All About Mormons

One of my visitors recently sent me an email asking that I address a letter published on the internet. I thought my response might be of general interest. I encourage you to click on the links to find important supporting information.

Hi Kendra. I’m really happy that my site has helped you maintain your faith. I’d be happy to address some of the concerns raised in the letter you sent me.

My first impression of the letter is that it is extremely disingenuous. The writer states that he “wishes the members of the Mormon Church well, and will always think of them as fine, upstanding, and loving people,” but then proceeds to make all sorts of false accusations. I was able to identify the webpage from which this letter came. Let me assure you, that site is hardly an accurate place to find out about Mormon teachings. Let’s look at some of the writer’s specific points.

Writer: “The Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods. The Bible teaches that there is one only.”

Response: This is a misrepresentation of Mormon beliefs. The claim is “supported” by two books that Mormons do not consider to be canonical. The claim that “the Mormon Church teaches heretically that man can become a God…” is also a misrepresentation in this context. It’s important to remember that early Church leaders sometimes used the word “god” in ways that other Christian denominations do not. Early Mormons sometimes used the word “god” the way it is used in the Old Testament (see, for example, Psalms 82:6). Don’t be confused by quotes taken out of context.

Writer: “The Bible does not teach about a changing God who once was a man, once died, and once sinned.”

Response: I thought this quote was funny. It is true that the Bible doesn’t teach about a God that once sinned, and neither does Mormon doctrine, necessarily. However, the Bible definitely does describe Jesus Christ, God the Son, as a being who became a man and died. That is, in fact, the central tenet of all of Christianity!

Writer: “The Mormon Church does not understand grace, faith or salvation, and in fact teaches doctrine turned 180 degrees from the biblical truth.”

Response: That’s very debatable! The writer is obviously coming from an Evangelical background. Many objective academic scholars would very much disagree with the writer’s assessment that his brand of Christianity has got the Bible all figured out. Note, also, that the writer again cites the Journal of Discourses, a book that is not canonical. It’s interesting that there are no quotes from modern day prophets and apostles given in the letter… Why not? Doesn’t that say something about the agenda being pushed here?

Writer: “[Mormonism] denies the power of Christ and exalts the pride of man.”

Response: Kendra, if you know anything about Mormonism (and I think you do), you’ll recognize that this statement is a lie.

Writer: “I learned as a Mormon to try to ‘make myself perfect.'”

Response: Clearly the writer does not understand Mormonism. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, who commanded in Matthew 5:48: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” However, we don’t think we can become perfect in this life, and we believe that perfection in the life to come is only possible through Jesus.

Writer: “I learned that I needed to follow a laundry list of do’s and don’ts.”

Response: Of course God has given His children commandments. The Bible makes that very clear. But to suggest that Mormons believe that our good works save us is completely dishonest.

Writer: “I believed that I needed to follow a highly organized system of men placed between me and my maker to obtain God’s forgiveness or work within his authority.”

Response: First of all, Mormonism does stress the importance of having a personal relationship with Christ. It is insulting to think that Mormons believe they can only access Jesus through the church’s “hierarchy.” Additionally, this sentence makes it evident that the writer would have hated Christ’s original church as well, for Christ also set up an “organized system” with prophets, apostles, pastors, and evangelists (see Ephesians 4:11). Perhaps the writer should be more careful where he casts his criticisms.

Writer: “Men are sinners- born into it- and cannot make themselves perfect. The Bible teaches that men are accepted by Christ in their sins, that he loves them, and takes them how they are. It teaches that this is a result of faith in him. It says that though their nature still remains sinful, Christ changes them from the inside as a result of faith, but not as a result of their works. The Bible teaches that Christ’s infinite atonement covers all sin of all men who believe in him.”

Response: Much of this is precisely what the LDS Church teaches. Buying into his new brand of Evangelical Christianity, however, the writer likes to pretend that the Bible teaches that works play no role in salvation. In fact, we are saved by accepting Jesus Christ, but to truly accept Him we need to do His will, which includes following the commandments He has given us. The Bible makes this very clear. In general, the writer make a number of claims about what the Bible “plainly” says. Suffice it to say, his Biblical interpretation is highly suspect. Many Biblical scholars–academics who have dedicated their whole lives to the study of the Bible–would disagree with his views. That doesn’t mean that the academics are automatically right and he’s automatically wrong. It just means that the Bible might not be as “plain” as he thinks it is.

Writer: “The Bible teaches plainly that we are saved by grace through faith. It teaches that no one will be saved by their good works.”

