My Father’s Final Sermon

Happy Father’s Day.

To help me get through my first Father’s Day in a post-Bob Bennett world, I’ve transcribed the 45-minute fireside my father delivered in the Arlington, Virginia LDS Chapel three weeks before his passing and less than 24 hours before the stroke that took his life. (In Mormonspeak, a fireside is a sermon delivered in the evening outside of regular worship services.) He had been preparing for this speech for quite some time, and as he was battling pancreatic cancer in the final months of his life, his mantra was “I’ve got to stay alive for the fireside.” He was too weak to stand and deliver the sermon, so he stayed seated. Yet he spoke clearly for over 45 minutes without using any notes. (Dad never used notes when he spoke. He was pretty magnificent that way.)

EDIT: I just spoke to my mother, who tells me Dad was on a stool, but he frequently stood throughout the presentation and referenced a chalkboard that he was using to describe all the timelines and things that he discusses in the speech. So there’s a visual element to this fireside that was not recorded. 

9781609079567The topic of the sermon was the Book of Mormon, notably its authenticity as a historical document. He was reviewing material that he had explored in his 2009 book titled Leap of Faith: Confronting the Origins of the Book of Mormon.  When that book was released, many thought it was just a campaign gimmick to endear himself to Mormon Republicans, but time has demonstrated that this was a serious work, one which BYU professor and prominent Mormon apologist called “surprisingly good.”

President Henry B. Eyring, who was the concluding speaker at my father’s funeral in Salt Lake City, went even further. At the funeral, he called Leap of Faith “the best defense of the Book of Mormon ever written.” I think that would make a pretty good blurb on the back of the paperback edition.

This sermon essentially serves as a summary of that book, but it’s delivered in a much more conversational and personal style. In transcribing the fireside, which I did not attend, I’ve had to rely on an iPhone voice memo recording that is hard to hear, so I’m sure I didn’t get everything right. In addition, I’ve taken some mild editorial license, particularly in not transcribing Dad’s occasional verbal stumbles, so when he says, “Mormon ideologists, excuse me, I mean archaeologists,” I just wrote down “Mormon archaeologists.”

If you’re a purist who wants to hear Dad’s words for yourself, I’ve embedded the audio in this post. If you’d like to take a stab at your own transcription, feel free.

The recording also started just a little late, so it sounds as if he began by saying that most of the visions and stories of Joseph Smith can be dismissed fairly easily, but the Book of Mormon cannot.

We join the fireside, already in progress.

… dismiss the witnesses; they were just bamboozled by his charisma. (Actually, we think he was kind of dull, but to make the case that he confused everybody, we have to change our description of him depending on what it is we want to attack with respect to his background.) We can go through all of the rest of that outcome with a complete explanation – and then there’s the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon exists. (Now, that seems fairly fundamental.) That means somebody wrote it. It didn’t come out of an imagination of something into a speech. Somebody wrote it down. Somebody created it before 1829. You have to explain who wrote it. It’s here. It’s physical. It cannot be waved away the way some of the descriptions of visions and other things could be waved away.

If we step back and think of it for just moment in something other than straight religious terms, but marketing terms, we have to say, “What a genius decision if we want to launch this new religion to give it a book that cannot be waved away.” It has to be examined in terms of answering the fundamental question – who wrote it?

You can’t get around that question. You can’t avoid it. Who wrote it?

Okay. One of the things that we know about books is that the book always tells you something about who wrote it. You can’t hide it. You can disguise it, but you can’t hide it. And in today’s world, unlike the world of 1829, you really can’t hide it, because you can use a computer to do an analysis of the syntax used, of the sentence structure, and the paragraphs, and all of the rest of it, and the computer can say, “This person wrote it.”

They’ve done this in controversies as to who wrote Shakespeare. They can take certain Elizabethan phrases or sonnets and so on and say, “Yeah, this is from the Elizabethan era. This clearly comes out of the time when Queen Elizabeth was around, but these words were not written by Shakespeare. The computer says no.”

That was not available early on.

So we’re going to start out tonight with the desire to find out who wrote it, with the understanding that every book always tells you something about its author.

Okay, do we have a 24-year-old anywhere in the crowd? 

[Someone raises their hand in the audience.]

Okay, you just got picked. Stand up.

All right, I want to create a forgery of a religious book for my own purposes, and I pick you to write it. You’re 24 years old. That’s how old Joseph Smith was – everyone turn around; take a good look at him, that’s Joseph Smith. That’s how old Joseph Smith was when the Book of Mormon was published.

Now let me describe to you what I want in this book. I’ve got it here in an outline kind of form. Actually, I want three books. They’re all going to be crunched together in one volume. I want three books, and here’s the timeline. 600 BC is when you start, and 385 AD is when you die. So you’ve got to fake something – this is coming out in 1829, which is a little bit later than the year 385, so you’re dead. You’re doing all of this a thousand or so years after you die.

Okay, that’s kind of a challenge for any author, but you look like a pretty smart 24-year old, so you may be up to this. Now the first book which I have here, I’ve labeled that “Family Journal.” You’re going to write a family journal. That means first person: “I. We.” You’re going to describe what happens in your family, or in this family. Now you’re not just going to sit down and write it straight through. It goes from 600 BC to about 124 BC. And it’s going to be filled primarily with four principal authors. Which means you’ve got change who you are three times.

You can start out being Nephi – that’s the name I’ve picked. You can start out being Nephi describing your circumstance, and then you’re going to pass this on to your brother, Jacob, and he’s going to write for a while, and then he’s going to pick a prophet than nobody’s ever heard of called Zenos, and he’s going to write some stuff in there, and then you’re going to fill up the rest of it with quotations from Isaiah, and they’d better be the right quotations, because there are certain points I want to make here.

So you’ve got four people. One of them is very easy; that’s Isaiah. You can crib him from the King James Version of the Bible. Now don’t crib him exactly. We want to make some changes along here, because we’ve got some points to make, and the changes will helps us make those points.

Okay, are you up for this?

Now, at the same time, this fellow Nephi, who we’re going to put at the front of this family history, writes another book simultaneously. This one he calls the Large Plates of Nephi. This runs all the way from 600 BC on to 325 AD. This is a history. This is not a family journal. This is not first person. This is third person. Nephi writes a little bit of the history in the Small Plates, the family stuff is all in there, but here in the Large Plates are the kings, and the wars, and the government, and all of the logistics of a major society. So that when Nephi dies, then the next historian comes along, and then the next historian, and they just pass this record on down, and on down, and on down, until the final guy who gets it, who’s name is Mormon, is going to summarize it.

So, you’re Nephi. Now you’re Mormon. And you’re going to go back over a thousand years of history and describe the wars, and the rulers, and the government changes, and all of the rest of that. And this time, it’s not just four people who are going to be talking. There’s a whole bunch of people who are going to be talking all the way through. A thousand years.

Are you ready for that?

Okay, now, in addition, I want a third history. We have no idea when it began, but I won’t hold you to a date, because we’ll tie it to the Tower of Babel. So 3,000 B.C. Pick a date. Anytime that’s convenient. You’ve got to go forward with this history, and this history ends about the same time the other one does, as these people destroy themselves.

Now the problem is that the folks in the first history all start out in Jerusalem. They’re all Jews. Hebrews. Israelis. Pick whatever name. They all start out in Jerusalem, so through their history, everything will have the flavor of the culture in which they were born. You can’t deviate from that. Yet the folks in the last history have nothing whatever to do with Jerusalem, and you can’t allow any of the first history to leak into this one. This one has to be completely different.

Oh, by the way, we’re going to have to erase the first 116 pages of the history in the Large Plates of Nephi, because they were lost. So you have to start the history about the same time these other two begin, which means it has to come across like a movie that you have stepped into twenty minutes after it started, and you have no idea who any of the people are.

So, okay! Let’s go!

That’s the Book of Mormon.

You have First and Second Nephi, and Jacob, and then the additions made by Jacob’s descendants in the Small Plates, and then you have the remaining part of the Large Plates after the 116 pages were lost, and it just so happens that the ending of the Small Plates comes pretty close to coinciding with the beginning of walking into the movie. So in the Book of Mormon today, we just slid the Small Plates down a level. So you read the Small Plates and then you get to the history of the Large Plates, and the transition is very confusing. You don’t quite understand how that works, because you go immediately from a first person family history to a third person history of the all these folks, and there is still a gap, because up here in the Small Plates, most of this by Jacob’s descendants has no history in it all. All it says is, “I got the plates from my uncle, and I put my name on it and passed it on to my son.”

And then suddenly King Benjamin is talking. Who is King Benjamin? We don’t know. Ask the 116 pages. And it gets very difficult when you get into this for you to be a forger, because Mormon, who is reading all of this history coming from all of these other folks, is quoting them at length. So you can’t just pretend to be Mormon. You have to pretend to be King Benjamin. And if you want to make this thing look real, King Benjamin cannot sound like Mormon, nor can he sound like Alma.

Alma is the most quoted of all of the people that Mormon uses to quote directly. There’s first person in this, but it’s never Mormon. It’s always the people he’s quoting. And so Alma takes up 36 pages, and if you read Alma carefully, he doesn’t sound like King Benjamin. He doesn’t even sound like Amulek, who is his missionary companion. The two of them are out there together, and Alma has one way of preaching, and Amulek has a different way of preaching. He doesn’t sound like Abinadi, who’s standing there quoting the Law of Moses. You go through all of these – you start with Abinadi, and then you’ve got Benjamin, and then you’ve got Alma, and then you’ve got Amulek, and you’ve got Samuel the Lamanite, and you’ve got Zeniff, and you’ve got Helaman, and Helaman doesn’t give any sermons at all. Helaman just tells you about the wars. I’m sure Mormon would love to quote some sermons from Helaman, but Helaman didn’t give him any.

So as you do all of this, you’ve got to be switching from talking about war and all back and forth –

Quick aside: Does it bother you that Alma doesn’t sound like Amulek? Does it bother you that Elder Holland doesn’t sound like Elder Oaks? They’re both testifying of the same thing, but each is responding to his own experiences. And Elder Holland is a great classroom teacher whose lots of fun to listen to and tells wonderful stories, and Elder Oaks is a former State Supreme Court Justice who lays it out in a kind [of way] that lawyers like Elder Hardy can understand.

And you’re not through yet. Because it all gets down to Mormon, and he’s completed all of this, and he gets killed in 385 [AD], and his son Moroni comes along. Mormon has completely neglected this third book about the people from the tower of Babel. And Moroni, with plenty of time on his hands, decides, “I’ll add that to Dad’s record.” So Moroni sits down and gives us this record.

Well, these people are really weird. They have kings that rule in captivity through their whole lives, and they father children in the captivity, and then the children try to overthrow the other king, and they have weird names that don’t [make sense.] Why in the world is that there? Because Moroni decided it was important to put there. [That’s odd] from our point of view, but you’re the forger, my instructions are to you that I want this in there. Now, you’re 24 years old, which means that you’ve got to be doing this before you get to that age.

And, by the way, you write a little bit yourself. And here come the computers. You don’t sound like King Benjamin.  The writing that Joseph Smith put into the first edition of the Book of Mormon describing what happened to the 116 pages – we don’t have that anymore; we don’t put them in the Book of Mormon anymore; people apparently don’t pay much attention to them anymore – but Joseph felt strongly about it. So strongly that he put it right up front. And you read that paragraph, where he describes that, and you say, “Whoever wrote that didn’t write anything in the Book of Mormon.”  There is no connection.

Well, all right, here come the computers. You have to have been such a good forger in making up all of these different personalities and changing the way they talk that the computers are fooled. And the computers say all of these speeches in this one, all of these sermons, are by different people, and Joseph Smith is not one of them. We checked Joseph Smith against Alma – nope. Joseph Smith didn’t write Alma.

So my thesis to you is if you’re going to approach the Book of Mormon on a strictly intellectual basis rather than on a spiritual basis and just analyze it for what it is and what it says, rejecting Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon is the way to go. I would think in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, you can demonstrate that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith, I have great confidence in your ability, but Joseph Smith didn’t write all these things, and put them all together, and have them hold together.

Now, you talk about forgery, and I’ve had some experience with forgery. And I wrote a book asking the question, “Is the Book of Mormon a forgery?” And in the process, I analyzed for my readers, “What is forgery?” And there are three tests for forgery, traditionally three tests. There are internal tests, and there are external tests. And then there is the fundamental question of motive.

Well, I think I’ve demonstrated with this that the Book of Mormon passes the internal tests. You can’t look at it and how it’s constructed, and how things relate to each other, and say there’s anything in this that says forgery. Oh, and by the way one of the other things I [need to add] – the longer the forgery, the easier it is to detect.

Remember the forgeries of Mark Hofmann that he foisted off on the Church? The Salamander Letter, and all of these kind of things? Very short. Not much to check. Very easy in a very short presentation to see to it that it fits together internally. It can pass the internal test.

We want to see whether this forgery passes the internal test. By the way, it’s 535 pages long. That’s not very short. That exposes you to all kinds of possibilities of mistakes if you’re going to write something that long.

The other thing that goes with that on the internal test – there is an old saying: “Truth is the daughter of time.” The farther away you get in time from the forgery, the less convincing the forgery is. You go back to the Hofmann forgeries and at the time in which they took place, they all looked pretty good, because people were talking about the subjects he was forging things on. There were a bunch of scholars that were saying, “Oh, Joseph Smith was caught up in folk magic.” Oooh! Okay, so let’s write the Salamander Letter that proves that Joseph Smith was given to folk magic and therefore not inspired. People lost interest in folk magic, and you look at the Salamander Letter now, and you say, “Why did people pay any attention to this?”  But at the time, “Yeah! This looks good!”

Truth is the daughter of time. And short is better if you want to make it as a forger.

So what has time done to the Book of Mormon? Let’s go the next area, which is a fertile ground of external tests. The Book of Mormon may pass all of the internal tests of all of these things put together, but what about the external tests? And in your mind, construct a ledger. And on one side of the ledger, here on the right, are all of the external evidences that the Book of Mormon is not genuine. And all over here on the left are all the external evidences that the Book of Mormon is true. And we date the ledger “1830.”

What are you going to find?

You’re going to find on the right a whole series of things that demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is nonsense – external evidence this is nonsense. And over here on the left, well, all you’ve got is Joseph’s word, and the word of some of his associates, the witnesses. That’s it.

Metal plates? Who writes on metal plates? That’s absurd. Big cities on the American continent? Everybody knows the Indians are nomads who go around with teepees and move all the time, and the idea of cities – no! That’s nonsense! This whole thing is crazy.

My grandfather used to have an ongoing controversy with one of his business associates who was not a Mormon. He said, “Heber, the Book of Mormon says they built cities out of cement! There’s no cement among the Indians!” My grandfather would say, “If the Book of Mormon says they had cement, they had cement. It’s as easy as that.” Well, you know, they don’t resolve that kind of a controversy.

Okay, well, I’ll just a run through a few of them for you. Metal plates? Today, we know that people of the Abrahamic covenant regularly wrote sacred things on metal plates and buried them in the ground for future generations to find and sometimes put them in stone boxes. We have found in Iran the stone box that looks just like the stone box that Joseph Smith describes the plates came in, in which there are metal plates, on which there are engravings, and the plates are exactly as Joseph Smith described the plates for the Book of Mormon, except these plates are a bit bigger. Joseph Smith’s plates were a little smaller. The Darius Plates, as they were called, named after the Syrian king, are a little bit bigger.

There are over a hundred, maybe by now two hundred or more, I don’t know if some folks lost count, of examples of people of the Abrahamic covenant writing on plates and burying them. Okay, you’ve got to take that off of this side of the ledger as a statement against the Book of Mormon and move it over to this side, because no one in Joseph Smith’s time knew about the plates except Joseph Smith.

Names. Up here, all the people came from Jerusalem, so all of their names in the Book of Mormon should be Jewish names. Names tell you a lot about where people come from. If your named MacGregor, you’ve got Scottish ancestry. If you’re named O’Malley, Irish. The most common name in England? Smith. The most common name in Wales? Jones. What’s the most common name in the Book of Mormon? Anybody got a guess?

Ammon. Where did that come from?

Well, going back to that family journal, Nephi points out that he had an education. His father provided him with an education, and it’s very clear that his father was a wealthy man. How did you become wealthy in Jerusalem in 600 BC? One really good way to do it was to trade with the Egyptians. Now let’s take Lehi for just a minute. Lehi was married. Let’s assume he got married young by our standards – 17, 18. He began his career, and they had two children, and they named them standard Jewish names: Laman, Lemuel. Same kind of names everybody else used at the time. But he was doing business in Egypt by now, and he knew Egyptian, and he had two more sons, and he named them Sam and Nephi.

Now “Sam” is not a contraction of the New England name of Samuel. “Sam” is a perfectly legitimate, stand-alone-by-itself, Egyptian name, and so is Nephi. So, okay, he’s now out of his teens and had his first kids and is now into his twenties and in his career, and he gives his next two sons Egyptian names. Then he get called as a prophet and told to leave and spends his eight years or so wandering in the wilderness and reading the scriptures, and he has two more sons. Now what does he name them? Jacob and Joseph. Two of the most important prophets in the scriptures that he’s reading about.

So you’ve got to have some Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon as well as Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon if it’s going to be internally consistent. And the most common name in the Book of Mormon is Ammon. What was the most common name in Egypt in 600 BC?

You don’t need any hints. Ammon.

Getting down to this third group from the Tower of Babel, and there are no Ammons, and there are no Lemuels. They are Coriantumr or Shiz and a whole bunch of weird names. Do those names ever leak up into the other history? They do. There are some Jaredite names that are in this history. Where did they come from? Well, about the same time that this happened, the last Jaredite makes his way up in to Zarahemla and takes enough culture with him from that world that there are a few Jaredite names from that time forward, nothing prior to that point in the Book of Mormon.

Okay, take the names off the ledger on this side. Move them over to this side.

This is another demonstration – poetry. Every culture has its own poetry. When you get introduced to a haiku, you know you’re talking to somebody who knows something about Japan. Because nobody writes poems in haiku except the Japanese.

Get in 1 Nephi. Read Lehi’s statements to his sons in the Valley of Lemuel. You have desert poetry. Perfect example of desert poetry. Nobody in Joseph Smith’s time knew anything about desert poetry. Move this one over; let’s keep building up on this side all of the good things for the Book of Mormon and keep reducing all those things on the other side.

Well, I could ramble on, but we’re getting towards the end and I want to wrap this up. I just have one more statement about the things that have come to light in external evidence. One of the greatest complaints against the Book of Mormon by its critics is archaeology. There is no dependable Book of Mormon site anywhere in the Americas that can be identified as a Book of Mormon city by anybody other than a Book of Mormon archaeologist. Mormons think they’ve found cities that correspond to the Book of Mormon, but they can’t convince any other archaeologist that they’ve done so. So that stays over here on the list of external evidence that the Book of Mormon is not true.

Guys, you’re looking in the wrong place.

It’s like the old story that’s attributed, interestingly, to the Middle East as an example of the problems of dealing with the Middle East. A fellow says to his neighbor, “I’ve lost a very valuable ring. Come help me look for it.” The neighbor says, “All right, I will,” and they’re out on the street, looking. The street lamp is on, and it’s at night, and the neighbor says, “Where did you lose it?” and he says, “I lost it in the house.” The neighbor says, “Well, why are we looking out here?” and he says, “‘Cause the light is better.”

The Book of Mormon doesn’t give you enough information to find an an archaeological site in the Americas with any kind of accuracy. The family journal, that first part up there, gives you clear information about the family wandering on the Arabian peninsula. And that’s the one of the few places in the world that probably still looks exactly today like it did in 600 BC. There aren’t any superhighways across the Arabian peninsula. They just leave it alone. It’s just the way it was. And if you follow Nephi’s description of their journeys in the Arabian peninsula exactly, you find a gold mine. Why do you need a gold mine? Gold plates. That’s where we get the gold.

They came across a city, and the Hebrews do not use vowels. The archaeologists uncovered right about where Nephi would have to had to have been where Ishmael died and they buried him; they buried him in a town called Nahom. N-A-H-O-M. Which was a burial site. Archaeologists within the last fifteen years have found the site on the Arabian peninsula right about where Nephi said Nahom would be, and they have uncovered the description of the name of the town, and it says “NHM.” And the Hebrews don’t use vowels.

This is an archaeological bullseye!

You’re out there looking under the street light, guys, when the archeology of the Arabian peninsula makes it very clear that you should be looking in the Arabian peninsula for validation of Nephi’s description of where they went. If you do, you’ll find the Land Bountiful, where there’s plenty of wood to build a ship right where Nephi said he would. You turn directly east, and it takes you right smack into an area that would be similar to the Land Bountiful, and nobody in Joseph Smith’s time had ever heard of it.

Well, I could go on and on and on. The external evidence is piling up and piling up on this side of the ledger and shrinking and shrinking on this side of the ledger. Truth is the daughter of time, and the longer your forgery, the more likely it is to be uncovered. Here we are, 180 years since the publishing of the Book of Mormon with far more evidence that says it’s genuine than you had at the time it was published.

Well, the time is gone, but I need to end with the main point. (You say, “Gee, you’ve been rambling for forty-five minutes. Get to the main point.”)

All of this is interesting, and it’s fun, and it’s important for us to know as we get attacked by those who are leaving the Church by telling Joseph Smith was a fraud, the Book of Mormon is a forgery, and so on – important for us to have the tools. Elder Ballard said we need to gather this now.  We didn’t used to have to have this. We do now.

But it’s not the main point.

You don’t need to know about the location of Nahom. You don’t need to know about the proliferation of plates. You don’t need to understand about ancient names in order to live a more successful and worthwhile life.

You need to know about the Lord Jesus Christ.

And the Book of Mormon did not come as a history to be interesting and filled with these kind of parallels. That’s not why it was part of the Restoration. That’s not why the Lord made it available to Joseph Smith so that he could say to people, “Here. This exists. Somebody wrote it.”

Now what is its message?

And so we have to add a fourth criteria to – I skipped over “motive” because of the time. Okay, you get the point anyway. Yeah, internal evidence, external evidence, what’s the motive, but if the Book of Mormon does not pass this last test, it is not valid.

And the last test is relevance. In our lives. In our day.

You know how much work that represents? We had our 24-year-old going over this. As I got through all of this writing my book, I was interviewed on a closed-circuit TV in Deseret Book, and I got asked a question that I had not anticipated and not thought about.

I was asked, “Who is your hero in the Book of Mormon?”

Moroni? Lehi? I had never thought about that. But she asked the question. I got the answer. I’m not saying it’s inspiration; I’m saying it’s me. I’m not saying that anybody else has to share it.

And she said, “Who is your hero in the Book of Mormon?”

I said, “Mormon.”

How much work was that? How much work was it to bring it to us, and why do we have it? Because it truly is another testament of Jesus Christ.

Go back to the Isaiah passages that are in the family journal that Nephi and his brother Jacob pulled out and put there. What do they talk about? Two things. (This is in Isaiah, now.) The gathering of Israel, and the Last Days. The coming of the Messiah to Israel. That is a message as old as human history that God has wanted all of his children to receive. He foresaw the time where we live where that message would ignored. Ridiculed. People would turn their backs.

Joyce and I were in Poland. We saw a couple of young men walking cross the town square with white shirts, dark tie, and a black badge on their shirt pocket and were pretty sure we knew what they did all day. So we went out to them, and we chatted with them, and I said, “Poland. Pretty tough.” And they said, “Yeah, Poland’s a pretty tough place.” I said, “Yeah, heavily Catholic.” And they said, “No, no. That’s not the problem. These people don’t believe in God. Catholicism is cultural for them; it’s not religious. We’ve got to convince them that there is a God before we can teach them gospel.”

Karen Armstrong, who is a prolific writer on Christianity and Islam, she and I got in a conversation one day. We talked about the state of Christianity in Europe, and she said, “If you say to anybody in Europe today that you’re a religious person, you’re treated with disdain.” Europe is this post-Christian Europe. This is the world in which we live. This is the world in which we preach the Gospel.  This is the world to which we must bring the message of the reality of Jesus Christ, and the Lord has given us a tool with which to do it.  It requires everybody to recognize this exists. This is here. This is not some pretty speech. This is real. Read the Book of Mormon.

I won’t tell the Proctor story in any kind of detail, but I will close with it. Elder Hardy knew the Proctors. When we called on Bill and Marian Proctor for the first meeting, we had left a Book of Mormon with Marian. We had gone tracting that morning, came back that night. He was reading it – Bill Proctor was reading the book by the fire, which I took as a good sign.

And then he stood up and came to me, and he said, “Look, lads, I know why you’re here, and you’re wasting your time. I have no intention of joining your church. But this is an interesting book you have.  So I’ll tell you what let’s do. I’ll buy your book, and you go on your way, and we’ll both save time. Agreed?”

I said, “Agreed. Yep. But as long as we’re here…”

Okay, so as long as we’re here, we sat down, and we gave them the first discussion of the Book of Mormon. And then we asked the magic question – when would be a good time for us to come back? And he gave us an appointment back, and there’s much more to the story, but very powerfully, before I left Scotland – excuse me, I get dewy-eyed at the dedication of a parking lot – before I left Scotland, I said to him, “When did you know? Bill, when did it happen [that you knew] the Book of Mormon was true?”

And he said, “Oh, that first night.” He said, “The Spirit was there overwhelmingly, telling me it was true.”

He didn’t need any internal or external validations, or any intellectual analysis. All he needed was an open heart and the presence of the Holy Ghost, and he knew. The Book of Mormon can survive any attack by any enemy of the Church because the Proctor example has been repeated millions of times, in every culture, in every country, all around the world. The Lord’s wisdom in having Mormon do all that work, and having Moroni deliver those plates to Joseph Smith, and then the translation, is validated again and again. The Book of Mormon is, indeed, another witness of Jesus Christ, and a precious gift that God has given to warn us.

In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

CES Reply: Follow the Money

Continuing my reply to Jeremy Runnells “Letter to a CES Director,” with Jeremy’s original words in green:

2.Church Finances:

Zero transparency to members of the Church. Why is the one and only true Church keeping its books in the dark? Why would God’s one true Church choose to “keep them in darkness” over such a stewardship?

Why do you provide a really weird link to a scripture in Ether that talks about oaths used to keep murders secret? Are you equating the Church’s unwillingness to release financial statements with deliberately killing people?

History has shown time and time again that corporate secret wealth is breeding ground for corruption.

No, I don’t think it has. Only publicly traded companies are required to make their financial records public, and the vast majority of businesses across the world are privately held and keep their finances to themselves. Almost all of these private businesses are small businesses, while the publicly traded corporations are huge corporations, which tend to be more corrupt than the mom-and-pop store down the street. Yet it’s the family business with private financials who, by your definition, are trafficking in “corporate secret wealth.”

The Church used to be transparent with its finances but stopped in 1959.

I didn’t know that. I also didn’t know, as the Wikipedia article to which you link states, that the Church “does disclose its financials in the United Kingdom and Canada where it is required to do so by law.”

Estimated $1.5 billion megamall City Creek Center:

Which was funded by a for-profit entity owned by the church and not paid for by tithes or offerings of church members.

Total Church humanitarian aid from 1985-2011:  $1.4 billion

Your link appears to be broken, so I don’t know where you arrive at that figure, especially since your broken link was supposed to take me to a welfare services fact sheet put out by the Church. If the Church website is admitting that figure, then how can you say it’s not being transparent on this subject?

So, with a little Googling effort of my own, I found an interesting post over at that shows where this number came from, and why it’s bogus.

Attributing the figure to an article from someone named Cragun, T&S writes:

Where does Cragun get this information? He draws from a single source: This fact sheet, published by the church. It’s a single-page document, well worth a look. In fact, you should go take a look at it right now. In particular, watch the nomenclature.

The damning language is found in these lines:

Humanitarian assistance rendered (1985–2009)

Cash donations $327.6 million

Value of material assistance $884.6 million

That shows that the church gave about $1 billion in total humanitarian aid over 25 years.

Or does it?

Look at that sheet again. It highlights numbers of food storehouses, food production for the needy, employment training, church-run thrift stores, and so on. The sheet states _also_ discusses global work worldwide on disaster relief (such as responses to tsunami or earthquake victims). It uses different nomenclature for each type of donation. That is donations to worldwide emergency response are classified under the humanitarian label. But the extensive ongoing infrastructure to feed the needy is classified under the church welfare label. I contacted the church today and was able to verify that this is correct…

Given this crucial misunderstanding of the fact sheet, Cragun’s factual claim is incorrect and in fact very misleading on an important point… observers can certainly still make critiques of church financial practices. Such critiques, however, should be based on accurate statements of fact. [Emphasis in original.]

Something is fundamentally wrong with “the one true Church” spending more on an estimated $1.5 billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 26 years of humanitarian aid.

Given the reality that your figure is, in reality, only a small portion of the Church’s overall welfare efforts, this is criticism based on a substantial error on your part.

For an organization that claims to be Christ’s only true Church, this expenditure is a moral failure on so many different levels.  For a Church that asks its members to sacrifice greatly for Temple building, such as the case of Argentinians giving the Church gold from their dental work for the São Paulo Brazil Temple, this mall business is absolutely shameful.

Why? Members weren’t asked to pay a dime for the mall, and none of their donations were used to fund it. As a for-profit business, the mall generates revenue, which means that the mall will ultimately earn its money back.

Of all the things that Christ would tell the prophet, the prophet buys a mall and says “Let’s go shopping!”?  Of all the sum total of human suffering and poverty on this planet, the inspiration the Brethren feel for His Church is to get into the shopping mall business?|

The mall wasn’t built with the intent to get the Saints to “go shopping.” My understanding with regard to the purpose of City Creek was to stave off the urban blight that was gripping downtown Salt Lake City, which would ultimately have placed Temple Square and the surrounding buildings that constitute the headquarters of the Church into the middle of a dangerous slum. City Creek has accomplished that goal by revitalizing downtown and making it safe for families. The fact that this was done without taxpayer or tithepayer dollars makes it a boon to the community that cost church members nothing at all.

Hinckley made the following dishonest statement in a 2002 interview to a German journalist:

Reporter:  In my country, the…we say the people’s Churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.

Hinckley:  Yeah. Yeah.

Reporter:   Why is it impossible for your Church?

Hinckley:   Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world.  That’s the only thing. Yes.

I don’t see this as dishonest, but I do think President Hinckley and the reporter are talking past each other here. President Hinckley’s talking about the confidentiality of individual contributions, which should rightly remain private, although that doesn’t seem to be what the reporter asked. It may be that President Hinckley misheard the question. Your link plays a very short snippet of this interview, and a broader context might be helpful.

Where can I see the Church’s books?   I’ve paid tithing.   Where can I go to see what the Church’s finances are? Where can current tithing paying members go to see the books?   The answer: we can’t.   Even if you’ve made the contributions as Hinckley stated above??

When I was a counselor in the bishopric, I was actually uncomfortable with how much I knew about the finances of ward members, based on my access to ward tithing and fast offering records. Much of that information is available to counselors and clerks, and it is remarkable to me how responsibly they handle that information. That information isn’t the finances of the entire Church, of course, but my personal experience makes me more grateful for confidentiality than curious about the Church’s books.

Unless you’re an authorized General Authority  or  senior  Church  employee  in  the  accounting  department with a Non-Disclosure Agreement?   You’re out of luck. Hinckley knew this and for whatever reason made the dishonest statement.

Again, I don’t see how the statement is dishonest, although I do see that it seems to be an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. More context would be helpful.

Tithing: I find the following quote in the December 2012 Ensign very disturbing:

“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”

Ripped out of context, it is disturbing. In the article this advice is given to someone who receives generous financial assistance from the Church in order to get back on their feet, assistance in a dollar amount in excess of the money they paid in tithing.

“Well, God tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son and besides, the Lord will take care of them through the Bishop’s storehouse.”

You put these words in quotes for some reason. Did a real person actually say this, or is this just another strawman argument?

Yes, the same god who tested Abraham is also the same crazy god who killed innocent babies and endorsed genocide, slavery, and rape.

Quite the non sequitur there. The weirdness of many Old Testament accounts does not deny anyone access to the bishop’s storehouse.

Besides, whatever happened to self-sufficiency? Begging the Bishop for food when you had the money for food but because you followed the above Ensign advice and gave your food money to the Church you’re now dependent on the Church for food money.

Just a few paragraphs ago, you were upset that the Church doesn’t offer enough humanitarian aid, and now you’re complaining that they offer too much aid and make people dependent. Which is it?

3.Names of the Church:

After deciding “Church of Jesus Christ” on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith made the decision on May 3, 1834 to change the name of the Church to “The Church of the Latter Day Saints”. Why did Joseph take the name of “Jesus Christ” out of the very name of His restored Church? The one and only true Church on the face of the earth in which Christ is the Head?

Because there was already a church with the legal right to use the name “Church of Christ” that precluded Joseph from doing the same. (You say that they called themselves the “Church of Jesus Christ,” but from what I can tell, the name “Jesus” was absent from the original moniker.) So, absent any revelation, Joseph chose a name that would distinguish themselves from the other Church. The first time a name was given by revelation was in 1838, and that name, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” is the same name the Church has consistently used from that day to this.

Four years later on April 26, 1838, the Church name was changed to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and has remained ever since (except the hyphen was added about a century later to be grammatically correct).

Indeed. As I stated at the outset, I’m not concerned about fallible grammar.

Why would Christ instruct Joseph to name it one thing in 1830 and then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838?

He wouldn’t, and he didn’t.  There’s no evidence that Christ instructed Joseph to give the Church any specific name prior to the 1838 revelation.

Is it reasonable to assume that God would periodically change the name of his Church?

This question only makes sense if you actually have evidence that God periodically changed the name of his Church, which you don’t. The first time we have record of God naming His Church is in 1838, and there have been no changes to the name since the Lord Himself settled the question.

Why would the name of Christ be dropped from His one and only true Church for 4 whole years?

Because another church was using the name “Church of Christ,” which prevented Joseph from using it.

What does this say about a Church that claims to be restored and guided by modern revelation?

It says that we do our best in the absence of direct guidance from heaven, but we don’t mess with the Lord after he provides a revelation with a definitive answer.

If the Prophet Joseph Smith couldn’t even get the name right for eight years then what else did he get wrong?

Since he was a fallible human being with agency like the rest of us, probably a lot. But this isn’t a case of him getting anything wrong – since there was no revelation on the subject for eight years, he was free to use his best judgment during that same time frame. He would only be “wrong” if he had chosen a different name after the Lord settled the question via revelation in 1838. You’ll notice the revelation naming the Church doesn’t scold Joseph for getting anything wrong.

Next: Not Very Useful

CES Reply: No clear insights into the origins of this practice

Continuing my reply to Jeremy Runnells “Letter to a CES Director,” with Jeremy’s original words in green:

Other Concerns & Questions:

These concerns are secondary to all of the above.  These concerns do not matter if the foundational truth claims (Book of Mormon, First Visions, Prophets, Book of Abraham, Witnesses, Priesthood, Temples, etc.) are not true.


1.Church’s Dishonesty and Whitewashing Over Its History

Adding to the above deceptions and dishonesty over history (rock in hat translation,

Yeah, gotta get in at least one more mention of the rock in the hat.

polygamy/polyandry, multiple First Vision accounts, etc.),

Which, of course, we’ve repeatedly discussed already,

the following bother me:

2013 Official Declaration 2 Header Update Dishonesty:

“Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent.  Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”

Haven’t we already talked about this? I guess this is a minor variation on a previous theme – not a complaint about the priesthood ban, but on how we talk about it. The Church says that we don’t have clear insights about how the ban started. That’s an accurate statement. Yet you offer the following to claim that it’s inaccurate:

The following is a 1949 First Presidency Statement:

Not really. The following is a letter written by the First Presidency to a private individual. Calling it a “First Presidency Statement” implies that it was issued to the general membership of the church, which it was not.

“August 17, 1949

Hey! That’s my birthday! (Well, not the 1949 part.)

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord,

I, too, have problems with the underlined part of this statement, as it contradicts President McKay’s labeling of the band as a “policy, not a doctrine,” but I presume you’ve underlined it because you think it contradicts the statement that we don’t have clear insights into the origin of the ban. It doesn’t. We have no record of a revelation – i.e. a direct commandment from the Lord – putting the ban in place, and we don’t know when the ban actually began, given the fact that Joseph Smith ordained black people to the priesthood.

This was written in 1949, around a century after the ordination of black people stopped, but we can’t put a precise date on when that happened, since Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. (See what I did there?)

on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

Okay, I find the underlined portion to be a racist explanation for the ban that the Church has since disavowed, but how does it offer any clear insight as to how and when the ban began?

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’

See? There was some light amid the darkness. No clear insight into the origins of the ban here, though.

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency”

This is a faulty and racist explanation of the ban, surely, but it in no way offers insight into how and when the ban originated.

Along with the above First Presidency statement, there are many other statements and explanations made by prophets and apostles clearly “justifying” the Church’s racism.

Correct. But your problem, as you described it initially in this objection, is that you think the Church is lying when it says we don’t know when and how the ban first began. Faulty justifications for racism are a problem, but they’re a different problem than the one you’re raising here. You’re switching horses in midstream.

So, the 2013 edition Official Declaration 2 Header in the scriptures is not only misleading, it’s dishonest.  We do have records – including from the First Presidency itself – with very clear insights on the origins of the ban on the blacks.

No, these are insights into why the ban was perpetuated, not into how it began. When was the ban implemented? We don’t know; Church records provide no clear insights. Was the ban a deliberate decision, or was it just something that started happening in practice and was later institutionalized as church policy? I believe the latter to be the case, but we don’t know for sure – Church records provide no clear insights.

December 2013 Update:   The Church released a Race and the Priesthood essay which contradicts their 2013 Official Declaration 2 Header.  In the essay, they point to Brigham Young as the originator of the ban.

Not really. The essay insists that Brigham Young was the first to announce the ban in 1852, but there is plenty of evidence that, in practice, black people had not been ordained to the priesthood for many years prior to that announcement. Did the ordination of black people stop at some point in Joseph Smith’s lifetime? Maybe. Many leaders after Brigham certainly thought it did. Fact is, we don’t know. Church records offer no clear insights as to the origins of the ban.

Further, they effectively throw 10 latter-day “Prophets, Seers, and Revelators” under the bus as they “disavow” the “theories” that these ten men taught and justified – for 130 years – as doctrine and revelation for the Church’s institutional and theological racism.

When additional light and knowledge comes into the world, we rejoice for what we now have rather than condemn those who didn’t have it. People are judged only according to the light and knowledge they have received. That way, nobody gets thrown under the bus.

Finally, they denounce the idea that God punishes individuals with black skin or that God withholds blessings based on the color of one’s skin while completely ignoring the contradiction of the keystone Book of Mormon teaching exactly this.

You couldn’t be more wrong on this one. The Book of Mormon’s references to skin color have precisely zero to do with the priesthood ban, which was solely applied to men of African descent, not Native Americans, who, because of the Book of Mormon, are promised tremendous blessings that are arguably even greater than those promised to us boring white people.

In addition, the Lamanites were never denied the priesthood and had no blessings withheld because of their skin color, and were often more righteous than the lighter-skinner Nephites. Here’s some good anti-racist counsel from a Nephite prophet: “Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them [i.e. the Lamanites] because of the darkness of their skins;” (Jacob 3:9.)

Yesterday’s revelation and doctrine is today’s “disavowed theories.” Yesterday’s prophets are today’s disavowed heretics.

Amen! Here a little, precept on precept, great things to be revealed, and all that stuff I’ve already said every time you repeat this little mantra of yours.

Zina Diantha Huntington Young:

The following is a quick biographic snapshot of Zina:

She was married for 7.5 months and was about 6 months pregnant with her first husband, Henry Jacobs, when she married Joseph after being told Joseph’s life was in danger from an angel with a drawn sword.

Wrong. She was sealed to Joseph for eternity only, never married to him. (No sex.) The angel with the drawn sword did not threaten to kill Joseph if he didn’t marry Zina.

After Joseph’s death, she married Brigham Young and had Young’s baby while her first husband, Henry, was on a mission.

Since she and her first husband, Henry, were no longer living as husband and wife when she had Young’s baby, the fact that he was on a mission is irrelevant. You’re misleadingly implying that this was polyandry, when it wasn’t.

Zina would eventually become the Third General Relief Society President of the Church.

Good for her! Sound like she was a remarkable woman.

If anyone needs proof that the Church is still whitewashing history in 2014 aside from the above-mentioned issues, Zina is it.   

Cool! A smoking gun! Let’s hear it.

The  following are 100% LDS  sources:

Zina’s biographical page on

In the “Marriage and Family” section, it does not list Joseph Smith as a husband or concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs.

That’s probably because Joseph wasn’t her husband or concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs. They never lived together as husband and wife.

In the “Marriage and Family” section, it does not list Brigham Young as a concurrent husband with Henry Jacobs.

Probably because she ended her marriage with Henry Jacobs when she was sealed to Brigham Young.

There is nothing in there about the polyandry.

Which is not surprising, given the absence of polyandry.

It is deceptive in stating that Henry and Zina “did not remain together” while omitting that Henry separated only after Brigham Young took his wife and told Henry that Zina was now only his (Brigham) wife.

How is it deceptive? They did not, in fact, remain together. The idea that Henry was the only one who “separated” and that Brigham Young “took” Henry’s wife is rather sexist, as it presupposes that Zina herself had no say in the matter. The biography plainly states that Zina was Brigham Young’s plural wife.

This is Zina’s index file on LDS-owned

It clearly shows all of Zina’s husbands, including her marriage to Joseph Smith.

Wasn’t your problem that the LDS Church was whitewashing its history by purging references to Zina’s sealing to Joseph? If that’s the case, how did this reference escape the purge?

In any case, the purpose of Family is to gather information for temple work, so it makes sense that an eternity-only sealing would be referenced.

Why is Joseph Smith not listed as one of Zina’s husbands in the “Marriage and Family” section or anywhere else on her biographical page on

Because the “Marriage and Family” section doesn’t have any lists at all. She never lived with Joseph as his wife – she was sealed to him for eternity only. He was not one of her husbands in mortality.

Why is there not a single mention or hint of polyandry on her page

Because she was not engaged in polyandry.

or in that marriage section when she was married to two latter-day prophets and having children with Brigham Young while still being married to her first husband, Henry?

Because she was not married to two latter-day prophets. She was married to one and only sealed to the other. Also because she was not still married to Henry when she had a single child – not multiple children – with Brigham Young.

Brigham Young Sunday School Manual:

In the Church’s Sunday School manual, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, the Church changed the word “wives” to “[wife].”

Yeah, that probably wasn’t the best choice. In fact, the parenthetical insertion probably calls attention to Brigham’s polygamy more than if it had been left unchanged. (If the Church was really trying to whitewash, they would have just left off the S and not acknowledge that the text had been changed.) The case can be made that they’re changing the word to apply Brigham’s teachings to a modern audience, but if I were making the call, it’s not what I would have done.

Not only is the manual deceptive in disclosing whether or not Brigham Young was a polygamist but it’s deceptive in hiding Brigham Young’s real teaching on marriage:  “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” – Journal of Discourses 11:269

We’ve covered this. In the same speech, he clarified twice that this meant you had to accept the doctrine of polygamy, not necessarily be a polygamist.

When you repeat yourself, I have to repeat myself. It gets really tedious.

Next: Follow the Money

The Many and the One

When my father, former Senator Bob Bennett, passed away just over a month ago, our family was inundated with kind messages of love and support. Glowing tributes appeared in the media, and my siblings and I read every one we could find. We also, against our better judgment, read the public comments people made online.

For the most part, the comments were just as kind as the articles, but there were some glaring, obnoxious exceptions. One guy went on every site he could find to remind people of the eyesore that was the abandoned Bennett Glass and Paint Warehouse that used to be on the corner of 21st South and 300 West, a building my father didn’t own and had nothing to do with. Another thought that excoriating my father as a RINO was appropriate in light of his passing, as if a parting partisan shot was going to make a difference. One person just typed two words: “Ding, dong…” As in, I assume, “Ding, dong, the witch is dead.” Every nasty barb made my blood boil, and even if such messages were preceded by a dozen lovely sentiments, the nasty ones overshadowed everything else.

Nastiness tends to do that. Just a tiny bit of it can color your entire perception, like a single drop of red food coloring into an otherwise clear glass of water. The transparent water outweighs the red, but the red distorts and changes everything else, far in excess to its actual percentage of the overall liquid.

Remembering this is helpful as I am forced to absorb the news of the horrific massacre in Orlando, the worst mass shooting in American history. As the response to this latest atrocity breaks down predictably along partisan and ideological lines, I find myself uninterested in taking sides, because I think the sides are increasingly defined by a small amount of negativity that is perceived to be much broader than it really is. And I think we are all diminished when we assume that a single drop of bile is actually an ocean, and that vast swaths of our fellow human beings are as odious as the monster who perpetrated these crimes.

How many people, in the wake of these murders, have stated that most Republicans are indifferent to gun violence? They aren’t. With a handful of odious exceptions, they’re as torn up about this as everyone else. How many people, in the wake of these murders, think that Muslims applauded this slaughter? They didn’t. With a handful of odious exceptions, they’re as horrified by this as everyone else.  How many people, in the wake of these murders, believe religionists, or at least those who teach that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful, would like to see gay people gunned down in cold blood? They wouldn’t. With a handful of odious exceptions, they’re as heartbroken by this as everyone else.

Yet in the wake of every publicly evil act, we only hear from the exceptions and not the rules. We get posts about the one repugnant pastor who prayed for gays to die, or the one Muslim extremist dreaming of 72 virgins, or the one hillbilly who thinks he has a constitutional right to own an ICBM, or the one Donald Trump who thinks keeping all Muslims from immigrating to America would have prevented a terrorist attack perpetuated by an American citizen who has been here his whole life. (Sorry. Cheap shot.)

The point is that we’re shown the One, and then we’re told the One represents the Many. And maybe, as in the case of the Trump-ites, they do represent the Many. But I have to think that, in most cases, they do not. And certainly it would improve our interactions with each other, as we each try to come to terms with senseless violence and find ways to prevent it, if we were to speak to each other one on one, and not make the lazy assumption that those who disagree with us are equivalent to the very worst representatives of any Many that we don’t like.

I think that would actually help.

CES Reply: Scriptural Weirdness

Continuing my reply to Jeremy Runnells “Letter to a CES Director,” with Jeremy’s original words in green:

Scriptures Concerns & Questions:

To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy, child abuse, stoning disobedient children, pillage, plunder, sexism, racism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, killing people who work on the Sabbath, death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on.

No, you have to believe that ancient scripture is hard to understand to modern audiences, that it includes a mix of literal and figurative that we aren’t fully capable of discerning, and that human error can get in the way of correctly interpreting God. Also, you have to believe that Mormonism doesn’t believe in inerrant scripture.

Aside from scientifically discredited stories mentioned earlier, the following scriptures are some among many which make it hard for me believe the scriptures literally and that the scriptures hold any credibility:

Those are two very different things. Many scriptures aren’t intended to be interpreted literally, which means they’re designed to lack scientific credibility. That doesn’t mean they necessarily lack spiritual credibility.

1. D&C 132:

I’m supposed to believe in a god who issued an FLDS style revelation that states stuff like: the only form of polygamy permitted is a union with a virgin

We’ve talked about this. In context here, “virgin” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In case the first wife doesn’t consent, she will be “destroyed.”

“Destroyed” doesn’t mean what you think it means, either. You’ve already said all this.

  1. Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed.

Again, “virgin” and “destroyed” mean “sexually pure” and “left without posterity in the marriage.” Context helps. So does avoiding reading scripture using narrow, legalistic interpretations.

  1. Numbers 31:

This is truly despicable behavior from God and Moses.  Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some alive, he angrily says: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So they went back and did as Moses – the Lord’s prophet – commanded, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way, they got 32,000 virgins. This is the same prophet that Joseph Smith claimed to have appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836 for the “gathering of Israel.”

Nice little maneuver to tie Joseph and Oliver to ancient genocide for which they were not even remotely responsible. Did you know that Gwyneth Paltrow named her son Moses – after the prophet who killed the Midianites and gathered up their virgins? What is she, Hitler?

Look, you can find apologetic explanations of this story from any number of sources, most of them non-Mormon, and scholars who understand these ancient cultures can provide context that neither of us understand. From my non-scholarly Webelos-leader perspective, the bottom line is that the Old Testament is a record of a time and culture wholly displaced from our own, and it’s written with a mixture of figurative stories and historical reality. It’s never easy for even the smartest or most inspired minds to know which is which.

When you bump into a wacky story like this, you have to recognize that there’s huge chunks of info that we just don’t have, and that Mormons, unlike many orthodox Christians, teach that the Bible contains errors, and some of them are real doozies. Just know that if Mormons or anyone try to use these passages to justify modern genocide and rape, I’m going to run as fast and far as I can in the opposite direction.

4.1 Nephi 4:

The Lord commands Nephi to murder (decapitate) Laban for the brass plates.  Never mind that Laban was drunk and defenseless.  The argument that Laban would send his servants after Nephi and his brothers is ridiculous considering that the same God who had no problem lighting stones and taming swarms of bees (Ether 2-3) for the Brother of Jared can also preserve Nephi.  This story has been used as a defense in killings by religious people.

No doubt God could preserve Nephi. No doubt God could have teleported the plates from Laban’s study into Lehi’s lap. In fact, God has the capacity to end world hunger, enforce world peace, and rid the world of Donald Trump. But in doing so, he would defeat the whole purpose of mortality, where we are each called upon to exercise our agency and walk by faith. That means that God doesn’t use his Deus Ex Machina very often, if at all. Nephi had a difficult moral decision to make, and such decisions always involve competition between two righteous values.

John Welch’s discussion of the legality of Nephi’s actions is an interesting perspective on this, too.

5.Exodus 12:12:

God kills all the firstborn children in Egypt except for those who put blood on their doors? What kind of a god is this? Like the flood, what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others?

Does the Book of Exodus provide a specific body count? How much of this is Old Testament hyperbole? How historically and scientifically accurate should we assume this, or any other Old Testament story, to be?

As for “what kind of a loving god would kill innocent children for the actions of others,” the answer is a god who would sacrifice his perfectly innocent Only Begotten Son for your sins and mine. This story is dripping with messianic symbolism, which suggests that a figurative rather than a literal interpretation of this story is a wiser approach.

6.Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

Got a rebellious kid who doesn’t listen?  Take him to the elders and to the end of the gates and stone him to death!

Verse 21 ends with the phrase, “and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” This reads to me like it’s a scare tactic rather than an actual thing that people did. After all, how many parents, even with rebellious kids, would voluntarily have their own children killed?

7.Exodus 35:1-2:

God commands death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath trying to support their families.

Again, does Exodus provide hard data about how often these laws were enforced? The Law of Moses was still in effect during Christ’s day, and there are several exchanges between the Pharisees and the Savior where Jesus refuses to enforce these kind of gruesome provisions and suffers no negative repercussions for doing so. When he counsels the Pharisees that the sinless should cast the first stone at the adulterous woman, the Pharisees simply walk away, leaving the ancient law unenforced. These laws sure sound scary, but in practice, it seems likely that they were largely empty threats.

8.Number 21:5-9:

God doesn’t like to hear whining and ingratitude so he sends out a bunch of snakes to kill the people.  When the people had enough of the snakes, they ask Moses to tell God to quit it.  God decides Moses is persuasive and tells Moses to put a snake on a pole and tell the people to look at the pole and they won’t die.  So, the pole is built, the people look at it  and they don’t die.  The moral of the story?  Don’t whine or God will send in the snakes.

No, the moral of the story is “look to God and live.” This can be found repeatedly in the Book of Mormon:

“Yea, did he not [Moses] bear record that the Son of God should come? And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come.

And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit, might live, even unto that life which is eternal.” (Helaman 8:14-15)

Lots of important symbolism here, and getting caught up in a strict literal interpretation of the story probably isn’t helpful.

9. Judges 19:22-29:

After picking up his concubine from his father-in-law’s house, a certain Levite settles in Gibeah for the night. The men of the city attempt to sodomize him, but end up raping the concubine until her death. As a response, the Levite dismembers his wife’s corpse and sends her body parts throughout the land of Israel.   Who needs R or X-rated movies when you got scripture like this?

A gruesome story, surely, but neither God nor his prophets have anything to do with it. Were you expecting a PG-13-rated Bible?

As a believing Mormon, I tried to rationalize some of the craziness by saying, “Oh, this is in the crazy Old Testament when the Law of Moses was in force. Christ came and fulfilled the Law of Moses.”

The problem with this is that the crazy god of the Old Testament was Jehovah.  Who’s Jehovah? The premortal Jesus Christ.  So, Christ is the crazy god of the Old Testament.

And everything Christ does or has ever done has been done with the full approval of the Father. Did you think Jehovah was going rogue back in the old days?

The Christ of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament are light years different. 

No, the culture of the Old Testament and the culture of the New Testament are light years different. Understanding the Old Testament in its proper context requires a great deal of additional information, much of which we no longer have.

Again, I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well.

No, you’re asked to believe that a perfect God is working with imperfect children in a fallen world, many of whom represent their interaction with God in imperfect ways.

CES Reply: Science!

Science Concerns & Questions:

The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven.

No, the real problem is that you’re about to make a lot of scientific claims about Mormonism that Mormonism doesn’t make for itself.

To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against it, is willful ignorance, not spiritual dedication.

That’s probably true, except it’s not necessarily for Mormons to “cling to faith” in the areas you’re going to describe.

1.2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23-24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc.) on this earth until the “Fall of Adam”,

Here’s 2 Nephi 2:22:

“And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.”

Where does this say there was no death of any kind on this earth before the Fall?

Here’s Alma 12: 23-24:

“And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time, there would have been no death, and the word would have been void, making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

“And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.”

Where does this say there was no death of any kind on this earth before the Fall?

which according to D&C 77:6-7 occurred 7,000 years ago.

Here’s D&C 77:6-7:

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Where do these scriptures mention the date of the Fall of Adam?

This scripture has long fascinated me, as it refers to the seven thousand years of the earth’s “temporal existence.” What does that mean? Since we reject ex nihilo creation and believe the matter out of which the earth was made is eternal, surely that dirt is older than 7,000 years – it’s so old, in fact, that it can’t really be measured. Is that what D&C 77 is saying – the physical planet has only existed for 7,000 years? (Actually, the real number would be less than 6,000 years, because the last thousand years of the temporal existence would constitute the millennium in which Christ reigns personally on the earth.) Because that’s not just inconsistent with science; it’s inconsistent with scripture.

7,000 years isn’t the chronological age of dirt; it’s the length of earth’s “continuance” or “temporal existence.” So what does that mean?
I think of it in these terms. How old is the city of London?

According to Wikipedia, infallible source of all wisdom, the city was founded in 43 AD and first referred to as “Londinium” a little less than a century later. Did London exist prior to 43 AD? Well, physically, yes, of course it did. The Thames was flowing, but it wasn’t called the Thames. All the dirt was presumably there, too, but it wasn’t called London, because there was no one there to call it London. So it really wasn’t quite London yet, despite its geographical relationship to the town and then city that would later occupy that spot of ground.

History is concerned with chronology and where there is no chronology, there isn’t really any history to speak of, either. Anthropologists refer to the era prior to man’s arrival as “pre-history,” as in “prehistoric times.” So when does history begin?

Specifically, if the chunks of matter that make up the earth have always existed, at what point did they participate in earth’s “continuance” or “temporal,” i.e. time-based, “existence?” I submit that the criteria is the same as that of when London began.

History began when people showed up who were capable of recording time, which would require mathematics, writing, and philosophy – in a word, civilization. It’s not scientifically ludicrous to say that, regardless of biological origins, functional human civilization is somewhere around 7,000 years old, give or take. In any case, I don’t think the idea of earth’s 7,000 year-old temporal existence mentioned in Latter-Day Saint scripture ought to be viewed through an ex nihilo filter, nor do I think it presents a significant intellectual roadblock to credible theories about the origins of both the earth and the life upon it.

So where does the Fall of Adam fit into that timeframe? No idea. God has not seen fit to reveal the dates or the process, so I feel no responsibility to worry about it or to reject scientific evidence about both the age of the earth and the origins of life.

It is scientifically established there has been life and death on this planet for billions of years. How does the Church reconcile this?

It doesn’t.

“Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.” (Improvement Era, August, 1908, 778.)

“The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world”
(Joseph F. Smith, Juvenile Instructor 46 (April 1911): 208-09).

That one’s kind of fun, as Joseph F.’s son, Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote a book called Man: His Origin and Destiny to refute evolution and claim the earth was only a few thousand years old. He tried to get the Church to publish the book, but my great-grandfather David O. McKay, who was a firm believer in evolution, death before the Fall, and geological time, disagreed with Joseph Fielding Smith on just about everything in that book.

Here’s a letter President McKay wrote on the subject:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 E. South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
David O. McKay, President

February 3, 1959

Dr. A. Kent Christensen
Department of Anatomy
Cornell University Medical College
1300 York Avenue
New York 21, New York
Dear Brother Christensen:

I have your letter of January 23, 1959 in which you ask for a statement of the Church’s position on the subject of evolution.

The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church…

Sincerely yours,


David O. McKay


How do we explain the massive fossil evidence showing not only animal death but also the deaths of at least 14 different Hominin species over the span of 250,000 years prior to Adam?

We explain it by teaching precisely that information in biology classes at church-owned universities like BYU and BYU-Idaho.

2.If Adam and Eve are the first humans, how do we explain the 14 other Hominin species who lived and died 35,000 – 250,000 years before Adam? When did those guys stop being human?

That’s a question that B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage frequently asked, as they believed in the idea of “pre-Adamites,” as they called them. It is true many prophets and apostles doubted evolution, but many more have not. The Church has taken no official position on the subject, so there’s no need for it to “explain” any of this, as it’s not spiritually relevant. The Church is concerned with why God created the heavens and the earth, not how.

3.Science has proven that there was no worldwide flood 4,500 years ago. 

No, it hasn’t, because it’s impossible to prove a negative.

Time for Dan the Illogical Scientist to make an encore presentation:

illogical scientist

I will grant you, however, that science has provided compelling evidence that suggests a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago or at any other time would be highly unlikely.

Do you really literally believe in the flood story where 600-year-old Noah built a massive ark with dimensions that equate to about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep?

You’ve touched on a sore spot in the Bennett household. Because there was a time when I answered an unequivocal “yes” to that question. Then I married a brilliant biology major who, while a faithful Latter-day Saint, also believed that much of the story of Noah is kind of ridiculous.

I’ve since discovered that there fully active and faithful Latter-day Saints of every stripe who believe anything and everything that it is possible to believe about the story of Noah – some who insist that it is 100% scientifically accurate, and others who insist the whole thing is a fable, and everywhere in between. The Church does not require its members to believe any scientific information about Noah and the ark.

That Noah and his very small family took two of each unclean creature and seven of every clean creature and all the food and fresh water that would be needed on board for 6 months? And that after the flood, Noah and his family released the animals and they, along with Noah’s family of eight repopulated – via incest – the entire planet?

Simple mathematics show that there was insufficient room on the ark to house all the animal species found on the planet, let alone the food required to feed all of them.

How did the carnivores survive?  There would not have been nearly enough herbivores to sustain the carnivores during the voyage and the months after the ark landed.  What would the herbivores eat after the flood subsided?

There are a bunch of other problems with the global flood and Noah’s ark story but I find it incredible that this is supposed to be taken literally considering the abundance of evidence against it.

Well, for my part, as I’ve discussed the matter with my brilliant wife, I’ve been persuaded that, while I believe there was an actual, historical prophet named Noah who built an ark and put animals on it and survived a flood, I also believe that a great deal of the story is figurative and/or allegorical, and I neither know nor particularly care which parts are which.

While I remain open to the supernatural possibility that God engineered miracle after miracle to make the impossible possible, I am also open to the possibility that the flood was smaller and more localized than many assume, and that Noah’s world, at least as he perceived it, may not have been the entire globe. In any case, I do not see the story of Noah as an impediment to honest scientific inquiry, nor do I see any action on the part of the Church to punish or even counsel Church members who are not willing to read Genesis as a literal scientific treatise.

Am I expected to believe in a god who would wipe out the entire planet like that?  Kill millions of women and innocent children for the actions of others?  What kind of a god is this?

If you take the story at face value, the people who were wiped out were not innocents. Everyone in Noah’s world was corrupt and wicked. I am open to the possibility, however, that Noah’s world, as he understood it, was not the entirety of the globe, and that there were innocents outside of Noah’s awareness who did not perish in what may have been a localized and not a global flood.


Other events/claims that science has discredited:

  • Tower of Babel

Science has nothing whatsoever to say about the Tower of Babel. Nobody knows where it was, or where it was supposed to have been. As with Noah, I think this story is based in some kind of historical fact. I think there was an actual Tower of Babel, but I neither know nor particularly care how much of the story that has been handed down is literal or figurative. I assume there are elements of both.

  • People living to be 600+ years old

Hmmm. Never really thought about that one, to be honest. I guess I would have to treat this little tidbit the way I deal with all supposed conflicts between religion and science – with a humble recognition that we neither fully understand religion or science, and that all such conflicts will vanish when our knowledge is perfect. In the meantime, people should continue to pursue knowledge both by study and by faith, both in science and in religion.

  • Humans and animals having their origins from Noah’s family and the animals contained in the ark 4,500 years ago. It is scientifically impossible, for example, for the bear to have evolved into several species (Sun Bear, Polar Bear, Grizzly Bear, etc.) from common ancestors from Noah’s time.

Again, how much of Noah’s story should be taken literally and how much of it is figurative? We simply don’t know.

  • Jonah and the whale

Man, that’s a freaky story from beginning to end, no doubt. The finale is priceless – Jonah sits under a magic gourd that grows overnight and gets mad when God doesn’t blow Ninevah away, and then a worm eats the gourd. It’s just – odd. My reaction is that there is kernel of historical truth in there somewhere, but there’s also a lot of ancient cultural weirdness that modern readers like you and me just don’t get.

  • People turning into salt in Sodom & Gomorrah

This one doesn’t bug me all that much. If you run back into a war zone where everything is on fire, then what happens to you? I think this was less magic and more burned-alive stuff described with magical language.

  • As mentioned in Book of Abraham section, the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.”

And as replied to in the Book of Abraham section, the text itself suggests this is merely an Egyptian metaphor. (Also, you are the sunshine of my life.)

They carried honey bees across the ocean?  Swarms of them?  All manner of them which was upon the face of the land? (Ether 2:3)


For with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Luke 1:37.)

Or, if you want to go secular…

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

  • Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

Maybe this makes me naïve, but I feel no need to raise my hand in Sunday School and point out the scientific improbability of 600-year-old people, but neither do I get indignant when a biology teacher describes the evolutionary process. Mormonism teaches that we should seek after truth wherever we can find it, which means we should learn more about science, not less, because we assume that eventually all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole.

Tomorrow: Scriptural Weirdness

CES Reply: Shake It! (Also Masons.)

Continuing my reply to Jeremy Runnells “Letter to a CES Director,” with Jeremy’s original words in green:

The Shakers and Ann Lee:


The Shakers felt that “Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption” (Sacred Roll and Book, p.358).  The Shakers, of course, did not believe in the Book of Mormon, but they had a book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth.


More than 60 individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them. One woman told of eight different visions.

Here is the testimony statement:

We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.

Betsey Boothe. Louisa Chamberlain. Caty De Witt.  Laura Ann Jacobs. Sarah Maria Lewis. Sarah Ann Spencer. Lucinda McDoniels. Maria Hedrick.

So we shouldn’t accept the testimony of Book of Mormon witnesses because the Shakers, who no longer exist and who’s central claims have been completely discredited by the passage of time, claimed to see angels? How is that anything but a non sequitur? Each testimony should be evaluated on its own merits. As it stands, the Shakers no longer exist, so I don’t see much value in reviewing their testimonies.

Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Sacred Roll and Book.

And the Shakers no longer exist, which pretty much destroys the credibility of Shaker witness claims.

There are over a hundred pages of testimony from “Living Witnesses.”

And yet the Shakers aren’t living any more – it’s a completely dead and discredited movement. Are you arguing that we ought to resurrect the dead Shaker movement based on these witnesses?

The evidence seems to show that Martin Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. 

No, it doesn’t, no matter how many times you recycle the same tired hearsay quotes. (I think it’s four for this one.)

Clark Braden stated: “Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon” (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p.173).

Braden, who never met Harris, passed along this uncorroborated hearsay years after Harris’s death and decades after Harris allegedly said it. I resent having to type that again. You may enjoy repeating yourself, but I find it tedious.

Why should we believe the Book of Mormon witnesses but not the Shakers witnesses? 

Because time has conclusively demonstrated that the Shaker witnesses were wrong, based on the fact that the Shakers no longer exist.

What are we to make of the reported Martin Harris comment that he had as much evidence for the Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon?

We are to make that you are obsessed with unreliable hearsay nonsense and enjoy repeating yourself.

In light of the James Strang/Voree Plates witnesses,

who claimed to see something as mundane as a fish in a tent,

the fact that all of the Book of Mormon Witnesses – except Martin Harris – were related to either Joseph Smith or David Whitmer,

which is overblown – third cousin once removed? – and largely irrelevant,

along with the fact that all of the witnesses were treasure hunters who believed in second sight, 

which is not true,

and in light of their superstitions and reputations…

which were mild superstitions in line with conventional 19th Century thinking, and the undeniable fact that they enjoyed very good reputations for honesty and good character,

why would anyone gamble with their lives in believing in a book based on anything these men said or claimed or what’s written on the testimonies of the Witnesses page in the Book of Mormon?
If the entirety of your faith in the Book of Mormon is based on the written testimony of these witnesses, then you may have a point. Fortunately, the Lord has made provision for each of us to receive our own direct witness from heaven as a result of our own study and prayer. That’s the witness people cite when they stand up and bear their testimonies of the Book of Mormon on the first Sunday of every month.

On Fast Sunday, have you ever heard anyone attribute their testimony to the statement of the Three or Eight Witnesses? I surely haven’t, but, given that you were apparently teaching missionary discussions that cited these statements as legally binding affidavits, your experience seems to be quite different from my own.

The testimony of the 11 witnesses, like all signs from heaven, are designed to confirm faith, not create it from scratch. You proceed from a false premise here. Your assumptions are what are unreliable, not the Book of Mormon witnesses.

The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century magical thinking, superstitious, and treasure digging men they were. 

No, the mistake is that 21st Century ex-Mormons like you condescend to 19th Century men and distort harmless beliefs in antiquated superstitions into something more significant than they actually were.

They have ignored the peculiarities of their worldview, and by so doing, they misunderstand their experiences as witnesses.

It’s very easy to misunderstand witnesses when you ignore everything they actually said in favor of a handful of hearsay statements that you repeat ad nauseum, each time pretending they’re something new.

At the end of the day?  It all doesn’t matter.  

It doesn’t? Then why are you wasting my time?

The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant.

They are? Then why didn’t you say so? I could have moved on to the next chapter.

It does not matter whether eleven 19th  century treasure diggers with magical worldviews saw some gold plates or not.

Well, it matters somewhat that you misrepresent farmers and schoolteachers as professional treasure diggers, as your eagerness to label them in the most negative light possible demonstrates your unwillingness to engage this issue with any attempt to keep an open mind.

It doesn’t matter because of this one simple fact:

OOoo! Here it comes…

Joseph did not use the gold plates for translating the Book of Mormon.

What? That’s it? Please don’t tell me you’re still hung up on the rock and the hat.

rock in hat


I don’t know what else to say. The deeper I get into this reply, the less I think we understand each other. I honestly do not understand why the rock in the hat is such a huge obstacle for you. If Joseph had translated the record by means of plucking his own eyebrows and lighting them on fire, it would make no difference to me whatsoever. The product of the method, not the method itself, is what matters. The Book of Mormon is here; it exists, and it’s a powerful work of scripture that has brought millions of people closer to God. You can’t make it vanish in a puff of smoke just by posting pictures of Joseph looking like he’s throwing up in a hat.

Moving on…

Temples & Freemasonry Concerns & Questions:

1. Just seven weeks after Joseph’s Masonic initiation, Joseph introduced the LDS endowment ceremony in May 1842.

While there are elements of the temple ceremony that demonstrably precede Joseph initiation into Masonry – chunks of the Book of Moses are in the endowment ceremony, for instance – I think you’re absolutely right not to chalk this up to coincidence. The pattern Joseph set was that events served as catalysts for seeking revelation. Remember, the Word of Wisdom came as the result of Emma getting tired of cleaning up tobacco stains. The revelation on plural marriage came after Joseph asked a question in the course of translating the KJV. Answers from heaven are received only after someone asks.

Since revelation doesn’t come in a vacuum, my guess is that Joseph sensed something ancient in the Masonic ceremony and asked about it, which led to the endowment. I don’t think there’s anything sinister in acknowledging the possible connection.

2. President Heber C. Kimball, a Mason himself and a member of the First Presidency for 21 years, made the following statement:

“We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we  have the real thing.”

– Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball and Family: The Nauvoo Years, p.458

Sure. In other words, the Masons have some ancient practices – “now and then a thing is correct – mixed in with apostate corruptions, and the endowment represents the truth of what masonry should be.

3. If Masonry had the original temple ceremony but became distorted over time, why doesn’t the LDS ceremony more closely resemble an earlier form of Masonry, which would be more correct rather than the exact version that Joseph Smith was exposed to in his March 1842 Nauvoo, Illinois initiation?

Two things. One, you’re frankly acknowledging here that the Mormon endowment ceremony is different enough from Masonry to be its own thing and not just a pale copy of Masonic ritual, which is the accusation that most critics of the Church make. Second, why should an earlier form of Masonry be more correct? The rituals of Solomon’s temple preceded Masonry by thousands of years. Whatever changes modern Masons have made to their ceremony took place over a relatively short period of time in comparison, so they would be unlikely to have any bearing on whatever portion of truth survived the intervening millennia between Solomon and the Masons.

You’re making assumptions again and not recognizing that you’re likely to be proceeding from a flawed premise.

4. Freemasonry has zero links to Solomon’s temple.  

Define “links.” You would be correct to say that it’s impossible to demonstrate that the rituals of Masonry have been handed down from the time of Solomon in an unbroken chain. You would be incorrect to say that Masons have not appropriated their understanding of ancient practices into their ceremony. The “link,” then, would not be a passed-down line of authority but one of similar ideas, many of which the Masons undoubtedly got wrong but a few, apparently, they got right.

Although more a Church folklore, with origins from comments made by early Mormon Masons such as Heber C. Kimball, than being Church doctrine, it’s a myth that the endowment ceremony has its origins from Solomon’s temple or that Freemasonry passed down parts of the endowment over the centuries from Solomon’s temple.

The Church makes no attempt to claim that either Freemasonry or the endowment claim their authority from being “passed down” from antiquity.

By way of comparison, the Roman Catholic Church claims their priesthood authority through apostolic succession, while the Mormons claim that their priesthood authority was restored after a long period of apostasy. So while one group claims to have their authority passed down in an unbroken chain while the other claims it was lost and then restored, both groups agree that there is such a thing as priesthood authority, and that there was such a thing as priesthood authority anciently.

Similarly, our authority to perform the endowment ceremony and sealing ordinances does not come from a claim of “masonic succession,” so to speak. While many, including me, believe that what we do now in temples bears a resemblance to what they did anciently – although we don’t know the extent of that resemblance – our authority to perform these ordinances came by means of modern revelation, not from being passed down.

Solomon’s temple was all about animal sacrifice.

Oh, nonsense. Solomon’s temple had a whole lot more going on than just animal sacrifice. If you doubt me, then consult the infallible Wikipedia.

Freemasonry has its origins to stone tradesmen in medieval Europe – not in 950 BC Jerusalem.

True, although Freemasonry was attempting to mimic the rituals of what happened in 950 BC Jerusalem.

If there’s no connection to Solomon’s temple, what’s so divine about a man-made medieval European secret fraternity and its rituals?

I don’t know of any prophet or apostle who has ever claimed Freemasonry is divine. If they did, we’d all be counseled to become Freemasons.

5.Why did the Church remove the blood oath penalties and the 5 Points of Fellowship at the veil from the endowment ceremony in 1990?  Both 100% Masonic rituals?

Probably because both were 100% Masonic rituals and unnecessary.

What does this say about the Temple and the endowment ceremony if 100% pagan Masonic rituals were in it from its inception?

It says somebody made a mistake, and that we don’t believe in infallibility.

What does it say about the Church if it removed something that Joseph Smith said he restored and which would never again be taken away from the earth?

Joseph Smith said that penalties and the 5 Points of Fellowship would never be taken from the earth? When? Perhaps you’re referring to the sealing power, the keys of the priesthood, and the spirit of Elijah, all of which are still very much a part of temple worship.

6.Is God really going to require people to know secret tokens, handshakes, and signs to get into the Celestial Kingdom?  If so, Masons, former Mormons, anti-Mormons, unworthy Mormons as well as non-Mormons who’ve seen the endowment on YouTube or read about the signs/handshakes/tokens online should pass through the pearly gates with flying colors.

So should every person who has ever lived on the earth, as we intend to do temple work for every child of God who comes to earth in mortality.

7.Does the eternal salvation, eternal happiness, and eternal sealings of families really depend on medieval originated Masonic rituals in multi-million dollar castles?

Earlier, you admitted that the endowment ceremony has significantly departed from Masonry, and now you call the endowment nothing more than “medieval originated Masonic rituals.” Which is it? Make up your mind.

Eternal salvation, eternal happiness, and eternal sealings depend on the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. The rituals are symbols that connect us to God, but it is God that saves, not the rituals.

Is God really going to separate good couples and their children who love one other and who want to be together in the next life because they object to uncomfortable and strange Masonic temple rituals and a polygamous heaven? 

Why should he? All those children will have these rituals performed on their behalf, so there will be no need to separate them. The temple doctrine of redemption of the dead are extraordinarily inclusive and know of no parallel in the wider Christian world. But it’s nice that you got another dig in there about polygamy instead of one more mention of the rock in the hat.

Tomorrow: Science!