Attending a Mormon Sacrament and Fast and Testimony

I went to a LDS sacrament meeting. Some notes:

1. 3 fairly old sounding hymns are sung, including the one about the "saints." In the hymnal I noticed some of the hymns in the Mormon hymnal include hymns by hymn makers Joseph Smith said were wrong and apostate (like Charles Wesley, a founder of Methodism, younger brother of John Wesley, on hymn 66 of the modern LDS hymnal, a few other hymns are included)
2. More testimonies are often about how wonderful their fellow Mormons in the ward are, they all say they "know" the Mormon church is true, the prophet is true, the Mormon gospel is true etc, and will give little reasoning.
3. One testimony by a ex fundamentalist woman admitted all the preconceived notions about Mormonism melted away and all their doctrines she was told when she found out they were nice people. She said she learned about Mormonism is that it should be about what they do and not what they say! Implying their beliefs do not really seem important as long as they are nice. She said her old friends stopped talking to her because of her conversion--ironically Mormons are known for doing the same to their apostates.
4. Mormon testimonies are very emotional, in fact Kleenex boxes are automatically next to the podium.
5. Jesus and God are not mentioned much in the testimony, except in passing, and all testimonies finish with "in Jesus Name. Amen."
6. The Mormons in their testimony do allude to their preexistence in their testimony (the idea they had their soul before conception.)
7. Mormon "communion" can be lead by teenage boys praying at a table in front of the congregation. They preach and pass around leaven bread cubes in special trays with handles on it. Then line up and return the trays to the front. Then for the cup--they do not use wine since Mormons do not drink alcohol, nor do they use grape juice like Baptists, but rather Mormons use water placed in tiny shot glasses and pass it around like the bread. 
8. All the males wear a white dress shirt and tie, and maybe a coat.
9. Women seem to be allowed to wear any color they would like.
10. I noticed while people were giving their testimonies there was snoring.
11. Testimonies are encouraged to be short and the Mormon bishop, or whoever is leading it is supposed to go first.
12. The Mormon congregation was small, but the leader explicitly said most of them were converts.
13. Mormon church interiors are fairly plain, though similar to a standard Protestant church, except with a large area for the choir in the front of the church behind where the ministers preaches.

\

LDS Prophet vs New Testament Prophet

In Mormon (LDS) theology the top authority of their ecclesiastical structure has a Prophet, they claim

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures

We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church.--LDS.org

 The strange part of this claim is that Peter and Paul lived at the same time and furthermore they did not have an interest in calling themselves prophets, nor did other people in the New Testament seem to apply this title to them, yet St John does seem to be called a Prophet, but this seems to only be in relation to the book of Revelation, never did St John guide the whole church and have it all subject to him.  We also see there are FEMALE prophets like St Phillip's "four virgin daughters gifted with prophecy" in Acts 21:9. Judas and Silas are called "prophets":

Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted and strengthened the brothers with many words.--Acts 15:32

Yet, Judas and Silas were subject to others and are not mentioned as speaking in the Council, despite being called in Acts 15:22 "leaders among the brothers," in fact Silas was a sidekick to Paul in Acts 15:40 and followed him much of Acts.

Otherwise, the only other time we see a male prophet (if not multiple simultaneous ones) in the New Testament was a man that was a prophet to HELP the Apostles--he was not the church leader (as LDS.org claims that was Peter and Paul) he was just given prophecies by God about events about to happen.

At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and one of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine all over the world, and it happened under Claudius.--Acts 11:27-28

We had been there several days when a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. He came up to us, took Paul’s belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit: This is the way the Jews will bind the owner of this belt in Jerusalem, and they will hand him over to the Gentiles.”--Acts 21:10-11

We see a New Testament Prophet, just as St John, roles were not to be leaders of the Church-that was the role of the Apostles and presbyters. We see Acts 15 the Church Council was a gathering of Apostles and Presbyters--no prophet mentioned!

