• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What do Mormons Believe?

JanisChambers

Thinker
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
174
Recently I stumbled onto this very strange cartoon on Youtube that was said by the author to be some form of slander against the Mormon religion, what I want to know is what of it is really true, straight from a Mormon or ex-Mormon or even just someone more familiar with the religion.

And frankly, while this is a curiosity, I just don't have enough interest or time to read the "Book of Mormon". :3 And if nothing you may get a chuckle out of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo
 
I'm at work and do not have access to youtube. But Southpark did an episode regarding Mormons. You may want to see if that episode is on the web somewhere. The episode is a hoot and it's even funnier (or really, realy sad) knowing that what they say about the Mormon religion is true. Also, I've seen the pbs special so I had something to compare the Southpark episode to.
 
I wrote in to PBS about the show. They haven't posted my comments yet.

You can see the comments here:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/talk/

If you have seen the show you should write in in support of it, or to be critical of what it left out. Most of the people who wrote in, no surprise, were Mormons who complained that it was "not true".

My comment was that it was basically good, but that it romanticized the Mormons too much and that it didn't go into enough details about the Joseph Smith gold plates fraud, which was proven to factually be a fraud.

The resulting "books" turned out to be a record set down by ancient prophets, beginning with Nephi, son of Lephi, who had fled Jerusalem in approximately 600 BC and come to America. Many battles, curses, and afflictions accompanied their subsequent wanderings and those of their numerous progeny. How did the books turn out to be this way? Smith refused to show the golden plates to anybody, claiming that for other eyes to view them would mean death. But he encountered a problem that will be familiar to students of Islam. He was extremely glib and fluent as a debater and story-weaver, as many accounts attest. But he was illiterate, at least in the sense that while he could read a little, he could not write. A scribe was therefore necessary to take his inspired dictation. This scribe was at first his wife Emma and then, when more hands were necessary, a luckless neighbor named Martin Harris. Hearing Smith cite the words of Isaiah 29, verses 11–12, concerning the repeated injunction to "Read," Harris mortgaged his farm to help in the task and moved in with the Smiths. He sat on one side of a blanket hung across the kitchen, and Smith sat on the other with his translation stones, intoning through the blanket. As if to make this an even happier scene, Harris was warned that if he tried to glimpse the plates, or look at the prophet, he would be struck dead.

Mrs. Harris was having none of this, and was already furious with the fecklessness of her husband. She stole the first hundred and sixteen pages and challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could. (Determined women like this appear far too seldom in the history of religion.) After a very bad few weeks, the ingenious Smith countered with another revelation. He could not replicate the original, which might be in the devil's hands by now and open to a "satanic verses" interpretation. But the all-foreseeing Lord had meanwhile furnished some smaller plates, indeed the very plates of Nephi, which told a fairly similar tale. With infinite labor, the translation was resumed, with new scriveners behind the blanket as occasion demanded, and when it was completed all the original golden plates were transported to heaven, where apparently they remain to this day.

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/
 
I think it's all true, except possibly for a few minor errors. The problem is that they present all this in terms of standard Protestant theology as a list of ways that Mormons differ from REAL Christians.

A lot of this stuff is sort of quaint and not really that important to modern Mormons, just as the story about God slaughtering thousands of Egyptian babies is not really important to modern Protestants. I could easily script a cartoon that made mainstream Christians look like psychopaths, just by assembling the uglier and less plausible Bible stories.

This video came up once before, and spawned a long thread where RandFan graciously answered questions about the alleged weirdness of Mormons.
 
For the lighter side, check out Julia Sweeney's talk at TED:

ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/86
(sorry, I can't post complete URLs yet)

The whole talk is funny, but you can jump forward to "a missionary visit" at 7:37 for the relevant bit.
 
I could come up with a better story than Joseph Smith. I think I'll call it the book of Moron.
 
It is all true as far as I know, though I cannot speak for sure about the planet stuff and the polytheism stuff, that seems it might be more recent than what I have read/seen.
 
I was raised Mormon, and was something of a theologian in my years as a Mormon. My first reaction is that there is a large focus on the use of the word "sex". I do not understand this in the slightest because sex is rarely discussed in the Mormon church. It is not seen as wrong between a husband and wife, but it is a very private thing, and Mormons do not focus upon any sexual aspect of the religion.

I will pick this cartoon apart item by item.
  • The story of the young Elohim is accurate.
  • No statement has ever been made about Elohim's wife or wives. It is not contrary to the theology that he may have multiple, but there is no indication of if he has more than one or not. It is clear from Mormon doctrine that he must have a wife.
  • Mormon gods called a council meeting? According to the religion there is only one Heavenly Father, Elohim. There is not a pantheon.
  • The story of the council is otherwise accurate except for the part about the curse. No one was cursed to be born with dark skin due to this "battle" by any account I have read.
  • They skip over everything in between Adam and Eve and Jesus since Protestants agree on this segment of the theology.
  • There is never a statement that Elohim had sex with Mary. But he is considered the physical father of Jesus. Is this any different from standard Christian theology?
  • No Mormon doctrine exists about if Jesus was married. Many Mormons assume he was married to Mary Magdalene, but it is not in any canon or doctrine of the church.
  • Since Jesus was not known to be married, Joseph Smith did not claim direct descent from him that I am aware of. Of course, this is the sort of thing I would have trouble knowing about since a few of his more radical statements were removed from the doctrine in the 1800s.
  • The whole point of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the native people. This is a key point of the theology.
  • The whole part about the Nephites is accurate to the doctrine.
  • I will not comment on the phrases "treasure seeker" and "tall tales" except to call them propaganda.
  • Other than the above point, the segment about how the doctrine of the Mormon church came to be is all very true. Joseph Smith is the founder of the Mormon religion in every sense.
  • The short list of rules is accurate. The Word of Wisdom (no drinking or smoking, etc) is one of the most interesting doctrines because it is a rarity in current religions.
  • I never once heard that I would stand in judgement before Joseph Smith. It doesn't jive with the theology, but it's plausible that Joseph Smith said something which implied it.
  • "Polygamist gods" is a funny title. Not all Mormons at any point in the history of the religion were polygamists. But those that were did expect to remain as such in the afterlife.
  • Joseph Smith liked to brag... a lot! But he did not consider himself more important than Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
I wrote in to PBS about the show. They haven't posted my comments yet.

