Sec. 2 - Latter Day Saints

Article A:  LDS Doctrinal & Historical Quotes

Article B:  The Book Of Mormon

(A)  LDS Doctrinal Quotes

Adam-God Doctrine

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken- He is our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing must hear it, and will know it sooner or later."

Brigham Young, 1852, Journal of Discourses Volume 1, Page 50

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me-namely that Adam is our father and our God- I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was one of the first woman[sic] upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and hold the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth.

Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873, Page 308

"You believe Adam was made of the dust of the earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please- that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."

Brigham Young, 1853, Journal of Discourses Volume 2, Page 6

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

Spencer W. Kimball, Church News, October 9,1976

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first tabernacles were oringinated by the Father,and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind."

Brigham Young, 1852, Journal of Discourses Volume 1, Pages 50-51

"I know just as well what to teach this people and what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually."

Brigham Young, 1870, Journal of Discourses Volume 13, Page 95

"...Brigham Young has said 'when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.' I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God..."

Brigham Young, 1870, Journal of Discourses Volume 13, Page 126

Bible [not sufficient to interpret itself]

There's a section from the LDS Church Handbook of Instruction (1998 edition) that says that the best way to determine the accuracy of any Bible passage is not to compare it with the Bible but with the newer revelations given in the LDS church.

[Copyright restrictions prohibit the direct quotation of the text. For direct quotes, please consult your local LDS bishopric.]

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. 25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. 26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. 27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. 28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. 29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest-because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God-because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

1 Nephi 13:24-29

These examples are from: Boyd Kirkland, "Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism and the Bible." It appeared in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought," p. 80. The entire article runs in pp. 77-93. A friend of mine gave me the complete article, but not the issue that it came from. In the article, Kirkland said:

"Whatever argument is possible for the current LDS definitions of Elohim and Jehovah from Mormon sources, it must be admitted that these definitions do not accord with the biblical usage of those terms. Apologists aware of this problem have been forced to conclude that the entire Biblical record as we now have it has been so systematically corrupted and edited through the centuries that all indications of a theology more in conformity with current Mormon definitions has been obliterated. Modern textual criticism and comparisions of the many available ancient manuscripts of the Bible do not lend much support to such a radical thesis, however. Likewise, efforts to show parallels between Mormonism and the polytheism of the patriarchal era also seem misdirected." (p. 90).

And because my words shall hiss forth - many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they received from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay, but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?

2 Nephi 29:3-6

But the Bible has been robbed of its plainess; and many sacred books having been lost; others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike. The original manuscripts of the books of the Old and New Testaments are no where to be found; all we have left are mutilated copies containing an incredible number of contradictory readings. From these uninspired men have translated by their own human wisdom our present version of the Bible, which is so indefinite that it leaves room for different opinions, clashing against one against the other; hence there has arisen a vast number of sects contending about the true points of Christ's doctrine. The first thing, therefore, necessary to the re-establishment of the kingdom of Christ on the earth, was to reveal in perfect plainness the exact and precise principles of the gospel in all their fullness; this was accomplished in the remarkable discovery and translation of the sacred records of Ancient America.

Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1854 Page 213.

In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts ... Nor is sheer quality most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies ... With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change...

It is easy to get lost in the debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the overall record of the New Testament...There is more reason today then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament "in substantial integrity" and to underline that "in variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.

It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from the original form. However, greatest changes would have logically occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents that we possess.

Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures., BYU, pp. 52-59.

Blood Atonement

"Let me suppose a case. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would so at once in such a case; and under such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands...There is not a man or woman,who violates the covenants made with God, that will not be required to pay that debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgements of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man will have to atone for breaking their covenants."

Brigham Young, 1856, Journal of Discourses Volume 3, Page 247

"I do know that there are sins committed, of such nature that if the people did understand the doctrine of salvation, they would tremble because of their situation. And furthermore, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of the brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

It is true that the blood of Jesus was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet man can commit sins which it can never remit. As it was in the ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still people do not understand them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon the altar, as in the ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of the lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves cannot remit, but they must be atoned for buy the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand; they understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you do not understand it."

Brigham Young, 1856, Journal of Discourses Volume 4, Pages 53-54

"I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he be saved, spill it. And of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind."

Brigham Young, 1857, Journal of Discourses Volume 4, Page 220

"We used to have a difference between Church and State, but it is all one now. Thank God we have no more temporal and spiritual! We have got Church and State together..."

