http://blog.epicswell.com/questioning-mormonism/

Here is the intro I wrote for the page. Let me know if you have any to add. It should be pretty comprehensive, but I’m quite sure I’ve missed plenty.

The following list has been compiled from many different sources as well as from my own questions regarding the authenticity of the LDS church.

Each question provides some insight into why many church members (of the LDS church) question their faith in the gospel and in Joseph Smith and why non-members are reluctant to take the leap of faith required to believe that the Book of Mormon is true scripture and that Joseph Smith was actually a prophet of God.

As I began researching early church history I had some of these same questions come to mind. After so many of these questions surfaced I began to question myself and my faith. Eventually I realized that I could not reconcile my beliefs, everything I had been taught to believe, with what I was reading about the origins of the church. So much of what I had been taught had been fabricated or downright false. I realized that until I could reconcile belief with evidence and fact, I could not continue to believe in the religion I was raised in.

From Hope for Parents of Wayward Children:

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God. (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 110)

Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang. (Brigham Young quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:90–91)

If you succeed in passing through these trials and afflictions and receive a resurrection, you will, by the power of the Priesthood, work and labor, as the Son of God has, until you get all your sons and daughters in the path of exaltation and glory. This is just as sure as that the sun rose this morning over yonder mountains. Therefore, mourn not because all your sons and daughters do not follow in the path that you have marked out to them, or give heed to your counsels. Inasmuch as we succeed in securing eternal glory, and stand as saviors, and as kings and priests to our God, we will save our posterity. (Lorenzo Snow in Collected Discourses, comp. Brian H. Stuy, 5 vols. [1987–92], 3:364).

So, it seems that even if I no longer beleive in the church or its teachings, I can still make it to the Celestial Kingdom as long as my parents are faithful to the end. And, it would seem that my children can get in on the deal as well since they are my parents family as well.

So much for hedging your bets. It doesn’t seem to matter what I do, I can still make it.

Here’s an interesting side note from the quote by Lorenzo Snow… why does he think that you have to succeed in passing through trials and afflictions in order to receive your resurrection? Resurrection is a free gift to everyone. Its exaltation that’s reserved for the faithful. One more confusing thing to be confused about.

This is a nice story, but the problem is that Joseph Smith had legally deteremed who would be the successor and it was ignored.

The below is a transcript of the incorporation of the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints” in the state of Illinois by Joseph Smith in Febuary of 1841.

87 City of Nauvoo Hancock Co. Ills
February 2nd A D 1841
To the County Recorder of the County of Hancock
Dear Sir
At a meeting of the “Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints” at this place on Saturday
the 30th day of January A D 1841. I was elected Sole Trustee
for said Church to hold my office during life (my successors
to be the first Presidency of said Church) and vested with
Plenary Powers as Sole Trustee in Trust for the Church of Latter
Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints to receive acquire manage
or convey property real personal or mixed for the sole use
and benefit of said church agreeably to the provisions of ^ an Act entitled “an
act concerning religious Societies” approved February 6th 1835
Joseph Smith [L.S.]
State of Illinois } ss.
Hancock County } This day personally appeared before me [Daniel]
H Wells a Justice of the Peace within and for the County [of Hancock]
aforesaid, Isaac Galland Robert B Thompson and J[ohn C.]
Bennett who being duly sworn depose and say that [the foregoing]
Certificate of Joseph Smith is true.
Isa[ac Galland]
R. B. [Thompson]
John [C. Bennett]
Sworn to and subscribed this third day of February [in the]
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and f[orty-one]
before me Daniel H W[ells]
Justice of the [Peace]

In the event of Joseph’s death, his legal successor was the quorum of the First Presidency. When Joseph died three years later on June 27, 1844, the sole surviving member of the First Presidency was Sidney Rigdon.

Although the rivals who emerged to challenge Sidney — Brigham Young, James Strang, William Smith, David Whitmer and ultimately Joseph Smith III — had inferior succession claims, their leadership was viewed by most of the Saints as much more palatable. Thus we hear the story of Brigham Young and the members choosing him as the successor.

Source = http://www.bycommonconsent.com/

So I was thinking this morning about the possibility of discussing my disaffection with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with family and realized that I wouldn’t want to use the term “brainwashing” when discussing my so-called “spiritual” experiences that I had while a believing member of the church. What it comes down to is this… I don’t want to tell my mother and father that I think that they brainwashed me into having experiences and believing certain things from a religious perspective.

