Good Evening:

Forgive me if I make mistakes but I'm new to these kinds of forums. I'm wondering if LDS would be considered a cult or not? I lost my daughter to the LDS a year ago. I've been on a message board and the things I've been hearing have me confused. Is there anyone else out there that has lost a child to LDS and if so, what are you doing to cope? It's very sad and I'm confused. The people I've been corresponding with seem so hateful and I don't want to end up like them. I want my child back but I have no idea how to reach her. She refuses to listen. If there is anyone out there, I would appreciate an answer.

Thanks for your time,

Nan

The LDS might be considered historically a "cult," during the time of Joseph Smith.

See [www.culteducation.com]

But today, more than a hundred years later, they have evolved far beyond their early beginnings, into a much more mainstream organization, which is not defined and/or focused upon one living individual.

There are still serious problems caused by the LDS, most often by zealous missionaries, who may work with minor children without parental notification or consent.

Many families have become stressed directly due to LDS missionary activity and not unlike groups called "cults," the LDS continues to make exclusive claims about itself as an organization.

I wonder if Nancy still considers her daughter "lost" to Mormonism?

It seems that, when she posted, all she "knew" about the Church was what she found on anti-Mormon websites and what she heard from self-professed "cult experts."

That's like going to the National Organization for Women to ask about the joys of being a homemaker.

The chances are very good that, in the two years since Nancy wrote, she stopped trying to get her daughter to "listen," but instead did some listening of her own, discovering that the horror stories were nothing more than bigotry.

Rick, we have no idea how old her daughter is, so don't leap to yet another conclusion based on your own preconceptions.

And regarding "exclusivity," who would want to belong to a religion that says that they AREN'T the true church????

I heard that they have to wear longjohn underwear under their clothing. Is this really true? It seems that would be very hot in the summer.

Love,

YOURMASTER :)

The Mormon religion is based upon the supposed "revelation" of Joseph Smith. The problem is the so-called "Book of Mormon" he produced is obviously not what Smith claimed.

That is, it is not a historical record of any actual people that occupied the Western Hemisphere (Americas) before Columbus (pre-Columbian) until about 400 A.D.

Instead, Smith's claimed historical premise is actually only a fanciful fiction concocted by him with no basis in fact, either through objective physical evidence and/or the accepted science of archaeology or anthropology.

This has been demonstrated and/or proven over and over again.

No reputable university, outside Mormon control such as BYU, teaches that the Book of Mormon is anything other than a religious mythology.

There are no archaeological artifacts to support its claims, i.e. the supposed American people mentioned within it, such as the so-called "Laminites," "Nephites" etc.

The book also reflects Smith's educational limitations with its mention of horses, glass manufacture, metalurgy and farm crops that did not exist within pre-Columbian America.

For additional commentary about Mormonism and its historical problems see the following links:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

Mormons have apologetic seminars to arm the faithful with supposed explanations for all this. However, they are never armed with facts, but rather apologies as to why they have no hard evidence.

See [www.culteducation.com]

Mormonism may have fit the definition of a classic personality-driven cult under when it was under direct control of Joseph Smith during its early days. But gradually the group evolved to its current structure, with shared authority and some democratic reforms.

See the following articles:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

Come on, Rick, I expected better from you than a form letter.

BTW, have you ever held up your own version of Christianity to the same skepticism and scrutinty to which you hold my version of Christianity?

I didn't think so.

But I DID hold Mormonism up to scrutiny before joining the Church (as an adult).

Just feel it's important to let people know that the "Emperor has no clothes"--i.e. the so-called "Book of Mormon" is simply a fiction concocted by Joseph Smith.

Are you attempting to dismiss the New Testament as not historical?

I don't think so.

Obviously, Mormons must accept the NT as historical, since their scriptures are dependent upon it.

The problem you have is that there is no objective evidence to prove that the "Book of Mormon" is historical.

Come on, it doesn't sound like you exercised much meaningful "scrutiny" before signing up.

Actually, yes, I did give it a lot of scrutiny. Thanks for giving me a real answer. Let's talk about this.

