Beliefs Politics

Well before Romney, Mormon founder Joseph Smith ran for president

(RNS) Joseph Smith founded the Mormon faith after he said he was visited in a grove of trees by God and Jesus; he was the first Mormon to run for president, but not the last. RNS file photo courtesy of the Museum of Church History and Art/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(RNS) Joseph Smith founded the Mormon faith after he said he was visited in a grove of trees by God and Jesus; he was the first Mormon to run for president, but not the last. RNS file photo courtesy of the Museum of Church History and Art/The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(RNS) For all the political hubbub over Mormonism, you might have thought Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are the first Mormons to run for president.

In fact, 11 Latter-day Saints have campaigned for the White House, including the faith's founder, Joseph Smith.

A barrage of bullets cut short Smith's campaign in 1844. He was the first presidential candidate to be assassinated, according to historian Newell G. Bringhurst, author of “The Mormon Quest for the Presidency.”

Some of the obstacles Smith faced, however, live on.

In a July Gallup Poll, 22 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate, a figure that has hardly budged since 1967. Earlier this month, a prominent pastor who backs Texas Gov. Rick Perry for president called Mormonism a “cult.” Romney shrugged off the insult, saying he has heard worse.

Joseph Smith heard worse, too. A study of his short-lived campaign demonstrates that anti-Mormon sentiment is rooted deep in American history.

“Quite ordinary people were roused to levels of hatred and fear they never reached at any other time,” writes historian Richard Lyman Bushman in “Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder.”

Six months into his presidential campaign, Smith was murdered by an angry mob in Carthage, Ill. Some historians believe his White House run incited fears of a looming Mormon theocracy.

“It was not a hatred of the alien,” writes Bushman. “It was more a fear of the familiar gone awry.”

Then, as now, it was theological _ not political _ disagreements that agitated many of Mormonism's opponents, said Adam Christing, director of a documentary about Smith's campaign.

Smith sought to dramatically change Christianity, introducing novel concepts and new scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon. Many Christians branded him a heretic.

“Some of the same language they were using in the 1830s about Mormons you still hear today,” Christing said.

In some ways, Smith was already a seasoned politician: the mayor, chief magistrate and militia leader of the Mormon settlement in Nauvoo, Ill.

But the self-described “rough stone” was a long-shot presidential candidate.

Smith was unschooled and unpolished, had been imprisoned for treason, and anti-Mormon mobs had chased his church out of Missouri. Rumors that he was a power-hungry polygamist followed him like feral dogs.

Still, Smith had the uncanny confidence of a prophet, and remained convinced that his candidacy would benefit the country and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

After his church warred with Missourians, Smith and other Mormon leaders pleaded to President Martin Van Buren for protection. Van Buren declined to help, saying that he could ill afford to lose Missouri's votes in his re-election bid.

Frustrated, Smith wrote to the leading presidential candidates in 1843, asking only one question: What would their Mormon policy be? Since none would commit to protecting the embattled church, Smith and other Mormon leaders decided he should run.

“I would not have suffered my name to have been used by my friends on anywise as president of the United States or candidate for that office if I and my friends could have had the privilege of enjoying our religious and civil rights,” he said.

Historians disagree about whether Smith thought he could win. Some say he only hoped to get some good press, gain Mormon converts and play kingmaker in Illinois, where the resettled Mormons were known to vote as a block.

Other historians argue that Smith committed all his church's resources to a serious campaign.

“He really began as a protest candidate,” said Bushman. “But I think as he went along, like a lot of protest candidates, he began to have hopes that just possibly he could win.”

At a time when violent mobs ran roughshod over minority rights, Smith hoped to build a “coalition of the oppressed,” Bringhurst said. His platform was tailored to gain support from abolitionists, free blacks, Catholics and other besieged groups.

Smith favored neutrality in foreign affairs, absolute freedom of religion, abolition of slavery, low taxes and prison reform. He also wanted to cut Congress in half and grant the president “full power to send an army to suppress mobs.”

To spread the message, more than 330 Mormon missionaries fanned out across all 26 states and the Wisconsin territory with pamphlets bearing “General Smith's Views.”

They spent as much time preaching about Mormonism as they did promoting Smith's campaign, historians say.

“It's hard to draw a distinction between when they were speaking in the name of the church and when in the name of their candidate,” said Richard Bennett, associate dean of religious education at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

Smith himself left little room between his roles as prophet and politician. “He was just totally insensitive to the separation of church and state,” said Bushman.

“He believed he was an instrument in the hands of God to restore God's kingdom on earth,” Christing added. “He was almost a King David figure.”

While campaigning for president, Smith also established the Council of Fifty, a kind of shadow government that would lead Mormons to safer ground out West, where they would prepare for the Second Coming, which Smith expected to arrive soon.

It was an exercise in extreme cognitive dissonance: running for president while believing the end was nigh.

Smith never saw either vision realized. He was jailed for destroying a printing press run by Mormon dissenters and later accused (again) of treason. Local leaders feared his growing political and ecclesiastical power.

“The fact that he ran for president was like the final straw,” Bringhurst said.

About the author

Tracy Gordon


Click here to post a comment
  • Mr. Burke, Thanks for your article, I found it very interesting and you know I just watched the the trailer for the documentary mentioned above online at – and it looks really good. This story is fascinating and it has all the makings for a great movie!

  • The problem with Mormonism (and Protestantism) is that they are religions which put their faith in self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters. Mormons put their faith in Joseph Smith and his teachings. Lutherans put their faith in what Martin Luther taught. Calvinists follow Calvin, etc. But historically, Christianity is not a religion founded on a book; rather, it is a religion founded on Jesus Christ who established a visible Church to guide man through the ages. It is through the Catholic Church (with all its scoundrels and hypocrites—weeds among the wheat, and wolves among the sheep) that God gave us the Bible. The popes in the 4th century defined the canon of Scripture in the first place. It was not until the 16th century that an ex-catholic priest named Martin Luther broke away from the Church and founded his own church, in the process discarding 7 books from the Old Testament and dismissing 4 books of the New Testament as not being inspired by God. Luther introduced the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) which opened the floodgates to the myriad of self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters who ushered in the chaos, confusion and division which is found in Christianity today outside of the Catholic Church. This division has further disfigured the Christian world and finding itself further away from God by teaching an incomplete or counterfeit Christianity, which shuns the cross and preaches the gospel of health and wealth and self-fulfillment, instead of the true teachings of Christ…

  • Gabriel, while you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, it seems to me that you’re on pretty shaky ground. The whole argument for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the Church of Jesus Christ stands on the foundation of prophets and Apostles, with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. Once the wickedness of the people forced God’s prophets from the Earth, the Catholic Church—which is therefore just another Protestant Church, albeit the first one—rose from the ruins of the Church of Jesus Christ. By this argument, you can’t really rely on the “popes in the fourth century” you cite, since while I’m sure they were very nice people, they had no more Divine authority than, say, Lindsay Lohan.

    The main thing Catholics and Latter-day Saints agree on is that the Church of Jesus Christ must be established by Jesus Christ and led by His authorized prophets. If the original Church of Jesus Christ actually remained on the Earth, with the popes authorized in an unbroken chain, then of course Catholicism is true. If it didn’t, then they only way we could get it back is if the Savior were to call and ordain another prophet, which is exactly what Latter-day Saints claim He did. Either way, you’re right: the Protestants, who never claimed any authority to begin with, don’t have a leg to stand on.

    My 2¢.

  • Gabriel, you are right. But the topic is about Smith and his presidential campaign and his mormonism. I find those self made prophets have a great deal of problems, rooted mainly in their ego and quest for power and fortune. Look what happened to that poor soul. A person who thinks he would be a great president,(lacking humility), usually is the worst pick of the bunch. On the other hand, we always get what we deserve in America. That scares me.

  • I once saw a title of a book printed like a century ago (unsure) called THE AMERICAN MOHAMMED. But Islam believes in One God, while Mormonism is POLYTHEISTIC AND MATERIALISTICALLY EVOLUTIONIST. That is apparently why polytheism was practiced by Smith and the early Mormons, until, that is, when they wanted to become the State of Utah, which required them to give up that practice.