Response: Mormons also reject the idea that our works can save us . The writer is consistently misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. As I explain on my website, “While works are required for salvation in order to satisfy the law of justice, our works are, in the end, insignificant. We must show God we want to follow Him by obeying His commandments, but even strict obedience does not ‘earn’ salvation. As the apostle Paul explained, despite our best efforts to follow God, in the end salvation comes through faith in and the application of Christ’s atonement. In this sense, works do not save us; not that they are not required, but that they are not sufficient. Faith is required for salvation.”

Writer: “The Book of Mormon is a largely plagiarized document with no historical, anthropological, archaeological basis in reality…Therefore it comes as no surprise that the Book of Mormon contains many quotations taken right from the Old Testament…”

Response: No scholar would take this charge of plagiarism seriously, especially because 1) there are vast amounts of “new” text in the Book of Mormon record, and 2) modern notions of plagiarism didn’t exist in Joseph Smith’s day. The New Testament also contains many quotes from the Old Testament, usually without giving credit to the original authors. Is the writer willing to dismiss that sacred book of scripture as “plagiarism” as well? Additionally, there is no “historical, anthropological, or archaeological basis” for many of the most important stories of the Bible either, including the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ! A testimony of scripture should be based on the whisperings of the spirit of God, not on academic evidence. That having been said, there is nevertheless some interesting academic evidence that supports the Book of Mormon.

Writer: “What is surprising is that many of these [Isaiah] passages were quoted word for word from the King James version of the Bible. What is more surprising still is that the Book of Mormon authors were able to quote from books written after 600 B. C. Let’s think about this: how could Joseph Smith have translated exact word for word quotes from “reformed Egyptian” into King James style English?”

Response: Actually, it’s pretty common to use existing translations to assist in the creation of new translations. Ironically, the King James version of the Bible itself borrowed heavily from previous translations! I wonder if the writer would be willing to throw out that book of scripture as well. Additionally, studies have shown that some of the differences between the Book of Mormon version of Isaiah and the King James version (and there are many) actually support the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient Semitic text.

Writer: “The Book of Mormon purports to be the record of ancient Jews who came to the new world. This being the case, where in its text is there evidence of Jewish religion and tradition such as Passover, circumcision, any of the Jewish festivals, etc.?”

Response: In fact, there is significant evidence that the peoples of the Book of Mormon practiced the Law of Moses.

Writer: “Also, why would these Israelites have written their record in Egyptian? Lehi had lived all his life in the city of Jerusalem, where they only spoke the Hebrew language. The Jews hated the Egyptians, and even if he could have written in their language (highly unlikely) he certainly wouldn’t have; the Jews were known to have an unusual love for their mother tongue.”

Response: The Book of Mormon itself explains why it was written in an adapted Egyptian script; Egyptian is a more condensed writing system. The claim that Jews would never use an Egyptian script is simply incorrect. There are examples from the ancient world, like Papyrus Amherst 63, of Semitic texts being written in Egyptian.

Writer: “Also, is there any biological evidence connecting the American Indians with the Jews? There is none.”

Answer: Given the Book of Mormon account, one would not expect there to be any demonstratable biological connection between these two peoples. On the other hand, there is a whole lot of DNA evidence against some core Evangelical beliefs, like the idea that all of humanity began in a single garden 6,000 years ago. It is ironic that the writer would appeal to DNA evidence.

Writer: “When the Bible talks of the city of Jericho – there is evidence to support that it existed; namely Jericho itself!”

Response: “When the Book of Mormon talks of the city of Nahom – there is evidence to support that it existed; namely Nahom itself!”

Writer: “The Bible states that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and an inscription has been found with the name of Pontius Pilate in theater excavations at Caesarea.”

Response: “The Book of Mormon states that Lehi left Jerusalem when King Zedekiah ruled, and a seal from one of Zedekiah’s officials was recently discovered at the City of David.” 

Writer: “Unfortunately, none of this evidence even suggests a Christian civilization present in America.”

Response: First of all, there is some archeological evidence that favors the Book of Mormon. Second, there is no archeological evidence in support of a Jewish civilization in ancient Egypt, despite the fact that the Bible says it was so. Is the writer willing to throw out the Bible as well? Is he not applying a double standard here?

Writer: “The Church has made a deliberate effort to distort its own history, and keep its members in the dark. As a Mormon I learned about Joseph Smith’s martyrdom… I was taught that he went humbly and without resistance just as Jesus did. Can you imagine what a shock it was to me to learn that he had in fact died in a gunfight, doing his level best to kill his attackers? The following accounts from the History of the Church…”

Response: The writer claims that the church is deliberately trying to distort its history, and then, to give a “real” account of what happened, he cites a book published by the Church! If the Church were really trying to hide its history, why would it be publishing that very history for the whole world to see? A quick search of lds.org reveals that the Church has published the details of the account elsewhere as well. As recently as 2008, the Church published the following description in one of its official magazines, the Liahona: “Joseph fired six shots to try to stop the mob. Then he ran to the window. Men in the mob shot him, and he fell out of the window.” Perhaps, instead of accusing the Church, the writer should invest more time in studying its published documents.

