The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Well, I don’t wish to insult the esteemed LDS posters, yet I should give my unvarnished opinion.

IMO, Joseph Smith was a fraud, a semi-educated treasure hunter, who cobbled together bits of the Bible mixed with 19th century pop ethnology, and created a religion.

Now I can’t argue with the supernatural aspects fo the LDS faith–there’s no way to disprove the Preexistence, the spiritual progression of the soul through performing ordinaces, and so on.

But, unlike other religious leaders who kept their folderol strictly in the spiritual realm, where one cannot apply logic or falsifiability, Joseph Smith made claims that CAN be disproved.

For example, Joseph Smith bought an Egyptian papyrus that he claimed told the story of Abraham and Sarah’s sojourn in Egypt. At that time, Egyptian hieroglyphs ahd not yet been deciphered, so anyone could claim to have a key to understanding them without fear of being disputed. Nowadays, however, Egyptologists have shown that Smith’s papyrus is just a copy of Egyptian funeral spells and incantations, having nothing to do with events of the Bible.

Moreover, the Book of Mormon tells of the arrival of Jewish refugees to North America in the 7th century BC (I Nephi 18:23), as supposedly deciphered by Smith through the use of the seeing stones (which were set in frames for Smith to see through, so yes, they were “magic spectacles”.) The Jews divided into two groups, the Lamanites, who were wicked, and the Nephites, who were virtuous. Eventually the evil Lamanites wiped out the Nephites in a gigantic battle in the 5th century AD, near the Hill Cumorah in what is now Palmyra, New York. Moroni, the last Nephite, supposedly wrote out the Book of Mormon on gold plates and buried them to be “revealed” to Joe Smith 1,400 years later. The Lamanites were cursed by God and made darkskinned and loathsome (Mormon 5:15), and they were the people later known as the American Indians.

As a history of pre-Columbian life in North America, the Book of Mormon is a crock, contradicted by mountains of evidence to support settlement of North America by Siberian wanderers over the Bering land bridge some 12, 000 years ago, and not a pack of vagabond Hebrews.

For a skeptical approach to the many factual problems in the Book of Mormon, visit this site. Moroms are swell people and I like them a lot, but the book they believe is a scripture equal to the Bible is nothing more than 19th century fiction…

Shoot, that last sentence should read…Mormons are swell people and I like them a lot, but the book they believe to be a scripture equal to the Bible is nothing more than 19th-century fiction.

Generally, when I stop to consider the LDS church, and it’s practices and policies, I find myself comparing it to Microsoft.

You don’t get to see either’s inner workings unless you’ve paid your dues.

Neither is at all reticent about using shady deals to get what they want. Cite for LDS practice and for those that need to revisit the whole Microsoft Antitrust case, you can do so here.

Both have carved out a niche for themselves and guard it jealously. Microsoft - Windows OS; LDS - Utah

Neither goes well with bourbon.

Both believe the guy in charge is one step down from Deity. (Although, I’m not certain this is the case with LDS :D)

Both have engaged in practices I find personally repugnant, but only because I can’t get away with them. (Hey, at least I’m honest, right?)

Anyhow, that’s the short list. And my personal opinion. No more, no less.

Actually, gobear, the Book of Mormon itself does not make the claim that the only inhabitants of the New World are descended from the Lehi colony. Although, at the time it was translated, people didn’t know how the Native Americans had come to the New World and so assumed that they were descendants of the Lamanites.

IIRC, the papyrus now in question does not fit the description of the one used in translation, which was larger and had red lettering. (Sorry, I can’t get a cite right now.) Even if it was, it is possible to argue that since Joseph Smith was not merely translating a text as a scolar but receiving revelation from God, the papyrus didn’t matter.

Thank you gobear!
Joseph Smith WAS a false prophet.

I wish everyone could have a pair of magic sunglasses, but thats one thing I’d never heard of, and I was baptized.

I read a good book by Judy Robertson (a former LDS) who describes in detail the magical aspects of the “pulling through the veil” and everything that happened in her first time into the temple.

