We left off last week with the notion that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding, who had died in 1816. Sidney Rigdon, so the story goes, stole the work from Spalding’s family and, for whatever reason, used it to set the young farmer Joseph Smith up as a prophet.

Though lacking any real historical support, this was the dominant non-Mormon theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon for more than a century. In recent decades, though, it’s fallen on hard times.

It didn’t help, probably, that, when Spalding’s lost manuscript was found, it was also found to bear no significant resemblance to the Book of Mormon.

Still, much like doomsday cultists when the date of their predicted apocalypse passes uneventfully, the Spalding faithful soon regained their balance: There was, they declared, a previously unknown and still unseen second manuscript that would, no doubt, prove to be the source of the Book of Mormon when and if it were ever actually discovered.

Few dispassionate observers doubt that, if such a second manuscript ever actually turned up and failed to fit their requirements, they would shortly be proclaiming the existence of a third hypothetical manuscript.

For this and many other reasons, few serious scholars, if any—whether believing Latter-day Saints or not—pay the Spalding theory much attention any more. Even the late Fawn Brodie, no friend of Joseph Smith or Mormonism, denied Solomon Spalding any role in the production of the Mormon “keystone” scripture.

Read the rest of the article >>

That is, let’s assume for the moment, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon is false, or let’s just forget that it exists. Let us assume that there is a God, that he spoke to a prophet in Jerusalem around 600 BC, that he commanded this prophet to leave Jerusalem with his family and travel in the wilderness, and that God guided this prophet, his family, and perhaps a few others, to some location in the Americas. Let’s assume that this small group survived and grew into a minor civilization that lasted for around 1,000 years. Let us assume that this group was visited by Jesus Christ soon after his resurrection. That this group at various times was divided amongst themselves and had civil wars and sometimes were largely wicked and sometimes largely righteous, and that at the end of 1,000 years one half wiped out the other half, and the half that weren’t wiped out were absorbed into other surrounding civilizations. Let’s assume that the righteous half kept records of their 1,000 year civilization, and that at the end it was all summarized into a 500 page book.

The question is, what would this book contain and why? What would it not contain and why not?

Now, I know some of you will think “Ok, how can I comment on this post in a way to discredit the Book of Mormon?” and then you’ll write “Well, it sure wouldn’t have X like in the Book of Mormon…” For the sake of science try to resist that. Just forget the Book of Mormon, empty your mind of anything related to it, and just try to answer with an open mind. To help you I’ll make a rule, which is that if you make any mention of or reference to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the LDS Church, etc. your comment will automatically be deleted.

Alrighty, comment away.

The problem is that when a Mormon meets a new anti-Mormon, and that anti-Mormon says the exact same things the last 10 anti-Mormons have said to that Mormon, the Mormon just rolls his eyes and says “Oh, not again…” You see, the Mormon has already been inoculated against most of the stuff you’ve got to say. Even if you think it’s something new that they haven’t heard, chances are you’re wrong, especially if you’re talking to a Mormon online on a website that focuses on debating points of Mormon doctrine or history.

Some examples of things that make you sound like just another anti-Mormon-bot repeating what every other anti-Mormon says are:

• There is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.
• DNA proves the Book of Mormon is false.
• The Bible proves that the Book of Mormon is false.
• Joseph Smith was married to young girls.
• The Bible proves Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.
• There were no horses or pigs in the Americas before the Spaniards but the Book of Mormon talks about them therefore the Book of Mormon is false.
• There was no metallurgy in America before the Spaniards but the Book of Mormon talks about it therefore the Book of Mormon is false.
• There is no geographical evidence for the Book of Mormon.
• What about those Kinderhook plates?

Any Mormon who has spent even a little time online has already heard these challenges to their faith 10, 20, or 100 times, and they’ve had plenty of time to look at websites like FAIRLDS.org, FAIRMormon.org, Jeff Lindsay’s site, or AskGramps.org where they find answers to all these and other challenges. So they’re ready and waiting for you, and when you bring up one of these points they already know what to say. And if they’re lazy, they’ll just send you to one of those sites and say “Do your own research, I’m tired of repeating myself” and then you get nowhere.

What’s the solution for the anti-Mormon who wants to get some traction? Find something new. Find something they haven’t heard of before. Otherwise you’re just treading the same ground many have walked on before you, and you’re just wasting your time.

Q: “I find it interesting that the day before he was killed that Joseph Smith drank wine and don’t Mormons have to be temple worthy to worship in the temple and one of the things that make them temple worthy is that they can’t drink alcohollic beverages? So wouldn’t that make Smith not be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom when he passed from this earth if he wasn’t temple worthy at the time of his death?”

A: The simple answer is that drinking wine wasn’t considered a violation of the Word of Wisdom at the time of Joseph’s death. As stated at FAIRMormon.org:

The text of the Word of Wisdom forbids “strong drink” (D&C 89:5, 7), which was initially interpreted as distilled beverages (hard liquor). Beer, unfermented or lightly fermented wine, and cider were considered “mild drinks” (D&C 89:17) and therefore acceptable (note that verse 17 specifically permits “barley…for mild drinks”). The complete prohibition of alcoholic drinks of any kind only became part of the Word of Wisdom following the temperance movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; Presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant supported the movement and Grant made complete abstention from alcohol in any form a requirement for a temple recommend in the early 1920s.

1. I truly wanted to know if the LDS Church was true.

2. I studied and prayed and followed the formula in Moroni 10:3-5 to get a testimony.

3. I didn’t receive an answer, therefore the LDS Church isn’t true.

This is often followed up with the statement “I’ve never had a spiritual experience that told me or led me to believe the LDS Church was true.”

In some cases people have expressed that they’ve never had any spiritual experience whatsoever, and therefore they are certain there is no God. Others say they’ve had spiritual experiences that lead them to believe in God and/or Jesus Christ, but not the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc.

I propose that these people have not received knowledge that the LDS Church is true because they do not want it to be true.

In bringing up this idea to those with whom I’ve discussed the matter, some are offended and angry. They tell me they did indeed want to know if the LDS Church was true, and they cried and pleaded with God to tell them, but they received no answer, and they cried when they realized it wasn’t true. I don’t intend to cast doubt on whether these people wanted to know if the Church was true, but this is different than wanting the Church to be true.

How do I know that, at least in some cases, these people did not want the Church to be true? Because; 1) they placed the burden of truth on the Church rather than on those sources against the Church, and 2) their behavior changed after they “discovered” the Church was “not true”.

If someone wants the Church to be true, they will fight to believe in it and will discount all evidence against it until there is something that provides absolute proof against it. There is no such proof against the LDS Church. Oh, I know people think they have proof, but they don’t. They have circumstantial evidence that depends on assumptions. The challenge detractors of the faith have is that the burden is on them to prove a negative. Those I’ve talked with have required far less than negative proof, which is what anyone who truly wants to believe the Church to be true would require. Instead, those I know who have left the Church have assumed the Church was false based on limited evidence and faulty assumptions.

With regards to behavior, if someone leaves the Church and immediately began a life of debauchery boozing it up, sleeping around, selling crack, spitting, cussing, and burning flags, growing a beard, betting on cock fights, etc., you would naturally and logically assume they were simply looking for a way out of the Church because what they really wanted was to participate in these types of activities. I don’t know anyone who has left the Church and gone on to participate in all those activities, but in some cases I have seen people participate in one or more of these activities, and do so in such a manner as to make one wonder. But I know of others who have left the Church and have continued to live very good, “Christian” lives. They might even work harder at being good than they did while a Mormon, which would seem to lay waste to the charge that they’re merely lazy.

In making the claim that one must want the Church to be true in order to discover if it is, I open myself to the criticism “Well of course if someone wants the Church to be true then they’re going to feel good about it.” Allow me to clarify what I mean, because I’m not necessarily saying someone has to want the LDS Church to be true, but that they want the doctrines to be true, or they simply want to know what the truth really is and they’re open to it being anything. I think the following story helps explain.

President Woodruff was ordained an apostle on April 26, 1839, and just a short time later left for Great Britain. The following is an anecdote from his service there:

“When I arose to speak at Brother Benbow’s house, a man entered the door and informed me that he was a constable, and had been sent by the rector of the parish with a warrant to arrest me. I asked him, ‘For what crime?’ He said, ‘For preaching to the people.’ I told him that I, as well as the rector, had a license for preaching the gospel to the people, and that if he would take a chair I would wait upon him after meeting. He took my chair and sat beside me. For an hour and a quarter I preached the first principles of the everlasting gospel. The power of God rested upon me, the spirit filled the house, and the people were convinced. At the close of the meeting I opened the door for baptism, and seven offered themselves. Among the number were four preachers and the constable. The latter arose and said, ‘Mr. Woodruff, I would like to be baptized.’ I told him I would like to baptize him. I went down into the pool and baptized the seven. We then came together. I confirmed thirteen, administered the Sacrament, and we all rejoiced together.