The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.--Acts 15:6

Agabus was still alive and already a prophet in Acts 11:27 and mentioned again in Acts 21:10--and we know he was both in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 11:27-28)--yet why is it the New Testament seems fit to cite what he says on the matter, why are his words not mentioned at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15?, why did not people in Antioch end all debate when Agabus come to them on the matter? Because he was not an apostle! An LDS missionary/elder insisted to me that Agabus must have had a leading role in the Church that is never mentioned, interestingly enough he admitted accepting Mormonism on other points was very difficult for him too! 

Let's see what LDS.org has written about Agabus:

A story by a door-to-door missionary:

When I replied that everyone should be interested in a living prophet on the earth, she cried, “That’s not so! There are no prophets on the earth! Jesus Christ was the last prophet.”

         Then something strange happened. A question came to my mind: “What about Agabus?”

I immediately called out, “What about Agabus?” There was a long pause. Then the woman responded, “Who’s Agabus?”

“A prophet who lived after Christ and who prophesied of a famine that came to pass,” I said.

She asked me, “Where did you read that—in your Mormon Bible?”

“No,” I replied, “in the book of Acts, chapter 11, verse 28.”--What about Agabus?

Yes, what ABOUT Agabus--he does something Mormon prophets can't--predict things and have them actually 'come to pass!'

LDS.org also says in its manual on "The Life and the Teachings of Jesus and his Apostles",

(30-7) Acts 11:28. Who Was Agabus?

Little is known of Agabus other than that he possessed the gift of prophecy and was a noble Christian. By means of divine inspiration, he foretold a famine during the reign of the emperor Claudius, a fact which both the New Testament and Josephus confirm (Acts 11:28; Josephus, The Life and Works of Flavius Joseph, Antiquities of the Jews 20. 2. 5). Following Paul’s return from his third mission, Agabus also predicted Paul’s future imprisonment and bonds (Acts 21:10, 11).--Chapter 30: “God Is No Respecter of Persons”  

In this one they do not say he was a "prophet" but just had the "gift of prophecy." We look in the dictionary:

The Mormon manual called "New Testament Student Manual" 2014 says,

While Paul and his fellow laborers were staying at the home of Philip, “a certain prophet, named Agabus” visited them and prophesied that Paul would be bound if he continued on to Jerusalem (Acts 21:10). It is obvious that Agabus had the Spirit of the Lord with him, for Paul was later bound in Jerusalem (see Acts 21:33).-- "New Testament Student Manual" 2014. Chapter 34: Acts 21–28

This article written in 1962 refers to Agabus among other New Testament prophets who existed simultaneously but does not see an issue with the fact they were more about predictions than doctrine or new revelation, or they were mentioned after apostles, among other things. If the LDS is a reestablishment of the New Testament church then why didn't the New Testament church have a governing prophet like the Mormon do? Why were there multiple ones at once, but now only one at a time?

St Paul mentions the Apostles as being FIRST--before Prophets!

Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.--1 Corinthians 12:27-28

Even, in other places we see the prophets were mentioned second to the apostles:

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.--Ephesians 2:20

which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit--Ephesians 3:5

And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers--Ephesians 4:11

Rejoice over her, heaven, you holy ones, apostles, and prophets.  For God has judged your case against her.--Revelation 18:20

 Finally, the book of Revelation, we are told the city is built on the 12 APOSTLES:

The wall of the city had twelve courses of stones as its foundation, on which were inscribed the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.--Revelation 21:14

If the Mormon religion is supposed to be a restoration of the New Testament church that Christ made, why is the concept of a governing prophet that leads the church and is assisted by 12 apostles the opposite of the New Testament church that is lead by 12 apostles and are assisted by multiple (simultaneous) prophets (some of which were female)? Sometimes, a Mormon may point to the fact Joseph Smith called all his "apostles" prophets too, but the fact still remains there was no mention of a top prophet in the new Testament that guided the Church. And if according to the Mormon claim the LDS.org site makes that Paul was a prophet like Moses, Isaiah and their current "prophet" Monson--then why did St Paul have to be told by another prophet--Agabus that he was to be bound up.

