Reply to…A Few Objections to Mormonism, by Professor D. Kline

A Reply to…A Few Objections to Mormonism, by Professor D. Kline

by Rod L. Meldrum as requested by Jay Osmond

A series of objections to Mormonism were emailed by a professor friend of music superstar Jay Osmond (drummer of the world famous Osmond Brothers and Osmond family musical dynasty) requesting Jays response and answers to his challenges.  The questions, which were to be used in conjunction with a course being taught by professor D. Kline in a prominent eastern university, were forwarded to researcher and author Rod L. Meldrum, an advocate for the Book of Mormon who has also conducted scientific research in several related fields of science and DNA, for a response.  Meldrum’s responses are written in blue directly after each of Mr. Kline’s objections for convenience and clarity.  Most of what Mr. Meldrum is stating is based upon non-Mormon sources (especially the archaeology portions) and where time and space are sufficient, references and/or links are given within the body of the text or at the end of each individual response, rather than mixing with Mr. Kline’s references.

Historical Objections:

1

One of the first major historical objections is the geography of the Book of Mormon (BOM). The LDS Church has no official stance on where the events of the BOM actually occurred. No one knows the locations of the cities, rivers, and mountains described in the BOM[ref]With the single exception of the Hill Comurrah, which we address later.[/ref] yet the BOM claims to be a historical account. If the BOM were a historical account that took place on the Americas as claimed, then we would be able to locate the major cities and identify the geographical features described in the BOM.  However, Nephi, Sidon, Bountiful, and Zerahemla [Zarahemla] are all major cities mentioned in the BOM, but their location is completely unknown. None of the rivers, mountains or other geography fits on either South America or North America. Contrast this with the geography described in the Bible – it is entirely consistent with geography today. You can go and visit places mentioned in the Bible like Capernaum, Bethsaida, Beersheba, Bet Shem, Jericho, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, the Jordan river, the Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, the Nile river, and much more.[ref]Michael D. Coe, a prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist and Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, 1973 A Journal of Mormon Thought.[/ref]

The geography of the Book of Mormon has been a complex issue with multiple factors involved.  For example, when the book was first published, it was commonly thought that Native American Indians had never achieved the level of “civilization” as defined in the book Ancient Society by Lewis Henry Morgan which had become the handbook of instruction for the US government in dealing with the Indians.  Morgan proposed that all human societies evolve through three stages of development, from being ignorant savages (a term he then used to label the Native Americans) to barbarism and finally on towards civilization.  John Wesley Powell, Ephraim George Squier and Morgan were three highly influential men in science, politics and Native American affairs, governing such organizations as the AAAS (American Association for Advancement of Science), the Bureau of Ethnology, the Smithsonian Institution, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and were very active politically.  Both Powell and Squier’s fathers happened to be Methodist ministers in Palmyra New York in the 1820’s when the Book of Mormon was first published and these men began what non-Mormon scholars have called the “wanton destruction” of the ancient history of the Mound Builder civilization.

The Mound Builders (hereafter termed the Hopewell civilization) correlate in the most profound ways the Nephite history described in the Book of Mormon.  They begin to show up in the archaeological record with the earliest of their earthworks being in the gulf states of the United States dating near 500 B.C.  The Book of Mormon indicates Lehi’s family arrived near 600 B.C., but they were a small group and it would take a few generations before the group would become large enough to leave an archaeological signature on the land.  The Hopewell then moved inland into what is now Tennessee where they built huge mounds, walls of stone (such as Old Stone Fort, TN) and mined the southern Appalachians for metals such as gold, copper, silver and iron as well as mica, which they used to adorn their burials.  They then appear to have expanded northward into the northern Mississippi River valley and the Ohio River Valley, building massive earthworks that rival any civilization on earth at the time and that were built primarily for ceremonial purposes.  For example, their astronomically aligned Great Octagon and Great Circle, which has been recently found to have been built using an ancient Egyptian unit of measurement called the “stade.” The Hopewell built dozens, if not hundreds of other similar geometric enclosures throughout America’s heartland.  They built massive 200 ft. wide roads at least 60 miles long, perfectly straight and leveled, interconnecting some of their cities.  Their interaction sphere extended from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico and from the western Appalachians to the Rocky Mountains as testified to by the archaeological artifacts recovered from their earthworks.  The civilization encompassed the entire heartland of North America, building over 200,000 earthen structures, embankments, mounds and fortifications all of which has been verified today by modern archaeology.

The early leaders of the fledgling Church were eager to show forth the evidences described by the Book of Mormon, that of a highly sophisticated civilization with cities, temples, walled fortifications, a written Hebrew or Egyptian language, roads, mining, smelting and the use of metals, defensive armor such as headplates and breastplates, highly decorative textiles, understanding of calendaring, astronomy and that were practicing the Laws of Moses, which require certain materials to be available for their traditions and ceremonies. At the same time the magnificent ruins of Mesoamerica were being for the first time introduced to Americans through a two book set written by explorer John Lloyd Stevens called Incidents of Travels in Central America Chiapas and Yucatan which indicated highly advanced ancient civilizations in Mesoamerica with impressive stone temples and a written language.  However, it was unknown at the time that the vast majority of these stone temples date long after the Book of Mormon time frames of the Nephites and that the Maya were Asiatic, not Semitic as Lehi’s family is understood to have been from the text itself.  The Hopewell Mound Builder civilization was virtually unknown at the time and some of the early brethren of the Church (but interestingly NOT Joseph Smith) began to speculate that these Mayan ruins were those of the Nephites of the Book of Mormon.  This became, after the death of Joseph Smith, more accepted among these early leaders as they pointed to these majestic ruins as the evidence for highly advanced civilization that seemed to be lacking in Northern Native Americans.  However, nowhere in the Book of Mormon is there any mention of buildings made of stone (the text clearly indicates wooden structures), palm tree’s monkeys, or iguanas which are ubiquitous in Central America. Grapes, barley, and sheep are required for practitioners of the Mosaic law, but which are completely lacking in Mesoamerica.  However, all of these are found in North America.  The Hopewell civilization matches the Book of Mormon’s Nephite civilization in nearly every particular, which will be discussed further below.

2

The Lamarites [Lamanites] where supposedly Jewish people who sailed over to the Americas. However, there are no traces of Jewish DNA in any Native American peoples. Furthermore, there are no significant cultural similarities.  If Jewish people did indeed settle in the America’s and form such large empires, there would be both DNA and cultural traces.[ref]Simon G. Southerton. 2004. Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon[/ref]

The Book of Mormon itself prophecies no less than seven times that there would be a “remnant of the house of Israel” remaining on their Promised Land in the future.  It is also clear that Lehi and his family were of Semitic lineages, having descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Manasseh according to the text. Back in 2004 when Simon Southerton wrote his book, it was thought that all the indigenous peoples of America were of Asian origins.  However, in 2003-2004, after Southerton’s book was published, geneticists found a DNA haplogroup (lineage) among the Algonquian language groups of Native Americans found primarily in the Great Lakes region which were distinguished by five specific DNA markers, called haplogroup X.  These same five markers have also been found in European populations and most importantly in Semitic populations such as the Druze, and even Jewish populations such as the Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Libyan, Tunisian, Moroccan and Iraqi.  The significance of the latter is monumental because the Iraqi Jewish population can trace their ancestry back to 586 B.C. when they were removed from Jerusalem by force and taken to Babylon, which is today Iraq.  Because of their Jewish marriage customs and traditions, they tend not to intermarry with outside groups, thus maintaining a relatively “pure” DNA lineage and they do indeed have haplogroup X DNA.  In 2008 geneticists were successful in gaining access to and sequencing DNA directly from the archaeologically removed bones of some Hopewell Mound builders from Ohio and Illinois and what was found is astounding…they found the earliest verified occurrence of haplogroup X here in the heartland of America and it dates directly into Book of Mormon time frames!

3

The BOM mentions three huge empires, but there is no historical or archeological evidence. Archeology never lies – if these empires did exist, then there would be tombs, houses, temples, money. The lack of archeological and other historical evidence of these empires is absolutely devastating to the viability of the BOM. Contrast this with the Bible, which mentions all sorts of people groups that no longer exist today (e.g. Philistines). However, these people groups are easily verified by archeology and other historical accounts.

The BOM account is of three huge civilizations and there is overwhelming evidence when looking for said evidence in the right place!  As mentioned in #2 above, there should also be cultural evidence.  Such cultural evidence might take the form of materials necessary for a people practicing the Laws of Moses, symbolism within their ruins matching their Semitic origins and of course DNA.

The Book of Mormon mentions archaeologically verifiable goods such as copper headplates and breastplates, gold, silver, copper and iron artifacts, all of which has been verified among the Hopewell civilization of North America.  It mentions cities built with ditches and earthbanks and palisades of timbers, roads, and textiles and ornaments and pearls, again all of which has been verified. Wood was the primary building material of the Nephites, according to the record, yet it doesn’t last long in mid-west weather.  Still, post molds have been used to determine that the Hopewell did in fact build large homes, they built huge platform “temple mounds” and their burial mounds are found through the entire region.  The Book of Mormon never claims to have had coinage, but only a system of currency, which most likely was the case since they traded far and wide across the continent as seen in their burial goods.

Archaeological artifacts never lie, but archaeologists can ‘hide’ unwanted evidence, as in the case of the Smithsonian Institution’s declaration that it is “illegitimate to consider any written language prior to Columbus” which was established  by none other than John Wesley Powell, the director of the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology and son of a Methodist minister.  Powell knew too well the Book of Mormon claims of highly advanced civilizations and set out to discredit Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon using his scientific and political influence.  This official position by the Smithsonian was used to squelch findings of ancient Hebrew inscriptions on stones found by farmers clearing their land, calling and labeling them as forgeries and fakes without justifiable cause.

Within the past year (2011) a stone recovered by the Smithsonian Institution itself in a 1889 official archaeological dig of an undisturbed Hopewell burial mound in eastern Tennessee during their Mound Survey Project has undergone a full scientific analysis by American Petrographic Services of St. Paul, MN.  The stone has been found to be ancient and thus authentic…and it is inscribed with an ancient form of Hebrew that when translated states emphatically “for the Judeans” according to non-Mormon Hebrew scholars.  The Smithsonian tried to hide this stone, today called the Bat Creek stone, once it was discovered that they had published the stone upside down, and had incorrectly labeled the inscription as “paleo-Cherokee” rather than recognizing the truth, that it was in fact ancient Hebrew! This stone resides today in the McClung Museum on the campus of the University of Tennessee.

Archaeologists are still trying to find ways of dismissing this stone in order to maintain their long-held dogma that Native American’s had never achieved anything beyond “Ignorant Savages” which played nicely into the American Manifest Destiny doctrine of the 1800’s era US political agenda with the Indians.

When combined with the Newark Holy Stones and the hundreds, if not thousands of stones which were summarily declared as fakes and forgeries due to the Smithsonian’s declaration of illegitimacy of the Indians possessing a written language, it is little wonder these truths have been kept secret for so long.

Found also in the McClung Museum is a wonderfully preserved pouch made of finely woven fabric.  Archaeologists have found textiles with advanced colorants preserved by the copper implements in which they were in contact. Again, the Book of Mormon directly speaks of the people having these things.In addition, the Hopewell produced monumental ruins such as the “Hebrew Works” found in Clermont County, Ohio which early surveyors found to have mysterious Hebraic symbology including a 9 stick menorah, a Mediterranean oil lamp and even Masonic symbols such as a compass and a square, all encoded within its massive 12 ft. tall earthen walls extending over 400 yards in length. This site was, unfortunately, bull-dozed due to its controversial nature and this may have been the result of pressure from the Smithsonian to remove this evidence. Its existence is only known today from those who surveyed the site, which just happened to have been recorded in the very first publication of the newly organized Smithsonian Institution.

In addition, the Hopewell produced monumental ruins such as the “Hebrew Works” found in Clermont County, Ohio which early surveyors found to have mysterious Hebraic symbology including a 9 stick menorah, a Mediterranean oil lamp and even Masonic symbols such as a compass and a square, all encoded within its massive 12 ft. tall earthen walls extending over 400 yards in length. This site was, unfortunately, bull-dozed due to its controversial nature and this may have been the result of pressure from the Smithsonian to remove this evidence. Its existence is only known today from those who surveyed the site, which just happened to have been recorded in the very first publication of the newly organized Smithsonian Institution.

People practicing the Laws of Moses would require such items as sheep/lambs for their Shofar’s and for sacrifice, barley, cows/bullocks, goats, and a lunar calendaring system.  Amazingly all of these are found in the time frames of the Book of Mormon in North America.  There is even a copper sheep/goats horn effigy made of copper on display at the Hopewell Culture National Historical Center in Chillicothe, OH.  It is known archaeologically that the Hopewell were agrarian and cultivated barley, corn and other crops.  Non-Mormon anthropologists have now found that the walls of the Great Octagon in Newark, Ohio have encoded the rise and set points of the moon over its entire 18.6 year lunar cycle.  The Book of Mormon states that the last Jaredite lived with the Mulekites for the space of “nine moons” which clearly illustrates that the Hopewell and the Book of Mormon peoples had explicit knowledge of the moons astronomical cycles, which is another nice parallel.

In truth, the absolute evidence provided archaeologically and historically that supports the Book of Mormon record is absolutely devastating to the claims against it.  One must simply look in the right place!

4

1 Nephi 18:25 mentions gold, silver, copper, and steel in the American empires. The smelt locations of such metals are easy to locate even today, because they leave permanent scars on the land. However, there are no such smelt locations in the Americas.  Furthermore, there is also no record of Native American metal use until the arrival of Europeans in the late 16th century. If there were metallic weapons in the early Americas, the Native Americans would have to have used them to survive. Contrast this with the Native Americans in the 16th century and beyond; they quickly adopted the use of metal knifes, arrowheads, etc.

The ores, indications of mining of those ores, smelting furnaces and the artifacts themselves of gold, copper, silver and iron/steel have all been verified in the Hopewell civilizations ruins.  All of these ores are found in the southern Appalachian Mountains (our proposed Land of Nephi of the Book of Mormon) and evidence of ancient mining, complete with tunnels and mine shafts, of these ore deposits was noted in the books and histories of the earliest settlers in these areas. Over 35 iron and copper smelting furnaces have been located within the Ohio river valley by non-Mormon William Connor and discussed in his new book Iron Age America Before Columbus, yet after 25 years of pleading for an official archaeological dig on any of 20 of these undisturbed mound sites (yes, these furnaces are generally associated with the mounds of the Hopewell) he has been stonewalled and no one will come and conduct an official dig on these furnaces. If it was found that the Hopewell were indeed smelting metals, then archaeologists could hardly continue in their classification of ancient Native Americans as “ignorant savages” which would require a complete rethinking, rewriting, and re-educating of the entire archaeological establishment of North America.  They don’t want to accept this fact.

5

The BOM describes the Nephites as great writers. However, writing cultures always leave records. There should be thousands of metal plates (the claimed writing medium of the Nephites), but there are none. Contrast this with the ancient writings found from the many empires that surrounded ancient Israel – and none as much as the Israelites themselves. There is an abundance of manuscripts and writings used to verify the Biblical account.It may be somewhat circular reasoning but the Book of Mormon itself is overwhelming evidence that these ancient people did leave records.  According to historical accounts of men who experienced entering a “room of records” in the Hill Cumorah in New York with Joseph Smith they described “wagon loads of plates” within this room.  Because of the difficulty of making metal plates, it makes sense that they would do their utmost to protect them, and would most likely gather them together to places of safety as was seen by the cave of the Dead Sea Scrolls and others.  They were ‘caches’ of writings.  They ancients didn’t just leave such precious writings lying around helter-skelter. One must also take into account the dry climate of Israel as compared to the wet and humid climate of America’s heartland.  Dry climates are more conducive

It may be somewhat circular reasoning but the Book of Mormon itself is overwhelming evidence that these ancient people did leave records.  According to historical accounts of men who experienced entering a “room of records” in the Hill Cumorah in New York with Joseph Smith they described “wagon loads of plates” within this room.  Because of the difficulty of making metal plates, it makes sense that they would do their utmost to protect them, and would most likely gather them together to places of safety as was seen by the cave of the Dead Sea Scrolls and others.  They were ‘caches’ of writings.  They ancients didn’t just leave such precious writings lying around helter-skelter. One must also take into account the dry climate of Israel as compared to the wet and humid climate of America’s heartland.  Dry climates are more conducive of the preservation of organic materials such as wood, leather, clay and parchment.  The freeze-thaw cycling of the heartland quickly destroys many such materials, along with the abundance of insects and bugs that devour such organics.  The Hopewell were very skilled at producing metallic sheets with smooth surfaces, which can be seen in nearly any Hopewell museum.  They made all sorts of thin sheet metallic items such as pan pipes, knives, scrolls, beads, bracelets, necklace ornaments, etc. While the majority of those recovered were of copper, artifacts of gold, silver and iron have also been recovered from the mounds of the Hopewell.  See the aforementioned Bat Creek stone for further evidence of not only written language, but the exact (Hebrew) language claimed by the Book of Mormon!

6

There are no old manuscripts of the BOM; there is a 1400 year gap between the BOM and its latest events.  This gap in the timeline makes it very difficult to consider the BOM a historical book. Contrast this with the Bible; we have manuscripts for portions of the Bible that are over 2000 years old. Many go back to within 70 years of the actual events – which is unprecedented by historical standards.

The Book of Mormon clearly explains these ‘gaps’ in its history as their history ended when the Nephite civilization was exterminated at the close of the narrative.  This is a faulty argument on its face, since the lack of ‘continuous’ recorded history is hardly considered evidence that the history did not occur.

7

Mormon 9:32 mentioned the Nephites spoke “reformed Egyptian” in the Americas. No non-Mormon historians or archeologists have any idea what this is. There is no trace of Hebrew or Egyptian in any of the Native American dialects.[ref]Cecil H. Brown. 1999. Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics, 20. Oxford[/ref]

The Great Octagon and Great Circle, both of them being Hopewell ceremonial centers, were built using Egyptian measurements.  There was an archaeological dig conducted in Tennessee that had so much “Egyptian” influence that Egyptologists were brought in from Europe to complete the dig and they wrote an article titled “An Egyptian Temple in Tennessee” for the local newspaper.  Why would it surprise anyone that a people who left their native lands with a particular written language would not be capable of maintaining that language, unchanged, for over a thousand years? Language fluctuates and is heavily influenced by culture.  Why would anyone think a language which evolved over time could not be considered “reformed” or “altered” by those people?  Both of these words are used by Book of Mormon prophets to describe what was happening with their language.   Also, the Micmac Book of Prayers has many examples of the use of exactly identical symbols with the Book of Mormon characters recorded on the Anthom Transcript which was written by Joseph Smith from the characters on the gold plates he was translating.  One cannot simply assume that just because one is not familiar with these facts, that they don’t exist.  More research is required before forming a cogent and well-informed opinion. 

8

According to Alma 11, there should be Nephite coins everywhere. In fact, there should be coins from all three of the empires described in the BOM. Their money systems were in use for at least 1000 years! The lack of ancient coins in the Americas is a huge objection to the BOM. Contrast this with Biblical archeology; coins from empires mentioned in the Bible are common finds. Most digs turn up hundred of such coins that are thousands of years old.

Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it mention coinage.  It only mentions the use of gold and silver “measure” which most likely involved weight such as a gram, an ounce, a pound or a ton of the material.  There is nothing that claims metallic coins.

9

There should be over 230,000 bodies around the Hill Comorrah [Cumorah]. The place Joseph Smith saw his vision, and the one geographical site confirmed by the Mormon Church. There should be mass burial sites, steel swords, bones, and much more.  Such an epic battle would have left behind vast amounts of archaeological evidence, yet all that has been found is a few stone weapons. And as if the lack of archaeological confirmation is not enough of a problem, the LDS Church refuses to allow outside excavation. Contrast this with Biblical archaeology, where any known Biblical sites have been excavated and verified.

Really? There were 60,000,000 bison exterminated on the plains, most of which were left where they lay when they died.  Where is the evidence for this massive slaughter, today? And these were not small 150 pound human’s but 1800 pound animals with much heavier bones and bodies.  Yet there is nothing left of them today to show they were indeed here.Any dead body quickly deteriorates to nearly nothing in short order in these wet/humid climates.  The only way anything from a human body would be preserved is through burial and the Nephites specifically record that the Lamanites left the bodies of the fallen Nephites “and their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth.”   This is clearly indicative of non-burial and therefore no one should expect such remains.

Some have incorrectly assumed that the final battles of the Book of Mormon occurred in one single relatively small location or even on the Hill Cumorah itself, but the book, as well as the archaeological evidence, suggests otherwise.  In 1851, the Smithsonian Institution published the book Antiquities of the State of New York which provides overwhelming evidence of massive burials all over the western portion of the state of New York. Here are a few quotes from this authoritative and informative book.

Page 79 “A mile to the eastward…is another of the ‘bone pits,’ already several times referred to, which is estimated, by those who excavated it originally, to have contained four hundred skeletons heaped promiscuously together.  They were individuals of every age and sex.”

Page 99 “The “bone pits” which occur in some parts of Western New York, Canada, Michigan, etc., have an unquestionably corresponding origin.  They are of various sizes, but usually contain a large number of skeletons. One of the pits discovered some years ago, in the town of Cambria, Niagara County, was estimated to contain the bones of several thousand individuals…”

Page 100 “…the area was a depository of the dead.  It was a pit excavated four or five feet deep and filled with human bones…  Hundreds seem to have been thrown in promiscuously, of both sexes and all ages.  Numerous bits of arrow-points were found among the bones and in the vicinity…”

Page 103 “Among them were a few fetal bones. Many of the skulls bore marks of violence, leading to the belief that they were broken before burial…”

Page 144 “In excavating the canal [Erie Canal] through the bank… another burial place was disclosed, evidently more ancient, for the bones crumbled to pieces almost immediately upon exposure to the air… The number of skeletons is represented to have been countless…”

Steel swords?  Why would anyone expect to find steel swords in a wet/humid climate? The massive iron cannons of the revolutionary war, if left out in nature, have long since crumbled to dust, yet steel swords would be even faster to erode away.  The Book of Mormon even mentions that among the ruins of the earlier civilization, the Jaredites, they found that their swords were “cankered with rust.”  Rusting is the reality of steel and iron and even keeping the metals dry cannot prevent them from rusting in the humidity of western New York.  This is another faulty argument by those who have simply not thought it through.

10

According to 2 Nephi 5:16, Nephi built temples like Solomon’s temple. Structures this large don’t just disappear without a trace. If they did exist, there would be remains of some sort; perhaps a foundation or a quarry site. Another smaller (but still significant) problem with this claim is that no genuine Jew would have built a temple anywhere other than Jerusalem – yet Nephi was supposedly Jewish. Contrast this with the Biblical temple; the Wailing Wall left from the temple in Jerusalem is over 2000 years old – destroyed nearly that long ago by Herod. However, you can go there today and lay hands on the remains.Yes, the Book of Mormon claims that Nephites built temples, and at least the first one mentioned was built like unto Solomon’s temple, with a very important caveat… “save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple.”  It was apparently not built out of the same materials as Solomon’s temple because those materials were not available.  The Egyptian temple mentioned previously had two massive stone pillars in its front which is very much like Solomon’s temple.  There was indeed a significant stone foundation at this site and again the archaeological community has done its best to cover it up, taking the artifacts and either reburying them or removing them to an undisclosed museum in Europe, where they claim they can no longer be found today.  Wayne May of Ancient American magazine has photographs and documentation of this dig and site.

Yes, the Book of Mormon claims that Nephites built temples, and at least the first one mentioned was built like unto Solomon’s temple, with a very important caveat… “save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple.”  It was apparently not built out of the same materials as Solomon’s temple because those materials were not available.  The Egyptian temple mentioned previously had two massive stone pillars in its front which is very much like Solomon’s temple.  There was indeed a significant stone foundation at this site and again the archaeological community has done its best to cover it up, taking the artifacts and either reburying them or removing them to an undisclosed museum in Europe, where they claim they can no longer be found today.  Wayne May of Ancient American magazine has photographs and documentation of this dig and site.

The claim that no Jew would build a temple other than Jerusalem is on its face fallacious because the Lord provided the Jews with a temple (the tabernacle) within which they were able to conduct their sacred rituals and ceremonies just as performed in the later Solomon’s temple.  Temples are the right of God and he can and has instructed his covenant people to build temples as needed to perform their sacred ordinances and ceremonies.

11

There is overwhelming historical evidence that Jesus was a real figure in the Middle East around 30 A.D. However, there is no evidence He visited the America’s, and there is no evidence for the BOM claim of massive converts to Christianity in the Americas. It is impossible that the same Jesus would leave so much evidence in the Middle East, but no evidence in the Americas.

The evidence for Christ’s recorded visit the America’s so permeates almost every one of its ancient cultures that such a statement is patently false.  The book, He walked the America’s, written by non-Mormon L. Taylor Hansen, found evidence in almost every indigenous population in the America’s she studied for their overwhelming belief in a “white God” who came and taught the people how to live in peace.  He has been called many names, from the “Feathered Serpent” or “Quetzelquatel” among the Central American’s to Deganawidah among the Algonquians in North America.  Evidence abounds of the results of Christ’s visit within the Hopewell ruins.

The largest ceremonial centers of the Hopewell, which according to main-stream archaeology, were built around 100-150 A.D. were built in Newark, Ohio (our proposed Land Bountiful) without the customary palisades of timbers to thwart intrusion as seen in other Hopewell defensive fortifications.  Such massive construction projects required a huge amount of labor and non-Mormon archaeologists have commented that these structures must have been built during a time of great peace, since the Hopewell seemed much more concerned with ceremony than security.  This is completely consistent with the recorded 200 years of peace between the Nephites and Lamanites from the Book of Mormon.  People living in peace could be a definite sign of a Christian population.

Stones inscribed with a man hanging on a cross and others with a man wearing a full-length robe were recovered from Hopewell mounds and burials, but again most of these were declared as fakes and forgeries out of hand by the Smithsonian authorities.

There is ample and robust evidence of Christ’s visit to the America’s, and even of the destruction near the time of Christ as recorded in the Book of Mormon.  A similar event occurred in 1811-1812 on the New Madrid fault zone in the Mississippi River Valley, in which the river was forced to run backwards, 3,000 sq. miles of land subsided with the river running into the depression and forming a massive lake in just a few hours.  Over 2,000 earthquakes, three of which were 8.0 magnitude or larger, occurred over the course of five months, making this the “most intense sequence of quakes ever experienced in North America” according the History Channel documentary, Earthquake in the Heartland.  Interestingly, there are recorded accounts of darkness associated with those earthquakes in the heartland, and Paleoseismologist Martitia Tuttle has found absolute evidence that a similar event did occur near the time of Christ.  In fact, sand blows buried a Hopewell Mound builder occupation horizon under several feet of sand according to Tuttle in the film.  Of the 28 observations of destruction made by the ancient prophet Nephi at the time of Christ in the Book of Mormon, those who experienced the New Madrid events of 1811-1812 record these same 28 observations.  Coincidence?  I think not.  Yet Joseph Smith could not have possibly known about these observations because they were not compiled nor printed until many years after his death! Nor could the recorded observations of those who witnessed these events have been influenced in any way by the Book of Mormon account because at this point Joseph Smith has not yet even had the First Vision that started it all. The observations were made independent of each other.  That is another evidence that the account is an actual record… There is simply no way that Joseph Smith could have so accurately imagined the effects observed by these massive earthquakes in the heartland.

12

Joseph Smith claimed that “The BOM is the most correct of any book on earth.” However, the BOM claims that Jesus was born in Jerusalem – which completely contradicts the overwhelming historical (and Biblical!) evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

This argument is also fallacious in that while it is true that Christ was born in Bethlehem and the Book of Mormon says He was born in Jerusalem, one must take into account that the entire area around Jerusalem would be considered by others to have been the region of Jerusalem.  Bethlehem is only about 6 miles from Jerusalem.  Using a similar analogy, I would be incorrect if I mentioned Salt Lake City rather than Rose Park in describing where the I-15 freeway is located.  Such a distinction is rarely made because the one (i.e. SLC/Jerusalem) is so much more influential and better known than the other (Rose Park/Bethlehem) that its influence overshadows its name usage. Bethlehem at the time was a tiny little suburb, if you will, of Jerusalem, with most likely more sheep, since historians have indicated that this is where the majority of the flocks used for temple sacrifice in Jerusalem were raised, than people. It would make perfect sense, then that Book of Mormon writers would have referenced the more widely known city of Jerusalem. This hardly indicates a serious contradiction.  It has to do with perspectives.

13

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr. Ferguson planned the New World Archaeological Foundation which he originally hoped would prove The Book of Mormon through archaeological research. The Mormon Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made some important contributions to New World archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon. In 1975 Ferguson prepared a 29-page paper in which he wrote: ‘I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography.’ In a letter to Mr. & Mrs. H.W. Lawrence, dated Feb. 20, 1976, Thomas Stuart Ferguson plainly stated: ‘…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology.

This entire account is painful.  The difficulty is that Ferguson was almost correct.  The fact is that he is correct in that nowhere in Mesoamerica does the geography, cultures, DNA or artifacts match the Book of Mormon record, however had he instead looked at the Hopewell he would have had a completely different experience!  Thomas Ferguson’s son Larry was brought up with his father’s ideas and influence, but when Larry conducted his research into the Heartland Model Book of Mormon geography, which proposes the Hopewell to be the Nephites, he said that had his father had this level of evidence, and all of it coming from non-Mormon sources, he would have never made that statement.  He only wished his father could have lived to see this evidence.

14

The three original witnesses to the golden plates (from which J. Smith supposedly translated the BOM before they were conveniently taken up into heaven) were all excommunicated from the church. In 1838, Joseph Smith called Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer “too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them.”[ref]B.H. Roberts, ed. History of the Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1905), 3: 232.[/ref] The later eight witnesses were all family members of either Smith or David Whitmer (and thus had family pressure and financial incentive). Furthermore, in 1838 a former Mormon leader Stephen Burnett, claimed Martin Harris had told him that “the eight witnesses never saw [the plates] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it.”[ref]Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837 – February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66, LDS archives; quoted in “Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses,” Institute for Religious Research, retrieved from the Internet on 2/16/08[/ref] Contrast this with the original twelve disciples of Jesus, who left their families behind to follow Christ, and nearly all of whom nearly all were brutally martyred for their unshakable testimony that Jesus Christ was who He said He was.

Isn’t it interesting that even though several of these men became bitter enemies of Joseph Smith and left the Church he organized, not one of them ever denied their written testimonies of having witnessed the plates?  What financial incentive would Joseph Smith or any of these witnesses have?  None were being paid to be witnesses, and all were upstanding, honorable people in the community.  This is nothing more than hearsay and speculation, including the dubious “account” of Stephen Burnett who hated Joseph Smith and was a known liar.  What he claims is unverifiable at best.  Also, none of these men abandoned Christ or discontinued following Him, in fact several went on to establish their own Churches based on the Book of Mormon and their interpretations of how they thought the Church itself should be run.  As with Christ’s early disciples, none of them turned their back on Christ, even though they too were severely persecuted.