  • please do more research on this historical figure. you will be surprised how far off your interpretation really is. Read up on a bit of the local history from people who knew him personally.
    there are many other local sources from Upstate New York. read some of the Waterloo history – , , I tell you honestly you WILL be surprised.

  • Pete, I’m not sure what prompted you to make the charges you have, but if you’ll allow me to set you straight:

    1) Yes, so-called “Mormonism” is technically “polytheistic,” as is any Christian Church that believes the Biblical description of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three separate Beings. However, the term “polytheistic” carries the implication that those so called are engaged in the worship of many gods, which is absolutely untrue of Latter-day Saints. A more accurate description of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its teachings would be “monolatristic,” just like the first Christians and their Hebrew successors (before monolatry gave way to monotheism in the first millennium B.C.).

    2) I’m not sure what would make you think that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches material evolution, but I can assure you that it does not.

    3) You state that “polytheism was practiced by Smith and the early Mormons,” although from the context, it would seem that what you actually meant was “polygamy.” Again, while this description is technically true, the implications carried by that word are wholly inaccurate, which is why the Church referred to what it practiced as “plural marriage” instead of polygamy. The distinctions are too numerous and occasionally nuanced to go into here, but suffice to say plural marriage is a very tightly controlled subset of polygamy that was practiced by a small minority of early Latter-day Saints.

    That having been said, it is also important to note that the cessation of plural marriage in mortality had nothing to do with a quest for statehood, despite the fact that Latter-day Saints had been petitioning for statehood for almost 50 years. The cessation came about because the Supreme Court of the United States had recently declared the legality of anti-polygamy laws. The prophet Wilford Woodruff was faced with a decision: he could instruct the Saints to cease a temporary practice that most of them (including himself) detested, anyway; or he could allow the Church to be destroyed, thus abandoning tens of billions of people to damnation. He took the question to the Lord, and the Lord’s response was neither equivocal nor surprising.


  • The 1844 shooting of an egotistical, mysogenistic charlatan and buffoon, a theocrat with all the integrity and credibility of L Ron Hubbard but with half the creativity, was a damn shame. It shoud have been done years earlier.

  • Jeff, the historical record shows that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and no one witnessed his visions. Thus Mormons have put their faith in Joseph Smith. Jesus Christ established a Church and gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, with the power to bind and to loose. Christ also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. The only prophecy which Jose`h Smith fulfilled was the ones which speak about the many false prophets who would come and lead people away from truth. False prophets, false teachers and the people who follow them have all been deceived by the father of lies and half truths.

    But Christ gave authority to His Church to teach the truth. He even said: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me”

    The Catholic Church was established in 33AD by Jesus Christ. All other groups are man made, including Mormonism, which was founded in the 19th century. What’s more, Mormonism has perverted the true teachings of Christianity, even denying the divinity of Christ. The whole idea that Christ was a man who became God and the God of planet earth, and that Mormons will become gods of other planets is a Satanic lie.

  • “Satanic lie”? Oh my. Spoken like a true religious fanatic.

    All religions are lies, man made, no devils need apply. Paul was the greatest charlatan and the best PR man a non-existant man-god could have, which would have been much to the dead Cynic preacher’s amusement no doubt.

    If Haile Selassie had 1/10th the kind of PR Jesus had Rastafarianism would be a major force… much to Selassie’s amusement.

    There are some 28,000 sects and denominations of Christianity. None are more or less true than any other. All of them share one thing in common: they all believe themselves to be the revealed true practice. But, they are all built on myth, supertsition, and ignorance. The fact that Catholicism was the genesis for this cacophony of nonsense doesn’t give it any more credibility, just the majority of the blame.

    On the otherhand, no one does and sanctions pedophilia like the Catholic Church. In that regard, it stands alone.

  • PS: I’d proffer if a Jesus existed and he came back to earth, and saw the gold crucifixes adorned with his mostly naked body dangling from it, being carried around by a man dressed in gold lame, irmine, and jewels, living in a palace while the lowest of the low support him with their meager finances, he’d bitch slap the old fool into a coma.

  • Gabriel, I’ve spent over twenty years studying the life, teachings, and prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr., and I can honestly say that I don’t know what you’re talking about. You state that “the historical record shows that Joseph Smith was a charlatan,” which is subjective at best; some people felt he was, but thousands of his contemporaries disagreed. I’d be interested to know, if he was such a “charlatan,” what you think stood to gain by the practice. Last I checked, all he ever received was a life of self-inflicted poverty and his own murder.

    You also state that “no one witnessed his visions,” which is patently ridiculous. We have written records from several people who experienced visions along with him, and from many more who witness the effects thereof.

    You also claim that Joseph almost never prophesied truthfully, yet of the hundreds of prophecies he uttered, I’m not aware of anyone who has been able to disprove a single one. If you have done so, I’d be very appreciative to know, since many of the greatest religious minds of our era have tried and failed miserably. If you are able enlighten us all, I honestly request that you do so.

    Finally, you are absolutely correct that “Jesus Christ established a Church and gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, with the power to bind and to loose.” You are also correct that “Christ also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.” I’m not sure what your point is, though, since these statements are both from the Bible and therefore part o Latter-day Saint doctrine. Are you trying to disprove so-called “Mormonism” by agreeing with its tenets?

    Thanks again.

  • Thousands of Hannibal’s contemporaries thought he was a God. Millions thought the earth flat and the stars are set in a firmament (some still do). Since when do numbers extablish credibility / fact?

    People can’t ensre the future, they simply attempt to direct it. Like anyother charlatan (i.e. L ron Hubbard), imposter, dictator or tyrant Joseph’s intent was to obtain money, power, fame, recognition, a following. The fact that things didn’t work out for ole Joseph the way he’d hoped doesn’t imply it wasn’t his objective.

    Instead of wasting another 20 years studying the tenets of Joseph Smith, why not launch an expedition and see if you can find the chariots, iron, helmets, armor, and horses that predate the Spanish presence in the Americas. Get back to us when you have credible evidence that no other Mormon “scholar” or archeoligist has ever found… including the ones who abandoned the nonsense of LDS when they realized it’s absurdity.

    Now, that’s not to say Mormon is any more absurd than any other religion. It’s just newer thus less engrained and established. All religions despise new takes on their religion, it implies their religion is wrong and is threatening to them.

  • Bart, you don’t know what your talking about. I love how these posts go way off subject and procede to attack the Catholic Church and the Pope and always, without fail, the pedophilia(homosexuality) problem.
    Is your name a derivative Bartholomew? Just curious.
    Gabriel you are still right.
    The poor Mormons are a really interesting lot. I Think Poor old Joe Smith must have seen a vision, I feel sorry for all of them.

  • Really, Tanya? What part of what I said vis-a-vis the Catholic Church or LDS Church demonstrates I don’t know what I’m talking about?

    Sorry if I attacked the pedophile problem. I know how much Catholics disdain any such discussion of years of abuse of children, and institutionalized cover up throughout Europe, Australia, South America and the US. Best we not speak of it, or how many priests, Bishops and cardinels have been excommunicated for their direct involvment (that would be zero). Or why the Legion of Christ, held in the hightest esteem by Pope Paul, was lead by a convicted child molester and druggie (a friend of the Pope’s), who also promoted sexual abuse of the Legion’s seminary members- and yet has never been denounced or revamped by the Vatican to this date.

    Tanya, I’d wager you have no idea what I’m talking about…as well read on your religion as you probably claim to be.

    My name is derived from my grand father whose name was Barton. It was shortened to simply Bart. Is your name derived from Patti Hearst’s alias “Tanya” when she was with the violent terrorist group the Symbiones Army? Just asking.

    How very condescending that you feel sorry for the Mormons. I’m guessing it’s because they are all damned to hell according to your doctrine, and not because they virtually own Utah, have amassed billions of dollars in their treasury, and are the fastest growing Christian sect/denomnation/cult on the planet (while Catholicism is in free fall decline).

  • Bart,

    So your argument is that no one believes the Book of Mormon is true except for people who believe the Book of Mormon is true? Nice.

    And for the record, I’d still be fascinated to know your source for Joseph being in it for the money—and more to point, why, if that be true, he spent his entire adult life giving it away. Furthermore, you still haven’t explained why, if Joseph knew it to be a scam, he would give his life for it.


