Answers to Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves/Questions 29-58

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to "Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves" (Questions 29-58)

Responses to Questions 1-28

A FAIR Analysis of: Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves (Questions 29-58) A work by author: Contender Ministries

FairMormon's analysis

• It is certainly true that "Elias" is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Elijah." And, there are times within scripture where "Elias" is clearly meant to refer to the Elijah of 1 Kings. (See, for example, Matthew 27꞉47-49, Romans 11꞉2, James 5꞉17).
• However, there are also cases when the name "Elias" is applied to someone besides Elijah. For example, Jesus Himself applied it to John the Baptist (see Matthew 11꞉13-15.) The Hebrew name, often transliterated "Isaiah," Yesha'yah[u] appears in the Hebrew bible on many occasions, but used to denote different "Isaiahs" than the prophet who authored the Book of Isaiah. These names are rendered Esaias in the Septuagint (LXX), and are rendered Jesiah and Jesaiah in the KJV and many other translations of the Old Testament. In D&C 84, Joseph Smith may have used a different transliteration of the Semitic name to differentiate one Isaiah from another. Indeed, we have many New Testament parallels in translation literature, such as the Jude/Judas variant for the same name in the New Testament.
• Jesus' use of "Elias" to refer to another forerunner prophet (John the Baptist) illustrates the LDS concept of "Elias" as a calling or name-title for someone in a preparatory role. And, the angel Gabriel applied the "spirit of Elias" to John even prior to his birth. (See Luke 1꞉15-17.)
• Some critics have seen Joseph's ideas above as completely ad hoc: but, he was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense. Alexander Campbell, a noted American clergyman, wrote an attack on the Book of Mormon in which he expressed a similar idea:

The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner.

• If the critics wish to condemn Joseph Smith for using Elijah and Elias as separate people, they should first resolve similar issues elsewhere in the Bible and in Christian thought.
• For a detailed response, see: Elias and Elijah at the Kirtland Temple

Question:
30. If children have no sins until they are eight years old, why are they baptized at age eight to wash away non-existent sins?

Sources:
Scripture reference: Moroni 8꞉8

FairMormon's analysis

• Children are not baptized to "wash away sins." They are baptized to

1. fulfill the commandment given to all to be baptized—even Jesus was baptized, yet was without sin.
2. to enter into a covenant to serve Jesus and keep his commandments, so that when they do eventually commit sin, the power of the atonement will be operative in their lives.

Question:
31. How could the Garden of Eden have been in Missouri when the Pearl of Great Price declares that it was in the vicinity of Assyria and had the Euphrates and Hiddekel Rivers in it?

Sources:
Scripture reference: P of GP Moses 3:14 and DC 116-117; Genesis 2:8-15

FairMormon's analysis

• The named rivers represent four of the great rivers of the known world, yet the Biblical description does not match any modern known configuration. If the critics can understand why this does not bother them, they can likely see how this presents no problem for Latter-day Saints.
• It may be better to view these verses as a symbolic expression of Eden at "the center" of all that was known.
• There is also a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. Ezekiel 28:13 says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters—Jerusalem—it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters and which according to prophecy will be again some time in the future.
• It is important to first distinguish the "Garden of Eden" (the paradisiacal location where Adam and Eve dwelt before the Fall) from Adam-ondi-Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was a location in which Adam and Eve settled after their expulsion from the Garden, and about which more is said in LDS scripture.
• Although we have no contemporaneous record of Joseph Smith teaching explicitly that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, that reading is consistent with LDS scripture, and there is substantial later testimony from Joseph's associates that he did teach such an idea.
• Most Latter-day Saints are aware of this, though it is a relatively minor point that plays little role in LDS theology. (By contrast, the idea that the New Jerusalem—Zion—will be built in the Americas looms much larger in LDS consciousness.)
• For a detailed response, see: Garden of Eden in Missouri?

FairMormon's analysis

• This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. Unsurprisingly, they do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion (italics show text generally not cited by the critics):

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

• It is clear that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:
  • the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God
  • to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets
  • it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward
  • if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now.
• Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive "all that the Father has" if they willfully disobey God if He chooses to command the practice of plural marriage.
• But, in the context of this speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ("polygamists at least in your faith") and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures.
• The Church did not give in to government pressure; members continued to practice plural marriage even in secret until commanded to cease by prophetic leaders.
• For a detailed response, see: Brigham Young in JD 11:269
• Extensive further information: Lengthy paper on history of plural marriage

Question: Is plural marriage required in order to achieve exaltation?