You can see the comments here:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/talk/

If you have seen the show you should write in in support of it, or to be critical of what it left out. Most of the people who wrote in, no surprise, were Mormons who complained that it was "not true".

My comment was that it was basically good, but that it romanticized the Mormons too much and that it didn't go into enough details about the Joseph Smith gold plates fraud, which was proven to factually be a fraud.



http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/

While I find this anecdote to have the ring of truth, there are so very many conflicting statements about what happened to these first pages that this is hardly proof.

Regardless, if there were absolute proof of the fraud, then the Mormon religion would fall apart very quickly. I would gladly provide this proof to all of my LDS friends and family, but alas, it does not exist.
 
While I find this anecdote to have the ring of truth, there are so very many conflicting statements about what happened to these first pages that this is hardly proof.

Regardless, if there were absolute proof of the fraud, then the Mormon religion would fall apart very quickly. I would gladly provide this proof to all of my LDS friends and family, but alas, it does not exist.

Well, it's as close to proof as anything for a religion. That he was urged to retranslate the plates and then did not, instead coming up with some other story would probably be accepted as proof in a court of law.
 
Well, it's as close to proof as anything for a religion. That he was urged to retranslate the plates and then did not, instead coming up with some other story would probably be accepted as proof in a court of law.

Like I said, there are too many conflicting accounts about this particular occurrence. Many different people claim to have stolen the manuscript, and at least one other person claims it was stolen from them in the first place. Not to mention the fact that the original manuscript has never surfaced. It turns this account into nothing but hearsay, which is certainly not enough to convinct anyone of anything in court.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Zygar. Have you seen Julia Sweeney's video? Is that true?

I am trying to watch it. Unfortunately, I am not on a decent internet connection this week. I will get back to you once I have successfully downloaded it and watched it.

Same with the PBS segment.
 
Like I said, there are too many conflicting accounts about this particular occurrence. Many different people claim to have stolen the manuscript, and at least one other person claims it was stolen from them in the first place. Not to mention the fact that the original manuscript has never surfaced. It turns this account into nothing but hearsay, which is certainly not enough to convinct anyone of anything in court.

That, indeed, is true.
 
For the lighter side, check out Julia Sweeney's talk at TED:

ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/86
(sorry, I can't post complete URLs yet)

The whole talk is funny, but you can jump forward to "a missionary visit" at 7:37 for the relevant bit.

I love this! It's brilliantly done.

Julia Sweeney certainly makes the story sound hilarious. I have to admit, despite a few minor factual errors (Moroni, not Mormon), she pretty much got it right.

Now, the American Indian thing is very interesting. There is debate amongst the Mormons about whether or not all the native people of the Americas were actually descended from the Lamanites. As a Mormon, I personally thought that this was a gigantic misunderstanding.

If you really want to know why I think that it's a misunderstanding, then you are going to get a whole lot of Mormon theology spat at you. And even though I am no longer a believer, I will debate you to the death about why my interpretation of the Book of Mormon is accurate and why the entire ridiculous sounding story Julia Sweeney told you is wholly plausible in my mind. Please do not make me do this unless you are bent on getting me to play Mormon Believer. I don't believe in the Mormon religion, but I can defend it, and I will if you so desire. I can also demolish it if you want to debate from that angle. ;)
 
I love this! It's brilliantly done.

Julia Sweeney certainly makes the story sound hilarious. I have to admit, despite a few minor factual errors (Moroni, not Mormon), she pretty much got it right.

Now, the American Indian thing is very interesting. There is debate amongst the Mormons about whether or not all the native people of the Americas were actually descended from the Lamanites. As a Mormon, I personally thought that this was a gigantic misunderstanding.

If you really want to know why I think that it's a misunderstanding, then you are going to get a whole lot of Mormon theology spat at you. And even though I am no longer a believer, I will debate you to the death about why my interpretation of the Book of Mormon is accurate and why the entire ridiculous sounding story Julia Sweeney told you is wholly plausible in my mind. Please do not make me do this unless you are bent on getting me to play Mormon Believer. I don't believe in the Mormon religion, but I can defend it, and I will if you so desire. I can also demolish it if you want to debate from that angle. ;)

Even though DNA evidence suggests that Indians are not closely related to the Israelists and they have been here for 15,000 years or so? I'm not sure I want to hear a justification for that.
 

Back
Top Bottom