The "epic" Boston Globe series doesn't mention that
Mitt Rommney and most other Mormons do their best to ignore the sleezy history of the Mormon Church. The Mormon "prophet", Joseph Smith, was a convicted con man and womanizer who grew up near Rochester, NY.. Court records still exist that cronicle the exploits of Criminal Joe, circa 1825.

The Globe reports that Jos. Smith was given golden plates etched with the words of god, but fails to mention that Smith never showed these plates to anyone, and transcribed the voluminous verbage on the plates , behind a blanket so that the writer/s could not see the plates.

But well before Smith declared himself a prophet from god, his M-O as a con man was well established. His stock in trade was to approach farmers in Western and Central New York with a proposition. For a price, he would put his magical 'seer" stone into his hat, then put his face into the hat and magically see where the ancient indians buried gold on the farmer's property. The farmers paid the price, and Smith hightailed it to the next farm. For this he was convicted and sentenced, more than once.

After he founded his church, Joseph Smith would sometimes approach his believers with another proposition. In one notorious case, he approached the parents of beautiful 14 year old twin girls. He told the parents that god came to him in a dream and commanded him to take the twins hands in marriage, The parents were outraged but Smith allayed their fears by telling them that if they agreed, the parents would sit at the right hand of god for eternity, but if they did not agree, god would be angry and there was no telling what god might do. The parents granted the marriage with one final condition Smith insisted that the marriage be keep secret from Smith's wife Emah. Apparently Emah wouldn't understand.

It's little wonder that most Christians consider Mormonism a cult. But the Globe doens't mention that.

Romney claims to believe in the Bible but fails to explain that Mormons don't believe or read the bible. They have their own bible - the book of Mormon - written by Mr. Smith, behind the blanket, while no doubt paraphrasing the bible.

It's all a con. But back in the 1800's all kinds on groups were plying their cons on the early settlers. Joseph Smith was not the exception.

It's hard to fathom how anyone can put stock in a 'religion' founded by a con man and his magical thinking.

Nobody in the media had the guts to ask George W. Bush about his alcoholism early in his presidential bid. And nobody in the media will likely ask Mitt Rommney about con man Joe.

If we're going to start holding all the presidential candidates responsible for the perceived inconsistencies, contradictions, and scandals of their religions we should start with all the people running who call themselves Christians. That list includes, hmm well, everybody running. Offenses committed by church leaders in the name of "Mainline" Christianity are much more numerous and go back further (more than a thousand years).

And honestly, the fact that you would single out Romney and give a pass to every other religious candidate for their credulity when it comes to "unbelievable" events and concepts detailed in their religions smacks of bigotry. ("My irrational and unscientific dogma is alright, but that guy's...).

And finally, you manage to spew out a lot of the standard anti-Mormon rhetoric that people like you (bigots) often throw out there when talking about Mormons, and yet I'll bet that many of the people reading what you wrote find it difficult to believe that you are presenting a completely fair and balanced, unbiased view of the truth. For anyone looking for dispassionate analysis of the LDS church look to the PBS Frontline documentary that aired a couple of months ago or the 60 Minutes story from a few years back. ClayBlasdel (whether he is doing so purposely, or is simply parroting what some minister told him) is presenting half truths, outright lies, and facts out of context in his portrayal of the LDS church.

This sentence of yours,

Romney claims to believe in the Bible but fails to explain that Mormons don't believe or read the bible.

proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Mormons do believe and read the Bible.

Your criticism of Mormonism is reasonable, but it won't catch on, since identical criticism can be applied against Christianity itself.

Is Joseph Smith really any worse than Saul of Tarsus? Saul was a persecutor of early Christians, and even took part in the mob that murdered the disciple Stephen. Then he changed his name to Paul, claimed he saw a vision of Jesus, and started preaching a version of Christianity that was distinctly contrary to the version being pushed by those disciples who'd actually known Jesus during his life and ministry. Paul claimed to believe the Bible, but never bothered to deal with the fact Jesus had said that not one jot of the Law would fall away (Paul dispensed with large tracts of the Law, such as the dietary restrictions). Yet Paul's version of Christianity is the one adhered to by almost all self-designated Christians today.

