Friday, June 23, 2017

Don’t Pray About the Book of Mormon!

A [Mormon] missionary resource explains, “In order to know that the Book of Mormon is true, a person must read, ponder, and pray about it.  The honest seeker of truth will soon come to feel that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” . . .

Yet there are problems with this challenge.  First of all, the test is skewed.  A person who “prays” but doesn’t get the same answer as the missionary is viewed as not getting it correct.  If prayer is the correct means of testing the book’s authenticity, why is a negative outcome immediately rejected as a plausible response? . . .  However, Jeremiah 17:9 says a feeling that one has can be disastrously wrong because “the heart is desperately wicked.” Praying about a religious book, especially if it is fictional and not historical, is hardly an objective test.

If the Book of Mormon is just one of four LDS scriptures, why should it be prayed over and not the other three scriptures? For that matter, why shouldn’t a seeker after truth pray about the Qu’ran (Islam), the Vedas (Hinduism), or the Tripitaka (Buddhism)?  Where does praying about a particular religion’s scripture stop?  If praying about a book is a way to determine truth, then why have many Mormons never even thought about expanding their prayers to more than just one religion’s scripture?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 135

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Mormons, I’m Waiting for an Answer

A garden atonement seems odd for a couple of reasons.  One, Paul always points to the cross where this event happened; never does he give any indication that the atonement was divided over two locations.  In addition, the Bible only refers to the garden twice—never once in association with the atonement.  Two, if Christ actually atoned for all of the sins of mankind in the garden, what would be left for Him to atone for on the cross?

Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 158-159

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Some Random Stuff Proving Mormonism False

What about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon? Something is “rotten in Denmark”!

Is salvation only “after all we can do”?

The deception by the LDS continues in regards to Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Mormon.  The LDS was conceived in deception, so I’m not surprised at this.


Additional perspectives and insights on Joseph Smith’s “First Vision.

Mormonism’s “priesthood power” is how even God can do everything!

The origins of the Mormon Endowment Ceremony.

Mormon space program launches first manned mission to Kolob.  I saw it on the Internet.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Did They Really Say That?!?

And after the flood we are told that the curse [black skin] that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed.  And why did it pass through the flood?  Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representative upon the earth as well as God. . . .

Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil?  Why did the Lord not kill him long ago?  Because he could not do without him.  He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence upon God, and trust in him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments.  When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth.

LDS President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 22:304, 23:336

Where oh where to begin!  

Firstly, we are not told in Genesis 4:15 exactly what was the mark that God gave Cain, but it certainly wouldn’t have been black skin color or it would have said God gave him more than a “mark.”  

Secondly, the mark wasn’t a curse — it was a mark of protection!!  Thirdly, there is no evidence from Scripture that Ham’s wife was a descendant of Cain—that is just a made up idea by the Mormons.

Thirdly, nowhere in Scripture does it say that Cain was representing the devil, or that his offspring were representatives of the devil.  This, again, is an idea totally made up by the Mormons.

Fourthly, the idea the God can’t do without the devil certainly puts limits on God and His sovereignty!  The Mormon god proves to be incompetent.

Fifthly, how is it that the devil can do God’s bidding “to keep men straight”?  Isn’t that the work of the Holy Spirit in believers?

Lastly, explain why the devil needed “to be properly represented upon the earth”?

All this unbiblical nonsense comes about in order to shore up the false teachings of Joseph Smith.  These teachings include the lie that Satan is a brother of Christ rather than a being created by Christ (as the Bible teaches), that spirits in the pre-existence were all brothers and sisters (the Bible teaches NO pre-existent spirits); that these spirits chose to follow Christ or Satan and those who remained neutral received the curse of dark skin when they come to earth (pure racist ideology), and that Cain was apparently the first earthbound soul to have this curse (which begs another question about when this so-called rebellion took place); and that those who followed Satan became demons (whereas the Bible teaches that the demons are fallen angels, which are a different created being than are humans).

Mormons, you’ve been fed a lot of science-fiction fairy tales which totally contradict the truth of the Bible.  Learn the truth and leave Mormonism.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

First Vision Contradictions

Over the past 2 1/2 years since starting this blog I have linked to articles about Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” as well as posting various information discussing the topic.  In this post I’m going to provide a synopsis of some of the various accounts, citing a section from Alvin J. Schmidt’s book, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pages 56-57. 

There are different accounts of Smith’s first vision in which a divine personage(s) appeared to him.  One reportedly occurred in 1820, when he was only in his fifteenth year.  This one is recorded in Smith’s History of the Church, 1:5-8, but some scholars question whether this really was his first vision.  For three years later (1823), another report says he was visited by an angel that told him about some hidden gold plates.  And the Angel said he had to wait four years before he could obtain them.

In 1832, he wrote an autobiographical account of his first visionary experience, much of it in his own handwriting.  In this version he says, “there was plates of gold upon which there was engravings which was engraved by Maroni [the angel] & his fathers the servants of the living God. . . .”  As this citation shows, Smith spelled Moroni’s name as Maroni.

In still another version, written in 1838 by one of Smith’s scribes, but not published until 1842 (now the official LDS version), states that one evening in his bedroom an angel from heaven appeared to him in “a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness.”  He said this happened September 21, 1823.  The angel in this rendition is named Moroni who told him there was “a book deposited, written upon golden plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and source from whence they sprang.”  Although this account does not give the name of the place where these plates were deposited, it does state they were to be found near the village of Manchester in Ontario County, New York, in “a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood.”  This was Hill Cumorah.

Then on September 22, 1827, according to Smith, he was able to obtain the plates along with the Urim and Thummim, with which he began to transcribe the contents of the plates into English.  He did this by “reading” words illuminated on his seer stone.


While these examples are only a few of the many versions of the “First Vision,” they should be enough to demonstrate that the whole “First Vision” story was concocted long after any supposed vision took place, and the story is nothing more than a story of out the imagination of Joseph Smith.

Monday, March 20, 2017

Translation of a Translation!

Not even the LDS Church leaders can claim that their non-English Book of Mormon translations are taken from a first-generation source since the original gold plates are no longer available.  All of the dozens of foreign translations of the Book of Mormon have been derived from the admittedly second-generation English rendition (see Ensign [May 1995]:10), making these translations third-generation texts.  It would therefore appear that those who mistakenly claim that the Bible is nothing more than a translation of a translation or a translation would better apply their criticism to the Book of Mormon.


Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101, pg. 118, note 7.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Mormon “Unpaid” Paid Clergy

Mormons have a history or pridefully telling Christians that the LDS doesn’t have paid clergy and condemning Christian pastors who are paid.  

In regards to this claim, Bill McKeever had an editorial in the March-April 2017 edition of Mormonism Researched, the newsletter of Mormonism Research Ministry, exposing this lie.  The editorial, titled Paycheck stubs expose “unpaid ministry,” is as follows:

For much of its history, Mormon leaders have been very critical of Christian pastors ho receive compensation for their service to their congregations.  But when photographs of pay stubs from the year 2000 documenting payments to Henry B. Eyring (at the time a Mormon apostle) appeared on social media, along with a January 2, 2014 letter notifying Seventy Bruce D. Porter that he would be getting a raise from $116,400 to $120,000, Mormon apologists immediately went into damage control mode.  Ignoring the numerous denials made by LDS leaders who insisted that the LDS Church paid no ministry, they chose instead to defend what they felt was a rather modest amount, given what executives in the corporate world make.

Though the six-digit figure mentioned above does not include all of the other benefits LDS general authorities receive, haggling over the amount is really a red herring meant to deflect a person from the blatant deception that Mormon leaders have been practicing every time they proudly announce that the LDS Church had no “paid ministry.”  While that may be true for local leaders, full-time general authorities are most certainly compensated for their time and service.  And while it may be a modest amount compared to the corporate world, it is quite a bit when the public has been led to believe these leaders receive nothing.

With complete disregard to the fact that the “sons of Aaron” who served in the spiritual affairs of ancient Israel received compensation for their full-time service, and despite the fact that the apostle Paul cited Deuteronomy 25:4 in his robust defense of a paid clergy in 1 Corinthians 9, the Mormon Church likened this practice to being in the employ of Satan.  Members who experienced the temple ceremony prior to 1990 heard this dialogue between a character representing Lucifer, and another character representing a “trained” preacher:

LUCIFER: Good Morning sir!
PREACHER: Good Morning!
(The minister then turns and looks into the camera as if he is facing the Mormons participating in the ceremony.)
PREACHER: A fine congregation!
LUCIFER: Yes, they are a very good people.  They are concerned about religion.  Are you a preacher?
PREACHER: I am.
LUCIFER: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?
PREACHER: Certainly!  A man cannot preach unless he has been trained for the ministry.
LUCIFER: Do you preach orthodox religion?
PREACHER: Yes, that is what I preach.
LUCIFER: If you will preach you orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.
PREACHER: I will do my best.

Certainly this dialogue was meant to paint Christian pastors in a negative light.  While I see nothing unbiblical about compensating ministers for their full, or part-time service to their congregations, it is both hypocritical and misleading when any member of the LDS Church knowingly insists that their church has no such thing as a paid ministry.

[For more on this topic, see Sharon Lindbloom’s excellent article at



Thursday, February 2, 2017

How Do We Know Anything Is True?

Before Latter-day Saints unduly criticize the accuracy of the Bible, perhaps they should first consider the following:

1.  How do we know if James 1:5, the verse that Joseph Smith used to draw him to the “Sacred Grove,” was indeed correct?  For that matter, how can anyone trust other biblical proof texts used to support Mormonism?  It would deem reasonable that whatever test for accuracy that could be applied to James 1:5 could also be applied to every other Bible verse as well.

