This can't be still happening, can it?

Off-Topic
22

Mike,
not to be disrespectful of your comments, but they are not only in error, but historically inaccurate. I have study American history for almost 40 years, I have also studied the Good and Bad of the LDS faith History. Your right, there are some who simply want to white wash the truth, but then there are others who simply want to disparage the LDS faithful…

For example:

  1. Joseph Smith was NEVER convicted of money digging (although there is one case in which it says he was convicted, which is in dispute by several historians), which is not illegal by the way, he was working for Josiah Stowell and upon his request, used the peep stone to find “hidden Treasures”. This was a common thing for the people to do during the early 1800’s. The “Diviners” was quite rampant and even some of the religious leaders of the day participated in this practice. Several people used peep stone to find all kinds treasures. So I am not sure why the non LDS (who suppose to know history) keeps this myth up and running.

  2. Kinderhook Plates - Seriously, they have not even determined yet that these plates were actually the ones Kinderhook presented to Joseph… So not sure why you brought that up.

  3. First Vision - I am assuming you are referring the six or seven different versions of the first vision. Yes each one is different, but not one of them discounts the others… they enhanced them (more detail). If you had taken the time to study “why” the changes, you would find that at first Joseph was bit nervous about writing these things down because of the reaction of the people (especially the clergy) when he mentioned it to them. He also knew these same guys would come out and claim he said something different. One thing is for certain, after his time in the Liberty Jail, he seemed to change dramatically, almost as if he knew his time was short, so he wrote the last version around 1842. The only thing that changed in the final version is more details about him and the affects it had on him. The CONTENT of the first version never changed.

But what I find interesting is people who are not LDS points to this as proof Joseph was a false prophet, but never says a word about how the Savior “Quotes” Malachi, yet what he said is not what was written by Malachi… At least what is found in the Old Testament.

Not sure what you talking about the Book of Mormon, so I can not comment on it, but I will tell you that while on my mission, I ran across the chief of the Ogala Sioux indian tribe. He had white hair, blue eyes and white skin. He did his research and No! he had no white ancestors. In fact in the movie called “A Man called Horse” he is the one that is doing the Sun Dance in the movie. He told me of several points in the Book of Mormon that is told by the stories of his ancestors…

The problem I have with KC and his article, is the simple fact, is that we DONT KNOW ALL THE FACTS… so to say this guy was right or wrong is simply dumb…

I know that there is a ton of black spots in the LDS church History… that is due mostly because we are Human beings and make mistakes just like the rest of the world… is that not why we are here? to learn and grow?

Here is a simple fact about Brigham Young that most people who claim he was a racist forgets… When did he start to try to get Utah in the Union? the answer: around 1856 which is about five years BEFORE the civil War. Before the civil war, Congress made a dumb decision and said " for every free state we admit to the union, we must have a slave state". this was in order to maintain peace between the sides. Brigham had many converts from the south that had slaves, so there was that fact that needed to be addressed. Personally, I think Brigham did what he did in order to get Utah admitted as a state. AGAIN, we don’t know all the facts and reasons behind it… So we are simply guessing.

23

What does it mean to love God?
answer: to keep HIS commandments

What does it mean to love another person?
Answer: Not to keep his commandments when they go against God’s commandments messengered by His servants the Prophets.

Brigham Young was the Lord’s servant messenger. I don’t see where it’s right to say he was wrong. All we have been told is the reasons speculated on were wrong.

24

The essay on race condemns all past leaders and members who taught this, I don’t need to add to that, but no, killing a white man who marries a black woman isn’t what I would consider “right” so therefore I conclude he was wrong. Proclaiming someone’s skin color represents their level
of worthiness in the pre existence isn’t what I would consider “right” so therefore I conclude he was wrong. I don’t want to have to go on and on, but there are plenty of former leaders who held racists beliefs and taught them while holding their prominent position, the latest essay condemns those teachings, pretty simple and way long overdue.

