FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods"
(→Distortion through fictional conversations with LDS believers: mod) |
(→A "Mormon missionary" claims that the belief that Jesus paid for his sins is "not my faith?": mod) |
||
| Line 339: | Line 339: | ||
*Author: '''"That's why we need Jesus. He did it all for us. Paid the price for our sins. Cancelled out the debt against us. Opened up a way, free and clear, to eternal life." | *Author: '''"That's why we need Jesus. He did it all for us. Paid the price for our sins. Cancelled out the debt against us. Opened up a way, free and clear, to eternal life." | ||
*Elder "Steve": '''"That sounds nice. But that's not my faith."''' | *Elder "Steve": '''"That sounds nice. But that's not my faith."''' | ||
| + | <!-- | ||
*Author: "It could be." | *Author: "It could be." | ||
*Elder "Steve": Hey, I thought I was the missionary here." | *Elder "Steve": Hey, I thought I was the missionary here." | ||
| + | --> | ||
{{ea}} | {{ea}} | ||
Revision as of 12:08, 17 January 2009
| A FAIR Analysis of: Becoming Gods A work by author: Richard Abanes
|
One Nation Under Gods |
About this work
Overview
- There are no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.
- —Paul Mosser and Carl Owen, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Know It?" Trinity Journal, 1998.
It is claimed that this book is an attempt to fill the void highlighted by Mosser and Owen. Unfortunately, what we find instead are the same misrepresentations and arguments that been offered in the past by anti-Mormon authors. There is nothing at all new here. This book could best be described as an Evangelical apologetic work against Mormonism. The book spends much time refuting LDS interpretation of scriptural passages in the Bible, often claiming that Mormons have misinterpreted the scriptures and that they require "deeper study." In fact, it is claimed that LDS scholars have only a superficial knowledge of the scriptures, at one time stating that "[p]roperly interpreting them is not as simple as reading today's newspaper" (p. 213).
Notable and Quotable
A summary of the painful manipulations required in order to circumscribe the meaning of the term "Christian" so that it excludes Latter-day Saints:
- Many evangelical books offer little help. Some are strident or mocking.
- —Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 11
- Mormons do in fact seek salvation within the historical person known to the world as Jesus of Nazareth, as they see him.
- —Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 265
- This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premarital "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christians"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christian" nudists.
- —Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 265
- So if Daniel Peterson and Barry Bickmore, for example, have no problem being called "heretical Christians," then I have no problem obliging them.
- —Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 266
- When it comes to whether or not Mormons are Christian, a simple yes or no answer will never do.
- —Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 279
- Appeals Court Rules Mormon Church Is Outside Protestant Christian Faith. This ruling clearly agrees that Mormonism is outside Protestantism. And Mormonism is certainly not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The ruling, of course, fails to answer the question: What is Mormonism? Given the fact that it is not Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, one can naturally extrapolate that Mormonism is not Christian.
- —Richard Abanes, blog post "Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Christian," October 9, 2008.
- (The following day, October 10, in response to a reader comment, the title of the blog entry was changed to read "Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant." One poster compared the logic presented with the following: "And given the fact that San Diego is not Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Sacramento, one can naturally extrapolate that San Diego is not in California.")
Claims made in this work
Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion
Many critics who write about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not content to portray the Church and its doctrines fairly. Some critics mine their sources by extracting quotes from their context in order to make the statement imply something other that what it was originally intended to mean. Other critics make statements that are self-contradictions—instances in which a critic says or writes one thing, and then makes another statement elsewhere that flatly contradicts their first statement.
These examples do not prove that these critics' arguments are without merit; they do suggest caution is warranted before accepting these authors or their works as reliable witnesses when they speak of their own experiences connected with "Mormonism." In particular, one should also be cautious about accepting their interpretation of primary sources without double-checking the original sources themselves.
Something to Consider
Most references and comments are placed at the end of the book. This requires a tedious process of looking up each citation at the end of the book by those who wish to study the sources used. Unfortunately, the endnotes are also used to provide information which ought to have been acknowledged in the main text. The average reader will not check the end notes—they will read the main text without looking up the "rest of the story" in the endnote. Some examples this are provided in the following sections.