...a prophet named Agabus.....came up to us, took Paul’s belt, bound his own feet and hands with it, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit: This is the way the Jews will bind the owner of this belt in Jerusalem, and they will hand him over to the Gentiles."--Acts 21:10-11

The answer seems simple--though St Paul received a vision of Christ--he did not claim to be a prophet, nor do others seem to claim that for him either! St Paul was assisted by prophets!

Mormonism: Joseph Smith's King Follet Sermon

Mormonism: Joseph Smith's King Follet Sermon

Two years before the Mormon "prophet" and founder--Joseph Smith died, he gave one of his most infamous and controversial sermons where he asserted God used to be a human and is not eternal, and that Genesis 1 teaches there are multiple Gods. Smith's sermon will be in black and my words in blue.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

Smith here shows that Mormons have a radically different idea of God than Christians, or even other Monotheistic faiths. Mormonism does not believe God is immutable, but rather had to BECOME God.  Going even further, he insists God still looks like a man, but chooses not to show it to us! He bases this on Adam being made in the "image and likeness of God." Like much of Mormon doctrine it seems to have an origin in Jewish mysticism, neo-Platonism, and old fashioned paganism, in this case the rabbinical writing Genesis Rabbah 8:10 does has a section where a rabbi insists Adam looked exactly like God.  However, the issue is we know what "image of God" means in the ancient world, as many Jewish commentaries like Etz Hayim mention, in the ancient Middle East kings were often called the "image of a god," so the Bible here is telling us all human beings are made in the image of God, and this is repeated in the Noachide laws of Genesis  9:6.  So rather that one person being the image of God, all men are, thus democraticizing it, and showing all humans were made to rule the earth and endowed with free will and intellect by God.  Joseph Smith, however, ignoring traditional understanding, or being ignorant of the expression interprets it literally. Furthermore, if God was a man, why doesn't Joseph Smith tell us where God when He was a man came from? Who created him?   

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

He seems to be only concern with how a man became god and unconcerned with the much bigger question of where he came from.  Furthermore, Smith's statement about God not being God "from eternity" seems to contradict his own holy book: 

For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.--Moroni 7:22

Perhaps Smith has his own ideas of what "everlasting" and "eternal" mean also?

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

This analogy seems to imply Jesus was not God before hand since he went through the same process as the Father. We know this is not the case because John 1:1 said the "word WAS God" in regards to "the beginning."

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Here we see the "prophet" cannot get the verse right, Mormons say Smith is paraphrasing John 5:26 which reads:

"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;--John 5:26

 The verse is nothing to do with the Father and Son having died once and needing to resurrect, otherwise someone would have have to have given the Father power to die and resurrect likewise!  Ofcourse, Smith does not want to provide or refer to this person.  Furthermore, Smith completely misunderstands the verse--its talking about the Father posessing life--that is "salvation" and giving the ability to save to the Son, and its not talking about themselves, the whole context of John 5:26 is the Son judgement and giving life to people, whether spiritual or physical, though spiritual life (salvation) is the one emphasized the most as in

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.--John 5:24

 those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.--John 5:29

Furthermore, we have a similar verse to John 5:26 only a few verses before, but about judgement--which Jesus contrasts with life

The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,--John 5:22

The Father gave the Son JUDGEMENT and LIFE, refering to the ability to damn and save people, just as verse John 5:29 that I posted above shows!

 Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.

Great advertising technique, tell your members they too can become Gods!  This is incredibly different from the historical Christian doctrine of Theosis, which is about becoming by grace what God is by nature, not about achieving some Divine powers and being transformed into a member of a pantheon! Interestingly, he says there are already gods

The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

If we were to read this section by itself as it it were written by an ordinary, it does not sounds strange, pagan, or crazy, but nothing Joseph Smith his idea of "heirs" is very different.

What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence.