The fact is that you have no more proof of your version of Christianity that I have of mine, because the very existence of Christ is not found anywhere in contemporary Roman or Jewish records. Not even any mention of the Crucifixion, though Roman law required reports of all punishments meted out. You can bet that Pilate's political enemies would have been quick to bring word to the Roman Seat if he had let a prisoner be beaten and executed without sending the proper follow-up report to his superiors.

I have an understanding of why no such records exist -- do you?

Moreover, what you consider to be the only scripture was compiled nearly 400 years after Christ's birth, by men who rejected "spurious" writings -- those which did not agree with Catholic doctrine of the time -- and who didn't have all of the records available. The books of the New Testament were originally uncollated letters, and are not in the NT in chronological order of their being written.

For members of the various Protestant cults, this forces the question of whether the Catholic church had the authority to decide what was and was not truly scripture, essentially to define Christianity. If they did have that authority, then why are you not Catholic? And why does the Protestant version of the Bible differ from the Catholic version? I'm not talking about only the changes in doctrine but also about the 7 books which are in the Catholic Bible but not the KJV. If they aren't scriptural, why did the men who compiled the Bible include them? When your church stands and falls on the Bible alone, then questions like this pose a real problem.

How are you so certain that the Bible is true? Ignoring the question of which version is "complete and inerrant," the basic question is just what you have that proves ANY of the Bible. Everything that we have in the way of records comes from within our religious tradition, not from independent sources.

You know that God could have provided incontrovertible proof -- why didn't He? With thousands of varying Christian sects in this country alone, how do you know that your particular interpretation is correct?

LDS doctrine HOLDS TOGETHER. It explains many things which the Protestant doctrine that I grew up following had no answer for, and all to the glory of God. Doctrines which make sense, but aren't in the Bible, include "God will give no commandment, save He provide a way to obey it." According to Bible-limited Christianity, you're on your own, find a way or else.

To Bible-only Christians, you could have been as righteous as Mother Theresa, but if you died before you had a chance to be baptised, you are condemned to an eternity of torment. Either that, or you believe that baptism isn't necessary (even though Christ felt it necessary). I much prefer knowing that God hasn't turned His back on the billions of His children who never heard about Christ during their lives, but has made a way for them to satisfy His laws.

I am also glad to know that God doesn't condemn every marriage to automatic divorce (". . .till death do you part . . ."). Show me something in your version of Christianity which will let me be my wife's husband forever.

LDS doctrine explains why we were created in the first place. What you have of scripture doesn't address this question at all, and Protestant doctrines boil down to the idea that we were created solely to worship God or because He wanted the company. Sorry, I can't buy either idea, that we are pets or that God would feel better that such inferior critters as us would respect him. However, being a father myself, the idea that our HEAVENLY Father would create us to learn and progress makes perfect sense.

The many logical doctrinal points aside, I followed the instructions to pray about it, to ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ, to give me witness if the things were true. I did get that witness, and so I decided to join the Church. That was in 1975, and I have never found reason to doubt my decision, despite all of the material that I've read, heard and seen from self-appointed "cult experts."

I have stood in the hallway at the Carthage Jail and looked through the bullet hole in the door, blindly fired by a "Christian" who wanted to kill men for not being the same kind of "Christian" that he was. To him, God was so weak that he needed a mob to kill Joseph Smith. To his compatriots, rape and murder were acceptable against those who didn't believe the same way. His spiritual descendants today also claim the authority to decide what is and is not true Christianity. They all take LDS doctrines out of context, and many offer outright lies to prove their points. Some, like Lonnie Purcell, travel across the country to distrupt LDS meetings and conferences, fondling women's undergarments and shouting obscene and racist slurs at women and children, all in the name of Jesus Christ.

Go into a Christian bookstore, and you will find hundreds of dollars' worth of anti-Mormon stuff. Go into an LDS bookstore, and you will find nothing similar about any of the Protestant cults. The closest that you will come are scholarly comparisons between LDS and non-LDS doctrines and books which show the many ways in which your version of Christianity is close to our version of Christianity, to open communications between us.

