Where can I find the evidence that TSCC is not true? I'm having a discussion with a member who is open-minded and willing to look at the evidence. I told him about the Book of Abraham and changes in the First Vision story, among other things. He wants to see actual original documents, if possible. He's 18 years old so I'm not looking for scholarly books here, just the indisputable evidence. I don't think arguments from science (DNA) will work as well as showing the internal inconsistencies. What's the best thing I can show him?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2011 03:01AM by sexismyreligion.

The church has much of the original documents locked up. They are well known for not allowing anyone from the outside to examine them. Further, they don't just let any old member examine them either. You have to be proven 'faithful' enough before you can even get close to them, and only with special approval.

So, if you're looking for Joseph Smith's ACTUAL peep stone or his ACTUAL papyri you aren't going to ever see it in person.

If you go to the church history museum you'll see dioramas of the pioneers instead of anything specifically related to church history. In fact much of the material there has absolutely nothing to do with church history at all.

http://lds.org/churchhistory/museum/exhibits/current/0,16116,4089-1,00.html

Here are a few scant pictures of just a few carefully selected documents, but they do not give enough historical facts to fully understand what you're looking at. For example it doesn't list the scribe's name who wrote it down. It sort of infers that JS did everything.


http://www.josephsmith.net/

I guess your friend needs to ask himself what might be motivating the church to keep much of this material locked up. Why not show more? Why not just let the information out there?

This one (http://www.josephsmith.net) is exactly what I wanted, it's a Church-owned website and has a picture of the document where Joseph Smith writes about his First Vision, although they label it as "Jesus Christ teaches Joseph Smith about repentance and forgives his sins". It's the one document that doesn't have the text fully typed up to the side. Obviously the Church is hoping it will be overlooked, but it's there.

This one is a church owned site too. The scanned image of another document can be seen and read. It is Joseph Smith's words of what Moroni told him:

http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-1835-1836#25

"he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham"

(If the link does not work, copy and paste it or type it in the address bar)

Compare that to the changed Book of Mormon introduction:

Before:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians”.

After:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians”.

"among the ancestors" is not even the same as "literal descendants".

LDS are fond of saying that Bruce R. McConkie wrote the introduction, but how many know that it came from what Moroni told Joseph Smith?

Angels aren't perfect you know...or are they. Can an angel tell you wrong? I mean, holy cow, what's the point of prophets and angels if what they say is just their opinion? I'm starting to think the angels are just making God up, or is it that the prophets are just making angels up? Yes, that would be it.

can give you specific answers. I think the BofA and First Vision have good sources of evidence.

Maybe you can find something interesting on one of these sites:

Rethinking Mormonism
http://www.i4m.com/

Richard Packham's web site:
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/

MormonThink
http://www.mormonthink.com/

FreeAtLast has probably posted a list of resources in past posts.

Here are two videos I like:

1. This is extremely similar to TSCC, and gets right to the point of its circular reasoning, and logical inconsistencies:

Kissing Hank's A$$ (some swearing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

2. This looks at the reasoning behind the "gospel":

Forgiveness, Grace, and God's Death Sentence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkgmU9vG_o



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2011 03:38AM by atheist&happy:-).

Try these web sites. They're pretty good about referencing to the original materials:

http://20truths.info/mormon.html lays out a pretty good argument against the LDS church.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org gives a list of Joseph Smith's "Wives". He had an interesting taste for young girls and married women.

http://whatismormonism.com gives a pretty good list of problems with the LDS church with references.

http://www.bible.ca/mor-questions.htm gives you a list of questions to ask your friend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2011 04:01AM by Mnemonic.

1. RICHARD PACKHAM: “Joseph Smith’s Language Problems – A Linguist Looks at Mormonism
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference.html
Exmormon Foundation 2009 Conference
Friday, October 9, 2009


"...IN His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" Has beautiful reproductions of the original scrolls that J. Smith CLAIMED to have translated. They make a very tight case. Only one lame chapter near the end that invites mormons to become christians... ugh.