“The constable went to the rector and told him that if he wanted Mr. Woodruff taken for preaching the gospel, he must go himself and serve the writ; for he had heard him preach the only true gospel sermon he had ever listened to in his life. The rector did not know what to make of it, so he sent two clerks of the Church of England as spies, to attend our meeting, and find out what we did preach. They both were pricked in their hearts, received the word of the Lord gladly, and were baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rector became alarmed, and did not venture to send anybody else.” (In Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, p. 118.)

The constable who was sent obviously didn’t want to believe in the LDS Church, nor did those clerks sent after him. But they evidently were interested in the truth, whatever the source, and when they heard it they recognized it. Consequences of joining the LDS Church were secondary to them.

Much of the reason why these three so easily joined the LDS Church has to do with the culture of the time. Doubt about religion in general was nowhere near as prevalent as in the developed nations of today. People were more apt to believe things of a spiritual nature generally, as they are in many places of the world today, although not so much in the United States and western Europe. People today are more hardened, jaded, doubtful, skeptical, etc. and that may not be their fault so much as merely the result of the environment.

The point is that it’s not that someone has to want the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church to be true to know, they have to want the doctrines taught by those sources to be true. And in saying that, I am not saying they have to have a preconceived notion of those doctrines, but that upon hearing them they have to be appealing.

A case in point is the doctrine of eternal marriage. If someone hears that upon becoming a faithful member of the LDS Church they can be joined with their family in a marriage that will not be merely ’til death do you part, but for all eternity, lasting beyond this life, but that doesn’t sound like something they want, then they will not receive a testimony of that doctrine. Partly because they will not likely take the steps to gain a testimony of that doctrine, but also because why would God give them a spiritual confirmation of it if it’s not something they want? In doing so, God would be giving them knowledge that does no good for them, but only places them in a position of knowing something they don’t want to know, which opens them to more condemnation than they would otherwise be subject to.

Likewise if someone wants to believe there is no God, they will never find out if there is one. If someone wants to believe that only the Bible is true, and that nothing else is, they will never gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon. If one does not want to believe that modern-day prophets exist, they will never gain a testimony of Joseph Smith’s calling.

It is only when someone hears the message of the gospel, likes it, and wants to know if it’s true so that they can live it, and then take the steps necessary to find out, that they will find out. This is what sincere faith looks like, as opposed to idle curiosity.

One last comment…there is this issue of time. Some will say “I wanted to know if these things were true, and I prayed and studied for two years and I never got an answer.” Well, maybe God was testing you to see if you really wanted to know, and it would have taken three years. For others perhaps it would take 10 years, maybe 20 for others. When we put arbitrary time limits on God, we are showing that we do not have real faith. I don’t mean that a lack of real faith is a character flaw, I mean we don’t really want that thing, the object of our faith, to be true. If I really want the LDS Church to be true, if I want the things it teaches to be true, I will go through all the actions of being an active member even if I don’t have an answer. Or even in the face of doubt and evidence against the Church. This is the definition of faith. If one has an answer that something is true, they have knowledge, not faith. Therefore, if someone says they left the LDS Church because they didn’t receive an answer, the lack of an answer is not the root cause, but rather a lack of faith, or a lack of wanting the LDS Church to be true.

Now, if someone does not want the LDS Church to be true, what can be done to convince them? Nothing. It is like trying to convince someone who doesn’t like chocolate that they really do. If our goal is to spread the gospel we should not be engaged in trying to convince those who have no interest. We should be focused on finding those who already do want it to be true, but simply don’t know about it yet, or have misunderstandings but are ultimately seekers of truth. For those who don’t want the gospel to be true, we might as well stop trying to convince them and just love them as they are, regardless of whether they ever join the Church or not.

This ends up being yet another fruitless quest, because it’s so darned difficult to convince someone they don’t believe in something that they think they believe in. Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible, which is accepted by most Christians as being legitimate, so it’s not as though anti-Mormons can say they’re using a different version of the Bible than is commonly accepted.

One can point out that they don’t interpret scriptures the same way the rest of Christianity does, but this also poses problems, because there’s no way to prove what the correct interpretation is. You can amass evidence and build a case, but in most cases there’s no bulletproof proof, and of course Mormons aren’t going to accept what most Christian believe, because they claim to have modern-day prophets and other scriptures that tell them how to correctly interpret the Bible and they could care less what Christian scholars have said for the past 1,500 years. Actually, it’s not that Mormons care less, but they don’t give what has been commonly accepted much weight just because it’s been around for a long time.

