Don’t be so hasty in your judgments of other LDS members. Sure, there are good people and bad people, that is common in all races and religions. But to completely blind yourself to a worthy candidate in our government because of religion or race is not giving the individual a fair chance.

- DHarris

Every Mormon I have ever known has been a good person, and I have liked him or her. This includes the Mormon missionaries who have proselytized me.

Nevertheless, I would not vote for a Mormon because Joseph Smith was a religious charlatan. That will become obvious to anyone intelligent person who makes a dispassionate examination of the religion he founded. I want politicians who are able to distinguish between what is true and what is not true.

Despite naturally embracing athiesm as a result of my general beliefs (which I won’t go into here), I still have trouble understanding how the Book of Mormon was written and struggle to fully detach myself from how I was taught to think and believe and have faith as a child.

I think many intelligent people could inconclusively debate many of the finer points of the Book of Mormon for a long time, and non-believers may have to accept that there is simply no damning evidence against the Book of Mormon to draw comfort from – just as there is no concrete evidence, conversely, that it is true. Just as Mormons ultimately must live by faith, so must non-Mormons.

I don’t know how Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, but there are enough contributing factors for general non-belief, for me, that I can simply disregard the importance of the question of where the Book of Mormon comes from. In my opinion, Mormons should base their belief system not on the authenticity of one claim (i.e. ‘Was the Book of Mormon inspired by God?’) but give an equal balance of attention to all claims of doctrine.

The structure of gaining a ‘testimony’, for Mormons, is something like this:

1. Read the Book of Mormon
2. Ask if it is true
3. If ‘yes’, all Mormon doctrine is true and nothing more needs to be questioned.

Since – as I have already posited – logical arguments for and against the Book of Mormon’s authenticity are inconclusive, wouldn’t it make more sense to just let the Book of Mormon’s truth be simply one more question that you should answer – rather than the all-important one that answers all others?

To me, a ‘true testimony’ would consist of something more like:

1. Is the Book of Mormon authentic?
2. Did Adam and Eve live 6000 years ago (and if not, how do I explain this)?
3. Is it beneficial for people to be thrusted with a dogmatic set of rules for life?
4. Is evolution by natural selection (without Godly imput) implausible?
5. Does a personal God that answers prayers fit with the laws of physics or our everyday experiences?
6. Is a church right that has seemingly inconsistent doctrines that change with time (e.g. polygamy, blacks receiving priesthood)?
7. ….
8. ….

Etc. – you get the idea.

Those questions weren’t rhetorical, they were just examples of valid questions that should surely be asked by any LDS member. If church members feel perfectly comfortable about the answers to all these questions, then great, and good luck to them. If they don’t – and I know of some Bishops and Stake Presidents that wouldn’t claim to know the answers to all of those questions – then I simply disagree with the notion of ‘The Book of Mormon is true, so this fact trumps everything else.’

My conclusion – we probably can’t determine from debate whether the Book of Mormon is true, and LDS members should generally place less emphasis on this question if they are seeking truth. The truth, if there is such a thing, is a complex, multi-faceted thing, so claiming to derive all truth from one supposed particle of it (i.e. the Book of Mormon’s authenticity) seems a strange way to find it. Sure, if the Book of Mormon is ‘true’ then it probably does follow that all other Mormon beliefs are true, but since you can’t truly know the answer to the question, don’t use it as a point of reference for all other beliefs. For those church members who say you can, in fact, ‘know’ that the Book of Mormon, and thus the church, is true, consider this: if you literally knew, you would have no point living any more; according to Mormon doctrine, this life is a testing ground where we prove our worth by faith, not knowledge. Why would God make us forget pre-mortal life if we can ‘know’ of its existence anyway after reading the Book of Mormon and finding out it’s true? So – don’t dwell on the Book of Mormon if you are a seeker of truth; ask the other questions too!

- Joshua Steimle

I certainly do agree with this. The sacrilegious sarcasm of Mike Jones and others does not advance their arguments against Mormonism. I have always found the Mormon religion fascinating. I have never known a Mormon I did not like. I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries.

Once a Mormon who was also a prominent Washington lawyer gave a talk. I told him that I had been proselytized by Mormon missionaries, and asked, “What would you say to the argument that the Book of Abraham was not really written by Abraham, but is the Egyptian Book of the Dead?”

He sounded disturbed, and I sensed that I was bringing up an issue he was trying not to think about. He said, “It would take a while to explain. Come to the table after the question and answer period.”

When I did, he gave me his business card, and asked me to come to his law office for an explanation. It was obvious that he was running from me. The talks at the Potter’s house were recorded, and played later on in the week on WETA. When I heard this talk, the Mormon lawyer’s voice was even more disturbed than I remembered it to be.

I have asked a number of Mormon missionaries about the Book of Abraham. They do not know very much about it. I have to tell them. They hardly even understand my arguments against it. However, whenever I talk to an intelligent Mormon, that Mormon reveals anxiety. They know what the truth is, but they try not to think about it.

We have been though this before. As comparatively recently as 1900 only 6% of Americans graduated from high school. In the nineteenth century many brilliant people achieved great things with little formal education. One of them was Abraham Lincoln.

The Book of Mormon is a creative work of imaginative fiction. It makes assertions about the New World prior to the coming of the whites that are clearly wrong. None of it can be independently verified. There is no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology.

I have read the Book of Mormon. Having read the Bible in several English translations, I was not at all impressed with the Book of Mormon. Indeed, I found it rather boring.

Quite aside from the fraudulence of the Book of Mormon is the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith bought an ancient Egyptian manuscript and claimed to be able to translate it. He claimed that by some miraculous coincidence the manuscript had been written by Abraham. Well, the manuscript has reemerged. It has been translated by people who can really read ancient Egyptian writings. The real translation bears no resemblance to what Joseph Smith claimed it meant. Mormons have come up with a number of twisted explanations for that. Those explanations are simply comical. It is really pathetic that anyone takes them seriously at all.

Perhaps I’ll get at least eight people to write down what he says since he cannot read or write very well. I think you will stand in awe at the linear stories he can tell. All this from his imagination. However, he doesn’t need to stick his face in a hat to do so, but he can if need be. I’ll find a couple stones to toss in too. Only he’s way younger than 20 so he has some time to practice.

There is a good question is in regards to this third grade education level of Joseph Smith’s. Which standard are we using? Today’s or that of the 1800′s? In that time if you completed the twelfth grade it would be comparable to getting a four year college degree in this day.

“Joseph Smith’s family was religious, but in general refrained from committing to a single denomination, as was common among frontier people in those days. The family regularly read the Bible together, prayed together and were deeply concerned with the welfare of their souls.” (historyofmormonism.com)

His family READ TOGETHER the Bible! Yet, it would not be any Bible. It so happens that IT WAS the King James Version. The READING LEVEL for this Bible is that of a TWELFTH GRADER by today’s standards. However, JS could read it on his own, understand what is being said, then pray to God for answers. How remarkable! A third grader being able to understand what a twelfth grader could! I’s say that’s very good for an idiot.

We are being led to believe that the Smith’s were frontiersmen. Sorry folks, but at this time Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York was not considered frontier country. It was far from being classified as frontier. The territories that came from the Louisiana Purchase that was frontier country.

Let us find out how JS could have came up with the BoM on his own (or with a little help from his friends). What writings was he (or they) exposed to during that time?
A. King James Bible
B. The Apocrypha
C. James Adair’s History of the American Indians (This contains 23 arguments that American Indians are descendants of Hebrews. It also tells of buried plates (5 copper and 2 brass) kept by an Indian tribe.) (London: E.&C. Dilly, 1775)
D. Josephus’ War of the Jews
E. Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (1823, Poultney, Vermont, Smith & Shute, particularly p. 150). Ethan Smith preached in Poultney, Vermont from 1821 to 1826. Poultney, Vermont is near the location of many of the families who founded Mormonism.
F. Shakespeare’s Macbeth
G. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
H. The October 22, 1823 Wayne Sentinel story by Asa Wilds of a vision with “Great Jehovah” which said, “…every denomination was corrupt.”
I. Manuscript Found (a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding.
If we remove all these items what would we be left with? Not much except a few little battles here and there. Doesn’t sound so inspired to me. I’d say that it would be easy to come up with a book of 500 to 600 pages when all one has to do is plagiarize.

I find it humorous that those who are so convinced of their beliefs will try to convince that Joseph Smith could not come up with a story like it without Divine Nature. To me I get this picture of a guy who is such an imbecile that the only job that he could get with his education is to clean toilets at the local McDonald’s; that he has to ride the short bus to work while having difficulty removing his helmet so he can lick the windows. I’m not trying to come across rude, but I’m not the one trying to paint this so called prophet as uneducated.

I’m not going to convince those who are set in their ways. I do believe there are those who want to know the truth. The truth is the BoM is a fictional story from the imagination of Joseph Smith. He dictated his story to at least eight different people at differing times.