Mormonism Answered 3

         We’ve raised some questions about the “First appearance” story of Mormonism, and raised some questions. Now, I did some conjecture, showing how the early pursuits of Joseph Smith’s life possibly could have changed eventually into the visit from the “Angel” Moroni, son of Mormon.

That was my conjecture, and without any real basis in fact – please do not take it as “hey, this guy with a wordpress blog found the truth…” It’s conjecture. I’m going to state it seems very likely to me.

Next, let’s talk about the golden plates. Everything hinges on these plates. Without them, the entire Mormon story rises and falls. Where are the plates?

Heaven, supposedly – although rumor claims they’re in a vault in Salt Lake City. I don’t think they existed. That’s my take on it.

Where did the golden plates story come from? Again, Joseph Smith was raised hunting for gold by his father, and Smith barely eaked out a living hunting for buried treaure. By Smith’s own admission, he made only $14 a month looking for the treasure. I think he was getting taken, since he had obviously gullible audiences, who paid him time and time again, despite finding nothing. Smith could have asked for the moon!

So, with Smith looking for Gold, not too far a stretch to say he was looking for golden plates.

now, three men claim to have seen the plates – David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver Cowdery. All three men eventually left the church. Uh… if they saw the golden plates for real… they would have stayed, right? I mean… hard to put that aside.

Cowdery left Mormonism and claimed he was ashamed of his association with it. Harris supposedly recanted, but then later denied any recanting. Harris continued to waffle, at one point claiming to have held the plates, but then later telling others he’d only seen them with “spiritual eyes”. Whitmer never recanted the plates, and continued to tell others that he’d had an “Impression of the plates and the Angel”. When interviewed, Whitmer was unable to describe the Angel.

and by the admission of the three witnesses, they even said they did not see them in real life. They saw them in a vision.

So.. why did Joseph Smith not simply place the plates in his hat, and hold his seer’s stone above it for them, and let them see it? Ah, the Angel Moroni forbid him. And then Moroni took the plates away to heaven as they were not needed any longer.

THat should sound fishy to you. Now the plates can’t be seen by anyone!

Compare this to the ressurection of the Lord Jesus Christ! He appeared to Mary…. then to two followers who weren’t even disciples on the Road to Emmaus! Then to the disciples… then to 500 people!

Jesus Christ did everything openly! He didn’t hide His ressurection!

Now, lets talk about the Joseph Smith translating the plates artwork…

Here’s how it’s always pictured in dramas, artwork, and probably videos shown in Mormon temples and churches.

trans1   JosephSmithTranslatingtheGoldPlates_

Plates out in the open, Joseph Smith studiously looking at the plates, reading them in a language that doesn’t even exist (“reformed egyptian”) . Are you ready to see what it really looked like?


Smith placed the “Golden plates” in a hat, the “Seer Stone” over the plate, and then put his face into the hat and dictated it. That’s the translation process.

So nobody really saw the plates. Only Smith, a known treasure hunter who took money to find treasure for people using methods… forbidden in Scripture.

We’re going to talk about that more tomorrow.


Author: philipdean2013

Seminary graduate with a Ba. in Theology/Pastoral Studies, Happily married, Independent Baptist. I can't keep silent about what I see going on in Christianity any longer! Apostasy reigns around us, churches are sliding into worldiness, a whitewashed Gospel is preached everywhere... "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) So, I'm speaking out. ...Why aren't you???

10 thoughts on “Mormonism Answered 3”

  1. There seem to be many similarities between Mormonism and Islam.

    Joseph Smith was “chosen” to receive a new revelation.

    Mohammed was “chosen” to receive a new revelation.

    Joseph Smith received the golden plates from an angel.

    Mohammed received the Quran on stone tablets from “Gabriel”.

    Golden plates are gone.

    Stone tablets are gone.

    both spawned a new “holy” book.

    both are called “prophets”.

    both teach heresy.

    Its like the same “angel” keeps paying certain men visits throughout history. (Galatians 1:8)


  2. If you are trying for accuracy you have failed.

    First, concerning the three witnesses, none of them ever denied the Book of Mormon. Though all left the church and expressed dissatisfaction with it, they did not do so with the Book of Mormon.
    Second, you have completely ignored the fact that eight others were seen the plates: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith.
    Third, sister Whitmer also testifies to having seen the plates and the Angel Moroni.

    That makes a total of 12 people besides Joseph Smith that have testified to seeing the Golden Plates, and none ever denied having seen them.

    Then there is also the fact that Oliver Cowdry actually was given the opportunity to try his hand at translating, so he clearly saw the plate with his own eyes and not just in a vision.

