From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: True Christianity vs. The Myth of Mormonism
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:48:14 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

Having spent nearly seven hours straight at the terminal responding to
John Meulhausen's self-justified vilification, I probably won't have
much substantial to say here.  I have no intention of making a
point-by-point response to this for two reasons:  I don't have time,
and no one will read it.

dali@milton.u.washington.edu (David A. Lee) writes:
>This is an exerpt of some writing/compiling that I did recently.  Hope it
>makes some people think.

Unfortunately there is nothing here which is new.  I have been
thinking about these things for twenty years, and I'm not very
stimulated when they come up for the umpteenth time.

Just in case it wasn't clear from my response to John, Mormons realize
that people like David are acting in good faith and for what they
think is the right reason.  But Mormons don't want to be saved from
the "error of their ways."  Since expositions like this usually
contain nothing much beyond propagated rumor, they just don't make us
think.

>	A major tenant of the Mormon religion is that all men will 
>become exalted gods over their own kingdom on a star after death.

Correct in substance, but highly speculative on detail.

>This is in clear contradiction with Scripture.

Unfortunately it's what a lot of early Christians taught.

>The following statement made by Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth 
>prophet and president of the Mormon church stated:

Unfortunately, he wasn't a prophet or president when he wrote this:

>	Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of 
>	Joseph Smith.  He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, 
>	properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest 
>	frauds this world has ever seen.  There is no middle ground.

Okay.

>	If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to 
>	mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be 
>	refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an 
>	imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine 
>	truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and 
>	deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which 
>	would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not 
>	stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of 
>	measurement, the Scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:188) 

And people have been trying to topple Mormonism for 150 years.

>	The Jesus of Christianity is The One True God come in the flesh.  
>He is not a second God. The doctrine of the Trinity states that there 
>is One God in three Persons (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit).

Unfortunately, not everyone believes in the doctrine of the Trinity,
which in the words of Christian historians "took a long time to
solidify."

>a separate God from the Father). The Mormon Jesus, like the Mormon 
>Father, had to work out his own salvation (whether or not this is 
>saved by works)  he is a saved being.

This is not LDS doctrine.  Jesus is not a "saved being."

>	The Book of Mormon was not inspired by God.  If in fact Joseph 
>Smith relied upon the Scriptures to determine truth, he should have 
>been wary of the beings he claims to have seen in the woods.

Why?

>	No man has seen God at any time.

Read the end of the chapter.

So on whose right hand did Stephen see Jesus?

>	Even Joseph Smith claimed no one could see God without the Holy 
>Priesthood,

Why no citation here?  I think he said "Holy *SPIRIT*," but I may be
thinking of something else.

>The beings in Smith's vision claimed all the churches at that time 
>were wrong and all their doctrines corrupt.  If that were true, why 
>does Mormonism have some doctrines in common with Christian 
>denominations?

"Corrupt" does not mean "entirely in error."  It means "somewhat in
error."

>	Later Smith was visited by an angel who was so bright his "room 
>was lighter than at noon day."  Immediately 2 Corinthians 11:14 
>comes to mind:
> 
>	And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of 
>	light.

Funny, I always thought angels of light also masqueraded as angels of
light.

>	Instead of confirming the truthfulness of God's Word, the angel 
>told him of plates that contain the "fullness of the everlasting 
>gospel."  Another gospel?

See my reply to John M.

>	But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel 
>	other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally 
>	condemned! (Galations 1:8)
> 
>	A true Christian, seeing what Smith saw, would trust Galations 
>1:8, knowing there is no other gospel.

But what if the angel preached the same gospel as Christ?  Since Smith
already had been told that true Christianity in all its particulars
had been lost, it isn't "another gospel."

>	Mormons believe the Book of Mormon "another testament" of 
>Christ, a second witness.  Never do the Scriptures give any 
>indication that another book is necessary to testify of Christ and His 
>divinity.

Neither does it claim that the Bible itself the way we have it today
is so required.  Further, the Bible does not preclude additional canon.

>	The Book of Mormon is not the source of doctrines of the Church 
>	of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

It is one of many sources.

>       It can scarcely be termed a 
>	book of doctrine, for doctrines are suggested, although not defined,

Mormons don't claim otherwise.

