26 Reasons why I don't believe in Mormonism (for a start)


A) Adam-God: Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, the Eternal Father. Read the Journal of Discourses. Read all the history and journals around the topic. The prophet was wrong on the simplest, most central doctrine!

B) Bring'um Young: Brigham Young has the nickname "bring 'em young" because many of his wives were young while he was an old man. Do you really want to defend him?

C) Conditional Love: An apostle, in a recent Ensign, stated that God’s love is conditional on our works. This means that God loves you less than your parents - most parents love their children unconditionally. Either God is inferior to us, or the apostle and Ensign are wrong.

D) DNA: DNA studies have proven conclusively that there is no significant trace of Israelite blood in any Native Americans. This contradicts what has been taught by church leaders since 1830. And the book of Mormon title page still says the Lamanites, descended from Israelites Mulek, Zoram and Lehi, are the "principle ancestors" of the native Americans.

E) Egyptian: The original papyrus from the Book of Abraham have been found, and they are not the Book of Abraham. We cannot claim they just “inspired” the BofA because Joseph created an Egyptian Grammar, translating precise words from the papyrus into English. He even pointed at the "signature of Abraham." Joseph was completely wrong in every way.

F) Fanny Alger: Joseph Smith pressurised this sixteen year old girl into "marrying" him (Joseph was already married), and they probably had sex. (Read "In Sacred Loneliness" for details – it was written by a faithful LDS historian). Alger was only the best known of the many women and girls that Joseph pressured in this way.

G) Great And Abominable Church: Everyone who disagrees with the prophet is part of the "Great And Abominable Church" - which means that good people like Mother Theresa were misguided followers of Satan and would have been better if they had been LDS. In reality, these other churches offer a genuine alternative to the Mormon church: with friendship, moral guidance, support, worship, and everything else. But the church stops its members from making better choices, by teaching that all other churches have less truth and are a step downwards..

H) Hoffman: In the 1980s, forger Mark Hoffman persuaded the church to buy (or get their friends to buy) fake historical documents. The documents said the church was restored through a magical salamander lizard. The man who dealt with Hoffman was none other than Gordon B. Hinckley. The idea that the church was inspired by a salamander did not strike the church leaders as unusual, and FARMS wrote articles defending the idea. But Gordon B. Hinckley's gift of discernment was less powerful than that of the famous anti-Mormon Jerald Tanner. Tanner was not fooled, but Hinckley was.

I) Irrationality: The church teaches that feelings equal truth. Yet other churches have people with equally strong feelings. Some feelings are stronger - look at those who become monks, or those who kill themselves for their beliefs. Does that mean that they are more likely to have "the only true church"?

J) Jesus: Read the gospels in the New Testament. Compare Jesus' teachings with the teachings of the Pharisees. Which group is the modern church most like - Jesus' followers or the Pharisees? Mormonism is an established church, with strict dietary laws, food storage, concern for appearances - white shirts and ear-rings - and emphasis on tithing and ordinances. They have no more major revelations, and are always looking backwards to revelations in the past. If someone appears from outside the hierarchy, and prophesies, they are denounced.

K) Kinderhook: The Kinderhook plates were forgeries of metal plates with ancient writing on them. Joseph Smith believed they were genuine, and gave a summary of their contents. Apologists now admit that the plates were forgeries, and say that the translation part was made up and the fact that it appeared in History of the Church was just some big misunderstanding. But at the time they were treated as another proof that Joseph Smith had the gift of translation.

L) Loneliness: Obedience to the church greatly reduces the number of people you can date, especially outside of America. It also creates unrealistic expectations for a potential partner - they have to be "eternal companion" instead of just a friend. As a result, the church is full of lonely single people. And lonely married people who made hurried decisions and now feel trapped for life. Of course they all say that the church makes them happier, yet Utah uses more Prozac than anywhere else on earth.

M) Mountain Meadows Massacre: The greatest peacetime massacre in America before 9/11 was caused by Mormons. If it was not directly ordered by the leaders, it was certainly a result of the siege mentality they encouraged. But the church refuses to apologize.

N) Negroes: Throughout its history, the church has always been on the wrong side (or at best, neutral) on every major social issue. Racial discrimination until 1978 was only the most obvious example. We could add slavery, Naziism before World War II, separation of church and state, polygamy, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc., etc. The church is always on the wrong side, and always forced to change after everyone else has. In contrast, other churches, such as the Quakers, manage to take a moral stand and are generally on the right side from the beginning.

O) Occam's Razor: Occam's razor is a principle used in theology, science, and everyday life, to compare different explanations. It says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Applying it to the church, all the issues on this page can be easily explained if the church is man-made. The other explanation requires us to add angels and gods and supernatural elements that are not needed..

