Help Us To Come Out Of Mormonism Part 2

For some of my 16 followers or so and others of you found on various Facebook Chat Groups of discussion may yet remember my Ode to D Lawrence Barksdale's clever reminder that if one is to successfully remove someone from Mormonism, that they should have a clear landing point for them to aim for. (Original Blog Engry Link: http://theldslife.blogspot.com/2013/10/help-us-please-to-come-out-of-mormonism.html) Remembering also that there was no clear EXIT STRATEGY provided by the many Ex-Mo's for Jesus, so let me add a few things which were not included in his assessment of their pleas for us to

"COME OUT OF MORMONISM" but to also remind the folks that in leaving the church, these are some of the nasty things we are expected to give up by renouncing the Prophet Thomas S Monson and the other general authorities of the church.

Topic 1) Abandonment of taking the sacrament and a discontinuation of renewing one's covenants by partaking of the emblems which were also given at the "Last Supper" during the Lord's final hours of life. Yeah that one. Here's a refresher on the prayer(s) we hear each and every Sunday as these emblems are blessed for our benefit.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 20: Verses 76-79

76 "And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it—he shall kneel with the church and call upon the Father in solemn prayer, saying: 77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. 78 The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say: 79 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."

So in leaving Mormonism, we are asking one to abandon the practice of renewing ones covenants also made on a weekly if not a very 'often' basis and those 3 covenants are as follows:

1) ...that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son,

2) ...and always remember him

3) ...and keep his commandments which he has given them;

and by doing so, one may then be forgoing the promised blessing of... "that they may always have his Spirit to be with them." by no longer doing this. (Oh but that's not something that is truly important, right? Test the spirits...right? Harmless? I mean after all, they're in the wrong covenant which to others, is something that is null and void.

So we discover that by leaving Mormonism, it is perfectly acceptable to stop doing those things mentioned? stop taking the Sacrament? or Both? My questions for XINO's or otherwise the Christian Brethren who desire that I leave Mormonism, what is offensive about...

"willing to take upon them the name of Christ in all that I do? seek to always remember him? or keep his commandments? Well we all know that keeping the commandments aren't what get us into heaven. By grace not works. Okay, now moving on.

Topic 2) Temple Covenants:

Because of the love and respect that I have for the temple covenants, I will be brief and mention them in good taste.

One of the first covenants we make in the Temple is to Obey the Law of the Lord and do so under covenant. The sisters are then obliged to follow the Law of the Lord as contained in the Holy Scriptures and do so by following the lead of her husband so long as his paths are righteous and worthy of the Lamb. Similar to swearing on a 'stack of Bibles' which sometimes happens in various ceremonies held in my country. (Any objections? Offensive? Moving on...)

We covenant to obey the Law of Chastity. (Sexual purity before marriage and complete fidelity during marriage.) Is there any part of this that also needs to go unheeded?

We then covenant to participate in the building of Zion upon the earth. Devote our time, talents and energies to the building up of the kingdom of God upon the earth... and yes, we believe that is what we are doing. Doing the Lord's work.

Sound good thus far?

So by doing or rather 'no longer doing these things' how would this make me whole? After all, this is what I would be doing then if I renounce my faith. I might as well, anyhow. Because this is what it would mean for me to lose my Mormonism and settle for something less.

Perhaps I would be less concerned about helping the Boy Scouts in church and performing church service. Hey, I'd get my Sunday's off and some more XBOX time with my fun loving boys then and as one Ex-mo once said to me, I'd get at 10% pay raise!

Topic 3) - The Conclusion: Become an Island unto myself. Be saved in a vacuum. We don't need no stinking church!

This is the part where I would revert to the first entry about the same subject. What would I then do? Stay home and read in the Bible? Would anyone be qualified to teach the gospel doctrines to me? Are there any great T.V. evangelical pastors I should look out for and then follow?

We never do get a clear answer as to what to do next. I guess we could be given a great pamphlet on how to best cross examine Mormons about Isaiah 43:10 and remind them that this verse speaks for itself and that NO MAN may ever think or hope to become like his father in heaven because after him or before him or during him or around him or behind him or on top of him or below him or whatever him one should not find another one to call our God. We LDS believe this too. We do not worship other men or pray to Joseph Smith, in case you were all wondering. ;-) but really, what's next? Put a little $ in the "Salvation Army Bell Ringer's" coin bucket once a year. What else do you suggest?

Pray a lot but to the right Jesus and not the Jesus of Mormonism. However you want to pray. God doesn't judge.

Accept Jesus into my heart to be saved and follow no more after the foolish ambitions of following a modern prophet for we know that any and all prophets should be false. Even the mentioning of False prophets should be enough to deter those silly Mormons from wanting to believe in a modern prophet but they just don't listen.

Saved by grace and not by works! Whew! It's not after all that we can do. We don't have to work anymore in order to earn God's grace. It's a free gift that requires no participation on our part. (Well, minus accepting Jesus into our hearts. That is the work we must do!)

