Exploring Mormonism

Compare[1]

Purpose

To illustrate that thinking the scriptures apply to us is “magic” thinking and that the church basically teaches a form of divination through it.

Attention Activity

Imagine that you saw an old woman in a turban, with stars on pleated purple curtains, at a fair. She offers to tell you your future for a price. Curious, you walk in and are somewhat surprised that instead of a crystal ball, or playing cards, she has a book.

The woman flips to a random page and has you select a paragraph, and then reads it to you. It seems eerily accurate to your life and future.

Now imagine the same situation, but instead of an old woman in a turban, it is a man in a suit and tie. Instead of a fair, an institute class.

This practice is called “Bibliomancy”[2].

Although Leviticus forbids divination, early Jewish rabbinical studies actually approved the use of scriptures for this purpose.

Divination via scripture or great literary works (such as Vigil’s Aeneid[3]) is not unique to Jewish or Mormon tradition.

By stripping away context, and simply “applying a few verses” to our own lives, members are encouraged to participate in bibliomancy.

People ignore irrelevant passages, and focus on vague ones naturally.

Let’s read:

Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

Let that sink in.

2 Kings 18:27 “But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

Um… yeah, apply that one to your life, but hopefully you aren’t on the ward’s activities committee.

Deuteronomy 23:1 “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.”

And yet, not a temple question.

D&C 3:11 “Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift.”

Depends on how a person reads this, but given the sheer number of “repent now or else” scriptures compared to overall content, odds are, anyone using the D&C for divination/guidance is going to come away feeling guilty, ashamed, and like God is about to strike them at any moment.

Though one could use this kind of bibliomancy to illustrate that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, members have excuses to get out of that kind of thinking.

D&C 19:25 “And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; nor seek thy neighbor’s life.”

That pretty much goes against the numerous married women Joseph Smith proposed to. The fact that he married a large number of them, and that at least one thought her child was the offspring of Joseph, indicates that there was some degree of “coveting” involved.

In D&C 132, it is specified that all women to be engaged in polygamy should be virgins; however, the married women engaged in polyandry clearly violate this rule.

Somehow, when members are selecting verses for divining (or applying the scriptures unto themselves), these verses, and their implications, are always excluded.

Please note that the official lesson manual only describes Joseph and Emma in this lesson under the title “husbands and wives should respect each other.” Yeah.

We should be meek and avoid pride.

Except where the lesson mentions Emma needed to be humble. Again… yeah.

Let’s look at why the correlation committee picked the pride examples they did:

1) Emma – If she didn’t fall, then Joseph Smith III might, in fact be the true successor.

2) Oliver Cowdery – Fell away from the church and denied the Book of Mormon, despite being so key to the church.

3) The saints in a conference of the Church- This is really about Joseph Smith going treasure hunting again, with a promise that the church’s debts would be relieved by gold, and that Mormons would be the “richest of all people.” Failed prophesy, but it’s just fine to take scripture out of context.

4) D&C 90:17 (first presidency) – Specifically Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams. Sidney was another possible successor to the church.

5) D&C 98:19-20 (The saints in Kirtland) – Joseph Smith’s attempt at taking consecrated lands and turning them into liquid assets via the safety society (an illegal bank, for which he was fined $1,000 for violating the law) was failing, and so God blames the members.

Why did the correlation committee skip context and select the individuals they did to discuss pride?

Why are there no scriptures telling Joseph or Brigham to avoid pride? Did Joseph and Brigham ever sound proud?

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I (Joseph Smith History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409).

He has told you that he is an old man. Do you think that I am an old man? I could prove to this congre[ga]tion that I am young; for I could find more girls who would choose me for a husband than can any of the young men (Brigham Young).

Pride existed in all the leaders of the church, and yet only those who started off-shoot religions are selected, and context is removed from situations for the others.

The correlation committee appears here to be intentionally deceiving the student by quote mining, something so evil, that FAIR has an entire page devoted to it[4].

The trick to bibliomancy is to ask the “right kind of question.”

Imagine asking the D&C what the 17th element on the periodic table is, or using D&C 93 to teach you about the electromagnetic spectrum, or using D&C 88 as a guide for French recipes.