    And just note that the two people Christ met on the road to Emmaus were disciples. The women who came from the sepulcher went to the disciples, and then two of them (meaning the disciples) journeyed to Emmaus. Actually, one is mentioned by name (Cleopas), as is listed in John as standing with Christ’s mother at the time of the Crucifixion.


    1. I have not completely ignored the fact – I have done my best to research this issue, and have not read these accounts. I still question their statements. I did comment that the Three Witnesses left and came back, and gave a summary of their experiences – and I did mention that one waffled in his story, another left but never denied it, although he did change his story three times.
      Christ appeared PUBLICALLY – that’s the difference. He made no attempt to hide His ressurection.
      Christians are not to have secret things in their faith. If the Mormon religion were of God, it would fall under these rules.
      16 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light. 17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. Luke 8:16-17 (KJV)

      Let’s also pay attention to the fact that the Bible is described as “That which is perfect” (1 Cor. 13:10) “The faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and any man that adds to the Word of God is accursed (Rev. 22:18) and a liar (Prov. 30:6). The Bible was completed in the Book of Revelation, and not to be added to. God would not break His own word by adding to it.


  3. Philip

    I apologize for my harsh tone in the last comment. It was rude and should not have been done.

    However, I pay attention to everything.
    1 Corinthians 13: 9-10 “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”
    Notice how Paul is calling his own words only part, and not that which is perfect. That which is perfect was still yet to come. Thus those portions of the Bible that were written before and during Paul’s lifetime are not what Paul is calling perfect.

    Jude speaks of the Faith that was delivered, not the scriptures.

    Revelation 22: 18 is speaking of the Book of Revelation, and not anything else, which is clearly seen in the fact that John wrote his gospel and his three epistles after he wrote his Revelation.

    As to Proverbs, we don’t add to God’s word, but we allow Him the privilege of doing so. This was written many years before the New Testament, and many sections of the Old Testament. Taking your implication the Jews would have been justified in rejecting half the Old Testament Prophets, as well as everything the Apostles wrote.

    As to Luke, I am familiar with the scripture, but it does not apply. The Candle is light and it is shining to all the world. What need has the world to see the match that was used to light it when they have the evidence of its existence before them.

    Now, comparing the Gold Plates to Christ seems odd. The resurrection was the crowning moment of all the works of Christ. He had spent three years in his ministry, teaching and performing miracles among the people. Many of these people believed and remained faithful. When he was crucified it caused deep concern among the faithful. Such a glorious, yet misunderstood, event as the resurrection, by right would be proclaimed to all, or at least many of the faithful, which is what occurred. It was to put their worries to rest and to give them further instruction, preparing them for the work they had to do.
    The translation of the Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was the beginning of a work. It was the kick start that was to get things going. It was much more akin in its purpose as Moses and the Burning Bush, which we have only one witness for.
    In considering this let us pay attention to 2 Corinthians 13: 1 “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” With thirteen witness to the Gold Plates, the requirements of the Bible are satisfied.


    1. That which is perfect is come refers to the Bible. It has come, it is complete. There is nothing to add.
      Jude says the faith once delivered to the saints. It was perfected, delivered, and complete at the time it was delivered. The Bible applies as well to this, as the faith IS the Bible.
      I understand what you say about the Jews, but I’m going to say, the final warning not to add to it was not given until Revelation, in AD 95. That’s the bottom line – after Revelation, you cannot add to the Bible. My God knew what He had to say, what He wanted to say, and said it completely, once and for all. God does not have to change – He is Ha-Elyon, the most High. He is El Shaddai, the almighty God, Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, the one who was, and is, and is to be.
      So the Book of Mormon cannot be inspired of God.
      I still question the accounts as to the eyewitnesses, as the Three witnesses all claimed to see it with Spiritual Eyes, and not actual ones.
      The problem is, we worship different beings. My God is the God of the Bible, who is of everlasting. Yours was a man, on a planet, until he achieved godhood – something the Bible does not speak of. I’m praying you may soon come to know my God of your own free will.

      Since you seemed upset and repentant of your last comment, I didn’t let it go through. No worries.


      1. The problem here is that the Revelation of John was written in AD 68. The Gospel of John was in AD 85 and his epistles were between AD 90 and 95. If he intended the Revelation to be the last word ever written, then why did he later add these four writings?

        As to 1 Corinthians, you may believe this to be the Bible, but the passage does not say that. That is an interpretation that you have chosen to accept.
        As I said, Paul refers to his own testimony as only being in part. He also says that when that which is perfect is come than that which is in part is done away. As his words (and those of the other apostles) are only in part than his words will be done away when that which is perfect is come. If the Bible is that which is perfect than it should have done away with the words of the apostles, not used them.


