“Are there many gods? Are gods more holier than each other?”

This question requires some explanation beyond a simple “yes” or “no” answer, because both answers are correct and incorrect at the same time.

Mormons believe that every human being is a God in “embryo” form, or childlike form. Just as a boy becomes a man or a girl becomes a woman, we believe men and women become Gods and Goddesses. We believe the purpose of this life is to move us along that path, and that this life is one of multiple steps in that direction. Of course if this is what we believe, then yes, we believe there are multiple Gods. In fact, there must be billions, trillions, or even more Gods.

However, when we speak of worshiping God, we only speak of one God. Mormons believe in the commandment “You shall have no other gods before me”, but whereas those of other faiths think of “other gods” as being Baal or other gods that don’t really exist, or perhaps other “gods” in the sense that one can “worship” his career, fame, money, Blu-Ray, etc., Mormons believe all that plus the idea that there are in fact other gods, but only one God that we need to worry about. Or in other words, we only have one boss, one chief, one being that we worship and obey, and he is a specific person, separate from other gods. The other gods have no power over us, and we owe them no obeisance, no loyalty, etc. They are not in charge of us, responsible for us, nor do they appear to have any interaction with us, just as our God, theoretically, has no involvement with the children of those other Gods. In a sense, you might as well say there are no other Gods, because for all intents and purposes there aren’t. The only reason it’s even important for us to know that there are is because it tells us something about our own divine purpose.

Now, for the second question regarding whether one God can be “holier” than another God, the answer is more straightforward–no. Mormons believe that God is 100% perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. There is no being more righteous, more knowledgeable, more powerful, etc. If there were, then it wouldn’t make much sense to do the bidding of the less powerful God, because the more powerful God could come along and turn all the first God’s plans upside down.

But this is kind of a weird part of the discussion, because there is and cannot be any such thing as a “less powerful” God, because by definition that person would not then be God. All Gods must, theoretically, be exactly equal in power if they all have 100% of whatever power can be attained.

To sum up, Mormons believe there are many Gods, but only believe in one God. Or to put it another way, Mormons know there are many Gods, but only know one God.

This is a branch off of a question asked in the comments of another post, and also a widely disseminated “gotcha” question for Mormons, which is that if Mormon claim that God was once a man, and that men can become Gods, then how does that reconcile with scriptures such as follow:

James 1:16: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”

Hebrews 13:8-9: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.”

As Ann Mere on the other post points out, “You seem to be promoting cognitive dissonance and holding 2 contradictory beliefs at the same time.”

Well, it turns out that it’s even worse than that! Because not only do Mormons have to figure out how to reconcile those Biblical scriptures with the belief that God was not always God, but check out these scriptures from the Book of Mormon:

“For behold, I am God; and I am a God of miracles; and I will show unto the world that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I work not among the children of men save it be according to their faith.” – 2 Nephi 27:23

God is “unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.” – Moroni 8:18

“For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” – Mormon 9:9

Great, now what? Well, let’s see if we can shed some light on this matter.

First, if there’s an issue with Mormon beliefs, then there’s also an issue with the internal consistency of the Bible. In Luke 2:52 we read that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man”. If Jesus increased in wisdom, then this clearly implies that there was wisdom he was lacking, and if he acquired more wisdom than he had previously, then doesn’t this mean that he “changed” and was not the same one day as the day before?

Likewise, after the resurrection, Jesus said “all power is given unto Me in heaven and earth.” This implies that previously, he did not have all power in heaven and earth. Again, Jesus had evidently progressed from one state to another, at least as far as the power he held, if not in other ways.

You could argue that Christ and God are separate beings, and that what applies to Christ doesn’t apply to God, but since most of those who would enter into this issue in the first place believe Christ and God are one and the same, and Mormon doctrine itself sees no difference in their characteristics or attributes despite believing they are distinct beings, I’m not sure there’s a point, so let’s just skip that discussion for the time being.

So how can God have changed, and yet be an unchanging being?

First, let’s try the perspective of things when we separate God from Godhood. If God is a specific person, then Godhood is the state of being God, or a god. If we can assume that the scriptures use the term “God” to describe “Godhood” then a scripture that says “God is unchangeable” takes on a slightly different meaning, which is that the specific criteria that makes God who He is never changes. To make an analogy, you could say “Government is a necessary evil. It always has been, and always will be.” If a true statement, this does not mean that the US government has always existed. It is merely pointing out something about the nature of government, not the physical existence of or specific traits of a specific government.

Now, Mormons might interpret some scriptures this way, but it certainly doesn’t work in all cases. Another way to look at things is to question exactly what the scriptures mean when they say things like “all eternity to all eternity” or “yesterday, today, and forever”. Are these meant to be literal measurements of time, or meant to communicate the fact that God is not going to say one thing today, and something contradictory tomorrow? When Christ says he is Alpha and Omega, is he saying that he is literally the first and last letters of the alphabet and perhaps every letter in between, or is he using a colloquialism to say that he is “everything” and that without him nothing really matters?

Joseph Smith taught in Lectures on Faith that one of the necessary attributes of God is that he cannot change, that is, that he is consistent in his principles. If he were inconsistent, then he would be like the inconsistent parent whose children are constantly afraid because they do not know how to predict what the parent will do in reaction to any action from the children. This would render it difficult at best to exercise faith in God, not to mention that God could hardly be called “perfect” if he taught one thing one day and another on another day. This isn’t to say that God doesn’t teach us things that seem to conflict. In the Bible we are commanded not to kill, and yet in the Bible God also commands his people to put to death entire cities of men, women, and children. This seems to present a conflict, but only when we do not understand the principles underlying the commands. The commands may change, but the principles do not.

Is there any other way to interpret these scriptures? Perhaps, but I think these two perspectives, especially the second, take care of things for the most part. The bottom line God is trying to get across is that he’s consistent, and he isn’t going to change. We can be confident that if we start down the path he has commanded us to take, we aren’t going to find out tomorrow that he changed his mind and now wants us to do something completely different.

Will this answer satisfy everyone? Probably not, but this is my personal view of things, and if you’re looking to understand what Mormons think on the matter I hope this is a good starting point.

Since I started this website I’ve read a lot of anti-Mormon stuff, and I’ve debated with a few people bearing anti-Mormon sentiments. It has been highly educational, but for the most part a let down in certain ways. When I started on this experiment, I was scared. Scared of what I might find and how I would feel about it. You see, up until starting this website I was never exposed to much in the way of anti-Mormon thought. Most people are exposed to that as missionaries, but I went to a part of Brazil where nobody has heard of Mormons and most of the other religions didn’t know what to do or think about us, so most of their leaders were pretty nice to us (my companion and I were even invited to sing at a special Assembly of God meeting with about 500-600 people in attendance–for the record, I declined and let my more talented companion sing by himself). So when I put this blog up I didn’t know what I was in for.

But as I mentioned, it as disappointing, in a way, because I didn’t find much that was challenging. The anti-Mormon literature I’ve read online has been 99% superficial, poorly thought out, emotional, illogical, and utterly refuted. Most of what’s out there can be addressed by simple explanations, and the explanations have been there for as long as the accusations. As I’ve debated with people here on this blog, most of them merely go to the same websites I’ve been to and present to me the same arguments I’ve already seen several times over. They don’t seem to really think things through so much as they regurgitate what is fed to them.

The two exceptions to this rule have been MormonThink.com and my friend. MormonThink.com actually makes you think about things. I haven’t spent a lot of time there, but as far as I can tell the arguments they present are well-thought out and logical. Not that I’ve read anything there that I can’t refute one way or another, but at least they make me think, and after all, I didn’t start this blog just so that I could regurgitate all the easy answers to anti-Mormon arguments that are regurgitated to me (although there is a fair amount of regurgitation going on around here–why reinvent the wheel when it comes to answering the same old questions?).

My friend has brought up issues with LDS Church history that I’ve never heard anywhere else. Why the anti-Mormons don’t do their homework like he did I don’t know, because it would probably make them more productive, but hey, if they want to re-hash the same old stuff I guess I shouldn’t encourage them to branch out and do more research.

In talking with my friend about why he left the LDS Church I also felt that same fear as I did when I started this blog. After all, maybe he knew things that would really shake me. But in talking to him about his reasons for leaving the Church I’ve been surprised to find that his reasons for leaving, while they obviously affected him, don’t cause any reaction in me different than anything else I’ve heard. Now, perhaps there are things he hasn’t had a chance to share with me, or perhaps it’s the culmination of many things altogether, but when I asked him pointedly about why he left the Church, the little he did share with me left me thinking “Really? Is that it?”

That last sentence could sound insulting, but that’s not how I intend it. That’s just what I honestly thought. I know my friend is an intelligent guy, and that I’m not the brightest tool in the shed. I just couldn’t figure out why I felt differently when made privy to the same information he had. Then, today, I got this chat message from him:

I need to get back to work, rather than browsing through your blog. You’re obviously well versed in the apologetic arguments. But I have a quick question to ask you that I’m curious about. Are your answers convincing to you? I struggled with that for a long time, where I always had the answers ready to defend my faith. And that gave me some sense of satisfaction. But, when I would really sit back and think about it, the answers just didn’t seem plausible enough for me. I remember on my mission working through some tough conversations with investigators, defending polygamy, racism, temple oaths, etc. And it seemed to calm their reservations. But, I always felt like such a hypocrite, because on the drive home I was thinking….”man, I don’t even buy what I just said.” I always felt like I had all of the answers to individual issues, but trying to maintain that in its totality became exhausting (there were just so many). Kind of an Occam’s Razor thing.

First, I take issue with him claiming that I’m “well versed” in anything. I’m certainly a beginner when it comes to this apologetic stuff. But his questions got me thinking, especially since he brought up Occam’s Razor which I’ve been thinking a bit about recently. I figured it wouldn’t be a bad idea to respond with this post, and having asked his permission to use his message as fodder, here goes.

Are my answers convincing to me?

The short answer is “yes”, but let’s get to the long answer.

Some History

As far back as I can remember, I’ve always known that God lived, Jesus Christ was his son, Joseph Smith was their prophet, the Book of Mormon was what it purported to be, and the LDS Church was their church. Of course those ideas were given to me by my parents, but plenty of ideas given to children by their parents don’t take hold. These did.

Even though I grew up in Los Angeles, my religious views were never challenged, at least not that I remember. People mostly got on about their business, which for most people in my neighborhood meant work–not religion, and so my religion rarely came up unless I was on a soccer team that had a game scheduled for a Sunday. Religious discussion with my non-LDS friends was rare enough that I can remember specific conversations I had, and how rare and unique those opportunities were.