Topic 4)- The Spoilers: For those who choose to remain in the bliss of ignorance, do not look up ANY of these passages of scripture. It may just confuse you or perhaps even the common reader but it will most likely contradict a few of the spiritual lifestyles suggested by the XINO's of today's Christian world and the fates of what Mormons would meet by abiding by the precepts of men...mingled with Scripture.

Romans 6:1-7 - Don't read this one if you think that grace without effort on your part is sufficient.

Revelation Ch 11 - Not to trust any prophets at all ever again for all are false except for these 2?

1 Timothy 2:7 - Trust a T.V. evangelist? a Bible study? That's all you'll get if you don't seek for the anointed.

No where does it say we need fellowship anyway right? (Major SPOILER ALERT! STOP NOW!!!) I echo the words of John when I say this. Come back to church, all they who are currently away from our fellowship.

1 John 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." - well I warned you. We invite and await you with open arms!

But if you choose not to leave Mormonism, here's a word of encouragement for you tonight or whenever you end up reading this blog...

Keep Calm and Morm ON!

2 Nephi 33:12 = "And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day." - "...men ought always to pray, and not to faint;" Luke 18:1, and this I leave with you in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen!

Christians Are A Cult And Worship A False Christ

Dear God-fearing friend, DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE DELUSIONAL CHRISTIANS!!! This is your area Rabbi, Rabbi Yohanan bar Alcalai, and the year according to Christians is 66 A.D. I have authority in which to write of the matter. For I write the truth and wish to correct the error of your new found Christianity.

I am writing this letter because of a great threat to the cherished words which the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has given us through His holy prophets.

You've probably had Christians come around to your door, wanting to engage you in "discussions" about their faith. And maybe, as a good Jew, you've let them in the door. They seem to be nice, well-dressed, well-mannered. They may speak about Israel's God, and they may carry the Bible under their arms, but don't be deceived-they are not Jewish. Christianity is an insidious cult that seeks to tear real adherents of Judaism away from Moses and the Bible.

Take, for example, their principal message, about the Messiah. They bring you their "New Testament, Another Witness of the Prophets" and try to convince you that their founder, Jesus, was the Messiah. But believe me, this is not the Messiah of the Bible. No, my friend, the Christians teach a very a different messiah than what the holy prophets wrote about. While the biblical Messiah is a king who will liberate us from our enemies, the Christian messiah is said to have died to liberate us from our sins, despite the fact that the Bible teaches that every man is responsible for his own sins (Leviticus 20:19-20). If a man commits murder, for example, he is to be executed for his sin, and there is no provision for someone else dying in his stead (Genesis 9:6). The law of God clearly states that "every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16). For those not guilty of capital crimes, the Bible is clear about the procedure that must be followed in order to be cleansed from sin. One must confess his sins, make restitution for wrongs, and offer the proper sacrifice (Leviticus 4:2-4; Numbers 5:6-7).

The Christians believe that, because their leader died, it is no longer necessary to offer sacrifices at the temple. But the Bible says otherwise, commanding, "thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement . . . two lambs of the first year day by day continually" (Exodus 29:36, 38). These sacrifices are to be made "throughout your generations" (Exodus 30:10).

Ironically, the founder of the Christian Church was conceived out of wedlock, which, under the Law of Moses, disqualifies him from participating in religious functions (Deuteronomy 23:2). The Christians' own scriptures acknowledge that Jesus was a winebibber (Matthew 11:19). The Bible warns us, saying, "a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink" (Micah 2:11). The false prophet Jesus, who also claimed divine prerogatives, was tried and found guilty of high crimes (blasphemy and treason) and executed by crucifixion. And yet some people are gullible enough to believe that he was sent by God!

And what of those who perpetuated this false messiah? The Christians claim that some of the disciples of Jesus, including a sometime fisherman and money-digger (Matthew 17:27) named Simon (who goes under the alias of Peter), along with a traitorous Roman money collector named Matthew and ten others who go by the title of apostles, are prophets who speak with God. But their messages contradict the word of God as given through ancient prophets such as Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah and their behavior violates all the laws of God.

Peter was once arrested and put into prison until he could answer charges brought against him. But the night before he was to be arraigned before King Herod, he escaped from the guards and ran away (Acts 12:6-9). Tradition has it that after fleeing to Rome and practicing his treasonous religion there, he was again imprisoned, this time by the Roman authorities, who found him guilty of crimes against the state and was executed by crucifixion.

The most outspoken of the followers of Christ was a Roman Jew who preferred to be known more by his Gentile name, Paul, than by his God given Israelite name, Saul. It is this man, more than all the others, who is responsible for writing the "new" testament which Christians deem more holy than the law God gave to Israel through Moses. What kind of a person was he? I will tell you. He was expelled from the cities of Antioch (Acts 13:50), Iconium (Acts 14:5,6), and Lystra (14:19) where his preaching had stirred up riots. In the city of Thyatira Paul and one of his companions were brought before the magistrate and accused of being trouble-makers. When the evidence was presented, Paul was found guilty and sentenced to a beating and ordered to do time in prison. (Acts 16:20-25) The last eight years of his life he spent in a Roman prison and was eventually executed according to Roman law because of his crimes. These are the kinds of people Christians look up to and whose words they claim came from God.