This is just a power trip, power is a common theme in new age religions like Wicca too and is part of its appeal to the weak.  Also, notice how Smith seems to invent a quote that vague resembles a real saying of Jesus, partly by combining sayings of Jesus and smashing quotes together--just as he did several times through out the book of Mormon (especially about baptism read 3 Nephi 11):

glory that I had with you before the world existed.--John 17:5

the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.--John 5:19

Mormons like John 5:19 especially, because they argue that Jesus can only ressurect because he was the Father ressurect himself once, however Jesus is talking again about life and judgement, about how the Father is at work, so the Son is likewise as in the verse prior

Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”-John 5:17

My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

"Fear and trembling" is a phrase found about 4 times in the New Testament and is only used about humans, not God, likewise the Book of Mormon uses it obviously in Mormon 9:27 taking from Philippians 2:12 about "working out your salvation with fear and trembling." Who does God have to fear and trembling over? is it himself? The implication is that there is someone he reports to, but of course Smith does not want to talk about that here either!  In this section Smith is still making God the Father and Jesus out to be self seeking for self exaltation and to glorify themselves and ascend up some ladder of godhood--much different than the Jesus of John 17:5 where Jesus asks to be RESTORED to His previous glory, rather than being GIVEN NEW GLORY:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was--John 17:5

Furthermore, a Jesus wanting to exalt himself gives us a Jesus radically diffferent that the Biblical one that came in form of a servant as Phillippians 2:7 and was exalted by God the Father because of it, especially since the Mormon Jesus gets to take his father's place! This is an extremely selfish, motivated Jesus--he gets a huge personal payout by helping man kind, he gets to take his father's job!

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry “treason” and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.

Joseph Smith is presenting his religion as a sort of 12 step program where a persons goal is to achieve greater and greater degrees of godhood by working their way up, perhaps even getting to take Jesus' spot?

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head!

There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion that the "baith" or rather "beth" or "beit"--the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet was added to Genesis 1:1, in fact a Mormon apologist from FAIR on this point desperately tried to prove so with the following statement:

The idea that the Hebrew letter b (b) was a later addition was attested by some medieval Jewish commentators. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (born 1189), in his commentary on this verse, wrote, “Our scholars said that the bet in [bereshit] is superfluous.” Translator Michael Linetsky notes, “Apparently he refers to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, followed by Ibn Janah (see Riqmah, p. 86, n. 3) and probably Ibn Balcam (commentary to Hos. 1:1), who rendered our verse as: The beginning of what (or the first thing) God created was the sky and the earth as though the bet had been discarded.”--FAIRMormon on the King Follet Discourse

However, here is what Ibn Ezra REALLY said:

Our sages have said that the [letter] bet was added, like the bet in barishonah (“in the beginning”) Bereshit 13:4, for you find “at the beginning (rishonah) they travelled” Bamidbar 2:9. But were that the meaning, the bet would have been vocalized with a kamatz gadol. And there are those who say that [the word] bereshit always [appears in] attached [form], where the meaning is “at the beginning of the evening, or the night, or the darkness”. But behold, they forgot “he saw a beginning reishit for himself” Devarim 33:21. And there are those who say that the bet is a subject without meaning. Their reason is that it is unthinkable that there is no beginning to the heavens and the earth. Therefore, it said “bereshit. But according to my opinion, it is indeed an attached form, like “At the beginning (bereshit) of the rule of Yehoyakim”. Now don’t wonder how can it be attached to a past tense verb [instead of a noun], for behold, thus: “At the beginning (techilat) spoke Hashem with Hoshea, and Hashem said to Hoshea” Hoshea 1:2, “The city (kiryat) where David camped” Yeshayahu 29:1. The meaning [of this usage] will be explained for you in the second verse.--Ibn Ezra Commentary on Genesis 1:1

The word נוסף is translated as "superfluous" in the work cited by the Mormon apologist, while the work is translated above as "added", which is truer to its real meaning! Translating it as "superfluous" makes no sense because Ibn Ezra is giving reasons why its used. Ibn Ezra is not saying someone added the Beit there--he is saying why the author of Genesis himself added beit to reshit. No matter how its spun, nothing supports Joseph Smith's claim of addition by an "old Jew." 