As I mentioned above, when I went on my mission I wasn’t exposed to anti-Mormon thought there, either. Not that this means I didn’t have any doubts. I had all sorts of doubts during my mission, as well as growing up. I knew there were people who didn’t believe what I believed, and whether or not they were actively challenging my beliefs my mind was active enough to come up with its own challenges. I didn’t know what metaphysics was at the time, but I had plenty of internal discussions with myself as to the very meaning of existence, knowledge, and thought. This was only exacerbated when I took a college course covering “great philosophers”. These guys were questioning how one could really know anything, whether we existed, and if there were such things as right and wrong, and they did it with particular logic and intelligence. That class probably challenged my previously held beliefs more than anything I had been exposed to.

And yet for all the thoughts I’ve had on my own, the philosophies of Socrates, Kant, et al, the thoughts expressed by others on this blog as well as those on all the other websites, and people like my friend, not to mention a healthy does of punk-rock music during my teenager years, I’ve never really doubted the fundamentals of my religion. That is, there is doubt, and there’s doubt. Did I have doubts enough that I seriously thought through things and prayed for guidance from God to let me know if these things were true? Yes. Did I doubt enough that I ever stopped going to church, saying my prayers, or writing checks out to my bishop, to his name, for $90 every month? What, you don’t do that in your ward? Yeah, just kidding on that last one. But no, I never doubted anything to the point where it changed my behavior, other than to motivate me to do research to learn more.

But why? Why is it that I believe what my parents taught me and still do? Why do I stick with it? After all, it takes a lot of time, effort, and money to be an active Mormon. I think there are four principal, potential reasons:

Tradition / Culture / Society

I was born into the Church and Mormon society. It’s what I know. It’s what I’m comfortable with. At least that’s what someone else might say. In truth, I’m a bit uncomfortable living in Utah and would rather be where there are less Mormons. Not that I don’t like other Mormons, it’s just that I grew up being a minority and I kind of liked it. But the whole idea of not being able to move from one culture to another is bunk, at least for me. I don’t think I would find it difficult to leave the church and become a hippie or hang around cowboy bars. It’d be kind of fun, actually. Yes, my friends and family would be concerned, but they’d still accept me. Then again, maybe I don’t fully understand how hard it would be, since I’ve never tried it and can only imagine, so I’ll put it out there as a potential reason.

Personal Evidences

There are things I’ve experienced that I cannot explain away. I’m not going to talk about them because I don’t think it would foster any sort of productive debate, and because many of them are special and personal and I don’t want to put them out there where people can make fun of them. But suffice it to say I’ve had thousands of experiences that provide supporting evidence for what I believe. I would have to exercise quite an inordinate amount of faith to believe these experiences did not come from God.

This is where Occam’s Razor enters in, which is a principle which effectively says “the simplest solution is usually the correct one”. The only trouble is that defining “the simplest” is entirely subjective. Based on my experiences, the simplest solution is that everything I believe is true. But since other people have different experiences, they arrive at different conclusions.

It Just Makes Sense

The doctrines of my religion have always made sense to me–at least most of them. Those that haven’t made sense to me, such as plural marriage, haven’t bothered me much. I figure if plural marriage is how it is in heaven, then I’ll deal with it when I get there, and I’m sure it will all make sense. There’s no need for me to make sense of it here, although it is interesting to research, as a curiosity. But putting aside the more “flamboyant” aspects of Mormonism, the teachings of the Church seem like common sense to me, and the more I learn, the more it all fits together nicely and neatly. When people who are Mormons or who research Mormonism don’t think it makes sense, I can’t help feeling that they simply don’t know enough about it, or have misunderstandings.

A Feeling

But I keep coming back to a feeling. At least I call it a “feeling” because I’m not sure what other word to use, although “feeling” somehow doesn’t seem to capture it quite right. And there’s no analogy that does it justice. But for example, when someone tells you that 1+1=2, you can think it through, and it makes sense and you know it’s true, right? How do you know it’s true? It just makes sense. It’s obvious. It’s logical. It is what it is. That’s kind of how I feel about my religion. But it’s also different, because not all the parts of the equation are there. But still, somehow I know it’s true. How do I know? I don’t know, how does one know anything? For me, it’s like feeling warmth from the sun. How do I know I’m feeling warmth? Because I feel it. “But how do you know you feel it?” someone might ask. How does one answer such a question other than to say “Because I feel it.”

Now, the warmth of the sun could be simulated. It could be faked. But I don’t believe that what I feel can be faked. Inherent in the existence of this “feeling” is the knowledge that it’s real. How do I know that? I don’t know. I just do.

How Do I Explain it All?

But just because I know it’s all true doesn’t mean I feel like I can just kick back and relax. I feel like I have the recipe for true happiness, and I feel driven to share and defend it because I want other people to have what I’ve got. I’m not trying to force it on anyone because I don’t think you can force anyone to be happy, but I feel a responsibility to share what I know and at least offer it. And if people are trying to confuse those who are honestly and sincerely looking for it, then I feel a need to be out there clarifying wherever there is confusion (hence this blog).

In doing so, I get people challenging me to prove that what I know is true. I’ve quickly learned that there is no objective proof–not yet, anyway. And it wouldn’t make sense for there to be objective proof, because it doesn’t fit God’s plan for us to become like him. Objective proof is force, and again, you can’t force people to be happy. By only providing subjective proof, God enables those who are open-minded and who want what He’s got to find the way to him, and those who aren’t interested aren’t condemned any more than they have to be. It separates those who would do what God wants because it’s the logical thing to do from those who do what God wants because that’s truly what they want to do.

Generally, when God proves things to people in an objective manner it doesn’t turn out well for those people. And I don’t see any reason for me to try. But it’s a piece of cake to receive a subjective answer. All you have to do is ask with real intent. What’s real intent? It means you’re going to do whatever God wants you to. If you don’t have real intent, why should God give you an answer? For those who say they’ve prayed with real intent about the Book of Mormon and they didn’t get an answer, my response is that I don’t believe you. Either you did get an answer, but you ignored it, or you didn’t have real intent. You can tell me all day long that you had real intent, but I simply won’t believe you, and the more emphatically you tell me you had real intent, the more I feel I’m right because I don’t think someone who would have had real intent would be emphatically arguing with me about the matter.

Once you have an answer, the other stuff doesn’t really matter. Tradition, society, culture. Sure, that helps me stay in the Church, but it’s not the sole reason. The personal experiences I’ve had help me, but they’re not enough by themselves. Even though my religion makes sense to me, that’s not enough either. I’ll admit that all of those things could be as ideal as could be, and my church could still be false, and everything could be coincidental. But the answer I have from God–I don’t believe that can be faked. That’s my foundation. That’s why whenever someone brings some new information to me about Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon, or racism in the church, or whatever, I say “Hmm, that’s interesting, I’ll have to look into that.” I consider it with as open a mind as I can have, but it doesn’t change the fundamentals. Do I know Joseph Smith was a prophet? Yes. Do I know he was a perfect man? He most certainly was not. Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume he was a philandering drunk. Could he still be a prophet? Sure. I’d rather have a drunk philanderer for a prophet than no prophet at all, not that I believe he was either. But it wouldn’t matter much to me if he was. All that matters to me is whether or not the words God gave him that we have today are truly the words of God. If they are, then that’s all that really matters to me, because either those words tell me how to do God’s will, or they don’t. If they do, then I’ll be ok, regardless of Joseph’s personal life.

There are a lot of things I don’t understand about my religion. Some don’t bother me, some do. I’m very interested in learning more, although I don’t expect to understand it all in this life. What I know for sure is that God lives, that we are saved through Jesus Christ, that Joseph Smith was God’s prophet, that the Book of Mormon is what is says it is, and that the LDS Church is God’s church, with living prophets and apostles who are the only ones authorized to teach God’s word and administer the saving ordinances. Everything else is secondary to me, and I’m sure it will become clear in due time.

So why don’t Mormons use this Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST, for future reference)?

Perhaps the biggest reason is that it was never really finished, per se, prior to Joseph’s death. The normal path for it to be accepted as scripture by the LDS Church would have been for it to be finished, approved officially by the leadership and membership of the Church, and then and only then would it have become scripture for the LDS Church. But Joseph was killed while still working on it. After that, his wife Emma left the LDS Church and retained possession of the original manuscripts, so the LDS Church didn’t even have the JST. After Brigham Young took the members west to present-day Utah, there was a lot of mistrust between the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded with Joseph and Emma’s son as its leader, and the LDS Church. Brigham Young and others suspected the RLDS Church had tampered with the original manuscripts. It wasn’t until the early 1970s that the RLDS and LDS Churches began to cooperate on certain matters and the JST started being used as a reference in the LDS Church. At this point there was well over 100 years of the King James Version being the standard Bible for Mormons, and so in 1980 a revised version of the KJV Bible was printed with footnotes and references to the JST, with some parts of the JST having been canonized.

Additional references:

Bible/Joseph Smith Translation/As the Church’s official Bible

Do you think Bruce Hafens, treating different, and less than with shunning, or high voltage electro shock Mormon aversion therapy would have best solved the following situation?

Dear Elder Packer:

Although we have met briefly before, it is through the context of my family that you would be able to place me.  I am the younger brother of Ralph W. Hardy, Jr. and Clare Hardy Johnson, and the son of Ralph W. Hardy, Sr. and Maren Eccles Hardy.  I most recently served as bishop of the Salt Lake University 29th Ward, Salt Lake University 5th Stake.  My wife, Carlie, is the granddaughter of the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, and the great-granddaughter of President Heber J. Grant.  I provide the context of our families and heritage for no purpose other than establishing the solid upbringing in the Gospel and the Church that my wife and I have both had. If you know the devotion to the Church of my brother Ralph and my late sister Clare, you know mine.

I write this letter out of the realization that to maintain my own personal integrity, I need to inform you of the personal heartache and damage you have to some degree been responsible for visiting upon my immediate family as the author of To the One.  Although originally delivered by you as an address in 1978, the pamphlet To The One remains to this day the Church’s most current and definitive written statement by a General Authority on the issue of homosexuality.  It is available to the general Church membership and the public, and my wife and I have been referred to it numerous times as we have come to grips with this issue over the past few years.  As one who has always been mindful of my Temple covenants, an unwavering believer, and a follower of my Priesthood leaders, this is not an easy letter to write. For me it represents an anguished “Crossing of the Rubicon.”  I hope you will take the time to read it, for in it I have invested my very soul.

Early on a Saturday morning six weeks ago, I watched as our car pulled away with my wife driving our eldest son to a new city, a new community, and a new school to complete his senior year of high school.  Ever since that morning, I have grown progressively angrier that to protect our son’s life and sense of self worth, we are compelled to send him away from our home and family. You see, this community of “Saints” we live in is so steeped in ignorance, fear, loathing, judgment and qualified “love” towards our son and those who like him face the challenge of homosexuality, he twice arrived at the point where he was devoid of hope and felt he had no alternative but to take his own life.  Fortunately, he did not succeed.  My son is not manic-depressive, nor was he ever before suicidal.  He simply understands too well the Gospel and believed what his Seminary teachers and Priesthood leaders taught him about homosexuality, based upon the doctrine set forth in To The One.