The reason bibliomancy works is that the person understand intuitively that the book can only answer some questions, and they want the answer so badly that they both select only questions that are likely to be answered, as well as push for the scripture found to fit what they need.

And if they find a “junk verse,” they are likely to repeat the experiment.

But this sort of magic is nothing new[5].

Conclusion – We should rejoice and be of good cheer.

We don’t need bibliomancy. We have airplanes created by science. Men have walked on the moon. We have wiped some diseases off the face of the Earth. The progress of science means that we can predict weather far better than any book could ever do.

This is a great day and age to live in because the scriptures don’t apply to you. Science applies to you, and you get to use it every day.

Now go play on your smart phone.

Compare[1]

Purpose

To help students understand that there is very little that is unique to the LDS faith, and that a lot was borrowed from other sources. This plays into the LDS idea that the church came from an original church throughout the ages.

However, there are two possibilities:

1) Joseph Smith, Jr. assembled the doctrines from available sources or ideas circulating at the time.

2) Joseph Smith, Jr. restored a true church from previous pieces of an also true church.

We will be looking at each of these concepts. There may be a third option of “Joseph Smith was a voice for God and then fell” or something similar, but that consideration will be handled in a later lesson. This one is all about “The only True and Living Church,” which eliminates this third group of possibilities from consideration.

Doctrine of the Church, Key Principles

This subject is in no way a simple subject. Ask 40 mormons what the doctrine of the LDS faith is and you’ll get 42 different answers. Even General Authorities, when answering this question, only muddy the waters further[2].

So we are going to identify pieces that are distinctly mormon and are key in some way to salvation:

The List

1) Historical records are preserved from corruption by God.

2) Temples are places for God. They are the house of the Lord.

3) Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods existed and were the power for the church.

4) Record keeping is key, including genealogies.

5) Baptism for the dead involves (in its perfect form) 12 oxen statues filled with water in a temple and below ground level.

6) There is a prophet, a first presidency, and a quorum of apostles.

7) There are three kingdoms in heaven: Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. Families are eternal.

8) Infant baptism is wrong. There is an age of accountability.

9) Baptism by immersion is the correct method of baptism.

10) Laying on of hands is the method of power/authority transference.

Again, these are things that are supposedly unique to the LDS faith and that are key to salvation. To anyone who wants to argue that one or more of these is a “suggestion,” the NOM groups are over here[3].

1) Historical Records are preserved from Corruption by God

Jimmy, will you hit the lights? Class movie time[4].

[Too long, didn’t watch: Most theological scholars believe (Not just scientists, but believing ones) that the Old Testament was compiled and altered to make a king look good. There are records that show that Hebrews believed very different things. The New Testament was also assembled by committee. The idea that non-inspired committees did not alter/damage the integrity of the records is laughable.]

Now I can hear the apologist groan from here. Hang on guys, I know I know, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” This is absolutely a fair argument if the word “slaughtered” was translated to “supported.” That’s a translation error. “Re-written to be political propaganda” is NOT a translation error. “Intentionally destroying all additional copies” is NOT a translation error.

2) Temples are places for God. They are the house of the Lord.

Absolutely supported by the Bible:

Luke 9:58 “And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” that shows… well really nothing. Jesus never says the temple is his house. He does call it his father’s house… cough while he is driving money changers out of it.

Moses is commanded to build a tabernacle and, in a very confusing set of whatever, the LDS church has tabernacles that are nothing like it. Instead, it is the precursor to the temple. But whatever.

The Temple of Solomon is supposed to be based on the tabernacle of Moses.

So here is the question: because Joseph did not have access to Solomon’s temple, but DID have access to the Masonic temple, and the Masonic temple claimed to be from Solomon’s temple, which is Joseph’s temple more similar to?

Point 1: The Kirtland temple resembled buildings of the period. It was a large meeting house with a veil meant to hide the presidency from the congregation. The endowment did not involve hand movements. It had no design or structure similar to Solomon’s temple (no wall, no holy of holies, etc.). It was dissimilar from modern temples in that there were no Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial rooms. There was no font or baptisms for the dead. In fact, every aspect of what LDS think of as “temple” was missing.