Writer: “I [John Taylor] afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by [Joseph’s] discharges, two of whom, I am informed died. (History of the Church, vol. 7, pp. 102-3)”

Response: For the record, scholars believe that John Taylor was misinformed, and that Joseph killed no one. How convenient that the writer omitted that detail. Besides, am I to assume that the writer believes self-defense is never justified?

Writer: “I learned as a Mormon that while the Bible was not reliable because it had been changed, (with later study I learned it was indeed reliable) the Book of Mormon was reliable and, ‘The most correct of any book on earth.'”

Response: Mormons agree with the vast majority of Biblical scholars that there have been some errors in the translation and transmission of the Bible, but we still believe that the Bible is a very reliable source of God’s words. We use it regularly in our study and in our worship services. Also, Mormons hardly believe the Book of Mormon is perfect, as the writer implies. The very title page of the book reads, “if there are faults [in the book], they are the mistakes of men.” I wonder, has the writer actually read the Book of Mormon?

Writer: “Why then has [the Book of Mormon] been changed over three thousand times? Many of these changes are grammatical, or spelling errors, but this book was supposed to have been translated directly by the power of God.”

Response: It’s silly to think that God would tell Joseph Smith how to spell each word. Joseph didn’t even do the actual writing; his scribes did. Over the years thousands of corrections have been made to the grammar and spelling of the Bible as well. Would the writer be willing to throw that book out the window?

Writer: “My wife Stacey, was surprised when she looked up 2 Nephi 30: 6 in a copy of the Book of Mormon that her grandmother had given her, and then in a newer copy of mine, and found that it had been changed… At the time of this change the church had been embarrassed by their teaching that the Indians who received the gospel would turn white!”

Response: The correction the writer mentions was made in 1837 by Joseph Smith himself. The change was completely justified; in a Near-Eastern context (and yes, the Book of Mormon is a Near-Eastern document), white does not necessarily refer to a color. “Pure” was clearly a better translation. The writer also takes this verse out of context and tries to paint the Book of Mormon as a racist text. He seems to forget Book of Mormon passages like this one: “[the Lord] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…”

Writer: “Where are those good old doctrines of the early Mormon Church like blood atonement, and the Adam-God doctrine?”

Response: First of all, these concepts, especially the Adam-God doctrine, were not the clear-cut “doctrines” the writer claims them to be. He’s set up something of a straw-man argument here; Mormons simply don’t believe that their prophets are infallible. Certainly Biblical prophets were not infallible. Remember Jonah? Second, our Church prides itself on continuing revelation; past mistakes can be corrected under the continued direction of Jesus Christ, who leads His Church. Third, if the writer is really interested in bringing up changing doctrine, I’d like to point out that the founder of his own branch of Christianity, Martin Luther, was an anti-Semite who performed at least one polygamous marriage. In the southern part of the United States, His own brand of Christianity once used the Bible to justify African slavery. I don’t condemn modern Protestants for these past doctrines; is it reasonable for the writer to condemn the Mormons?

Writer: “I was very surprised to learn in 1989 from a Mormon who wanted me to ‘come back to the temple, because I would like it better now,’ that the Lord had changed his mind yet again, and redone his sacred temple ceremony. Even as a Mormon who did not yet understand that the temple ceremony is really a Masonic ceremony copied word for word, I knew that something was wrong!”

Response: Mormons have never claimed that the temple ceremony is “unchangeable,” and in fact it has been modified several times over the course of the past 150 years. Is the writer really suggesting that Protestant worship services have remained unchanged since Martin Luther? Of course practices change over time. This is especially true in the case of the LDS Church; in fact, because of modern revelation, change is to be expected as God helps us adapt eternal principles to our ever-changing times. Also, the claim that the temple ceremony is really a Masonic ceremony copied word for word is simply not true. There are some few similarities, but the differences are vast.

Writer: “In closing I wish to tell you my greatest reason for leaving the Mormon church. It is in finding Jesus Christ. He also found me. He pulled me toward him and made me ready to listen.”

Response: I wonder what Christ said to the writer. Did the Savior perhaps encourage the writer to publish a lengthy letter with one example of bearing false witness against his [Mormon] neighbors after another? Perhaps we really don’t worship the same Jesus! The Jesus of the New Testament would never encourage this kind of behavior.