagging on my food, I tried to get him to explain to me how it differed from other religions like, say, traditional Christianity. And, his answer as near as I can tell was along these lines. I.e., it amounted (in my interpretation of what he was saying) to the fact that Mormonism being young makes historical claims that we can with quite a bit of certainty say are false. The older religions make claims that seem just as suspect to me but since the historical record is so much feebler from that time (e.g., what do we really know about the historical Jesus?), they are harder to disprove.

[Voyager]

While these claims may vary in how absurd they seem to us, I think that's probably a result of our background and biases. The big difference between them is that the Mormon claim can be contradicted, or at least be shown to have a conspicuous lack of support, through modern archaeology.
The Davidic Empire is pretty much kaput now, for the same reasons. The Roman census is also. We know the supposed prophecies didn't say what the author of Matthew thought they said. The only difference with Mormonism is that there are fewer people to get their noses bent out of shape by claims of historical inaccuracy. I assure you that in my family and my predominantly Jewish neighborhood, Christianity was seen as just as wacky - but we didn't examine our own beliefs all that closely. It's religion if I believe in it and a myth if you believe in it.

[ralph124c]

Aside from the outright factual errors in the Mormon Scripture (e.g., the false claims about Native American ancestry), there is the moral aspect. It wasn't until 1978 that the Church admitted (in response to 'revelation' from God) that blacks were the equal of whites. Folks, that's 14 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mormons claim their prophet has a direct line to God; and yet the Church was 14 years behind the federal government on racial equality issues. If the US government is smarter than your God, then I have doubts about your religion.
To add to this, nothing that the LDS church has come up with has proven that Joseph Smith was anything more than a charlatan. Take the "Mormon Muders" of the 1980's- a con man convinced the LDS church to buy forged letters, allegedly written by Joseph Smith (these were later admitted to be forgeries by Mark Hoffman). Yet, the church prophets bought into them-how come they had no "revelations' telling them that the letters were false?

[Sophistry and Illusion]

You can line up the bizarre behaviors and beliefs that are dictated by any religion and one is goofier than than last. I was never indoctrinated into any religion, so I find them equally amusing. Some are more entertaining than others (it's pretty tough to beat magic underwear in the grins department).
Yeah, I've never bought the "Religion X isn't any goofier than religion Y, which you don't consider goofy because you were brought up with it. Therefore, you can't make fun of religion X." I draw the opposite conclusion: let's make fun of X and Y.

[cosmosdan]

Is Mormonism false? Who knows? Mormonism has neither more nor less material evidence in its support of its spiritual beliefs than any other faith. Some of its historical claims are disprovable, but the same is true of Judaism, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9300472&postcount=40) therefore of Christianity and Islam. Mormonism has, compared to other religions, a recent and highly suspicious origin story based on a set of golden plates found in a cave which only Joseph Smith and maybe a few of his closest associates ever got to see -- but if you can swallow camels like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, why strain at gnats? Mormonism, at least, always has an out in form of a tradition of living prophets pronouncing a living (and evolving) revelation -- they even had the recognized authority to ban polygamy, a practice Smith himself had decreed (and enthusiastically practiced) -- so, in the face of archaelogical evidence incompatible with the Book of Mormon's narrative of pre-Columbian America, they can always decide the BoM is being metaphorical or something. Just like the Catholics have the pope and cardinals, who can adapt doctrine and practices to contemporary sociocultural circumstances as they see fit, and have.

Again, it depends on what you mean by "false." If the Mormons are right, all other faiths are false, or at least don't have the whole truth. (But don't worry, you can still be saved via posthumous Mormon baptism. :) How many religions offer a second chance like that?) If the atheists are right, then all religions are false as descriptions of the-Universe-as-it-is -- but they still might contain elements that are "true," or valuable, in a spiritual or ethical sense. I mean, who could quibble with the Noble Eightfold Path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#The_Noble_Eightfold_Path)?