P) Polyandry: Most people know that early Mormons practiced polygamy. What they don't usually know is that Joseph Smith also practiced polyandry - where one woman has more than one husband. Joseph would see a woman he liked, and if she was married he would just use his position to pressure the husband, explaining that God had given his wife to Joseph. Or he would just send the husband away on a foreign mission, and approach the wife in his absence. Read "In Sacred Loneliness" for details.

Q) Quetzalcoatl: When I was young, Quetzalcoatl was the best example of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon: here was actual evidence of Christ in America! But you don't hear much about Quetzalcoatl in the church any more. People looked closely and found that the evidence doesn't add up. All the Book of Mormon evidence is like that - it does not stand up to objective scrutiny.

R) Rumors: Testimonies are always strengthened by faith promoting rumors - stories and experiences that are never examined closely. When you examine them closely, they fall apart like a house of cards. Every crazy idea that was ever invented was based on hearsay and rumors, and if you try to examine them you are accused of spoiling the fun, or being "too intellectual." The church relies on the same techniques as crazy fringe ideas everyehere.

S) Shopping Mall: Millions of people in the world are starving, billions live in poverty and oppression. And the church asks even its poorest members to sacrifice in order to pay money to the church. And how does the church spend its money? It keeps the number secret, but from the little that is revealed, much less than one percent of tithing goes to help the poor. (This does not include the recently added "humanitarian fund" that members can give to AFTER they have contributed tithing and other offerings. Church priorities are clear.) Most of the church's money goes on grand buildings, and in 2005, the church decided to spend a billion dollars on buying and renovating shopping malls in Salt Lake City.

T) Tapirs: This is just one of many examples where the Book of Mormon is contradicted by scientific discoveries. The Book of Mormon says there are horses in ancient America. But after all these years, all the evidence indicates that there were no horses. The best the apologists can come up with is maybe the books meant tapirs. Tapirs are about the size of a pig, and when I imagine someone riding a tapir, or tapirs pulling chariots, I have to laugh.)

U) Unctuousness: Unctuous means slippery. It comes from the word for anointing oil, but came to mean anything oily or insincere, yet appearing earnest. If you ever try to find out what the church teaches, you will find it is unctuous. When I was young, I was taught that the prophet is always right, Lamanites filled America and Polynesia, blacks would not have the priesthood until the Millennium, mine was the generation when Jesus would return, and a thousand other things. Now I find that these things were just opinions and were not revelation at all. Like mythical Janus, the church has two faces. When a prophet speaks it is scripture, but years later when he is proven wrong, it was "just his opinion."

V) Virgins: Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants was designed to justify Joseph Smith's extra-marital affairs with Fanny Alger and other women, and threaten his wife Emma if she complained. His affairs began in 1832 or before, but the "revelation" did not come until 1843 when his affairs became public. The section says priesthood leaders can have as many virgins as they want, and their wives must agree or be destroyed.

W) Washings: When I was young, the change from baptism by immersion to baptism by sprinkling was a proof of the apostasy of the early church. Now the LDS church has done the same thing: in the temple. Washings were once whole-body affairs, then this was changed to simply touching parts of the body, and now this has been changed to just sprinkling. There are many other changes, but this is most recent and seems to be the most symbolic.

X) eXclusion: Non-member parents are not allowed to see their childrens' weddings (only active memers are allowed in temples). And on a more general level, the church keeps its people too busy to get involved in many non-LDS activities, while "worldly" is a synonym for evil. So members are excluded from the good things of the world.

Y) Y? Why should we believe in the church? To see the absurdity of it, imagine a church based on pink unicorns. You cannot prove that pink unicorns do not exist. If the pink unicorn church was friendly, or you felt a strong emotion while praying, you might even want to join. You could read books on unicorns and gather faith-promoting stories. But if you stand back and look, it all seems crazy. You end up asking "why did I ever believe this?"

Z) Zelph: Faced with the DNA problem (see above), FARMS has adopted the "limited geography" theory, where all the Book of Mormon lands were hidden in a small part of Central America. Yet Joseph Smith made clear that the Nephites cover the whole of North America. He even gave the name of two great Nephite leaders from the region, Zelph and Onandagus. The prophets have always been clear that Nephites occupied the Great Lakes region, but even the apologists accept that this was impossible. What are we to conclude?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tolworthy/atozelph/

reply

you are SO off. almost ALL of your "statements" were wrong. check your facts before you do and diss my religion.... dumbass.

ok ill admit.... my name is joey and i am a conga-holic

reply

Go back to church MrsBure, the info I posted was for people wanting to hear both sides of the story, not just the white washed version of things the LDS church feeds its sheep.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

...at least with some of the Mormons that post here.

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

He was off in ALMOST all of his statements?