  • Jeff,

    Mormons put their faith in Joseph Smith. Those who follow Mormonism need to realize that unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon completely lacks historical or archaeological support and is full of textual errors, factual errors, and even plagiarism. For example, scholars have proof that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works written by other men and contains simple plagiarisms lifted from the King James Bible. The only Bible that Joseph Smith relied on was the King James Version. The KJV is a good translation but was based on an imperfect set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. Biblical scholars have shown proof that the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the original King James Version contained the same errors which show up in the Book of Mormon.

    Smith claimed he was a prophet of God and was receiving the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, however,the same errors found in the King James translation appeared in his “divinely inspired” Book.

    Also,in the Book of Mormon we read that Jesus”shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).

    But contemporaries of Joseph Smith consistently described him as something of a confidence man (Con-man), whose chief source of income was hiring local farmers to help them find buried treasures by the use of folk magic and “seer stones.” Smith was actually tried in 1826 on a charge of moneydigging.

    Yet Joseph Smith claimed to be a “prophet” and frequently prophesied future events recorded in the LDS scripture “Doctrine and Covenants” which included dates for their fulfillment, but those dates are now long past with the events never having occurred. Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith died not as a martyr, but in a gun battle in which he fired a number of shots. He was in jail at the time, under arrest for having ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper which dared to print an exposure (which was true) of his secret sexual liaisons. At that time he had announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States, set up a secret government, and secretly had himself crowned “King of the Kingdom of God.”

    The Bible states:

    “There were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1

  • Furthermore Jeff,

    You stated: “so-called “Mormonism” is technically “polytheistic,” as is any Christian Church that believes the Biblical description of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three separate Beings.”

    Jeff, your statement is evidence that you are not well educated in what Christianity teaches about the Trinity. Christianity does not worship three different Gods. The Trinity are not 3 separate beings, rather the terms “Father” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” are human descriptors for us to grasp a greater reality beyond our comprehension. The Eternal Mind of God is the “Father” Because Fatherhood is the principle of generation: The Eternal Mind begets an Eternal Word –or “The Son”(which became flesh and dwelt among us) John 1:1-10. The relationship between the two proceeds the Holy Spirit.

    Analogies abound to explain the Three Yet One understanding of what and Who God Is. For example, you can 1) THINK of the word “run”, and 2) you can SAY the word “run” and 3) you can actually run: Three distinct realities yet one in the same.

    Again, Mormons may be wonderful and nice people, but Mormonism is built on a lie. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, and thus His Church has lasted for 2000+ years in the Catholic Church, which can trace its teachings back to the first century, and can back up its claim with both the historical and archeological record.

    Again, the only prophecy Joseph Smith fulfilled was the one Christ warned about false prophets coming in His name

  • Jeff said: “So your argument is that no one believes the Book of Mormon is true except for people who believe the Book of Mormon is true? Nice.”

    LOL..I made no such argument, and nothing I said could even be interpreted that way. I did say that the tenets of thBook of Morm0on are so absurd and easily falifiable (archeological non-evidence) that many crredible Mormon scholars who have researched it have walked away from the religion.

    Jeff said: “And for the record, I’d still be fascinated to know your source for Joseph being in it for the money—and more to point, why, if that be true, he spent his entire adult life giving it away. Furthermore, you still haven’t explained why, if Joseph knew it to be a scam, he would give his life for it.”

    This is indictativeof what religio-think does to ones reasoning powers. Jeff, tell me what YOUR source is for rejecting Scientology/L Ron Hubbards’ charltanistic religion creation as having been for something other than “true faith” and I’ll use the same exact methoid to discredit Joseph Smith’s intent.

    And the fact that someone is killed for their scam doesn’t imply that they believed their own nonsense. It would be akin to saying that since Moamar Kaddafi was killed it implies he gave his life for some true belief, and nota result of his tyrantical lust for power. I guess since the HeavensGate folks all killed themselves, and since the Waco leader Korish willingly died that these were true and genuine beliefs in faith, and not the end to a madman and a psychopath’s life??

    Please… Dying / being killed doesn’t lend credibility to anything, if it did, then those who blow themselves up for Islam, or are killed by drone aircraft, would be evidence of its truth and voracity.

    What utter nonsense. But I have come to expect nothing more from the religiosly afflicted.

  • BTW.. Joseph Smith didn’t die for his beliefs like some kind of jesus/martyer figure going willingly to his execution. He was trying to escape being shot, and jumped out of a window. They nailed him on the way out, and finished him off with gun butts or bayonets on the ground. It’s documented in the papers of the time.

    Hardley indicative of a man dying willingly for his convictions. But hey, even those who admired Saddaam or Koresh, or Kaddaffi see them as benevolent martyers. Delusion tends to drive a follower’s preferred perspective, irrespective of indications to the contrary.

  • Bart,

    The problem with atheism is that it is intellectual poop, as it leads to a complete waste of existence. Not only does it inhibit the intellect and will from achieving its purpose, in the end it leads to depression and self destruction. This is because atheism is not a rational conclusion, rather it is a psychological condition. Thus any mention of God or religion has an atheist going for the panic button which usually is followed by a barrage of angry insults.

    Since the dawn of humanity all civilizations have reasoned a Creator, and all cultures have formulated their own ideas of what and who God is. But the mind of man is finite, whereas God is infinite, thus it is the Creator who reaches down to man in order to reveal Himself, so that man may know His Creator. This is known as the Incarnation; that is, God becoming man Jesus Christ) a real historical figure, who taught and performed miracles witnessed by thousands. The difference between Christ and all other religious figures is that Christ was pre-announced and He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies about the coming Messiah.

    Reality is much more amazing than you can possibly imagine, and missing the point of your existence—which is to know, love, and serve God, is truly the worst tragedy that could befall any person.

    Because God is Truth, Goodness, and Love itself, our purpose in life is to serve God: The purpose of your intellect is truth (God) and the purpose of your will is goodness and love (God). Thus we are to serve and love God with all our heart, all our strength, and all of our mind.

  • Ah, intellectual poop. I see. Thanks for that enlightening and highly sophisticated analysis of the rejection of fable and acceptence of reason and reality. I never quite heard it explained so eloquently. I’m sure it sparks much enthusiasic response from your like minded relgio-zombies. All the rest of your testamony is old hat, tired and platitudinous.

    Yes, before the scientific age the need for a creator being was universal. But slowly, eventually, intellect wins out over base superstition and the need for some sky-daddy explanation for everything. The scientific age is only 300 yrs old. The decline in the catholic church is partially reflective of the age of science and reason displacing institutionalized myth and fable. The decline of christianity in the civilized / industrialized world reinforces it as well.

    You can serve your god chicken pot pie or chipped beef on toast for all I care. Just keep your priests out of kids pants, your theocratic think out of our secular government and away from scientific advancement, and quit intruding into the lives of people who reject/ do not share your delusion.

    In the real world denial of reality and throwing away ones intellect in favor of ancient myth and fable is the greatest tradgedy. Superstitionalists are so used to limited intellect that I doubt they’d know reality if it took a bite our of their dead body crackers.

    Meanwhile, congrats on your pope’s success in helping to spread AIDS throughout the third world . Nothing like an old fool denying science, medicine, condom effacacy and the natural sexual urge culminating in contributing to millions of deaths. I’m sure you’re every proud of the mindless work of your cult in that regard.

    Keep up the good work.

  • Bart,

    The problem with atheists is that no matter how much evidence surrounds them they refuse to believe. Atheism is a psychological condition and they do not want to believe. It’s very much like the OJ Simpson defense; they argued no matter how much evidence was against them. But proof for God’s existence is everywhere. I recommend you read The Language of God, written by Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, the team that cracked the DNA Code. Collins, an ex-atheist describes the code as a systematic language.

    The DNA Code is comprehensible and scientists describe it as a language. Language requires logic. Logic requires intellect. Intellect requires a thinking mind. A thinking, reasoning mind.

    The fact that the universe is comprehensible is proof that a higher rational intelligence is behind the cosmos.

    You need to realize that atheism is a waste of time and a waste of life. Former atheist super-champ Antony Flew, atheism’s staunchest defender for over 50 years finally conceded that DNA research convinced him that a super-intelligence was the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

    You may want to check out the video on Youtube titled The Honest exAtheist:

    Again, atheism is intellectual poop because it leads to a waste of life.