But their words cannot be from God for one simple reason: Malachi's record marks the end of the scriptures which God intended to give mankind. Since prophecy ceased some four centuries before the time Jesus was even born, this is absolute proof that Jesus was a false prophet! Along with the ending of scripture, so did the visitation of angles. Yet Christians claim that angels appeared to Mary, the mother of Jesus and to her cousin Zacharias, to Peter and to Paul. The Bible tells us to beware of false prophets (Isaiah 9:15; Jeremiah 28:15), and the Lord warned us through Moses not to add or detract from his word (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). The Bible, from Genesis to Malachi, is inerrant and all-sufficient, and it is blasphemous to suggest that God should give us additional scriptures, a "new" testament that contradicts in every particular what he has already given us. And yet, that is exactly what the followers of the man Jesus have done. They dare to give us more of God's word, which, in reality, contradicts the words of God's true prophets.

One such contradiction is found in a supposed "revelation" of Simon Peter's where he claims that God told him not to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16), despite the fact that the Bible clearly commands that we make such a distinction (Leviticus 10:10; 11:2-31, 41-47; 20:25; Deuteronomy 14:3-20). The "revelation" which he had itself contains a clue to its false nature. It says (verse 10) that Peter was suffering hunger when "he fell into a trance" (Acts 10:10) His supposed "vision" (Acts 10:17)-or should we call it what it really is, an hallucination-was from the feeling in his stomach, not from God. I had a dream very much like Peter's one night, but instead of attributing it to a heavenly revelation, I chalked it up to a morsel of undigested food.

This same Peter states that all Christians belong to a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9). The Bible makes it clear that the priesthood is restricted to the tribe of Levi, and that God curses anyone else who tries to officiate in priesthood functions (2 Chronicles 26:18-19). When Aaron and his sons were anointed, God said, "for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations" (Exodus 40:15). God made a "covenant of an everlasting priesthood" with Aaron's grandson Pinehas (Numbers 25:13). It is people like the Christians whom the Bible condemns because they have "cast out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you priests after the manner of the nations of other lands so that whosoever cometh to consecrate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, the same may be a priest of them that are no gods" (2 Chronicles 13:9).

As for the supposed Christian "miracles," it is clear that they do not follow the biblical pattern. Their founder is said to have healed people by telling them their sins were forgiven (Matthew 9:2), while some people were supposedly healed by touching his garment (Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 6:55-56). This practice of magical rites is confirmed in another Christian scripture, Acts 19:12, which says people can be healed by being touched with handkerchiefs or aprons touched by someone who has healing powers. Even more fantastic is the story in Acts 5:15, where we read that people were healed when the shadow of Peter fell on them!

The Christians also deny the efficacy of circumcision, wanting to replace it with baptism. But in the Bible, God clearly states that circumcision is "a token of the covenant betwixt me and you," and is to be "an everlasting covenant." If a man is not circumcised, God says, "that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:10-14). But Christians do not believe God's word. Instead, they invent a "new testament" to justify breaking sacred, everlasting, holy commandments.

In his "sermon on the mount," the founder of the Christian Church openly spoke out against Bible teachings that had been revealed from heaven. Even while professing that he had not "come to destroy the law, or the prophets" (Matthew 5:17), he changed the sixth commandment from "thou shalt not kill" to "whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21-22). He also reworded the seventh commandment, rejecting the words "thou shalt not commit adultery" and substituting, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28). And though the Bible specifically says that we should perform oaths in the name of the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20), Jesus abrogated the commandment and taught "swear not at all" (Matthew 5:34). He also denounced the biblical law of divorce (Matthew 5:31-32). In the same sermon, he showed his utter depravity and demented state by telling his disciples to pluck out their right eyes and to cut off their right hands (Matthew 5:29- 30). It is hard to believe that anyone could accept someone like this as the Messiah.

Still, Christians revere their leader as a martyr, one who "gave his life" willingly. Yet the facts tell a different story: When the chief priests came to lawfully arrest this Jesus, his principal disciple lashed out with a sword, inflicting serious head wounds upon the high priest's servant (John 18:3- 10)! Jesus, the "martyr," was involved in a sword fight shortly before his death! By both Jewish law (blasphemy) and Roman law (treason and sedition), Jesus was condemned to death as a common criminal. This is the kind of man whom his followers admire and ask us to put our faith and trust in.

Then we are told that this condemned criminal rose from the grave as an immortal being three days later! But how do we know this? Where is the proof that such a thing actually happened? Christians can only point to their "new" testament. But who wrote this testament? Why, it was the followers of Jesus, and, more especially, his closest friends and associates. So the only real proof we have is what they tell us. As I have already shown, these disciples were not men of moral virtue and trustworthiness. The proof of this is that Peter admittedly lied three times in one night! (Mark 14:66-72). Judas betrayed his own master. And these were supposedly the most devoted admirers of Jesus. Yet, Christians ask us to believe that the words which such men wrote are just as holy and inspired as the true prophets of God!