My wife and I are the parents of six children – two daughters and four sons – ranging in age from twenty-three to eight.  Our oldest son at age thirteen had the courage to come to us with his growing fear that he had no attraction whatsoever to girls – the thought in fact disgusted him – but that he was very attracted to those of his same sex.  That he would come to us without fear or shame, confide in us, and seek our counsel attests to the strong relationship my wife and I have both always had with our son. (This is ironic in light of the “parental causation” theories routinely hauled-out by the  Church’s LDS Social Services counselors and Evergreen as the primary cause of homosexuality.)

This son was always spiritually mature for his age.  He is the finest young man I have ever known – giving, loving, supportive, honest, reliable.  Most definitely unselfish.  A leader among his peers in his school and primary classes and in his Priesthood quorums.  Since he was old enough to talk and walk, we were very much aware of certain differences that concerned us.  He carried himself differently, walking and running.  When we could get him to pick up a ball, he threw it differently.  He spoke differently.  He was not in the least interested in sports (in spite of countless practices and Saturdays we spent supporting him in sporting events that utterly disinterested him).  He loved dolls and playing house.  He loved music, literature, drama and poetry. He made friends easily with girls, but very rarely with boys.  Carlie and I listened with hope to LDS counselors and leaders who dismissed or downplayed all of this as merely a “phase.”  We believed in and relied on them.

The years passed, but the “phase” didn’t – this in spite of our doing everything recommended to us by LDS counselors, Priesthood leaders and, of course, the teachings of the General Authorities such as you (scarce as they are is on this subject).  While we were assured by LDS counselors that this was little more than a correctable Pavlovian response and that “nothing could be easier to cure,” and took hope in your confident statement in To The One: “When we understand fundamental moral law  better than we do, we will be able to correct this condition routinely. . . ,” matters went from bad to worse.  One evening in 1997, while I was out of town and my wife was being assured by our well-meaning Stake President at his office that “if we just keep it quiet – the same as if someone in your family had committed adultery [our son had done nothing]- it will all be just fine, trust me . . . ,” our son slit his wrists in his room at home.  Earlier in the day, it had been the ” Sodom and Gomorrah” lesson in Seminary.

As bishop of a student Ward at the University of Utah working with homosexual returned missionaries, I came to the painful realization that the “reparative therapy” practiced by LDS Social Services and organizations such as Evergreen (whose board of directors I then served on) was not merely ineffective, it was terribly damaging.  In every instance I found that this “therapy” accomplished little more than driving these earnest brothers and sisters, desperate to believe that they would “change,” deeper into self-loathing and despondency.

Their failure to “change” as promised them by you and other Priesthood leaders – a failure ultimately arrived at by each and every one of these young men and women who were honest with his or her situation – left only three realistic alternatives: (1) practice deceit as long as possible to remain in good standing with Church and family, (2) give up completely, abandon Church and family, and turn to the only community that will accept you – the gay community, or (3) commit suicide.

By your own admission, it is obvious that neither you nor the Church as a whole has yet arrived at “a better understanding of the fundamental moral law,” because your understanding of it is leading and guiding the Church in this matter, and this “condition” is anything but “routinely corrected.” In To The One you make the summary statement that “some forms of these treatments [reparative therapy] are of substantial help in about 25 percent of the cases” without offering any authority for this statistic.  Where did this amazing (though still disheartening) statistic come from?  Undoubtedly it came from the experts at LDS Social Services.  Unfortunately, however, LDS Social Services must not follow-up on their patients over any extended period of time. My experience as bishop of a student Ward, the father of a homosexual son, and a friend and confidant to the many LDS homosexuals I have since become acquainted with, would indicate to me that in some few cases, the terrible guilt associated with reparative therapy and the strong desire to remain in good standing with the Church and one’s family has brought about an ability to repress one’s homosexual desires – for a season. Usually just long enough to get married and ruin a family.  Perhaps this is the 25% you spoke of.  The current publication for ecclesiastical leaders Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems seems to recognize the realistic lack of curability in its statement:

“Marriage should not viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems.  The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist.  Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement.”

However, the Church’s confusion and struggle to make sense of this issue, and its tendency to downplay the lack of any real answers with a summary “and they all lived happily ever after” is apparent in the publication’s utterly conflicting closing sentence:

“In some cases, heterosexual feelings emerge leading to happy, eternal marriage relationships.”

Which is a Bishop or Stake President to do?  Discourage cultivation of heterosexual feelings and marriage, or lend encouragement to and sign the Temple marriage recommend for the “cured” homosexual that is entering a happy, eternal marriage relationship?  While I know from experience that much is left to the discretion and inspiration of the ecclesiastical leader, I also know that they are to look to an official publication specifically directed to them such as this for direction and guidance and give it much weight.  But what is the counsel being given in this publication?  Isn’t it a bit confusing?

At the crux of the issue of homosexuality and the Church are the three great interrelated beliefs: (1) there is an element of choice involved in becoming and remaining homosexual, (2) it can be cured, and (3) our children and youth can be recruited or enticed into homosexuality.  Every time we have sought out help for our son and family on this issue from Priesthood leaders or General Authorities we have been summarily referred to the experts at LDS Social Services. Because the lives and well-being of so many trusting individuals and family members are at stake here, it would seem that much stock is put in the expertise of LDS Social Services in this matter.  Isn’t it fairly obvious, though, that the “experts” you rely on at LDS Social Services to professionally corroborate and support the doctrine and policy of the Church would support whatever position you have mandated to be the only correct one?  Such is the level of respect for and faith in the office you hold.  In all honesty, to disagree with a member of the Twelve on a matter of doctrine is tantamount to heresy.  I’m sure you are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has denounced “reparative therapy” for treating homosexuals as both ineffective and damaging.  I find it ironic that when a fundamentalist religious group shuns sound medical intervention as a doctrine we find it appalling and backwards – yet when that same sound medical advice denounces the practice of “reparative therapy” we call it “worldly” false doctrine.  I guess it all depends on just whose ox is being gored.

In To The One you preach that homosexuality is not innate, but is a curable condition. Your fundamental proof: God wouldn’t make a mistake like this. By preaching this, you set the impossible goal of “cure” as the standard to which my son must hold himself responsible, as must his family and all other Church members.  Until he chooses to do what he must to be “cured,” he hasn’t done enough.  He will never have done enough.  He will always come up failing in the most fundamental aspect of his entire existence as a child of his Heavenly Father.  He is a pervert, an aberration, and an abomination.  There is nothing left in this life or the next.  How would you deal with this if you were him? Homosexuality is not a “condition” that can be “cured.”   My proof: I have yet to meet even one venerable grandfather with a fine posterity (or anyone else for that matter) who says he was once homosexual but was long ago cured – and my experience as a father observing my son from birth.

Perhaps the most hurtful aspect of To The One is your revelation that the fundamental reason why my son has not been “cured” is because of his selfishness.  When I inform other people that this is actually what you preach in To The One, they are incredulous (members included).  They respond “Obviously you have misread or misconstrued what Elder Packer said.”  You are well aware that this is precisely what is said.  As one who knows my son and his heart better than you, your doctrine that my son’s selfishness is at the core of his ability or inability to be cured of his homosexuality is offensive in the extreme, and evidences the lack of any meaningful inquiry into this issue beyond the application of pure dogma.  In saying this it is not my intent to offend you.  It is, simply, incredible that you could hit upon anything quite so insensitive and ignorant of the facts.  Indeed, my son is the most unselfish and Christ-like person I know.  This holds true for most of the LDS homosexuals I know well.  They have to be to keep trying.

Your doctrine of “choice” and “curability” is also at the core of why the Church and its members in reality view my son and those like him as latter-day lepers. If homosexuality (1) is not inborn, (2) has an element of choice, and (3) can be cured – then it must be able to be taught or suggested.  Others must also be susceptible to being enticed or recruited. Our children are capable of being infected by these people and not becoming mothers and fathers.  It is, therefore, a frontal assault on the family. The “hate the sin but love the sinner” platitude cannot disguise the fact that in reality the members of the Church are taught to loathe and fear our son and those like him.  This qualified and synthetic “love” is nothing more than the few alms hurriedly and begrudgingly parted with to salve the Christian conscience, while never once entertaining the idea of actually descending into the leper pit.  We would never expose our children to this for it might infect them.  If sexual orientation is a matter of choice, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual?  When and how often did you reaffirm your choice to stay that way?  Why aren’t my other children, who idolize their brother, even the slightest bit interested in adopting a homosexual “lifestyle” or in homosexual experimentation?  Why would anyone choose to be an abomination and an outcast?  It defies reason.

Last week a dear friend (formerly a bishop) reassured us that he still loved our son “even if he has made a choice to be this way.”  My son did not choose to be this way.  This type of “love” born of duty and pity for his abominable choice acts like a slow but virulent cancer on our son’s  self-esteem.   It is for this reason we have found it necessary to send our son away from the community of the “Saints.”

As the Church “progresses” on this issue, what we are hearing more and more from Priesthood leaders today is the idea that our son is acceptable so long as he practices life-long chastity.  That is, of course, actually called celibacy, and while it’s a convenient idea to advance, in practice it is virtually impossible to live.  The distinction between chastity and celibacy seems always to be overlooked by Church leaders.  You may recall that in his somewhat recent newspaper interview in California, President Hinkley compared the plight of homosexuals to that of the single sisters in the Church.  To paraphrase, he said that the Church doesn’t ask homosexuals to do anything it doesn’t also ask of its other single adult members – to live chaste lives. But this simply isn’t true.  As a former bishop I have firsthand experience.  We openly love and support our single brothers and sisters.  We give them important callings – especially with out youth and children.  We urge them to date, to flirt, to get crushes, to fall in love, to marry.  We sponsor Ward and Stake activities and dances to get them together to accomplish this.  We ask them to be chaste – until they find someone to share their life and intimacy with.  We go out of our way to give them something of immeasurable value in the struggle to keep the law of chastity – hope – hope that no matter how difficult this emotional and physical loneliness is, it is temporary.  For those with the least control over their situation, our single sisters, we give special encouragement and hope that they will find love, emotional intimacy and fulfillment in this life – and if not, certainly in the next.

We do not knowingly give homosexuals important callings – especially not with our youth or children who would be at risk of being infected and recruited. We forbid them ever to flirt, to date, to get crushes, to fall in love, to have a legally-recognized monogamous relationship.  The image of a Tri-Stake Gay and Lesbian Gold-and-Green Ball is amusing.  We ask them to be chaste – forever. No hope at all.  The question of sexual intimacy aside – can you imagine having being denied the ability to become attracted to, flirt with, get a crush on, hold hands with, steal a kiss from, or fall in love with you wife?  With all trace of romantic love and emotional intimacy denied you, with what would you fill the void to hold at bay a life of loneliness, emptiness, and despair?