I just started watching the New Amsterdam TV show which airs on Fox. I watched episode number 3, “Soldier’s Heart”, last night and it got me thinking about the subtle use of brainwashing that is employed by religions. Although brainwashing is accurate, I think “leading the witness” is just as accurate and has a less negative connotation.

In episode 3 of New Amsterdam, the main character (John Amsterdam) gets a mentally unstable retired veteran, played by Orlando Jones (great actor btw, played the part very, very well), to confess to a murder. The confession doesn’t sit well with Amsterdam and after reviewing the tapes of the confession, Amsterdam realizes that he lead the witness to confess by telling the veteran certain things that he thought happened and by asking certain questions. The veteran couldn’t remember what had happened due to his mental state and based on the information presented, relented to the idea that he must have committed the murder.

When church members bear their testimonies and experiences with others and then expect children or non-members to have their own experiences. In the LDS church, there is an expectation that if you ask someone to read the Book or Mormon and pray about it, they will have a certain experience. That experience is designed to convince them that the Book of Mormon is true and therefor the church is true and therefor they should join the church or continue in the church.

This tactic is manipulating and can have adverse effects later on. I wouldn’t want to tell my parents that I think they brainwashed me and the church brainwashed me, but its very clear to me that I was lead to have certain experiences and expect certain things to happen based on the experiences of others. This plays on ones inclination to want to belong and be like others that they respect and/or love.

Do I discount the experiences that I had while a member of the church? Yes. I look back on them now and I understand how I was manipulated into having experiences that were then hammered into my conscience and sub-conscience that the meaning of the experiences is that I must pray, pay and obey. And now that I have questions, I’m expected to throw the questions out the window and put my focus into obeying all of the church’s commandments and cultural expectations.

The answer is hidden in Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses, volume 19, pages 39-40.

“I lived right in the country where the plates were found from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country. I believe I will take the liberty to tell you of another circumstance that will be as marvelous as anything can be. This is an incident in the life of Oliver Cowdery, but he did not take the liberty of telling such things in meeting as I take. I tell these things to you, and I have a motive for doing so. I want to carry them to the ears of my brethren and sisters, and to the children also, that they may grow to an understanding of some things that seem to be entirely hidden from the human family. Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: “This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.”"

I had no idea that the hill Cumorah opened up and Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery walked right in and gave the plates back to the hill. Sounds like a plausible enough story to me. I mean, if I could beleive that angels visited Joseph so many times, why couldn’t a hill act out a scene from Disney’s Aladdin?

This presents a few issues for me… mainly, why hadn’t I heard about this at Church? Why doesn’t anyone talk about it? Its right there in the writings of Brigham Young so shouldn’t we know this story by heart? What about all of the speculation that an angel came down and gathered up the plates so that they couldn’t be defiled by man? Is that explanation a lie?

Am I supposed to take Brigham Young’s words at face value? Should I not listen to the prophet like so many apologetics tell us?

This also brings up another problem I have with the church… why is it that I have to learn about the church’s own history, the very church I belong to, from sources that the church tells me is anti-mormon and which I should stay away from, quoting the very documents that our beloved prophets wrote themselves?

http://blog.mrm.org/2008/03/mormons-don%e2%80%99t-necessarily-believe-in-christ/

My question is this… if I don’t beleive that Joseph Smith is/was a prophet… if I don’t beleive that the Book of Mormon is what the church says it is… if I don’t beleive that God exists, Jesus is the Christ/Saviour… then should I be allowed to continue my membership regardless of whether I openly discuss my views with others?

Most TBM’s would say that one should be allowed to stay in the church becuase of the possibility of getting them to change their ways. The church would like to beleive that even though I don’t beleive in the basic tenants of the faith, there is still a chance that I might change my ways.

Its hard to beleive that I could change my beliefs again and take the church back. In order to do so there would have to be a lot of changes in the church and I highly doubt that will ever happen.

If I am required to profess certain things in order to be baptized, wouldn’t it make sense that I should continue to profess those same things after baptism in order to continue my membership?

That is the case as seen in the recent disiplinary councils that have been made public recently, namely the story of Mr. Lamborn. The Stake President, President James Molina, explains that if Mr. Lamborn keeps his views to himself, he can stay in the church, but if he discusses his views with others, he may have his membership revoked. What does that say about a church that makes you conform to certain beliefs in order to be baptized, but once your in you can beleive whatever you want as long as you keep quiet?