Another view, just for the halibut. (http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0118.asp)

Out of curiosity, how much evidence is there that J. Smith decreed or practiced polygamy? It seems to me that there is some controversy about that.

[dangermom]

Out of curiosity, how much evidence is there that J. Smith decreed or practiced polygamy? It seems to me that there is some controversy about that.
Nope, there isn't. Joseph Smith instituted and practiced polygamy during his lifetime.

[treis]

(FWIW, I was raised Mormon and attended until my early thirties, including going to Mormon-run BYU and serving a full-time mission.)

Two and a Half Inches of Fun, it seems we go through this argument here on the SDMB about once every six months or so. The prevailing sentiment is generally that Mormonism is equally as plausible (or impausible, depending on your POV) as any other religion, but has the misfortune that it makes historical and scientific claims that are easily disprovable, since it is such a new religion.

Example:

Judaism: God killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt, including the firstborn of all the livestock, after which Pharaoh let Moses' people go.
Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth rose from his tomb two days after his death and appeared to several hundred people before ascending into heaven.
Mormonism: From 600BC-400AD, there was a thriving civilization in America, complete with horses, paved roads and steelmaking. These people were descended from the Jews.
Scientology: Xenu sent the Thetans to Earth in spaceships that looked like DC-8s. They deposited the Thetans around several volcanoes, then blew up the volcanoes with nuclear weapons, thus dispersing them all over the world.

While these claims may vary in how absurd they seem to us, I think that's probably a result of our background and biases. The big difference between them is that the Mormon claim can be contradicted, or at least be shown to have a conspicuous lack of support, through modern archaeology.

That, and the fact that Mormonism was founded by a convicted charlatan and fraud.

[jshore]

That, and the fact that Mormonism was founded by a convicted charlatan and fraud.

...Whereas the founders of other religions were never actually convicted, I suppose?

(Actually, wasn't Jesus sort of convicted?)

[Princhester]

There's a subtlety here that is overlooked. All religions make absurd claims and I don't see any reason to believe any of them. However, there is a difference (perhaps irrelevant, but a difference) between something that I see no reason to believe, and something I have reason to disbelieve.

If some religion claims that in the year 3433 BC their founder levitated in front of a multitude I wouldn't see any reason to believe it, but I couldn't say it didn't happen.

If some religion claims that their founder levitated in front of a multitude the week before last at Times Square, and the multitude are interviewed and all say it didn't happen, I could say not only that I wouldn't see any reason to believe it, but that as far as I'm concerned it didn't happen.

I'm no expert, but I think that younger religions like Mormonism have more features that put them in the latter category than do older religions.

As I say that's not to say that there's any practical difference, but there is a logical one.

[gonzomax]

When you toss in the interplanetary beliefs ,like the planet Kolob, and magic underwear ,you do get into the crazy area.

[Der Trihs]

However, there is a difference (perhaps irrelevant, but a difference) between something that I see no reason to believe, and something I have reason to disbelieve.

If some religion claims that in the year 3433 BC their founder levitated in front of a multitude I wouldn't see any reason to believe it, but I couldn't say it didn't happen.

If some religion claims that their founder levitated in front of a multitude the week before last at Times Square, and the multitude are interviewed and all say it didn't happen, I could say not only that I wouldn't see any reason to believe it, but that as far as I'm concerned it didn't happen.Given that such miracles violate physical laws, you have at least as much reason to disbelieve ancient accounts as newer ones. Even if the multitude who are interviewed say that it DID happen; miracles that impress crowds at a distance have a tendency to evaporate with the presence of a sceptic close up. Especially if he knows stage magic.

Violations of physical laws are a better reason to disbelieve something than the testimony of a crowd, given the unreliability of eyewitnesses. And it's a reason that applies to recent and ancient religions equally.

[Zebra]

Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and that it was not divinely inspired.


Ummm... Cite?