25

I don’t want to argue with you about these things but from my perspective none of these things are in doubt. LDS people just stick to their own sources and discount evidence that doesn’t fit the presupposition.

I noticed you didn’t mention The Book of Abraham at all, and I don’t blame you! This is the smoking gun that proves Joseph Smith was simply not what he claimed he was. According to Smith, the papyrus in his possession was written by “the hand of Abraham” and that is exactly how it was portrayed by the LDS church for a hundred years. If the papyrus had not come to light, of course this is what the church would still be teaching, but that doesn’t wash anymore due to voluminous evidence to the contrary. So the church has once again had to change their story on this, just as they have about Smith’s polyandry (totally denied by the church when I was at BYU). They now claim that the papyrus Joseph Smith “translated” (I shouldn’t use that word anymore since even the church admits that he didn’t translate anything) was nothing more than a very common Egyptian funerary document, post dating Abraham by thousands of years. Either Joseph Smith lied or he didn’t know he didn’t know how to translate Egyptian and just imagined it had something to do with Abraham. Either one totally disproves The Book of Abraham, and also puts serious doubt on the historicity of The Book of Mormon. So to get around this, now the church claims Smith only thought he was translating the papyrus, but was instead receiving revelation! Couldn’t this work just as well for the Book of Mormon? Seriously, if you can believe this you can believe anything!

The annoying thing to me is that its so easy to find this stuff out for yourself, yet LDS folks just won’t do it for whatever reason. When I was studying Mormonism decades ago you had to go to libraries (UofU and BYU) and really do serious research, but now everything is online. Seriously, read the Wikipedia page on The Book of Abraham and see how well it is documented. Not a single claim is made without lots of sourcing. That anyone can believe that The Book of Abraham is anything more than a rewrite of parts of the Bible is a tribute to human audacity!

Its really kind of sad to me that LDS folks still think there is actually historical evidence for The Book of Mormon, of the type you suggested. We now know through genetic testing that the American Indians are of Asian descent, not Middle Eastern. They walked across the Bering Strait, they didn’t come on boats. There were also no horses, no domesticated animals, and no steel, all of which the BofM claims existed. The problems with the JS version of events are legion. Even BH Roberts, one of the great Mormon Historians until his death admitted to these problems and had no explanation for them.

Sorry I will go away now. I know this stuff makes LDS people uncomfortable but that is the exact discomfort that keeps most members from finding out the truth about the church’s past, and its holding up the kind of change many members and non-members need to see. Mormonism is of the world’s great religions but it badly needs a renaissance of the type other religions have already had, and I’m hoping it will come soon. The Mormon people are some of the best people on the planet, but for some reason they have a hard time grappling with their past.

26

Mike,
If chide me for looking only at LDS sources… but yet… you cite Wiki? You do know that wiki is an open site and anyone can post what they feel is the truth, right? It is not a Legitimate source of Information.

I have looked at the issues you bring up (including Book of Abraham) from various sources, including Non LDS sources. I have done a lot of research on different subjects (I have not always been Mormon).

Just a few points…

  1. The book Abraham papyrus… You must be talking about the ones that was assumed to be the one Joseph Smith Translated and was (in I believe ) found in the NY Museum… that they claimed to be the ones that JS translated.
    Well hate to break it to you, most if not all the papyrus that Joseph had was sent to Chicago and was burned up in the great Chicago fire. No one has been able to prove that the ones that was found was the ones JS worked on.

No Smoking gun here dude… Just Anti Mormons trying to twist the facts.

Second, SOME of the American Indians are from Asia, Not all of them… There are over three hundred different tribes that settled across the American continent, sorry but the “Facts” are not conclusive…

Third, I was raised in a very anti Mormon Family, who brought a lot of this crap up about the church. So I don’t fit your description of LDS people…

Nothing makes me feel uncomfortable about discussing my faith with others as long as they do it honestly. Like I said I have studied history for close to four decades, I do not believe any one source of information (due to excellent history teachers), so I look at all views…including Mormonism… So I will tell you the same thing I have told hundreds before… Who is the greatest source of all truth? Go to him and ASK if Joseph was a prophet, BOM is the word of God, Book of Abraham is not true… The one catch? You have to be honest with God to find the answer.