Some observations:

1

Moroni 10:4 claims you can know the BOM is true by a “burning in the bosom.” Jeremiah 17:9 warns that the heart is deceitful. Proverbs 28:26 warns that “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool.” Emotions are no basis to validate truth claims. Emotions should be a result of good evidence, not used as evidence themselves.

It is true that a spiritual witness of something’s truthfulness is preferable to an intellectual one, because while the heart may be deceived the mind is orders of magnitude more likely to succumb to false claims, poor information, sloppy research, improper reasoning and the list could go on and on.  Can spiritual issues be settled by assuming one has attained intellectual perfection? Is not the mind more often deceived than the heart?  Jude 1 “10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.” The idea that the witness is “emotional” in nature is also fallacious according to those of us who have actually experienced it.  It is not like a happy thought or joyful occasion, but an actual witness at the level of the soul.  Perhaps an example of this witness was best expressed by Cleopas in Luke, Chapter 24 “32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” Was not this a more powerful and true witness of Jesus Christ than attempts to intellectually determine if he really was the son of God and was properly expounding the scriptures unto them? Were Christ’s disciples being deceived because they felt their hearts burn within them?  I think not. Their hearts burned with the witness that Christ was who he claimed he was, and the scriptures are true… and I have felt and do testify of this same type of experience.

2

Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said (April 2002, General Conference) “As a church, we have critics – many of them. They say we do not believe in the traditional Christ of Christianity. There is some substance to what they say. Our faith, our knowledge, is not based on tradition. Our faith, our knowledge comes from the witness of a prophet of this dispensation.” The Apostle Paul had some words for Gordon B. Hinckley: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting (12) Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a (13) different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are (14) disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or (15) an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be (16) accursed!”  Mormonism is not an extension or correction of Christianity; it is a complete distortion of Christianity.

Are you sure that Paul’s words were directed at President Hinckley, who claims our knowledge comes from a prophet of God, rather than those who used their positions within the Catholic Church to construct their own theories and doctrines which were never given by Christ?  When it comes down to it, the Catholic Church is the only Church who can claim direct authority from the ancient disciples of Christ, yet they took it upon themselves to interpret the scriptures and determine doctrine, thinking that they know for themselves the will and mind of God.  All other Christian religions are break offs from the Catholic Church. So who is a true extension of Christianity, the Church that creates their own doctrines based on their own theories and ideas, or the Church that follows a living prophet who guides and directs Christ’s Church?  Who is the most likely to have things distorted?

3

Orson Prat (major prophet in Mormonism) said of Mormonism “If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world; calculated to deceive millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of god and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth until they are plunged, together with their families into hopeless despair.  (O.P Divine Authority of BOM, Liverpool 1851). Jesus warns in Math 24:24 that “ false Christ’s and (28) false prophets will arise and will show great (29) signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even (30) the elect.”

Orson Pratt was never a prophet of the Church, much less a “major prophet in Mormonism.”  The statement is incorrect.  The key phrase here is “If false,” which Orson Pratt unequivocally denies, making the remainder of the statement of no real inherent value. St. Matthew is correct that there will be false prophets; the key is in knowing how to distinguish between real prophets, which I assume you don’t subscribe to, and false ones. In Mormonism we have a way of making such a determination… and Matthew provides the basis for doing so.  He writes in Mat 7 “16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” Both Matthew and Mark wrote that a house divided against itself cannot stand, yet the Church is standing very well. It is not divided, but is growing ever larger and stronger as it fills its mission to preach the true gospel of Christ to all the world.

Philosophical objections:

1

The principle of eternal progression is self-contradictory. Brigham Young defined eternal progression as follows “There is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary – they must increase or decrease.”[ref]Young, JD 1:350[/ref] But if this is true than the principle of eternal progression itself doesn’t remain stationary, it is changing. But that implies every principle is not changing, so the principle of eternal progression is false. This is a knock-down refutation of a fundamental aspect of the Mormon worldview. Another huge problem with eternal progression is the laws and commands of the Mormon god; they would fall prey to change as well. Also, eternal progression seems to knock out any hope of objective morality, which we address later.

One can argue philosophical questions forever and still never come any closer to truth.  These kinds of objections are generally theoretical and idealistic, rather than factual and realistic.  They are typically an attempt to show forth ones superior intellectual training or skills, rather than an attempt to come to truth.  Too often science and philosophy is like that in my opinion.  I prefer actual empirical experimentation and observation over flowery theoretical concepts based on imagination.

Your first philosophical objection seems more of a rehash of the Heisenberg principle than a real objection to Mormonism.  Does the act of observing something effect the observation itself?  One can go on and on with such reality bending exercises.

First, one must ascertain whether Brigham Young was speaking as a prophet or as a man with an opinion.  Mormon’s believe prophets are allowed to have their own personal opinions and a prophet’s words are his only… unless he is being directed by the Holy Spirit, in which case he is obliged to so indicate.

In a hypothetical world isn’t it possible for something to be in motion and yet seem to be stationary?  For example, the phone on my desk appears to be travelling at exactly zero mph, yet from the perspective of space it is hurtling around the surface of the earth at thousands of miles an hour.  From the perspective of the universe it is moving but hardly enough to be noticed compared to everything else in motion in the universe.  There is much to be learned from perspective.  You are using a circular argument fallacy in this case.

Eternal = constant/unchanging
Progression = movement/change
Therefore Eternal Progression is self-contradictory, but then so is “jumbo shrimp” yet they taste great and are real!

2

There is no first-cause in Mormonism. Each god was created by a previous god, and so on. Without a self-existent Being (the Christian God) for a first-cause you fall prey to the fallacy of infinite regress. The age old question – “Who made God” can be answered by Christians, but not by Mormons. Christians say, that’s a silly question since God is self-existent (i.e. “un-created). Mormons must say, another god, another god, forever. (Not only is the answer inadequate, but any hope of adequacy is in the law of eternal progression, which we have shown to be necessarily false).
a. Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt taught, “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so one, from one generation to generation” (The Seer, pg. 132).

The “Christian God” you imagine is, as you say, “uncreated” which means that He cannot exist.  In order for anything to exist it must first be organized or created from something, right?  Even thoughts must be created and organized before becoming reality.  The God you are describing is non-reality, and not even a figment of your imagination since he is as yet “uncreated.” This is one of the most inane arguments I think I’ve ever seen.

At least the Mormon God provides a “real” actual and personal God, even if His ancestry harkens back to eternity. Our finite minds may not be able to comprehend how this could have happened, but then again our minds are not at the same level as God’s.  Maybe there are some things we simply don’t yet understand that God does, but one of those isn’t that God doesn’t exist, which is what you appear to be arguing.

3

The Mormon god does not provide an adequate basis for objective morality. According to Mormonism, there is more than one god – there are many gods governing many worlds like ours.

1. If they are all bound to some moral standard, then where did this standard come from? It can’t just exist on its own[ref]If “justice” existed eternally, it wouldn’t itself be just. Furthermore, why would we have any moral obligation to practice these things, even if they do exist?[/ref]. Also, the law of eternal progression seems to kill any idea of objection morality since everything is changing, including morality.
2. If all the gods aren’t all bound to the same moral standards, then objective morality ceases to exist. The god of our world might not like my actions; he might even boot me out of the highest heaven, but that’s because he is whimsical, not because I am truly wrong. Maybe a different god of a different world would have approved.
   Contrast this problem with the Christian God, whose nature is the basis for objective morality. All the problems go away, and the existence of objective morality actually serves as existence for God.

Most of the moral standards that have come down through prophets of God are self-evident, meaning that defying it would impose on another’s rights of self governance were you to go further or even impose upon your own ability to act under your own self-governance.  For example, “thou shalt not kill” is a moral issue in which it is understood that in order to kill someone else you are taking away their right to self governance.  Suicide is immoral because you are imposing something upon yourself which takes away your own self governance. A similar idea albeit a less drastic one is the moral issue of taking drugs or getting drunk; even if you don’t hurt anyone else you are still doing damage to your body which you did not create and it therefore is technically not yours to impose damage at your whim.