Point 2: The Nauvoo temple was established just after Joseph attended a Masonic temple. The structures[5] are similar[6] to modern temples, including the Salt Lake Temple[7], and similar ones existing in that day[8].

The Nauvoo temple did have a different design but it was patterned after the style of the day:

The Nauvoo Temple was designed in the Greek Revival style by Mormon architect William Weeks, under the direction of Smith. Weeks’ design made use of distinctively Latter-day Saint motifs, including Sunstones, Moonstones, and Starstones. It is often mistakenly thought that these stones represent the Three Degrees of Glory in the Mormon conception of the afterlife, but the stones appear in the wrong order. Instead, Wandle Mace, foreman for the framework of the Nauvoo Temple, has explained that the design of the temple was meant to be “a representation of the Church, the Bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Wandle Mace, Autobiography 207 (BYU Special Collections))[9].

Further, there is no evidence of “handshakes or grips” in Solomon’s temple, but there was plenty of it in masonic temples. These grips and key words were invented in the 1800s[10]. In fact, the first three penalties, grips, and tokens are exactly identical to masonry.

Aprons are also key to masonry in ways that match the mormon temple ideal.

TL;DR: Suffice it to say that the similarities to the the temples and ceremonies of Joseph’s day far surpass any similarity to ancient religion.

Note: Hugh Nibley, in a total lack of finding any evidence for an early endowment, went to two primary sources to show evidence for one. He agreed there SHOULD be lots of evidence. The first was the Eleusinian Mysteries[11] of which we have almost no record, and were almost certainly a sexual orgy at some point involved… cough

The second was the Egyptian temples, pointing out they had three levels and talked about resurrection. There is also a passage they read on the LDS tours of Egypt that they have translated to make it sound like the modern endowment. Have any non-LDS scholar translate it and you’ll immediately see the bullshit.

3) Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods existed and were the power for the church.

Not only is there a total lack of evidence for these two separate priesthoods (think of how much evidence of ordination dates/times etc. exists in the LDS faith today. They would need that many mountains of evidence and records back then, too! Every father. Every son. Every leader in the church, tracing their lineage back to Jesus…), but there is also good indications that no laying on of hands was required:

Holy Ghost given via breath[12].

Lots are used for inspiration for new apostles AND no mention of laying on of hands[13].

Mantle, or coat, signifies passing from one prophet to another. No mention of laying on of hands[14].

Now, this is not to say there could not be ANY laying on of hands, but remember, according to the LDS faith, it is the ONLY way to transfer power and authority.

But this is also not unique to Mormonism. Indeed, many other faiths use “laying on of hands” as a key doctrine[15].

4) Record keeping is key, including genealogies.

Of course, anyone who was LDS in the original church would want records of their kindred to be kept so that one day baptisms for the dead could be done for them, just like modern LDS. Where are all the early Christian baptism for the dead and geneological records?

5) Baptism for the dead involves (in its perfect form) 12 oxen statues filled with water in a temple and below ground level.

Just read the wiki and remember pi = 3[16]

6) There is a prophet, a first presidency, and a quorum of apostles.

This one has problems in the Book of Mormon, in which there are many prophets and disciples instead of apostles. No presidency mentioned, ever.

Problems in modern context: prophet and first presidency are apostles, making it 15 apostles.

Problems historically: Peter becomes prophet, despite good records of becoming pope[17], and without mention of drawing another apostle or a vacancy created when he selected his two counselors.

Problems with Joseph Smith: He was never an apostle or made part of the quorum of the twelve. Same with Sidney Rigdon and Frederick Williams, who were in the first presidency.

It’s just a rat’s nest of confusion.

7) There are three kingdoms in heaven: Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. Families are eternal.

The concept of three kingdoms in heaven clearly comes from Emmanuel Swedenborg[18], whom Joseph quoted and was familiar with.

The idea of eternal families seems to be a uniquely Mormon doctrine. But that also means that there is no record of it in the early church. Nothing about bishops and their wives living together forever. Nothing about sealing parents to children in a temple.