  • Sorry, but I stopped reading your tome after the first sentence.

    You have zero idea of what constitutes objective evidence. A religionist referring to “evidence” as justification for faith is an absurdity. It defiles the very meaning of the word. When you have objective eidence that stands up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, get back to me. Until then, your religious nonsense is boring and hackneyed – lacking of originality. Ofcourse, as long as you aren’t burning books or people as your religious predesessors were so fond of doing, you’re welcome to it.

    Martin Luther said it best: “Reason is the enemy of faith.” That one sentence exposes you as being firmly in Luther’s good graces.

    Stay well…or whatever.

  • Bart,

    Martin Luther was a self-appointed freelance Bible interpreter. Reason and Faith do not contradict each other since they both lead to the same source: God.

    Again, atheism is intellectual poop and it leads to a waste of life and a lifetime of regret. If you look closely, all atheists argue against religion, not the existence of God. This is because atheism is not a rational conclusion, but rather a psychological condition.

    God exists and you were made for a specific purpose. To go through life not knowing these things is to be wrong about everything. If a person omits God, they see nothing as it is but everything as it is not—which is the very definition of insanity..

  • I’m going to go out on a limb and presume your hyper-religiosity is a result of bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, or early childhood molestation – all documented causations for your condition. I covered this condition in some detail in my first book.

    For that reason I’ll dismiss your comment above and allow it to be the final word, refraining from further discourse. Attempting to apply reason to a person suffering from your degree of religious delusion is akin to applying a bandaid to a person with a heart attack. AKA casting pearls before swine.

    There will be no further replies to your inane postings.

  • The tragedy of atheism is that it sees existence as it is not, and thus misses the purpose of life. The purpose of our life is to be supremely happy, simply because God made us for Himself, who is the source of goodness, happiness, love and eternal life. This is the reason why atheism always leads to depression. A soul deprived from God is like eyes deprived from light, lungs deprived from air, and the mind deprived from truth. The reason you find yourself unhappy and seeking happiness in material things which vanish is because your soul is made for God.

    God is not just an extra topic of conversation. God is the explanation of everything. Leave out God. then you leave out the explanation of everything. Science studies what things are made of and how they work. Science cannot tell you what the universe was made for. Only its Maker can do that—because he knows what he had in mind when he made it. And it’s not only the universe which you see wrong if you leave out God: You don’t see a single thing right.

    The Sun is not just an extra item in the sky: We see everything sun-bathed. Likewise, God is not just one more item; we must see everything God-bathed. Only then can one see everything at it really is. Striking against God who sustains our existence is hacking away at our own support. What can be more foolish than that? That’s like a person despising the Sun. This is not the mind of a psychologically sane person.

  • Gabriel, it’s obvious that you’ve read a lot of misinformation and partial truths about do-called “Mormonism.” There is considerable archaeological evidence for the book: there are several sites that have been conclusively confirmed—all by non–Latter-day Saints—and over 75 that, although impossible to confirm without toponyms, correspond perfectly to the very specific descriptions in the text. (As an aside, the number of identified, non-toponymic Book of Mormon sites is comparable to the number of identified, non-toponymic Bible sites. If you throw out Book of Mormon archaeology for supposed lack of evidence, you also have to throw out the Bible.)

    You also argue against the Book of Mormon because it contains ostensible anachronisms. What is interesting is that, 150 years ago, critics enumerated over 60 anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. Today, only about 15 still exist, the other 45 all having been proven accurate by numerous Mesoamerican archaeologists; and even if those remaining 15 are never discovered, there are perfectly reasonable explanations for all. The Bible contains numerous supposed anachronisms, too. Are you unwilling to accept the scientific/apologetic explanations for those, as well?

    Next, you point out the ostensible textual errors in the Bibe which are carried over to the Book of Mormon, but don’t bother to mention why you view this as problematic. Furthermore, you have not bothered to deal with the considerable corrections and Midrash contained therein.

    Then you take issue with Alma 7:10, which is, of course, completely accurate, when viewed in context. Of course, since Joseph Smith, Jr., couldn’t have known that, you’ve just provided one of the strongest evidences of Book of Mormon authenticity. Thank you!

    Then you move on to the 1826 “trial” of Joseph Smith, which court documents show was not a trial at all, but a hearing. The person Joseph was accused of defrauding actually testified for the defense, and while the judge did express negative opinions of some common folk beliefs that Joseph—like most people in 1820s New York—held, he also refused to hold Joseph for trial, releasing him for lack of evidence.

    Next, you claim that Joseph made specific prophecies that were not fulfilled within a specified time period, and even go so far as to claim they are to be found in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. Yet somehow, millions of people who study the Doctrine and Covenants on a regular basis have never noticed these fictional timelines. Would you care to enumerate some?

    Finally, regarding Joseph’s death, you are correct that he fired three shots, yet give no evidence for your claim that thus saving his friends’ lives somehow disqualifies him as a martyr. (Bart, by the way, has made the same ridiculous claim.) You also claim that Joseph ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper, but neglect to mention that this was done in his official capacity as mayor of Nauvoo, after the City Council spent 14 hours in deliberation before so ordering, and that give the laws of the time, the act was arguably completely legal. (And by the way, I’ve read that newspaper. I *know* what it contains and how true its claims were. Have you done the same?) And finally, you claim that Joseph had “secret sexual liaisons,” yet neglect to mention that there is absolutely zero evidence that such occurred.

    The bottom line is that your arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ have failed miserably in their attempt. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant—we are all ignorant of many things—but there is considerable wrong in attempting to pontificate on that of which we are ignorant. I am happy to continue this conversation, but would ask that before you respond, you might actually try to learn something about that on which you discourse. A good place to start would be, which is basically a centralized repository for apologetic responses. (People were sick of doing exactly what I’ve just done, i.e. spending an hour responding to regurgitated claims, so they put together that site.)

    I’ve spent 20 years learning this stuff, Gabriel. Perhaps if you could spend 20 days—or even 20 hours—doing so, you might be able to avoid the kind of mistakes you’ve made in this thread.


  • Next, you claim that Joseph made specific prophecies that were not fulfilled within a specified time period, and even go so far as to claim they are to be found in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. Yet somehow, millions of people who study the Doctrine and Covenants on a regular basis have never noticed these fictional timelines. Would you care to enumerate some?

    Finally, regarding Joseph’s death, you are correct that he fired three shots, yet give no evidence for your claim that thus saving his friends’ lives somehow disqualifies him as a martyr. (Bart, by the way, has made the same ridiculous claim.) You also claim that Joseph ordered the destruction of a Nauvoo newspaper, but neglect to mention that this was done in his official capacity as mayor of Nauvoo, after the City Council spent 14 hours in deliberation before so ordering, and that give the laws of the time, the act was arguably completely legal. (And by the way, I’ve read that newspaper. I *know* what it contains and how true its claims were. Have you done the same?) And finally, you claim that Joseph had “secret sexual liaisons,” yet neglect to mention that there is absolutely zero evidence that such occurred.

    The bottom line is that your arguments against the Church of Jesus Christ have failed miserably in their attempt. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant—we are all ignorant of many things—but there is considerable wrong in attempting to pontificate on that of which we are ignorant. I am happy to continue this conversation, but would ask that before you respond, you might actually try to learn something about that on which you discourse. A good place to start would be, which is basically a centralized repository for apologetic responses. (People were sick of doing exactly what I’ve just done, i.e. spending an hour responding to regurgitated claims, so they put together that site.)

    I’ve spent 20 years learning this stuff, Gabriel. Perhaps if you could spend 20 days—or even 20 hours—doing so, you might be able to avoid the kind of mistakes you’ve made in this thread.


  • Nothing like watching two religious fanatics argue over the veracity of their chosen superstitions / cults (a pissing contest that is a never ending source of amusement to the thinking), while both sidestep the proffered challenges, and ignore the obvious falacies and grotesque examples of fetishism, occultism, and societal repression promulgated by their respective religion’s heirarchy…as though those challenges aren’t there.