It has the advantage of tons of honest-to-god scholarship, rather than the half-assed apologetic scholarship you are left with in Mo-ism. You also don't have to worry about trusting "anti-Mormon" authors, which might be a sticking point for your friend.

Look up the authorship of Isaiah. Instead of being written by a single pre-exile author, it was very probably written by two (or more) authors over a few hundred years. Much of it was written after 600 BC, including entire sections that are quoted in the BOM. Oops. (FAIR has a rebuttal to this point, but it boils down to rejecting what nearly every biblical scholar nowadays thinks of Isaiah. Weak.)

You can also look up the doxology at the end of The Lord's Prayer in Matthew ("For thine is the kingdom", etc). This sentence is almost certainly not in the original text, but was added later. Yet it shows up in the BOM during 3 Nephi. Oops. (Again, FAIR has a rebuttal, but it's even weaker.)

If you want to go for broke, you can deconstruct the bible pretty thoroughly. The problem here is that there is, as I understand it, more scholarly dispute on these points. The Gospels (except perhaps Mark and--even more dubiously--Luke) were probably not written by their purported authors. All of them were written after 70 AD or so, well after the death of Jesus. There are major authenticity questions for many of the epistles, including all of John's epistles and several of Paul's. The Old Testament falls apart quickly, too: the Pentateuch was likely cobbled together from several conflicting sources from around 1000 BC to 500 BC, with a final redacting happening around 450 BC. Physical evidence suggests that the OT is almost completely ahistorical until around the time of David and Solomon. The exodus probably didn't happen, at least not as described in Exodus. Moses and Abraham, if they lived at all, most likely had lives quite different from the mythic histories assigned to them.

All this last is probably not as concrete as you're looking for, since it relies on scholarly opinion that's not iron-clad. But it does greatly undermine the more-or-less literal take on the bible that the Book of Mormon an Mo-ism in general requires. Mormonism takes for granted that the New Testament was written by inspired men. For all the "as far as it is translated correctly" talk, Mormonism can't abide the doubt cast by modern biblical criticism.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2011 04:52AM by mateo.

While cracks were forming in my "testimony" before I read a couple of books on the New Testament, it was the books on deconstructing the New Testament that led me to go after Mo-ism.

The New Testament is not what I had been taught in Mormonism at all. We were pretty much told that Jesus had disciples that followed him around while he was performing magic and wrote all of the shit down exactly as he did it, and when it happened.

That's not what the New Testament is. In fact, some stories were added MUCH later, and NEVER show up in the earliest copies that historians have.

The story of the adultress being stoned and Jesus says one of the most famous lines of all time?

Sorry, that was added at least a hundred years later after the earliest accounts.

The only response that apologists have is, "well, it was an oral story that was passed down and needed to find its way in."

Really? Well, it seems to be a very important character insight into Jesus, and it was ADDED later.

Actually I think the women taken in adultery popped up around 1000 a.d., but I may be wrong...

Oh and here's some good lectures about some of the problems with the New Testament...http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/

And if you would like to learn about the fraudulent Old Testament, here ya go http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2011 01:06AM by Freevolved.

It's hard to be incredibly scholarly when you're at work posting between tasks.

I just looked it up because it was bothering me, and the story probably first showed up in the late 4th or early 5th century. Ha...I guess I haven't read Bart Ehrman in too long.

One of these days, that laziness is going to bite me in the ass.

Invest in Grant Palmers book 'an insiders view of Mormon origins'.

It's an easy read, it's factual and will very easily show that the Mormon Church is not what it claims to be.

...the LDS church is the one that needs to provide the evidence it's true. It's the one making the claims.

Truly - a fact so obvious that it is easily overlooked.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or uncritical belief.


Now, remind me again why I should even _consider_ the proposition that an unemployed shit-for-brains bumpkin is a "prophet" and founded a "church"?

Basically, I've figured out myself that Mormonism is BS, but this is the first time I've openly discussed what I found with a member. I'm hoping to learn from the discussion which arguments are strongest and which are more easily dismissed by members. Eventually I'll be having this conversation with my family, so this is good practice.
It's true that the burden of proof is on the church to back up their fantastic claims, but members who have been brainwashed their entire lives aren't going to see it that way. Also, the Jaredite barges doesn't quite work - I can't just point to that and say "How can you believe something so stupid?" and expect anyone to change their minds. The DNA evidence is also harder to prove to the average 18-year-old, only because high school science classes don't teach enough about how DNA markers work, so I would have to explain the science behind it too. Also, it's harder to point out changes in the Church doctrines to younger people who haven't been around long enough to see it.
I found out that I can't talk about the racism in the Book of Mormon, the curse of Cain, 1978 revelation etc. because hearing any kind of counterargument defending the Church on that issue literally makes me feel sick. Same with the Prop 8. So I don't want to bring those up, because it makes me feel completely disgusted with the person I'm talking to for making excuses for the Church.
So far I'm only planning to bring up the changes in the First Vision, changes in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham papyrus, and an internal inconsistency with Church doctrine I see in D&C 19. Thanks everyone for the help, and I'm still open to any more suggestions for "talking points" to TBMs and evidence to back up my points.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2011 12:59AM by sexismyreligion.

It is very common, essentially a right of passage for those leaving the LDS church, to want to explain & justify the decision to leave. Part of that may also entail inner-directed reassurance that one has reached valid conclusions from genuine evidence.


But, the sad truth is that in the view of the faithful, there can _never_ be a valid reason for leaving mormonism, because it is the one-true-church, and the only universal church, having dominion over all mankind (living and dead).
==============================================

You have to work your way out on your own terms - but the notion that that you can find respect, acceptance, or understanding from mormon friends, family, and associates for your exit is almost certainly doomed to failure.



One of your major responsibilities as a member of the mormon church is to reinforce the faith of those around you. In leaving, you have failed miserably - and that is how you will be remembered. You will definitely _not_ be remembered as a thoughtful individual exercising good judgment and free will.


You've made a personal (and ultimately very private) decision to take your life in a new direction. That's all there is to it, really. When you attempt to rationalize that decision to the mormon faithful, you are simply delaying the inevitable, and prolonging the pain.

Google Utah Lighthouse Ministries. They have all kinds of true books and articles. Sandra Tanner runs the organisation, and Im sure she will be more than happy to help. They are also based in SLC if that helps.

http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_TOC.html

Correct translations of the the facsimiles:
http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_6.html

http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_7.html

And while you are at it, have a look at the Utah invention of D&C122:
http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p177.gif

When the D&C was reissued in 1844, Section 121 was not included. Section 121 was originally a letter written by Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight, Caleb Baldwin, and Alexander McCrae while inmprisoned in Liberty jail. Published originally in The Times and Seasons in Nauvoo 1840. The 1844 DC did not include any portion of the letter. Since JS oversaw the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants, it is apparent that he did not consider the material in the latter as revelation.

In 1876 the new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included it, but it was chopped, added to, rewritten with entirely new concepts and material including Plurality of Gods. Entire paragraphs were cut, while portions of sentences were moved around. This became 121, 122, and 123 as part of the new theology being taught in Salt Lake City.

Here is a fantastic layout of the changes in photographic form:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changingtherevelations.htm

The Doctrine and Covenants is a book of revelations given to Joseph Smith-
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/122

can you see where DC 122 begins?
http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p177.gif



Scroll down past the Book of Commandment changes, to the section called Other Changes. Pictures clearly show what was cut, including the authors names, and it shows what was inserted. In the end, section 121,122, and 123, no matter how important, is a complete fabrication.
http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p171.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p171.gif

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p174.gif

Here we introduce the plurality of gods:
http://www.utlm.org/images/changingtherevelations/changingtherevelations_p175.gif

And don't forget that the revelationes were also changed before being included in the 1835 D&C:

The Book of Commandments was the first book of revelations published in 1833. It was later reissued as the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835. At the time of the publication of the 1833 Book of Commandments, Jesus Christ said that it was correct and approved by Him.