In which statements was he correct?

reply

WOW!! cant you anti people find some new stuff to come up with against the church. its the same old stuff all the time, adam-god theory, no horsed until the spanish blah blah blah. get some new material and when your searching for it try to make sure that it is true before you post it.

reply

i understand faith, and believing in god/your religion because of that faith..but how can so many people believe in something that can be easily discredited?

reply

Valentino- the same can be said with any religion... that is exactly where faith comes in.

FAITH: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (taken from www.dictionary.com)

reply

Yeah. I started to make a reply, and then I remembered why I never responded to this stuff when I was on my mission. People who don't want to believe will never believe. This poster is obviously like so many I've seen who found one reason to hate the church, and now pretend to justify it with a myriad of lies and misrepresentations.

reply

[deleted]

Nextwooden and gswaff01 both suggested the original poster just doesn't want to accept the Church's teachings. He wants to live an immoral life, so he's posed all kinds of false intellectual objections. But you have to be careful about making that kind of explanation. Yes, there is often a relationship between someone's ideas and his life. It's often true that a person who doesn't subscribe to religious teachings will also live a less "religious" life. But the causation isn't necessarily from their desires to their ideas. It can be the other way, too. The person may fall into doubt about a religion based on objective reasons, and when he does, that religion's ability to guide his actions is weakened, too.

So whatever the case may be about this person's private life, I don't think you can just dismiss the intellectual objections he's raising. Or if you do, that shows you just don't want to deal with them. Not being LDS myself, I haven't studied them enough to know whether there are good LDS responses to them. But please don't think that just saying, "this person fell into sin and doesn't want to obey the church" adequately responds to his points.

While I'm not sure about all of the person's points, I think the claim that Native Americans descended from the Lamanites is highly doubtful. It does seem to fit into other trends in early 19th century America. There were other writers at the time who speculated about where Indians came from. One I came across thought they actually came from India!

"Extremism in the pursuit of moderation is no vice."

reply

[deleted]

Many don't understand the true Adam God teaching, and therefore later church leaders denounced it. All Brigham Young said was that Adam in Genesis was named after the first Adam. He said that the Adam in Genesis is Michael the Archangel, and a member of the Godhead known as the Holy Ghost. The Adam that mortal Michael was named after was none other than the Father of all spirits who have been assigned to this planet, Eloah (or some prefer the plural form of the name Elohim). Eloah also goes by Ahman, Man of Holiness, God the Father, The Most High God, and so on, so why not Adam (Earth Man) as another name for this Man of flesh and bone that was on earth walking through the Garden in the cool of the day.

As far as Michael being the Holy Ghost, well, it is the only time I've really heard of this Being being identified, so I'd buy it. The only problem is that he is defined as a spirit being. Maybe Michael doesn't get resurrected until his purpose as the Holy Ghost is fulfilled, or there is some way he can function simultaneously.

Michael is believed to be the highest son below Jehovah (Jesus) in rank, so why not be the Holy Ghost in the Godhead? It beats thinking he's Eloah's brother and our spirit uncle or something...

reply

My good friend I'm afraid you're wasting your time trying to show these people logic and reason. If they can completely discount DNA proof that the Native Americans were certainly not descended from Jerusalem and not even accept what their church historian Brigham Roberts did - that the Book or Mormon has striking similarities to a previously published book 'View of the Hebrews' then they're really not going to listen to people on a message board.

The thing is, the Mormon community and religion is an incredibly closed one, consisting entirely of people spouting ridiculous, unfounded ideas and agreeing with each other without anyone there to tell them "hold on, have you got anything to back this up?" You're certainly not going to get any of them researching anything outside of their church teachings (I doubt they would be part of their church too much longer) or posting their beliefs on RichardDawkins.net. This is how religions generally work, and I truly believe this is why Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Once you join you're taken into the community and encouraged to cut off all ties to non-Mormons on the outside world. With only brainwashed missionaries and other wretched followers to discuss your beliefs with, all shadow of doubt eventually gets washed away into obscurity leaving you to believe that yours is the only true way to live, no matter what anyone says. This is opposed for example to British Christianity where multi-multiculturalism, mixed communities and a growing atheist population is allowing people to view ways of lives and belief systems outside of their own, consequently diminishing old English church traditions.

reply

On a personal note, the Mormons I have met have been incredibly nice people. I admire them for being devoted to their faith and trying to live a life they believe pleases God.

I also believe that the history of the Mormon church has been massively covered up. If Mormons today read the controversies and the lies involved, they would really begin to doubt the very foundations of their faith.

An excellent book is "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes. It blows the lid off the history of the Mormon church, mostly based on documentation uncovered from the archives of the Mormon church.

reply

The Mormon Church are very careful to make sure that their followers don't dwell on the less savory parts of their religion. Like most religious people, the Mormons I have spoken to generally know less about their religion than I do. Quite often they simply don't want to know about the ridiculous, unfounded parts of their religion. They are just happy for it to fill that void in their minds where religion helps stabilise life no matter how silly it is.