>	and none of the peculiar beliefs by which the Mormons are 
>	distinguished today are present.

See the summary in Gilbert Scharff's _The Truth About "The God
Makers"_ which answers this and most, if not all of the questions
which follow.


>	The Mormon doctrine of "the Word of Wisdom" cannot be found in 
>	the Book of Mormon.

Quickie, it's in the Doctrine and Covenants, another source of LDS
doctrine.

>	If all the doctrines we have mentioned above were removed from 
>	the Mormon "gospel," the Mormon system as it is known today would 
>	cease to exist, yet not one of these vital tenants are found in the 
>	Book of Mormon, the "everlasting gospel in its fulness."

Mormons have never interpreted this phrase to mean "all the
doctrines."  See my response to John M.

>	The question arises of how thinking persons can accept the 
>	doctrinal omissions, fallacies, discrepancies, and inconsistencies of 
>	the Book of Mormon and its translator.  The answer lies in the fact 
>	that the energetic program of Mormonism makes any danger remote 
>	of the average member studying the Book of Mormon carefully and 
>	arriving at the point of its incredibility.

Having studied the Book of Mormon in minute detail from several
angles, I find increasing evidence of its authenticity.  Mormons are
encouraged to do this.

>	It is not true that Mormonism does not attack Christianity.

Well it's certainly true that traditional Christianity likes to take a
lot of pot shots at Mormonism.

>	resurrected.  Salvation, or exaltation, is solely dependant upon the 
>	works of men.  In the words of Mormon Apostle James Talmage:
> 
>	Salvation is, and must be, a cooperative enterprise between God 
>	and man. (An Understandable Religion  p.24)

The quote does absolutely nothing to support your point, which is not
LDS doctrine.

>	One of the most offensive tenants of Mormonism is their 
>	insistence that they are the only true Christian church on the 
>	the earth and that every other church is in a state of apostasy.

Read the statement with respect to other churches in Scharff's book
previously mentioned.

Odd that most Protestants don't care that Catholics make exactly the
same claim.

>       The 
>	Mormons deny almost every fundamental of the Christian faith, and 
>	insist they alone represent true Christianity.

A minute ago you said that Mormonism had some things in common with
traditional Christianity.

>		In 1973, Mormon Apostle Mark E. Peterson succinctly stated 	this Mormon position when he said:
> 
>	When the Savior established his church during his mortal 
>	ministry...one important fact became conspicuously clear: Salvation 
>	comes through the Church. It does not come through any separate 
>	organization or splinter group nor to any private party as an 
>	individual.... Therefore it was made clearly manifest that salvation 
>	is in the Church, and of the Church, and is obtained only through the 
>	Church. (The Ensign, July 1973, p.108)
> 
>	From the context it is clear that Peterson refers to the Church of 
>	Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as "the Church."
> 
>	The true Church is made up of people, not four walls.

And it is this Church to which Peterson referred.

>body.  5:23 confirms this.  The Mormons believe that the Church is 
>built upon the Prophets and Apostles.  But you must ask what are the 
>Prophets and Apostles built upon?  Upon the cornerstone, Jesus 
>Christ.  He is the true foundation the church is built upon.  He 
>founded the Church, and reigns as the authority over it.  No other man 
>can claim authority over Christ!

No Mormon claims authority over Christ.  And the phraseology of the
Church being founded upon prophets and apostles with Jesus as the
chief cornerstone is commonly used in Mormonism.

>	The Mormon religion believes in "living oracles," as the source of 
>Church authority.  In recent years, many Mormon authors have been 
>placing disclaimers in their books.  Even Mormon General Authorities 
>have prefaced their writings with the claim that their books are not 
>official church publications and may not represent official LDS 
>church policy.

That's because Mormons have never viewed their leaders as infallible,
from Smith on up.  No Mormon prophet has ever claimed infallibility.
The reason these disclaimers appear is that Mormon leaders still
retain their personal freedom, and are free to enjoy their own view of
principles of the Gospel as they see fit.

But there are those who scour Mormon literature in the attempt to find
contradictions, inconsistencies, would-be prophecies, and so forth to
use in carefully constructed "proofs" of what they see as the fallacy
of Mormonism.  Mormon readers understand that these works by apostles
and other leaders are not doctrinal, but may be helpful to them.
Non-Mormons sometimes get the incorrect opinion that anything talking
about Mormonism is official and fair game.

>leaders who don't speak with full authority.  Furthermore, the words 
>of the "living oracle" become null and void after he dies.

Not as res facto.

>	Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets, for the living 
>	prophets always take precedence (Ezra Taft Benson, "14 
>	Fundamentals," Press Copy, p.5).

That's because the very nature of the idea of continuing revelation is
to update and clarify the doctrines of God.  The changing nature of
the world offers new challenges to the faithful which may not have
been discussed by the "dead prophets."

>	In reality, Mormons have no firm basis for truth other than the 
>words of sinful man.

And upon whom do those who place their trust in the Bible alone rely?
By whom was the Bible written?  Dummelow treats the fallibility of
Biblical authors in the introduction to his marvelous commentary.

I'm only going to treat the allegedly false prophecies I can remember
right off the top of my head.

>	Smith also claimed the American Civil War "would be poured out 
>upon all nations" (Doctrine and Covenants, 87:2).  History shows this 
>was not the case.

No, Smith said that BEGINNING with the American Civil War, that war
would be poured out upon all nations.  History shows this to be the
case.

>	In 1832 Smith prophesied that a temple would be built in 
>Independence, Missouri, "which temple shall be reared in this 
>generation.  For verily this generation shall not pass away until an 
>house shall be built unto the Lord" (Doctrine and Covenants, 84:4-5).  
>To this day there is no such temple.

Define "generation."

>	Like a hereditary disease this trait was passed down to other 
>church authorities.  Brigham Young declared that by 1882 the Elders 
>of the Mormon church would be thought of as kings on their thrones 
>(Journal of Discourses, 4:40).

This isn't necessarily a prophecy.  Not everything a prophet says is
expected to be prophecy.

>He also said the Civil War would not 
>free the slaves (Journal of Discourses, 10:250).

It didn't, according to some historians.

You might list some of the prophecies that DID happen.  Scharffs lists
about 40.

>	Every prophecy of God will come to pass.  All those who have been 
>deceived by the words of Joseph Smith and other false prophets will 
>for eternity regret having heard their names, and will hold them in 
>reproach for the damnation that has come upon their souls for 
>accepting a false gospel and not that of the true and living God.

Sorry, hellfire and brimstone just doesn't scare me.

>	Many Mormons hold values which are highly praised in this 
>society.  There are some wonderful commercials on TV made by the 
>LDS church praising the strength of the family.  As people, the 
>Mormons you and I meet will be very respectable, kind and honest 
>people.  But they are misled by the false doctrine contained within 
>the Mormon church.

Translation:  They believe in a Christianity different than yours, of
which you need not be afraid.  They might enjoy talking with you about
religion, if you don't stoop to beating them over the head with your
personal interpretation of the Bible, or attempting to save them from
their error.  They are probably quite happy with what they believe,
and have made it a matter of personal prayer and study of God's word.
They appreciate anyone's belief and consider it every human being's
right to worship as deemed expedient.

>Their beliefs, which are in great conflict with 
>Holy Scripture, are what we must question.

Translation:  Protestants and fundamentalists usually disagree vocally
with what Mormons believe.

>That is what I and all 
>other Christians do.

Translation:  Tearing holes in another's religion is okay as long as
you think you're right.

I hate to burst your bubble, but most Christians don't attack others'
beliefs.

Thank you for your opinion of what you think Christianity should be
and why you think Mormons don't fit.  As I said before, there's
nothing new here, and nothing that hasn't been treated in nauseating
detail in this newsgroup before, or in print elsewhere.

Please accept my sincere apologies if any of this sounds overly
flippant or disrespectful.  I've been working twelve hours straight so
far answering this stuff, above and beyond a full day at work.  After
having read and responded to more than a thousand lines of "what I
don't like about Mormons" I can't be in complete control of my
attitude.

Just in case you forgot:  I don't intend to respond to this in detail
as I don't particularly care to, and there's nothing here we haven't
heard before.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc