The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,346 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
THE MORMON CURTAIN
|
|
2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference Oct. 17 - 19, 2008
|
The time is flying! And time to remind everyone again about the Exmormon Foundation coming up October
17-19, 2008.
Please join us for our annual weekend of education, enlightenment, personal stories, and mingling with a group of interesting and brave people who are exploring life after Mormonism.
Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT Click here for details: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/200....
Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 1".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
→
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 1
Total Articles:
25
In 1820 Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God and Jesus Christ. The two were floating above him in the air and looked identical. Joseph alleges that Jesus Christ told him about buried golden plates wherein the history of Ancient Americans was contained. In due time Joseph retrieved the plates and translated them into the "Book Of Mormon". Mormons consider the Book Of Mormon to be the most correct book on earth.
|
|
The "Book Of Mormon" is a set of scriptures used by the Mormon Church. In 1820 Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God and Jesus Christ. The two were floating above him in the air and looked identical. Joseph alleges that Jesus Christ told him about buried golden plates wherein the history of Ancient Americans was contained.
At first he was not allowed to obtain the plates being blocked by Angels, however, later he allegedly attained them from the Hill Cumorah in Upstate New York. With help from his close associates, he allegedly began translating the language written on the plates into English. He did this by placing a "Seer Stone" in a hat, and placing his head in the hat. He claimed that words would appear and he would read them aloud, his scribe then writing it down.
Contained in the Book of Mormon are many chapters titled by the alleged author that wrote them. Each chapter is the story of Ancient Americans known as Nephites and Lamanites - of whom God himself allegedly brought to America from Jerusalem.
Published in 1830 as pure scripture declaring that it testified of Jesus Christ, it was considered a sacred book.
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.
Today, there have been over 3,000 changes to the Book of Mormon, including changing of entire verses. Racial epitaphs such as "White and Delightsome" have been changed to "Pure and Delightsome."
In April of 2006 the Mormon Church declared "This book was not a record of myth or an ancient history test or anything other than the true word of God." (Ensign, Apr 2006, p68) showing the LDS Corporation no longer views the Book Of Mormon as ancient text or history.
| I believe Primary children and Seminary students memorize 1 Nephi 3:7 but perhaps I should have my kids memorize DC 124:49 as well if they want to start learning Mormon Double Talk.
1 Nephi 3:7
7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.
DC 124:49
Is it just me or is the Book of Mormon full of prophecies that get fulfilled but the Doctrine & Covenants is full of prophecies that get excuses why they weren't fulfilled? I've said this before -- Joseph did a pretty good job of prophesying about things that supposedly happened in the past but not so good a job of prophesying about the future.
c
| In October 1993, LDS Church Apostle Dallin H. Oaks spoke at a FARMS annual dinner. He clearly layed out the church's stand on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and criticized those within the church that do not accept it as an historical record.
Here are some excerpts:
"Some who term themselves believing Latter-day Saints are advocating that Latter-day Saints should abandon claims that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. They are promoting the feasibility of reading and using the Book of Mormon as nothing more than a pious fiction with some valuable contents. These practitioners of so-called "higher criticism" raise the question of whether the Book of Mormon, which our prophets have put forward as the preeminent scripture of this dispensation, is fact or fable--history or just a story."
"Some Latter-day Saint critics who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon seek to make their proposed approach persuasive to Latter-day Saints by praising or affirming the value of some of the contents of the book. Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable. I have never been able to understand the similar approach in reference to the divinity of the Savior. As we know, some scholars and some ministers proclaim him to be a great teacher and then have to explain how the one who gave such sublime teachings could proclaim himself (falsely they say) to be the Son of God who would be resurrected from the dead."
"The new style critics have the same problem with the Book of Mormon. For example, we might affirm the value of the teachings recorded in the name of a man named Moroni, but if these teachings have value, how do we explain these statements also attributed to this man?"
And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mormon 8:17.)
And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust? (Moro. 10:27.) "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates. This approach is not even good scholarship."
"The Book of Mormon's major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable--whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of his appearances to them?"
"As Jack Welch and I discussed the topic of my address this evening, he pointed out that this new wave of antihistoricism 'may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but he has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.'"
"Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived. As we know, there are many so-called Christian teachers who espouse the teachings and deny the teacher. Beyond that, there are those who even deny the existence or the knowability of God. Their counterparts in Mormondom embrace some of the teachings of the Book of Mormon but deny its historicity."
"Brothers and Sister, how grateful we are--all of us who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation--for what you are doing. God bless the founders and the supporters and the workers of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The work that you do is important, it is well-known, and it is appreciated."
"I testify of Jesus Christ, whom we serve, whose Church this is. I invoke his blessings upon you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, The Historicity of the Book of Mormon, FARMS annual dinner on October 29th, 1993
Is LDS Radio Talk Show Host Van Hale's statements regarding the Book of Mormon in harmony with the church's position and authority?
How should True Believing Members reconcile the church's position and that of prominent LDS comentators like Van Hale?