John Taylor, 1857, Journal of Discourses Volume 5, Page 266

"How great the reason the Latter-day Saints have to rejoice when they contemplate these great priviledges and blessings, and when they contemplate the the same authority that God established in the beginning [when] our first parents were upon the earth, (the same authority that preceeded from the Great Eternal in the morning of creation,) is again restored. Ours is an ecclesiastical Church, and an ecclesiastical state..."

Orson Pratt, 1860, Journal of Discourses Volume 8, Page 105

"True Doctrine of blood atonement. Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel...

"But man may commit certain grievous sins - according to his light and knowledge - that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone - so far as his power lies - for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avial..."

"Atonement and sins unto death. Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from the sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf... And men for certain crimes have had to atone as far as they could for their sins wherein they have placed themselves beyond the redeeming power of the blood of Christ."

Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, Volume 1, pp. 133-136

African-Americans

I went to a negro minstrel show once, and there were about ten or fifteen on the stage. One of them rushed in with his hat off and said. "which of these here niggers am lost two dollars?" holding up a two dollar bill. There hadn't any of them lost two dollars. "Well," he said, "if none of you have lost it, I found these two dollars right by the door here and it is my money." They said all right, and he put it in his pocket. No sooner had he got it in his pocket than up jumped a nigger and said: "Look here, George Washington Jones, you owe me two dollars; pay your honest debts!" He handed the two dollars to him. Another nigger jumps up and says: "Look here, Julius C. Brown, you owes me two dollars; pay your debt." He got it, and in this way it went clear round. When the last man got it, up jumps George Washington Jones, and says: "Here, give me back the two dollars; you owes me two dollar." No sooner had he got it in his pocket than a fellow rushes in and said "which of you niggers has found two dollars?" George Washington Jones took it out of his pocket and said: "Here, take your money and go home; we've all paid our debts."

Heber J. Grant, October 1900 General Conference Reports 1880, 1897-1970, October 1900, Page 36.

Some of them say the Lord has directed them to take more wives. Well, I think he directed them just like he directed the negro (not that I am saying this to reflect upon negroes), but there was a negro who prayed: "Oh Lawd, oh Lawd, oh Lawd; send dis heah niggah a turkey." He prayed for a whole week, and he didn't get any turkey, and at the end of a week he said: "Dis heah niggah don' know how to pray," so that night the negro prayed, "Oh Lawd, oh Lawd, oh Lawd, send dis heah niggah to a turkey," and he said, "Dis heah niggah had turkey dinner the next night."

Heber J. Grant, October 1918 General Conference Reports 1880, 1897-1970, October 1918, Page 23.

At five went to Mr. Sollars' with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Selected by Joseph Fielding Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Press, 1938, "The Status of the Negro" p. 269.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.

Brigham Young, 1839, Journal of Discourses Volume 7, p. 291.

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Brigham Young Journal of Discourses March 8, 1863, Vol. 10, Page 109.

It is ridiculous to suppose that no negroes would prove attractive to any white. The possible would become actual-as certainly as you will throw double-double sixes [in dice], if only you keep on throwing. To be sure, where the number of negroes is almost vanishingly small, as in the north and in Europe, there the chances of such mesalliances are proportionally divided; some may even count them negligible. But in the South, where in many districts the black outnumbers the white, they would be multiplied immensely, and crosses would follow with increasing frequency. * * * But some may deny that the mongrelization of the Southern people would offend the race notion-would corrupt or degrade the Southern stock of humanity. If so, then such a one has yet to learn the largest-writ lessons of history and the most impressive doctrines of biological science. That the negro is markedly inferior to the Caucasian is proved both craniologically and by six thousand years of planet-wide experimentation; and that the commingling of inferior with superior must lower the higher is just as certain as that the half-sum of two and six is only four."

B. H. Roberts, editor, The Seventy's Course in Theology. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News, 1907, First Year, Part 5, Lesson 8, p.166.

We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice. God did not take three beautiful children yesterday morning, and say to one, You go to the Negro woman, and to another one, You go to that Chinese mother, and to another, You go down to that beautiful Christian home. In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here.

Melvin J. Ballard, General Conference Reports, April 1915, Number 55, Page 62.

I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm.

George F. Richards, April 1939, General Conference Reports 1880, 1897-1970, April 1939, Page 59.

The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit. It does not pay to be anything but valiant.

George F. Richards, General Conference Reports, October 1947, Number 55

God: An Exalted Man

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know him and to be familiar with him; and if I can bring you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as one having authority.