It seems like the author of this claim must think other religious texts are divinely inspired. How can they say that this book is inspired by God and that book is a work of fiction? Did God tell them?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I simply wish that vacant-eyed acolytes of the Church Of Latter Day Saints would quit showing up on my doorstep. As a disaffected Catholic, they have nothing to offer me that I do not already have, and their claims of inhabiting North America along with Native Americans as a lost tribe of Israel that possessed mettalurgy before it was even invented is just silly. Not to mention the fact that they claimed to cross the Atlantic before anyone else could, or the Golden Plates that nobody is allowed to see, or the magical underpants.
Yep, they're fucking crazy allright.
At least MY religion is so clouded in obscurity that you can't disprove such inane notions....harumph...

[Princhester]

Given that such miracles violate physical laws, you have at least as much reason to disbelieve ancient accounts as newer ones. Even if the multitude who are interviewed say that it DID happen; miracles that impress crowds at a distance have a tendency to evaporate with the presence of a sceptic close up. Especially if he knows stage magic.

Violations of physical laws are a better reason to disbelieve something than the testimony of a crowd, given the unreliability of eyewitnesses. And it's a reason that applies to recent and ancient religions equally.

This doesn't really invalidate my fundamental point, although it may highlight a deficiency in the example I used. What if the event was simply a historical event, rather than a supernatural one?

[Der Trihs]

This doesn't really invalidate my fundamental point, although it may highlight a deficiency in the example I used. What if the event was simply a historical event, rather than a supernatural one?A better example. Although even there, the ancient religions don't have that much of an edge in the plausibility of their accounts. Quite often either they involve "historical events" that were supposedly supernatural ( and removing the supernatural part often makes the event meaningless, or an indictment of fraud upon the founder ), which leads back to the physical laws problem; or they contradict known archaeological/historical evidence. Not as much as more recent periods with more surviving evidence of course, but really, is the average person really that much more knowledgeable about the relatively recent past than the far past ?

And quite often ancient religions claim silly things right now, not in the past. Transubstantiation or gays attracting hurricanes is hardly less silly than magic underwear.

[Clothahump]

Is Mormonism false?


It's a religion. All religions are false.

This can be proven with a lot of research. Take any three religions (to start with). Make sure they are widely separated by time and/or distance, so there is no similarity in the theologies. Analyze them from an historical and social perspective, and answer these two questions:

1. What are the common goals of the religions?
2. What are the common means used by the religions to achieve these goals?

Toss any other religion into the works and the answers will come up the same.

[Ca3799]

Nope, there isn't. Joseph Smith instituted and practiced polygamy during his lifetime.

This is true.

One of the many 'revelations' Joseph Smith received from God regarding polygamy was specifically directed at Smith's wife (it even named her, several times) and told her that if she didin't agree (to allow Smith to have more wives), she would be 'destroyed'. She was not happy about that.


From Doctrines and Covenants 132:

"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. "

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132

[Sophistry and Illusion]

She was not happy about that.
"Hey, Honey; God says I need more women." I can imagine how my wife would respond to that. :eek:

I would some LDS types would come in and defend the Church; I know there are several on this board. But I guess they foresee it would just be a pile-on.

[OneCentStamp]

I would some LDS types would come in and defend the Church; I know there are several on this board. But I guess they foresee it would just be a pile-on.Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Dangermom and Monty are both active Mormons; TokyoPlayer, as well as a few others and myself are former Mormons. It usually gets heated, but I don't think it's usually a pile-on.

[dangermom]

I would some LDS types would come in and defend the Church; I know there are several on this board. But I guess they foresee it would just be a pile-on.
Yes, I'm one of them--I said a little above about why I'm not responding. I'm seeing a lot of ignorance on this thread, but no one seems to want to have it fought today. I've done plenty of this in other GD threads, but this one doesn't seem to be the place for it, since it hardly qualifies as a debate. If people have honest questions and actually want to learn something, I'm happy to help out, though.