Paul and Joseph Smith were very similar figures -- two laughable con men separated by almost two thousand years. So, I suspect people will shy away from getting into the silliness of Mormon theology, since doing so would be hypocrtical without likewise addressing the silliness of the Christian theology of those who criticize Mormonism. Most criticis of Mormonism have clear eyes to see the stupidity of that religion, while wanting us all to pretend we're blind to the stupidity of their own religions.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often misunderstood . . Some accuse the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . This post helps to clarify such misconceptions

• Baptism: .

Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. <link>

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them

• The Trinity: .

A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?

The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. . The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."

Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .

Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. . Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.

• The Deity of Jesus Christ

Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. <link>

• The Cross: .

The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming.

• Christ's Atonement: .

But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. . They believe Christ’s atonement in Gethsemane and on the Cross applies to all mankind. . The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: . All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.

It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology , they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.

* * *

·

Arkady is right. Joseph Smith is much like Paul of Taurus, and both resemble Muhammed. I would describe all three men as con men partially fooled by their own cons. In fact that description applies to most politicians and business leaders. They want us to drink their kool-aid, but they are so persuasive, that they can't resist tasting the stuff themselves. There's nothing in Mormonism that is any sillier than the standard mainline Christian and Islamic beliefs. As George Carlin has said, a cult is a religion without political power. The Mormons have political power; so, as far as I'm concerned, they are as legitimate or illegimate as Christianity, Islam or whatever.

So.....I'm a bigot, eh? And you hold the 'truth" and the rest of us are liars. Congratulation. No, I just bet you are Mormon. lol.

For an unbiased history, read Jos. Smith's biography "No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brody. Its the standard by which others are measured.

Sorry pal, Smith was a con man with a tast for young teenaged virgins, and he used the spectre of 'god' as his pimp. If Romney worships this jerk, Rommny isnt worth a hoot.

The difference between ancient history and modern history, is a vast difference indeed. I'm not defending or comparing other religions. I mad no mention of it. But I know a con man when I see one. We have a dry drunk in the white house - a guy who lied his way in, on false pretenses. And I dont want another religious fanatic.

((Cannot proof read this. Sorry for any/many errors)

The trouble with the Joseph Smith vs. Saul/Paul comparison lies in history.

If the New Testament says that Saul was from Tarsus, I can go to a map and find the modern location of Tarsus, or the site of Golgotha, or Bethlehem or Caesarea. When the book of Mormon speaks of the huge battles fought, or the cities Jesus supposedly visited in the new world after his resurrection, there is neither historical nor archeological record in support of the story.

As an editor, I can say the matter of textual analysis of the book of Mormon (which I have, by the way, read) indicates that much of it is a pastiche, a plastering together of biblical styles. It doesn't read like something transcribed from original texts, but rather like something written by someone attempting to sound biblical (I'm glossing over a lot here, there are good criticisms of the book based on textual analysis available on-line).

So, at least in my view, while Saul/Paul may have been a liar or charlatan, the foundation of the entire religion isn't based on him and on a fundamental misunderstanding of history. LDS, Community of Christ (former RLDS) and all the various other proto-Mormon sects, including the polygamists, are based on a fake history created by Joseph Smith, who is correctly identified above as a 19th-century con man (and if my views on this seem adamant, don't get me started on the 20th century con-man and genius sci-fi author L. Ron Hubbard).

Let us examine the evidence.

trapdoor:

The trouble with the Joseph Smith vs. Saul/Paul comparison lies in history.

If the New Testament says that Saul was from Tarsus, I can go to a map and find the modern location of Tarsus, or the site of Golgotha, or Bethlehem or Caesarea. When the book of Mormon speaks of the huge battles fought, or the cities Jesus supposedly visited in the new world after his resurrection, there is neither historical nor archeological record in support of the story.