For that matter, that's why I'm here on your site. While I admit that I enjoy lively discussion, my real reason for logging in is curiousity. The best place to see what people are thinking is to go to their home turf, where they feel it safe to claim superiority over everyone else.

Besides, I figure that there are bound to be some folks here who are honestly curious about the Restored Gospel, and need someone around to explain our doctrines in a non-proselyting environment. While you work hard to condemn us for the differences in our doctrines, I am glad for those differences, and am happy to help people understand them better.

But the one thing that I won't do is grant you the assumption that your version of Christianity is the baseline, the standard against which all others are heresy. We can go point-by-point, and I can show you how the Bible and its writers and compilers were equally flawed in similar technical ways to the writers of the rest of LDS scripture. My faith in Christ is strong enough to accept that knowledge, because I know WHY God doesn't provide that clear unassailable and incontrovertible proof of the truth of His word.

Now, Rick, to answer your question with a question, what proof do you have that the New Testament IS historical? We both believe that the NT is true, but what more objective evidence do you have for the NT than exists for the Book of Mormon?

BTW, citing place names doesn't count as proof, any more than you can prove that the "Zorro" stories are true history just because there is a place called "Los Angeles." (For people who may not know this, "Zorro" was a fictional character created in the early 20th century, who fought overbearing government in the Los Angeles pueblo, when California was a Spanish colony)

Which brings me to another quick point. Is was members of the demobilized Mormon Batallion who discovered the gold at Sutter's Mill, sparking the Gold Rush. Brigham Young ordered the soldiers not to prospect for gold, but instead to come to Utah (which none of the soldiers had ever seen) and leave the gold behind. If this were a church of men, as anti-Mormons assert, why would the leader of the Church not have the men stake claims and get all the gold they could for the Church?

Anyway, enough for now.

Tell me, Rick, is there a place on your site for honest and reasonable discussion of the Restored Gospel? If so, then I will stay.

Oh, BTW, I should make it clear from the outset that I am in no way an official representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am not a religious scholar. I am known for making mistakes now and then.

What I say here is what _I_ say, as a member of the Church since early adulthood, some 29 years now. That is my sole connection to the Church.

PorterGolden:

Please understand that this message board is not to debate doctrines and proselytize. See the rules regarding this.

And actually, like you, I am not a Christian.

I am Jewish.

But the issue here is history not belief. And history is either true or false, not subjective and based upon personal testimonies. You seem confused about this.

Christians rely upon a history that is well-recorded. There were certainly Christians in the First Century and they did form a religion almost 2,000 years ago by all accounts.

Thus you offer a false and evasive argument.

Again, the point here is really rather simple.

The "Book of Mormon" is the totally fictional composition of Joseph Smith. And nothing you have said either disputes this and/or offers any objective historical evidence to substantiate its bizarre claims about some supposed history that never took place within the Western Hemisphere.

Christians can at least rely upon a body of historical evidence that places their history back to the First Century.

Mormon history actually begins only with Joseph Smith in the 1800s.

There were never any Nephites, Laminites etc. And that claimed history should be easier to prove, since it supposedly ended about 400 AD.

The anachronisms within the Smith stories are almost comical and they clearly indicate his limited education.

And then there is the so-called "Book of Abraham," which Smith claimed was based upon his translation/study of an Egyptian papyri, later proven to be nothing more than an ancient pagan religious text--by receipts of sale, notes and museum records.

See [www.irr.org]

Smith's ability to translate anything with his fabled "seer stone" was thus shattered amidst the historical evidence surrounding his supposed "Book of Abraham."

B.H. Roberts, perhaps the leading Mormon apologist, acknowledged the inherent historical problems of the "Book of Mormon." He stated there was essentially no way to explain away its historical anachronisms.

Perhaps that's why Mormon leaders so often appear to focus their energy on suppressing information, rather than obtaining objective physical evidence to back up their historical claims.

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also [www.culteducation.com]