Who is to say whether or not all God’s are not bound by the same (natural) laws?  Are God’s subject to such things as gravity, molecular forces, etc?  Who said that everything is changing, evolving?
Yikes! this is getting into philosophical gobbly-gook…  and getting nowhere.

4

Every “good deed” done by a Mormon is necessarily selfish:

1.  An action is selfish if one has ulterior, self-serving motives for doing it.
2. According to Mormonism, our point in being on earth is to see if we qualify to become gods ourselves. You qualify by being an outstanding moral person and doing all sorts of good deeds.
3. But the motivation to do good deed is ultimately self-serving, so all Mormon good deeds are ultimately selfish (It’s not really about being kind to you, it’s about them scoring extra points) . Contrast this with Christianity, where the love of Christ – not some religious need to perform – motivates and compels us to love others.

This is a completely skewed and unrealistic view of Mormonism based on presuppositions of what is actually the motivation.  No one knows the actual motivations behind others actions, often not even the person themselves. Is it not possible that a Mormon’s motive for doing good deeds is because that Mormon loves God and desires to do His will and obey his commandments/ golden rule to do good unto others?  You are using a red herring, or inductive informal fallacy, as you generalize that the motives of all Mormon’s is self-serving and then claim that any action taken by a Mormon is therefore selfish.  This is merely an irrelevant association, since Mormon’s don’t all go around thinking “How can I get more ‘points’ with God.  I know I don’t.

5

The Mormon god is not:

1. 1. Eternal
      1. Joseph Smith “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” [ref]Teachings, pg. 345[/ref]
      2. Contrast this with the Christian God: “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psalms 90:1-4)

Your Christian God never even existed according to your previous definition, so how can he now exist from everlasting to everlasting?  The Mormon God exists throughout eternity through eternal offspring, much like how it works for us humans here on earth.

1. 1. Immutable
      1. Lorenzo Snow: As man is God once was, as God is man may be. The Mormon god changed from a man to some sort of exalted man.

He also seems to change his mind when it comes to morality:

1. 1. 1. Abandonment of polygamy in 1890
      2. Reversal of the ban which withheld the LDS Priesthood from Blacks in 1978
      3. Changes in the LDS temple ceremony in 1980.

Have you never heard of hierarchy of laws?  For example, can one defy the law of gravity?  No you say?  Then why doesn’t an airplane fall from the sky?  It is utilizing a higher law.  It is not defying gravity, is working within it using other laws that overcome it.  The same might be said of God.  Can God have a law such as “thou shalt not shed innocent blood” and yet instruct someone to slay another by His order, as God commanded several times in the Old Testament?  If God’s order is carried out, did that person shed innocent blood?  Did David shed innocent blood as he killed Goliath?  It would appear that the lower law (thou shalt not kill) was superseded by a higher law (God is the giver and taker of life and this life is only a stage in our development), but that does not mean that God “changed his mind” now does it?  It only means that Goliath’s death was less important in God’s plan for his children than David’s obedience to the commandment.  Lower laws are subject to higher laws, just as the laws of lift, pressure, drag, etc. work in concert to overcome gravity, is it simply our lack of understanding about the nature of God that causes us to assume he is changing, rather than simply applying another level of law.

Sometimes, as in the case for polygamy, God’s children are not ready or able to accept the higher laws.  This does not mean that God’s laws changed, only that his requirement for obedience to it has changed.  Which brings up another important question, is “blind” obedience to whatever God requires more important that strict obedience to lower laws?

In my Mormon view (I don’t speak for the Church) a God is someone who has learned everything and has all knowledge (at least within His particular sphere).  When one progresses in knowledge is there ever an end to learning?  Is it possible to learn everything that there is to know?  My thought is that yes, for all intents and purposes, it is possible to learn everything.  But then again, if everything is continually changing, can one maintain one’s knowledge to keep up with the changes?  Once God becomes a God is he subject to natural laws?  My personal answer to that is yes, God is subject to the natural laws previous God’s organized and He works within that framework.

1. 1. Self-existent
      1. Orson Pratt: “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father, and so one, from one generation to generation” (The Seer, pg. 132). The Mormon god was created.

Yes, God was created just as we, his children, were created, both spiritually and physically.  How else could we be considered his children?  Isn’t self-existent also a logical fallicy?  How did God create himself?  Wouldn’t he need to exist before he could make anything else exist? I guess that works if you believe that God has never existed, as you have suggested previously.

1. 1. 1. Joseph Smith : “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

God is made out of nothing?  That sounds an awful lot like Big Bang theory, the idea that everything in the universe came from nothing.  Can we be any more nonsensical than that?  Immaterial by its very definition means made from nothing materially, or in other words, non-existent.  An immaterial God does not exist.  A Father of flesh and bones at least has the advantage of being real and being a Father of children.

1. 1. Omnipresent
      1. Brigham Young:  “Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so” (Journal of Discourses 6:345).

I have a body of flesh and bones and yet the air around my body is influenced by my body.  My influence in other people’s lives goes on all over the world, yet here I sit at this keyboard typing away.  Doesn’t this mean that I am in a small way omnipresent around the globe, yet my body is not thus spread globally?  Could it be that God’s influence is similar, that he does in fact have a physical, tangible body, that he really is our Heavenly FATHER and that he is real and has the capacity to love and nurture and care for us, his children?

1. 1. The Creator
      1. The Mormon god was created himself and does not have the ability to create ex nihilo.

Joseph Smith revealed that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  Mormon’s reject the false notion of creation of something from nothing.  This is the problem with modern science as well; they believe that everything came from nothing.  It is utterly illogical and nothing more than a flight of fancy and imagination.  Every school child knows that something cannot come from nothing.  Demonstrate to me otherwise…if you can.

These completely contradict the Christian God, who is self-existent, eternal, immutable (unchanging), incorporeal (non-physical), omnipresent, and the creator of everything. This again shows that Mormonism is not a correction or offshoot of Christianity (as the LDS Church so badly wants to claim), it is a new cultish religion with an entirely different god than the Christian God.

You and the false teachings of other self-proclaimed Christians have made a grave error in your reasoning.  You see, you have a non-existent God by your own definition!  What you have is a God of nothing more than fairy tales and never land, even less because at least these concepts are real ideas.  Such concepts did not come from the scriptures or from Christ, but rather from wicked men under the Nicene Creed who got together in 325 AD to determine for themselves how THEY wanted to view God.  They determined to make up their own ideas about God and coerce or force others to conform to those false ideas.  Moses met with God face to face.  It was not a dream, God existed.  Christ said that if you’ve seen him, you’ve seen the Father, since he was made in the Fathers similitude.  This means that God exists, in contrast with your non-existent God.  God loves us, and we are his children.  To love or have children one must of necessity exist first.  To consider otherwise is to be utterly irrational.  You have made a fatal logical fallacy in your argument since God does in fact exist. This fact utterly refutes the notion you claim as being “Christian” that God does not exist in reality.  This is a knock-down refutation of a fundamental aspect of your false so-called Christian (this view actually came from Catholic priests, not God) worldview.

6.

The Mormon god is not worthy of worship. Why should we worship someone who used to be just like us, and who we (some of us at least) are going to be just like in the feature. And why worship the Mormon god of our world when there are (infinitely many?) other gods of other worlds far older than he is. There is nothing about the Mormon god that makes him worthy of our worship. Again, contrast this with the Christian God, who is eternal (no beginning or end), who never changes, who is completely self-existent, who is the greatest conceivable being, whose very nature forms the basis of right and wrong; and who manifested His love by becoming one of us and satisfying His own justice, knowing we never could. The Christian God is truly worthy of worship.

This is another logical fallacy.  Why would we worship someone who was once just like us?  For the same reasons we have greater respect for people who’ve gone through trials such as we have experienced, that can understand our pain, that has been there and can relate to us.  For the same reason we look up to and revere those who have progressed beyond our own capabilities, such as religious leaders, sports stars, cancer survivors or abuse victims. Isn’t it natural to want to emulate those who have overcome adversity and trials in their lives and yet love and trust God and seek to serve others?  Why wouldn’t we want to worship a God who has ‘treaded the winepress alone’ for our sake, as did his Son.  Isn’t that a portion of why we worship Jesus Christ, because he was the perfect example for the rest of us to try to emulate?  He overcame the world and sin to stand as an example of what may not be possible, but that we should nevertheless strive for.  This is the existing, loving, honorable God of Mormonism.  He is our Father and loves us.