To me, it’s a huge problem that the church does not allow open debate regarding its doctrines and tactics. If the church was in the business of truth, it would be open about its history. It would be straightforward about polygamy, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon etc. etc. etc. But, the church would rather squash debate about these topics and keep a heavy hand on making sure that the core of the church keeps the same line.

If I’m not open to speak my mind, when I feel that I have researched and read and understood to the best of my understanding, and the church tells me that I cannot discuss it with others or else I will be excommunicated, then I think my only course of action is to voluntarily give up my membership to the church.

As a refresher course, Galileo Galilei had the view that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This was considered heretic due to the fact that several bible scriptures reference the Earth as being stationary. Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy

The September Six are a group of LDS church members who had differing view’s and idea’s concerning church doctrine, theocracy and history that the LDS church does not advocate. They were considered intellectuals and the church didn’t like where their ideas where going. The church excommunicated five and disfellowshipped one in hopes of squashing the movement of those who might find problems with church history and want to reconcile them within mainstream Mormonism. Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

As I’ve commented before in previous posts, I have a huge problem with how the church knowingly omits its own history in hopes of perpetuating a grand idea of who the church is. When looking at church history, its very difficult to read church history and reconcile it with all of the education handed down by your church leaders. A little thing called cognitive dissonance steps in and your mind wrestles with all of the new information, which is not refuted by church leadership, and the journey begins.

I find it difficult to understand how the LDS church, which is supposed to be the source of truth for the world, can excommunicate members who look at church history, which can be done reading official church books, and decide that what the church teaches in Sunday school lessons are not the entire story. I know there is more to it than that, but the fact of the matter is that we are taught in church meetings the things that church leaders think will instill more faith in us. They don’t think that the facts are important. Church leaders have even told us to ignore the things that dont make the church look good.

I know I’m not the only one who thinks this, but the church is becoming more mainstream in an effort to bolster church membership. What they don’t understand is that the differences were exactly what kept a lot of people in the church. The church needs to take back its identity and become the church that it was intended to be, not the vanilla flavor church that has a rocky beginning. It’s as if the church today thinks that using PR spin will make them look good. They shoot themselves in the foot because anyone who is really interested can google anything the church claims and find that its contradicting itself, or at the least, leaving our the unsavory parts in an effort to put their best foot forward. The church needs to explain how the church really came to be. Their members need to be told the truth so that they can deal with sincere questions from non-members who have heard about many of the contradictory aspects of church history.

One of my brothers got married and I spoke to one of my other brothers about the church after a few comments he made about why he wasn’t going to the temple. We have been communicating a lot lately about our experiences and its amazing that we haven’t spoken about religion at length up until now.

Let me tell you how nice it is to have someone I respect and love be in the same boat as I. Brother, welcome. We shall continue our journey together.

Next, my wife and I have spoken a few times about religion and we continue down the path of determining what to do now. We have decided that we will go to church for social reasons. We would like our daughters to have friends, even if they are members, and church certainly does provide for that opportunity for those who live close by. I will fight off the indoctrination the best I can and teach my daughters to be good people and think for themselves despite religion. I continue to be amazed at my wife and how she is dealing with all of this. It seems that it might have been a shorter jump for her than it was for me. I’m glad that my faithlessness isn’t wrecking our family and I owe it to her for being so understanding and cooperative. My love for her grows the more we talk and the more we improve together.

So, I’ll post again when it feels right. In the meantime, may the spaghetti be with you.

Of course the Lord will judge you properly after you die so what happens here doesn’t matter much to the members of the church. Everything will be sorted out later, so if someone cheated the system and got to the temple, so what. They will get their punishment later on. What about those people in the world who are 300% percent better than mormons, but who have never gone to the temple to be sealed. We all know families who are better than ours who are not members of the church. They love each other completely. They are a model of what a perfect family should be. Yet according to Mormon doctrine, they can’t be together after they die.

Here’s my question… why not?

I’m not sure if there is a god or not. But I do know is that I love my wife and my children more than myself. I will do anything for them. I cannot imagine my life without them and I will not put up with the idea that just because I don’t beleive in the church any more, I cannot be with them after I die.

I beleive that I will be with my family after I die. Why do I beleive this? Because I want to. Can you tell me that I am wrong? Sure. Go ahead. I won’t listen to you unless you have some irrefutable evidence to the contrary. I’ve been told by the church that I am wrong, but they have yet to convince me. I’m still not sure how it all works, but I doubt I ever will know. There are plenty of people out there who claim to know, but I’ve found that their reasoning is bad and their evidence non-existent or completely false.

