Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Jerubaal]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

"Mormonism" teaches no such thing. It never has and never will. "Mormonism" teaches that Jesus Christ will judge all of us.

You know, I really dug for this one- Journal of Discourses, Sunstone, Dialogue, FARMS, Mcconkie, all the databases I have. Couldn't find anything. Hard to be an official teaching of the church if it's not found in ANY of our official or unofficial records, histories, etc.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990. News stories (such as in the NY Times detailing the changes can give you sense of why "Concerned Christians" might have thought the way they did. Whether or not material from the temple ceremony is considered "official" would have to be a topic for another thread.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "heaven".

In my former existence of being an active LDS woman, my idea of true heaven was the celestial kingdom, and specifically exhaltation. From that perspective this is not so bull-caca at all.

Pre-1990 endowed.

If you're saying here that the notion that a woman cannot enter the celestial kingdom without her husband's permission can be reasonably derived from the temple ceremony (pre-1990 or not), then either your understanding was critically deficient or you are being disingenuous.

Church doctrine on this point pre-supposes that both husband and wife are worthy of exaltation. (By the way, note the spelling of exaltation; it contains no h.

Why do I come here and find myself arguing with people who choose to stick their head in the sand?

I don't care how you spell exhaltation... go pick on those folks who spell probably *prolly* what the "H" is up with that?

Basically what I have gathered from this website over the past year is that there really is nothing "official" about the LDS church. That way they can get away with just about anything and no one can pin-point the origin.

I am done with this lovely site. Adieu.

Fare thee well. It's a dog eat dog world out there.

[sibling]

I am done with this lovely site. Adieu.

Who says there is no God?

[Who Knows]

You have yet to quote "What DP wrote"

Actually, I did.

[thesometimesaint]

suem:

I have no control over you posts or when.

[Jerubaal]

You have yet to quote "What DP wrote"

Actually, I did.

Ah, I found it.

[Who Knows]

Apologists, as a whole, do not get paid. Who would pay them?

FARMS writers, as a whole, do not get paid. (I have written for FARMS.)

FAIR writers, as a whole, do not get paid. (I have written for FAIR as well.)

If Daniel Peterson once received some small amount for a FARMS paper (which he didn't actually say), you can't extrapolate out to "To say apologists do get paid is the truth."

So you would agree with what Pahoran wrote: "The fact is that not one of them has received a red cent for their apologetics work."?

[Jerubaal]

Apologists, as a whole, do not get paid. Who would pay them?

FARMS writers, as a whole, do not get paid. (I have written for FARMS.)

FAIR writers, as a whole, do not get paid. (I have written for FAIR as well.)

If Daniel Peterson once received some small amount for a FARMS paper (which he didn't actually say), you can't extrapolate out to "To say apologists do get paid is the truth."

So you would agree with what Pahoran wrote: "The fact is that not one of them has received a red cent for their apologetics work."?

Pahoran already said his "red cent" comment was an exageration.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

"Mormonism" teaches no such thing. It never has and never will. "Mormonism" teaches that Jesus Christ will judge all of us.

You know, I really dug for this one- Journal of Discourses, Sunstone, Dialogue, FARMS, Mcconkie, all the databases I have. Couldn't find anything. Hard to be an official teaching of the church if it's not found in ANY of our official or unofficial records, histories, etc.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990. News stories (such as in the NY Times detailing the changes can give you sense of why "Concerned Christians" might have thought the way they did. Whether or not material from the temple ceremony is considered "official" would have to be a topic for another thread.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "heaven".

In my former existence of being an active LDS woman, my idea of true heaven was the celestial kingdom, and specifically exhaltation. From that perspective this is not so bull-caca at all.

Pre-1990 endowed.

If you're saying here that the notion that a woman cannot enter the celestial kingdom without her husband's permission can be reasonably derived from the temple ceremony (pre-1990 or not), then either your understanding was critically deficient or you are being disingenuous.

Church doctrine on this point pre-supposes that both husband and wife are worthy of exaltation. (By the way, note the spelling of exaltation; it contains no h.

Why do I come here and find myself arguing with people who choose to stick their head in the sand?

I don't care how you spell exhaltation... go pick on those folks who spell probably *prolly* what the "H" is up with that?

Basically what I have gathered from this website over the past year is that there really is nothing "official" about the LDS church. That way they can get away with just about anything and no one can pin-point the origin.

I am done with this lovely site. Adieu.

Suit yourself.

But don't hold us accountable for your own bizarre misconceptions of Church doctrine.

By the way, try looking up "exhaltation" in the dictionary; you won't find it. But we have a similar word, in English. It is exaltation.

[Catholic Guy]

A number of false claims are enduring features of the anti-Mormon demimonde. Here are a few of them:

"The FARMS people are paid apologists." The fact is that not one of them has received a red cent for their apologetics work.

"There are unsually high rates of anti-depressant drug use and suicide in Mormonism."