Book of Commandments Chapter 1:7
>1:7 [S]earch these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them, shall all be fulfilled. What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself, and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same: For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever: Amen.


Here's a very good resource to see the changes
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc_main.shtml

Changes to Joseph Smiths Authority:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc4.shtml

Changes to Oliver Cowderys (Rod of Aaron) revelation:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc7.shtml

Changes to the Parchment of John the Revelator:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc6.shtml

Change- note the difference between 24:7 and 20:6
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc24.shtml

Changes to the revelation to Emma:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc26.shtml

Change to the revelation to consecrate the property of the Gentiles:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc44.shtml

Changes to Priesthood revelation:
http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/boc/boc28.shtml

Also pictures of the actual changes:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changingtherevelations.htm

Be sure to scroll down and see other changes as well.

------------------

And nobody should miss the Journal of Discourses:
journalofdiscourses.org

Bottom line?
They say that the church is led by modern prophets who have brought forth scripture which is of course the Word of God.
If you cannot trust the scriptures or the people who gave them to you then there is no reason to believe in the church that teaches from them.

Those are a big deal. Remind your friend on the sections about the priesthood that nobody knew about the "appearance" of peter, james, and john, until five years after it supposedly happened. I think it was David Whitmer that said something to the effect of the story not being true (either him or Martin Harris).

www.mormonstories.org/?p=205

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/10/12/fair-podcast-episode-3-richard-l-bushman-p-1/

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/10/24/fair-podcast-episode-4-richard-l-bushman-p-2/

It would at least introduce him to problems. He would have to believe that Bushman has hard evidence. Anyways you could start him off with that and then take it from there.

Moroni was supposed to be a real person who lived in America. He was the person who came to Joseph Smith and showed him where the gold plates were buried.

"he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham"

You can see this for yourself at this LDS website:

http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-1835-1836#25

This was written on November 9, 1835. The original documents are kept in the Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Doctrine and Covenants section 57 was written in 1831. It is quite interesting. Verse 1 makes it the words of the Lord, not Joseph Smith, not Joseph Smith's word choice. In verse 4, Jesus says that the American Indian people residing west of Missouri were "Jews". This agrees with what Moroni allegedly told Joseph Smith.

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/57?lang=eng

So a resurrected person who had lived in America told Joseph that the Indians were from Abraham. Jesus told Joseph Smith that the Indians were from Abraham.

The Human Genome Project began in 1990. It was a scientific project began to identify all of the genes in the human DNA. It was completed in 2003.

This study shows that the American Indian are not Jewish. DNA studies prove the migrations into America from Asia more than 10,000 years ago. Living American Indian came from those ancient people.

All DNA studies on human remains in America carbon dated to be before Columbus have shown Moroni and Jesus to be wrong.

The Book of Mormon was supposed to be for the Indians. But science proved they were not Jewish people.

In 2007 the Book of Mormon introduction was changed. This was an admission that Moroni and Jesus were wrong.

sexismyreligion said: "I don't think arguments from science (DNA) will work as well as showing the internal inconsistencies."

You might use these to help him realize the truth of science:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_tv_dnadeath.html

Should those deathrow inmates still be executed because science can't be trusted?

http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/specialassignment/112106969.html

Should medical breakthroughs be ignored?

The DNA science in these two examples is the same science that proves that Joseph Smith, Jesus and Moroni were wrong.

Did he require to see the original documents before joining the church? Gold plates? The original manuscript of the BOM complete with spelling and grammer errors? It would appear to me the the original documents argument works both ways. Perhaps you should ask him for the original documents behind the church and not accept a copy of the current BOM where "white and delightsome" is placed by "pure and delightsome".

Unquestionable faith. Wasn't this church based on praying about it and discovering it yourself? Not having blind faith like some other churches. Just saying.

http://mrm.org/gospel-principles

Excellent display of the recent changes.