27

For members of the church today, with the evidence that we have, it’s clear that everything is not as it was presented to us. The book of Abraham is clear to me today that it was not translated from the documents purchased by the church, but written by Joseph. Now whether some still consider this scripture as revealed through him or he was just taking from multiple sources to create it, I won’t debate that because it’s a matter of personal faith and belief.

But what I will say is that whether all of the claims made about the church and it’s doctrine are true or not, there is still enough good intentions found in the current structure of the church to support a non-orthodox membership if they choose to allow for it. I’ve been outspoken in my desire for a reformation in the church to return to the biblical roots of love God and love your fellow man, and distance ourselves from the man made laws and rules that are not in harmony with the two great commandments. We are not there yet, but I will say there are many inside the church and in leadership that are working to help the church get back to the original intent, not what spiraled out of control the last 180 years or so.

Either way, there is a place for you Mike at my ideal place of worship just as there is a place for Floyd, Jim, even SG. The move away from traditional orthodox Mormonism is catching momentum and I believe we will see in our lifetimes some positive changes that distance is from the past mistakes even more.

God bless

1 Like
28

My comments are interspersed with yours below:

“chide me for looking only at LDS sources… but yet… you cite Wiki? You do know that wiki is an open site and anyone can post what they feel is the truth, right? It is not a Legitimate source of Information.”

Wikipedia is probably one of the most accurate sources of information on the planet. Crowd sourcing has proven to be one of the very best ways to get accurate information, and Wikipedia is more accurate than every published encyclopedia.This isn’t just my opinion, it is borne out by actual studies. But you don’t have to believe Wikipedia at all because everything they put on there is well sourced. That’s why when you say “anyone can put anything there” you are only telling a tiny tiny part of the story. I challenge you to put something up there that isn’t true and see how long it lasts. It will be gone in minutes if the sources don’t check out. Try it for yourself.

"I have looked at the issues you bring up (including Book of Abraham) from various sources, including Non LDS sources. I have done a lot of research on different subjects (I have not always been Mormon).
Just a few points…

  1. The book Abraham papyrus… You must be talking about the ones that was assumed to be the one Joseph Smith Translated and was (in I believe ) found in the NY Museum… that they claimed to be the ones that JS translated."

This really shows that your claim to have done a lot of research on this topic simply isn’t true. I could give you 100 reasons why if I had the time. Here’s a couple: The papyrus completely matches the historical descriptions. Most LDS apologists admit this, but some use it to throw up a smoke screen by picking at tiny details. The papyrus was originally on a roll and was cut, but its a simple matter to put something like this back together again by simply lining up the tear marks. We do know the order of the documents on the roll and we know we have have all the documents Smith had because its easy to see where the roll begins and ends. But even if we didn’t have all of it, it wouldn’t matter at all because what he did claim to translate is simply bogus.

Joseph Smith penned what he called “An Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar” with characters copied from the papyrus (yes that papyrus character for character in the exact same sequence) with the supposed translation following them. This document is now in the church vaults, but photographs still exist and have been examined by LDS scholars and others. Some Mormon apologists have gone so far to try to make vague comparisons between the funeral document and The Alphabet and Grammar, but they are completely unconvincing. They claim, “well this symbol had something to do with ‘power’ and this verse has something to do with ‘power’ so…” Really what does this prove? We know where the document came from and we know it had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham. This is simply not disputable by anyone why has looked at the evidence. It was simply not written by “the hand of Abraham”, and that is not disputed anymore by anyone. Surprise surprise. The church just changed the story!

“Well hate to break it to you, most if not all the papyrus that Joseph had was sent to Chicago and was burned up in the great Chicago fire. No one has been able to prove that the ones that was found was the ones JS worked on.”