In Peru there have been several cities found that scientist still do not understand who built them or what happened to the people. In the Northern Amazon Jungle there are complex networks of villages and cities with large highways and advanced agricultural constructs. We have the ruins all through Central America. Just because scientists cannot put a name to the cities does not mean they are not there and could not be the cities spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

As to records of Christ's visit I would direct you to the Myth held by all ancient tribes native to the American continent, of a white bearded god who visited their ancestors, teaching them laws of morality and technologies in agriculture and architecture, and who promises to return. This is why they worshiped Columbus, and Cortez.

There are also tales of wars between two groups of people, one with light skin and the other dark.

The Book of Mormon is written in the style of the Bible because it was written by prophets of God who were descended from the Israelites and taught in the language of them.

As to the reason we cannot confirm the names of cities or people in history, I would think it was obvious if you truly read the Book of Mormon. After the final battles, when all those who believed in Christ were killed, the unbelievers destroyed the records. When this happened the language became corrupt and changed over time. You may say this is an absurd answer, but it has happened before. The Catholic church has destroyed hundreds of records that were written in ancient times. We have no written history or Mythology for the British Isles because the church destroyed them when it came. All those who spoke out against the church in the early years were killed and their writing burned. So why is it absurd to say that the records in the America’s were destroyed?

The support for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is large, and getting larger every year. All you have to do is research it.

shematwater: I assume you're Mormon and I have no desire to denigrate your religion. I have, however, read the Book of Mormon, and my impression is that the activities and battles that took place in the New World in that book took place on the North American continent.

Nonetheless, I'd accept your interpretation of the new finds in South America, if they could be tied in any way to the record found in the book of Mormon. "They destroyed the records" is insufficient -- no destruction is total, and there is always evidence of one kind or another. There are SOME written records even for the British Isles -- there are still existing Mayan tablets, even though the priests with the conquistadors attempted to destroy them utterly.

Those South American discoveries you mention do have some evidence, evidence from radio-carbon dating (and other radiological dating methods) that would seem to indicate that, although previoiusly unknown, they are too old to have encompassed the putative period of Jesus's visit to the New World in the Book of Mormon (which is assumed to be sometime in the first two centuries anno domini).

There is a lot of worldwide support for views that I know to be nonsense. Millions of people support the basic idea of a communist governmental system, just for example. Wide support merely means that someone could not, indeed, fool all of the people all of the time, but they COULD fool a lot of people, much of the time.

The theory of destroyed records was not meant to be conclusive, but to show that there is a possibiliy of unknown evidence.

Of course they existed before the time of Christs visit. The history of the Book of Mormon is from 600 B.C. to A.D. 431.

And just as a side note: The Nephites were originally in South America, as they did not go North of the narrow neck of land (central America) until about 75 B.C. when they traveled North.

It was the Jaredites that inhabited North America about 1800 B.C., until they were completely wiped out around 550 B.C. The evidence of these people are in the Mound Builders of the North American Continent. However, most of these mounds are privately owned and the owners will not allow archeologists or other scientist to dig and research in them.

P.S. After extensive research into the ancient american civilizations I have formed a theory that fits both the scientific data and the Book of Mormon as to who each group was. Please tell me if you are interested.

OK, the Jaredites are the Mound Builders, even though that timeline doesn't match up with the Book of Mormon at all (The Mississippian, or "high" period of temple mound building in the U.S. was after AD 1000, so 1500 years after the Jaredites were utterly wiped out).

It's been more than 10 years since I read the book of Mormon, but I seem to remember swords, chariots and arrows in many of the battles -- but there's no evidence that these existed, and indeed there wouldn't have been horses to pull the chariots before the AD 1495 or thereabouts -- all modern horses in North America were introduced via the Spanish conquests in Mexico and Central America.

I simply don't think the Book of Mormon can be supported archeologically. Even if it could, it still has the textual problems I mentioned above.

Let me give a few pieces of evidence here.

First, the swords they speak of were not the same as European swords. They used a weapon we know of as macuahuitl. This was a hard wooden handle and blade and obsidian shards were glued onto the edge of the blade. When the spanish invaded they refered to these as swords and mentioned that they were of a better quality, and even chopped the head off a horse in one hit.

As to arrows, the American indians used these, and they must have gotten them from somewhere, so I'm not sure why you include them.