The 2010 Gospel Principles manuals have removed many core teachings from the previous issues. Many of these teachings werepresented as essential to our salvation and exaltation in prior years. Just look at the things that have been removed!

We should ask these questions:

When we teach our children the gospel will we have to be careful not to teach them the things that used to be essential?

Should our firm unshakeable testimonies be cast aside?

Can we be punished in 2013 for teaching things that were essential to our salvation in 2009?

Will new converts ever learn about the things we will be required to keep away from them? And if they do learn about them will it be said that they were errors?

Was our sure witness of the Holy Ghost wrong?

The church tells us that we toss away our eternal familes if we reject the teachings of the church, and now the church has removed many of those very teachings and will not be taught to our children.

For your 18 year old friend-
Was your father, grandfather and Bishop wrong to teach you these things that are removed?

If so, was the church true when they taught you, or were the alleged prophets wrong?

If the church is led by wrong prophets, can it become true by dismissing them, considering the unbroken chain of authority?

If he wants hard evidence, he can look at the gold plates for himself. Oops, wait, they don't exist. Sorry.

Review information the information on http://www.mormonthink.com, particularly about the Adam-God doctrine and how blacks would never receive the priesthood before the millenium, both taught by Brigham himself. The quotes from the Journal of Discources can be reviewed in facsimilie form on BYU's website here: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT=%2FJournalOfDiscourses3

The fact that I could review the originals of early "prophet's" sermons and validate these concepts was enough to help open my eyes to how much the church has altered it's history. Good luck sexismyreligion.

for starters, here's a current, internal inconsistency:
prop 8
summed up as:
"dont let the gays marry each other"

compare with AOF 11:
http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html
"
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
"

science disproves not just the lds church, but every religion based on the old testament:
* adam and eve's first offspring born ca. ~6000 years ago disproved by the homo sapien fossil record

* global flood (noah) disproved by greenland ice sheet project:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
and the simple fact that chinese people didnt get wiped out and a whole lot of other logical reasons too.

then there's:
* polyandry
* mark hofmann tricking the "inspired" men of the Q15
* joseph smith cant translate egyptian (BOA issue), so he logically also cant translate reformed egyptian either (BOM)
* joseph smith "translating" by putting his face in his hat and reading words off of a glowing stone. almost all eye witness accounts tell of this method.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2011 01:14PM by Nick Humphrey.

Hebrews traveled (not sailed) from the Arabian peninsula to the Americas -- eastward? westward? Did they land on the east coast of the Americas or the west coast of the Americas? North, south, central?

And they lived in a wooden submarine full of animals and shit?

Seriously, what more do you need?

cue up the Beatles.

Is it scientifically factual that Joseph Smith Jr was directed to a spot in the ground by an angel where he found some ancient Golden Plates that he translated? Is the Book of Mormon a factual, historical book about real people, places and things? No, of course not.

But they are believed as if they are factually true. That is how religious subjective truths work, and have worked throughout the history of humanity. They are stories,etc. that teach spiritual truths aka subjective truths.

My view is that the Bible only gets some credibility as it refers to some still standing places. But is it historically factual? No, of course not. But that's not the point.

The claims of Mormon are subjective truths that are as valuable to the believers as any other religious claim.

If a member doesn't want to believe them, they can change their mind and leave the LDS Church. In fact, it's very easy.
Nobody is maimed, or killed, jailed, or exiled to another country.

Sure, there are usually some familial and emotional issues, but the former member is alive and well and can handle them.

There is no list of only true reasons to leave the LDS Church. Don't like the color of the pews, don't like the stove in the kitchen, don't like the people, the message, the music, the temple, the history, polygamy, the ordinances..... the BOM, etc. The reasons are endless. Pick one or more ...or none.

It's OK to let it go, and create your own New World View constructing it any way you want. We have the freedom to do that!

Themost har evidence is common sense, history, doctrine.