I read once that you could shorten the name to CoJColds-each letter of church fo jesus chrsit of latter day saints and it comes out sounding like catch colds. :wink:
you can check out my sig…

Well…

I’m not Mormon, but I have some dear friends who are. They brought me with them one Sunday (church for Mormons is an all-day affair), probably because they knew I was looking for a religion that “seemed right” at the time.

Wasn’t the Mormons. Far apart from beliefs in regard to history that seem a bit shaky, I have issue with some of the church’s current practices. I don’t like the view of women in the church – we are specifically meant to be mothers and wives, nothing more. I found the prospect of being a mother of six to be terrifying (and certainly not the career I’m interested in!), not just because it’s difficult, but because in a Mormon moral context, it’s the only possible option. Moreover, I am disturbed by the very recent decision to be a bit nicer about their opinions in regard to African-Americans.

In defense of the religion – they are not a bunch of racist, sexist, polygamist sex-fiends. Every Mormon I’ve ever met – every one – is a friendly, genial person, usually well-educated. They’re a heckuva lot more conservative than I’ll ever be, granted, but that’s hardly a sin. As for the polygamy issue…I know no one’s brought it up, but it always seems to crop up in any discussion of LDS. Most Mormons (you know this) are not only in monogamous marriages, they condemn polygamy as either an outdated concept or an illegal one. Personally, I have no problem with other peoples’ marriages, however structured they are, as long as the individuals involved are happy and are not suffering from abuse. Heck, many of my friends are involved in polyamorous relationships, and they seem happy enough. :slight_smile:

One more thing that concerns me about the church, however, is their pursuit of former members. I have a dear friend who used to be Mormon and has left the church. She was my roommate for about a year, and I remember the sweet-as-honey girls from the nearby church came over every week with cookies, wondering where Jean was and why she hadn’t come to church. I assured them that she was fine, but I didn’t know why she wasn’t coming (none o’ my damn business, really). They still came every week. It would have been irritating if they hadn’t been so goshdarned nice. I’m always nice to the missionaries, though…I have respect for people who believe so greatly in their religion that they want to come tell me about it. It’s when they start telling me that I’m a bad person if I don’t join them that I get grouchy…since I’ve never had this problem with Mormon missionaries, I give them milk and cookies and send them on their way.

Actually, that’s not true. II Nephi 1:6 says

and a couple of verses down

Mormon apologists, confronted with overwhelming evidence that contradicts the story of the sons of Lehi, say that the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that the Nephites were the only inhabitants of the New World, but these verse would refute that. Moreover, if the Nephites did meet native Mesoamerican cultures, why is there no mention of them in the BoM?

And, yes, the actual manuscript Smith used is extant, but without getting into the special pleading of the supposed “red ink” manuscript, let’s settle some questions, for instance, why were the remaining manuscriptsmistranslated by Smith? What about his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which is wholly wrong?

vanilla:

You’re backsliding again. Remember you said you’d identify your opinions as opinions and not assert they’re facts?

morgan:

The LDS church doesn’t have the same theology concerning original sin. Here’s what the Articles of Faith have to say about it:

Basically, we don’t think anyone other than Adam has to pay the penalty for Adam’s sin.

A more likely explanation for what you’re talking about is that the LDS church holds that only men can hold the priesthood and thus a woman can’t enjoy the benefits of that on her own; she must receive it via her husband. Mind you, I’m discussing the LDS church headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. Other churches that stem from Joseph Smith’s preachings have different outlooks. For example, the Community of Christ (which used to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Reorganized)) ordains women to the priesthood.

Drat. That’s my misspelling in the quote above. Believe, of course, is spelled correctly in the AofF.

But that’s not what Joseph smith said; he quite plainly stated that he was translating the Egyptian papyrus, albeit with god’s help.

People can believe in the supernatural, so long as they don’t make claims that can be disproven. People should have the integrity and intellectual honesty to recognize that Joseph Smith made some claims on the origin of the Indians and the history of Mesoamerica that are just plain false. If Joe Smith had had the sense of L. Ron Hubbard, and stuck making unfalsifiable claims equivalent to Xenu, thetans, and engrams, his religion would be skeptic-proof.