As to chariots and horses, I will refer you to this site.<link>

This site shows several pieces of sculpture, carving and other art work depicting horses, and horse drawn vehicle. They apear on various building and tablets that existed in pre-columbian times.

Also there is evidence of a small American Pony that was used by pre-columbian civilization. From my study it seem clear that horses did exist before 1492, just the knowledge of domesticating and using them was lost.

As to the timeline not fitting the Book of Mormon. This really takes too long to explain, but let me say this. The timeline they give (at least the dates they give) are based in Carbon dating. The industrial revolution has made this extremely inaccurate. While other elements are used for dating, if you are going to believe the story of the Flood in the Bible you must know that it would have messed up all dating systems. So I do not think they have the exact dates correct in their timelines. They do have general times accurate, and the later they get in time the closer they get.

But, as I said, it takes too long to give a full timeline as I see the evidence. If you want it, I would be happy to oblige you.

Pictographs and petroglyphs are notoriously hard to date. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that there was an indigenous population of human beings on the American continents far earlier than was once believed. That some of these human beings overlapped in time with mammoths, smilodon (saber-toothed tigers) and horses is obvious. Nonetheless, the modern horse was extinct on this continent for many centuries before being reintroduced by the Spanish in the late 1490s (and this is proven by genetic analysis of surviving herds of wild horses).

Carbon and helium-argon and several other dating methods are all based on the fixed-rate decay of radioisotopes. If you have a piece of charcoal from 10,000 years ago, a given amount of its Carbon-14 will have decayed into Carbon 12 (about half, C14 has a half-life of 5,730 years). That rate of decay can't be changed by any modern event such as the industrial revolution, which is what makes carbon dating (and the other radiation-based dating methods) a useful tool.

While I accept the Biblical flood as a historical event (there is a large amount of evidence for a major cataclysmin the middle east in prehistoric times), I haven't seen anything that could provide a reliable date for it. I'm sorry, but I don't accept the Bible as literally true. I'm much more in the school of as the first day of creation there was no sun and no earth, there is no way to tell whether the first day was 24 hours or 4.5 billion years.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Something that showed a direct corellation to the Book of Mormon -- say the identification of a specific city or battlefield -- would help. Even then, without something essentially saying "these are the weapons of the Jaredites" all you'd have is proof of a previously unknown event. As no historical record, save the Book of Mormon, shows any evidence of the events described in the book of Mormon, I regard it as "made up." That is just a discussion of the absence of these societies from the archeological record. The textual problems with the Book of Mormon itself can (and have) fill another book even larger than the Book of Mormon.

I do except the Bible as literally true. Will the Bible does say the Earth was created in six days, those were heavenly days, and teh Bible does say that a day to God is 1000 years to man. So in mortal time it took 6000 years to create. I have also heard the theory that while in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve lived by this heavenly time. Since we have no clue as to how long they were there before they fell we do not know how long it has been since the creation.

I have read too many reports of rediculous claims made through radioisotopes. My favorite is a lava flow in Asia. The lava was dated to 10,000 years, while wood burning in the lava was dated to 1000 years.

And yes the industrial revolution does interfear with radioactive dating. The way this dating works is simply thus. Rays from the sun knock nuetrons out of atomic nuclei. These then knock against Nitrogen and create the Carbon 14 atom, which slowly convert back to Nitrogen. This is then absorbed by plants with regular CO2 and is in turn absorbed by animals. The ratio between normal carbon and carbon14 in the atmosphere should be the same as that in the living things as we are all continuely cycling the CO2 through us. This should stay constant, but when we die we stop the cycling, so the convertion of carbon 14 to nitrogen causes the ratio to change. This is the clock that is used.

Now, during the industrial revolution carbon atoms were spewed back into the atmosphere and upset the ratio, causing dating to be older. Then the Nuclear testing in the fifties upset it again making things younger. It is also true that many plants discriminate against carbon 14 and to diferent degrees, which would also throw things off. Also, the convertion back to nitrogen should be complete in about 5000 years so if it is present the object cannot be older, nor can the carbon 14 be used to date non-living things. This is not a reliable dating atom, and is rejected by most serious scientists as conclusive.