Critics quote Brigham Young saying that "[t]he only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy"

Critics of the Church point to a statement made by Brigham Young to make the claim that Latter-day Saints believe that one must practice plural marriage in order to achieve exaltation (i.e. become like God not just be saved).

The relevant text is as follows:

The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)

This quotation is often used in anti-Mormon sources. They do not include the surrounding text which explains what Brigham Young had in mind on this occasion:

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Brigham was stating that the command to practice plural marriage was from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.

It is clear from the quote that Brigham was making several points which the critics ignore:

• The command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God.
• To obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets.
• It was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward.
• Faithful Saints cannot expect to receive "all that the Father has" if they willfully disobey God. When the people have "had blessings offered unto them," and if they refuse to obey, God will withhold blessings later because of that disobedience now.

Finally, it must be remembered that Brigham Young is speaking to a group who had been commanded to live the law of polygamy. There is no basis for speculating about what he would have said to a group who did not have that commandment given to them, as present-day members do not.

Question: Did Brigham Young believe that one could not enter the Celestial Kingdom unless they were a polygamist?

Jump to details:

• Question: Did Brigham Young believe that one could not enter the Celestial Kingdom unless they were a polygamist?
• Wilford Woodruff: "President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all"
• Wilford Woodruff: President Young...said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord

Seminary Teacher Resource Manual: "We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation"

"Doctrine and Covenants 132," Seminary Teacher Resource Manual on LDS.org:

Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

Question:
33. Heber C. Kimball stated, “We are the people of Deseret, she shall be no more Utah: we will have our own name”. Why did this prophecy fail?

Sources:
Other reference: Journal of Discourses Vol. 5, page 161

FairMormon's analysis

• This was not a prophecy. Heber C. Kimball was, at the time (1857), a counselor in the First Presidency. He was speaking about the attempts by the US Government to replace Brigham Young as governor of the Utah Territory. In fact, that is the main topic of his talk.
• In discussing this turn of political events, he was not functioning in a prophetic manner. His talk, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, was called a "discourse." Several paragraphs before the referenced statement he said that he was "going to talk about these [political] things, and I feel as though I had a perfect right to do so, because I am one of the people." A few paragraphs after the referenced statement he said that he was appointed as Lieutenant-Governor of the territory and that "this is a stump speech."

Question:
34. How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighted about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. Per cubic foot. The plates were 7” x 8” by about 6”.)

Sources:
Other reference: Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th Ed.

FairMormon's analysis

The critics in this case assume that the gold plates were a solid block of pure gold. This is incorrect.

Question: How much did the gold plates weigh?

The plates weighed approximately sixty pounds

Witnesses of the Book of Mormon were consistent in their witness that the plates weighed 40-60 pounds.

Some critics assume that the "golden plates" are pure gold, or that they are a solid block of gold. Neither conclusion is warranted.

1. Pure gold plates would be too soft to hold engraving well. An alloy of gold and copper called "tumbaga," known in Mesoamerica, would suit both the appearance and weight of the plates.
2. The plates were not a solid block of gold, but a set of page-like leaves, which reduces the weight by about 50%.

• "weighing altogether from forty to sixty lbs." —Martin Harris

Witness statements regarding the weight of the gold plates

• "I was permitted to lift them. . . . They weighed about sixty pounds according to the best of my judgement." —William Smith
• "I . . . judged them to have weighed about sixty pounds."—William Smith
• "They were much heavier than a stone, and very much heavier than wood. . . . As near as I could tell, about sixty pounds." —William Smith
• "I hefted the plates, and I knew from the heft that they were lead or gold." —Martin Harris
• "My daughter said, they were about as much as she could lift. They were now in the glass-box, and my wife said they were very heavy. They both lifted them." —Martin Harris
• "I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work." —Emma Smith
• Joseph's sister Catherine, while she was dusting in the room where he had been translating, "hefted those plates [which were covered with a cloth] and found them very heavy." —H. S. Salisbury, paraphrasing Catherine Smith Salisbury

Question: What material were the plates made from?

The plates were most likely an alloy of a lighter metal, such as copper, which was covered with a thin layer of gold

The plates are sometimes described as "gold plates," and at other times they are claimed to have had the "appearance of gold." Pure gold would not be capable of retaining engraving, nor would it have the strength to maintain the integrity of the plates themselves. The plates were most likely an alloy of a lighter metal, such as copper, which was covered with a thin layer of gold. Such an alloy actually exists in Mesoamerica. See Wikipedia entry "Tumbaga" off-site. According to Wikipedia: "Tumbaga can be treated with a simple acid, like citric acid, to dissolve copper off the surface. What remains is a shiny layer of nearly pure gold on top of a harder, more durable copper-gold alloy sheet. This process is referred to as depletion gilding."

• "the appearance of gold" — Joseph Smith Jr., Eight Witnesses
• "golden plates" — David Whitmer
• "a mixture of gold and copper" - William Smith
• "in a good state of preservation, had the appearance of gold" - William Smith in James Murdock to Congregational Observer, 19 June 1841, "The Mormons and Their Prophet," Congregational Observer (Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut) 2 (3 July 1841): 1. Reprinted in Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer (Peoria, Illinois), 3 September 1841; reproduced in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents 1:477–480.
• "pure gold" - “The Orators of Mormon,” Catholic Telegraph (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1 (14 April 1832): 204–5. Reprinted from Mercer Press (Pennsylvania), circa April 1832. off-site
• "whitish yellow" - Howe, Mormonism Unvailed, 15; attributed to David Whitmer off-site
• "engraven on plates of gold" - Parley P. Pratt, "Discovery of an Ancient Record in America," Millennial Star 1 no. 2 (June 1840), 30–37. off-site
• "this pretended Revelation was written on golden plates, or something resembling golden plates" - A.S., “The Golden Bible, or, Campbellism Improved,” Observer and Telegraph. Religious, Political, and Literary, Hudson, Ohio (18 November 1830): 3, quoting Cowdery. off-site

Question:
35. When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days of [sic] for three hours?

Sources:
Scripture reference: Luke 23:44 and 3 Nephi 8꞉19,23

FairMormon's analysis

• Darkness covered the old world (Jerusalem) for three hours. The New World experienced three days of darkness. Given that these sites are thousands of miles apart, God is perfectly capable of giving them different amounts of light.
• The critics here struggle to find fault.

FairMormon's analysis

• Members of the Church do not believe in a "one and only true text" of any scripture. The vast majority of changes made to the Book of Mormon are issues of grammar, spelling, and typographical errors. The few other changes in wording were not made by "Mormons," but by Joseph Smith, the translator and prophet.
• No change affects the meaning of the Book of Mormon text; Mormons can quite happily use the first edition of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the changes made in the 1981 edition brought the published text closer to the original manuscripts then available.
• Christians should be careful with such attacks. If they don’t want to have a double standard, they'd have to realize that there are more differences in Biblical manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament! Yet, Latter-day Saints and other Christians still believe the Bible.
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon textual changes and Biblical textual criticism

FairMormon's analysis

• Members of the Church vote to sustain a revelation. By doing this, they recognize that the teaching comes from God, add their witness to its truth, and publicly put themselves under covenant to obey the commandment or teaching given.
• When Joshua taught the children of Israel, they too made a public commitment to obey:

And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. (Joshua 24:24)

• Why do critics attack the Church for a practice that is clearly Biblical?

FairMormon's analysis

• The Church has in its possession some papyri fragments from the scrolls used by Joseph Smith in the translation of the Book of Abraham. However, the critics do not tell their readers that the Church has only 13% of the scrolls. The critics also fail to mention that the Church announced that the fragments they had were from an Egyptian burial papyrus less than two months after reacquiring the papyri, and published these results in the Church's official magazine.
• No informed Latter-day Saint believes that the papyri in the Church's possession contain the text of the Book of Abraham (except Facsimile #1). The Church has never claimed otherwise.
• Members of the Church continue to accept the Book of Abraham as scripture because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses that it is true.
• For a detailed response, see: Book of the Dead

FairMormon's analysis

• Moroni makes it clear that "reformed Egyptian" is the name which the Nephites gave to a script originally based upon Egyptian characters, but modified over the course of a thousand years (see Mormon 9꞉32). It is no surprise that Egyptians or Jews have no script called "reformed Egyptian," as this was a Nephite term.
• For a detailed response, see: Reformed Egyptian

Question:
40. Joseph Smith said that there are men living on the moon who dress like Quakers and live to be nearly 1000 years old. Since he was wrong about the moon, is it safe to trust him regarding the way to heaven?