So, until someone can prove to me that I won’t be with my family after I die, I’m going to beleive that I will.

Love is the most important thing in my life and if there is anything in this world that crosses the boundary between life and death, that thing is Love. After all, love conquers all! Even death!

Question 2: Did Joseph Smith use the Gold Plates to translate the Book of Mormon?

After several decades in the church I would have answered “Yes” to both questions. Sadly, the answers are both questions is “No”.

The Church teaches its investigators and members that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith using the Urim and Thummim to read the characters on the gold leaf pages of the ancient record obtained through visitations from angels at Hill Cumorah with a scribe writing down the scriptural passages.

The Book of Mormon was not translated with the Urim and Thummim. They were used to produce the 116 pages, which where lost, and subsequently taken from Joseph by an angel as punishment.

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants. Also, that there were two stones in silver bows (and these stones, fastened to a breast-plate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim) deposited with the plates, and the possession: and use of these stones was what constituted Seers in ancient or modern times, and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.”

(History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, 2:34-35)

They were never returned to him after he repented and was forgiven and allowed to resume translation. Since that time, in which the rest of the Book of Mormon was produced, Joseph used a seer stone. This stone was originally found in a well by Joseph Smith while searching for buried treasure years earlier for Mason Chase. (Martin Harris statement in Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, pages 163-170.)

How did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?

“…sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour…” Emma Hale Smith

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.”
David Whitmer, REF: Page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ

“He [Martin Harris] said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin…”
Edward Stevenson, First Council of Seventy

Harris said that the seer stone Smith possessed was a “chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum.” Harris went on to say it was by using this stone that “Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates”
Comprehensive History of the Church 1:129

“By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say ‘written;’ and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used”
Comprehensive History of the Church 1:29

“When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph’s placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes — Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down.”
Michael Morse, Emma Smith’s brother-in-law, Saint’s Herald, 1879

There are several references that state that the Urim and Thummim were used in the hat. There is much confusion about these statements as many seem to think that the references refer to the seer stone. To further complicate the matter, the term “Urim and Thummim” have been used to explain the pair of stones set in eye frames that were found with the gold plates on the Hill Cumorah and seer stones as referenced in Biblical passages.

Next, Joseph Smith did not use the gold plates to produce the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was often kept in a box, under cloth, or even in the woods near the home where they were translating.

I, as well as all of my father’s family, Smith’s wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation”
David Whitmer, REF: Page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ

This would make sense since Joseph was looking into a hat instead of at the plates while he dictated.

Its interesting to know that Joseph Smith never provided details regarding the translation process. Whenever asked, he simply explained that he did it by the “gift and power of God”.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints further perpetuates the inaccuracy by including misleading artist’s depictions of the translation process throughout their websites.

This topic is an especially worrisome example of Faith Promoting History. Is the Church truthful about how the Book of Mormon was translated? The answer is clearly “No”. If it were, everyone would know. Instead, Church manuals, conference talks, Church educational video’s, books, etc. depict Joseph carefully reviewing the contents of the gold plates. Is this because the truth is not believable? The answer is most certainly “Yes”. But what does that matter? Shouldn’t the Church just tell the truth and deal with the consequences? I’ve been taught at Church to tell the truth no matter what, to have that kind of character, yet the Church does not practice what it teaches. What should matter more than the truth? If the Church were honest about it, most people today would simply laugh and balk at the idea and would not take the Church seriously.

Arguably, times have changed since the early 1800’s in which times seer stones were often used to find hidden treasures. Seer stones were common in those days and religious people believed in their power and divinity. Today, it is seen as sheer foolishness. In David Whitmer’s To all believers of Christ pamphlet, it was explained that the seer stone was used for the translation. This was done so as proof that the book was translated by divine inspiration and not written by man.

As I’ve explained previously, the Church should not have to rewrite its history to make it more palatable. The Church claims to be the only true church upon the face of the whole earth and as such should be able to be truthful about the translation of the Book of Mormon. Simply, the Church needs to acknowledge their error and begin teaching the truth of the translation.

References:
Translation of the Book of Mormon: Interpreting the Evidence BYU - PDF
Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Book of Mormon By Stephen D. Ricks BYU
http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV
A Treasured Testament - By Elder Russell M. Nelson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - Ensign, July 1993, 61
http://www.mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm
http://neo.graceland.edu/~rsmith/translation/trans1.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/divination.html
Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon By David Persuitte, page 81