So if you want to spend time trying to convince Mormons they don’t believe in the Bible you’re more than welcome to, but trust me, you’re just going to get frustrated in the end.

Q: Mormons think the fall was necessary to bring about God’s plan, so why would Satan encourage the fall? Wouldn’t that be helping to bring about God’s plan? Wouldn’t he have tried to get Adam and Eve NOT to eat of the fruit, so no spirit children would get bodies?

Also, if God had a plan for all spirit children to come and get a body, but then sent Adam and Eve to earth telling them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge which would bring about procreating…doesn’t that make Him a God of trickery? He essentially was saying “Don’t eat the fruit! (please please please disobey me and DO eat the fruit so all the other spirit children can get bodies!) Sounds deceptive. Could you please give the Mormon theology behind this belief and how it makes any sense? Thanks.

A: Disclaimer: My answer here is my own speculation, and should not be interpreted as anything approaching LDS Church doctrine.

In LDS temples Mormons watch a video that tells the story of the creation of the earth and the Garden of Eden. In that story, most of which would be familiar to any Christian, God puts Adam and Eve in the Garden, and tells them they can eat any fruit of any of the trees except the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which we will hereafter refer to as the TKGE. Lucifer/Satan tempts Eve into partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve gets Adam to eat it, and Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden (the Fall) into the world we live in today and they have kids, etc.

Where Mormons differ from some of Christendom is that we believe that the Fall was a necessary and planned event, hence the question above of why Satan would participate and encourage an event that was necessary and planned, as though he were helping God. If Satan wanted to frustrate God and tick Him off, why not get Adam and Eve not to take the fruit? Great questions! Here’s my theory…

It’s all about timing. That is, it was God’s plan all along for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but for it to be done in God’s own time, when things were prepared. What Satan was doing by getting Adam and Eve to eat the fruit was to try and take control of the process himself and mess things up, not to do something that otherwise would have been done, but to do it at a different time than it would have been done. When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, he wasn’t saying “Don’t eat it now or ever” he was saying “Don’t eat it until I tell you to.” But of course he didn’t need to add “until I tell you to” he just said “Don’t eat it.” He’d come back later and say “Ok, now you can eat it.” But Satan did it before God did.

Why do I think this is the case? Because in that movie Mormon watch in the temple there is a part where God confronts Lucifer after he has given Adam and Eve the fruit and God asks “What are you doing here?” and Lucifer responds “I am doing that which has been done in other worlds.” God asks “What is that?” and Lucifer again responds “Giving of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to them.” referring to Adam and Eve.

This seems to suggest that this is not the first time this process of introducing humans to a planet has occurred. It also appears to suggest that whenever a planet is populated, there is a “Garden of Eden”, although perhaps with a different name, and there is an Adam and an Eve, although also with different names and certainly different and unique individuals.

Lucifer appears to be attempting some humor with God, saying “Hey, what’s the big deal with me giving them the fruit? I’m just doing what is normally done.” But of course this is like the 4-year old child who feeds his 2-year old brother a huge bowl of ice cream and when he gets caught by his parents plays innocent and says “Hey, I’m just feeding him like you guys do!” Yeah, right. And “yeah, right” to Lucifer. Of course we know neither the 4-year-old nor Lucifer is innocent. Lucifer is trying to take the place of God, just as he did in the pre-mortal existence. “Fine, you’re going to kick me out of heaven? You won’t give me your glory? Well, I’m still going to go ahead and play God and let’s see how you like it.” seems to be the attitude Lucifer has.

So is there trickery on God’s part? No, I think He was going to give Adam and Eve the fruit himself, in his own due time. Of course he knows the future and knew what would happen, but it all ends up playing into His hands anyway, which must be incredibly frustrating for Satan. As for why Lucifer didn’t try to keep Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, that would have been a fruitless endeavor (pun intended), because Lucifer knew God was going to give them the fruit anyway. Lucifer couldn’t prevent them from eating the fruit, he could only get them to eat the fruit at the wrong time, so he committed as much mischief as he could within the bounds by which he was constrained.

Q: How do Mormons explain Isaiah 44:6?

This verse says that God does not even know of another god. Now if Mormons believe that God the Father is married to multiple mother goddesses, who He would clearly know of if He was, then how can the possibly claim to believe the Bible and deny the basic doctrine of Isaiah 44:6.

A: Let’s start by reading the scripture:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Sounds pretty cut and dry, right? Beside me, there is no God, right? Not a lot of room to interpret that any other way. Or is there?

If we skip forward in Isaiah just a tad to Isaiah 47:8, 10, we read this:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

(emphasis added)

This isn’t God speaking, this is the city of Babylon. Is the city of Babylon saying that no other city except Babylon exists? As duly pointed out by FAIR, this would cause some consternation to the city of Ninevah, who in Zephaniah 2:15 states:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

So what are we to think? Obviously these words weren’t meant to indicate that no other cities existed. They clearly indicate the supremacy, authority, excellency, and/or superiority of these cities. Applying this same interpretation to Isaiah 44:6 we can see that what the scripture clearly means is that God is supreme, and there is no other God at his side, or on the same level he is on. In Isaiah 44:6 God is speaking to people who had a lot of trouble with worshipping idols or other gods, and this scripture was meant to say “You’ve got all these other gods you worship, but I don’t recognize them, they don’t even exist, there is no other god you’ve got that can compare to me. Drop your idol worship and your worship of false gods and worship me.” It was not a statement that there are no other gods, or that man cannot become like God, but rather that there is no other god man should worship, and that the gods these people were worshipping were false gods.

Today Mormons in the United States are overwhelmingly Republican. It’s not unusual to get into a political discussion with a group of Mormons and hear someone say “I just don’t understand how someone can be a good Mormon and be a Democrat.” This is due primarily to the contrasting views of the Republican and Democratic parties on abortion, sexual matters, the family, and limited government. Conservative Mormon Republicans often see liberal Democrats as sex-crazed maniacs who want to do whatever feels good and ignore the consequences, or blame the consequences on conservatives and pay for them with somebody else’s money. In other words, there is quite a bit of alignment politically between conservative Republican Mormons and conservative Republican evangelicals.

But do the beliefs, actions, or results, of either major political party truly match up with Mormon doctrine and culture? That’s the question that has arisen in my mind as I’ve been reading Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics by Connor Boyack. Boyack posits that Mormon doctrine matches up mostly closely with libertarian thought, not to be confused with the Libertarian Party. That is, Boyack promotes the idea that persuasion is better means of improving society than force, and uses extensive quotes from LDS Church leaders as well as scripture to back up his assertions. In doing so, he presents a compelling case for Mormons to have no great loyalty to either the Democratic or Republican parties, but to first and foremost be an advocate of liberty.

The book is well-written, interesting, and educational. And having sold out its first print run within days of its release it seems to be striking a chord. And not only with Mormons, as Boyack’s interview on the Judge Napolitano show on FOX attests.

If you’re a Mormon and politically inclined, this book is a must-read, regardless of your party affiliation. If you’re read it, I’d love to know what you thought of it.

• There is no God
• Mormons are not Christians
• The Book of Mormon is not true
• Joseph Smith was not a prophet
• No one can know the future
• No one knows what happens after we die

Can you see why these statements only lead to fruitless, never-ending arguments? Let’s take the first one, there is no God. How does one go about proving such a thing? Generally people attempt it by making assumptions, such as “If there were a God, he wouldn’t let bad things happen to good people.” But what if the assumption is false? The rejoinder might be “What if by not allowing bad things to happen to good people, God would create a worse consequences?” Thus, there is a logical possibility for why God might allow bad things to happen to good people.

Another tactic is to show how everything we experience could have come about without God, that is, that the creation of our planet and everything on it could have happened without there being a God involved. But this is proof that there is no God, but merely evidence that there might not be a God, or that God might be different than what one had previously believed.

Or take the “Mormons are not Christians” argument. Mormons respond “Yes, we are, we believe in Christ.” The argument then devolves into one of what it means to believe in Christ or be a Christian. But there is no convincing Mormons that they aren’t Christians, so why try?

In the former case, there is, perhaps, no good way to go about things. If the goal is to turn a Mormon into an atheist, it can only be done if an atheistic life already appeals to that Mormon. It will be virtually impossible to turn someone who wants to be a Mormon into an atheist.

In the latter case, the key is to prove the positive. That is, that Mormons have different beliefs about Christ and Christianity than Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. Mormons won’t disagree with this, although they might make the case that there is more that unites us than what divides us, but if there were no difference then of course we’d all be members of the same religion.

The point is that trying to prove a negative is a frustrating exercise that only convinces the weak-minded or already-convinced. The better tack is to focus on the positive by pointing our verifiable differences. Since everyone is free to make their own choices about what to believe and how to live, the best one can really do, unless one wants to resort to lying, is to present the facts as accurately as possible, and then allow people to make their choice. Trying to prove a negative will only get in the way, intelligent people will see through it, and you may end up pushing people towards Mormonism by using this illogical reasoning as opposed to talking them out of it.