"Celestial sex"
The book displays a disturbing preoccupation with what is constantly referred to as a "sexual union" between heavenly parents: The word "sex" and "sexual" are often inserted into descriptions of LDS beliefs which otherwise never mention the word. The author makes similar claims in his earlier book One Nation Under Gods.
| Reference | The claim... | The rest of the story... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 331 n.35 | Mormons often seek to distance themselves and their church from a problematic past comment of an LDS leader by ... narrowly splitting terms in order to focus on a minor issue while dismissing the broader point that is being made by a critic of the church. | For example, I have often spoken of the LDS belief in eternal "Celestial Sex" (i.e. the process by which Mormons believe they will procreate spirit children in eternity with their spouses, see chapter 6). But this has brought LDS criticisms because the actual phrase "Celestial Sex" is not used by LDS leaders—even though sexual union is how many Mormons believe they will procreate in the Celestial Kingdom. (emphasis added) |
|
| 392 n.14 | ...thanks to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother—who, through some kind of sexual union, "clothed" each of us with a spirit-body. (emphasis added) | Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 750. "Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities." |
|
| 157 | According to Brigham Young, our spirit body was created via a sexual union of Heavenly Father and Mother..."[God] created man, as we create our children," said Young, "[f]or there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." (emphasis added) | "...So God created man in his own image. in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He Himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. As the Apostle Paul has expressed it, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art or man's device." There exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned to fulfill their destiny in all the varied kingdoms and orders of creation, and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus Christ is known in the scriptures as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and it is written of Him as being the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person. The word image we understand in the same sense as we do the word in the 3rd verse of the 5th chapter of Genesis, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." |
|
Commentary
- The book speaks of the "LDS belief in 'Celestial Sex'" and "sexual union" between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as a fact, yet this characterization is abhorrent and offensive to Latter-day Saints. The book continues by stating that "sexual union is how many Mormons believe they will procreate in the Celestial Kingdom." Latter-day Saints do not claim to know the process by which spirit children are created.
- It is ironic that the book uses this as an example of Mormons "splitting terms" while "dismissing the broader point" raised by critics. The broader point is that LDS believe that they will be able to have spirit children if they achieve exaltation. The narrow point is the assignment of the ugly and offensive term "Celestial Sex" to this process—a term coined by Ed Decker in the 1982 anti-Mormon film The God Makers ("...engaging in celestial sex with their goddess wives.")
Jesus Christ's conception
The author makes similar claims in his earlier book One Nation Under Gods.
| Reference | The claim... | The rest of the story... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 184 | "Until recently, the common belief clearly implied throughout the history of Mormonism...was that Jesus' conception occurred via sexual intercourse between Heavenly Father (Elohim) and Mary." (emphasis added) | Let's look at 1 Nephi 11:14-33 and see what the book does not include. Verses that were omitted are in bold:
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou? 15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. 16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? 17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. 18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. 19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. 21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? |
|
| 185 | [Brigham] went so far as to say that, although the New Testament's Joseph did not have another wife, Mary "had another husband." And that husband, said Young, was Heavenly Father, who impregnated Mary "instead of letting any other man do it." |
|
|
Commentary
- The book somehow uses 1 Nephi 11 as support for the idea that "sexual intercourse" between Heavenly Father and Mary was taught "until recently." Notice how the book skips over verse 19, which clearly says that Mary "was carried away in the Spirit."
- Brigham Young's statement in Journal of Discourses 11:268 refers to the event as "one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty." Brigham does refer to Jesus being "begotten" of the Father, but there are plenty of scriptural references to Jesus being the "only begotten son" of our Heavenly Father.
- Brigham's second statement again refers to Jesus being "begotten" of the Father, who "favored that spirit with a tabernacle." The exact method by which this was accomplished is assumed by the book to be a sexual union. In this day and age, however, one ought to realize that there are ways to conceive a child that do not involve a sexual union. Although Brigham would not have known this, our Heavenly Father most certainly would have.
- See also: Jesus Christ's conception
Comparing population sizes at the beginning and end of a 1000-year period?
| Reference | The claim... | The conclusion... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| p. 69-70 | "LDS apologists and BYU professors are advocating a new unofficial opinion that Lehi and his people represented only a 'small band' of Israelites, compared to a larger population of indigenous people in the New world." | "But according to Mormon 1:7 in the Book of Mormon, the Nephite and Lamanite populations were hardly small: "The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea [about A.D. 322]." | *Jeffrey Meldrum, "The Children of Lehi: DNA and the Book of Mormon, lecture at the 2003 FAIR Conference, Aug. 8, 2003. |
Commentary
- The book seems to propose that the proposition that Lehi's small group intermingled with a larger population of Native Americans in approximately 600 B.C. is somehow contradicted and invalidated by the fact that the population was as numerous as "the sand of the sea" in A.D. 322, almost 1000 years later. The logic behind this comparison is elusive. If anything, the idea that Lehi's group mingled with an existing population supports the idea that they would become quite numerous over a long period of time.
The Book of Commandments was printed?
| Reference | The claim... | What is placed in the endnotes... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| p. 84 | [The revelations] were subsequently arranged, edited by Smith for accuracy, then printed as A Book of Commandments (1833). But because very few copies of the Book of Commandments were produced, it remained unavailable to most Mormons. So in 1835 LDS leaders republished the revelations. But by that time the declarations were showing their age. Many contained outdated information. Some included erroneous statements. Others presented abandoned doctrines. A few of the revelations simply revealed too much information about LDS beliefs... (emphasis added) | (p. 370 n.9)The press that printed the sheets of revelations was destroyed by an anti-Mormon mob. The sheets, scattered in the streets, were gathered up and assembled into a 160-page book. |
|
Commentary
- The book makes a statement in the main text and then provide crucial clarification in the endnotes at the back of the book. In the main text, the text makes it appear as if the Book of Commandments was successfully printed and distributed, but that it was unavailable to most Church members because there were "very few copies." Then, just two years later, the revelations were supposed to be "showing their age" for a variety of reasons.
- See also: Doctrine and Covenants textual changes
Argument from silence?
| Reference | The claim... | The rest of the story... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | LDS apologist Stephen Gibson reasons, "Since we don't have the original manuscripts used for the book of the Bible, nor do we have record of their writing processes, critics cannot claim that Biblical prophets never revised nor added to their revelations." But this type of reasoning is known as an "argument from silence." It is actually meaningless because arguments from silence can be used to prove nearly anything. (emphasis added) | (p. 101) Eleven pages after implying the LDS are "arguing from silence," the book then states the following:
"Orson Pratt alluded to this idea, arguing that the wisdom of man may certainly not alter revelations, but "[i]f they need altering, God alone has the right to alter them, or to add to them." Pratt then referred to the case of the prophet Jeremiah, whose revelation was burned by the king of Judah. Afterward "Jeremiah was commanded to write all the words again, and there were added besides unto them many like words." |
|
Commentary
- The book claims that Latter-day Saints are "arguing from silence" on this issue. An "argument from silence" can be presented as follows: "You claimed you had a good explanation for apologetic argument X. You have failed to produce that argument or point me to a resource which could provide it. It is therefore fair to conclude that you do not have such an explanation, since there is nothing which should prevent you from providing it." It seems odd to argue that LDS have no response to support the idea that revelations may be altered by the prophet that gave them, yet later provide that very LDS response and spend time refuting it. It seems that Orson Pratt was not "silent" in his ability to provide Biblical support for his position.
"Son of Man" or "son of a man?"
| Reference | The claim... | The rest of the story... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 149 | Now concerning the title "Son of Man," there are several ways to interpret this phrase. But none of them imply that God the Father is a man. One might notice, for instance, that contrary to what Mormons may assert, the phrase does not say "son of a man." There are no indefinite articles in the Greek. Each instance simply reads, "Son of Man." | The book implies through the construction of this text that Mormons believe that the title "Son of Man" actually means "son of a man." (bold emphasis added) |
|
Commentary
- Latter-day Saints accept "Son of Man" as a messianic title, and do not attempt to reinterpret or alter it.
The reason that Latter-day Saints should be excluded from being called "Christian?"
| Reference | The claim... | What does he mean? | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 265 |
This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premarital "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christian"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christian" nudists. |
So, lets examine the stated criteria for disallowing the "broad definition" of the term "Christian:"
|
The book uses a variety of sources related to the various groups mentioned. |
Commentary
- A "laundry list" of groups and their abhorrent practices are presented in order argue against the application of the term "Christian" to Latter-day Saints. Examining this list closely—are any of these things taught, advocated or practiced by Latter-day Saints? This is the category into which Latter-day Saints are to be consigned? Such a comparison and its use as justification for denying the use of the term "Christian" to Latter-day Saints is insulting.