      2. 1 CORINTHIANS 13:8-10 — “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether
        there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and
        we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.”
        “There are two popular interpretations of this passage: One, “that which is perfect” refers to the completion of the Bible. Two, “that which is perfect” refers to the future, to heavenly perfection. We believe it refers to both of these…The Bible was completed during the days of the Apostles (Jude 3; Rev. 22:18,19), and with its completion, the revelatory gifts ceased. There is prophecy today only in the sense of forth telling or preaching the Word of
        God. We have the perfect Word of God in the Bible. It is able to make the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16,17). A solemn seal was placed on the last chapter of Revelation, warning men not to add to or subtract from God’s Word. That which is perfect has come, therefore, in the sense of the completed Bible.” (David Cloud, Things Hard to be Understood, Way of Life publishing)
        This is also the interpretation that was taught in the lectures on 1 Corinthians in my Seminary. It’s not just “my interpretation”. It’s how many, many Godly Baptist men have understood this verse for almost 2,000 years.

        “The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation.” Mark Hitchcock

        “Preterists assume that the line of kings refer to a first century succession of Roman kings and then pronounces Nero as the one to which Revelation 17:10 refers. This is just an assumption and begs the question. John is- 3 – seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame that he is referencing would be that of whatever time he was viewing the future. This cannot then be used as a proof that he was viewing a particular time frame, without having previously, in some other way, established the period of time that he views in the vision. Preterists have not previously established when such a time frame is to take place. This line of reasoning by Preterists is not an internal proof for a Neronian date for Revelation. All of the alleged proofs for an early date presuppose a preterist interpretation (this certainly has not been established) as a false stating point in which they attempt to argue from….Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around A.D. 66–67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence at Smyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this strongly favors the late date. The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding. John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian’s favorite way to persecute Christians. “Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero’s use of banishment for Christians.” ” Thomas Ice, against an AD 68 authoring of Revelation

        You’re operating off of a number of incorrect assumptions… please take the time and read WHY Thomas Ice and many other Godly men (such as John Walvoord and Tim LaHeye) believe as I do, that Revelation had to be written during Domitian’s reign, in AD 95.
        The problem with your theory is that Revelation was written in AD 95, and could not have been written during the Temple era. He did not intend Revelation to be the last, he was commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to write the last book of the Bible.
        The Bible is not to be added to.


  4. I decided to revisit this comment stream because Shematwater said above…
    “First, concerning the three witnesses, none of them ever denied the Book of Mormon. ”
    well… Joseph Smith actually said otherwise.
    History of the Church 3:232; “Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.” – Joseph Smith, Liberty Jail, Missouri, Dec 16, 1838
    Martin Harris gave an interview in which he called Mormons “Latter Day Devils”.

    In 1841 the Church published a poem in Times and Seasons which in part said Cowdery did deny his testimony of the Book of Mormon;

    “Or Book of Mormon not his word, Because denied, by Oliver?” which contradicts the statements of the Church saying that Cowdery never denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

    You can find further information about all three of the original witnesses leaving the LDS church at this page, as well as several of the other Eight witnesses all “apostating”.


    1. You probably won’t post this, but I am going to say it anyway.

      The quote from Joseph Smith makes no mention of denying the Book of Mormon, and thus proves nothing to your point.
      The quote from Martin Harris also makes no mention of the Book of Mormon and thus proves nothing, and since you give no reference as to its authenticity it is meaningless anyway.
      The poem, while it may suggest a denial, is a literally art form and thus is not sufficient to prove anything. Even if the author intended it literally (which we have no indication of), we have no proof that this was not just a rumor that he accepted, as we have no indication that he had firsthand knowledge concerning this.

      Oh, and speaking of 1 Corinthians, it doesn’t really matter how many people accept the interpretation, it is still an interpretation and is not directly stated in the text. You also did not address the points I made regarding it.
      As to Revelation, no one can prove the exact order in which the books were written. Many scholars agree with you, while many agree that Revelation was not written last. If you are to go by what scholars say than you are again simply accepting one interpretation of the available information over another without any direct proof.


      1. Follow the link to see the authorities for the quotes I gave. i’m not trying to take credit for someone else’s work. I want you to see that THEY said it.

        The poem said they denied the BoM. And the official LDS doctrine is that the 3 witnesses never “apostated” – when in reality all three did!

        Look, you can’t have it both ways! You tell me a verse is just my interpretation. Then, when I cite other authorities to show it’s NOT just my opinion, you dismiss it with “I don’t care what they say.”
        Look, read the verses in context! They DO specifically state it! The question is, if the Bible contradicts the LDS, your prophet, Joseph Smith and the BoM, and those all came FAR after… don’t you think it’s time you awoke and realized your very eternal soul is in peril???
        I’m trying my very best to reach you, wake you up, and get you to accept the Jesus Christ of the Bible – for your eternal sake!


Comments are closed.