I have been meaning to read the book you mentioned, I will try and get hold of a copy.

reply

Barry, I couldn't put the book down. Even though I'm not an American, I have always found American history fascinating and this book really brings to life just how dangerous the Mormon religion was to the very fabric of American life in the 19th century. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was also a massive coverup and still is today. I visited Mountain Meadows just over a year ago and it was very hard to even find it on a map. There was no memorial and the Mormons have pretty much been forced to admit they murdered so many young families who were simply on wagon trains heading west. Many Mormons today still will not admit the involvement of the Mormons, let alone their prophet Brigham Young who almost certainly orchestrated the massacre of 120 unarmed men, women and children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadow_massacre

If you go to Amazon and read the reviews, many Mormons have logged on and said they were shocked to read about the coverups and lies about their religion. It was pretty brave of them to admit that too. http://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Gods-History/dp/1568582838/ref= sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235464893&sr=1-2 Check the reviews at the bottom of the page, especially those written by long standing and active Mormons.

reply

So what IS your country of nationality?

reply

I don't understand why people experimented with DNA from Native Americans and compared it to that of modern Jews, as if modern Jews would have the same DNA as ancient Jews. Besides, modern Jews are mostly descended from Judah whereas Lehi and his family were descended from Joseph. But the Book of Mormon doesn't say which tribe he was in.

reply

There are some horrible incidents in LDS church history which should not be whitewashed.

However... the LDS has far less blood on its hands than many other churches, if you delve back into European history and the crusades. Not to mention the Reformation and conquest of the Americas, witch trials, Inquisition etc.

It's not as if atheism has clean hands either, although of course, atheists will completely deny that Mao and Stalin did what they did because they were atheist.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

reply

Barry, that is absolutely true. The more unsavory (and embarrassing) parts of Mormon history and beliefs have been radically de-emphasized or just plain ignored over the past decades.

I was shocked to learn that many adult Mormons were unaware that their prophet/founder Joseph Smith had multiple wives.

reply

"I also believe that the history of the Mormon church has been massively covered up. If Mormons today read the controversies and the lies involved, they would really begin to doubt the very foundations of their faith.

"An excellent book is "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes. It blows the lid off the history of the Mormon church, mostly based on documentation uncovered from the archives of the Mormon church."

It might surprise you to learn that I read this book, and it made me want to go BACK to church. Abanes is a good writer, and I won't deny he opened my eyes to some stuff, but he also made me look at the church again with new eyes.

I went for years without thinking about the church, or taking any interest in it whatsoever. I didn't go round attacking it constantly.

I realise that there's a lot of stuff swept under the carpet, but I also realise that there are certain good things about the church. I've come to understand that a lot of the more ugly stuff is out of the church now, e.g. the racism, and that more recent leaders, e.g. Gordon B. Hinckley have actually preached against it.

I don't think the church is institutionally perfect, and the unchristian attitude of some of the members leaves something to be desired (see elsewhere on this forum). However, I'm getting more out of life in it, than I did outside it.

I guess I'm the bane of both hardcore traditionalists and anti-Mormons. I also have a screen name I now regret, but that's another matter.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

reply

^No offense, but I'm not sure your source of information was at all credible. I'm LDS (Mormon) and I can assure you that very little of what you stated actually applies to the LDS religion. For example, we've never preached that Adam was god, we were never commanded not to date people from outside America, we've always done full-body baptisms, etc. Nothing against you, I'm just saying that you've been misinformed.

Half Blood # 15
I think I am a son of Poseidon
Release the Kraken!

reply

Actually Brigham Young did talk extensively on the Adam-God doctrine, look it up.

It plays no part in contemporary Mormonism of course.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

reply

Brigham Young did talk on the Adam-God Theory; However, what he said was taken so out of context and was very misinterpreted. If you read what he said rather than what other people say he said, it's not as bad and absurd as you may think. It doesn't disagree with anything we teach. Go find Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith and read his interpretation of what Brigham Young said.

And by the way, the guy who started this post made me laugh. All of his points were way off. Take the Mountain Meadows Massacre for example. A group of people are passing through Utah and one group of members wants to attack them. Brigham Young tells them to leave them alone, but the do it anyway. all people involved get excommunicated and the leader gets the death penalty. that's the long story made short. Now anti's claim Brigham Young ordered it and they use that against us. Really laughable how anti's twist and turn everything, take things out of context and blow things out of proportion then shove it in our face and think they look all smart. If you have a disagreement with the church or something we teach, fine. But please, if you're going to argue or throw out statements, at least be accurate and argue something we actually believe or did.

reply