    Mark Twain said “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”

    But that only works when the person evaluating said folly has intellectual honesty, can refrain from self-serving hackneyed proselytizing, and possesses the capacity for introspection unfettered by predetermined prejudice. Religious fanatics fall way short of those necessary qualties.

    Disconnecting from this fiasco, moving on.

  • Bart,

    Again, atheism is a psychological condition, not a rational conclusion. In most cases, the root cause of atheism is sin; namely the sin of pride, which blinds the mind. The problem with atheist is that they do not want to believe despite the evidence. But, as stressed before, atheism is intellectual poop as it leas to a waste of existence and it leads the mind into believing that harmony is accidental and that you and your family are nothing but meaningless bags of chemicals, and that such things as DNA Code and the Laws which govern cosmos simply, um, “bubbled-up”..

  • Jeff, again, the problem with Mormonism is that Mormons put their faith in Joseph Smith, an American born in Vermont in 1805 who made claims that have subsequently been explicitly proven to be false. But despite the evidence, Mormonism continues to have followers who are mostly ignorant of the actual facts which gave rise to Mormonism.

    What most Mormons do not realize is that Joseph Smith was a practitioner of folk magic, as were both his parents and grandfather. Among the practices of folk magic was that of conjuring up spirits.

    The practice of conjuring up spirits was always condemned in the Bible, as were all practices of magic or sorcery. The danger of dabbling with the occult– or even worse as was the case of Joseph Smith—of being a practitioner of folk magic, is that the occult exposes one’s intellect to demonic deception.

    Conjuring up spirits was strictly forbidden by God in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, and all forms of divination are to be rejected, including recourse to conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future.

    But recourse to mediums and conjuring up spirits are not only dangerous to the soul but they also contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. In Hoodoo, a form of folk magic, the goal is the attainment of power in many areas of life, including luck, divination, revenge, health, money, love, employment, success, etc.

    In the New Testament St. Paul warns about how Satan can appear as an angel of light, deceiving the un-weary:

    “For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” 2 Cor. 11:13.

    Paul also warned:

    “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ”– Colossians 2:4-8

    Joseph claimed he had his own first vision in 1820, and common to the practice of folk magic in his time was to hold that the Bible was the great conjure book in the world, and to them it had many functions for the practitioner, not the least of which is a source of spells. This is particularly evident given the importance of the book “Secrets of the Psalms” in Hoodoo culture. For them, the Bible was not not just a source of spells but is itself a conjuring good luck charm.

    Joseph Smith, claimed that in 1820 God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in the woods in New York. He claims that Jesus said that for the proceeding 1700 years the world had been living in the darkness of a total apostasy from the gospel and that he (Joseph Smith) was chosen to be God’s new prophet.

    PAUSE: Read the warning spoken by Christ in the New Testament:

    “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.” Matt. 24:24-25

    Joseph Smith convinced his followers, most of them simple rural folk, that “he’d been chosen”, in what Mormons have come to call the First Vision, to be the first post-apostasy prophet—God’s hand picked agent charged with restoring the true gospel! Over the next several years Smith purported to have received additional revelations from “heavenly personages.”

    PAUSE: Read the warning St. Peter gave in the New Testament:

    But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Peter 2:1-1

    As we know, Joseph Smith´’s life came to a swift end when he was shot to death as he was trying to escape from jail whilst aiming to kill his pursuers. With Joseph Smith there are only two possible options: He was either a charlatan, or a man deceived by demonic spirits.

    The good news is that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and his coming was pre-announced in the Old Testament and He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies and thousands witnessed his miracles and his disciples witnessed his resurrection. Not only that but miracles continue to this day in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    The bad news is that no, you’re not going to be a god of your own planet some day, as Mormonism teaches. I’ve been studying religion for more than 30 years and I can tell you that Mormonism has many decent, friendly people, but the teaching of Mormonism is a Luciferian deception. It persuades people into following a pseudo-Christian cult, where Jesus Christ is not the Eternal Word made flesh, but rather a creature of God who became god of his own planet.

    Thus the words of St Peter ring ever so true in his warning against false prophets:

    “They will secretly introduce destructive heresies even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them”. . .”Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories” 2 Peter 2:1-3

    I would suggest you continue your studies by checking out this exhaustive work on the false nature of Mormonism:

    As well as this video:

  • Gabriel,

    I appreciate what you’re saying, but you’re trying to disprove what Latter-day Saints view as Biblical Christianty using the very texts that we use to prove it. You claim that Joseph Smith was a false prophet—as is your right—but I can just as easily turn around and say that *you* are the false prophet, and use the very same scriptures to support it.

    Regarding your numerous claims, I will forego wasting much more of my time and again refer you to I will point out, however, that no, Latter-day Saint Christianity (or, as you call it, “Mormonism”) does not teach that I’m “going to be a god of my own planet someday,” and I challenge you to find a single original source for that claim. I don’t know which “anti-Mormon” made it up, but it obviously caught like wildfire and is now spouted by millions of ignoramuses, every day. Please don’t continue to be one of them.


  • By the way, Bart: while your disconnection is certainly fine—it’s obvious that this discussion is going nowhere, anyway—I find it hilarious that you refer to Gabriel and me as “religious zealots” but apparently do not apply that label to yourself. I’m not aware of my having said anything in this thread to indicate zealotry, but you’ve certainly said no less than I, in defense of your own religion.

    Good luck, my friend, and God bless.

  • Jeff,

    I respect your sincerity and commitment to defending your beliefs, but I want you to know that the truth about God is much better than what you think, so don’t be afraid of facing the facts about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the teachings of the LDS. The good news is that the truth will set you free, but only if you are committed to the truth and wherever it may leads you. Truth cannot mislead or contradict. The truth will take you to the source of truth itself: GOD.

    I’m not here to shatter your faith in God, because God is real, and it is irrational to not believe in God. But God has a greater plan for you, and it doesn’t include being stuck inside a false religion. Religion is the bond which unites man to God, and the exact purpose of authentic religion is to render to God the worship due to Him as the source of all being the way God intended us to know and worship Him. God is All-Good, and He created us that we may know Him and have a share in His Eternal Life.

    Since the dawn of humanity, all civilizations have believed in a Creator, because reason demands a Creator. Thus all cultures have formulated their own ideas of what and who God is.

    But man is finite, whereas GOD is infinite; thus the only way man could possibly grasp Who God is, is if God reached down to man and revealed Himself to His creature. Thus the Incarnation of God (The birth of Christ) is man’s possibility of discovering the truth about God and to understand the purpose of our existence. Thus it is true that of all religious figures in the world, only Christ was pre-announced in history: Only Jesus Christ fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies about the promised messiah, and He alone performed miracles witnessed by thousands in order to authenticate His claim: That He was the Son of God.

    But realize what “Son of God” actually means. Scripture states that “in the beginning, WAS the WORD, and that the WORD was with God, and that the WORD WAS GOD.” The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-20) Therefore, in the beginning of time, God “always was”—He is Eternal and outside of time and space.

    In Christian theology, God the “The Father” eternally begot “The Son”. Such words as “Father” and “Son” are merely descriptions that allow human beings to grasp higher mysteries about Who the Infinite God is. God is called “Father” because fatherhood is the principle of generation. God’s “Eternal Word” is called “Son”, because the the “Eternal Mind” begot the Eternal Word. The relationship between “Father and “Son” proceeds the “Holy Spirit”: Three distinct realities yet one in the same.

    Thus in the Bible it explains that the “Eternal Word” became flesh and dwelt among us. God took flesh and became man: Jesus the promised Messiah or “Christ”. (The word Christ is from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “anointed one” or “Messiah”.)

    Through Jesus Christ, God has revealed that He is a Trinity. For lack of a better word to describe a mystery of the Holy Trinity, theologians describe the Triune nature of God as “Persons”: Three “Persons” in One God—not three people, not three beings, but One God in Three Persons. An analogy is this.

    Think of the word “run”. Then speak the word “run”. Finally, getup and “run”. These three distinct realities: Your thought, Your word, and your act are distinct, yet one in the same. Realize that this is an imperfect analogy it gives you a grasp of what we are getting at:

    GOD is the Infinite Spirit and within God there is a relationship of Love, so real that it is expressed in His Holy Spirit. But the Mormon religion teaches a false understanding of God. It teaches that the Son is a creation of God, when in reality, The Son is the Eternal Word of God who became man. The Trinity existed from all eternity (outside of time).