Sources:
Other reference: The Young Woman’s Journal, Vol 3, pages 263, 264

FairMormon's analysis

• There is no contemporary record of Joseph Smith making this statement—the first account dates more than 40 years after his death.
• In Joseph's day, there had been newspaper articles reporting that a famous astronomer had reported that there were men on the moon and elsewhere. This was published in LDS areas; the retraction of this famous hoax never was publicized, and so they may not have even heard about it. Thus, some members and leaders were most likely repeating what had been told them by the science of the day.
• (Lots of Biblical prophets talked about the earth being flat, the sky being a dome, etc.—it is inconsistent for conservative Protestants to complain that a false belief about the physical world shared by others in their culture condemns the Mormons, but does not condemn Bible prophets.)
• For a detailed response, see: Brigham Young and moonmen and Joseph Smith and moonmen

FairMormon's analysis

• If studying Hebrew and Greek is a requirement for intelligent discussion, then why don't most Christians study them? The fact is that some Christians do study them, and some Mormons study them; it is a personal choice, not a requirement. (See, for example, here and here).
• It is telling that the critics attack members of the Church for not studying ancient languages, yet within these questions there are several which show that they have misread the original texts upon which they base their criticisms. See questions #4, #5, #8, #16, #43, #46, #54, #55.

FairMormon's analysis

• There were many versions of "articles of faith" prepared by various early Latter-day Saints to support their missionary efforts. Most of them had essential items in common (belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost; the necessity of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; etc.), but there were various differences among them.
• Even after the Wentworth Letter was published in March 1842, many other lists of LDS beliefs continued to appear for the next generation. In April 1849, James H. Flanigan included a list of fourteen statements in a pamphlet published in England, and this list was quoted and sometimes modified in various publications throughout the nineteenth century.
• Critics are trying to impose their inerrantist view of scripture on the Latter-day Saints. The saints chose to canonize one summary of their beliefs; they are not troubled by the existence of other similar summaries. Since the Church believes in on-going revelation, any needed additions or alterations to belief will be available as required.
• For a detailed response, see: Differing versions of the Articles of Faith

FairMormon's analysis

• The critics are here depending on old Bible scholarship. They are not up-to-date in their understanding of the Greek.
• The Greek text actually says that the Melchizedek priesthood is "unchangeable," rather than being "untransferrable." The critics' stance is not supported by the Biblical text. Rather, the priesthood is a permanent and necessary part of the Church—any Church claiming it is unnecessary does not meet the Biblical model.
• For extensive discussion and links to non-LDS scholarship, follow the link below.
• For a detailed response, see: Jesus is the only Melchizedek priesthood holder

FairMormon's analysis

• They are not the same. The LDS temple patrons make commitments to live by the gospel of Jesus Christ. This includes commitments to obey the law of chastity, consecration of time and talents and other religious tenants.
• Masonry's oaths center around the promotion of brotherhood of the fraternity, going to the aid of fellow Masons and their widows and orphans in times of distress, and in holding inviolate the means of identifying a fellow Mason. So while the temple teaches man's relationship with God and Christ the Masonic Lodge teaches of man's relationship to his fellow men.

Question:
45. Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?

Sources:
Scripture reference: DC 124꞉56-60

FairMormon's analysis

• This scripture is not a prophecy that the Nauvoo House would stand "forever and ever." It is a command to build the Nauvoo house, and to permit Joseph and his family to "have place therein" "forever and ever."
• Leaders of the Church constantly encouraged members in Nauvoo to live up to this commandment. Due to a lack of funds, workmen, and materials, the Saints eventually focused on the command to build the Nauvoo Temple (see DC 124꞉55.)
• God may issue commands, but such commands are not always obeyed. And, God may alter commands if the free agent choices of enemies alter the situation, as the same section of the D&C could tell the critics, if they read the entirety (DC 124꞉49).

Question:
46. If genealogies are important, why does the New Testament tell Christians to avoid them?

Sources:
Scripture reference: 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9

Question: Does the Bible condemn genealogical research?