8) Infant Baptism is wrong. There is an age of accountability.

As discussed before, Sidney Rigdon was in a dispute with Alexander Campbell about this very issue. It was very much a topic of discussion in Joseph Smith’s day. In addition, there are records of infant baptism back to A.D. 200 with one back in the 100s.

9) Baptism by immersion is the correct method of baptism.

Neither unique nor certain to be the only method. The assumption is “Jesus was baptized by immersion, hence everyone should do it that way,” and Nephi backs that up.

10) Laying on of hands is the method of power/authority transference.

We covered this under the above priesthood entry.

Conclusion

All the core unique doctrines seem to be identifiable as having a contemporary source, and historical sources are lacking for the particular Mormon flavor to those that could have been picked up from other religions.

“Families can be together forever” is unique but has its own issues.

It truly looks like it is one more “iron mixed with clay” religion rather than a pure, restored whole religion that perfectly matches what one should expect in “original Christianity” that was timeless all the way back to Adam.

Compare[1]

Purpose

To question the restoration of the priesthood events and story as we’ve heard it from correlated manuals. To make people think about why the story is so different and why the correlation committee changed the parts they did.

Attention Activity

Take out your wallet from your pocket or purse. Now open it up to your driver’s license. What does it say on it?

That’s right, Jimmy. It tells you about your hair and eye color, details about your height, and weight.

Anyone see anything else?

Yes, it has the date the license was issued, and the expiration date.

What would happen if you tried to renew your driver’s license after that expiration date simply by changing the date on your license?

Would you accept a license that didn’t have a date issued on it as a valid one?

Why are the dates on a license important?

What would happen if you tried to drive an 18-wheel semi truck if you only had a motorcycle license?

The official story – (skip this if you are very familiar)

Video [2]

Issues with the official story

Now, I don’t want to go all “Zeitgeist” with the approach of asking questions about the official story. Conspiracy theory has it’s place, but these are things that make one ask questions similar to those of the driver’s license above.

Priesthood historicity

Historical research in early documents shows that the term “priesthood” was not used until 1831 (Prince, Power from on High, 11-12)[3].

In 1834, Oliver Cowdery wrote the first official Church history, which does mention ordination from an angel, but completely lacks the account of any kind of Melchizedek Priesthood.

The important details that are missing from the “full history” of 1834 are likewise missing from the Book of Commandments in 1833. We would expect to find all the particulars of the restoration in this set of revelations, clearly stating two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent. There is only one reference to an angelic visitation: “But after truly repenting, God ministered unto him by an holy angel . . . that he should translate a book” (Book of Commandments 24:7). This would imply Moroni was the “angelic visitor.”

The notable revelations on priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants previously referred to–Sections 2 and 13–are missing, and Section 28 gives no hint of the restoration which, if actual, should have been known for four years. More than four hundred words were added to this September 1830 revelation (found in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants). The additions made include the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph’s apostolic calling, but there is no mention of Melchizedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on church organization and government given in 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original Chapter 24 of the 1833 Book of Commandments. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations now known as Sections 42 and 68.

There seems to be no support for the historicity of the restoration of the priesthood in journals, diaries, letters, nor printed matter prior to October 1834. Indeed, the story was still not clarified fully in Nauvoo, when Joseph recounted:

I went into the woods to inquire of the Lord by prayer, His will concerning me, and I saw and angel, and he laid his hands upon my head, and ordained me to [be] a Priest after the order of Aaron, and to hold the keys of the Priesthood, which office was to preach and baptism for the remission of sins, and also to baptize. But I was informed that this office did not extend to the laying on of hands for the giving of the Holy Ghost (History of the Church, 6:249-50).

The official version we have is from 1838, written just before Joseph goes into Liberty Jail. Even Joseph doesn’t seem to remember the details of his own vision enough to recount the story completely later on.

Joseph Smith was told he could do nothing more than translate

In a revelation from God recorded in the original Book of Commandments, chapter 10[4], Joseph is told he has only the gift to translate and should pretend no other gift.