Finally, Israel's God pronounced a curse upon anyone who put their trust in another man. Moreover, the Bible clearly states that the heart of such a person had departed from the Lord (Jeremiah 17:5). In direct opposition to God's holy word, Jesus told his disciples to come follow him (Luke 18:22). Not even our great lawgiver, Moses,
ever told us to follow him. He always commanded our fathers to put their trust in God. But the followers of Jesus go so far as to take upon themselves his name rather than the name of God. That is why they call themselves "Christians." We honor Moses but we don't take upon ourselves his name. We revere the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Elijah, Samuel and all the others, but we don't claim our allegiance to them. We worship God, not some man who claims to speak for God. But Christians have no such belief. They put their trust in the man Jesus.

Now, you might want to try helping your Christian neighbor find his way to the God of the Bible. But bear in mind that it will be difficult to talk to him because Christians have their own unique definition of biblical terms. So when they use the term "Messiah," they're not thinking of the biblical Messiah, but of the criminal Jesus. When they speak of "sacrifice," they don't mean the sacred rites of the temple of God, but refer to the execution of the criminal Jesus. A true Jew understands salvation to be God's intervention in the affairs of men to save his people, Israel, from their enemies. But Christians use the term "salvation" to mean resurrection and going to heaven to live with God. And this comes only if you believe in their other messiah!

We love the Christian people and need to do everything in our power to bring them back to the God of the Bible. You should, of course, pray for your Christian friends. But you can do more. The ministry we have organized here at Yeshivah Ahuvat ha-Shem needs your help in order to continue its work in exposing the insidious Christian conspiracy against the Jewish people. Please send your love offerings to us at Yavneh-Yam. Thank you and God bless you for your faithfulness to his ways and your generosity in helping us protect his word.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Yohanan bar Alcalai
(adapted from "Solving the Christian Puzzle" by John Tvedtnes)

Before anyone accuses a Mormon of belonging to a Cult, one should take Christianity from the "point of view" as it might be seen from a Jewish perspective. Now this was done in parody or in jest but perhaps you wouldn't be "SO SURE" that what you are saying isn't the same nonsense that you could be hearing from a Jew regarding our savior, Jesus Christ.

Moreover, instead of deal harshly with the Mormons and give them a hard time, making judgments without cause, consider what Christ said in the "Sermon on the Mount."
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12

POSTSCRIPT: It might be argued that the above characterization of Christian beliefs is inaccurate or misleading. However, every allegation, as seen from the Jewish viewpoint, has been stated factually. What a Christian would really object to is how those facts have been presented in an unflattering and biased way, while ignoring other important information which might convince an objective reader to view Christians differently. Yet, that is exactly how Latter-day Saints feel about the way most Christian writers and preachers often characterize Mormons to their followers.

P.S.S. Christianity. A standard would be set up and it would reclaim Israel!

Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. Isaiah 49:22

(This was derived from an article found at: http://www.14lds.com/cult.htm)

I'm Staying Put In The Church Firm To The End

An open letter to ex-mormons, critics of the church, or otherwise to those who have had no desire to unite with the LDS church but would like to sway me to think after their manner of thinking but for one reason or another, then this letter is for you.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the laws or commandments given to us by the Lord are time tested and have been proved over the centuries. This is why I believe what I do and why I live the gospel. I have put Malachi 3: 8-10 to the test. I have seen the windows of heaven open themselves up to me hence this and many other things I have participated in as a member of this church has brought me peace, in my life. I have witnessed too much of the hand of the Lord in my life by obedience to the Laws and Ordinances of the gospel to now return and doubt. I have been 'born again' and snatched from an awful hell.

For any man or any one to come to me to then suggest I depart from or turn away from this and do so based on a 'quote I heard somewhere' or 'aren't Mormons just a bit too weird because of this or that' just isn't going to phase me. One have better luck prying a Jewish man from a quarter he found on the ground than one would have at successfully luring me outside the church to then find, as they suggest, the correct Jesus.

(Finding Jesus would then mean to get me to agree with their assessment of what Mormons really believe and then transition over to some form of Christianity or over to their church because it's "Jesus should be enough. Mormons teach you that his atonement isn't powerful enough to save you! Here, read this verse! "...then his grace is sufficient for you." but we know that in Ephesians, it says... etc" - SEE, the BIBLE disagrees with the Book of Mormon. Only a real idiot couldn't tell you the difference. Down with the impossible gospel of the Mormons!" or whatever they happen to say, using their own words of course... (sigh) - I testify to you and all who read this, that they make quitting sound so easy and so worth your time.

Call me a 'go against the current' kind of guy but that still, inviting water may not always be that still and safe, for long. Something turbulent may be awaiting. You may think you're trying to do me a favor by ensuring me that the water was supposed to be fine and that I should hop in, but I've made my choice. If it so be that there is safety zones ahead, then so be it. I'll stay on the shore where at all possible.

I trust and know myself only so much. So no, you'll find me on the shore over there. If you want, I'll wave at you all as I see you pass by. I have a life preserver tied to a rope in case you want one...for this is my charge, my privilege, my sacred duty. I am FAR from perfect at what the Lord would have me do. I have already missed many opportunities and in my weakness, I have failed to help several others along on the path.