See Van Hale's full Book of Mormon statement here:
http://www.think-link.org/think/van_hale.htm
| Has anyone else had to hear about the amazing chiasmus in the Book of Mormon?
When people first found out I no longer believed in Mormonism, I like many people here received several phone calls/letters from family concerned about my decision. Some of these communications would include statements like Well, what about (fill in the supposed evidence)? How could this be the case if Mormonism is false? One such evidence I was asked about is the existence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.
According to Mormon apologists, the existence of chiasmus is a strong indication that the book could not have been written by Joseph Smith. In fact, according to them, it is extremely compelling evidence of the books authenticity and Hebrew origin. (This is so compelling in their minds, that the subtitle to the link to the page on chiasmus on Jeff Lindsays web site says Critics cant explain this one away!) The argument goes something like this (taken directly from Jeff Lindsays web site):
BACKGROUND:
Chiasmus was a common form of presenting ideas among those with literary skills in the ancient world and was used to create powerful poetry. (Biblical examples are given to demonstrate how this form existed in the Bible.)
This form, however, was not widely appreciated as a hallmark of ancient writing in the middle east until this century. (i.e. if it was not well-known, no one would have intentionally written them into the Book of Mormon).
QUALIFICATION:
While chiasmus is now increasingly recognized as a hallmark of ancient Semitic writings, it does not prove anything per se, for chiasmus does occur in some modern texts by accident. In fact, one can force a weak, contrived chiasmic pattern to fit into many texts if one is willing to work hard enough.
TRANSITION:
The Book of Mormon, which claims to have its literary roots in the ancient Middle East, shows many excellent examples of what appear to be deliberate, crafted chiasmus.
CONCLUSIONS:
The examples are strong enough that they are difficult to explain if we assume that Joseph Smith (or any other person in the 1820s) wrote the book himself.
In my opinion, there is simply no way a poorly schooled farm boy in that era could have crafted sophisticated examples of an ancient writing form that was probably completely unknown to him.
As a tbm, I found this to be extremely compelling and, based on conversations Ive had with others tbms since then, I think others find it to be extremely compelling as well. Critics often take a couple of different approaches. First, chiasmus can be found in many different types of writings often with no intent by the author to have written the text. Essentially, if you break down any book of sufficient length, you will find that they often occur naturally, regardless of whether or not the author intentionally wrote them. Second, other people have used the claim of chiasmus as a show of authenticity, including, for instance, the Mormon splinter group of the Strangites (http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm).
Now, of course, I find this claim to be completely bogus thrown on the trash heap of other theories that crashed and burned under the scrutiny of closer evaluation. I think the best reason to discount this theory is one that I havent ever seen presented. First, lets take a look at how the chiastic structure was written (taken from: http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/introduction/chiasmus_intro.htm)
Under no circumstances should it be assumed from this system of repeating alphabetical characters that the ancient manuscripts were written with indentations in order to exhibit chiastic structure. The graphic method of presentation [i.e. the one that people use today to show how the chiasmus is set up] is merely a device adopted in order to eliminate unnecessary explanations and to render a complicated subject easy to grasp with a minimum of time and effort.
Note that these were UNMARKED structures, so no one would inherently know of their existence by looking at the passages. Next, lets look at the awareness of the writers (same web site):
I have reached the firm conclusion that many of these symmetries were altogether subconscious, and that it was felt rather than seen. This is merely another way of saying that the writers had learned their forms so thoroughly that they had forgotten them as forms. For the more extensive chiastic structures, however, I posit that some degree of conscious effort on the part of the writer.
Note that these symmetries were often SUBCONSCIOUS! Complex ones may have been written intentionally, but the form itself was often probably constructed unintentionally.
SO before we go any further, how many of you can answer the following question: can anyone name any writing styles that were used in the country of your primary ancestors 500 years ago? Come on now, we live in the age of information, this should be easy! How many of you are aware of ANY writing style used 500 years ago? Im going to guess that very few people (maybe Ken Jenkins?) would be able to give any kind of reasonable answer and for good reason 500 years is a long time and information like that is not naturally passed on from generation to generation.
Now, lets take a closer look at what Mormon apologists are saying when they try to connect the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with those found in the Bible. Invariably, Alma 36 is included as a shining example of chiasmus at work in the Book of Mormon, so lets use that one for our example.
Alma 36 was supposedly written in 73 bc, or more than 500 years from the time Lehi and his family left Jerusalem. I am supposed to believe that these people that were 500 years separated from this culture still understood what in the hell a chiasmus was? I DONT THINK SO! These passages were UNMARKED, so even if these structures supposedly existed on the brass plates, they still had to be AWARE of their existence. And we all are living proof of how impossible it is to maintain an awareness of literary styles such as this over a long period of time. Especially when one considers that many of these symmetries were altogether subconscious.
In this light, the effort to explain the why behind the existence of these structures becomes almost irrelevant. If apologists expect me to believe that it is ANY MORE LIKELY that people 500+ years removed from Jerusalem would use this style in their writing than someone who lived in the 1800s, well, I aint buying. These people would have been in the exact same situation as the people at the time of Joseph Smith no one would have known what a chiasmus was and they would have been no more or less likely to include it in their writings than anyone living in Joseph Smiths time
Or, to use Jeff Lindsay's words: "In my opinion, there is simply no way a poorly schooled Nephite in that era could have crafted sophisticated examples of an ancient writing form that was probably completely unknown to him."
| I remember hearing a little about this in seminary. The great "Deus Ex Machina" of Mormonism. People use this to speculate right out of all sorts of questions.
I remember when I first asked someone about the lack of Jewish ritual in the BoM (namely Passover), and the person's response was beautiful--"that's an interesting question, it's probably dealt with in the sealed portion *insert 5 more minutes of bullshitting here* ." I mean seriously folks, it like a scriptural wild-card, that can answer any unanswerable question. It's the fill-in-the-blank portion of LDS cannon.
So, when was the sealed portion supposed to be released on Amazon.com anyway? Before the second coming, after the second coming? And what is in it again? I don't really remember any of the details, I just know people use it as a convenient way to dodge questions.
- -
Joseph Smith hadn't quite figured out yet. He probably planned on living a longer life, and at some point, if he could have kept things under control, he would have fired up the old seer stone and gone to work on it.
But, yeah, I agree. Anything we're not sure about is probably in the "sealed portion", which, as I recall, was said to be the greater part of the plates.
- -
A guy by the name of Chris Nemelka claims that he has received the sealed portion of the BOM and will, within the next few months, issue a world-wide press release of it. He also claims to have received the lost pages (was it 116 of them?). He claims he has the urim and thumum (sp?). You can go to http://www.thesealedportion.com/ to read further. His story reads just like the Joseph Smith story. I would say he is just as nutty. What will come of it (the press release)? Probably not much. People will probably blow him off as the quack that he is.
- -
The BoM developed out of the Smith family's pre-existing involvement with alchemy, kabala and other traditions of "hidden knowledge." That's one reason the BoM story involved a buried book (a recurring theme in mysticism) rather than straight revelation (like the Qur'an). Part of the big attraction to hidden knowledge is the fact it's hidden and that only the wise and chosen ones have access to it. Of course, the point of publishing the BoM was to spread previously hidden knowledge, which sort of kills the exclusivity of it. But keeping back a "sealed portion" restored that lost aura of mystery, power and hidden secrets. As any good performer knows, you don't give the audience everything, you save something for the encore. So it was with JS. claiming there was a sealed portion hinted there were even greter mysteries yet to be revealed. Stay tuned folks, there's more.
| It emphasizes that it is contrary to the laws of God for the government to interfere with anyone's belief or freedom of speech in proclaiming that belief. Then it has Korihor brought to Alma in chains for preaching his ideas. If we are to believe the Alma 30 we have to accept that Alma is breaking the laws of God by having Korihor arrested in the first place.
The whole discussion between Alma and Korihor (read Thomas Paine) is exactly the type of argument that was going around at the revivals in Joseph Smith's day. I'm sure Joseph heard just this type of argument during the big revival of 1824-25 (No, Virginia, there wasn't one in 1820).
Before Isaac Newton it was the angels that pushed the planets in their orbits. After Newton it was the mechanism that God had set up in the beginning and now runs like clockwork. In either case the "argument from design" that Alma gives to Korihor (along with "we have the scriptures and you can't prove a negative) were running around Joseph Smith's time and place in abundance.
So it's interesting, Alma uses just the arguments that were popular in Joseph Smith's day in a form that couldn't have been used before (the earth goes around the sun--post Galileo) but don't work nowdays except among the philosophically naieve.
Of course you could point out, as B. H. Roberts did that the whole Alma-Korihor episode is too pat, too neat and tidy to appear as real history as opposed to unsophisticated fiction. I mean, Alma bests Korihor in the argument then Korihor admits that an angel appeared to him and told him to say what he did(!!). Finally Korihor is struck dumb and dies under the feet of the masses. This is rather obviously a simple morality play and not real history.
| The ORIGINAL manuscript of the BOM was placed in the cornerstone of the Temple at Nauvoo and only reclaimed years later by the RLDS. Only a quarter of the manuscript remained in readable form due to the effect of moisture..
Another version - the Printers Manuscript - which was copied from the original to present to the printer is largely intact.
But BOTH are, in your words: " ... herky jerky scribbled and scratched version(s) that should be the makings of a complex novel such as the book of mormon complete with many name and location and concept errors, strikethroughs, and whatnot ... ".
Again Nelson could not have been referring to ANY extant manuscript. THERE WERE NO OTHERS. The ones that we have - or the portions thereof are all there is. Nelson was putting a gloss on the essential deficiencies of the manuscripts.
You can read them yourself. Transcripts of he manuscripts have been reprinted (with photographs of some of the pages) by Shousen. These three oversized books are pricey but well worth it for the serious student. Skousen shows the true nature of the manuscripts even though he is a TBM.
Basically there were three BOMs before it settled down into something resembling our Modern BOM.
1) The Original Manuscripts as 'dictated' by Smith. No punctuation. Bad spelling. Much correction.
2) The Printers Manuscript - copied from the Original Manuscript and presented to the Printer. Not substantially improved over the original.
3) The BOM - 1830 Edition (Joseph Smith - "Author")- this retained much of the ungrammatical sentence structure and anachronistic wording but had the extreme lack of punctuation and correct spelling (there were no periods for example) corrected by the Printer. This edition includes the rant against Mrs. Harris for making off with the 16 pages.
4) The next edition (JHoseph Smith - "Translator") which had the wording/sentence structure cleaned up and had various theological and logical errors (Mary the Mother of GOD - for example) corrected. It also has the paragraph and chapter structure improved. The rant is gone.
5) Subsequently it is revised more subtly over the years as the winds of doctrine and editorial perogative blow hither and you. For example "white and delightsome" beomes "Pure and delightsome" back and forth.
The original manuscript has all the earmarks of a document dictated from another manuscript. Why Smith would have had to do so is a mystery. One possibility is that he was putting the manuscript/notes/outline in his own words filtered through his storytelling ability in re the "previous inhabitants of the continent" (as testified by his Mother).
He WAS enough of an egomaniac to not be satisfied with what he was provided from Rigdon or whomever.
Now the channeling hypotheses can not be dismissed out of hand. He was trained by my namesake and others in the hermitic arts. His use of the seer stone is consistent with a long tradition stretching back to Europe.
See "The Course on Miracles" or the "Book of Urantia" if you doubt the possibility of complex writings from this source. Think Elizabeth Claire Prophet. Think Ramtha. Think, at a lower level, of a Ouija Board session.
This is not to give credence to any particular theory of cahnelling but just to state that those who "believe" (or who say that they do)are capable of complex amd lengthy documents.
A vivid imagination, a gift of gab, a near eidedic memory, stories told many times around the fireplace in the family cabin now recycled in light of notes provided by one far more literate and well versed in theology (ie - Rigdon), an association with those who dabbled in folk magic (Walters and the alumni of the Wood Scrape), a desire to escape grinding poverty and a life as a hired hand, may explain much.
But the manuscript, in my initial analysis of it, testifies to a near illiterate DICTATING to others of approximately the same level of education. Cowdery may well have been a school teacher but his pages in the original manuscript do not testify either to a great command of the English language or the ability to spell its words.
The Original Manuscript HAS NO PUNCTUATION OR CONSISTENT SPELLING. It is one long run on sentence. Occasionaly there is a break of some kind ('And it came to pass, '&') which indicate a pause in Smiths dictation.
The Printers Manuscript - which is a copy of the Original Manuscript - shows no essential improvement in literacy.
Think about that! Smith and Cowdery thought that the Printers manuscript was suitable for printing! They let the printer punctuate and clean it up because they had no idea that such was even necessary for publication. They deferred to the printers expertise - which means they lacked their own. This for "... the most correct book ...".
As to the testimony of the witnesses ... if Cowdery was involved, as I believe he was, in what I call "The Enterprise" then his testimony many be discounted in its entirety. Then there remains the task of putting on a show for those not in the know - which would, I take it, include Harris and Emma. Not hard for a "hermetic" con-man and his companions in crime. If they could fool farmers that there was gold on their property from either Captain Kidd or the Spanish and have them pay to have it dug up with the assistance of a seer stone - then convincing a few stray witnesses that you are dictating an ancient manuscript via that same seer stone is easy work.
| Poor, poor Moroni. He thought he did everything he was supposed to do, but he must have skipped church once or twice while he was on the run from blood-thirsty Lamanites.
Was anybody else here bothered by the fact that Moroni was an angel despite the fact that he was so righteuos (during the days when you still believed?) I was, after I read the following passages found in the Doctrine and Covenants. I asked "Why is Moroni an angel? He wasn't such a bad guy" but the Sunday School teacher either ignored me or didn't know what to say.
"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (D&C 132:16-17)
Throughout the long, redundant chapter Joseph Smith--errgh, I mean, the Lord, makes it clear that angels are of a lower status than exalted individuals because they failed to "abide by my law" (i.e. polygamy, eternal marriage, etc.)
| Myth Busters and the Jaredite barges.
Things that sound good on paper often seem much more difficult when put into practice. I hereby issue a challenge to all BYU students, FARMS personnel, FAIR frequenters, members, and exmos.
Here is the challenge. I will even make this easier than Mahonris problem. You must take a sealed container large enough to hold three men, three women, two cows, and two sheep. These six people and four animals will be required to live in this vessel for 2 months. They will need to take all of their supplies with them including food and water for all aboard. You can only use materials and tools that were available in 2200 BC. The one exception is light. You are allowed to use any light source you choose, but the light source can only be used for light and nothing else.
Your vessel must be mounted in a rig that allows it to pitch 10 degrees and roll 360 degrees. While your team spends the two months in this vessel, I will stop by at random intervals to pitch and roll the vessel. Occasionally, the vessel will even roll 180 degrees and stay in that new position for days or weeks.
You must also accept legal responsibility for anything that goes wrong, including but not limited to:
- Asphyxiation
- Malnutrition
- Broken bones from falling or being crushed by a falling cow, sheep, or supplies
Your design must be approved by a 75% majority vote of approval from a committee composed of two FARMS employees of your choosing and two exmos of my choosing. Realism to the 2200 BC period and the record in Ether are paramount.
| Smithsonian Letter about Book of Mormon
Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560
Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.
| At the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon you will find "The Testimony of Three Witnesses," as signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris:
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."
Many people who find reason to doubt Mormonism for various other reasons sometimes have difficulty with this testimony. It seems so sincere and so straightforward. And, remarkably, even though each one of these men later became disillusioned with Joseph Smith and his church, there is no hard evidence that any of them denied this testimony in later life. So this document demands some explanation, if it is not to be accepted as proof for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Randy Jordan points out that there were also other "witnesses" to events of that day surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and its "translator": those neighbors and acquaintances of Joseph Smith's during the 1820s whose sworn affidavits were collected by Philastus Hurlbut and published in E. D. Howe's book Mormonism Unvailed [sic] in 1834. As Jordan says:
"Mormons assert that the "Book of Mormon witnesses" allegedly never recanted their "testimonies." However, not a single one of Hurlbut's more than five dozen testators denied theirs, either, even though some of them lived late into the century and had ample opportunity to do so. Also, Hurlbut's witnesses swore their testimonies as legal affidavits, whereas the "Book of Mormon witnesses" did not. So, whose "testimonies" are more credible? Those which are legally binding, or those which were given to sell books?"
Those witnesses interviewed by Hurlbut consistently portrayed Smith as a ne'er-do-well knock-about who picked up money by convincing gullible farmers that he could find buried treasure on their lands through his magical powers and his "peep stone" (the same stone with which he claimed to have translated the sacred golden plates).
I know a little bit about hypnotism, self-hypnotism and "altered states of consciousness." The techniques of inducing a hypnotic or semi-hypnotic state in a suitable subject are easy to learn, and quite simple. The hypnotist suggests the proper physical state (usually relaxed), and then gives hypnotic suggestions. It has also been found that turning the eyeballs slightly upward (as in an attitude of prayer, or looking for a descending angel) enhances the suggestibility of the subject. The subject can retain full consciousness, even though hallucinating at the suggestion of the hypnotist.
I have done this. I have seen it done. For instance, I once watched an amateur hypnotist at a party gather a group of about twenty people in a room to "talk about hypnotism." Within a very few minutes, without any warning from him (he didn't say, "now I'm going to hypnotize you!"), just by talking "about" hypnotism, he had about 80% of the people hypnotized. He suggested that a flock of birds were flying overhead (this happened indoors, remember) dropping bird poop on them. Immediately everyone was frantically covering their heads, wiping themselves off, making sounds of disgust. The next moment he suggested they were watching the saddest movie they had ever seen. People immediately began to sob, to cry real tears, to shake with emotion. He then suggested that they were watching the funniest movie they had ever seen, and immediately they were holding their sides with laughter, falling off their chairs, etc.
Of course Joseph Smith was not a trained hypnotist. The phenomenon had only begun to receive attention a few decades earlier, when Mesmer began to study it, calling it "animal magnetism." But there is no doubt, I would think, that priests, magicians, sorcerers and other charismatic types had discovered by accident, or by trial and error, many of the techniques to induce a hypnotic state. "Spell-binding" is a very old word, and a very old notion. Joseph Smith was charismatic, spell-binding, according to all who met him.
The situation of the Three Witnesses was ideal for a hypnotically-induced illusion or "vision." Cowdery may have even been an accomplice, a shill, since he had been involved with Smith almost from the beginning. (And it appears, from recent unpublished research, that Cowdery's involvement was even earlier than presently suspected.)
I see no problem with the fact that none of them denied their testimony, even though they all left the church. There are two very plausible explanations (take your pick), neither of which require us to conclude that they must have seen an angel. Remember, too, that the most that their signed testimony can prove is that they believed they had seen an angel. No one is required to believe such testimony, that is, to accept as conclusive proof that, in fact, they had seen an angel, either in court or in real life. Whether they actually did see an angel is a different issue.
Explanation 1: As many critics have suggested, any man (even an honest man) hates to admit that he was flummoxed, or that he lied under oath, or that he has contributed to the deception of thousands of trusting people. It is easier, it causes less trouble, just to stick by the original story. (There are probably General Authorities and members of the BYU faculty who are further examples of this attitude.)
Explanation 2: A hypnotically-induced hallucination is very real. Like any hallucination, it is identifiable as a hallucination only by someone other than the person hallucinating. If the person having the hallucination recognized that it was a hallucination, either at the time or later, it would not be a hallucination. It is very difficult to convince a hallucinator that his experience was not real. I think that the Witnesses had a joint hallucination that was so real that they believed it for as long as they lived (this conclusion may not apply to Cowdery).
Mormon apologists counter the hallucination hypothesis by saying that joint hallucinations are impossible, i.e. two or more people having the same hallucination at the same time. Strictly speaking, that is probably true. But it is no valid objection here, because we are not suggesting that the Witnesses saw exactly the same thing. Each of them had an individual hallucination that shared only broad similarities. We have no details about what the angel looked like (long brown hair, medium black hair, short sleeves, long sleeves, barefoot, sandals, etc.). They saw and heard what it was suggested to them that they see and hear: angel holding gold plates, voice saying the record is true and commanding them to bear witness. One witness could have heard "Go thou forth and bear witness that this record is true!" but another could have heard: "I testify to you that this is the work of God, and is a true record; you are chosen and elected of God to bear witness to it!" What a shame, that we could not examine thesewitnesses to see if the details of their vision were identical! I have no doubt that some of the people I saw hallucinating at that party were picturing pigeons flying overhead, but others were seeing seagulls or crows, that some saw them flying east to west, and others north to south, or willy-nilly; I am quite certain that their movies were different. And yet they were all seeing something that in general terms could be described the same: "birds flying overhead, defecating; sad movie."
Why should one accept that kind of testimony?
UPDATE
Since I wrote the above, two excellent discussions of the Witnesses have appeared:
Dan Vogel's essay "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies", in the essay collection American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, edited by Vogel and Brent Metcalfe, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2002, pp 79-121
Chapter 6 ("Witnesses to the Golden Plates") in Grant H. Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2002, pp. 175-213
© 2001 Richard Packham Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included
| I was recently chatting with a young, Catholic girl and she made mention of the fact that her "Mormon buddies" told her it was a lie that the first people in America came by submarine.
This was my reply to her and at the end I included several items that bother me to no end about the story.
I hate to be the one that busts your bubble, but the Mormons do believe that the first people in America came via submarine.
It is the story of the Brother of Jared, found in Ether in the Book of Mormon. As the story goes, Jared and his family were present at the Tower of Babel and Jared asked his brother to beg the Lord not to confound his family's language (and that of his friends) so that they could all stay together. (see Ether chapter 1 verses 33-37.)
Jared then asked his brother to ask God if they needed to leave. The Brother of Jared received revelation that they were to leave the area and take animals of all kinds "both male and female, of all kinds" and journey to a new land that God had prepared and set apart for them. (see Ether Chapter 1 verses 38-43.)
They gathered up all kinds of animals, birds, insects (Honey Bees are specifically mentioned, which is odd since the first bees in America were brought by Dutch immigrants in the late 1700s to the early 1800s.)
The story continues that they built barges and crossed some minor sea located in the wilderness (presumably the Red Sea) before they arrived at "The great waters that divided the lands." (see Ether Chapter 2 verses 1-7 and Ether chapter 2 verse 13.)
When they got to the coast, God revealed the ship design that the Jaredites were to use. It was in the shape of a football, had no windows, and it had a hole in both the top and the bottom that could be plugged with a wooden cork. According to the Lord (in the Book of Mormon) this was done because storms might arise and turn the ships upside down. And suffocating because your air-hole is underwater would kind of suck. (see Ether Chapter 2 verses 16-21.)
The lack of windows bothered the Brother of Jared (also known as Mahonri Moriancumer, according to Joseph Smith) so he went to pray to God about how to light the submersibles. God, being the fiendishly clever sort, asks the Brother of Jared what he wants God to do, because as God says, "You can't have any windows or fire, dammit!" God clarifies this by telling the Brother of Jared that they are going to spend a lot of time underwater. "You shall be as a whale, going to the depths of the sea." (see Ether Chapter 2 verses 22-25.)
According to the legend found in the Book of Mormon, he laid out sixteen rocks (2 for each football. . . err, submersible) and prayed to Jesus and asked him to merely touch the rocks that they might glow with divine light and thereby provide the necessary illumination for the journey. And, because of his faith, Christ appears to him and does so. ( see Ether Chapter 3 verses 1-6.)
So, the Jaredites now have a way to get air, a light source and their boats. They proceed to gather food for the journey and make all kinds of preparations. (see Ether Chapter 6 verse 4.)
Anyways, the boats had no means of propulsion. In the Book of Mormon, it says (paraphrased slighty) that, "they were driven before the winds for 344 days". According to the Book of Mormon, they spent a significant amount of time underwater, and they were attacked by whales and other "monsters of the sea" but no harm could befall them. (see Ether Chapter 6 verses 5-11.)
That, is the scriptural belief that the first inhabitants of North America came by way of submarine.
As you can see, it is only a slight exaggeration.
Now, here are some logistics problems that Joseph Smith didn't think of as he was writing the Book of Mormon.
A. A boat that is going to turn upside-down underwater, is going to piss a lot of people off. The injuries alone (both human and animal) from the radical change in orientation would have wiped out many of their numbers.
B. A small, lightweight boat. Emphasis on small. How much food do you think you would need for a journey of 344 days? Because the Jaredites had to bring enough food for them and their animals. Now, we are going to assume that they brought Goats with them (because a later "prophet" named Nephi said that there were goats in America when he arrived 600 years before Christ) and, having spent 14 years of my life raising goats, I can tell you, they eat a lot of food. For just three goats, you need 1 ton (or 2,000 lbs) of hay for a year. Don't forget that goats can't survive on hay alone, you need to bring them grains. 1,000 lbs total of several grains (for three goats) should last them about 4 months.
C. And what about water? How much water do you drink in a day? How much in a year? And, since they were surrounded by salt water (and often times under said salt water), they couldn't drink the sea water.
According to most medical sources, drinking 8 ounces of water 6-8 times per day is necessary to keep you healthy. 8 ounces of water weighs .5 lbs. So, on average, each person needs 4 pounds of water each day. 4 lbs x 344 days = 1373 pounds of water per person. And we know that there were a lot of people because they needed 8 boats. Not to mention water for the animals (and believe me, three goats can go through 60 gallons of water, which weighs 480 pounds, like it was nothing) and water for bathing.
D. The boats are sealed, except for a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom. Do you know how much shit your average goat produces in a month? A lot. Believe me, I have spent more time mucking out manure than I have spent asleep.
All in all, there are too many "logic" problems for me to buy the whole story. And the submarines just kind of take the cake, eh?
| Can you not believe in the literal historical truthfullness of the Book of Mormon and still be a faithful Mormon?
Could the Mormon Church still be true if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be?
Here's what the church has recently declared:
"Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church..."
"To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church everything rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smiths account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a sudden death proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward."
"Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who:
[1] after seeing the Father and the Son,
[2] later beheld the angel Moroni,
[3] repeatedly heard counsel from his lips,
[4] eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which
[5] he then translated according to the gift and power of God
- or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Bensons comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those."
"I am suggesting that we make exactly that same kind of do-or-die, bold assertion about the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the divine origins of the Book of Mormon. We have to. Reason and rightness require it. Accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the book as the miraculously revealed and revered word of the Lord it is or else consign both man and book to Hades for the devastating deception of it all, but lets not have any bizarre middle ground about the wonderful contours of a young boys imagination or his remarkable facility for turning a literary phrase. That is an unacceptable position to takemorally, literarily, historically, or theologically."
- Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, True or False, New Era, June 1995, Page 64 (Excerpted from a CES Symposium address given at Brigham Young University on August 9, 1994.)
Interesting how Apostle Holland doesn't list actual doctrinal teachings from the Book of Mormon that make it vital to Mormon theology. He's basically saying what many have said here, that I agree with - it's a matter of credibility. If the book is not what Smith and the church say it is, then Smith is a liar and the church is a hoax.
So it's not about what the book actually teaches, it's the credibility of the book that counts. If missionaries can get people to accept the book as what the church says it is, then they will accept the rest. They don't even have to read it, just accept it as what the church says it is to lock into Mormon Logic.
Couldn't the same thing be said for the D&C and the Book of Abraham? If those are not what they claim to be, doesn't Smith fall just as hard as a fraud?
Also, getting sucked into Holland's logic can be dangerous for the church too, because it really is "do-or-die" like he says. If dedicated, sincere members learn the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then they almost have to leave the church even if they still feel strong social ties. There's hardly any middle ground where you can accept the BoM as unecessary bullshit but still be a happy, active Mormon.
"Some who term themselves believing Latter-day Saints are advocating that Latter-day Saints should abandon claims that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. They are promoting the feasibility of reading and using the Book of Mormon as nothing more than a pious fiction with some valuable contents. These practitioners of so-called "higher criticism" raise the question of whether the Book of Mormon, which our prophets have put forward as the preeminent scripture of this dispensation, is fact or fable--history or just a story."
"Some Latter-day Saint critics who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon seek to make their proposed approach persuasive to Latter-day Saints by praising or affirming the value of some of the contents of the book. Those who take this approach assume the significant burden of explaining how they can praise the contents of a book they have dismissed as a fable. I have never been able to understand the similar approach in reference to the divinity of the Savior. As we know, some scholars and some ministers proclaim him to be a great teacher and then have to explain how the one who gave such sublime teachings could proclaim himself (falsely they say) to be the Son of God who would be resurrected from the dead."
"The new style critics have the same problem with the Book of Mormon. For example, we might affirm the value of the teachings recorded in the name of a man named Moroni, but if these teachings have value, how do we explain these statements also attributed to this man?"
And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mormon 8:17.)
And I exhort you to remember these things; for the time speedily cometh that ye shall know that I lie not, for ye shall see me at the bar of God; and the Lord God will say unto you: Did I not declare my words unto you, which were written by this man, like as one crying from the dead, yea, even as one speaking out of the dust? (Moro. 10:27.)
"There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates. This approach is not even good scholarship."
"The Book of Mormon's major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable--whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of his appearances to them?"
"As Jack Welch and I discussed the topic of my address this evening, he pointed out that this new wave of antihistoricism 'may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but he has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.'"
"Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived. As we know, there are many so-called Christian teachers who espouse the teachings and deny the teacher. Beyond that, there are those who even deny the existence or the knowability of God. Their counterparts in Mormondom embrace some of the teachings of the Book of Mormon but deny its historicity."
"Brothers and Sister, how grateful we are--all of us who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation--for what you are doing. God bless the founders and the supporters and the workers of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The work that you do is important, it is well-known, and it is appreciated."
"I testify of Jesus Christ, whom we serve, whose Church this is. I invoke his blessings upon you, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."
- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, The Historicity of the Book of Mormon, FARMS annual dinner on October 29th, 1993
Despite these clear declarations by living apostles, some "faithful" church apologists have publicly thumbed their noses at the church, denying the historicity of the Book of Mormon:
http://www.i4m.com/think/van_hale.htm
What's a TBM to do when some of the greatest church defenders declare the Book of Mormon to be only fiction?
| Here Are Some Other Christ-Centered Principles Contained In The Book Of Mormon, That Apply Directly To The LA Times Article
Article Archived: Monday, Feb 20, 2006, at 07:13 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOOK OF MORMON - SECTION 1
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Faraday | TOP | |
Here are some other Christ-centered principles contained in the Book of Mormon, that apply directly to the LA Times Article:
Jacob 7: when Sherem accused the church, he gained an audience with the prophet himself. The prophet defeated Sherem in argument, Sherem fell to the ground as if dead for three days, and then publically recanted his false teachings. I challenge the prophet to live the Christ-centered principle contained in the Book of Mormon, and have an interview with the journalist in question.
If the Book of Mormon is any guide, a critic faced with the prophet will publically recant. This applies to Sherem, Nehor, Korihor - in every case, if you face him publically, the critic will recant. Come on, Mormons, why are you hiding behind a web site that won't link to the critics' words, and apologists who do not officially represent the church? Bring out the prophet! Do what the scriptures teach and face your critics! Don't you trust the Book of Mormon?
Alma 1: when Nehor publically preached against the church,
"they carried him upon the top of the hill Manti, and there he was caused, or rather did acknowledge, between the heavens and the earth, that what he had taught to the people was contrary to the word of God; and there he suffered an ignominious death."
I challenge the church to live the Christ-centered principle contained in the Book of Mormon that apply to critics. The church should deal with modern-day Nehors in the way the Book of Mormon teaches. Let us see these "Christ centered teachings" in action. I should add that Joseph Smith (Danites) and Brigham Young (blood atonement) understood this Christ-centered principle perfectly.
Alma 30: when Korihor tried to preach against the church, there ws no law against his preaching (verse 12). Nevertheless, the people were described as "more wise" and,
"they took him, and bound him, and carried him before Ammon, who was a high priest over that people." (verse 20)
I challenge the church to live this Christ-centered principle contained in the Book of Mormon. Take this so-called LA Times journalist, bind him, and carry him to the prophet, and if the Book of Mormon is any guide, he will repent of his lies. Mormons, follow the Christ centered principles contained in the Book of Mormon!
The Book of Mormon contains many examples of what should be done with people who promote "mistakes" as the LDS web site calls them. No wonder that church growth is slowing. The Mormon church is afraid to live by "the Christ-centered principles contained in the Book of Mormon."
| | Most people - Mormons and non-Mormons alike - assume that the Mormon religion is based on its holy book, the Book of Mormon and that by reading that book one can learn what Mormonism is all about. Mormon missionaries usually try to get prospective converts ("investigators") to read it as soon as possible, implying that by doing so the investigator will get an accurate idea of Mormonism.
Although the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830 was the impetus for the founding of the Mormon church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Mormonism is not rooted doctrinally in the Book of Mormon. It is used primarily for faith-inspiring stories, not for doctrine, even though God (through Joseph Smith) declared that it contains "the fulness of the Gospel." (D&C 20:9) Its doctrinal content is quite representative of wide-spread Christian beliefs in Joseph Smith's day. Many of its doctrines are now ignored or have been abandoned by the church, and many other doctrines have been adopted, as the following summary shows:
Abbreviations Used
D&C - Doctrine and Covenants
DoS - Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith (3 volumes)
JoD - Journal of Discourses (26 volumes)
MD - Mormon Doctrine, 2d edition, by Bruce R. McConkie
TJS - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
Citations under "Book of Mormon" are to its various books
| Mormon Doctrine | Book of Mormon |
|---|
| Heaven consists of three levels or "glories"; evil people go to the lowest, "hell" (D&C 76:81-90), the glory of which "surpasses all understanding. Only Mormon apostates do not go to heaven, but to "outer darkness" (D&C 76:31-39) |
Only two possible fates after death: heaven or hell. Levels or degrees of heaven not mentioned. |
| Jesus and God the Father are separate beings. (D&C 130:22) |
Jesus and God the Father are the same. (Mosiah 3:8, 15:1-5, Ether 4:7, 12) |
| God has a body of flesh and bones. (D&C 130:22) |
God is a spirit. (Alma 18:26-28) |
| God was once a man like us, and progressed to godhood. (TJS 342-345) |
God does not change and has never changed. (Mormon 9:9, Moro | | |