Criticism Against Mormonism

[Henry Hobo-Master]

First of all, I make this thread because I'm interested in learning and truth. In saying so, I cannot determine which God is true or false. I cannot say which religion is more correct. I cannot even say that God exists. No such proof exists, and I will never claim that any one church is "true".

I am interested in religion nonetheless. I do not practice the LDS faith.

However, I have created this thread for anyone to regurgitate anything negative about the LDS church or the Book of Mormon. This thread is not a "General" discussion thread. To put it bluntly, I am here to research and provide any insight on the negative issues on Mormonism. I am also hoping to use this thread as a future reference for my discussions. A list of common Anti-Mormonism material will be listed in the next few posts.

There are other threads out there that are dedicated to Mormon FAQ and General discussion if you are interested.

You are not required to read the rest of my thread. Post what you want. Anything goes. The rest is just a reference for the more "popular" misunderstandings.

Please note: I compartmentalize my emotions from logic, when I talk about religion. If you have an emotional problem with the religion, there is nothing I can do or say to make you feel better. I cannot answer all questions, and I will often say that "this does not necessarily prove a religion false". You are warned.

Also, I advise Mormons from this thread. There will be a lot of Anti-Mormon materials and videos.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

The Book of Mormon is Racist.

The evidence that is given for this statement, is typically a verse. The verse 2nd Nephi 5:21 states:

Quote:

21. And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Before I go any further, I want to explain the history behind this. The Nephites and the Lamanites are of the same origin. They both are descendants (in the early years specifically), of the Middle East. The Lamanite tribe was led by Laman, son of Lehi. The Nephite tribe was led by Nephi, son of Lehi. After the death of Lehi, their sons split up into two groups. The Book of Mormon is a record of the Nephite group (or so they say).

About this verse: Many people will read this, and say: Well it says it right there! God cursed wicked people with Black Skin! It even says that white people are always fair, and delightsome! The Book of Mormon is racist!

Misconceptions:

-If the two tribes are of the same race, then it cannot be "racist", now can it? Technically, racism indicates that one race is superior than the other due to personal belief. However, this is not an issue with race. This is an issue with their unrighteousness.

-The word "white" is not indicating white skin in this sentence. "White", "fair" and "delightsome" are all qualities of a person who is apparently pure and clean. The Book of Mormon WILL INDICATE when its talking about skin color, when it mentions is specifically (example: skin of blackness is used to indicate that the skin is actually black. Do not assume that black = skin).

-Biblical passages used the word "white" in a symbolic manner that is used in similar context as this verse. Here is a source that explains this concept fairly well. Never assume that the color isn't symbolic.

-Both Lamanites and Nephites were middle-eastern; they had dark skin already. They were not as white as most Europeans are. Consider this when you read this verse.

-There is a difference between the "curse" and the "mark". Mormons teach that this verse always explains that the mark is the skin color. The curse is being cut off from God. The LDS church teaches that black people ARE NOT cursed. This is important, as the verses in the Book of Mormon have and will always claim the same thing. Black people (of African descent) are not even relevant to the Book of Mormon. The text is quite clear, when it mentions that it was just the Lamanites who were affected by this; not all of the black people. If you are not convinced, read the verse again.

-This verse does not claim that dark skinned people are always going to be unrighteous. If you read the Book of Mormon, you will find out later that the Nephites, who are lighter skinned, are actually LESS righteous than the darker-skinned Lamanites. This is a clear contradiction on this notion; darker skinned people are not predetermined "bad" or "evil" people. Darker skinned people are only as righteous as they choose to be, like everyone else.

In conclusion, upon close inspection of the Book of Mormon, you will find out that these "racist" verses are not actually racist. These verses are misunderstood. This does not prove the Book of Mormon false, or true.

Food for thought

Many LDS scholars are slowly adopting the idea that God didn't actually change the Lamanite skin color. This is a Nephite record; they recorded what they saw. The Nephites saw that the Lamanite's color changed, and therefor claimed that God has "marked" them.

However, we all know that when a lighter person mates with a darker person, the baby is typically darker. This verse could possibly indicate that the unrighteous Lamanites mated with the indigenous people of the America. The Nephites then saw the product of this, and rationalized it so it made sense to them (like every religion does). We cannot disregard this possible solution.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

DNA proves that Native Americans are not these "Lamanites". The Book of Mormon and the LDS church is therefor false.

The Facts of this situation:

-DNA suggest that Native Americans Originate from Asia.
-The Book of Mormon never claims to have fathered all Native Americans. The Book of Mormon never claims that they were the first to arrive in the New World.

DNA is not as conclusive as it appears to be. The person that suggest that DNA is actually "proof" of such thing, is misunderstanding a lot of very important principles. Using DNA in a situation like this, is actually a very messy science. People who typically use this claim, do not actually understand DNA.

Source for different articles relating to DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Misconceptions about DNA and the Book of Mormon

-The family of Lehi came from the Middle East. The Middle East is located at the crossroads of three continents, and has seen a great deal of immigration, mixing, and intermarriage. Lehi was from the tribe of Manasseh, and Ishmael's family was from the tribe of Ephraim (source). It is academically dishonest, and inaccurate to claim that DNA of the Jews were also the same as Lehi's DNA.

-Clearly, the Middle East does not produce a very generic set of DNA. Especially when considering that Lehi is of the tribe of Manasseh (not a Jew). People who claim that DNA is an actual argument against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, ignore that Jew/Manasseh DNA is missing. Missing DNA leads to the dishonest assumptions and false conclusions.

-Lehi was not the father of all Native Americans. If you read the Book of Mormon very carefully, you will recognize different patterns of a indigenous people. The Book of Mormon even gives examples of other civilizations that were there previously. The Native Americans were there long before the family of Lehi. Lehi didn't contribute much DNA. Lehi's DNA to the Natives, is like a drop of blood to a gallon of milk. Good luck trying to find that drop of blood (especially if you don't know what that drop of blood even looks like. Lehi's DNA is unknown).

-A very large population of Natives died during the migration of the Europeans for all types of reasons. The "Native" population we now have, is very limited and is distorted. Any DNA we have of the Natives, is hardly "accurate" for the entire population for this reason. All accuracy died along with 90% of American Indians (and other groups).

In conclusion, we can see that the DNA is a very messy argument for a number of reason. It assumes many thing, and does not tell us anything we didn't already know. Scholars already suspected that the majority of the Natives came from Asia with or without DNA. However, this is no way proves the Book of Mormon false. DNA simply cannot conclude such things.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

There is no Archaeological evidence that any of this ever existed! The Book of Mormon never happened!

This is an interesting topic for a number of reasons. First of all, lack of evidence is never (and will never be) proof. The nature of this topic is fallacious. Second of all, I have created a thread about the Archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon (based in the Old World). If you actually want to find out more about evidences, you should my thread.

Fact of this situation:

-Archaeologists do not just pick random spots to dig and research. Archaeology is not as simple as people make it out to be. Archaeology takes time and lots of planning before they ever start digging (and doing things of that nature).
-Anything that is uncovered, may never be actually associated with the Book of Mormon for a number of reasons.
-Time has a way of burying the past. Older and abandoned cities are often lost. It is hard to actually tell where such civilizations could be.

Misconceptions:

-The Book of Mormon has no specific location at this point in time. Nobody knows where it existed. Many scholars have their opinions about where it could be located, but none actually know.
-The Book of Mormon does not expand over the entire continent of America. The Book of Mormon is only relevant to a few civilizations, not the entire population of Native Americans. This is a huge misconception that people often "assume" is the truth.


Archaeology is a steady process. We might know more information about this subject in years to come, and we might not. However, there are a number of Book of Mormon events that suggest its authenticity. However, one cannot conclude the total authenticity of the Book of Mormon due to a number of Archaeology holes.

If Archaeology for the Book of Mormon does arise, one should be prepared to change their viewpoint instantly if one uses Archaeology as an argument in this situation (assuming that the Archaeology is reliable).

Even if one does find out the the Book of Mormon is true, this does not necessarily prove that one should follow the LDS church. This is the honest truth, and there are many non-LDS scholars who have done extensive research about the Book of Mormon (in regards to its authenticity).

[Henry Hobo-Master]

The church, its members, or the prophets have done something horrible and wrong. If this was a true church, then they wouldn't have done this (whatever it may be).

This statement is unreasonable for a number of reasons. A "true" church is never determined by their ability to not make mistakes. A true church is inspired by God. It is unreasonable to think that any church needs to be perfect, in order for them to be inspired by God.

Biblical examples of imperfection:

-Solomon led his kingdom to a state of unrighteousness, even though he was granted gifts of wisdom from God. Even the wisest are able to make mistakes.
-King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and killed her husband in attempt to cover his affair.
-Moses, murdered a man, and was still able to later become a prophet.
-After being freed by Moses, the Hebrews turned to Idolatry and were constantly disobedient. Its clear that their firsthand experience of God's miracles, did not save them from making mistakes.
-Jonas refused to go to Nineveh for a number of reasons. Its often believed that he held prejudice against these people, and did not think they should be saved.
-Judas, a person who was chosen by God, still betrayed Christ for material values.
-Adam and Eve disobeyed God according to many religions.

There are plenty more examples. These are probably the more popular stories in the Bible, that show that God's influence does not necessarily make any one person or organization, incapable of making mistakes. In conclusion, its unreasonable to claim that the LDS's mistakes are ultimately what makes the church false. No church is or ever could be true for this very reason. And that is what makes this entirely unreasonable.

It is said that Christ came for the sinners. A church is not for the people who are perfect. It is for the people who have a desire to grow closer to God.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

The LDS church is a racist organization that didn't allow blacks to have the priesthood. The church is false because of their racism.

This topic concludes that the LDS church is false because they did not allow African Americans to have the priesthood. Many claim that they were racist because of this.

Fact:

-Most people discriminate.
-During this time period (From the 1840s-1970), many members claimed various things. Some were indeed "racist".
-The LDS church was not the only church who discriminated against skin color and race.


We come to an interesting double standard. If most churches claimed similar teachings, then why is it that the LDS church gets most of the blame? To my understanding, the LDS church did not kick African Americans out from their church. They were unable to hold the priesthood. If you put it into context with other Biblical examples, one might actually find that this hasn't happened before.

Biblical Examples of discrimination due to race, nationality or father.

-Moses led the Hebrews to a new land. Eventually, the new generations split up into 12 separate tribes. These tribes are known as the "12 tribes of Israel". 11 of these 12 tribes were given land to live on, while the last tribe was given the priesthood(Tribe of Levi). It is clear that the priesthood in Biblical times, was separated by family. This is an act of discrimination, yet many believe that the 12 tribes were inspired by God (seeing how you can relate it to Moses).

-Jesus did not allow Gentiles to be baptized during his ministry. Jesus taught his followers to preach to only the Jews, and he specifically instructs his disciples to avoid the Samaritans and Gentiles (Mathew 10:5-6).

Quote:

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

-Jesus even refused to help gentiles in concerns to his "miracles". It was only after much pleading, that Jesus finally agreed to heal the woman's daughter. Jesus originally claimed that he would not because "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs" (Mathew 15:21-28). I suppose you understand that Jesus was technically not supposed to help the Gentiles in the same way he helped the Jews.

-It was only after the Resurrection and the formation of Jesus's church, did the Gentiles actually have a chance to be baptized (See the Book of Acts). Jesus never actually taught that Gentiles could be baptized. Jesus never gave the priesthood to the Gentiles in his ministry. Instead, one of his apostles "received" a revelation about this principle. Soon after, the council decided to let Gentiles be baptized (and thus they can receive other benefits).

In conclusion to this, we find that the Biblical setting of the NT was very similar to the LDS church. All stories that I presented from the NT, discriminate in one way or another. The Biblical stories are no different than the LDS restriction of the priesthood. They claimed they did not have the power to do such things, and it was only through "inspiration" were they given the power to expand the priesthood. If you are Christian, then this concept is very important for you to understand.

Instead of asking "why didn't the LDS church give blacks the priesthood", maybe you should be asking this one as well:

Why didn't Christ serve all people, instead of only the Jews? Why was the priesthood only given to specific people in the Bible, and not everyone?

There is no way for anyone to know. Things happen because God wants them to, and its hard for any human to actually know why these things are important. If you are suggesting that the LDS church is false by this standard, then you might also have to declare the same about the entirety of Christianity too (as its based on the Bible, which shares similar teachings).

[Admiral Dardanos]

Why are Mormons not very nice to ex Mormons?

[CuAnnan]

My usual.
Posthumous baptisms.

[dh8d1]

I think it's rather interesting that Mormons think Jesus and god are on another planet. As if being extra-terrestrials makes it less of an extraordinary claim.

Also - supernaturally protective underwear.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Admiral Dardanos

Why are Mormons not very nice to ex Mormons?

Don't you think this is a huge generalization? Most Mormons that I know, do not honestly care what a person's religion is and isn't. They are only concerned for themselves and what their duty is towards their God (or at least they say so).

Mormons have been known to:

-Shun family and friend members for leaving the church
-Not be nice to people who bash their faith

This is a small percentage of Mormons, and I think you will find that the majority of them do not hold anger towards ex-Mormons, as long as the ex-Mormons do not preach anti-Mormonism. I must add, that these traits are similar in most (if not all) religions. Its best not to point the finger at Mormonism, when they are no different than other people.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

CuAnnan

My usual.
Posthumous baptisms.

Yes. Its a strange topic. Things regarding the temple always are. I do not have much information about this subject. However, there is an interesting verse from the NT that Mormons use often, which explains the very same principle Mormons use.

Everyone must be allowed the same opportunities and privileges, regardless of sex, skin color or race. Posthumous baptisms is the solution; everyone must be baptized (according to them). Mormons essentially believe that posthumous baptisms are nothing more than an opportunity if the deceased person wants. They do not believe that their baptisms are forcing anyone to convert, or believe in their God. This is a common misconception.

Personally, I find that posthumous baptisms are a better alternative than what other Christian churches say. But, the practice itself is a very unusual and untraditional towards modern Christianity. Its hard to say if anyone knows the truth behind such a practice because of this.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

dh8d1

I think it's rather interesting that Mormons think Jesus and god are on another planet. As if being extra-terrestrials makes it less of an extraordinary claim.

Also - supernaturally protective underwear.

It is interesting that Mormons believe such things. However, the concept of Heaven and Hell is also a strange concept if you really think hard about it. There are many topics where I choose not to give my actual opinion for a number of reasons (this is one of those). However, Jesus and God being on a different planet, does not necessarily change anything. Whether or not they live in the clouds, or live on Mars... It doesn't make their character any more or less believable.

The Supernaturally protective underwear is a strange topic. Garments are not really all that bizarre. Most religions have some sort of "religious clothing" that they wear. The Catholic church provides many examples of such things.

Biblical scripture contains many references to the wearing of special garments. In the Old Testament the Israelites are specifically instructed to turn their garments into personal reminders of their covenants with God (see Numbers 15:37-41).

Source for the claim above.

Its not that untraditional of a practice if you really consider the many Biblical and modern examples of this very idea. In conclusion, although many may not like the idea of Garments, it does not prove or disprove the ability for the LDS church to be inspired by God. Garments simply cannot reflect such things.