[Rico]

"Hey, Honey; God says I need more women." I can imagine how my wife would respond to that. :eek:

More like:

"Hey Honey, God says I need more women! And if you don't let me, God will destroy you! Look, he told me that, right here in this revelation I received from him! So you'd better obey me...um...er...God!"

Yeah, that would fly with my wife, as well.



And I'm one of the former Mormons, BTW.

[cosmosdan]

This is true.

One of the many 'revelations' Joseph Smith received from God regarding polygamy was specifically directed at Smith's wife (it even named her, several times) and told her that if she didin't agree (to allow Smith to have more wives), she would be 'destroyed'. She was not happy about that.


From Doctrines and Covenants 132:

"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. "

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132

According to what I've read it's not a slam dunk. Some say this was not presented by JS but by Brigham Young after JS death.

It doesn't matter much in relation to the whole Golden plates story. I was only asking for the sake of historical accuracy. From what I read this morning it's not a sure thing, although even the Community of Christ says it may be true on their website.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

If people have honest questions and actually want to learn something, I'm happy to help out, though.
Okay, I do have a question, although it is a tendentious one. For Mormons, the age of revelation is not over--revelation is ongoing, and the head of the church is a prophet who receives revelation from God. How does one reconcile this with the fact that LDS has actually been behind mainstream society on some important moral issues, like the race issue I mentioned above? The revelation clearing the way for blacks to enter the priesthood wasn't until 1978, for example. I mean, if you have a prophet who receives communications from God, wouldn't you be ahead of the moral curve, not behind it?

[chappachula]

wouldn't you be ahead of the moral curve, not behind it?
there's a humorous retort to this in Barbara Streisands movie Yentl.
She plays a 19th century woman who wants to study theology, and she asks her father the rabbi why God won't let women be ordained.
The rabbi responds "I'm sure God would be willing to let you study for the ministry.. ....but I'm not so sure about our neighbors".

Organized religions are the most conservative element of society, and they are almost always "behind the curve".

[ralph124c]

..that Joe Smith 'translated' into the Book of Mormon: I know they are nowhere to be found. But what about the fragment that was shown (by one of Smith's followers) to prof. Charles Anthon (of Columbia university)? THAT oughta answer a few questions!
If that "reformed egyptian carakters" ain't right, who CAN you believe?

[RTFirefly]

(FWIW, I was raised Mormon and attended until my early thirties, including going to Mormon-run BYU and serving a full-time mission.)

Two and a Half Inches of Fun, it seems we go through this argument here on the SDMB about once every six months or so. The prevailing sentiment is generally that Mormonism is equally as plausible (or impausible, depending on your POV) as any other religion, but has the misfortune that it makes historical and scientific claims that are easily disprovable, since it is such a new religion. But that gets right to the nub of it: Mormons say they're not a new religion at all, but rather an ancient one that recently resumed after a 14-century break.

Example:

Judaism: God killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt, including the firstborn of all the livestock, after which Pharaoh let Moses' people go.
Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth rose from his tomb two days after his death and appeared to several hundred people before ascending into heaven.
Mormonism: From 600BC-400AD, there was a thriving civilization in America, complete with horses, paved roads and steelmaking. These people were descended from the Jews. There's a few differences here. One is that there are assorted variants of Christianity and Judaism. The LDS, unlike non-Catholic Christianity, is a hierarchical religion.

As such, the front office of the LDS faith stands behind the veracity of their scriptures, while you can be a good Christian and still not believe a lot of what's in the Christian scriptures is factually true.

While practically all Christians consider Jesus' bodily resurrection to be an essential belief, there's no inherent conflict between that belief and objective reality: it's not falsifiable.

So my conclusion would be that there's a bit more tension between the LDS faith and objective reality than is inherently the case for non-Mormon, non-Catholic Christianity.

[Reloy3]

Yes, I'm one of them--I said a little above about why I'm not responding. I'm seeing a lot of ignorance on this thread, but no one seems to want to have it fought today. I've done plenty of this in other GD threads, but this one doesn't seem to be the place for it, since it hardly qualifies as a debate. If people have honest questions and actually want to learn something, I'm happy to help out, though.