Again not only untrue, but the church admits its untrue. Hate to break that to you Floyd!

“No Smoking gun here dude… Just Anti Mormons trying to twist the facts.”

Yes this is the general LDS response to just about everything. Anyone pointing out the truth has some vendetta against the church. Even if it were true though, would it really matter? Evidence stands and falls by its own weight, and it simply doesn’t matter who presents it. In this case the evidence is utterly convincing except to the most die hard apologist.

“Second, SOME of the American Indians are from Asia, Not all of them… There are over three hundred different tribes that settled across the American continent, sorry but the “Facts” are not conclusive…”

Well he church taught just the opposite right up until the second the facts became too inconvenient to ignore. I have a friend who was yelled at by his seminary teacher for suggesting that there were any groups in The Americas other than the two described in the Book of Mormon. But this is what the LDS church does. Once things become to difficult to believe they simply change their minds about it. Right up until the weight of evidence is overwhelming they excommunicate people for not believing their story. Afterwords they say, “well sorry but the facts just aren’t conclusive.” This is a horrible way to treat your members. And BTW I am not aware of a single piece of evidence that shows that any of the civilizations that inhabited the Americas came from anywhere other than Asia, but it really doesn’t matter does it? Smith claimed that these people were the ‘indians’ that had inhabited the vicinity of Cummoroh, just as Ethan Smith did. They were both dead wrong. This is simply not arguable. The day is coming when the church will have to admit this, but its not going to be easy. They’ve told this story for a very long time now.

“Nothing makes me feel uncomfortable about discussing my faith with others as long as they do it honestly. Like I said I have studied history for close to four decades, I do not believe any one source of information (due to excellent history teachers), so I look at all views…including Mormonism… So I will tell you the same thing I have told hundreds before… Who is the greatest source of all truth? Go to him and ASK if Joseph was a prophet, BOM is the word of God, Book of Abraham is not true… The one catch? You have to be honest with God to find the answer.”

(1) Falling back on mysticism to explain discrepancies in physical evidence is bad practice. (2) I have done exactly what you suggested and I received no witness at all. The only response LDS people ever have to this is to call into question my character or sincerity. But the truth is, I could never worship a God that hides in the sky and rewards people for believing a certain way when he doesn’t bother to be explicit about what to believe! There are too many people of faith who believe completely contradictory things to take this prospect seriously. Why would God reward beliefs that contradict the evidence of our god given senses? I just can’t understand that approach to truth at all. Unique evidence requires unique proof, whether you have a good feeling about it or not. In fact a lot of things that are true have made me very unhappy, so its beyond clear to me that approach doesn’t always get you closer to truth.

I’ve spent more time on this discussion that I should have, so I’ll give you the last word. Best of luck in your search for truth Floyd.

- Mike
29

I made the commitment not to respond to MikeH again and his last few posts only serve to confirm that commitment as a good one. It is obvious that he spends a lot more time looking for dirt than he does watching BYU sports.

It has become very clear who and what he is… and I don’t need to say anymore.

I find it interesting that KC seems almost afraid to defend the beliefs or the religion that he claims to be a part of. While I understand his desire for some progressive change, I don’t understand why it is so easy for him to go head to head with SG yet he feels no compelling reason to defend his beliefs against “MikeH”.

Curious indeed… and frankly disappointing. :smirk:

As for your comments Floyd, I agree with you completely. Stick to your convictions.

30

No it does not. You hope it would buy it doesn’t. It is clear that the reasons speculated why blacks weren’t able to hold the Priesthood were not doctrinal and not to be taught as reasons. Nowhere does it say it should not have happened. It was obvious that that BY was not a bigot as he praised Lewis, a Blackman. You simply want to change Doctrine and commandments without revelation.

31

Mike,
You wrote “Wikipedia is probably one of the most accurate sources of information on the planet.”…

If this is what you really believe then I am sorry to tell you that it is delusional at best… Even Wiki themselves does not make this claim and Science Live states the same thing “http://www.livescience.com/7946-wikipedia-accurate.html” (They used baseball as an example as how bad it is). But if you simply want to stick your head in the mud… be my guess…

There is a lot information out there on the web that can dispute the claims you make… but you really aren’t interested in discussing it are you Mike… You see real historians do not take the word of any one source. Go ahead and check what I am saying… because even in College they teach history majors to be cautious in what you read… EVERYONE has a slant on things… But you say that Wiki is the best source… LOL thanks for making me laugh…

I read your last part of the post and realized what you are… someone who simply can not understand things of the spirit… Not condemning you at all here, For you see I was there once myself. I was agnostic with a heavy leaning to Atheist in my youth. My father taught me to be that way. Always be critical of Religious folklore… Then one day, I had an experience that changed my life. Won’t go into it, but let just say “I saw the light” of my errors…

I know the LDS church has it’s stains, known it for decades…If you research, it is not hard to find, even before the net… The thing that bothers me about your posts is that you say you did the things that I said to do… then say " I could never worship a God that hides in the sky ", which tells me that you really never took it seriously in the first part… Contrite spirit, humble heart is the key to answers.

I have wasted enough time on this subject… You can never ever convince me that I am wrong because GOD has told me what is in my soul and heart… Sorry to break to you Mike… There is a GOD and he lives.

32

Thanks Jim… I know we don’t always see eye to eye… but this means a lot to me…

33

OK Floyd, I wasn’t going to respond again, but since you and Jim have chosen to hate and attack me personally rather than address a single one of the detailed points I’ve made, I need to defend myself. I had hoped we could discuss this and be friends, but I should have known this isn’t possible with fervent believers. I have no choice but to conclude that neither you, nor Jim understand the basics of how to find truth, and you simply don’t care. At least your methods are far different from the commonly accepted ways most people (and academia, science, etc.) use. This is contrary to what Joseph Smith himself taught about “all truth being circumscribed in one great whole”, but apparently those teachings, like so many others, are completely malleable.

Apparently you think that if you can paint me as ‘evil’ then you don’t have to take the responsibility for the facts that contradict what you want to believe. This to me is bizarre, considering that the information doesn’t come from me, it comes from historical sources, many of which are LDS sources. Its OK if you need to hate me, but it doesn’t change the fact that every single thing I posted is true. And I have no idea how you explain that the information doesn’t all come from detractors, since I posted information from the well known LDS historian BH Roberts. Is it OK to ignore facts that he produces as well? Will God bless you for this for some reason??? I clearly don’t get it! Its clear to me that your beliefs are based on psychological factors, and not at all on evidence or rationality. And you could use that methodology to believe literally anything.

And your not even right about Wikipedia! Of course they don’t blow their own horn and academia wants to see the sources, not a summary by Wikipedia authors, but you completely ignored my point that the source material is there! Here’s what your own source really believes about Wikipedia: http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

If you want to respond to what I’ve posted rather than go off on how evil I am or some nonsense about Wikipedia I’ll be happy to give you the last word. If you attack me again though, I will respond, and unlike you, I can do it without calling you names or insulting your integrity.

34

I’ve never been shy at defending my beliefs, and did so in my responses to him and multiple times to personal attacks in here from others. The difference is my personal beliefs and faith is different than yours apparently. I don’t debate belief or faith, as they are personal to each and everyone one of us. I believe you mean I didn’t defend the doctrine of the church or belief structure of the church, and you are correct. I don’t defend that, I don’t feel there is a need to defend it unless you work for or are a church belief based person. I personally am not, and I have a very personal belief and faith that I share when I feel like it.

2 Likes
35

Include me with the people who 100% agree with Floyd on this topic. About 5 years ago, I wisely made the decision to no longer read anything from the SL Tribune. While I usually like to hear both sides on topics, it’s hard to wrestle with pigs while not getting dirty. I’ve made a new commitment to read nothing from Mike H on the subject of religion. Why he is on a BYU Sports Fan website is a mystery to me. Mike H - I guess I’m glad you went to BYU, but why you are so obsessed with negativity, doubt, and animosity toward the LDS Church is a mystery to me. If you want to try to disprove LDS beliefs, go to some anti-Mormon website to do so; you can all be miserable there together!

36

I’ve said this on another site and it applies here as well. When viewing church history, there is an A, B and C view.

The A view can also be called the Junior Sunday School view, meaning it’s very simple. Church founders were infallible. They wore white hats and rode white horses, etc.

The B view is the A view turned upside down. Church founders were scheming, etc. They wore black hats. They led people astray. Often people with a B view of Church History also have a B view of current church leaders as well.

The C view sees the church leaders for what they were…human. They made mistakes and put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else.

This story is a good example of what can happen with A, B and C conflict. The Sunday School teach had the C view. The Bishop of the ward had the A view. The SL Trib has the B view. The Bishop (A) found something that the Sunday School teacher © taught that was in conflict with his view. He believed this was false doctrine. Then took action that he thought was appropriate.

People with an A view of Church History also believe that people with a C view of Church history are a threat to the testimony of others. If the brethren as a whole, believed this, they would not have put the essay on LDS.org.

1 Like
37

T
Straight forward and to point, clear and concise.

Well done Ben.

1 Like
38

First Mike… since you pointed directly to me… Please show me one place that I hated you or attacked you… No where did I do that, I gave an observation of where you are at based solely on your posts… Like I said “I saw the way you posted” and with my background I saw signs of which I spoke…

Sorry if that offended you… But that is what I saw from your posts… You are someone who don’t believe in Faith (things are true by not seen), that is based totally on your comments…

Second, the part you seem to have a problem understanding is that sources (even scientific sources) has slants to them. It is because the results is slanted by personal bias, you can not get away from that. Look at Global Warming and various sides to that issue.

When I research, I do not simply go to one source (LDS) and look, I look at multiple sources (LDS and NON LDS) to find information.

Then I look at “WHO” authored of the source, and check out his background. I have found too many times that people has axes to grind when comes to religion and their views. Authors either white wash it or try to spin it in some way to disparage the group they talking about.

You speak of the Book of Abraham…I have much on the research I have done… Historians today can not say for certain that all the scrolls today are ALL of the scrolls Joseph purchased… plus there some disputes about the findings of some of your sources… So again I say “Who is right?”…

Sorry if I came across offending (I only do that intentionally for SG posts :O) ), that was not my intent. But I am not going to stand by and let “Scientific” sources disclaim something I know is true… Sorry, just not built that way.

39

Craig, I think if you follow his posts he didn’t jump to this, but was bated even begged by some to go this far. While I don’t agree with everything he posts, I’m not personally threatened by it. I hope for a day when the church makes room for people with beliefs and opinions different than the norm. None of his references were untrue, it’s just how different people chose to equate the information in their life and or faith.

And thankfully we have fans of BYU that are not just cookie cutter Mormons, after all the school and program are not just for Mormons, supposedly its mission is to reach the world and fans like Mike are appreciated. No need to go this route with him, a more Christ like response may be more appropriate next time bro.

40

Okay, I understand you, well at least I think I do.

Now then, if you don’t work for the church or are not a church belief person, let me ask this question.

What is your belief regarding doctrine and principles of the church? Is it too personal to share whether you believe in baptism by immersion, gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. all done by the proper authority? ie. the priesthood authority?

Do you believe the prophet is the mouthpiece of the Lord? That he can receive revelation for the entire church, and the world for that matter, etc.?

There are other questions, but if those are too personal, I understand. As for MikeH, he is using the predicted tactic of claiming that people are calling him names, insulting him, hating and attacking… and honestly, I’ve had more than my fill of that kind of nonsense. It isn’t worth my time.

41

Well said, we are long past due of accepting multiple views to historical inconsistencies. The days of pushing for everyone to be orthodox and the rest are apostates is gone, but that mentality still exists unfortunatly with many members and local leaders.