I can only hope that in God's great plan of happiness, that there is enough mercy that can be applied to me, his unworthy and slothful servant. I can only pray for mercy at this great, last day, and hope that the little that I have done may multiply into great blessings and that the great things I have done may have been accounted for righteousness' sake and to glorify he who sent them.

Do not think or suppose that a mis-quoted thought or word from a prior leader in my church is going to dictate how I feel about them based on someone else's assessment of that event or statement.

Do not suppose for a second that even if someone's decades of scripture study will trump what I have discovered through humble prayer and personal study.

It will have all been worth it if I can some day be responsible for helping MANY find that source to where they can receive peace so that THEY and myself may ALL receive that exaltation in the Lord's kingdom. This is my prayer, in his name, Amen.

"The BofM" Vs "The Travels of Marco Polo"

Recently, a book has been brought to my attention. Since I had never heard of the book before and I found no reference to the "Travels of Marco Polo" which must have assuredly been written in the 1800's if there even is such a book, a recent commentary book about it called is brought into question called the "BofM - Book of Lies." - Even the title of the book wants to have ad hominem attacks be levied against it. Here is what FairLds.org has to say about this newcomer.

FairLDS.org: Having not read the book I can't comment on it's details, but the short list of damning evidences that are listed on their website are so far fetched and ridiculous that it may not even warrant much of a response. In order for their theory to be true, there should be numerous close parallels between the BOM and Marco Polo's work, Joseph Smith would had to have access to the small library of books he would need in order to write The BOM (including books that would have to include information that wasn't even known in JS day), and he would have been a very literate man.

Lucy Mack Smith (His mother) said that "he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children" (History of Joseph Smith by his Mother, pg. 82). While his own wife insisted to the end of her life that, unaided, her husband was incapable of having composed The Book of Mormon. "I wrote for Joseph Smith during the work of translation...the larger part of this labor was done in my presence and where I could see and know what was being done...during no part of it did Joseph Smith have any mss. [manuscript] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metallic plates which I knew he had" (Emma Smiths testimony as reported by Joseph Smith iii to James T. Cobb, 14 Feb. 1879,letterbook 2:85-88).

She also says "Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like The Book of Mormon...for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible" (The Saints Herald 26, 1 Oct. 1879) In an interview with Emma Smith, in 1856 with E. C. Briggs: "She remarked of her husband Joseph's limited education while he was translating the Book of Mormon, and she was scribe at the time, "He could not pronounce the word Sariah." And one time while translating, where it speaks of the walls of Jerusalem, he stopped and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls surrounding it?" When I informed him it had, he replied, "O, I thought I was deceived." (David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 126-7)

"It may be that Joseph's own educational training, both formal and informal, had not prepared him at this early age to deal with libraries and bookstores generally. . . . There is little evidence that his literary skills extended much beyond a cursory acquaintance with a few books. . . . Given his unlettered background . . . it is likely that during the 1820s he simply was not a part of the literary culture, that portion of the population for which books provided a substantial part of its intellectual experiences." Robert Paul, "Joseph Smith and the Manchester New York Library," 341-42

From that, he didn't have the knowledge, nor the literacy to accomplish such a task. How about access to the books? Since he was a poor farm boy, his only access to such books would be through a library.

Robert Paul wrote "none of the library's secretary books, of which there are three extant at the Ontario County Historical Society, lists any patron who affiliated himself with the new church." Robert Paul, "Joseph Smith and the Manchester New York Library," Brigham Young University Studies 22 (1982): 340.

They say:"Religious beliefs and doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, such as ordained polygamy, marriage of dead children, multiple gods, and spiritual ascension to become a god, were copied by Joseph Smith from the Shamanistic religion and civil practices of medieval Tartars as documented in Marco Polo. This is the reason the Mormon religion more closely resembles Eastern, not Western, traditional religious beliefs"

You know as well as I do that every one of these are found in the Bible, Biblical history, non-Biblical history, and even archaeology (except for the marrying of dead children, not sure where they're going with that one). To ignore something that has deep roots in Christianity that matches exactly to doctrines and practices we have in the Church today, and to say it actually comes from another culture that *slightly* resembles doctrines and practices is nothing short of dishonesty.

They say "Smith's stories are fabrications copied from numerous explorers, soldiers, sailors, and historians within Asia, Arabia, Europe, and ancient Mexico found in geography books and maps that were published prior to 1830. The primary source was The Travels of Marco Polo, which had versions published in 1818."

So Joseph Smith was apparently well read on "numerous explorers, soldiers, sailors, and historians" all over the world. Really?!?!?! This is only possible if Joseph Smith had the internet and a lot of time on his hands. Nice try, though.

My favorite is the brushing aside an entire book of scripture (book of Abraham) by saying he plagiarized it from travel book in Arabia. How, exactly, did a travel book turn into book about Abraham, his life, travels and dealing with God? Pray tell, how did Joseph Smith know about ancient names mentioned in The book of Abraham that were not even discovered until recently? How did he know the worship practices of that specific area during that time period? How did he know the exact gods that were worshipped in that area in that time period? etc..etc...