    Jesus Christ is God Himself–The Eternal Word made flesh who dwelt among us. Thus in the Old Testament we read what God said about Himself in a prophecy about the promised Messiah:


    The teaching that Satan was a brother of Jesus is a 19th century invention. Christianity has always taught that Satan is a fallen angel, a real diobilical spiritual being who rejected God. Thus the ultimate insult toward God is to teach that Satan was God’s brother and equal to God. This is a Satanic lie. The Christian Church has always taught that Jesus (the historical man) is God (“The Son”) becoming man and taking upon Himself the consequence of our sin in order that we may be saved us from our separation from God, Who is the source of all goodness and truth.

    Jeff, in order to find the true religion, you first must realize that God is not an old man with a white beard. God is an Eternal and Infinite Spirit and is not confined by time or space. The key word here is that God is ETERNAL: God had no beginning, God was not created. For something to be created it must have a beginning: For something to have a beginning it must exist in time. Science explains that time and matter came into existence with “the Big Bang”. Thus the Cause of the Big Bang exists outside of time and matter. In other words, God (the Cause of our existence) is outside of time (ETERNAL) and outside of matter (SPIRITUAL).

    GOD is pure spirit, not a physical thing made of matter. A first step toward forming an idea of Him, is to imagine your body away from your spirit and see your soul functioning bodiless: It is partless, spaceless, immortal, it knows, loves, decides, acts; and all these things are true of God—but our soul is not God’s equal, it is only His image—God is infinite: we are not.

    We are both body and spirit, thus we live in a physical existence governed by the laws of physics, as well as the laws which govern our spirit. Angels are pure intellect and will: they have no bodies. The word “angel” simply means “messenger”. Messengers carry information (knowledge). Those who are of God speak Truth. Wicked angels do not speak the truth, yet they can disguise themselves as angels of truth and light in order to deceive man, or as St. Paul says: “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Cor. 11:13.)

    God is the source of truth and goodness because God Himself IS Truth and Goodness itself. Thus when Sacred Scripture (The Bible) explains that God created us in His image and likeness, this simply means that we have an intellect for Truth (God) and a will for Goodness and Love (God). Thus you are called to love and to serve God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your soul, and with all your strength: and to love your neighbor as yourself. Your neighbor was created in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, all the wickedness in the world today stems from individuals misusing their intellect and will.

    Therefore, God made us for a specific purpose: To know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him. In fact, we need God like our lungs need oxygen, we depend on God like our physical bodies depend on the Sun. Therefore, to be stuck inside a false understanding of God and a false religion is to walk a path away from the fullness of truth.

    The most dangerous thing about false prophets is that they believe they speak the truth, thus they sound very persuasive to their followers who think they are hearing the truth. But false prophets are merely men who have been deceived by the father of lies, a spiritual being the Bible calls Satan. Satan is a spirit: a highly intelligent being who hates man simply because man is made in the image and likeness of God.

    Jeff, the facts—and I mean real concrete facts— prove that Joseph Smith’s claims crumble under the weight of scrutiny, and the followers of Mr. Smith are either ignorant of these facts or they are in a state of willful denial. So the question is: How much evidence do you need to realize that you’ve been following a false prophet?

    There is a reason why Jesus Christ warned about false prophets and false teacher, This is because he knew that many would come in His name teaching false doctrines which lead man away from truth (God). The fact that Joseph Smith was a practitioner of folk magic is evidence that he opened himself up to demonic deception. Conjuring up spirits and occult practices always open up avenues for diabolical activity.


    Satan is the father of lies; but he is most dangerous when he deceives through half-truths, where his deception is disguised as goodness and truth. For example, take the gay marriage agenda. Those who push these ideas make it sound like a good thing, when in fact it is an attack on the human family (The Human family reflects the Trinity)

    But lets’ look at just a few of the claims made by Joseph Smith which have been proven to be false.


    Ever since the Book of Mormon was written, Mormons have held that the American Indians were descendants of immigrants from Israel. Anthropologists have long-maintained, and genetic studies have confirmed, that American Indians are descendants of immigrants from East Asia, not the Middle East.

    None (zero) of the DNA-tested Native Americans show any link whatsoever to ancient Israel, and more than 99 percent show an Asian heritage. The Book of Mormon, however, claims that Israelites emigrated to the Americas 2,600 years ago, with the now-extinct Lamanites and Nephites becoming the ancestors of American Indians.


    Jeff, the Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America. It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the “Nephites” and “Lamanites,” who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421.

    A.D. 421 is not very long in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have clearly been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

    There is total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the supposed last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly died in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor.

    The truth is that no scientist, Mormon or otherwise, has been able to find ANYTHING to substantiate that such a great battle took place.


    According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this definition: “By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol. 1, p. 160). That’s an official Mormon statement on the subject. But there’s a problem: the Book of Mormon does not contain the key Mormon doctrines. This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a big deal about the Book of Mormon containing the “fullness of the everlasting gospel when in fact it contains almost none of their “everlasting gospel” at all. Third, the Book of abounds in textual and factual errors and outright plagiarisms from other works.


    Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C. The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.


    Mormons are taught that God was once a mortal man on another planet who progressed by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel he had on his world, then he died. He became a resurrected man and evolved to become a god. He is still married now (some early leaders say he is a polygamist) and created this world. Mormons think they worship only the one true god, which is really one god among millions or billions or more. They are taught that if they follow in God’s footsteps by becoming perfect that they too will become Gods and Goddesses creating spirit children and peopling other worlds.

    Mr. Smith taught:

    “…you have to learn to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, – namely, by going from one small degree to another…” (Journal of Discourses Vol. 6 Page 4, 1844)

    RACISM (Hatred for fellow man)

    Like many people of his period, Joseph Smith harbored racist views. In an environment where Negro slavery was tolerated, it was easy for Smith to look down on black people, and his disdain for them was incorporated as doctrine into the Mormon scriptures he allegedly “translated.”

    For example, many passages in the Book of Mormon speak of dark skin as a curse for sins, as opposed to the “white and delightsome” appearance of the righteous. These passages in Mormon scripture served as the basis for every Mormon prophet since Smith to teach that blacks were cursed for their supposed sins before earthly birth. Throughout the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, Mormon “apostles” continued to teach the LDS doctrine on people with African ancestry and other persons of color, maintaining that “Negroes are not equal with other races” in spiritual matters and that this is God’s law, not man’s.

    But all it took was a boycott for them to change their doctrine. Black leaders urged boycotts of the state of Utah and all Mormon Tabernacle Choir products. The NAACP brought discrimination charges against the Utah Boy Scouts for prohibiting a black member from assuming a senior patrol position. College athletes refused to play Brigham Young University teams. Groups protested at the church’s twice-yearly general conferences in Salt Lake City.

    By 1978, increased social repudiation of racism, coupled with Mormon evangelization in areas with large populations of racially mixed ancestry, led to one of the most drastic reversals in Mormon belief and practice.


    Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a “plurality of gods”—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church. He developed this doctrine over a period of years to reflect his belief that not only are there many gods, but they once were mortal men who had developed in righteousness until they had learned enough and merited godhood.

    The Mormon church uses the term “eternal progression” for this process, and it refers to godhood as “exaltation.” Such euphemisms are used because the idea of men becoming gods is blasphemous to orthodox Christians. Needless to say, Smith encountered much hostility to these doctrines and so thought it wise to disguise them with unfamiliar terminology.

    Although he softened his terms, Smith minced no words in explaining his beliefs. “I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse).

    Mormonism’s founder concluded that his flock didn’t understand the nature of God. No mortal entirely does, of course, but this particular group was handicapped, not helped, by the strange theories expounded by Smith.


    Just one sample:

    Fourteen years after writing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith contradicted his earlier writings yet both “teachings” are to be accepted.

    The Book of Mormon states:

    “I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18). “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).

    Fourteen years later Joseph Smith was teaching:

    “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (King Follett Discourse).


    Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. (Nor, for that matter, does his Father.) Mormons believe Jesus was first made by a union of his heavenly parents. After having been reared and taught in the heavens, he achieved a certain divine stature. Through carnal relations with her Heavenly Father, the Virgin became pregnant with this lesser god.


    Mark Twain once wrote about the nook of Mormon and his insight is quite telling. He wrote:

    “The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel — half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern — which was about every sentence or two — he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as ‘exceeding sore,’ ‘and it came to pass,’ etc., and made things satisfactory again. ‘And it came to pass’ was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.”


    What is very insidious is the way Joseph Smith is portrayed and taught within the LDS and how many historical facts are left out. For example, in the movie about Joseph Smith, which is used to teach about LDS they portray his death in a way that did not happen. Instead they portray him as a martyr and do not show the truth. In real life, when in jail at Carthage, Joseph Smith had a smuggled revolver with which he shot and killed 3 people, before he died in a hail of gunfire. The movie doesn’t show this.

    Joseph Smith joined Free Masonry in 1842 and died in a hail of gunfire shouting his last words: “O Lord My God…” Historians have speculated that instead of calling out to God he was screaming the Masonic distress signal which is to shout: “O Lord, my God, is there no help for the Widow’s Son?” which is a reference to Hiram Abiff, a character who figures prominently in Free Freemasonry.

    For a short video on the facts of Joseph Smith’s death watch this:

  • Gabriel, that’s a very nice theological treatise. Unfortunately, like your previous posts, it consists of three parts:

    1) You make a bunch of claims regarding “Christian” doctrine, yet give no reason to take your understanding of Christian doctrine over mine.

    2) You post a bunch of half-truths and even outright lies about the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.

    3) You dredge up a bunch of tired old arguments that have long since been debunked, every one of which I’ve already heard multiple times, which proves nothing but your own willful ignorance (since I provided you with a link that answers every one of them).

    I’m sorry, Gabriel, but if you’re going to continue to speak your ignorance, blatantly refusing to do any actual research into the subject on which you write, I’m going to have to end this conversation here. That link again—which is one of many, but definitely a good one—is I hope you’ll look into it, but I’m not going to waste any more time telling you to do so. Have a great night, and God bless.

  • Jeff,

    1) The doctrines I outlined are the authentic teachings of Christianity which differ greatly from Mormon theology and the teachings of LSD. The doctrines you practice were invented in the 19th century.

    Jeff, it is well known that Joseph Smith practiced folk magic and the conjuring up spirits. Does this not trouble you? Can you address this issue please? The following warnings specifically apply to your religion:

    “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema”–Galatians 1:8

    “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”2 Cor. 11:14

    2) Jeff, refuting a claim by saying they are lies is not refuting the claim. What I have posted about LDS is from LSD websites. The teaching contradictions of LDS that I posted are directly from the Book of Mormon and the King Follett Discourse–both LDS sources.

    3) You claim that the arguments have “long been debunked”. This is not true. Instead, the statement “long been debunked” is the only defense. There has been no debunking. DNA has proven the LDS claim FALSE. The American Indians were not descendants of immigrants from Israel.

    The good news is that Jesus Christ IS the Way, the Truth and The Life and that HE established a Church which has lasted 2000 years. The bad news is that LDS is a false religion; what’s more, LDS is no Christian, being that its teachings deny the true Divinity of Christ.

    The truth hurts, but people in LSD need to realize that they are either in denial or in ignorance of the facts. The truth of the matter is that you are putting your faith in Joseph Smith, who was either deceived by a demonic spirit, or was a charlatan, whose history has been rewritten by the LDS organization.

    Christ established a Church which would last through the ages until the end of time. Only one Church can claim this reality and back it up with the historical record. Regardless of all the scoundrels, hypocrites, liars, murderers, perverts and all sorts of sinners within its members, the Church has survived throughout the ages teaching the Truth of Jesus Christ. Christ warned that there would be wolves and weeds among the sheep and the wheat, yet He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, which would last every day and every year and every century until the end of the ages.

    Below is the list of popes in the Catholic Church (“Catholic” simply means “universal”—the universal Church which Jesus Christ established for all peoples throughout the world regardless of race.) It begins with St. Peter, the first Pope all the way up to the current pope Benedict XVI. Here is the list:

    1. St. Peter (32-67)
    2. St. Linus (67-76)
    3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    4. St. Clement I (88-97)
    5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
    6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
    7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
    8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
    10. St. Pius I (140-155)
    11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
    12. St. Soter (166-175)
    13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    14. St. Victor I (189-199)
    15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
    17. St. Urban I (222-30)
    18. St. Pontain (230-35)
    19. St. Anterus (235-36)
    20. St. Fabian (236-50)
    21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
    22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
    23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
    24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
    26. St. Felix I (269-274)
    27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
    28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
    29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
    30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
    31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
    32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
    33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
    34. St. Marcus (336)
    35. St. Julius I (337-52)
    36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
    37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
    38. St. Siricius (384-99)
    39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
    41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
    42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
    43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
    44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
    47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
    48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    50. Anastasius II (496-98)
    51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
    52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
    53. St. John I (523-26)
    54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
    55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
    56. John II (533-35)
    57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
    58. St. Silverius (536-37)
    59. Vigilius (537-55)
    60. Pelagius I (556-61)
    61. John III (561-74)
    62. Benedict I (575-79)
    63. Pelagius II (579-90)
    64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
    65. Sabinian (604-606)
    66. Boniface III (607)
    67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
    68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
    69. Boniface V (619-25)
    70. Honorius I (625-38)
    71. Severinus (640)
    72. John IV (640-42)
    73. Theodore I (642-49)
    74. St. Martin I (649-55)
    75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
    76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
    77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
    78. Donus (676-78)
    79. St. Agatho (678-81)
    80. St. Leo II (682-83)
    81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
    82. John V (685-86)
    83. Conon (686-87)
    84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
    85. John VI (701-05)
    86. John VII (705-07)
    87. Sisinnius (708)
    88. Constantine (708-15)
    89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
    90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
    91. St. Zachary (741-52)
    92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
    93. Stephen III (752-57)
    94. St. Paul I (757-67)
    95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
    96. Adrian I (772-95)
    97. St. Leo III (795-816)
    98. Stephen V (816-17)
    99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
    100. Eugene II (824-27)
    101. Valentine (827)
    102. Gregory IV (827-44)
    103. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
    104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
    105. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
    106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
    107. Adrian II (867-72)
    108. John VIII (872-82)
    109. Marinus I (882-84)
    110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
    111. Stephen VI (885-91)
    112. Formosus (891-96)
    113. Boniface VI (896)
    114. Stephen VII (896-97)
    115. Romanus (897)
    116. Theodore II (897)
    117. John IX (898-900)
    118. Benedict IV (900-03)
    119. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
    120. Sergius III (904-11)
    121. Anastasius III (911-13)
    122. Lando (913-14)
    123. John X (914-28)
    124. Leo VI (928)
    125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
    126. John XI (931-35)
    127. Leo VII (936-39)
    128. Stephen IX (939-42)
    129. Marinus II (942-46)
    130. Agapetus II (946-55)
    131. John XII (955-63)
    132. Leo VIII (963-64)
    133. Benedict V (964)
    134. John XIII (965-72)
    135. Benedict VI (973-74)
    136. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
    137. John XIV (983-84)
    138. John XV (985-96)
    139. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
    140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
    141. John XVII (1003)
    142. John XVIII (1003-09)
    143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
    144. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
    145. John XIX (1024-32)
    146. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
    147. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
    148. Benedict IX (1045)
    149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
    150. Clement II (1046-47)
    151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
    152. Damasus II (1048)
    153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
    154. Victor II (1055-57)
    155. Stephen X (1057-58)
    156. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
    157. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
    158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert (“Clement III”), antipope (1080-1100)
    159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
    160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
    161. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf (“Sylvester IV”, 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
    162. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin (“Gregory VIII”), antipope (1118)
    163. Callistus II (1119-24)
    164. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
    165. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti (“Victor IV”) (1138), antipopes (1138)
    166. Celestine II (1143-44)
    167. Lucius II (1144-45)
    168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
    169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
    170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
    171. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius (“Victor IV”) (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
    172. Lucius III (1181-85)
    173. Urban III (1185-87)
    174. Gregory VIII (1187)
    175. Clement III (1187-91)
    176. Celestine III (1191-98)
    177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
    178. Honorius III (1216-27)
    179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
    180. Celestine IV (1241)
    181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
    182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
    183. Urban IV (1261-64)
    184. Clement IV (1265-68)
    185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
    186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
    187. Adrian V (1276)
    188. John XXI (1276-77)
    189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
    190. Martin IV (1281-85)
    191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
    192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
    193. St. Celestine V (1294)
    194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
    195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
    196. Clement V (1305-14)
    197. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
    198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
    199. Clement VI (1342-52)
    200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
    201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
    202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
    203. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”), antipope (1378-1394)
    204. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”) (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
    205. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
    206. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi (“Alexander V”) (1409-1410), antipopes
    207. Martin V (1417-31)
    208. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy (“Felix V”), antipope (1439-1449)
    209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
    210. Callistus III (1455-58)
    211. Pius II (1458-64)
    212. Paul II (1464-71)
    213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
    214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
    215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
    216. Pius III (1503)
    217. Julius II (1503-13)
    218. Leo X (1513-21)
    219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
    220. Clement VII (1523-34)
    221. Paul III (1534-49)
    222. Julius III (1550-55)
    223. Marcellus II (1555)
    224. Paul IV (1555-59)
    225. Pius IV (1559-65)
    226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
    227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
    228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
    229. Urban VII (1590)
    230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
    231. Innocent IX (1591)
    232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
    233. Leo XI (1605)
    234. Paul V (1605-21)
    235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
    236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
    237. Innocent X (1644-55)
    238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
    239. Clement IX (1667-69)
    240. Clement X (1670-76)
    241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
    242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
    243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
    244. Clement XI (1700-21)
    245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
    246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
    247. Clement XII (1730-40)
    248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
    249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
    250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
    251. Pius VI (1775-99)
    252. Pius VII (1800-23)
    253. Leo XII (1823-29)
    254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
    255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
    256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
    257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
    258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
    259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
    260. Pius XI (1922-39)
    261. Pius XII (1939-58)
    262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
    263. Paul VI (1963-78)
    264. John Paul I (1978)
    265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
    266. Benedict XVI (2005—)