[quote]
originally posted by DanBlather
**He also claimed to have received two stones called the “Urim and Thummim” used to translate the tablets. One source compared them to crystal balls.**So… would it be fair to say that Joseph Smith had a pair or crystal balls? Is that better than brass? Because I’m thinking the guy must have had some set of stones to found an entire religion like that. Thank you, ya’ll been great, I’ll be here all week. TIP YOUR WAITRESS!

Anyway, on a more serious note, what is the correct name for a member of the Church of Later Day Saints? I have a hard time with some of them calling themselves an “LDS” as it stands for “later day saint”. It seems a bit presumptive to call oneself a saint, yet I am unsure if “Mormon” is properly accepted.

I know next to nothing about the mormons, I think a large part of my ignorance in the matter has to do with my living in europe and having virtually zero contact with anyone of that religion.

The little I know comes from (miss)information picked up on the net, and does give a rather bizarre impression. Unfortunatly, having matters clarified for me by those in the know (people within the church) left me feeling the beliefs and traditions were just as bizarre. However, I was raised believing that I ate human flesh and blood for breakfast every sunday morning, so I rekon “to each his own”.

I have encountered mormons (knowingly) a total of two, count 'em, two times and considered them to be really nice guys. I am against the concept of “missions” on principle, but I did not speak to either of these lads in that context. In one case I was sitting on the bus and he struck up a conversation on the weather, we had a nice chat and went our separate ways, and on the other occasion two nice young mormon lads offered to help pack my moving van :slight_smile: Very kind of them to offer I thought, but we were already about seven people.

At the moment I don’t feel any particular need to expand my knowledge of this faith, but if I were to become friends with somone who was a mormon I would probably try find out a little more. In the meantime it feels rather unneccessary. So basically, to answer the OP my impression of mormons is “very nice guys with a bit of an odd belief system”.

Goodness, where to start. Let’s see…

(I apologize if this is a hijack, and know that opinions were soclicited. This is my opinion now. No one has to agree with me, but I’d like to try to set a few things straight.)

The Urim and Thummim are described as two stones set in a frame, but what exactly they looked like or how they were used I don’t think anyone really knows for sure. I don’t know if comparing them to crystal balls is particularly valid, but I suppose it’s better than ‘magic sunglasses.’

We do not preach that Christ traveled overland to the Americas, only that he appeared as the resurrected Lord.

I would not say that women can’t get into heaven on their own merits, so need their husbands. Each needs the other to obtain full exaltation; it’s a pretty equal deal. My husband could not get there without me, either. I will not be commenting specifically on temple rites, and there is an old thread about that here.

The Egyptian papyrus: there were a whole lot of scrolls. Smith only ever got around to working on one or two of them. The one extant now has apparently been in pieces since its arrival in the US. We have never claimed that Smith translated it at all; only that he worked on a different scroll, now lost with the rest. I always find it interesting that people love to point to this scroll, withoug noticing the Book of Moses, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere. In addition, Smith did not write the Egyptian alphabet and grammar–his students did, against his wishes.

Ancient Hebrews in America: No one ever claimed that Lehi’s family was the only one to come over. Indeed, it appears that the group met other, native tribes and intermingled with them (the Mulekites being a possible example). Why isn’t that specifically mentioned? The BoM is a very specific text, not a history. It leaves out a lot of cultural information that we’d like to know. I’m not sure anyone would be able to recognize a Nephite if one bit them on the nose. DNA testing will not be much help here, either, since we are talking about a total of 5 Hebrew ancestors. I disagree that 2 Nephi 1:6 implies that only Hebrews will ever arrive in the Americas; it simply means that those who come here will be here by the work of God (whether they realize it or not). This would apply to Ellis Island immigrants as well as ancient natives. And once the Americas did become common knowledge, they were overrun, were they not?

‘Mormon’ is an acceptable term. ‘Saint,’ however, is not meant in the way you may be thinking, Beeblebrox-- it doesn’t mean in the sense of Catholic saints, beatified or anything. It just means disciples of Christ, members of His church.

Finally, as a feminist and lifelong Mormon, I disagree that the only option open to me is to have 6 kids. Family is very important to us, true. Motherhood and fatherhood are considered the primary responsibilities. However, there’s plenty of room on the side and all around for other activities. I know career moms with SAHDs, parents who juggle their work schedules to be home, and women who take up careers again after raising children. My mom is one, for example.
Interesting essay on the BoM:Book of Mormon: artifact or artifice? You don’t have to agree, but he’s certainly got interesting things to say.

But they set up kingdoms, fought wars–sounds like more than 5 Hebrews to me.

And why is there NO record of these Nephite and Lamanite kingdoms? They would have been contemporaries of the Maya Classical period–why is there no referencei n the Mayan codices or temple inscriptions to any of the events of the BoM? Did the Nephites and Lamanites leave nothing behind beside the “gold tablets”?

By ‘ancestors,’ I mean genetic material. Lehi, his wife Sariah, Ishmael, his unnamed wife, and Zoram constitute all the genetic Hebrew material for the Nephites and Lamanites. They may or may not have had servants with them, who may or may not have been Hebrew. It’s not mentioned. But for DNA sampling purposes, it would be pretty much impossible to find the traces in modern Native Americans, for several reasons which I will list if you really want to know.

As for no records–I haven’t studied it, but for starters,

–apparently a tent-dwelling people much of the time, small populations, we really have no good idea where on the continents
–plenty of archaelogical work yet to be done over much of this area

Why do they have to have been near the Mayans or the Incas or somebody famous? Why do the Mayans have to have noticed them? As I said, I don’t know that we would recognize a Lamanite culture if we found one. I doubt that their word for themselves was spelled ‘Lamanite.’ And so on. But hey, I don’t mind of you object on those grounds. Lots of people do. I just don’t.

GENIE –

With all due respect, it must be hard to consider oneself a feminist and a Mormon. The LDS is AFAIK the only church that originally granted priesthood to women and then revoked it. Apparently, it was part of “God’s plan” in the 1840s, but isn’t now.

It is also my understanding that in the Mormon believe a woman can never get to heaven except through the auspices of a man, be it her husband or (if she’s so unfortunate as to not have one) her father. It is also my understanding that a woman cannot get to the highest (most exhalted?) heaven without a husband. I will gladly take correction if these two points are incorrect. The thing about priesthood is not.

I have several serious reservations with Mormonism that really amount to matters of belief and therefore do not make good argument. But insofar as concrete issues are concerned, it is my understanding of their treatment of women that most troubles me. Yes, even more than their treatment of minorities; I believe the LDS has made significant steps in rectifying its undeniable historical racisim, but it all the steps it’s made regarding women have been steps backward.

I say this with all due respect to Mormons; I know that my faith (Methodism) is not immune from attack. But hey, you asked.

I don’t know enough to have an opinion, but would like to chime in with a question of my own:

What do the Mormons on the board think about the book Secret Ceremonies. Is it an accurate depiction of the things that go on?

Every time I see or hear someone make a comment like this, I have to ask:

Sillier than a man who claims to be the Son of God, dies and comes back to life?

I mean, there are a lot of claims that various religions make, but surely this is the big one, isn’t it? If you don’t consider that silly or crazy, why then specific clothing or other items? Do you mock the clothing that Jews wear (orthodox or otherwise)?

Jodi, as I said above, my husband can’t get to the top without me either. We need each other. He doesn’t get to go by himself.

Gotta run, but I’ll be back.

And there are plenty of LDS feminists.

I don’t necessarily agree with Mormon practices and beliefs-well, I suppose if I did, I’d be a Mormon. :wink:

I do have a few problems with some of the tenants of their faith.
However, think about it-I’m Catholic (although pretty lapsed, I identify as such-it’s just easier), and we have some pretty wacked out beliefs. What about some of our saints and miracles? People’s heads reattaching after decapitation, magical waters, healing relics?

All religions are pretty strange, if you think about it…