It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

There is so much wrong with this claim. First of all, his rendering requires the reader to assume reshit is refering to the "head of the gods" where "gods" is absence in the Hebrew for "head of the gods." Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 continues on to say "the heavens and the earth"--Smith's claim only makes sense if you ignore the words immediately after. He would have to read "“The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods. The heaven and the earth." This would not make sense in Hebrew since there is a word that cannot be translated into English 'et' in Genesis 1:1 that tells us "heaven and earth" are the direct objects of the sentence, so they cannot be made part of another sentence! The Hebrew reads:

אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ--et hashshamayim v'et ha'aretz

Furthermore, Bara or as Smith seems to say it "baurau" NEVER in the Bible means "bring forth"--there are other words that can mean "bring forth." In fact, the Mormon translation of the bible available on the LDS site has "bring forth" several times in Genesis 1 (v 11,12,20, 21, 24; 3:16 etc) and the rest of Genesis and it is NEVER a translation of "bara."

I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and lawyers of the scriptures. I have done so hitherto without explanation, to let the lawyers flutter and everybody laugh at them. Some learned doctors might take a notion to say the scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in them.

The scriptuers come no where near Smith's wild claims, he insists on believing the Scripture--I agree and the Scriptures show he is wrong, furthermore, he argues they cannot be altered--however, he accuses without merit Genesis 1:1 being altered by "an old Jew," which suggests Smith himself is altering Scripture.

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jacobus, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and never get the keys. In the 21st [verse] of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, “If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason.” How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. The Latin says Jacobus, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Greek says Jacob and the German says Jacob, here we have the testimony of four against one. I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony, were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.

This is a trivial point that people that read the Bible in other languages see--sometimes different names are used, does it prove anything really no, just that in English we've associated the New Testament people named Jacob (Yaakov) as being "James." It's silly that a person that is a great prophet should make a big deal about this. I seriously doubt Smith could really read German, Latin or Hebrew--the prophet just could see words. If he knew Hebrew--it was the very little he learned from a Hebrew professor the church paid to give lessons--who was not even Mormon.

A Council of the Gods

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer.

When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.

Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him.

This is neo-Platonism, a Greek Philosophy that some Jews accepted that teaches that the universe is made from eternal, uncreated elements. He humbly says he "knows more than all the world put together!" Yet, he makes very simply mistakes!

Meaning of the Word Create

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

This contradicts what he said previously about the word "bara" or as he says "baurau" where he said it means "bring forth," yet now he says it means "to organize." Here Smith plainly shows his pagan thinking, in addition to teaching many gods, he is teaching the universe preexisted God himself, which is exactly what the pagan Greeks believed in their mythology until being enlightened by the Gospel of Christ! 

Mormonism and the 'prophet' Joseph Smith's sons

I was reading through the history of Mormonism, and after the founder's death, Joseph Smith Jr. he left behind 5 children (the rest of Smith's children died in childbirth or soon after) in Nauvoo, Illinois, none of which were followers of Brigham Young and established a rival "church" to the Utah Mormon "church":

1 adopted daughter--Julia Murdock Smith who was 13 years old when her adopted father Joseph Smith Jr ("the prophet") died, making her the oldest. As a result of one of her marriages, she converted to Catholicism, whether she stayed Catholic-- I don't know.

3 sons:

Joseph Smith III, who was 11 when his father died. He eventually was his father's successor in the rival Mormon sect and an opponent of polygamy. He lead the Reorganized LDS church, now called the "Community of Christ." 

Alexander Hale Smith, who was about 6 years old when his father died. He was a leader with his older brother Joseph III in the RLDS.

David Hyrum Smith, who was about 5 months old when his father died. He was a missionary for the RLDS, and tried to even get the LDS in Utah to convert to the RLDS.

Doesn't it seem strange that none of Smith's children (that we know of) even cared to follow the rest of the Mormons into Utah? I suppose a LDS missionary will blame the children's mother.  What is interesting, is a similar phenomenon occurred with Islam when the "prophet" Muhammad died, there was a schism over who was to lead.