The Bible rejects the use of genealogies to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings

Critics charge that the Bible condemns genealogy, and therefore the Latter-day Saint practice of compiling family histories is anti-Biblical, often citing 1 Timothy 1:4 or Titus 3:9.

The Bible does not condemn all genealogy per se. Rather, it rejects the use of genealogy to "prove" one's righteousness, or the truth of one's teachings. It also rejects the apostate uses to which some Christians put genealogy in some varieties of gnosticism.

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogical work so that they can continue the Biblical practice of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead

Latter-day Saints engage in genealogy work so that they can continue the Biblical practice—also endorsed by Paul—of providing vicarious ordinances for the dead, such as baptism (See 1 Corinthians 15:29) so that the atonement of Christ may be available to all who would choose it, living or dead. See: Baptism for the dead

The Bible clearly does not reject all uses of genealogy

This can be seen through its many genealogical lists, including two such lists for Jesus Christ Himself. (See Matthew 1:1–24 and Luke 3:23–38.)

The condemnation of "genealogies" in Timothy and Titus likely came because:

• the Christians perceived a Jewish tendency to be pre-occupied by "pure descent" as a qualification for holding the priesthood. Since only pure descendents of Levi could hold the priesthood, there was endless wrangling about one's pedigree—since Paul considers the Aaronic Priesthood to have been superceded by Christ, the great High Priest like Melchizedek (see Hebrews 5), this probably strikes him as pointless.
• some Jewish scribes and other teachers claimed that their "traditions" were directly descended from Moses, Joshua, or some other prominent leader, and thus superior to the Christian gospel.
• some gnostic sects had involved accounts of the descent of the Aeons (up to 365 "generations" in one scheme) and other mystic or pagan variations thereon.

Since all these genealogies were either speculative or fabricated, they could cause endless, pointless debate. Rather Paul wants the faith (in Christ) which builds up ("edifying") testimonies and lives.

⍗

Learn more about alleged condemnation of genealogy in the bible

Online	Stephen R. Gibson, Why Don't Latter-day Saints Avoid "Endless Genealogy"?off-site George H. Fudge, "I Have a Question: How do we interpret scriptures in the New Testament that seem to condemn genealogy?," Ensign (March 1986): 49.off-site
Print	Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, eds., The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), 353.
Navigators	Table of contents Abuse Bible Book of Abraham Book of Mormon CES Letter Church history Church finances Doctrine and Covenants First Vision Joseph Smith Latter-day Saint temples Mountain Meadows Massacre Plural marriage Prophets and leaders Scripture Brigham Young Bible

⍗

Source(s) of the criticism

Critical sources

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism (Moody Press, 1979), 517–518.( Index of claims ) Contender Ministries, Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves. Answers

Question:
47. The Bible says, “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin”. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood.

FairMormon's analysis

• The Bible also has Jesus teach that there are some acts which cannot be forgiven (notwithstanding the blood of Christ). Jesus said:

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, see also Luke 12:10)

• Latter-day Saints understand "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" to be a willing, fully-aware renouncement of Christ and His atoning sacrifice. It is to sin against actual knowledge. Clearly, if one rejects the atonement of Christ, it cannot save him. He must then suffer for his own sins, since he has cut himself off from the only thing that might have saved him--the atonement.
• For a detailed response, see: Blood atonement

Question:
48. God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made. Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons?

Sources:
Scripture reference: Genesis 3:21

FairMormon's analysis

• The question has reference to LDS temple ceremonies. Members of FAIR, like all active Latter-day Saints, hold their temple covenants sacred, and will not discuss such matters in a public forum, especially before hostile critics.
• We can say, however, that members of the Church do not memorialize the Fall in the temple, or elsewhere. Latter-day Saints are aware, of course, of the Fall, since they must live in a fallen world, and contend with the fallen natures of themselves and others.
• The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its ordinances—especially the temple—is to allow members to overcome the fallen world and fallen man, not praise it.

Question:
49. Why do Mormons insist that Ezekiel 37:15-22 is about two books instead of about two kingdoms as god Himself explained in verse 22?

FairMormon's analysis

• The two symbols are not exclusive. The sticks can be nations, and each nation has a witness of Christ which helps in restoring scattered Israel. The use of the Ezekiel passage is a modern one for Latter-day Saints. It does not mean that this is the only interpretation, or the use to which Ezekiel intended it to be put.
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon as the stick of Ephraim

Question:
50. If Acts 3:20, 21 is a prophecy about the restoration of Mormonism, why didn’t Jesus return in 1830?