This was altered by Joseph two years later along with a slew of other changes to the revelations from God: “And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished” (D&C 5:4).

This set of changes upset David Whitmer, for Joseph asked him and the other witnesses to sign a testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants the same as they had with the Book of Mormon, and the witnesses would not sign because of the changes.

You see, in those days the difference between “revelation” vs. “speaking as a man” was clear. The pattern was well defined. When Joseph said, “Thus saith the Lord,” it was revelation up until he said, “Amen.” The rest was Joseph. But these changes did not come by that method.

This revelation set off a chain of events that led to the formation of the Melchizedek Priesthood. You see, there is no record of the Melchizedek Priesthood until it is mentioned in 1835.

In Grant Palmer’s book, “An Insider’s View,” he recounts the circumstances with sources under which the Melchizedek Priesthood was first mentioned:

When Joseph and Oliver began mentioning their angelic ordinations in late 1834 and early 1835, they were facing a credibility crisis that threatened the church’s survival. In late 1833 a group in Kirtland, Ohio, denounced Joseph Smith for ministering “under pretense of Divine Authority.” They employed D. P. Hurlbut to investigate Joseph’s past, hoping to bring him down “from the high station which he pretends to occupy.” Hurlbut traveled to Palmyra, New York, and collected affidavits from residents about Joseph’s early treasure seeking and other aspects of his youth. Hurlbut began a lecture tour starting in January 1834 to “numerous congregations in Chagrin, Kirtland, Mentor, and Painesville; and … [he] fired the minds of the people with much indignation against Joseph and the Church.” Finding disillusionment spreading among the Saints, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon began preaching against Hurlbut. It was under these circumstances, exacerbated by problems associated with the failure of Zion’s Camp–the paramilitary trek to assist fellow Saints in Missouri–that Joseph mentioned for the first time in public that his priesthood had “been conferred upon me by the ministering of the Angel of God.”

This group that sent out Hurlbut included David Whitmer.

David Whitmer declared[5] that the offices of Elder, Priest, and Teacher–parts of a single priesthood–were in evidence long before the formal organization of the church on 6 April 1830. This conflicts with Joseph’s statement that he and Oliver ordained each other Elders on that historic day and that these ordinations were the first to be made to a definite office since the conferment by the angel. Whitmer contends that the only ordination Joseph received was that of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and that the idea of dual priesthoods conferred by heavenly beings was not known in the early years of the church.

Elders were once part of the Aaronic Priesthood

Even more curious, however, is that when Oliver and Joseph are made “first and second elder” of the church, they are Elders in the Aaronic Priesthood, as the higher priesthood did not appear until 1831:

3 June 1831: “The authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders” (History of the Church, 1:175-76).

The following is William Smith’s account of the conference which followed at Orange, Ohio, 25 October 1831, “where Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons received some general instructions from the leaders of the church concerning the priesthood of Melchisedec, to which they had not as yet been ordained” (W. Smith. William Smith on Mormonism, 19-20).

Joseph F. Smith and Orson Hyde asked David Whitmer, “Can you tell the date of the restoration of the Apostleship by Peter, James, and John?” He replied: “I do not know, Joseph never told me. I can only tell you what I know: I will not testify to anything I do not know” (Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 25).

Conclusion

Each time the church teaches these lessons, it teaches that the authority from God was clear and concrete without an expiration date. Joseph’s alteration of “pretend no other gift” to “this is the first gift” is similar to changing the expiration date on a driver’s license.

The lack of any historical record of the Melchizedek Priesthood is like a driver’s license with no date of issue attached. The ordination of Elders while only having the Aaronic Priesthood would be like driving Big Rigs around with a motorcycle license.

Joseph and Oliver rewriting the revelations is similar to many other power plays in organizations all over the world, and David Whitmer was correct in calling them on such an alteration.

Indeed, instead of being a great point of faith for members, the restoration of the priesthood should be a large red flag that indicates that the church is not what it claims to be. That the manuals and lessons are altered to make these oddities hidden should suggest a level of deception.

More and interesting details of other changes available here.[6]