Then to base a handful of very loose parallels as origin for The BOM which has a complex history of several cultures with corresponding religions, wars, geography, ancient doctrines, people, movements, etc... that are matching up quite well with Mesoamerican cultures which were practically unknown in JS early life, is insane. They also don't take into account that there were 3 witness who saw the plates that were brought down by an angel, and 8 witnesses who handled the plates. If he just stole the whole plate things from a book they shouldn't even exist. Here is an excellent talk on that http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

All they are doing is looking very hard to find any parallel they can in random books that JS did not even have access to, no matter how small, and then claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized from that book If they do that enough then they will have hundreds of books that JS would need to have borrowed from in order to make a lame excuse for a theory. The movie Tin Tin has a young man who is searching for truth who spent some time looking for a book which was delivered by 2 messengers. -The Book of Eli is about a man of God who lived after a great and terrible war where there is no law and order -He hears a voice telling him to protect a book of scripture -He wanders for many years while others try to destroy him/them -Once he fulfills his mission he dies

You are able to find parallels wherever you look with just about anything. The problem is, they are just not probable. Here is an answer a FAIR member just gave someone.

>>Any review of the book by Meredith and Kendall Sheets?<<

I don't know of any. One of the challenges that you face in looking at the various authorship theories is that while there are dozens and dozens of them, they fall into some very basic groupings. This book isn't any different. It adds to the list of texts that Joseph Smith must have read or been familiar with, and from which he cribbed the Book of Mormon (or that Solomon Spalding was familiar with and Joseph simply stole Spalding's manuscript, or Rigdon stole Spalding's manuscript and gave it to Joseph, and on and on and on). There is a challenge with finding plagiarism by looking at similarities or parallels. I have a long essay (about 30,000 words) being published this next year (2013) on the subject, so I have some familiarity with it.

Using parallels in this way is a practice that literary theorists largely abandoned about a century ago. There are a couple of books that are not too technical that are pretty good at explaining the issues. The first is called Attributing Authorship by Harold Love (2002) - http://www.amazon.com/Attributing-Authorship-Introduction-Harold-Love/dp/B004JZX2UC - you can pick up a copy for less than $10.00 on Amazon, and it will be far more educational than the Sheet' book. The second is a bit older (but still relevant), and it represents an attorney's look at the issue. It's titled Plagiarism and Originality by Alexander Lindey (1974) - http://www.amazon.com/Plagiarism-Originality-Alexander-Lindey/dp/0837173671 - and you can get a decent copy for under $20.00 on Amazon. It is more directly aimed at the legal issues surrounding claims of plagiarism.

To give you an idea, on page 81 of the first book, Love is talking about the single author about whom the most plagiarism claims have ever been made: Shakespeare (claims of Smith's Book of Mormon plagiarism don't even begin to come close). He tells us this:

"Ideas may be either derivative or original without prejudice to their status as markers of authorship. Derivative ideas fall under the scholarly rubric of 'influences' for which there is an enormous expert literature, albeit one that has to be used with caution. Scholars are prone to credit writers with much wider expert reading than they ever performed. As has often been pointed out, if Shakespeare had read all the books claimed to have influenced him, he would never have had time to write a word of his own. ... Knowledge of a writer's 'range and density of learning' can be sought from letters, diaries and recorded conversations, or the catalogue of a personal library, if one survives. however, beliefs that were common-places of the age, or even widely held in particular cultural sub-groups, cannot be allowed to count for much."

The rest of the discussion (which is too long really to copy here) is important because it deals with this problem. You can't simply compare two texts and come up with a list of similarities and assume that one text is in part the product of the others. And there has to be some way to distinguish between issues that indicate some kind of relationship and those that don't (that is, we can have similarities that all look more or less the same, but which are actually caused by very different reasons). The issue behind this is that if you work at it, you can make any two texts sound very similar. If you only highlight the things that make them alike, you aren't even arguing that they are that similar, you are arguing that they are the same. This is the core of much of the discussion in Lindey's book. And he gives us a list of nine "vices" of using these kinds of parallels to try and show that someone has plagiarized a text (and part of the point of his book is to explain why even the best sounding cases rarely work out in the courts - which is why often claims of plagiarism aren't aimed at being true or accurate - the issue isn't to win the case, but to create an argument in the court of public opinion from people who never actually look at the issues). Here is his list (from pages 60-61):

1. Any method of comparison which lists and underscores similarities and suppresses or minimizes differences is necessarily misleading.

2. Parallels are too readily susceptible of manipulation. Superficial resemblances may be made to appear as of the essence.

3. Parallel-hunters do not, as a rule, set out to be truthful and impartial. They are hell-bent on proving a point.

4. Parallel-hunting is predicated on the use of lowest common denominators. Virtually all literature, even the most original, can be reduced to such terms, and thereby shown to be unoriginal. So viewed, Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper plagiarizes Dickens' David Copperfield. Both deal with England, both describe the slums of London, both see their hero exalted beyond his original station. To regard any two books in this light, however, is to ignore every factor that differentiates one man's thoughts, reactions and literary expression from another's.

5. Parallel columns operate piecemeal. They wrench phrases and passages out of context. A product of the imagination is indivisible. It depends on totality of effect. To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.

6. Parallels fail to indicate the proportion which the purportedly borrowed material bears to the sum total of the source, or to the whole of the new work. Without such information a just appraisal is impossible.

7. The practitioners of the technique resort too often to sleight of hand. They employ language, not to record facts or to describe things accurately, but as props in a rhetorical hocus-pocus which, by describing different things in identical words, appears to make them magically alike.

8. A double-column analysis is a dissection. An autopsy will reveal a great deal about a cadaver, but very little about the spirit of the man who once inhabited it.

9. Most parallels rest on the assumption that if two successive things are similar, the second one was copied from the first. This assumption disregards all the other possible causes of similarity. Whatever his vices or virtues, the parallel-hunter is a hardy species. He is destined, as someone had said, to persist until Judgment Day, when he will doubtless find resemblances in the very warrant that consigns him to the nether regions.

One of the ironies of all of this is that Kendal Sheets puts forward his credentials on this stage as "an experienced attorney [who] practices law and litigates intellectual property cases that include patent, trademark, and copyright-infringement lawsuits in the United States federal courts." (p. 6). And yet, their approach doesn't really agree with what I have from other attorney's on the issue of successfully discovering plagiarism. This isn't a viable legal argument. It is purely aimed at the arena of public opinion - it is entirely polemical in nature.

So, here we have another author who wants to add to the list of literature that not only was Joseph familiar with, but that he incorporated into the Book of Mormon (which he authored). Among the list of authorship theories suggested by non-believers are several that suggest that Joseph didn't have much to do with the writing at all. They believe that Joseph stole the manuscript, and that while he may have changed an item or two, that it isn't his authorship at all (which explains why all of the word print studies generally suggest that he isn't the author). I know a few proponents of the Spalding authorship theory, and several of them who saw this book then simply suggested that perhaps it was Spalding who had copied from these texts, and Joseph then stole the manuscript (its not always productive arguing with them, so I didn't mention the problem with Spalding dying in 1816, when Marco Polo's book wasn't translated into English until 1818). But you can see that these theories tend to get carried away with the whole conspiracy thing. So many people who would have to be in on it, or involved in some way, and yet no one ever came forward to suggest that they were in on the hoax from the beginning and that it was really a hoax.

And then of course there are some real issues with the Sheets' work that implies a real lack of understanding outside of their narrow focus. On page 5 in the introduction, for example, they tell us about one of the names they discovered in the Book of Mormon for a land: melek - they write:

"After reading it a second time, he noticed something odd: the names, stories, and themes in The Book of Mormon seemed familiar. He thought about it that for a few days, then pulled his favorite book from his bookshelf - The Travels of Marco Polo. Sheets's introduction to that book had been in secondary school, and he had read it numerous times since then. Here is a quote from the Sheets book:

"He riffled through the pages, looking for a specific reference. The first word he recognized was melek, which means "king" or "ruler". The word melik appears in The Book of Mormon as the name of a land."

What I don't think they explain is how or why "melek" means "king" or "ruler". Anyone familiar with the Hebrew language can tell you that the Hebrew melek means king ( http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/4428.htm ). Why the need for Joseph to go to Marco Polo's book for this language when it would have been far closer to him coming from any book about the bible. Just using the google search engine, I can find dozens of books dating to around the time that the Book of Mormon was published that identify this meaning (including, for example, a reference in the widely distributed Adam Clarke's Commentary published in 1823). If we had a group of people coming from Jerusalem, and speaking Hebrew (as the text claims), then finding a Hebrew word like melek in the text isn't some kind of evidence to a connection with Marco Polo. And anyone with any kind of experience with languages and the us parallels to discuss relationships between texts would understand this. This beginning doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the Sheets's book.

I should note that I too am familiar with Marco Polo's book. I became interested a few years back when I first encountered it through the work of linguist Umberto Eco (that book was titled Kant and the Platypus although you might be more familiar with his fiction - his most famous work is probably the novel The Name of the Rose, turned into a movie with Christian Slater and Sean Connery). I don't see enough similarities to suggest a relationship between the two that would lead me to think plagiarism.

There are going to be parallels between any two books. But to make a study of these parallels work, they need to be predictive instead of reactive. We can't say (as the Sheets do) that we intuit a connection between books, and then go and find every possible parallel that has any kind of relevance to our thesis. This approach violates every single one of Lindey's vices. I can take the same sort of approach and show quite conclusively that Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days is plagiarized from the Book of Mormon (that's an example I have worked with extensively in the past). And we can take it further if we want to by comparing any two random texts. The real point of all of this is that even if it looks like there is too much quality data to be coincidental, it is in part because we simply don't usually compare just any two texts, and so we don't usually know how alike any two texts at random are. In general terms you can find at random high degrees of correlation between any two books - especially when you use parallels in this way. So the half of the discussion that the Sheets leave out is to try and explain why their theory cannot be passed off as coincidence, and why their theory should be seen as better than all of the other plagiarism arguments that came earlier (not to mention the other theories of authorship from both believers and non-believers).

Finding parallels is not difficult. In my work, I use a number of computer assisted search tools to help me describe texts and their relationships to one another. This isn't to say that I don't find interesting parallels from time to time that I think are worth looking into in more detail. But, in general, most of the parallels I am shown with charges of plagiarism are uninteresting. If you want to see an example of my look at one of the more interesting parallels (and an article in which I lay some groundwork for comparison), try this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=18&num=1&id=551

(If you want to see the artwork that they picked to go along with it, use the PDF link near the top). I doubt that I will review this specific book, but my soon to be published review essay title "Mormon Parallelomania" will deal with the arguments in this book, as well as lay out my own methods and criteria for evaluating the significance of parallels between texts.

Feel free to write back - and if you read the Sheets book, and would like me to comment on any specific issues, I would be happy to give it a go if I have time."

This was written in reference to a conversation betweeen myself and another... someone desirous to have me read this book. Seeing what I've already read to the contrary, it looks to be more of a"weak argument" against the book of Mormon than anything else. I honestly hope it gets ignored by the FAIR group because what we give energy to, persists... I'd rather not create any considerations that could be discussed but I wanted these things to at least be noted here. Whether or not this becomes a Wiki topic on the site or not, I do not know. I simply wanted to upload this here and let the chips fall where they may! So back to business.

Once again, this was in reference to or answering a recent inquiry by a YouTube subscriber/ google ID "mark MUNRO" as he stated, "A Nov 2012 publication "BofM book of lies" by M and S Sheets provides the source material for Joseph Smith Senior and Juniors wool of plagiarism page for page comparison of 1818, "The Travels of Marco Polo" - then I quoted Doctrine & Covenants section 71: 8-10 because this is no different than what men have attempted and failed at for years, to remind him that this or any other weapon brandished to come up against this latter-day work will fail either today or in the due time of the Lord then "mark MUNRO" he writes back, "No need to be defensive. Take a look, page by page parallels to 1818 "the travels Macro Polo. Sheets makes a comparison like you would expect of a patents lawyer. It's in black and white page by page comparison that will surprise you. It is not regurgitated "anti" material. Arm in the river of what ? bears no relevance."

Here was the "Full Debunking" as promised!

No Rest For The Wicked :Quitters Beware!

The Lord is 100% aware of those who try to thwart the work of the Lord. He said as much in the Doctrine and Covenants regarding those who endeavor to stop his will when we read:

How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints. D&C 121:33

Anti-Mormons Beware! I have your number and I'm dialin' it all day long. Shining light into your eyes and watching you retreat to the darkness. Your works are the works of darkness. You lie about the LDS church and are responsible for keeping MANY honest of heart folks from discovering the restored gospel. One day you'll have to reconcile with that great God, our father in heaven, and have to explain yourselves before the judgment bar.
For the honest of heart! Do your own research and DO SO apart from the opinions, commentary, and words from others. Read the scriptures. Speak with the missionaries and use the Lord's guidance through thoughtful and careful prayer to DISCOVER these answers for yourself. The Lord will answer the prayers of the willing of heart. (See 1 John 5:9, James 1:5-6)
Honest of heart... take note. Enemies to the LDS church work tirelessly to KEEP you from the blessings which our Heavenly Father has for ALL of us. Do not let them pull you into the chasm that they are inevitably going to fall into unless they repent before the end!!!

The doctrines of the church are plainly available to the world. Nothing is kept in darkness. There are not ADDED things that Mormon's are unaware of... just enemies to the church who would have you believe such a farce.

Anti-Mormons (or otherwise people who profess to love Mormons and hope to save them or keep folks from investigating the LDS church) would also be "Enemies To The Church" by nature, they have said the following about us to others and are daily trying to convince them that we believe the following...

1. Mormons worship Joseph Smith.
2. Gordon B. Hinckley was false because he was fooled by the Salamander letter.
3. Mormons force dead people to join the church through temple baptism.
4. Mormons are brainwashed by their leaders and are not allowed to question doctrine.
5. Moroni was an "angel of light" and therefore false (re: Galatians 1:8)
6. Mormons added to the Bible.
7. Mormons are "forced" to pay tithing or risk being excommunicated. (pay and pray)
8. Mormons believe in endless numbers of gods.
9. Joseph Smith wrote the BoM based on a fictional book.
10. Mormons worship Moroni.

Other strange beliefs that they'd like you to think about Mormons:

Mormons believe in another Jesus, you know, the one documented in the New Testament. Mormons believe that their works will save them, even though the scriptures are clear that JESUS died for us and PAID the price of sins.
Mormons vote on other people's rights, even though marriage is defined as beiung between a man and woman ONLY in the Bible.
Mormons believe in many Gods, even though the scriptures are clear that there is only ONE God, Elohim, which btw is a plural noun, go figure. What does ONE mean then?

Contributions by channels: M424Filmcast and MormonAnswerMan

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. Jude 1:18

¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. Jeremiah 17:5

The Day Of Rest is coming, indeed. I will feel no joy for those who spent their entire lives in the labor of tearing down. God did not send us down to tear it down but to build up the kingdom. The reason why I did this video was to show the WORLD just how silly these zealots REALLY are. The honest of heart will not be duped or fooled. Those who live their lives the way that they CHOOSE to do so are usually MORE inclined to follow after the Ed Decker's of the world vs. Jesus.