What did the LDS scholar actually say?
| Reference | The claim... | What was actually said... | Use of sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 273 | Interestingly, when BYU professor Robert L. Millet attempted to justify baptism for the dead using the Corinthians verse, he actually changed the second sentence of biblical text, replacing the word "they" with "we." The substitution, of course, makes it seem as if Paul was saying that he and all the Corinthians were baptizing the dead. (emphasis added) | The text makes it appear as if Dr. Millet attempted to "put one over on us" by changing a biblical verse. When one looks at the Ensign article, however, here is what was said:
“Else what shall they do … ?” The Apostle Paul refers to the practice of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians. Probably written about a.d. 56–57, this book is a masterpiece of religious literature and a remarkable testimony of the Savior and his gospel. ... “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:28–29) ... Interpretations of Paul’s Words ... Many non-Latter-day Saint scholars believe that in 1 Corinthians Paul is denouncing or condemning the practice of baptism for the dead as heretical. This is a strange conclusion, however, since he uses the practice of baptism for the dead to support the doctrine of the Resurrection. In essence, he says, “Why are we performing baptisms in behalf of our dead, if, as some propose, there will be no resurrection of the dead? If there is to be no resurrection, would not such baptisms be a waste of time?” (emphasis added) |
|
Commentary
- The text clearly tries to lead the reader to believe that Dr. Millet altered a biblical verse: "...he actually changed the second sentence of biblical text, replacing the word 'they' with 'we.'" Dr. Millet did no such thing. He not only correctly quotes the word "they" in the verse in question twice, but the section in which he says "we" is clearly titled "Interpretations of Paul's Words." The average reader, of course, won't go to the actual Ensign article to verify this claim.
"Conversations" with "LDS believers"
The book uses an interesting (and annoying) method of illustrating a concept at the beginning of many chapters. Dialogues between the author and LDS "believers" are described. This method, of course, allows the LDS responses to conform to the point that is being made. Latter-day Saints who read these dialogues would certainly not entirely agree with what the "LDS believer" says.
A "Mormon bishop" who doesn't understand the Godhead?
| Page | A "conversation" with a bishop | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| 107-108 |
(emphasis added) |
|
A conversation with "LDS friend, Cindy"
| Page | A "conversation" with a LDS woman | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| 132 |
(emphasis added) |
|
A "Mormon missionary" claims that the belief that Jesus paid for his sins is "not my faith?"
| Page | A "conversation" with a LDS missionary named "Steven." | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| 177-178 |
(emphasis added) |
|
The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"
It would be enlightening for any Latter-day Saint to read the book's description of the "Mormon Jesus" in the left column and see just how much of this is recognizable as church doctrine. The list is taken from the endnotes on page 440, note 46. This claim was originally made in the author's earlier work One Nation Under Gods—"Mormon Beliefs About Jesus" versus "Christian Beliefs About Jesus", p. 378.
| The "Mormon Jesus" | Jesus Christ, as viewed by Latter-day Saints | For more information... |
|---|---|---|
| A literal son (spirit-child) of a god (Elohim) and his wife. |
|
|
| The elder brother of all spirits born in the pre-existence to Heavenly Father. |
|
|
| One of three gods overseeing this planet. |
|
|
| Atoned only for Adam's transgression, thereby providing the opportunity for us to obtain "eternal life" by our own efforts. |
|
|
| The literal spirit brother of Lucifer. |
|
|
| Jesus' sacrificial death is not able to cleanse some people of all their sins. |
|
|
| There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. |
|
Endnotes
Further reading
| Template code | Inserts this reference | Click to edit |
|---|---|---|
| {{To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition}} | To learn more box:responses to: 8: The Mormon Proposition | edit |
| {{To learn more box:''Under the Banner of Heaven''}} | To learn more about responses to: Under the Banner of Heaven | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Price}} | To learn more about responses to: Robert Price | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon}} | To learn more about responses to: Ankerberg and Weldon | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ashamed of Joseph}} | To learn more about responses to: Ashamed of Joseph | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Moser}} | To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Moser | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Beckwith and Parrish}} | To learn more about responses to: Beckwith and Parrish | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Benjamin Park}} | To learn more about responses to: Benjamin Park | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith}} | To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Joseph Smith | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon}} | To learn more about responses to: Bible versus Book of Mormon | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: ''Big Love''}} | To learn more about responses to: Big Love | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Brett Metcalfe}} | To learn more about responses to: Brett Metcalfe | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bill Maher}} | To learn more about responses to: Bill Maher | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Bruce H. Porter}} | To learn more about responses to: Bruce H. Porter | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Carol Wang Shutter}} | To learn more about responses to: Carol Wang Shutter | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: CES Letter}} | To learn more about responses to: CES Letter | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Charles Larson}} | To learn more about responses to: Charles Larson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Christopher Nemelka}} | To learn more about responses to: Christopher Nemelka | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Colby Townshed}} | To learn more about responses to: Colby Townshed | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Contender Ministries}} | To learn more about responses to: Contender Ministries | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Crane and Crane}} | To learn more about responses to: Crane and Crane | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: D. Michael Quinn}} | To learn more about responses to: D. Michael Quinn | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Dan Vogel}} | To learn more about responses to: Dan Vogel | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: David John Buerger}} | To learn more about responses to: David John Buerger | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: David Persuitte}} | To learn more about responses to: David Persuitte | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Denver Snuffer}} | To learn more about responses to: Denver Snuffer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Dick Bauer}} | To learn more about responses to: Dick Bauer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Duwayne R Anderson}} | To learn more about responses to: Duwayne R Anderson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Earl Wunderli}} | To learn more about responses to: Earl Wunderli | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ed Decker}} | To learn more about responses to: Ed Decker | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Erikson and Giesler}} | To learn more about responses to: Erikson and Giesler | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ernest Taves}} | To learn more about responses to: Ernest Taves | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Fawn Brodie}} | To learn more about responses to: Fawn Brodie | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: George D Smith}} | To learn more about responses to: George D Smith | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Grant Palmer}} | To learn more about responses to: Grant Palmer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Hank Hanegraaff}} | To learn more about responses to: Hank Hanegraaff | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Hurlbut-Howe}} | To learn more about responses to: Hurlbut-Howe | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: James Brooke}} | To learn more about responses to: James Brooke | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: James Spencer}} | To learn more about responses to: James Spencer | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: James White}} | To learn more about responses to: James White | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner}} | To learn more about responses to: Jerald and Sandra Tanner | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD}} | To learn more about responses to: Jesus Christ-Joseph Smith or Search for the Truth DVD | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: John Dehlin}} | To learn more about responses to: John Dehlin | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Jonathan Neville}} | To learn more about responses to: Jonathan Neville | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Kurt Van Gorden}} | To learn more about responses to: Kurt Van Gorden | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery}} | To learn more about responses to: Laura King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne}} | To learn more about responses to: Loftes Tryk aka Lofte Payne | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Luke WIlson}} | To learn more about responses to: Luke WIlson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Marquardt and Walters}} | To learn more about responses to: Marquardt and Walters | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Martha Beck}} | To learn more about responses to: Martha Beck | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Mcgregor Ministries}} | To learn more about responses to: Mcgregor Ministries | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: McKeever and Johnson}} | To learn more about responses to: McKeever and Johnson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: New Approaches}} | To learn more about responses to: New Approaches to the Book of Mormon | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Abanes}} | To learn more about responses to: Richard Abanes | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Van Wagoner}} | To learn more about responses to: Richard Van Wagoner | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling}} | To learn more about responses to: Richard and Joan Ostling | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Rick Grunger}} | To learn more about responses to: Rick Grunger | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Robert Ritner}} | To learn more about responses to: Robert Ritner | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Rod Meldrum}} | To learn more about responses to: Rod Meldrum | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Roger I Anderson}} | To learn more about responses to: Roger I Anderson | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Ronald V. Huggins}} | To learn more about responses to: Ronald V. Huggins | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Sally Denton}} | To learn more about responses to: Sally Denton | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Simon Southerton}} | To learn more about responses to: Simon Southerton | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Thomas Murphy}} | To learn more about responses to: Thomas Murphy | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Todd Compton}} | To learn more about responses to: Todd Compton | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Vernal Holley}} | To learn more about responses to: Vernal Holley | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Walter Martin}} | To learn more about responses to: Walter Martin | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Wesley Walters}} | To learn more about responses to: Wesley Walters | edit |
| {{To learn more box:responses to: Will Bagley}} | To learn more about responses to: Will Bagley | edit |