This claim is made by manipulating statistics. A check of these assertions discloses the following facts:

1) The "rate of... suicide in Mormonism" is merely inferred from the fact that Utah's suicide rate is higher than the US average. However,

2) The intermountain states lead the US in suicide rates; and

3) Utah trails the rest of the intermountain states. In fact, its suicide rate is less than two-thirds of Wyoming's, the highest ranked state.

This information can be checked here.

Does any "Christian," concerned or otherwise, wish to defend these claims?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I think you missed one: The Missing Books Argument

And yet their Bible is missing seven books from the OT. These seven books were in the bible until Luther took them out. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Poor research makes for poor statements.

[Scott Lloyd]

You have yet to quote "What DP wrote"

Actually, I did.

Ah, I found it.

To paraphrase Inego Montoya: "I don't think it means what Who Knows thinks it means."

[Who Knows]

You have yet to quote "What DP wrote"

Actually, I did.

Ah, I found it.

To paraphrase Inego Montoya: "I don't think it means what Who Knows thinks it means."

Go read the actual thread it came from.

It means what it means.

DP is free to come in and clarify if he wants to. Like I said, I'm just going off of what he wrote in that thread.

[Jerubaal]

A number of false claims are enduring features of the anti-Mormon demimonde.  Here are a few of them:

"The FARMS people are paid apologists."  The fact is that not one of them has received a red cent for their apologetics work.

"There are unsually high rates of anti-depressant drug use and suicide in Mormonism."

This claim is made by manipulating statistics.  A check of these assertions discloses the following facts:

1) The "rate of... suicide in Mormonism" is merely inferred from the fact that Utah's suicide rate is higher than the US average.  However,

2) The intermountain states lead the US in suicide rates; and

3) Utah trails the rest of the intermountain states.  In fact, its suicide rate is less than two-thirds of Wyoming's, the highest ranked state.

This information can be checked here.

Does any "Christian," concerned or otherwise, wish to defend these claims?

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran,

I think you missed one: The Missing Books Argument

And yet their Bible is missing seven books from the OT. These seven books were in the bible until Luther took them out. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Poor research makes for poor statements.

The funny thing is they have to use extra-Biblical sources to sustain their argument.

Say, Catholic Guy, what is your feeling on the Apocrypha? Do you agree with Jerome's assessment that they are useful for instruction, but not for doctrine, or do you think they are doctrinal?

[Programmer]

...

Give me a break. Obviously, as we all know, he can't recite it. Hence my characterization of his comment as "arrogant."

...

It's real nice to brag about your terrific memory when you're in an evironment that precludes your having to prove it.

Perhaps he wants to specify which version it is he's got memorized?

It's also really fair to sit and brag about some accusation knowing it's almost impossible to prove.

I also have news for you: Jesus Christ sits at the Judgement bar and will Judge you for how you conducted your life. How you judged others will be how you are judged. So take care of your words for you will be judged by them.

As for which version he has memorized? Mocking statements are not recognized here. That forum is the myriad of other web-boards out on the internet.

[Dr. Shades]

Basically what I have gathered from this website over the past year is that there really is nothing "official" about the LDS church. That way they can get away with just about anything and no one can pin-point the origin.

Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of Internet Mormonism!

[Scott Lloyd]

You have yet to quote "What DP wrote"

Actually, I did.

Ah, I found it.

To paraphrase Inego Montoya: "I don't think it means what Who Knows thinks it means."

Go read the actual thread it came from.

It means what it means.

DP is free to come in and clarify if he wants to. Like I said, I'm just going off of what he wrote in that thread.

I don't have to. You've been kind enough to quote it for us.

From the quote, I would think it misleading to characterize Daniel Peterson as a "paid apologist." If you were to call him a paid professor of Islamic studies, that I could go along with.

[Pahoran]

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990.  News stories (such as in the NY Times detailing the changes can give you sense of why "Concerned Christians" might have thought the way they did.  Whether or not material from the temple ceremony is considered "official" would have to be a topic for another thread.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

Of course there is nothing that says, word-for-word, what you describe, which is why I said that the Concerned Christian's belife is derived from deleted temple material, which can be found on the front page of the New York Times May 3, 1990 edition:

"The Mormon Church has changed some of its most sacred rituals, eliminating parts of the largely secret ceremonies that have been viewed as offensive to women and to members of some other faiths.

"Last month the church... quietly dropped from its temple rituals a vow in which women pledged obedience to their husbands

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim under discussion, a fact which is readily apparent to anyone who is competent in English.

Obviously, it doesn't say exactly that women need permission from their husbands in order to enter the CK,

You're right. It doesn't say it "exactly."

Nor does it say it "approximately."

In fact, it doesn't say it at all, in any way, shape or form. The conclusion is simply unavailable on the evidence presented. More than that, there is no connection between the one thing and the other.

but is it really all that difficult to imagine why outsiders might read that into what the article says?

Yes.