Another active LDS sometime poster - I would also be happy to answer some questions.

[RTFirefly]

Just FTR, BTW, there really is One True Faith. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgenius)This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Bronner#Sample_text) is the one true faith, heathen! ONE! ALL ONE! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Bronner#Sample_text)

[Voyager]

Organized religions are the most conservative element of society, and they are almost always "behind the curve".
Might I remind you that Martin Luther King was a minister? I'd be much more likely to believe he had a direct line to God than a Mormon official prophet who has convenient dreams after political pressure.

I wonder what the next revelation will be? Considering the state of world overpopulation, maybe limiting family size?

[smiling bandit]

There's a few differences here. One is that there are assorted variants of Christianity and Judaism. The LDS, unlike non-Catholic Christianity, is a hierarchical religion.

And while I don't know about Mormonism, there're more branches of Catholicism than you can shake a stick at. We probably have more theology than the rest of the planet combined. And only most of it is so obscure it's incomprehensible without decades of careful study and research. :D

[dangermom]

According to what I've read it's not a slam dunk. Some say this was not presented by JS but by Brigham Young after JS death.

It doesn't matter much in relation to the whole Golden plates story. I was only asking for the sake of historical accuracy. From what I read this morning it's not a sure thing, although even the Community of Christ says it may be true on their website.The CoC denied it for a long time, but it's perfectly true. The best book that I know of on the subject is In Sacred Loneliness (http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Wives-Joseph/dp/156085085X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200508066&sr=8-1) by Todd Compton.

Okay, I do have a question, although it is a tendentious one. For Mormons, the age of revelation is not over--revelation is ongoing, and the head of the church is a prophet who receives revelation from God. How does one reconcile this with the fact that LDS has actually been behind mainstream society on some important moral issues, like the race issue I mentioned above? The revelation clearing the way for blacks to enter the priesthood wasn't until 1978, for example. I mean, if you have a prophet who receives communications from God, wouldn't you be ahead of the moral curve, not behind it?Excellent question! And one which has engendered an enormous amount of investigation and scholarly work. It can't really be tackled well here, so I'm mostly going to point you to essays and information on other pages. I will note a few things:

Joseph Smith ordained a few black men to the priesthood, Elijah Abel being the most well-known. He was vocally anti-slavery and promoted a plan for freeing all slaves by 1850 by purchasing their freedom with money from the sale of government land.

Mormons' acceptance of black members and opposition to slavery was a huge factor in getting them thrown out of Missouri--Mormons were active voters.

No one is quite sure when the policy disallowing blacks from the priesthood was instituted. There is no scripture, no revelation on the subject. However, once it was in place, it was felt that a direct revelation would be needed to rescind the policy.

David O. McKay (president of the LDS Church in the 50's) and other presidents are known to have felt strongly on the issue and to have been acutely disappointed that it did not yet seem to be time to rescind the ban. Sometime in the 60's, the general membership was asked to pray for it to happen. The general feeling these days is that God was waiting for us to catch up and be ready.

While we don't have a lot to be proud of in this record, it's not the case that the Mormon leadership was a bunch of vicious racists, end of story. It's considerably more complex than that.

Some good resources to read on this question can be found at BlackLDS.org (http://www.blacklds.org/), an ignorance-fighting website. I recommend that you read all of the timeline (http://www.blacklds.org/history) and the page on the priesthood (http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood), along with the articles listed. I would particularly recommend that you read Eugene England's famous 1973 essay The Mormon Cross (http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter12.htm), which is happily now available online. The essay was written partly as a commentary on the first thorough history of blacks in the Church: Neither White nor Black (http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neither3.htm#Chapter3) by Lester Bush Jr., which you can also read.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

Excellent question! And one which has engendered an enormous amount of investigation and scholarly work. It can't really be tackled well here, so I'm mostly going to point you to essays and information on other pages. I will note a few things:

Joseph Smith ordained a few black men to the priesthood, Elijah Abel being the most well-known. He was vocally anti-slavery and promoted a plan for freeing all slaves by 1850 by purchasing their freedom with money from the sale of government land.