We do have at least one historic example to look to.  The Catholic Church has attempted to enforce celibacy on its clergy throughout the ages with success at some level (although we will never know what level).  With what did they replace the emotional void?  They had the love and adulation of the church membership, and authority and power.   They were, in fact, the Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities.  They were held next to deity – and their record is less than stellar.  Imagine the celibacy success rate of a group defined by a loathsome and abominable “condition.”

Imagine also, for a moment, if you were to stand up in front of the freshman class at BYU and announce that everyone present was being given a special calling to live a celibate life from then on.  How many do you think would really be able to do it?  How many empty and guilty lives and suicides would result?  The Church has never taught the principle of celibacy.  As a parent, I don’t have the slightest idea how to begin teaching it.  There are no manuals, no courses, no “For the Strength of Celibate Youth” cards to carry.  There are no Priesthood, Relief Society, Sunday School, or Primary lessons on celibacy. On the other hand, following the teachings of the Church, we have raised our children in a home filled with open love, intimacy, loyalty and commitment between a couple.  Our children know Carlie and I adore each other, and they want and need the same thing in their lives.

I never thought I would say this, but as a father given the choice between (a) my son’s suicide, (b) his complete abandonment of the Church and embracing of the extreme gay culture with its emotionally debilitating and physically dangerous practice of anonymous casual sex, or (c) living in a committed, monogamous relationship for the rest of his life practicing the Gospel virtues of love, commitment, and fidelity we have taught in our home, I would have to pick the latter.  The Church, however, is now doing all in its power to prevent that.  Presumably, it has a better alternative – one that works on something other than a dogmatic and theoretical level.

Then again, perhaps my son is simply a casualty of war – acceptable “collateral damage” in an eternal plan and struggle in which by the luck of the draw he has no relevance or place.  The Gospel has always been easy to have faith in and follow because it made real sense and worked in our lives. This would make no sense.  And the current doctrine, as set forth in To The One is not working for our family.  I can’t tell you how strange and difficult this is.  It’s like we woke up one morning on a different planet. In our greatest time of need as a family, the Church has failed us and abandoned us – and through the convenient but hurtful doctrine of parental causation, complicity and guilt it directly promotes (evidence the article in September’s Ensign), it kicks us while we are down!  I know this is only one of many issues that the Brethren deal with, and certainly not at the top of their list, but for us it has become our universe. We live in this issue twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and must raise our children through it by our best lights.   And there are many more like us in the Church.  Parents like us are ultimately forced to make a hopeless decision: abandon our homosexual children, or turn from the Church.   “Not so,” you say. You would never know unless you walked in our shoes.

My brother, Ralph, asked me at one point “What would you have the General Authorities do about this issue?”

I wish that someone in authority would have the compassion and the courage simply to own up publicly to the fact that this is a difficult issue about which we just don’t have many answers.

I wish someone in authority would publicly urge the members to withhold their judgment and condemnation, accept those like my son into their midst, and have true compassion and love for those who through no choice of their own will deal with the issue of homosexuality all of their lives.

I wish someone in authority would publicly assure the members that by withholding their judgment and condemnation and showing acceptance and real love, they won’t get leprosy, nor will their children be at risk – that the divine concept of Family will not be compromised or weakened, but that real families with real issues will in fact be strengthened.

I wish that someone in authority would recognize that To The One was an effort twenty years ago by a very good man to address a difficult issue in the context of the time in which it was written, and pull it from circulation.

Elder Packer, I have never been one to question, demand, or  “kick against the pricks.”  I am a follower, a believer, an obeyer.  But I can no longer wait patiently while the Brethren try to figure this issue out at the cost of my son’s life, and the lives of others like him.

Respectfully,

David Eccles Hardy

Answer:

I don’t understand the wording of the question, but I think at least part of it is whether I think shock therapy would resolve the situation detailed above, and of course my answer is “no”. Although I have little knowledge of shock therapy, my understanding is that it doesn’t work. That is, it may cure a person from certain behaviors, but it also may cure them of having a functional brain.

I’ll also respond to the letter, although in doing so I should state that I am taking it at face value since I do not know the author, nor whether the text of the letter I received is completely accurate. I have not read (or ever heard of) the referenced document “To the One”. I also don’t pretend to have any sort of extensive experience with homosexuality. I’ve read some things, I have a mission companion who came out after his mission, and I have a friend whose husband of 20 or so years and the father of their children came out several years ago which resulted in their divorce, and that’s about it.

Also, I’m not going to go into a lengthy speech trying to convince anyone that I’m not a homophobe and that I’m a really compassionate guy. I’ll just say that if everything written above is accurate and true, then it’s a sad story. As for myself, I have no particular aversion to gay people, and I don’t think they’re going to hell.

Now, to respond, there are a few minor things I take issue with in the letter, none of which invalidate the points he is making:

1. The claim that the American Psychiatric Association is a provider of “sound medical advice”. From what I can tell, it’s an organization that has its ideas grounded less in science than their own particular ideology, which they try to back up through selective science. That said, I’m not saying I’m a proponent of reparative therapy. It may indeed be ineffective and damaging. Just because I’m against the APA doesn’t mean I’m in favor of whatever they are against.

2. The author states “Homosexuality is not a ‘condition’ that can be ‘cured.’  My proof: I have yet to meet even one venerable grandfather with a fine posterity (or anyone else for that matter) who says he was once homosexual but was long ago cured…” The author may be 100% correct, but this still seems like a rather bold statement to make based on purely anecdotal evidence. It also seems like a rather illogical conclusion to draw from his experience, since it would seem that anyone who is a grandfather today and having grown up in society as it was, would be extremely hesitant to admit to having had homosexual tendencies. That is, there could be many people with the experience of having had homosexual urges 60 years ago who have been “cured”, but what are the chances the author would have run into them, and that they would confide this matter to him?

Other than that, I tend to agree with the author’s viewpoint. It may be a good thing for someone in authority to issue statements such as those suggested by the author. It may be good to pull the pamphlet “To the One” from circulation. It would certainly be good for members to withhold judgment and condemnation. Most of all, I agree that it is a difficult issue, and I think we don’t have many answers. At least I certainly don’t. Perhaps I’ll comment more on this topic later, but I have to run off to something and don’t want to leave it unpublished…feel free to ask more specific questions of me if you’ve got them.

Joshua,

How is it possible for you to support your church with it going against its own scripture? “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members as citizens, denied.” (D&C 134:9)

United Church of Christ
The resolution “In support of equal marriage rights for all”, supported by an estimated 80% of the 884 General Synod Delegates, made the United Church of Christ General Synod the first major Christian deliberative body in the U.S. to make a statement of support for “equal marriage rights” for all people, regardless of gender.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ The Unitarian Church also supports gay marriage.

The Mormon Church spearheading Prop 8 in Californian has denied equal rights of a minority. The LDS Churches position toward gays is totally at odds with mainstream psychology. See the American Psychological Association statements:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/marriage.pdf

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf

Answer:

The church is going against it’s own scripture or teaching. In this case it all depends on what you mean by the words “equal rights”. The way I see it, gays have the same rights I do in that a gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as I do. I have every much right to marry a man as he does. That’s equality. We both have the exact same rights. Now, if you change it to say “But no Josh, you have the right to marry whomever you want to because you only like women, and a gay man doesn’t,” that doesn’t change anything. If I were in love with a man, I wouldn’t be able to marry a man. Yes, I was able to marry the person I love, but only because I chose to love someone whom I could legally marry. If I made the choice to love a man, I would be restricted just as a gay man would be, or in other words, we are on equal footing when it comes to the law. The difference is not how the law applies to a gay man vs. how it applies to me, it is that the gay man who wants to marry his partner has made a choice to be in love with someone whom he can’t legally marry.

In fact, the church’s stance is completely in line with the scripture you quoted, because it is our fear, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate it, that if gay marriage were legalized it would lead to lead to a denial of the rights of LDS Church members. For example, once gay marriage is legalized, it’s just one more step to say that speaking out against gay marriage is a form of legal discrimination. If I were to say on this blog that I think gay marriage is wrong, and a gay man applies for a job with my company and is turned down, he could sue me for illegal discrimination and he would stand a better chance of winning with a gay marriage law on the books. A member of the LDS Church who teaches in a lesson that gay marriage is wrong could be sued for hate speech. Don’t tell me it would never happen, it already has in other countries where gay marriage is legal. This would impinge on the free speech rights of church members, not to mention religious rights. In fighting against the gay marriage movement, the LDS Church is trying to protect the rights of its members, rather than remove a right from someone else (which we don’t believe they have in the first place).

As for the APA, they are, in fact, going against their own “scripture”, inasmuch as they used to officially define homosexuality as a mental disorder.

How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7″ x 8″ by about 6″. See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.)

I’d love to give my own answer to this, but it’s already been answered by others. Here is a link to the standard LDS response about the weight of the plates, but then I stumbled onto MormonThink.com’s explanation, read the interview with the author, and now I find it more interesting to respond to that page because it brings up an entirely new question the anti-Mormons generally don’t get to because they’re intent on repeating the “they weighed 230 lbs!” bit. The question MormonThink.com brings up is “Ok, so they were 50 lbs instead of 230 lbs, could Joseph Smith have run 3 miles with 50 lbs of golden plates?” and concludes that it’s impossible.

Based on the account, I find MormonThink.com’s answer to be assuming a lot. Here is the account:

“The plates were secreted about three miles from home…Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home.”

After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods. Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun. Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed. About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time. In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath. As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house.” (Lucy Mack Smith, mother of Joseph Smith, in Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1853, pp. 104-105; Comp. reprinted edition by Bookcraft Publishers in 1956 under the title History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, pp. 107- 108)

MormonThink.com then asks “How could any man, especially a man that had a slight limp run with a 50 pound weight and avoid capture by three assailants?”

That question doesn’t give me too much pause. Perhaps they weren’t very good runners. Perhaps they also had limps. Perhaps Joseph didn’t have to run full-out for three miles, but was able to stop and rest periodically. Perhaps they couldn’t see well in the dark. Perhaps they were drunk. Perhaps the Lord aided Joseph. The point is, it’s not hard to come up with several reasonable explanations of how Joseph could have avoided capture by these three assailants, despite his own physical limitations and the weight of the plates. Unlikely? Perhaps, but impossible? Hardly.

MormonThink.com’s conclusion seems to be based on the idea that Joseph was running from three men at once, all three of whom were in full possession of their faculties, in broad daylight, through open terrain. Even in those most unfavorable of circumstances you can just say “Well, the Lord must have helped him” and the argument ends right there. Although Joseph makes no such claim, he could have been assisted without even knowing it.

Still, MormonThink at least takes the question a step further than most. I’ll have to peruse his site a bit more when I have a moment.

Note: This is a work in progress and is not complete. It took me two days to answer just those questions I’m able to answer off the top of my head without doing much or any research. Many of these questions deserve to be answered more definitively, which will require a bit of time, and I don’t anticipate finishing for several months if not years. In that sense, I guess the person who posted these is right, these are difficult questions to answer. Not that they’re unanswerable, but in that there sure are a lot of them, and the answers are for many are going to be lengthy and perhaps complicated, just as the answer to the fairly simple question “What was WWII all about?” would be lengthy and complicated.

Here are the questions and my answers thus far:

General Questions

1. Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself! Answer: Whoa feller, one question at a time! a. No, the plates don’t belong with man, they belong wherever God wants them. b. No, their existence would not prove once and for all that Mormonism is truth anymore than the existence of the Bible has convinced everyone to become a Christian. c. If God’s only goal were to get everyone to convert to Christianity, then why doesn’t he have angels flying overhead day and night working miracles so that no one could doubt? Because this life is a test to see what we’ll do when given our freedom to choose, and if we’re convinced of the truth then we’re not really free. The only way for us to be free is for their to be doubt. That way, we prove who we really are and what we really want every day of our lives with every choice we make. With that in mind, it makes sense that the plates are not available, otherwise their existence might do more harm than good.
2. “Will you, as a Mormon, please read the Bible cover to cover and ask God to reveal to you that it contains all of God’s message to man and that parts are not lost or altered and that the Book of Mormon is false?” – Answer: It seems illogical to ask God to tell me something is true as opposed to asking him whether or not something is true. I have read the Bible cover to cover as well as the Book of Mormon and have prayed to know for myself what is true and what God’s will is concerning me, and suffice it to say, I got my answer and I’m a Mormon.
3. If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions? Answer >>
4. How can we be assured that the translation of the B of M into French or any other language is correct? Only the English translation is claimed to be inspired! Answer: Other language translations of the Book of Mormons aren’t necessarily and probably aren’t as correct as the English translation. That’s why the LDS Church has sometimes commissioned the Book of Mormon to be re-translated into certain languages, since the original translation from English to the language in question was lacking.
5. How do you account for the stunning parallels in both content and order between the B of M and the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? Published in 1823 (7 years before the B of M) less than 100 miles from the Joseph Smith’s parents home. Answer: If the parallels are so “stunning” then why would the LDS Church itself be the first entity to republish “View of the Hebrews” since 1825? Answer >>
6. Mormon Article of Faith #8: “We Believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Why do you only add the phrase, “as far as it is translated correctly” to describe the Bible and not after the book of Mormon when in fact there are far more translating errors in the Book of Mormon than the Bible? Answer: Since nobody has the original source materials for the Bible or the Book of Mormon, there’s no way such a claim as “there are far more translating errors in the Book of Mormon than the Bible” can be independently verified. But the simple answer is that the Book of Mormon was translated from the original source into English by a prophet of God, through the power of God, and the Bible was translated, copied, and modified who knows how many times by who knows who. We do not know what happened in between Luke or Matthew writing what they wrote and it ending up in the Bible we have today, and having no guarantee that the manuscripts were not tampered with or translated incorrectly we must allow for the notion that parts of the Bible are different from what they were when the original texts were written by the prophets and apostles.
7. If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.) Answer: Repeat of question #3 above, therefore, here is the repeat Answer >>
8. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7″ x 8″ by about 6″. See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.) Answer >>
9. If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)
10. Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).
11. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days or for three hours? (Luke 23:44 and 3 Nephi 8:19, 23). Answers: In the area of Jerusalem it was for three hours, according to the Bible account, and in the area of the Book of Mormon writers it was for three days.
12. Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to Heaven? (The Young Woman’s Journal, Vol. 3, pages 263-264. See repreint in Mormonism –Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, page 4.)
13. Joseph Smith prepared fourteen Articles of Faith. Why has the original No. 11 been omitted? (Joseph Smith Begins His Work, Vol. 2, three pages after page 160, among the photos.)
14. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).
15. How can a man who is not a descendant of Aaron hold the Aaronic Priesthood? (Numbers 16:40; Heb. 7:13,14).
16. Since Mormonism teaches that only God the Father had a physical body at the time Adam was created, why did God say, “Let us make man in OUR image”? Why didn’t He say, “Let us make man in MY image?” (Gen. 1:26). Answer: Mormons believe everyone has a spirit body and a physical body, and that our spirit bodies have more or less the appearance of our physical bodies. So while Christ didn’t have a physical body, he and everyone else had a spirit body that would have had an “image”.
17. If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50).
18. How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon’s while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17). – Answer: The scripture itself says that Nephi’s temple was built “after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things.” It doesn’t say it was identical in every way, and the differences likely account for the ability of Nephi to build the temple with fewer men.
19. Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324).
20. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies?
21. How do you explain the fact that 2 Nephi 16:2 is copied from an older version of the KJV of the Bible in Isa 6:2? This is proven because this older KJV (the mistake is corrected in current versions) made a rare gramatical error by using the incorrect plural form of “seraphims” rather than “seraphim”.

Book of Mormon Culture

1. Why does the Book of Mormon mention Silk (Alma 1:29)? LDS Apologist John Welch cites several New World fabrics as possible matches for Linen and Silk (Reexploring the Book of Mormon, pg. 162). Agave fibers and fig bark for Linen? Ceiba fibers, pineapple fibers and rabbit hair for Silk? Welch concludes with the staggering claim ‘Mesoamerica evidently exhibits almost an embarrassment of riches for the “silk” and “linen” of Alma 1:29. All but the most trivializing critics should be satisfied with the parallels.’ (pg. 164) My response to Welch: You’ll have to forgive my trivializing nature but rabbit hair doesn’t equal silk in my book.
2. What about Chariots (Alma 18:9)? There is no evidence of actual wheeled vehicle usage in the 2,000 BC to 400 AD time frame in Ancient America.
3. Why does the Book of Mormon imply a seven day week (Mosiah 13:18) when it was not known to Ancient Americans? The Mesoamericans used a variety of calendars, none of which match the Old World calendar. The Maya seemed to be oversupplied in the calendar department. One calendar consisted of a 260-day cycle divided into 13 ‘months’ of twenty days. (This calendar was used by most of the ancient Mesoamericans). Each day was presided over by it’s own god. Another consists of a 365-day cycle, also divided into ‘months’ of twenty days, eighteen of them in fact. The five leftover days were called the ‘resting, or sleep of the year’. Another consists of a 3276-day cycle divided into four quadrants of 819 days (the product of 7*9*13, all sacred numbers to the Maya). And then, of course, there was the so-called ‘long count’ calendar, which simply counted days from the creation of the world (August 11, 3114 BC, if anyone wants to know). (Linda Schele, ‘A Forest of Kings’, pg. 78). Answer: Recent evidence and study seems to suggest that the Book of Mormon people (meaning Nephites and Lamanites, not the Jaredites) were a relatively small civilization among many in the Americas. It’s easily possible that whatever calendar system they used was not used by those civilizations around them, and that use of the system died out after the Nephites were destroyed.
4. Why are Cimeters, an Old-World weapon of war, mentioned in Mosiah 9:16 and other verses when none have been found to exist in the New World? John Sorenson cites a Mesoamerican ‘maccuahuitl’ for a Cimiter (An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, pg. 262). The Maccuahuitl was a hardwood club with obsidian blades. A Cimiter is a heavy, two-handed steel blade. What’s wrong with this picture? Answer: “Cimiter” is the word Joseph Smith used in translation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was describing a sword-like object such as what we generally think of when we hear the word “cimiter”. Let’s supposed the word he was translating was actually “maccuahuitl” but he didn’t know what that meant? Maybe God even shows him what it looks like, but he still doesn’t know what to call it, so he thinks “Well, it’s not a sword but it’s used sort of like a sword so let’s call it a cimeter.” Of course I’m speculating here, but the point is without knowing exactly why that word was used it’s not hard to think of potential reasons.
5. Why have some (like Elder Peterson and Elder Brewerton) used the Quetzalcoatl legend to “prove” the Book of Mormon’s Christ when the Quetzalcoatl (or feathered serpent) legend dates to 1,000 years before the Book of Mormon’s Christ? Answer: Elders Peterson and Brewerton haven’t tried to “prove” anything with the Quetzalcoatl legend. They may have found it interesting and seemingly beyond coincidence, but Mormons don’t rely on anthropological evidence as proof of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I imagine the thinking being like this “Hey, this Quetzalcoatl legend sounds a lot like it could have originated with the Book of Mormon people, doesn’t it? Maybe it did…” Someone might go out on a limb and make the claim that it’s absolute proof, but if they did based on nothing more than the fact that the two stories sound similar then they’re taking a bit of a risk.
6. When the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these people not mentioned? The Book of Mormon seems to indicate that the continent was empty at the time. 2 Nephi 1:8 One wonders if ‘knowledge’ of the land had been kept from the natives who had already been there for thousands of years? Answer: I’ve traveled to remote areas in Guatemala and Mexico, and have seen firsthand how it’s easily possible due to the geography that large civilazations, yes, even of millions of people, could exist for hundreds of years within a few hundred miles of each other and never know the other existed.
7. Why didn’t Nephi compare and contrast the New World with Jerusalem? These were two vastly different places. Answer: Maybe he did in a different book that we don’t have. Remember, the Book of Mormon is an account focusing on religious matters rather than the scientific.

Book of Mormon Metallurgy

1. Why does the Book of Mormon mention Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11), Brass (2 Nephi 5:15), Breast Plates & Copper (Mosiah 8:10), Iron (Jarom 1:8), Gold and Silver currency (Alma 11), Silver (Jarom 1:8), and Steel Swords (Ether 7:9)? No evidence indicates that these items existed during Book of Mormon times. Tom Ferguson: “Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D.”
2. Why doesn’t the art (which is abundant) of the supposed Book of Mormon cultures portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity? Answer: The answer may be contained in your question where you refer to the “supposed Book of Mormon cultures”. While there is some level of opinionated consensus that the Jaredite civilization in the Book of Mormon corresponds in many ways with our modern-day archeological discoveries about the Olmec civiliation, we don’t know which archeological discoveries correspond to the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations.

Book of Mormon Animals

1. Why does the Book of Mormon mention the following animals: Ass, Bull, Calf, Cattle, Cow, domestic Goat (the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat!), Horse (the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies), Ox, domestic Sheep, Sow, Swine, & Elephants (contrary to the dated information on this site, non-LDS indicate that there is no evidence of elephants in the New World and the mammoth and mastodon of North America have been extinct for thousands years–see Stan Larson’s “Quest for the Gold Plates” pages 184-188? None of these animals even existed in America during the era and timescale of Book of Mormon times.
2. Why aren’t animals such as Coatimundis, Deer, Jaguars, Tapir, Monkeys, Sloths, Turkeys, etc.. mentioned when they were animals that existed? They were unknown to Joseph Smith, but later discovered to have lived here at the time the Nephites were supposed to have co-existed with them. Answer: The animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon are those that were useful (i.e. able to be domesticated), and even a cursory reading of the passages that refer to animals will make it obvious that the authors of the Book of Mormon were not intending to create a comprehensive list of every animal they knew of.

Book of Mormon Crops

1. Why is plow agriculture such as Barley (Alma 11:7) and Wheat (Mosiah 9:9) included in the Book of Mormon when it didn’t exist during that time period? “There’s a whole system of production of wheat and barley…It’s a specialized production of food. You have to know something to make flax [the source of linen], and especially in tropical climates. Grapes and olives…all these are cultures that are highly developed and amount to systems, and so the Book of Mormon is saying that these systems existed here.” (BYU anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny, August 25, 1984 Sunstone conference in Salt Lake City). Welch claims barley existed in the Book of Mormon based on one find in Phoenix, Arizona! Arizona is hardly the setting of the Book of Mormon. Answer: No, Welch does not claim barley existed in the Book of Mormon based on one find in Phoenix, AZ. He makes the claim that it’s in no way impossible that the Book of Mormon is accurate when it mentions barley, seeing as how there is evidence of it in Arizona from pre-historic times. Also, it’s purely speculative to say that plow agriculture didn’t exist during the time period of the Book of Mormon. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Europeans thought all swans were white until they found black swans in Australia.
2. Why aren’t the foods known to ancient America such as chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, manioc, etc. included in the Book of Mormon? Answer: Those foods are known to certain civilizations in pre-historic America. We have no idea whether or not they were known to the Book of Mormon people. And if they were, that doesn’t mean they would have been mentioned in the Book of Mormon, since no Book of Mormon author attempts to make a comprehensive list of all the foods known to the Book of Mormon people.

Book of Mormon Geography

1. Why isn’t the terrain of Central America described? Answer: The Book of Mormon is a religious book, not a book focused on geography. You might as well ask why the Bible doesn’t specify what the weather was like on each day of Christ’s ministry–answer: that’s not the purpose of the Bible, but just because the Bible doesn’t talk much about weather doesn’t mean there was no weather.
2. Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the “narrow neck of land”? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don’t have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found. Answer: No city has yet been conclusively identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, or Jaredite in origin. There are many archeological sites that fit the Book of Mormon narrative, but the Book of Mormon is lacking in the geographical details necessary to pin down exact locations. It is easily possible that many of the cities in the Book of Mormon have been found and excavated and we simply don’t know they are those cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I might add that having traveled in Guatemala and Mexico to many archeological sites, there is a LOT of archeological research that has yet to be done and it will not be done within the next 100 years. There are literally thousands of large archeological sites that haven’t even begun to be excavated.
3. Why didn’t any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived? Answer: Many of the place names used by the Indians when Columbus arrived do not exist today. Does that mean the Indians didn’t exist?
4. Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn’t it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains? Answer: Most likely in Central America. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of archeological sites in Central America that are known but have not been excavated, so even supposing that the Hill Cumorah was one of them, it could sit for another 100 years before someone starts excavating it. Also, the Hill Cumorah likely isn’t something that would be recognized as an archeological site. It’s just a hill, and there are a lot of hills in Central America. Maybe it has been found, but the “Welcome to the Hill Cumorah – Enjoy Your Stay” sign the Nephites left in 400 A.D. got blown down in 1356 A.D. so nobody knows it’s the Hill Cumorah.
5. Why don’t gaps exist in the archeological record of Mesoamerica if these missing people existed? Answer: And it’s not as though there were only one civilization in Mesoamerica at a time. There could have been 10 civilizations on the Yucatan Penninsula at one time, so how hard would it be to miss an 11th?
6. Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which JS identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: “. . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph…who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains.” (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
7. Why don’t any archeologists theorize any Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?

Book of Mormon Script

1. Why are Greek names such as Lachoneus, Timothy, Jonas, and Alpha & Omega in a book that should have absolutely no Greek influence?
2. Why aren’t there other examples of “Reformed Egyptian” in Ancient America? Answer: Reformed Egyptian was used by a relatively small, perhaps extremely small, portion of the people who lived in Ancient America. And those people who did use it were wiped out by their enemies, who had a documented intent of wanting to destroy the records of those they wiped out. If the language didn’t somehow get spread to other civilizations in Ancient America then that’s no wonder–it would be surprising if it had.
3. Why doesn’t a linguistical relationship exist between any native American language and ancient Egyptian or Hebrew? Answer: Boy, a lot of these questions have the same answer(s); 1) The Book of Mormon people were likely one civilization among many, and 2) we haven’t necessarily discovered every native American language yet.
4. How did the Book of Mormon language evolve so rapidly into non-related Indian languages? Indo-European is much older than the Book of Mormon time period, yet vestiges of Indo-European exist through all of Europe and parts of Asia.
5. Why are only four main types of Mesoamerican writing systems known (and none in pre-Columbus North America): (Aztec, Mixtec, Zapotec, and Maya)? Answer: I’m going to go out on a limb and say I’d have to guess that only four are known because that’s all they’ve discovered. But I’ll bet you a Coke that when they discover a fifth they’ll up that number to five.
6. Why can’t the Anthon transcript (which contains copies of the supposed Reformed Egyptian characters) be identified with any forms of Egyptian? The only three Egyptologists that have looked at it say it does not contain any Egyptian (Ferguson Collection, BYU)
7. If the Book of Mormon took place outside of Mesoamerica (like in New York where the Hill Cumorah supposedly is), why are written languages of ancient America only found in Mesoamerica? Answer: The Hill Cumorah probably wasn’t in New York. It was most likely in Mesoamerica.
8. Why haven’t any of the Book of Mormon proper names such as Nephi, Laman, Zarahemla, etc. been found in all of the many writings that have been found in Mesoamerica? Answer: Seriously, I’m going to start copying and pasting my answers. To answer; 1) The Book of Mormon people were likely one civilization among many, 2) we haven’t discovered every native American language yet, 3) there are a lot more writings we haven’t discovered than what we have discovered, and 4) most writings from Mesoamerican circa 600 BC – 400 AD have probably been destroyed.

Book of Mormon Races

1. If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).
2. Why aren’t any of the Indian tribes racially or genetically the same as Hebrews? American Indians are all of Mongoloid origin. Answer: The Book of Mormon people were likely one civilization among many. I’m also not aware of any evidence that all native Americans are of Mongoloid origin.
3. Why did Joseph Smith send missionaries to the “Lamanites” if the American Indians at the time weren’t really “Lamanites”? (D&C 10:48, 28:8, 54:8, etc.) He certainly considered the Indians to be Lamanites (even if the current leaders of the church no longer believe them to be so). ‘ The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.’ (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17). ‘He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.’ (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). (Note – this was one of Smith’s ‘founding visions’. Apparently, Moroni was not aware that there were other, non-Semitic natives in America either).

Book of Mormon Witnesses

1. Why were the witnesses only allowed to see the plates with “spiritual eyes”?
2. If the plates were real, why would it take faith to see them? (D&C17:2) (How could he have translated without the plates, as his scribes said, if he was doing a literal translation of a physical object?)
3. Why does the church now extol the witnesses when Joseph Smith condemned them? Answer: Because despite some of them leaving the church and in some cases working against the church, they never disavowed that they had seen the plates. If anything, this makes their witness statements stronger.
4. Why would most of them leave the church? Answer: Those that did each had their own reasons. To catalogue them here would be to write a book, which I don’t have the time to do and somebody else had probably already done.
5. Why did Brigham Young say that the 3 witnesses doubted and disbelieved in their experience? “Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” (JOD 7:164 1859). Answer: He said it because it was true. Some of them did doubt what they had seen.
6. Why were all of the witnesses (except Martin Harris) related to Joseph Smith or David Whitmer? Answer: Geneaology, mostly.

Book of Mormon Style and Inconsistencies

1. If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary? Answer: There are a few answers; 1) because the people writing down what Joseph said made mistakes and didn’t write down exactly what Joseph said, 2) there was no official “English” language back then as we know it today, so you could spell things however you wanted to and be fairly liberal with grammar, so some of these spelling and grammatical issues have been cleared up to conform to modern “correct” English, 3) some errors were made in the original printings of the Book of Mormon by typesetters. There may be some other reasons, but nothing too sneaky.
2. Why do the stories and the characters in the Book of Mormon repeat with only minor variations in content and different names given to the characters? Example: Nephi and Moroni sound and act like the same character. “There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators…they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America.” (B. H. Roberts – Studies of the Book of Mormon, page 271).
3. Why was the Book of Mormon cast into the KJV style? “…there is a continual use of the ‘thee’, ‘thou’ and ‘ye’, as well as the archaic verb endings ‘est’ (second person singular) and ‘eth’ (third person singular). Since the Elizabethan style was not Joseph’s natural idiom, he continually slipped out of this King James pattern and repeatedly confused the norms as well. Thus he lapsed from ‘ye’ (subject) to ‘you’ (object) as the subject of sentences (e.g. ‘Mos. 2:19; 3:34; 4:24), jumped from plural (‘ye’) to singular (‘thou’) in the same sentence (Mos. 4:22) and moved from verbs without endings to ones with endings (e.g. ‘yields…putteth,’ 3:19).” (The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon, by Wesley P. Walters, 1990, page 30). Answer: Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English…that is, the English of his time and the English he knew from the Bible. If you were translating a Bible written in Spanish into English you’d likely do similar things.
4. Was there a room full of plates in a secret chamber in the hill near Joseph’s house as he and Brigham Young said?
5. Why were cliched Indian phrases like “Nine Moons” in (Omni 1:21) or “Great Spirit” in (Alma 19:25-27) included?
6. How did the Jaredites come up with the same rare idea of writing on plates 2,000 years before Lehi when such a record keeping system is virtually unknown?
7. Why include the ridiculous prayer of the Zoramites in Alma 31? Answer: It shows the nature of the religion the Zoramites practiced and how far they had apostatized from the true church.
8. Why is the Passover mentioned 71 times in the Bible, but -0- times in the Book of Mormon?
9. How did Book of Mormon characters get the priesthood when they weren’t from the tribe of Levi?
10. Why was Shakespeare used?
11. What was the purpose in Moroni taking the plates back? Similarly, what ever happened to the parchment written by John of the New Testament? (D&C 7) Why weren’t the supposed writings of Abraham (which were actually common A.D. funerary texts) also taken similarly back? Answer: Who are we to question God’s ways? “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” – Isaiah 55:8
12. Why did Joseph’s own accounts confuse whether he was visited by Moroni or Nephi. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi.” (J. Smith – Times & Seasons Vol. 3, p. 753 1842) also (J. Smith 1851 PoGP p. 41).

Prophecies in the Book of Mormon

1. Why are the prophecies in the Book of Mormon dealing with events that already occurred unrealistically specific? Answer: If you’re an atheist I can see how you might say that, but if you believe in God are you saying that God is incapable of delivering a detailed and specific prophecy?
   • Three Witnesses.
   • Charles Anthon story.
   • Columbus described.
   • Joseph Smith’s name given.
   • Smith called to be the translator of the Mormon record.
   • Jerusalem destroyed.
   • 600 years until Jesus is born.
   • Martin Harris and the lost manuscripts. (1 Nephi 9, Words of Mormon)
2. Why do the unfulfilled prophecies in the Book of Mormon remain unfulfilled? Example: Jews becoming Christian in mass. Answer: Because they haven’t been fulfilled yet.
3. Why is the Book of Mormon quite specific about Christ but does not add anything that the New Testament does not address (for example, what Christ did from age 12 – 30)? Answer: Because the Book of Mormon is focused on spiritual matters, and most of what Christ did in terms of his spiritual mission he did during his ministry, from age 30-33.
4. Why does the Book of Mormon prophesy that the Jews would be restored to the land of their inheritance if they believed in Christ (they are occupying it now w/o believing in Christ)? (2 Nephi 10:7)
5. Why did Alma not know when Christ was coming (Alma 13:21-26) even though he possessed plates and Lehi and Nephi had written precisely when he would arrive?

Influenced by Joseph Smith’s background

1. Why are themes of the revolutionary war and patriotism (liberty, freedom, country, religion, flags, etc.) woven throughout a book supposedly written over a thousand years before the revolutionary war? Answer: Perhaps those themes are common to the human experience. Has nobody ever desired liberty and freedom prior to the Revolutionary War? Was Betsy Ross the first person to ever sew a flag? Did people not fight for their countries and their religions prior to 1776?
2. Why is an agrarian society similar to the society Joseph was most familiar with described as the setting for the entire book? Question: What other type of society could have evolved given the circumstances?
3. Why is a democracy after a monarchy described? (Mosiah 23, 29) – As happened in the history of the U.S. Answer: Because that’s what happened. Also, it wasn’t quite a “democracy”. There’s very little similarity between the “democracy” in the Book of Mormon and the government of the United States.
4. Is it purely coincidental that there was much speculation in Joseph Smith’s area about Indian Mounds and battles? Answer: Maybe?
5. Why does the Book of Mormon describe wood forts with pickets to protect people–much like the forts of frontier? Answer: I’d be surprised if the idea of using walls made of trees sharpened to points on top were unique to the American frontier. It seems like a fairly simple idea for anyone living in an area with a decent number of trees.
6. Is it purely coincidental that Lehi had six sons as did Joseph Smith Sr., Sam/Samuel were sons of both, and Nephi and Joseph Smith Jr. were so similar? Answer: If Joseph had made up the Book of Mormon, wouldn’t he have tried to stay away from such obvious coincidences that might call into question the veracity of the book? If he were clever enough to write the rest of it, I’m sure he would have been clever enough to not create such similarities between his own life and that of the characters in the book.
7. Why did Mormon, Nephi and other “heroes” of the Book of Mormon have so many common traits with Joseph Smith? (large in stature, had visions while a teenager, etc. — see “The Refiner’s Fire” by John Brooke for many more similarities) Answer: There are also a lot of similarities between Joseph Smith and the “heroes” of the Bible. Joseph saw a light and was a great orator like Paul. He was chosen in his youth like David, or Samuel. He was persecuted like almost all the prophets and apostles. He was killed like Christ was. A book could probably be written about many more similarities, but that doesn’t mean Joseph wrote the Bible.
8. Why does the Book of Mormon repeatedly addresses 19th century readers? Answer: It primarily addresses modern-day readers as opposed to 19th century readers, that is, readers from any time during or after that of Joseph Smith. That’s who the book was written for. The prophets in the Book of Mormon said that they had been shown our day in vision. They knew what would happen, they knew the situations we faced. They knew the importance of the Book of Mormon in our day, so of course they address us directly. Why wouldn’t they?
9. Why is the anti-Masonic excitement that arose near Smith’s home in 1827 reflected? (Gadianton Robbers / Secret Combos) Answer: You make an assumption in saying that it is a reflection. “Secret combinations” of the type mentioned in the Book of Mormon exist in virtually every society around the world. It would have been difficult for Joseph Smith to live in a society in which there wasn’t something going on that could be compared to the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon.
10. Why is infant baptism (a much discussed issue in the early 19th century) condemned in Chapter 8 of Moroni when it wasn’t even an issue in the Bible? Answer: Infant baptism was an issue for the people of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps it never was for the people of the Bible. Or perhaps it was, but any writings about it were either lost before the Bible was compiled, or purposely left out.

Influenced by the KJV of the Bible

1. Why does the B of M use old KJV type English at a time when it was not currently used. Answer: The Book of Mormon does not use old KJV type English. The Book of Mormon was written in the language of the people of the Book of Mormon, and was translated into Joseph Smith’s language. Joseph Smith, in translating scripture, felt that it should be translated into the language of the scriptures, that is, old KJV type English.
2. Why is about 1/8th of the B of M copied directly from the KJV (1611AD) when it was alleged to have been written some 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed?
3. How do you explain the fact that Joseph Smith copied from the KJV but deleted the italicized words in the KJV because he figured they were not in the original? “Then said I, Woe is me! For I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips” Isa 6:5, The words “is & am” are deleted in the Book of Mormon.
4. Why are portions of Isaiah quoted off of the plates of brass when these items weren’t written until after Nephi supposedly got the plates out of Laban’s treasury? Answer: Isaiah preached between 800-700 BC. Nephi got the plates from Laban’s treasury around 600 BC. Obviously the book of Isaiah had been written down prior to 600 BC, unless you believe it was passed down orally for well over 100 years before it was written.
5. Why was Paul referred to before his time? (Paul said, “Death where is thy sting”) Answer: You make an assumption in tying this to Paul.
6. Why is it that of the 350 names in the Book of Mormon, 100 are found in the Bible, others are place names found on early 19th century maps, and the rest are derivatives of Bible names?
7. Why didn’t Joseph Smith ever acknowledge using the KJV of the Bible to “translate”?
8. Why were the following phrases used out of the New Testament supposedly before the New Testament was even thought of–much less written?
   • “oh wretched man that I am” Romans 7:24 / 2 Nephi 4:17
   • “earthquake, rocks rent” Matt 27:51 / 1 Nephi 12:14
   • “old serpent, which is the devil” Rev 20:2 / 2 Nephi 2:18
   • “one faith, one baptism” Ephesians 4:5 / Mosiah 18:21
   • “One man perish” Jesus/Laban / John 11:50 / 1 Nephi 4:13
9. Why is a Greek word like “Christ” used throughout the Book of Mormon? Answer: The word “Christ” was not used throughout the Book of Mormon. A word that means “Christ” was used throughout the Book of Mormon, which of course became the word “Christ” when the Book of Mormon was translated into English.
10. Why does the Book of Mormon always follow KJV errors?
11. Why don’t the Book of Mormon quotes from out of the Old Testament agree to earlier Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or Patristic texts? Example: Matthew 5:27 and 3 Nephi 12:27 “by them of old time” not included in earliest Greek (should have said “to them of old”)
12. Matthew 6:4, 6, 18 and 3 Nephi :4, 6, 18 “openly” added later
13. Matt 6:13 and 3 Nephi 13:13 “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” should have said, “and do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one”.
14. Why does the phrase “the lamb of God” appear only in the New Testament portion of the Bible yet it appears in the Book of Mormon over 30 times–28 times in 1 Nephi alone?
15. Why do the words of Malachi 4:1 appear in 1 Nephi 22:15 over a hundred years before Malachi wrote them? Answer: Because Malachi was writing the words of God, not his own words. Or it could be that both Malachi and Nephi were quoting the same source.
16. Why do so many stories seem like exaggerated borrowings from the Bible? Examples:
    • Ammon killed six sheep rustlers with a sling (Alma 17:36) vs. David’s killing of Goliath. (1 Samuel 17:50) Answer: It seems like a rather tenuous argument to say that because someone in the Book of Mormon used a sling the story must have been lifted from the story of David in the Bible. In the New Testament Peter uses a sword, does that mean the story of Peter was merely copied from the Old Testament, since people in the Old Testament also used swords?
    • Pillar of Fire. (Exodus 13:21) vs. (1 Nephi 1:6) Answer: Why criticize the Book of Mormon for being consistent with the Bible as to the display of the power of God? It seems that differences would be better grounds for criticism than similarities.
    • Lord instructs Noah to build the Ark (Genesis 6:14) / Lord instructs Nephi to build ship (1 Nephi 17:8) / Lord instructs Jaredites to build barges (Ether 2:16) Answer: In the Old Testament Jacob goes to Egypt. In the New Testament Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Egypt. Does this mean the story of Jesus is made up?
    • Jaredites brought flocks, two of a kind, seeds. (Ether 2:1) vs. Noah doing the same in (Genesis 7:9) Answer: It seems pretty logical for the Jaradites to take the animals and plants they were familiar with seeing as how they were on a one-way trip to a land they were unfamiliar with.
    • Raising dead. (Matthew 10:8) vs. (3 Nephi 19:4) Answer: I find this about as coincidental as the two books mentioning that people prayed on both continents.
    • Temple of Solomon supposedly took 180,000 people seven and a half years to build (1 Kings 5, 6) / The few in number Nephites supposedly did it in less than 20 years after arriving (2 Nephi 5). Answer: Repeated question, see answer above.
    • Calming Storm (1 Nephi 18:8-21) vs. (Matthew 8:23-27).
    • Men in Fire (Helaman 5:22-24) vs. (Daniel 3).
    • Feeding Multitude (3 Nephi 20:3-7) out of nothing / In Bible, Christ multiplied existing food (Matthew 14).
    • Christ heals masses in Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 17:9) / in Bible Jesus healed as he encountered (Luke 9:42).
    • Multitude feels wounds in Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 11:13) / In Bible, Thomas felt wounds (John 20:27).
17. Book of Mormon prophecies of Christ specific / Bible prophecies veiled (actually non-existent unless scripture misquoted or “prophecies” stretched to have two meanings).
18. Book of Mormon Christ is completely accepted / In Bible he is rejected. Answer: He’s completely accepted by those people who are in the place he appears, which is one location among many, and appears to have been the center of the church at that time. Also bear in mind that scores of cities of the wicked were just destroyed prior to his visit, so those people weren’t around to reject him.
19. Aminadi deciphered writing on the wall (Alma 10:2-3) like Daniel (Daniel 5).
20. Daughter of Jared danced before the king (Ether like the daughter of Herodias (Matthew 14) (decapitation followed in both cases).
21. Daughters of Lamanites abducted like the daughters of Shiloh.
22. Jews of Old Testament were monotheists / Pre-Christ Jews of Book of Mormon were not. Answer: Actually, there’s evidence that ancient Israel was polytheistic, at least in a sense of the word. Also see
    The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark Smith. But this question is a bit misleading, in that it can give the idea that the Book of Mormon teaches that Pre-Christ Jews worshiped multiple gods. Such is not the teaching, nor is it the case with Mormons. We believe there are many gods, but that there is one God whom we worship. As Smith points out “Why do the Ten Commandments command that there should be no other gods ‘before Me’ (the Lord), if there are no other gods as claimed by other biblical texts?”

Influenced by happenings of early 19th century America

1. Why does the Book of Mormon confuse the Old and New Covenants? It stresses that before Christ, the faithful kept the Law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:23-25, 20; Alma 30:3), yet they also established churches, taught and practiced Christian baptism, and were conversant with New Testament doctrines and events (e.g. 2 Nephi 9:23; Mosiah 18:17). In the Bible, the Old Covenant is taken away to establish the New according to Paul and his followers (Heb. 10:9). The Book of Mormon intermingles the covenants. Paul was the man who first tried to reconcile the Old to the New convenant–not anyone during Old Testament times.
2. Why does the Book of Mormon discuss the concept of infinite sins paid by an infinite being? (Alma 12) This idea was originated by Anselm of Canterbury and was a raging debate during the time of Joseph Smith.
3. Why does the Book of Mormon’s teachings reflect the religious conflicts of the early 19th century including: grace, infant baptism, ordination, authority, repentance, resurrection, eternal punishment, fall of man, nature of man, fasting, etc.? Answer: Are these not also religious conflicts today? The Book of Mormon was written specifically for our time by ancient prophets who saw our day. It would fail in its purpose if it didn’t address the religious conflicts of our day.
4. Why were there missionaries in the Book of Mormon before Christ? That certainly wasn’t the case in the Old World. Answer: Just because missionaries aren’t mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. But perhaps they didn’t in that part of the world and one would assume that God had a reason for it. You might as well ask why there were missionaries after Christ and not before, as though this invalidates the Old Testament or the New.
5. Why is King Benjamin’s oratory like a 19th century camp meeting?
   • Revival gathering (Mosiah 2)
   • Guilt ridden falling exercise (4:1-2)
   • Petition for spiritual emancipation (4:2)
   • Absolution and ecstasy (4:3)
   • Repentance (4:4-8)
   • Born again (5:7)
   • Take name of Christ (5:8-15)
6. Why do other works early in Joseph Smith’s lifetime teach that the Indians were descended from the Hebrews?
7. Was “View of the Hebrews” one of the sources? B. H. Roberts (Studies of Book of Mormon pp.240,242) said, “But now to return…to the main theme of this writing — viz., did Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith’s story of the Book of Mormon’s origin . . .”
8. Was Josiah Priest’s book “The Wonders of Nature and Providence”, copyrighted by him June 2nd, 1824, and printed soon afterwards in Rochester, New York, only some twenty miles distant from Palmyra a source?
9. Was James Adair’s “A History of the American Indians” a source? On pages 377-378, he wrote the following about the Indians: “Through the whole continent, and in the remotest woods, are traces of their ancient warlike disposition. We frequently met with great mounds of earth, either of a circular, or oblong form, having a strong breast-work at a distance around them, made of the clay which had been dug up in forming the ditch on the inner side of the inclosed ground, and these were their forts of security against an enemy… About 12 miles from the upper northern parts of the Choktah country, there stand…two oblong mounds of earth…in an equal direction with each other… A broad deep ditch inclosed those two fortress, and there they raised an high breast-work, to secure their houses from the invading enemy.” In Alma it states, “Yea, he had been strengthening the armies of the Nephites, and erecting small forts, or places of resort: throwing up banks of earth round about to enclose his armies…the Nephites were taught…never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy… they had cast up dirtround to shield them from the arrows…the chief captains of the Lamanites were astonished exceedingly, because of the wisdom of the Nephites in preparing their places of security…they knew not that Moroni had fortified, or had built forts of security in all the land roundabout …the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security…because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up, and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about…they (the Lamanites) began to dig down their banks of earth…that they might have an equalchance to fight…instead of filling up their ditches by pulling down banks of earth, they were filled up in a measure with their dead…And (Moroni) caused them to erect fortifications that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch round about the land…And he caused that they should build a breastwork of timbers upon the inner bank of the ditch: and they did cast up dirt out of the ditch against the breastwork of timbers”.
10. Why are there other direct word parallels between Adair and the Book of Mormon such as Omni 1:21 and page 125 of Adair which says, “…for the space of four moons…” or page 122 which says “for the space of three days and nights…” and Alma 36:10.

Main themes of Mormonism not in Book of Mormon:

1. Why isn’t the Elohim (God) being the father of Jehovah (Jesus) and being once a mortal man discussed? (In fact, God and Jesus appear to be one in the same being in the Book of Mormon–especially in the first edition). Answer: The Book of Mormon does not claim to contain all truth, only enough of it. There are many doctrines not contained in it, nor even referenced in it.
2. What about God having a body of flesh and bones, God being married, men becoming Gods, temple participation necessary for exaltation, baptism for the dead, Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood, word of wisdom, and 3 degrees of glory? Answer: Same as previous answer.
3. Why is polygamy condemned in the Book of Mormon, but condoned in the D&C and still believed to be necessary in church doctrine for exaltation in the after-life? Answer: Polygamy is condemned in the Book of Mormon only when men do it of themselves as opposed to being commanded of God.
4. Where are such doctrines as a man having to marry in order to be exalted, member having to wear sacred undergarments, official doctrine being voted upon by the general membership, God being the offspring of another God, etc.?

Treasure Hunting and Magic

1. Why was Joseph Smith arrested for “money digging” and convicted of being a disorderly person? He admitted to being a money digger, though he said it was never very profitable for him (History of the Church, V. 3, p. 29). He and his father’s money digging continued until at least 1826. On March 20th, 1826, Joseph was arrested, brought before a judge, and charged with being a “glass-looker” and a disorderly person. The laws at that time had what was known as the “Vagrant Act.” It defined a disorderly person as one who pretended to have skill in the areas of palmistry, telling fortunes or discovering where lost goods might be found. According to court records Justice Neely determined that Joseph was guilty, though no penalty was administered, quite possibly because this was a first offense (Inventing Mormonism, Marquardt and Walters, SLC: Signature Books, 1994, pp.74-75). Answer: Joseph was a money digger. He had what was called a “seer-stone” which apparently allowed him to see things that were hidden. He was hired by various people to search for hidden treasure on their lands, but it never worked out, and Joseph in some cases tried to talk his employers out of it. Hence, his claim that it was never very profitable for him. There is extensive coverage of this time in Joseph’s life covered in the biography Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Lyman, which was probably written after this question was asked.
2. Why did Joseph Smith have to use a seer stone both before and after being called as a prophet? Answer: I assume the questioner is asking why Joseph had to use any “device” since it would seem that any power conferred by a device should be present in the person himself, seeing as how he was a prophet. If that is the background for the question, then I would answer that your question results from a misunderstanding of what the word “prophet” means. As a prophet Joseph did not suddenly have the power to do anything, nor did God make everything easy for him. If that were the case there would have been no need for the gold plates at all. God could have just told him what was on them without Joseph having to bother with digging them up and protecting them. One might as well ask why Joseph needed reading glasses to read after being called as a prophet (not that he did).
3. Why did the Book of Mormon have to be translated while he looked into the seer stone placed in a black top hat? D. Michael Quinn writes: “During this period from 1827 to 1830, Joseph Smith abandoned the company of his former money-digging associates, but continued to use for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously employed in the treasure quest. His most intensive and productive use of the seer stone was in the translation of the Book of Mormon. But he also dictated several revelations to his associates through the stone” (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, D. Michael Quinn, Signature Books, SLC, 1987, p. 143). Richard S. Van Wagoner writes: “This stone, still retained by the First Presidency of the LDS Church, was the vehicle through which the golden plates were discovered and the medium through which their interpretation came” (Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, Signature Books, SLC, 1994, p.57). Question: Is the question why he had to look into a seer stone, or why the stone had to be placed in a black top hat? Or is the question merely designed to make Mormons look like a bunch of silly monkeys for believing such hogwash? Either way, the answer I have is that I don’t know the reason, but it doesn’t bother me. All I care about is the results.
4. Why would a prophet need to send members to seek for treasure seen in a vision? See D&C 111. Why wasn’t any found when the revelation states they would?
5. Did the Jaredites magic stones have anything to do with Joseph’s acquaintance with magic stones? Answer: No.
6. Why does the Book of Mormon discuss “slippery treasure” so much? Answer: Because it was a common problem for the Book of Mormon people.

First Vision

1. Why do the accounts differ with respect to who was in the vision? See “The New Mormon History : Revisionist Essays on the Past ” for more on this.
2. Why doesn’t Jesus show up (separate from God) until after the God doctrine had evolved into a plurality of Gods? (i.e., after 1835)
3. Why don’t the early “prophets” even know the story accurately? “The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven…But he did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun…and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong” (B. Young – JOD Volume 2 p.171 1855).
4. “How did it (the organization) come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world…He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world.” (Wilford Woodruff – JOD Volume 11 p.196 1855).
5. “How did the state of things called Mormonism originate? We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in a vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view. He was surrounded with light and glory while the heavenly messenger communicated these things to him.” (John Taylor – JOD Volume 10 p.127 1863).
6. “When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong.” (George A. Smith – JOD Volume 12 p.334 1863).
7. Why doesn’t any published source mention the “official” first vision account until 1842–22 years after the “official” event supposedly happened?
8. Why doesn’t the 1st vision play an important role in Mormon history until the 1860s? No one seems to mention it before then even though it is now deemed by Mormons to be the most important event in almost 2,000 years.
9. Why isn’t there evidence to support the revival described by Joseph Smith in early 1820–yet there is evidence to support revivals several years later? Joseph Smith’s neighborhood experienced no revival in 1820 such as he described, in which great multitudes joined the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. According to early sources, including church conference reports, newspapers, church periodicals, presbytery records and published interviews, nothing occurred in 1820-21 that fits Joseph’s description. There were no significant gains in church membership in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area, during 1820-21 such as accompany great revivals. For example, in 1820, the Baptist Church in Palmyra only received 8 people through profession of faith and baptism, the Presbyterian church added 14 members, while the Methodist circuit lost 6 members, dropping from 677 in 1819 to 671 in 1820 and down to 622 in 1821 (see Geneva area Presbyterian Church Records, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA; Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY; Minutes of the [Methodist] annual Conference, Ontario Circuit, 1818-1821, pp. 312, 330, 346, 366).
10. Why does Lucy Smith (his mother) indicate that the revival occurred around 1824? Her son, Alvin died on November 19, 1823, and following that painful loss Lucy Smith reports that, “about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings” (First draft of Lucy Smith’s History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives). Church records from that time period show outstanding increases in membership due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist Church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. “You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our Brother J. Smith Jr’s, age that was an error in the type- it should have been the 17th…This would bring the date down to the year 1823.” (Oliver Cowdrey – Times & Seasons Vol. 2, p. 241 1840). For further details see, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.
11. Why does his first autobiography not even mention the “first vision”?
12. Why does Joseph Smith have Lehi make such a statement as 1 Nephi 8:2? Is he equating a dream to an actual, physical vision or visitation from God?

Ask away.