FairMormon's analysis

• Acts 3:20-21 is about the need to follow Christ until the restoration of all things and return of Christ to the earth. The Church does not believe that it has yet received "all things"—the ninth article of faith says that "we believe...[God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (A+of+F 1꞉9 If there is more to be revealed, then all things cannot have been restored yet.
• The final revelation of all things will not come until Christ returns to reign in glory upon the earth.

Question:
51. Revelation 14:6,7 is part of the body of prophecy about the future Great Tribulation. How could that passage have been fulfilled by Moroni in 1830?

FairMormon's analysis

• Revelation uses apocalyptic symbolism. Attempting to read it literally and chronologically is rife with difficulties. The critics' assertions about the Great Tribulation presumes that their view is the only way to read these scriptures. However, the critics' view here seems to draw on the perspective of John Nelson Darby, whose ideas were popularized only in 1909.
• The LDS view sees Moroni's role in restoring the gospel of Christ to the earth as preparation for the faithful, that those who truly seek Christ will have the fulness of the gospel and its ordinances to enable them to withstand and prosper amidst the tribulations of the last days prior to the coming of Christ to reign in glory.
• The critics are here again attacking the Mormons for not accepting the critics' relatively novel and idiosyncratic reading of Revelation.

Question:
52. In light of Ezekiel 28:13-15 and Hebrews 1:5, how can Satan and Jesus be brothers (as the Mormons teach)? (note: Satan was created)

FairMormon's analysis

• This is another question intended more to sensationalize beliefs and polarize rather than lead to meaningful communication. Presumably, something akin to guilt by association is intended. The short answer a similarly rhetorical statement—the critic, Judas, and Hitler are brothers too! But the reality of that relationship obviously need not taint the good standing of the critic. All sons of Adam (including all subsequent generations) are brothers.
• Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that in a meaningful sense Jesus, angels (including the fallen angel Lucifer), and Adam and all his sons are sons of God—and hence, brothers. The Bible corroborates our respective sonships. No Christian should disagree with that. Perhaps the criticism stems from the fact that Latter-day Saints happen to believe that all the sons of God existed together pre-existently? However, this belief need not change the general equation for brotherhood upon which all Christians agree. Suffice it to say that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ had a unique status as God in the pre-existence—a status other sons of God did not have! Jesus Christ's earliest introduction in Scripture uniquely embraced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes that clear—... one among them that was like unto God—Abraham 3:24–28). None other had Christ's status. And that unique status Jesus Christ had in the pre-existence means Lucifer's brotherhood and our brotherhood with Him there were exactly the same as our common brotherhood with Him is based on His dwelling on the Earth. Brothers yes. Different yes.
• For a detailed response, see: Creation in Colossians 1:16 and Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan
• Also, note a caution on uses of the word on "all" in scripture from Evangelical leader, Charles Spurgeon:

"The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children," and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that "all" means all persons , taken individually.

• In other words, if the Bible is to be deemed to be always plain/perspicacious, if such a philosophically absolute interpretation of the word "all" were intended by John or Paul, they would certainly have provided the necessary academic/philosophical clarification, in the immediate context, and the Bible would be much more of a systematic theology and less of a compilation of religious history and moral teaching, and simple witness of God's existence and love.
• As a final note, the Council of ... in 451 AD provided this as part of their definition of faith:

"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin"."

• As Catholic theologian Roger Haight wrote:

And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a preexistence of Jesus. ... But one cannot think in terms of the preexistence of Jesus; what is preexistent to Jesus is God, the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot preexist creation. one may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict preexistence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubstantiality with us, unless we too were preexistent.("The Case For Spirit Christology", Theological Studies 53/2 (June 92))

• In other words, while the question suggests that Satan is a creation, fundamental Christian belief is that Jesus is also a creation. The question avoids this issue (by neglecting to mention this aspect of Christian theology), but it ought to be addressed as well, to make it clear exactly what is meant here.

Question:
53. If no person ever receives the Holy Spirit before baptism or without the laying on of hands, how does a Mormon explain the case of Cornelius?

Sources:
Scripture reference: Acts 10:44-47

FairMormon's analysis

• Latter-day Saints are happy to grant that people may receive a witness from the Holy Ghost prior to baptism. In fact, Mormon missionaries depend on it, since only through a witness of the Spirit can someone be convinced of the truth. Joseph Smith said:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.

• The Bible, however, is clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost comes by the laying on of hands by those in authority (e.g., Acts 19:1-6).

Question:
54. If baptism for the dead was a Christian ceremony, why did Paul use the pronoun “they” rather than “we” or “ye”? Why did he exclude himself and other Christians when referring to it?

Sources:
Scripture reference: 1 Corinthians 15:29

FairMormon's analysis

• John A. Tvedtnes noted:

In his epistle to the Corinthians, Paul cited the early Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead as evidence of a future resurrection and judgment. Most non-Latter-day Saint scholars have failed to note the importance of this passage. Some pass it off as an outmoded practice of the early church, while others believe it refers to an apostate or heretical doctrine.

But historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the Marcionites of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:

“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.)

• Paul is criticizing those who practice baptism for the dead, and yet deny the resurrection, pointing out that this is inconsistent—why baptize for those who will not be saved and resurrected? Thus, Paul does not include himself and some others because he is not guilty of this theological inconsistency.
• For a detailed response, see: Baptism for the dead

Question:
55. Since the Bible says that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, how can Mormons claim that polygamy is proper for New Testament Christians?

Sources:
Scripture reference: 1 Timothy 3:2

FairMormon's analysis

• The critics have again misread the scripture. These same "New Testament Christians" didn't see anything about plural marriage that was absolutely forbidden. This is agreed on by such writers as Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and even Augustine.
• The scriptural text is not as clear-cut as the critics would wish. The Greek can mean a variety of things, as the early Christian authors cited above seem to have recognized. It can "be read as excluding (a) the single, (b) the polygamous, (c) the divorced, [or] (d) those remarried after being widowed. The words can also convey the connotation 'devoted solely to his wife.'"
• For a detailed response, see: Early Christians on plural marriage and Polygamy not Biblical

Question:
56. Why does the Mormon church teach that the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven when Jesus taught that it leads to destruction?

Sources:
Scripture reference: Matthew 7:13,14

FairMormon's analysis

• The Church does not, to our knowledge, teach that "the broad way leads to the Terrestrial Heaven." We would need more details to address this claim. Given the track record of the critics who developed this list, this question is probably based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of LDS doctrine.
• Readers with more insight into this question are encouraged to contact FAIR.

Question:
57. Are you sincere enough about your personal salvation that you will carefully study the following Bible references to discover the Bible’s way to salvation?

Sources:
Scripture reference: John 10:9; 1Corinthians 1:18; Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 1:12-14; Romans 4:8; 1 Peter 2:24; Acts 16:31; John 1:12; 1 John 5:12,13; Romans 5:1 and Romans 8:1

FairMormon's analysis

• Most Mormons would have no problem reading any of these verses and thousands more. Mormons understand that it is Jesus who provides the "way to salvation," not the Bible. The Bible is a record of God's dealings with man and a record of Jesus' ministry on earth. It records some of the words of the prophets, but the "Bible's way to salvation," as translated by well-meaning men, will not get us back to God's presence—only the grace of God, through His Son Jesus Christ, can do that.

Question:
58. Are you courageous enough to personally receive the Lord Jesus Christ into your heart and follow the truth regardless of ridicule, antagonism or persecution?

Sources:
Scripture reference: John 1:12, Colossians 1:27, and Revelation 3:20

FairMormon's analysis

• Yes, Mormons are, and have received Jesus Christ, despite persecution and ridicule—even in the face of a leading and deceptive series of questions designed to not build up the Kingdom of God as Jesus commanded, but to sow seeds of doubt and confusion as Jesus' critics often exemplified.
• Why do critics assume Mormons lack courage, or are acting in bad faith?
• Why do some Christians claim to know that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have not received Jesus Christ? Who made them our judges?

Do You Have Questions? If you have questions about anything you read on this page, we encourage you to ask. FAIR is a volunteer organization, and our members are glad to answer questions. You can ask by using our handy contact page. You will get one or more answers, via e-mail, usually within a short time after asking. Click here to receive our free monthly e-mail newsletter for defenders of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Click here for Part I (Q. 1-28)

Notes