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Why is it "unbelievably bold and arrogant" to say that I've memorised something? Why is it even a "boast?" I've also memorised a fair few scriptures, several speeches from Shakespeare plays, all the lines of all the parts I ever took in any play, and several long poems by Tennyson, Wordsworth, Poe, Tolkein and (of all people) Joaquin Miller. Is that a "boast?" Is memorising a feat that takes prodigious talent? I'd no idea.

Care to prove it?

Only to someone whose opinion I actually respect.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MorningStar]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

"Mormonism" teaches no such thing. It never has and never will. "Mormonism" teaches that Jesus Christ will judge all of us.

You know, I really dug for this one- Journal of Discourses, Sunstone, Dialogue, FARMS, Mcconkie, all the databases I have. Couldn't find anything. Hard to be an official teaching of the church if it's not found in ANY of our official or unofficial records, histories, etc.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990. News stories (such as in the NY Times detailing the changes can give you sense of why "Concerned Christians" might have thought the way they did. Whether or not material from the temple ceremony is considered "official" would have to be a topic for another thread.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

Having been endowed in 1974, I, for one, will attest to the bull-caca-ness.

I was born in 1975, but I believe you and Sibling when you say that the statement in question is bullcaca.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

Oh plueeeeesssseeee!!

More ignorance from you?

Care to retract your statement before we make you very embarrassed?

Give me a break. Obviously, as we all know, he can't recite it. Hence my characterization of his comment as "arrogant." It's real nice to brag about your terrific memory when you're in an evironment that precludes your having to prove it.

Perhaps he wants to specify which version it is he's got memorized?

Did you miss my post where I said it's not all that unusual for a frequent temple attender, especially a temple ordinance worker, to have the entire ceremony memorized?

[Who Knows]

I don't have to. You've been kind enough to quote it for us.

I quoted a little piece from the thread. You were concerned that I wasn't representing his words correctly. So, I suggested, that if you want to see his words in context you can go read the entire thread. And then determine if it means what I think it means.

From the quote, I would think it misleading to characterize Daniel Peterson as a "paid apologist." If you were to call him a paid professor of Islamic studies, that I could go along with.

Yes, that would be, perhaps, misleading. But to say that apologists don't get one red cent is misleading too.

[Calm]

Is memorising a feat that takes prodigious talent? I'd no idea.

Gone are the days when students were expected to memorize significant passages.

I remember watching Richard Burton demonstrate his memorization of the entire Bible.

Memorizing isn't all that hard to do, just takes concentration, opportunity and determination. I see no reason why Pahoran couldn't have accomplished this.

[Jerubaal]

But to say that apologists don't get one red cent is misleading too.

Which is why Pahoran retracted that statement.

EDIT: speelign eorrr

[Mister Scratch]

but is it really all that difficult to imagine why outsiders might read that into what the article says?

Yes.

Why? Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist? Is it really that much of a leap, for enemies and critics of the Church, to make the leap from "total obedience" to "your husband decides if you're getting in"? Who's the one being ignorant here, buddy?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

[sibling]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

I assumed Scratch was attempting to make tongue-in-cheek humor. It never occurred to me that he might be serious until he reaffirmed in definite non-joking terms that he was, in fact, serious.

Scratch: You apparently are not LDS, and seem not to have much academic background, either. Memorizing the entirety of the LDS endowment is well within the reach of any Saint of average mental capacity. Many of us find that we have memorized large sections of the endowment presentation, fifteen minute stretches, without ever having consciously attempted to do so. Before audiovisual media began to be used in the endowment presentation, which is to say, up until about 1980 or so, every temple had multiple workers who had memorized, word for word, the entire endowment presentation from beginning to end -- and this at a time when the endowment was substantially longer than either now or 1989ish.

I am truly surprised at such a blatantly ignorant statement. I don't even know how to respond to such willful ignorance as "you cannot have memorized the temple endowment presentation".

[Scott Lloyd]

but is it really all that difficult to imagine why outsiders might read that into what the article says?

Yes.

Why? Especially considering the Church's virulent opposition to all things Feminist? Is it really that much of a leap, for enemies and critics of the Church, to make the leap from "total obedience" to "your husband decides if you're getting in"? Who's the one being ignorant here, buddy?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

So, in other words, it would take a certain degree of irrational prejudice -- such as harboring the notion that the Church has "a virulent opposition to all things Feminist" -- to make this astounding leap in logic?

Well, I guess there can be no overestimating the capacity of ignorance in action.

[MorningStar]

It is the Lord who decides who gets to enter into Heaven, not the husband. It is not the veil worker who decides who is getting in, it is the Lord. Just because the husband gets to stand in as the veil worker does not mean he decides if his wife gets into Heaven.

I loved going through the veil with my husband. It was like we were entering Heaven together. I can enter the Celestial Kingdom without him. I can't be exalted without him and he can't be exalted without me. One man plus one woman equals exaltation.