Why would anyone want to worship a God who does not exist?  You have caught yourself in a serious contradiction in this article.  Earlier you claimed that God doesn’t exist, but in the statement above you claim that he is “the greatest conceivable being” which refutes your earlier argument of God’s non-existence.  You mention “His very nature” yet you stated earlier that “God is self-existent (i.e. “un-created),” which clearly indicates that he has no nature and is not a being because natural things and beings both exist!  The Christian God of which you speak is incapable of being worshiped because He DOES NOT EXIST!  He is not a person, not even an idea according to your definition because ideas are created, they exist. It is utterly illogical to think that something can come from nothing or that this “nothing” can love or be a true Father or can ever be worshiped.  It is a cruel hoax, foisted upon men by men whose dream it was to conquer or control the world through religious adherents under their control.  Is it any wonder the world roiled in wickedness during the “dark ages” while Catholicism ruled Europe.  The God you claim to believe in is nothing more than a cobbled up group of imaginary incomprehensible non-sense intended to keep God’s children ignorant of their actual relationship to Him, our true and real eternal Father in heaven.

7

If Mormonism is true, there is really no reason for a Christian to convert: you might not become a god yourself, but you’ll at least be in semi-heaven sort of state. Most of us could be happy with that – so why convert us?

If Mormonism is true, there is really no reason for a true Christian NOT to convert.  What could it hurt to believe as Mormons do, that God is real and He is our loving heavenly parent; that we can progress and become as He is; that we can be together as families eternally?  Real joy for most Mormon’s comes from obeying His words and learning the things He knows so that one day we, his children can stand side-by-side with Him, our actual Father in organizing additional worlds that continuously increases His joy and happiness and posterity forever.  This is our (Mormon) idea of eternal progression…as we strive to become like He is, he is further exalted and joyous to have us, His children, succeed.  What real Father wouldn’t want that for His children?  All God’s family then continues to progress, yet there is no indication that God has lost any of his influence or position as our father, he just continues to have more and more of his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on forever, who continue to progress, which we Mormon’s believe He claimed when he revealed the following. Pearl of Great  Price, Moses 1 “39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”  If this really is what God does for both work and glory, then it stands to reason our eternal life and immortality is foremost on God’s mind.

In addition, true Christians MUST convert in order to obtain the ordinances, done with proper priesthood authority, that are recognized by God as valid.  Christ did not organize dozens of competing religions, but one, and He understood the proper role and necessity of priesthood authority.  He put his hands on the heads of his disciples and he ordained them to this priesthood, which gave them the authority to do miracles in Christ’s name and through the power of His father.  The Catholic Church lost this authority when Christ’s original disciples were killed and it was not properly bestowed to others.  In contrast, the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) claims something no other so-called Christian Church can claim…that is an unbroken chain of priesthood passage from Christ’s hands, which restored the true priesthood again on the earth to Joseph Smith, to every worthy male member of the Church throughout the world who each in their turn has received this priesthood by direct laying on of hands just as Christ taught.  It is an ever expanding, ever growing, ever progressing expansion of God’s priesthood to his children here on earth.

A few responses to common Mormon tricks:

1. Jesus’ warning of false prophets in Matthew proves there must be true prophets also.  This is false – completely fallacious; false prophets in no way necessitate true ones. There could be lots of false prophets but no true ones. Christianity does leave room for modern prophets –but Biblical prophecy seems to simply be clear exposition of God’s truth (found in full in the Bible). The mark of a true prophet (both today and in the OT) is consistency with the rest of God’s revealed message. God is not going to contradict himself.

If God is not going to contradict himself, please explain how David didn’t actually kill Goliath or how his killing of Goliath didn’t constitute killing.  The only contradiction is in our inability to understand things the way God understands them.  No tricks.  Just facts.

2. There are 5,000 plus denominations of Christianity. This proves some new revelation is needed to clear up all the confusion. That may be true, but the vast majority of denominations agree on the fundamentals of Christianity: who God is, that He has completely revealed Himself to man through the Bible, that Jesus is fully God, etc. Also, Mormonism is not without its denominations (over major issues) and Mormonism has been around for less than 200 years. Give it another 1800 years and it will most likely catch up.

The only thing that all this splitting up and dividing proves is that men’s interpretations of scripture and differing motivations make them imperfect and we constantly need God’s guidance. God has ordained prophets in nearly every previous dispensation, so if you really believe in an unchangeable God, you must of necessity believe that he would continue this practice of ordaining prophets.  Or is your God now magically “changeable?”

The splinter groups of Mormonism are all dying a slow death.  None of them are prospering as is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some of them have come back to the mainstream Church as their congregations have fragmented.  Many of them are lost to any organized religion as they see their leaders doing the same thing as other Christian religions, which is to subvert God’s teachings and gospel by substituting their own ideas, and theories.

3. Have you prayed and asked God if the BOM is true? Most Christians have absolutely no need to ask such a question and would even feel wrong in asking the holy God about such an evil book. A good response seems to be something like “I’ve asked God to reveal truth to me – and He has done so through the Bible.” If you say no you haven’t asked God about the BOM, they will probably make a big deal about how you’re not open to truth, etc.

Well, have you?  Most Christians have been taught by their leaders (not the scriptures or God) that they should not read or ask the Lord about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  So what is God’s advice to His children?  Mat. 7 “7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:”  or Luke 11 “9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”  Isn’t it interesting that Christian preachers would so blatantly disregard and ignore this scriptural advice?  What could be wrong with simply asking the Lord for answers?  Do you not believe He is able to answer (since he doesn’t exist anyway, in your minds)?  Or, do you consider yourself incapable of receiving an answer to prayer from the Lord?  Or, do you believe that if you did receive an answer, you might then be expected to accept and embrace that answer? What is it that you self-proclaimed Christians are so afraid of?  Ask!  It’s the Lords way of guiding and blessing his children.  Who do you follow more, the Holy Scriptures, or your “Christian” leaders opinions?

4. Mormons are notorious for pulling verses extremely out of context. Being aware of this, explaining proper hermeneutics and exegesis, and having a few examples of the same thing from the BOM will really go a long way.

OK, so when I, as a Mormon, quote a scripture directly, I’ve taken it out of context, but when you as a self-proclaimed Christian completely contradict your own scriptures, such as the case above with asking God for answers or denying that God is an actual being, it is looked upon as somehow being enlightened, am I correct?

5. Mormons often claim that for Christians, heaven is nothing more than “a state of eternal, inactive joy. In the presence of God they would worship him and sing praises to him eternally, but do nothing more.[ref]Widtsoe, p. 142[/ref]”  They then use this to try and argue for the Mormon concept that we actually can become gods ourselves (if we live good lives). There are at least two important points to make here: that is a false concept of heaven; and even if it were true it wouldn’t be an objection since the Christian God is infinitely more worthy of worship than the Mormon god. (This then allows you to expound on who the true God is and what He did for us through Jesus).

Are we wrong?  Isn’t that exactly what is in store for exalted Christians, day after monotonous day of singing praises to a non-existent God without end?  Wouldn’t a loving Heavenly Father want more from his children than simply vocal admiration forever and ever.  Think about this, how would you like it if your children were to want to do nothing more with their lives than sit and sing your praises day and night forever and ever!  Wouldn’t you consider it quite a waste of their lives when they could be out doing something more productive, like, lets say, go help you build a world for their children…who are your grandchildren?  Now doesn’t that make a whole lot more sense to you?  I personally couldn’t stand my children sitting around singing my praises eternally.  Isn’t that whole idea just a little bit crazy?  Well, it is because it makes no sense in reality.  Now, I’m sure that there will be a twinge of “that’s blasphemy” entering your mind about now, but please don’t misunderstand, if God really is our Father in heaven, why would He be that much different from what we are?  If we really were created in His image, doesn’t that mean that he has an image, that He does actually exist, and that we are his actual spiritual offspring?  Such a loving, nurturing, real and actual God is far more in alignment with the prophets and the scriptures than the incomprehensible mess Christians have created in their attempts to re-create Him in their image.