2.  If the LDS Church has a prophet who has direct communication with God, then it would seem plausible for him to fix these alleged errors.  After all, D&C 107:92 states that one of the “gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church” is the role of translator.  If the God of Mormonism was able to help Smith translate the Book of Mormon from the golden plates, he could also be able to help the prophet with these alleged errors.  Although the LDS Church does not officially publish the Joseph Translation as a bound volume, Smith’s alterations are included as footnotes and endnotes in the LDS-published version of the King James Bible.  Many Mormons are unaware that Joseph Smith failed to “correct” many of the so-called problematic verses.

3.  If Mormons want to scrutinize the small percentage of questionable material in the Bible—none of which affects essential doctrine—shouldn’t they also have a problem with the many changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years?


Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, "Mormonism 101," pg.115-116

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

The Test of Antiquity

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient holy book.  But is it really ancient as the claim?

J.Warner Wallace wrote an excellent article about examining the claims for the antiquity of books.  Read the article, copied below, and you will learn that the BOM fails all tests of antiquity, proving it was just written by Joseph Smith (with a lot of plagiarism from the KJV Bible) in the early 19th century.

The First Question to Ask of an Ancient, Holy Book: Is It Ancient?
January 25, 2017/3, by J. Warner Wallace

Many of the world’s best-known religious texts are silent when it comes to claims about history. Many Eastern religious scriptures, for example, describe spiritual principles devoid of historical location or setting. Texts such as these are proverbial in nature, proclaiming ancient wisdom without any connection to historical context. The Abrahamic religions are very different, however. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism make claims about ancient history. For this reason, these religious worldviews are both verifiable and falsifiable. We ought to be able to corroborate the historical claims of ancient religious texts just as we could other historical documents. Such verification would certify their antiquity, if nothing else. On the other hand, if the claims of an ancient holy book are consistently incorrect related to the ancient world it allegedly describes, we ought to consider the text with suspicion.

It’s also important to remember that not every ancient text makes a claim about “divinity”; there are many texts from antiquity that are ancient, but not “holy”. If a text claims to be both ancient and holy, it needs to pass the first test related to antiquity before it can hope to qualify in the second category as holy. After all, a book cannot be holy or divine if it is lying about ancient history.

The test of antiquity was incredibly important to me as a skeptic examining the claims of scripture for the first time. As I became interested in Christianity, my Mormon family encouraged me to examine Mormonism as well. I read the entire Book of Mormon before I completed the Old and New Testament. I wanted to determine the “antiquity” of the Gospels and the Book of Mormon before I could examine the question of “divinity”. I needed to know if the New Testament gospels were written early enough to have been written by eyewitnesses who were actually present to observe what was recorded in these accounts. Similarly, I needed to know if the Book of Mormon was an accurate account of the history of the American continent from 600BC to 400AD (as it claims). My first investigation was centered on the foundational question: Are these ancient holy books truly ancient?

What kinds of questions can an investigator ask when trying to answer this important question related to antiquity? I considered the following:

Are historical events cited in (or omitted from) the text in a manner that is reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to language, proper names and titles reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to culture, government or civilizations reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the references to geography, native animals and plants reliably and accurately ancient?

Are the other corroborative documents that are reliably and accurately ancient?

Are there additional, successive historical references that are reliably and accurately ancient?

I asked these questions of the gospel accounts and the Book of Mormon and came away with two very different sets of answers. There are many good reasons to accept the early dating of the gospels and their reliability as eyewitness accounts. In each of the above listed criteria, the gospels pass the test. I’ve written an entire chapter in my book examining the evidence for early dating and the historical reliability of the gospel eyewitness accounts. After examining the accounts using the tools that are employed by historians and detectives, I concluded that the gospels are reliable. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon doesn’t withstand evidential scrutiny nearly as well. Written in the first half of the 19th century, it fails to record anything about the ancient past that can be verified in any of the ways I’ve described. In fact, in each of the categories of inquiry I’ve offered to answer the issue of antiquity, the book of Mormon fails miserably.

I once asked a Mormon Scholar to tell me how she knew the book of Mormon was a true, reliable account of the ancient past. She told me that she had asked God about it and she believed that God had given her a “spiritual confirmation”. It struck me that this method for determining antiquity was misguided. While prayer might be one way to determine if and ancient holy book is holy, there are other, better established investigative approaches that ought to be employed to determine if an ancient holy book is ancient. We shouldn’t attempt to answer questions about divinity before we answer questions about antiquity. If a text is lying to us about events in the ancient past, it cannot be from God. For this reason, the first question we ought to ask any text that claims to be an ancient, holy book is simply this: Is the text truly a work from the ancient past?

So, Mormons — How do you explain the Book of Mormon failing the antiquity test?


Monday, January 2, 2017

If Not “Living” Prophets, Are They Valid?


Good questions from Mormonism Research Ministry when you use dead Mormon prophets for explaining LDS teachings and they dismiss the teachings because they are not “living.”

Were the prophets living when they said these words?

Were they supposed to be believed at the time they said them?

If the quotes of deceased presidents are no longer authoritative, why has so much energy been invested in producing the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series that features deceased prophets?

Excellent questions!