Mormons' acceptance of black members and opposition to slavery was a huge factor in getting them thrown out of Missouri--Mormons were active voters.

No one is quite sure when the policy disallowing blacks from the priesthood was instituted. There is no scripture, no revelation on the subject. However, once it was in place, it was felt that a direct revelation would be needed to rescind the policy.

David O. McKay (president of the LDS Church in the 50's) and other presidents are known to have felt strongly on the issue and to have been acutely disappointed that it did not yet seem to be time to rescind the ban. Sometime in the 60's, the general membership was asked to pray for it to happen. The general feeling these days is that God was waiting for us to catch up and be ready.

While we don't have a lot to be proud of in this record, it's not the case that the Mormon leadership was a bunch of vicious racists, end of story. It's considerably more complex than that.

Some good resources to read on this question can be found at BlackLDS.org (http://www.blacklds.org/), an ignorance-fighting website. I recommend that you read all of the timeline (http://www.blacklds.org/history) and the page on the priesthood (http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood), along with the articles listed. I would particularly recommend that you read Eugene England's famous 1973 essay The Mormon Cross (http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter12.htm), which is happily now available online. The essay was written partly as a commentary on the first thorough history of blacks in the Church: Neither White nor Black (http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neither3.htm#Chapter3) by Lester Bush Jr., which you can also read.
Thanks; this is a very helpful response and corrects some of my misimpressions about the early church. I will have to do some more reading, because some of the other things I have read about the Church (e.g., they subscribe or did subscribe to the doctrine of the Curse of Ham) are disturbing.

[Ponder Stibbons]

Is there anyway to harmonize Christianity with objective reality?Sure, but only if Christianity sings tenor and objective reality sings bass.

[dangermom]

Thanks; this is a very helpful response and corrects some of my misimpressions about the early church. I will have to do some more reading, because some of the other things I have read about the Church (e.g., they subscribe or did subscribe to the doctrine of the Curse of Ham) are disturbing.
Well, they did that too. You have to remember that in the mid-19th century, the curse of Ham and most of the stuff that went with it was considered to be practically scientific and historical fact. So while it wasn't part of the LDS scriptures in any way, it was part of the common knowledge of the day, and of course people subscribed to those ideas and brought them into the LDS Church. In general, however, Mormons were anti-slavery, and Joseph Smith preached that blacks were morally equal to anyone else and that a black person educated like anyone else would just as intelligent as anyone else.

The lives of the early black Mormons make for fascinating reading, so if you're interested I would highly recommend that you look up Jane Manning James, Elijah Abel, Green Flake, and everyone else. There was even a fictionalized historical trilogy published a few years ago based on their experiences; I have it, though of course you'd find it difficult to get copies without buying them.

Anyway, I'm glad you found the information useful.

[Ca3799]

According to what I've read it's not a slam dunk. Some say this was not presented by JS but by Brigham Young after JS death.

It doesn't matter much in relation to the whole Golden plates story. I was only asking for the sake of historical accuracy. From what I read this morning it's not a sure thing, although even the Community of Christ says it may be true on their website.

Krakauer reports in his book 'Under the Banner of Heaven' that those revelations were from Joseph Smith and that Joseph Smith appears to have already taken on at least one "spiritual" or "celestial" wife before the revelation, and continued to take more wives after getting Emma in line. He may have had 30 or 40 wives. Here is a list, but I can't say how accurate it is: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167&lds=0

"The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132" begins like this:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

This seems to support Krakauer's view tha JS was dabbling in plural wives before he made his revelations official, as were many others in the upper eschelons of Mormonism at that time. Because polygamy caused so much divisiveness (then and now), it was often hidden and "celestial" or "spiritual" wives don't come with marriage certificates, so they can be difficult to track. This seems to be one of the major issues that allows Mormonism to suffer so many splinter groups.


I actually stumbled upon this book a few weeks ago after reading soem adventure stories and though it was a book about hiking in the Himalayas. Oops.

[cosmosdan]

Krakauer reports in his book 'Under the Banner of Heaven' that those revelations were from Joseph Smith and that Joseph Smith appears to have already taken on at least one "spiritual" or "celestial" wife before the revelation, and continued to take more wives after getting Emma in line. He may have had 30 or 40 wives. Here is a list, but I can't say how accurate it is: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167&lds=0

"The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132" begins like this:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

This seems to support Krakauer's view tha JS was dabbling in plural wives before he made his revelations official, as were many others in the upper eschelons of Mormonism at that time. Because polygamy caused so much divisiveness (then and now), it was often hidden and "celestial" or "spiritual" wives don't come with marriage certificates, so they can be difficult to track. This seems to be one of the major issues that allows Mormonism to suffer so many splinter groups.


I actually stumbled upon this book a few weeks ago after reading soem adventure stories and though it was a book about hiking in the Himalayas. Oops.

The fact that the D&C contains that doesn't prove anything. It does appear to be likely though. Enough evidence points towards it even though it is disputed. His son that eventually led the RLDS church denied it and I read a couple of reports that Emma Smith denied it as well. I also read that no other children have been shown to be descendants of his. Kinda odd for 30 wives ain't it? Regardless, it just doesn't matter much either way.

[dangermom]

The fact that the D&C contains that doesn't prove anything. It does appear to be likely though. Enough evidence points towards it even though it is disputed. His son that eventually led the RLDS church denied it and I read a couple of reports that Emma Smith denied it as well. I also read that no other children have been shown to be descendants of his. Kinda odd for 30 wives ain't it? Regardless, it just doesn't matter much either way.When asked by her son Joseph Smith III whether his father was an adulterer, Emma answered no. He didn't ask her anything more specific than that, and obviously that's a pretty vague question. Since Joseph was supposed to have been married to his plural wives, Emma could answer no to the charge of adultery without actually addressing the polygamy question at all. JSIII took that as a complete denial of polygamy, and the historical position of the CoC stemmed from that.

In Sacred Loneliness addresses the question of children. I believe that there were a few, but not many. Quite a few of the plural wives were wives in name only, and there wasn't nearly as much action going on as people assume from hearing about "30 wives."

[foolsguinea]

Let's say, it's very difficult for it to be true.

Smith's claims include a sort of Young Earth Creationism, which modern geology's evidences of Deep Time render suspect. On top of that, the plates from which he ostensibly translated are conveniently not here anymore. I'm told--but due to my great distaste for the prose of the Book of Mormon am unable as yet to confirm--that there are place names in the Book of Mormon that seem suspiciously like an alteration of place names established by the English-speakers in New York.

It's arguably in the same, "but it technically could be true," vein as Clan of the Cave Bear & Kris Kringle's workshop at the North Pole, neither of which are what we'd call reliable history.

A label of divine truth feels like something sold to the gullible.

Sorry.

[cosmosdan]

When asked by her son Joseph Smith III whether his father was an adulterer, Emma answered no. He didn't ask her anything more specific than that, and obviously that's a pretty vague question. Since Joseph was supposed to have been married to his plural wives, Emma could answer no to the charge of adultery without actually addressing the polygamy question at all. JSIII took that as a complete denial of polygamy, and the historical position of the CoC stemmed from that.

In Sacred Loneliness addresses the question of children. I believe that there were a few, but not many. Quite a few of the plural wives were wives in name only, and there wasn't nearly as much action going on as people assume from hearing about "30 wives."