[dh8d1]

Henry Hobo-Master

dh8d1

I think it's rather interesting that Mormons think Jesus and god are on another planet. As if being extra-terrestrials makes it less of an extraordinary claim.

Also - supernaturally protective underwear.

It is interesting that Mormons believe such things. However, the concept of Heaven and Hell is also a strange concept if you really think hard about it. There are many topics where I choose not to give my actual opinion for a number of reasons (this is one of those). However, Jesus and God being on a different planet, does not necessarily change anything. Whether or not they live in the clouds, or live on Mars... It doesn't make their character any more or less believable.

The Supernaturally protective underwear is a strange topic. Garments are not really all that bizarre. Most religions have some sort of "religious clothing" that they wear. The Catholic church provides many examples of such things.

Biblical scripture contains many references to the wearing of special garments. In the Old Testament the Israelites are specifically instructed to turn their garments into personal reminders of their covenants with God (see Numbers 15:37-41).

Source for the claim above.

Its not that untraditional of a practice if you really consider the many Biblical and modern examples of this very idea. In conclusion, although many may not like the idea of Garments, it does not prove or disprove the ability for the LDS church to be inspired by God. Garments simply cannot reflect such things.

I have no idea why you tried the "does not prove or disprove" approach. I never made any implication. I just said I think it's interesting they believe Jesus is an extra-terrestrial, and that it's interesting Mormons believe in supernaturally protective underwear. Bible or no, it's weird to me, an atheist who doesn't take the Bible as any more special than the Illiad or Odyssey.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

dh8d1

I have no idea why you tried the "does not prove or disprove" approach. I never made any implication. I just said I think it's interesting they believe Jesus is an extra-terrestrial, and that it's interesting Mormons believe in supernaturally protective underwear. Bible or no, it's weird to me, an atheist who doesn't take the Bible as any more special than the Illiad or Odyssey.

Ahh, I see. I hope you didn't take offense to my post. I wasn't trying to say that you were claiming such things. You were simply making a statement that I can certainly agree on too. I find the concepts interesting as well.

Its hard for me to say much about this topic. Please excuse me if I had come across as rude or unpleasant. I interpret things often in the wrong way, and I get off-topic quite a bit. However, you have a great points.

Supernaturally protective underwear and Extra-terrestrial beings are certainly different teachings, especially to the western civilizations. When taken out of context, these teachings come off a little bizarre too. It would be interesting if there were studies about the underwear actually being "protective", or if it is actually just a myth (or placebo).

[dh8d1]

Henry Hobo-Master

dh8d1

I have no idea why you tried the "does not prove or disprove" approach. I never made any implication. I just said I think it's interesting they believe Jesus is an extra-terrestrial, and that it's interesting Mormons believe in supernaturally protective underwear. Bible or no, it's weird to me, an atheist who doesn't take the Bible as any more special than the Illiad or Odyssey.

Ahh, I see. I hope you didn't take offense to my post. I wasn't trying to say that you were claiming such things. You were simply making a statement that I can certainly agree on too. I find the concepts interesting as well.

Its hard for me to say much about this topic. Please excuse me if I had come across as rude or unpleasant. I interpret things often in the wrong way, and I get off-topic quite a bit. However, you have a great points.

Supernaturally protective underwear and Extra-terrestrial beings are certainly different teachings, especially to the western civilizations. When taken out of context, these teachings come off a little bizarre too. It would be interesting if there were studies about the underwear actually being "protective", or if it is actually just a myth (or placebo).

In context they're bizarre.
The context itself they're in is bizarre.

The context is that an all-powerful perfect being created something. This in and of itself is bizarre, as perfection means you will never act. Perfection means you are complete, and actions are only done when you desire something (which desire is derived from needs or being imperfect) There is much more to the context, but I can leave it at that for now.

I am under the understanding that most of the teachings of most of the religions in the world are placebo. Afterlife, spirits, prayer, god(s) watching over you... these are all placebos.