  • Gabriel,

    I’m not sure why I’m continuing to waste my time here, but I suppose this bears repeating for anyone else who may come along:

    1. No, you compared Catholic teachings (invented throughout the last 2,000 years) with some random, unauthorized, unqualified, anonymous individual’s erroneous interpretation of Christian teachings (the true versions of which were never invented; they’ve always been there).

    2. No, many of the “teaching contradictions” you cite are not directly from your ostensible sources; they are from—again—some random, unauthorized, unqualified, anonymous individual’s erroneous interpretation of said sources. All you have to do is stop twisting our beliefs, and many of your objections will disappear in a puff of logic.

    3. The idea that all American Indians were descendants of immigrants from Israel is a claim that directly contradicts the Book of Mormon, as pointed out by several Apostles in the 1860s. The only thing the DNA evidence did was refute an idea that had been almost universally abandoned by the 1950s, some 50 years before the tests.

    Again, please see You are correct that simply claiming debunking does not make it so, but I have provided this link over and over again. Every response I have made and more can be found in great detail, at this site.

    Finally, since authority is obviously important to you, I’m give you my own list:

    Thomas S. Monson was ordained an Apostle by David O. McKay.
    David O. McKay was ordained an Apostle by Joseph F. Smith.
    Joseph F. Smith was ordained an Apostle by Brigham Young.
    Brigham Young was ordained an Apostle by Oliver Cowdery.
    Oliver Cowdery was ordained an Apostle by Simon Peter.
    Simon Peter was ordained an Apostle by Jesus Christ.

    It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

  • Just watched the film A Mormon President. I think Adam Christing did a great job to effectively juxtapose the perspectives, without getting in the way. As Mitt Romney continues to hover near the top of the Republican list for president, and the probability increases for his nomination, this issue will only get more heated. I think this film did a great job of exposing both sides. But in the end, I think the candidates’ values, rather than their faith, is going to rise to the forefront. I just hope that the sideshow doesn’t become the main event.

  • Jeff,

    Regardless of how shocking this may be to you, you need to realize that there is so much evidence showing that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, starting with the fact that the founder of your church was a practitioner of folk magic.

    Jeff, CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE of Joseph practicing folk magic? Don’t put your trust in some link that spins and explains things away. You tell me. I am waiting.

    If you don’t then it is clear that you’re not interested in seeking the truth about the man you have put your faith in. Mohamed also claimed he had a vision of an angel..

    If you don’t answer this question, could you then please give me your three top reasons why anyone should listen to Joseph Smith?

    Jeff, I don’t expect you to agree with me on this message board, but let it sink in your mind that you are following a man who claimed to be a prophet after Jesus Christ warned about the not listening to the coming false prophets. The Bible itself WARNS not to listen to a new gospel even if an ANGEL appeared and taught one. You are following a man who claimed an angel appeared to him, just as Mohamed claimed. Yet the Bible warned that: “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Cor. 11:13.)

    Realize that the Church which Jesus established was, is, and always will be protected from teaching error: Sacred Scripture explains that the church of the living God is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

    God makes babies of all races every day. Yet “The Church of Jesus Christ” of Latter-Day Saints teaches that certain races are inferior because of the color of their skin.Jeff, that’s thedefinition of racism. The Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes the notion that white skin is “pure and delightsome” and that brown skin is “filthy and loathsome.”

    The Book of Mormon explains that “Lamanitish” people who accept the Mormon gospel can hope to have their skins turned white. In Jacob 3:8 the white-skinned Nephites are warned about the wages of sin: “O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their [the Lamanites’] skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.”

    If you need more convincing about this issue see also 3 Nephi 2:15, 2 Nephi 30:6, and Alma 23:18. This is from the Book of Mormon–not some obscure source, although I could show you plenty of evidence from Mormon leaders such as the prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Peterson, both former members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.


    Do you believe God “cursed” people by giving them dark skin, or not? If you don’t believe it, then you deny an explicit teaching of the Book of Mormon and over 150 years of official Mormon doctrine promulgated by prophets, apostles, and general authorities. If you do believe God curses some people with dark skin, you’ll have a hard time convincing people Mormon theology isn’t racist.

    Jeff, please read this:

    “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.” Matt. 24:24-25

    I am telling you all of this not to shatter your faith in God but rather to show to you that Joseph Smith was not coming from God. The devil is tricky and the master of deceit..

  • Gabriel,

    I have pointed you to the answers to every concern you have expressed; you have ignored every one. Thus, I see no reason to continue wasting my time. Suffice to say: I accept every scripture you have cited, but not your interpretation thereof. I will, however, depart by responding to your request for my “three top reasons why anyone should listen to Joseph Smith”:

    1. The Father says so.

    2. The Son says so.

    3. The Holy Ghost says so.

    If the testimonies of those Three aren’t good enough for you, then I guess you can just keep listening to whichever god you do trust; “but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).

    Feel free to respond, Gabriel, but I’m done. And just to reiterate: unless you can come up with something considerably more original than every word you’ve said to this point, the answer has already been posted to All you have to do is read it.

  • Jeff,

    A Muslim could tell you that the reason you should listen to Mohammed is “because God said so.” That’s simply not good enough to pass the test of false prophecy. Muslim websites also furnish apologetic links to answer objectors. But spinning up excuses and answers that are unreasonable, unverifiable =, and contradictory are not good answers, which is what we get from your link.

    The fact that you specifically ignored my direct questions to you about Joseph Smith’s practice of folk magic and conjuring up spirits, and the racism that he and his book of mormon teach just shows that you are the perfect candidate to follow the false prophets and false teachers which the Bible warns about.

    Running away from basic questions is something that you are going to have to deal with in the silence of your own thoughts, if you ever decide to face the truth..

    Remember, those who follow false prophets think they are hearing the truth. A heretic and false prophet thinks he’s teaching the truth, because they he’s been deceived..

    So once again, I ask you: How can you trust a man who practiced folk magic and the conjuring up of spirits, when the Bible strictly condemned such practices?

    I await your answer..

  • The author misunderstands the issue of church and state. Our founders only feared one church ruling over minority religions, just as did Joseph Smith.