And you know this how? That's not the story from the CofC site (http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp)

Joseph Smith III, son of the founding prophet and first prophet-president of the RLDS Church (1860–1914), spent much of his life trying to clear his father’s name from the stigma of polygamy and polygamous doctrine, even though there were leaders in the early RLDS Church who believed otherwise.

If you look at the Wikki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.) article we find
However, Emma died denying that her husband ever had any other wives, as did Smith's eldest son Joseph. Emma Smith's deathbed testimony stated "no such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of...He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have"

As of 2007, there are at least twelve early Latter Day Saints who, based on historical documents and circumstantial evidence, have been identified as potential Smith offspring stemming from plural marriages. In 2005 and 2007 studies, a geneticist with the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation showed "with 99.9 percent accuracy" that five of these individuals were in fact not Smith's children: Mosiah Hancock (son of Clarissa Reed Hancock), Oliver Buell (son of Prescendia Huntington Buell), Moroni Llewellyn Pratt (son of Mary Ann Frost Pratt), Zebulon Jacobs (son of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith), and Orrison Smith (son of Fanny Alger).


I believe Fanny Alger is the first woman mentioned in the book you linked to.

Again, it really doesn't matter, but it does seem it's not a slam dunk.

Although in the wikki article on J. Smith III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_III)

For most of his career, Smith denied that his father had been involved in the practice and insisted that it had originated with Brigham Young. Smith served many missions to the western United States where he met with and interviewed associates and widows of his father who attempted to present him with evidence to the contrary. In the end, in the face of overwhelming evidence, Smith concluded that he was "not positive nor sure that [his father] was innocent"

[dangermom]

I was going from memory, so I wasn't as accurate as I should have been. Have done a little reading now. Unfortunately I'm not finding an online copy of Emma's last testimony, but from what I've read there are a few complexities about it. She was very elderly at the time, and died only a few weeks later. Her sons went and interviewed her for several days, and printed the transcript after her death in the Saints Herald. They titled it her last testimony, but there is no indication that she considered it to be an official public testimony, and it's not a sworn statement or anything.

Some of her statements are puzzling. For example, she said that she lost three infants, and mentioned her firstborn child, the twins, and also the adopted Murdock twins. But Emma lost other infants--a stillborn son and a baby of 13 months, who she did not mention.

She also refuted charges of Joseph's adultery and indicated that he did not introduce polygamy. That may not be as clear-cut as it seems, however; by that time, lurid rumors were reaching the East where she lived, and JSIII was trying to clear his father's name of those charges (which were, of course, all he knew about polygamy). What he was trying to refute, and what Joseph actually did, were two very different things, and Emma may have been talking about those charges. And Emma may have simply chosen to answer her sons ambiguously or falsely, being old, tired, and ill.

In the end we can't know what Emma was feeling or thinking, but the fact is that there is plenty of other evidence on the question. I've always admired Emma greatly, so I have a lot of feeling for her. (And, btw, my book is Emma and Joseph by Gracia M. Jones, a descendant.)

[Billdo]

Just so I'm keeping the players straight is the Community of Christ (CoC) the same church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) formed by followers of the religion of Joseph Smith who stayed in the midwest while the larger group of his followers went to Utah and operated the better known, Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

[OneCentStamp]

Just so I'm keeping the players straight is the Community of Christ (CoC) the same church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) formed by followers of the religion of Joseph Smith who stayed in the midwest while the larger group of his followers went to Utah and operated the better known, Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?Yes.

[cosmosdan]

Just so I'm keeping the players straight is the Community of Christ (CoC) the same church formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) formed by followers of the religion of Joseph Smith who stayed in the midwest while the larger group of his followers went to Utah and operated the better known, Salt Lake City-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Yeah, Joseph Smith III was eleven when his father was killed. Other members believed him to be the designated leader and the church was reorganized years later when he grew up. The typical organized religion thing has occurred within that group as well and as the church changed it's policies and name a few splinter groups rejected the changes and retain the RLDS name. Go Figure.