6. It’s impossible Joseph Smith could have made up such a long and complex story, so it must be true. Some even say that literature analysis backs this up. You don’t have to change your opinion that Joseph Smith was a liar, but consider the following for a second: what if he wasn’t lying. What if he really did see the tablets, record them, etc. Does that prove the BOM is true? Absolutely not! It’s quite possible he was deceived by a demon, or even hallucinating. The real issue is the logic, it’s simply false. But you can help them see this by positing the possibility that he was deceived by Satan.

This is the oldest and quite possibly the dumbest argument in the book. When one cannot defend his position based on scripture and prophets, then resort to simple name calling and ad hominem personal attacks against their character…  Ol’ Joe Smith was deceived!; you shout, without so much as a single thread of evidence that such was the case.  That’s nothing more than typical, self-proclaimed “Christian” logic; not that of the scriptures nor of Christ who said that by their fruits you should know him.

So what are Joseph Smith’s fruits?

Joseph Smith’s fruits are the establishment of what is now a world-wide multiethnic religion of over 14 million members that is growing faster than most any other Christian religion.  Joseph’s fruits are the Book of Mormon, which is this very day being proved out beyond any doubt that it is a real, factual and historical account of real people, places and things and this is all being borne out by non-Mormons.  Joseph Smith’s fruits are the restoration of the original gospel of Jesus Christ in all its fullness and with all of its authority and priesthood blessings.  Joseph Smith’s fruits are the fulfillment of prophecies made both anciently and in modern times that have come to pass such as the prediction of the Civil War and countless other prophecies and revelations as recorded in the Doctrine & Covenants.  Joseph Smith’s fruits are a clearing up of the false precepts of men about the true nature of God, that He is real, that He is a person, that He is a man, that He lives and loves each of us, his children.  Joseph Smith’s fruits lie in the fact that families can be sealed together for time and all eternity, rather than for this short earth life only and that we can live again as families with our Heavenly Father and grow and develop ourselves so that we can become like He is.  Joseph Smith’s fruits are a happy, prosperous people who love the Lord, follow his commandments, sacrifice their time and talents to serving others, give generously of their labors to others, help others in need across the world and bless the lives of millions upon millions of people who don’t know where to find the truth because of the false teachings, false accusations, inaccurate understandings and just plain ol’ fashioned ignorance exhibited by their self-proclaimed Christian leaders who are more concerned about keeping their “sheep” away from finding the truth about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon than they are about trying to find the truth for themselves. Why not encourage your members to look at both sides, study them both out in their minds, and then ask God which is right?  What could be the harm in that?  It seems to me the only harm would be that other Christians are afraid that by doing so the Lord will reveal it and then that person will no longer be a part of that “Christian” Church. If the Christian Church is the true one, why wouldn’t Christians have enough faith that the Lord will reveal that to those who honestly seek for the truth?  Don’t you have faith that God will provide answers to prayers?

7

Mormons often claim to have had religious experience that proves the BOM. In fact, these religious experiences seem to be the sole basis for their beliefs. There are a couple of important things to keep in mind.

1. As a Christian, we can know Christianity is true through the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone. The fact that other religions (such as Mormonism) have false religious experiences in no way infringes on our true experience of the living God.

So are you NOW saying here that you DO believe in gaining a testimony of your Christian beliefs through the Holy Spirit rather than, as you wrote in the beginning, Proverbs 28:26 warns that “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool.” Previously you indicated rather strongly that a testimony that came from a witness of the Spirit was foolhardy, but now you apparently are attempting to embrace that idea.

2. Note: we aren’t necessarily denying the experiences, we are denying that they are in any way connected to the religion – a bad case of heartburn could easily be mistaken for a burning in the bosom.

So let’s see… you are saying that you are not denying that Mormon’s have claimed to have had personal experiences with the Holy Spirit, but when a Mormon has such an experience, it is probably related to what they had for dinner.  In contrast, when a Christian has one of those experiences (which they are afraid to ask for apparently) it undoubtedly means that their non-existent God magically caused them to feel….what?  What exactly is it that helps a self-proclaimed Christian know that what he/she is receiving is from God and not Satan?  Since you don’t believe in the New Testament’s account of having a true ‘burning in the bosom’ then what kind of acknowledgement do you expect to receive from your non-existing God?

3. However, the fact that other religions claim false religious experiences means that Christians should not appeal to religious experience alone when trying to convince someone else of the truth of Christianity.

Anyone can claim anything and some people will.  That is why the gaining of a testimony of the truthfulness of things through the proper channels is vital.  The Holy Spirit will not deceive you, but people can delude themselves into thinking that they somehow know more than the witness of the Holy Spirit.  I personally think those kinds of people are far more dangerous to the spiritual well-being of others than those who simply suggest that you ask God yourself if something is true.  What are you so afraid of?  Why not take the scriptures at face value and ask in faith, knowing that a loving Heavenly Father would want to bless and help his child find the truth.  Don’t be deceived by those who would encourage you NOT to ask your Father in Heaven.  They are ones who are the deceivers and are trying to keep others from finding the truth.

4. The same idea holds for Mormonism (even though their religious experiences are false) – they should not appeal to religious experience alone, since multiple religions claim to have them.

We don’t rely on religious experiences alone…often we must go on faith.  For some members of the Church their faith has sustained them for years before they finally had their spiritual confirmation and the Church strongly and hardily admonishes its members to be diligent in continually learning, reaching and growing in the gospel and our lives.   As you have seen, we Mormon’s have more than plenty of solid, profound, and irrefutable physical evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon.  While it is important and nice to have such evidence, such evidence is miniscule in its strength of conversion compared to the beautiful, powerful, wonderful witness of the truth through the power of the Holy Spirit.

5. Furthermore, if religious experience does prove things first and foremost, and no other evidence is needed (which many Mormons try to claim), then Christianity has yet again won the day: we’ve had religious experience, we have experienced the living God. So we shouldn’t listen to whatever objections the Mormons may offer, since they themselves argue that experience comes before evidence.

The witness of the Holy Spirit supersedes any other physical evidence for us Mormons, but as you have seen, we don’t shy away from evidence either.  We also understand that we cannot and do not know everything as human beings right now and must accept the fact that some things are yet unknown.  For those things yet unknown we Mormon’s have faith.   We have faith that the Lord does hear and answer our prayers.  We have faith that the Lord has prepared a life for us after this life.  We have faith that his gospel is true and that if we obey his commandments and repent of our sins his grace will be sufficient to allow us entrance into his kingdom so that we might live with him again.  Mormon’s have faith in ancient and modern prophets who have lead his Church over the centuries.  We have faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins and that he died for us and that he lives again as a resurrected, glorified being as he so indicated during and after his ministry.  We have faith that our families can be together for eternity.  And finally we have faith that God is our literal spiritual Father and that He is real, He is full of love for all of His children and He dearly wants us to come back and live with Him again. And yet we know that the sure knowledge which is given by the testimony of the Holy Spirit can replace our faith with knowledge of these things.  I testify to you that I have received of this knowledge which comes only from the Holy Spirit and that it is not mere heartburn nor Satan because I have felt both of these influences in the past and the witness of the spirit is nothing at all like them.  It is unique, unquestionable and powerful.  It is what makes many Mormon’s unflinching in their faith and desire to live the gospel.  It is the glue that holds the Church together and binds us all in the bonds of unity and love for each other and our fellow man.  Do not underestimate these spiritual gifts.  They are real and you can know for yourself if they are true by asking our mutual Father in Heaven for yourself.

Enjoy the journey!

Rod L. Meldrum
President
The FIRM Foundation (Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism)