Countercult ministries/Tower to Truth Ministries/50 Questions to Ask Mormons

Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions

Anti-Mormon literature tends to recycle the same themes. Some ministries are using a series of fifty questions, which they believe will help "cultists" like the Mormons. One ministry seems to suggest that such questions are a good way to deceive Latter-day Saints, since the questions "give...them hope that you are genuinely interested in learning more about their religion."

This ministry tells its readers what their real intent should be with their Mormon friend: "to get them thinking about things they may have never thought about and researching into the false teachings of their church." Thus, the questions are not sincere attempts to understand what the Latter-day Saints believe, but are a smokescreen or diversionary tactic.^[1]

The questions are not difficult to answer, nor are they new. This page provides links to answers to the questions. It should be noted that the questions virtually all do at least one of the following:

1. misunderstand or misread LDS doctrine
2. give unofficial material the status of official belief
3. assume that Mormons must have inerrantist ideas about scripture or prophets like conservative evangelical Protestants do
4. apply a strict standard to LDS ideas, but use a double standard to avoid condemning the Bible or their own beliefs if the standard was applied fairly to both.

Questions About LDS Prophets

1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation (DC 84꞉1-5)

This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There's a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn't doesn't make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn't heed.

Learn more here: FAIRWiki link

2. Since the time when Brigham Young taught that both the moon and the sun were inhabited by people, has the Mormon church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true? (Journal of Discourses (1870), 13:271)

In Brigham (and Joseph's) day, there had been newspaper articles reporting that a famous astronomer had reported that there were men on the moon and elsewhere. This was published in LDS areas; the retraction of this famous hoax never was publicized, and so they may not have even heard about it.

So, Brigham and others were probably just repeating what had been told them by the science of the day. (Lots of Biblical prophets talked about the earth being flat, the sky being a dome, etc.—it is inconsistent for conservative Protestants to complain that a false belief about the physical world shared by others in their culture condemns Brigham and Joseph, but does not condemn Bible prophets.)

Learn more here: FAIRWiki link
Learn more here: FAIRWiki link

3. Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is "our Father and our God" when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Mormon 9꞉12) say that Adam is a creation of God? (Journal of Discourses (1852) 1:50))

The problem with "Adam-God" is that we don't understand what Brigham meant. All of his statements cannot be reconciled with each other. In any case, Latter-day Saints are not inerrantists—they believe prophets can have their own opinions. Only the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve can establish official LDS doctrine. That never happened with any variety of "Adam-God" doctrine. Since Brigham seemed to also agree with statements like Mormon 9:12, and the Biblical record, it seems likely that we do not entirely understand how he fit all of these ideas together.

Adam-God}}

4. If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses (1854) 2:142-143)

Peter and the other apostles likewise misunderstood the timing of gospel blessings to non-Israelites. Even following a revelation to Peter, many members of the early Christian Church continued to fight about this point and how to implement it—even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Yet, Bible-believing Christians, such as the Latter-day Saints, continue to consider both as prophets. Critics should be careful that they do not have a double standard, or they will condemn Bible prophets as well.

The Latter-day Saints are not scriptural or prophetic inerrantists. They are not troubled when prophets have personal opinions which turn out to be incorrect. In the case of the priesthood ban, members of the modern Church accepted the change with more joy and obedience than many first century members accepted the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles without the need for keeping the Mosaic Law.

5. Since the Bible's test of determine whether someone is a true prophet of God is 100% accuracy in all his prophecies (Deuteronomy 18:20-22), has the LDS Church ever reconsidered its teaching that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were true prophets?

Believing Christians should be careful. Unless they want to be guilty of a double standard, they will end up condemning many Biblical prophets by this standard.

Learn more here: FAIRWiki link

6. Since the current LDS prophets sometimes contradict the former ones, how do you decide which one is correct?

Most "contradictions" are actually misunderstandings or misrepresentations of LDS doctrine and teachings by critics. The LDS standard for doctrine is the scriptures, and united statements of the First Presidency and the Twelve.

The Saints believe they must be led by revelation, adapted to the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Noah was told to build an ark, but not all people required that message. Moses told them to put the Passover lamb’s blood on their door; that was changed with the coming of Christ, etc.

 ^{[needs work]}

7. Since there are several different contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision, how did the LDS Church choose the correct one?

The First Vision accounts are not contradictory. No early member of the Church claimed that Joseph changed his story, or contradicted himself. Critics of the Church have not been familiar with the data on this point.

The shortest answer is that the Saints believe the First Vision not because of textual evidence, but because of personal revelation.

For the most common claim about a contradiction, see here: Learn more here: FAIRWiki link
Virtually any question about the First Vision is addressed here: Learn more here: FAIRWiki link

8. Can you show me in the Bible the LDS teaching that we must all stand before Joseph Smith on the Day of Judgment?

This is a misunderstanding and caricature of LDS doctrine. There is, however, the Biblical doctrine that the apostles will help judge Israel:

Ye [the apostles] are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30; see also Matthew 19꞉28)

Since the saints believe in modern apostles, they believe that those modern apostles (including Joseph) will have a role in judgment appointed to them by Jesus.

Those who condemn Joseph on these grounds must also condemn Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

Learn more here: FAIRWiki link

Questions About LDS Scripture (excluding the Bible)

9. Can you show me archeological and historical proof from non-Mormon sources that prove that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon are true?

This question is based on the mistaken assumption that the Bible message that Jesus is Christ and Lord is somehow "proved" by archaeology, which is not true. It also ignores differences between Old and New World archaeology. For example, since we don't know how to pronounce the names of ANY Nephite-era city in the American archaelogic record, how would we know if we had found a Nephite city or not?

To learn more: FAIRWiki link

For physical Book of Mormon evidence specifically, see:

• Old World geography
• Warfare.

10. If the words "familiar spirit" in Isaiah 29:4 refer to the Book of Mormon, why does "familiar spirit" always refer to occult practices such as channeling and necromancy everywhere else in the Old Testament?

The comparison does not say that the Book of Mormon is a familiar spirit, but that the message from the Book of Mormon would be comparable, or like such a spirit.

The question ignores the Bible writers' beliefs about "familiar spirits." Such spirits represented the dead, who had passed on and yet could give a message of importance to the living. The NET Bible translation renders this verse as

"Your voice will sound like a spirit speaking from the underworld."

Thus, the Book of Mormon, being a record from a fallen Christian civilization, would be "as if" the dead spoke, since those who are now dead can speak to us. (All writing from another time does this—it allows the dead to speak to us. Matthew and Paul speak to us "as if" from the dead in the Bible; Shakespeare speaks to us through his plays.)

This doesn't mean that Isaiah was only referring to the Book of Mormon, or that he was particularly thinking about it at all. Nephi simply used the imagery and language of Isaiah, and adapted it to make his point. This was common practice in the ancient world. One wonders how young Joseph Smith knew that.

Are those you quote sure that the use of the term "familiar spirit" in verse 4 never applied to anything other than the occult during Old Testament times? Incidentally, the rest of Isaiah 29 is also interesting. Verse 11 may have been fulfilled in an experience of Martin Harris with Professor Charles Anthon in the 1820s relative to the Book of Mormon.

11. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (D. & C. 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)

You need to read further on. The Book of Mormon says that God may command polygamy, just a few verses after the one you cited. (Jacob 2:30).

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_condemns_polygamy

Many Biblical prophets had more than one wife.

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_not_Biblical

And, the Law of Moses had laws about plural wives—why not just forbid them if it was evil, instead of telling people how they were to conduc it.

And, many early Christians didn't think polygamy was inherently evil:

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Early_Christians_on_plural_marriage

As you may know there were times during the Old Testament period when prophets and others practiced polygamy (more accurately polygyny). The fact that the practice is not mentioned in the New Testament does not necessarily mean that it didn't go on. In fact, the law of the Levirate was a major part of Jewish culture, the law that a men needed to marry his dead brother's widow (often in addition to his own wife) and raise up children to his brother.

That being said, there were times when because of abuse the Lord ordered the cessation of polygamy. Such a time appears to be during these years in the Book of Mormon. The Lord has, at different times, approved of either monogamy or polygamy. I am grateful that monogamy is the standard today. I can tell you also that polygamy was a very difficult practice to swallow by nearly everyone including Joseph Smith.

12. Why were the words "white and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 changed to "pure and delightsome" right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?

It was not changed for that. It was changed by Joseph Smith (the translator) in the 1837 edition, though not carried through in some other editions, which mistakenly followed the 1830 instead of Joseph’s change. It was restored in the 1981 edition, but that was nearly 150 years after the change was made by Joseph.

Anyone who told you otherwise isn't checking their facts, and probably isn't very reliable. This issue has been discussed extensively in the Church's magazine like the Ensign, and the scholarly publication BYU Studies.

See: http://www.geocities.com/marcschindler1/vignette.htm

The civil rights campaign had been going on since at least the Montgomery, Alabama boycott in the 1950s. It is still going on today, though fortunately blacks are much more accepted. I am not sure why "white" was changed to "pure." It may have been that the word was written down incorrectly by Oliver Cowdery when he made his printers copy. It could have occurred when the type was set. It may be that those who proofread the proofs missed this error. I remember when the most recent copy was made of the Bible with the Church's footnotes. As some of us read through the just-printed edition more than 150 mistakes were found, which have been corrected in future printings. I would doubt that the change was made because of the civil rights issue. Our black members are happy that it was regardless of the reason.

13. If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?

In Alma, the reference is to Jesus Christ, who before His birth did not have a physical body.

John 4:24 does not say God is "a" spirit, but says "God is spirit." There is no "a" in the Greek. The Bible also says "God is truth" or "God is light." Those things are true, but we don't presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit.

As one non-LDS commentary puts it:

That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God's being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1John 1:5, "God is light," or Deut. 4:24, "Your God is a devouring fire." It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship. - J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, , edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/God_is_a_Spirit

The Great Spirit to whom Ammon refers is Jehovah, the name that Jesus went by before his mortal ministry. It does not refer to God the Father as far as I can tell. Before his birth Jesus, like the rest of us, possessed a spirit body. When Old Testament prophets saw Jehovah they saw his spirit body. Following his resurrection he now possesses a glorified, resurrected body of flesh and bones, as does his father and ours, God the Father.

Another way the passage in John is interpreted by some is that God is spirit, or a spiritual being. If it meant that God the Father was or is a spirit, then how do we deal with the verses that follow that say that those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth? Must we then get out of our bodies in order to worship him?

14. Why did God encourage Abraham & Sarah to lie in Abraham 2:24? Isn't lying a sin according to the 10 commandments? Why did God tell Abraham and Sarah to lie when 2 Nephi condemns liars to hell?

There are times in the Bible when God has commanded His prophets to protect the innocent by giving the wicked less than the whole story.

The first example involves Pharaoh's murderous instructions to the Egyptian midwives:

16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

The midwives are confronted with a command from the head of state which offends their personal/professional morality. They decline to participate, and actively deceive the Pharaoh--they even lie to him or his officers so that the deception may continue, as well as to (one assumes) spare themselves his punishment. The subsequent verses indicate God's approval of their action--honesty is not the primary moral value: obedience to the will of God is.

The second example comes from the prophetic call of Moses. The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh--what the "public story" should be, if you will:

18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

The "public stance" of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days' journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

21 And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:

22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to "borrow" valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to "spoil" (i.e. "loot") the Egyptians.

Pharaoh is, of course, nobody's fool. He seems to strongly suspect that there is more to the story than Moses is publicly admitting. He offers all sorts of compromise positions, seemingly designed to assure that the slaves will return after fulfilling their duties.76

Things proceed to the point that Pharaoh threatens Moses' life despite the plagues and signs. The people are finally freed, but once they have left Pharaoh and his councilors decide to resort to violence and slaughter:

5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?

6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him:

7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.

8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.78

We are not told why the Lord instructed Moses to deal with the Egyptians in the way that he did. It is significant that Moses did not take such an approach on his own; only a direct command motivates his less-than-forthright behavior.

One can speculate, however--it is certainly reasonable to think that the Egyptians would have murderous intent toward their slaves who presumed to leave. They are willing to act on such inclinations, despite the plagues, when it becomes indisputable that Israel has left for good. If Moses had announced that Israel was leaving, what would the reaction of Pharaoh's court have been? Moses' failure to tell the whole story may well have saved Egyptian life, as well as Israelite. To be sure, God could have used another way. But, in this instance, deception was the specific tactic which He commanded.

Anti-Moses authors could doubtless exploit this situation to great rhetorical effect--they could mock Moses' "ethical lapse" here, and insist that he did it all for monetary gain. They could contrast his behavior here with the "thou shalt not covet," "thou shalt not bear false witness," and "thou shalt not steal" commands given later at Sinai, and point out that "borrowing" when you don't ever intend to come back looks a lot like "stealing."

But, the Bible tells us that Moses did what God told him to do. Is it so surprising that Abraham might have been told something similar to prevent death to the righteous?

As I understand the genealogical relationship, at least in some cultures and probably in this one as well, all the females on the wife's side of the family are considered sisters, including the wife herself. In other cultures all are considered potential mates. I read the comments of one Biblical scholar that Sarah, technically speaking, was both Abraham's wife and his sister. If so, this would make God's instructions even more appropriate and morally acceptable from he who gave the law.

Incidentally, if the instructions came from Abraham himself was he, as a prophet of God, lying? Or was he instructed by God to pass Sarah off as his sister? In Genesis 12:17 we see that Pharaoh was plagued because of his attempts with Sarah. Was God then rewarding Abraham for lying? It looks as if this is the case. If God gave the instructions, as the law giver, was he making an exception?

15. Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born outside of Jerusalem, in Bethlehem?

The Bible also says that Bethlehem ("the city of David") is at Jerusalem. (2 Kings 14:20)

Ancient documents use the same expression: El Amarna letter #287 reports that "a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah. (See ames B. Pritchard, editor, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), 489, translation by W. F. Albright and George E. Mendenhall.)

Sounds like Joseph got that one right!

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms:Jerusalem_vs_Bethlehem

In the culture of the 6th century B.C. as I understand it, not only the city itself but surrounding towns were identified often as being of that city. Just as we generally refer to the greater Los Angeles area as Los Angeles, in spite of places like Anaheim, Beverly Hills, etc. so were not only Jerusalem itself but also Bethlehem, located about 5 miles from Jerusalem, considered then as part of the land of Jerusalem.

16. If the Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, as Joseph Smith said, why does it contain over 4000 changes from the original 1830 edition?

Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they'd have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible.

Most of the changes were issues of spelling, typos, and the like.

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_textual_changes

In storage I have a copy of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book which I believe is entitled something like 3916 Changes in the Book of Mormon. I spent one afternoon reviewing their book and discovered that all but a handful of the changes were related to punctuation. Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon without indicating any punctuation at all. That is why Joseph Smith said, once punctuation and manuscript proofreading had been completed, that it was the "most correct" book. Later editions divided the content into chapters and verses with some efforts to streamline text without changing the meanings. The 1981 edition was an attempt to make sure that not only the content but also the grammar and spelling are correct.

Those who hold with Biblical inerrancy have a problem with such issues. Do they insist that every translation of the Bible is inerrant, in spite of the differences between translations? What do they do, for example, with the so-called adulterers edition of the Bible when, by mistake, the word "not" was left out of the Seventh commandment passage in Exodus 20? I bet that produced excitement!

17. If the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the everlasting gospel," why does the LDS Church need additional works?

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_the_fulness_of_the_gospel

A good question, like so many others here. My best answer is that, since we are not perfect, we need continuous counsel from God through his prophets. For example, how should we deal with internet pornography? Or how should we treat other Christian denominations?

18. If the Bookof Mormon contains the "fullness of the everlasting gospel," why doesn't it say anything about so many important teachings such as eternal progression, celestial marriage, the Word of Widsom, the plurality of Gods, the pre-existence of man, our mother in heaven,baptism for the dead, etc?

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_the_fulness_of_the_gospel

A good question. What is meant by the statement "fullness of the everlasting Gospel?" It may have reference to the Book of Mormon containing enough information for one to know what is needed to be saved. The savings principles and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, layng on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost, and anything else one would need in order to progress properly toward heaven.

Does the Bible also contain the "fullness of the everlasting Gospel?" In the main it does, I think. Then why is the Book of Mormon needed? Well, God is the God of all the earth. What of people who did not live in the Near East, wanted to worship God but did not access to biblical writings? Would a loving God deny them his word through prophets just because of their location? (Amos 3:7)

19. Why do you baptize for the dead when both Mosiah 3:25 and the Bible state that there is no chance of salvation after death?

A good point. Our challenge is that we do not know which of those who have passed away without baptism are under this type of condemnation. Work by proxy for the dead is to give all the same opportunity to accept and pursue salvation. Those noted in Mosiah 3:25 will likely not be interested in repentance even in the spirit world, and thus this work will not likely help them.

20. Since the word grace means a free gift that can't be earned, why does the Book of Mormon state "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Neglect_grace

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Salvation_by_faith_alone

See especially this talk to non-LDS Christians by one of the Church's present apostles:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/conferences/98_apr/oaks_saved.htm

Just for the record, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes the same thing about grace that the earliest Christians believed. Modern Protestant ideas are different from earlier teachings, which is fine, but it doesn't make Mormon ideas "false" if we agree with how the earliest followers of Jesus saw the matter.

One Evangelical Christian author wrote of his sudden discovery that his previous beliefs about salvation were very different from those held by the early Christians:

If there's any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it's the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don't hold to this doctrine aren't really Christians…

Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there's an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the "false dilemma," by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it's either (1) a gift from God or (2) it's something we earn by our works.

The early Christians [and the Latter-day Saints!] would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it's conditioned on obedience....

The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.

—David W. Bercot, Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, 3rd edition, (Tyler, Texas: Scroll Publishing Company, 1999[1989]), 57, 61–62. ISBN 0924722002 (emphasis in original)

The Latter-day Saints are pleased to be in the company of the earliest Christians. And, the LDS cannot be excluded as Christians because they have not embraced the modified doctrines adopted later.

This is a major issue between our Church and other Christian denominations. Salvation is through the grace of God. This means that we cannot assure our own salvation no matter what we do unless the grace of God is present. Salvation is of two parts. First, we will all be resurrected because of what Christ did for us, no matter what we do. This is a wonderful gift. Second, the gift of eternal life also cannot be enjoyed without the grace of God. Since God is a God of justice as well as mercy, and since no unclean thing can dwell in his presence, we must, as he said, repent of our sins and come unto him before he will, through his grace, grant us salvation in the kingdom of heaven.

21. Does the LDS Church still regard the Pearl of Great Price as Holy Scripture even after several prominent Egyptologists proved it was an ancient funeral scroll?

The LDS Church was the one that announced that fragments of the papyrus were from the Book of Breathings.

See here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham:Book_of_the_Dead

You can see the big print in the Church magazine published as soon as the scrolls were recovered:

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD:Book_of_Abraham:Book_of_Dead_Scan_(full_size_zoom)

Critics often don't tell people that we are missing at least 85% of the scrolls that Joseph Smith had. We don't have papyrus with the Book of Abraham on it (except Fac #1) and have never claimed to.

The Book of Abraham was given through Joseph Smith prompted, we believe, by his looking at the scrolls purchased from Michael Chandler. We do not know exactly how he derived these five chapters from his interaction with the manuscripts. Many scholars have tried to figure this out.

My thesis fits a sociological model. Mention was made in #14 above about Abraham and Sarah's trip to Egypt. Another aspect of the trip was that Abraham likely carried with him as he approached Egypt his own personal history, a work that if discovered by Pharaoh would have gotten him into a lot of trouble. Dictators like Pharaoh do not like anyone in their kingdom having written material that is not supportive of them. Abraham chapter one talks about an angel of the Lord coming down and killing the priest of Pharaoh. Chapter two promises Abraham that all the families of the earth will be blessed through the lineage of Abraham. If I were a dictator I would be angry with the contents of his record, or any other written matter he carried with him that might undermine my position.

My thesis is based in part on his references in the Book of Abraham to aspects of the facsimiles. I believe that to protect himself and Sarah from harm in Egypt, Abraham rewrote his personal history in code so that the manuscripts he carried into Egypt would appear to be like the Book of the Dead, a non-threatening type of work but one in actuality, when translated by someone who had a key, it would be the text we have. Any items added in Egypt were in the same code. This is the basic reason secular scholars cannot deduce this particular meaning from the facsimiles. My theory may prove to be wrong. I will entertain it, however, until a better one comes along.

What is wonderful, in my view, though, are the contents of the Book of Abraham. It gives an account of the creation which is compatible with what science has learned about the evolution of the earth. It helps people who want to believe in both science and religion to find compatible ground.

22. Why does the Book of Abraham, chapters 4 & 5, contradict Alma 11 in stating that there is more than one God.

The term "God" may be used in more than one way. Latter-day Saints are not Nicene Trinitarians, but still believe in "one God."

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Polytheism

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Godhead_and_the_Trinity

The stress given in the scriptures about God, found in both the Bible and Book of Mormon, is to help us understand that there is only one God and Savior of this world. The Gospel is named after him. He is the central focus of our belief. His father affirmed his role with respect to us by saying of him "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17) and later to Joseph Smith, "this is my Beloved Son, hear Him."

A major issue here as I see it is to help us see Jesus' relationship to his Father and their place for us in this world. God is a title, given to one who overcomes all things and reaches a requisite state of perfection. Jesus reaffirms that there is more than one God by instructing all of us to pray to his Father as he prayed to him. He thus honored his Father by saying that "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38). In so many places in the Bible Jesus distinguishes between himself and his Father, stressing also that they are one in purpose, aim, work and desire (see John 17). He affirms "be ye perfect even as you Father which is in Heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) After his resurrection when he showed himself to his apostles the second time, Thomas said of him "My Lord and my God (John 20:28). Thus there is both God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, but only one God and Savior of this world, the Lord Jesus Christ. In this position, however, he is under the direction of His Father, our Heavenly Father.

23. Why does D. & C. 42:18 say there is not forgiveness for a murderer when 3 Nephi 30:2 says there is forgiveness for him?

A good question. One way to interpret this issue is to note that in 3 Nephi 30:2 the call may have been to those who did not know the truth and needed to have faith in it and repent. The mention in D. & C. 42:18 was to members of the Church who would have been under this condemnation. Perhaps we may understand this better if we note that this reference may be to the unforgiveable sin noted in Hebrews 6:4-6 and elsewhere in the scriptures. The shedding of innocent blood, in effect that of Christ, is unforgiveable. Just to kill someone does not fall under such a limit. Moses murdered an Egyptian overseer, but we believe that he will be exalted in the kingdom of Heaven.

24. If the Adam-God docrine isn't true, how come D. & C. 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel Chapter 7.

Another good question. Who indeed is the Ancient of Days mentioned in Daniel 7:9-14. Verse 13 may be a bit confusing because it indicates that someone, apparently the son of man who could be Jesus Christ, came from somewhere to the Ancient of Days. Where was he? Who is who here, and how do we know which particular interpretation of this scriptural passage is correct?

25. Why does the Book of Mormon contain extensive, word-for-word quotes from the Bible is the LDS Church is correct in teaching that the Bible has been corrupted.

It would be more correct to say that the Book of Mormon teaches that plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible. The vast majority of that which has remained in the Bible is both true and valuable.

See here for extensive evidence that the Bible both underwent change AND deletions in the very early years: http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_inerrancy

See also: http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_completeness

Latter-day Saints take 2 years of every 4 in Sunday School studying the Bible. They cherish it. They merely refuse to believe that the Bible is all that God has said, or can say. God can speak whenever He wishes.

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Bible_basics

The quotes that were taken from the brass plates were entered hundreds of years before the coming of Christ. They came almost exclusively from the writings of the prophet Isaiah who lived about 100 years before the time when Lehi, Nephi and others left Jerusalem. We believe that the removal of plain and precious things, at least from the New Testament, occurred hundreds of years after Nephi.

26. Why do the Bible verses quoted in the Book of Mormon contain the italicized words from the King James Version that were added into the KJV test by the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries?

The italics were indeed for words added by the translators. They were "added" because they were necessary words for making sense of the translation: in Hebrew and Greek the words are sometimes implied, but necessary for English to make sense.

Thus, in some cases the italic words are necessary, and Joseph or another translator would have had to put them in. In other cases, Joseph removed the italic words. (It's not clear that Joseph even owned a Bible during the Book of Mormon translation, much less that he knew what the italics mean.)

This is really a question about why the Book of Mormon text is often very close (or, in some cases, identical to) the King James Version. If Joseph was trying to forge a book (as the critics claim) then why did he quote from the Bible, the one book his readers would be sure to know?

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_Translation_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

[I would delete this—they are right about the italics, as I note above — GREG] Were the italics added for the first time in the 16th and 17th centuries or were they highlighted in some fashion by Isaiah himself when he first wrote the words. We have looked over the Book of Mormon text and are having difficulty locating the italicized words in question. Which ones are they?

27. If the Book of Mormon was engraven on gold plates thousands of years ago, why does it read in perfect King James Version English?

Because Joseph translated it as King James English.

Why do modern translations of the Greek and Hebrew Bible sound like modern English, even though the texts are hundreds or thousands of years old? Because that's how the translators translated them. It doesn't say anything about what the language is like on the original. (French translators make totally different translations than English translators, but the manuscripts remain the same!)

The Book of Mormon is a transliteration, that is the rendering into understandable English the ideas and teachings of these ancient peoples. The English renderings of Joseph were probably derived from his exposure to the King James Version of the Bible, probably the only book his parents, who were poor, even owned. It is amazing to me that science indicates that there are 39 different writing styles in the Book of Mormon, none of which is Joseph Smiths, and yet Joseph could provide an English translation with an overall tone similar in many respects to the King James Version.

Foonotes

1. [note]  Tower to Truth Ministries, "50 Questions to Ask Mormons," towertotruth.net (accessed 15 November 2007).