I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, -- I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

Joseph Smith, King Follet Discourse, Journal Discourses Vol. 6, Number1, pp. 1-11

God: Not from all Eternity

However, the thing that seems so puzzling is the statement that God is "the same yesterday, today and forever"; that he is "from all eternity to all eternity." Well, is not this true, and is there any conflict with the thought that he has passed through the same states that we are destined to do? From eternity to eternity means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow. Surely this is everlasting, for when we receive the resurrection, we will never die. We all existed in the first eternity. I think I can say of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation. The intelligent part of man was never created but always existed. That is true of each of us as well as it is of God, yet we are born sons and daughters of God in the spirit and are destined to exist forever. Those who become like God will also be from eternity to eternity.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol 1: Chapter 1, pp 10-12

God: Physical Body or Spirit?

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

Grace, Works, Justification

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."

2 Nephi 25:23

Complete obedience brings eternal life. But to be exalted one must keep the whole law.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 2, p.6

In the "Book of Remembrance" Sheet #30, which was prepared from a flannel board lecture by Elder John A. Freestone of Queen Creek, Arizona entitled "Unto the House of the Lord." It is a rather dated chart, but illustrates the idea in LDS theology of works being a necessary for entrance into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

From the second estate, one MUST pass through the following to get to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom namely:

1. Faith, Baptism, Repentance, [Laying on of hands to receive the] Holy Ghost.

2. Morality

3. Loyalty

4. Tithing

5. Word of Wisdom

6. Duty

7. Celestial Marriage

"Grace is granted to men proportionally as they conform to the standards of personal righteousness that are part of the gospel plan. Thus the saints are commanded to "grow in grace" (D. & C. 50:40), until they are sanctified and justified, "through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (D. & C. 20:30-32) Grace is an attribute of perfection possessed by Deity (D. & C. 66:12; 84:102), and Christ himself "received grace for grace" until finally he gained the fulness of the Father. The same path to perfection is offered to man. "If you keep my commandments," the Lord says, "you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace." (D. & C. 93:6-20.)

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v. "Grace of God"

In summarizing the plan of salvation, Adam taught: "By the water ye keep the commandment"; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified." (Moses 6:60.) And on the day the Church was organized in this dispensation writing by way of revelation, the Prophet recorded: "We know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true." (D. & C. 20:30.) Compliance with this basic doctrine of the gospel, the law of justification is thus essential to salvation. Indeed, one of the great religious contentions among the sects of Christendom is whether men are justified by faith alone, without works, as some erroneously suppose Paul taught (Acts 13:38-39; Rom. 3:19-28; 4:5; 5:1-10; Gal. 2:15-21; 2 Ne. 2:5), or whether they are justified by works of righteousness as James explained. (Jas. 2:14-26.)

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v. "Justification."

What then is the law of justification? It is simply this: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations" (D. & C. 132:7), in which men must abide to be saved and exalted, must be entered into and performed in righteousness so that the Holy Spirit can justify the candidate for salvation in what has been done. (1 Ne. 16:2; Jac. 2:13-14; Alma 41:15; D. & C. 98; 132:1, 62.) An act that is justified by the Spirit is one that is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, or in other words, ratified and approved by the Holy Ghost. This law of justification is the provision the Lord has placed in the gospel to assure that no unrighteous performance will be binding on earth and in heaven, and that no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v. "Justification."

As with all other doctrines of salvation, justification is available because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but it becomes operative in the life of an individual only on conditions of personal righteousness. As Paul taught, men are not justified by the works of the Mosaic law alone any more than men are saved by those works alone. The grace of God, manifest through the infinite and eternal atonement wrought by his Son, makes justification a living reality for those who seek righteousness. (Isa. 53:11; Mosiah 14:11.)

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v. "Justification."

This doctrine of good works -- a doctrine that men, based on the atoning sacrifice of Christ, must work out their own salvation in the kingdom of God -- though abundantly attested to in the Bible, is flatly rejected by many churches in modern Christendom. In its place they teach such things as that men are saved through the ordinances of the church alone; or by the mere act of confessing with the lips the divinity of the Lord Jesus; or that they are justified through faith alone, without works, though good works are then said to follow as a fruit of faith; or that they are predestined to salvation by the election of grace regardless of the presence or absence of good works, though here again good works are said to be pleasing to God in the case of those already justified, but not in the case of those not so chosen and favored.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v. "Good Works."

Heresy 9: The elect are justified by faith only, without reference to good works; indeed, if they perform any good works before they are justified, such works are accounted the same as sin and accrue not to their benefit but to their condemnation.

Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Pg.102

How far the Christendom of the day has departed from this true doctrine! They even say that any good works done outside their definition of justification have the nature of sin. It is as though their goal was to set forth as doctrine the very opposite of divine reality! How little the professors of religion know of the true meaning of the doctrine that men are justified by faith alone!

Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Pg.102

It was a call to search the scriptures, to turn to Christ rather than the church for salvation, and to be justified by faith. With it came false doctrines about election and predestination, the all-sufficiency of the scriptures, and numerous other matters. It maintained the false and damning doctrines of the creeds relative to God and the Godhead by perpetuating the Trinitarian concepts of Augustine and Athanasius and the theologians of the dark ages. And above all, it did not bring to pass a restoration of the gospel nor a reversion to primitive Christianity. It freed the people from many heresies and evil practices that had become so entrenched during the Black Millennium, but it did not bring in freedom of worship. It simply shifted the church-state alliance from one despot to another.

If any man then living had a revealed knowledge of what men must do to be saved in the kingdom of God, it was Peter, the Lord's chief apostolic minister. And Peter did not say men are saved through Christ's atonement without more; he did not say it is sufficient to confess the Lord Jesus with the lips; he did not say that men are justified by faith alone without the works of righteousness; he did not say it is enough to go around doing good and living in harmony with a high standard of Christian ethics; he did not say that all roads lead to Rome, that the only baptism which counts is that of the Spirit, or any of the other ten thousand conflicting concepts now current in a confused and faltering Christendom.

Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Pg.67 

Romans defines the gospel and summarizes the laws by obedience to which full salvation comes. It speaks plainly of Adam's fall, which brought death, and Christ's atoning sacrifice, which brought life. It tells how the law of justification works, how men are justified by faith and works, through the blood of Christ.

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.2, Pg.213

Many Protestants attach greater importance to Paul's statements about being justified by faith alone than they do to almost any other single thing in the Bible. They so interpret these pronouncements as to "justify" themselves in breaking from the Catholic fold; and they erroneously conclude that men are saved by grace alone without doing the works of righteousness.

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.2, Pg.229

"As with all other doctrines of salvation, justification is available because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but it becomes operative in the life of an individual only on conditions of personal righteousness. As Paul taught, men are not justified by the works of the Mosaic law alone any more than men are saved by those works alone. The grace of God, manifest through the infinite and eternal atonement wrought by his Son, makes justification a living reality for those who seek righteousness. (Isa. 53: 11; Mosiah 14: 11.)" (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 408.)

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.2, Pg.230

Those who exercise faith, always and invaringly work miracles, and possess the gifts and signs promised the faithful. Thus when Paul says a man is justified by faith, he means he is justified only if he is keeping the commandments and so living that he has power to work miracles and display the fruits of faith. Having taught that man is justified by faith in Christ, because of the atonement, and not by the performances of the law of Moses, Paul now takes Abraham as the illustration of this doctrine -- Abraham who was justified before there was a law of Moses, Abraham whose faith and works ranked him with the justified before the rite of circumcision was revealed. The high point of the Apostle's presentation, as clarified by the Inspired Version account, is that man is "justified of faith and works, through grace" (Inspired Version, v. 16), or, as Nephi expressed it, "Believe in Christ, and . . . be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Ne. 25:23.)

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.2, Pg.232

I. V. [Inspired Version] 16. Ye are justified of faith and works, through grace] A perfect, revealed summary of how men are justified! And, as the balance of the verse shows, this process of working out one's salvation applies equally to the literal seed and the adopted seed of Abraham, "who is the father of us all."

7-10. The law of the harvest! Men (the saints included!) reap what they sow! These Galatians are in the Church; they have received Christ and his gospel; they are Paul's converts; to some extent at least they are in harmony with God and his laws. But salvation does not come to them because they believed, because they once confessed the Lord Jesus with their lips, because of the grace of God alone; they are not justified by faith only, as such is generally understood and taught in modern Christendom.

Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.2, Pg.237

Jesus Christ (each planet has one)

He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Is it so on any other earth? On every earth. How many earths are there? I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would be only a beginning to the number of creations of God; and they continually coming into existence and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience we are passing through. Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let us know how people can be excited to becomes sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter...

Brigham Young, 1870, Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 71

Marriages of Christ (quotes compiled by Bill McKeever)

[When Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if this meant that Christ had children, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" (Letter to J. Ricks Smith, dated March 17, 1963]

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.

Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854 Journal of Discourses 2:82.

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855, Journal of Discourses 2:210.

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

Orson Hyde, December 21, 1856 Journal of Discourses 4:259.

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."

Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 172.

Virgin Birth of Christ

What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."

Brigham Young (1852) Journal of Discourses, Volume 1 Page 51.

When the time came that His first-born the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting a man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me.

Brigham Young (1857) Journal of Discourses, Volume 4 Page 218.

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the word as the literal Son of this Being; he was born in the same personal, real and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father.. There is nothing figurative about paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says (1Ne 11)

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. 2d ed., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v. "Son of God."

Some words scarcely need definition. They are on every tongue and are spoken by every voice. The very existence of intelligent beings presupposes and required their constant use. Two such words are father and son. Their meaning is know to all, and to define them [is] but to repeat them. Thus: A son is a son, and a father is a father is a father. I am the son of my father and the father of my sons. They are my sons because they were begotten by me, were conceived by their mother, and came forth from her womb to breathe the breath of mortal life, to dwell for a time and a season among other mortal men.

And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring from an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the womb from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacled in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. There is no need to spiritualize the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons or mortal fathers. It is that simple Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God - the Only Begotten of the Father.

Bruce R McConkie, The Promised Messiah, 1978, pp. 467-468

Marriages of Christ (quotes compiled by Bill McKeever)

[When Joseph Fielding Smith was asked if this meant that Christ had children, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, "Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!" (Letter to J. Ricks Smith, dated March 17, 1963]

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.

Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854 Journal of Discourses 2:82.

I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.

Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855, Journal of Discourses 2:210.

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

Orson Hyde, December 21, 1856 Journal of Discourses 4:259.

"We have now clearly shown that God, the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His First Born... We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable Wives to be married."

Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 172.

(B)       BOOK OF MORMON

Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it

betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the

history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the

miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a “compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph

Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs.

Laban, mentioned in one of the characters of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4:9), makes use

of a steel sword; and Nephi himself claims to have had a steel bow. The ancient Jaredites also

had steel swords (Ether 7:9). The Mormons justify this by quoting Psalm 18:34 as a footnote to

1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon, but modern translations of the Scriptures indicate that

the word translated steel in the Old Testament (since steel was nonexistent) is more properly

rendered bronze. Nahum 2:3, NASB, uses “steel” but it is taken from the Hebrew word ,

probably meaning iron.

William Hamblin, in his preliminary report entitled Handheld Weapons in the Book of

Mormon (1985), published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

(F.A.R.M.S.) uses the bronze argument as a possible justification for the rendering of steel in

the Book of Mormon. He writes, “Another possibility is to equate this Jaredite steel with the

‘steel’ of the King James translation of the Old Testament, which actually refers to the Hebrew

word for bronze.” The problem with using this explanation to protect the Book of Mormon is

that it defies Mormon history. Remember, numerous contemporaries of Joseph Smith have

claimed that Smith could not continue “translating” the gold plates unless the scribe read each

word back to him correctly. If the word steel in the Book of Mormon should really have been

bronze, it undermines the LDS claim that the book was translated by the gift and power of

God, since it shows that errors did creep into Joseph Smith’s translation.

Mormons sometimes attempt to defend Nephi’s possession of a not yet invented compass

(known in the Book of Mormon as a Liahona) by the fact that Acts 28:13 states: “And from

thence we fetched a compass.” Modern translations of the Scripture, however, refute this

subterfuge by correctly rendering the passage: “And from there we made a circle.”

Added to the preceding anachronisms is the fact that the Book of Mormon not only

contradicts the Bible, but contradicts other revelations purporting to come from the same God

who inspired the Book of Mormon. The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born

in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the gospel of Matthew (chap. 2, v. 1) records the fulfillment of

this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9, 10) states: “the son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.”

The Book of Mormon describes Jerusalem as a city (1 Nephi 1:4) as was Bethlehem

described as a separate town in the Bible. The contradiction is irreconcilable.

Another area of contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon concerns sin and

Mormon baptism at eight years of age. Moroni 8:8 states the doctrine that “little children are

whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from

them in me.” Anyone who thinks that children under age eight cannot sin has not visited the

classrooms of today’s schools. The Mormon concept directly contradicts Psalm 51:5, which

places sin at the point of conception. The book of Romans leaves no exemption to the sin and

guilt that Adam passed on to all; no exceptions are made (Romans 5:12–15). Furthermore, it

clearly states that “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12).

There are also a number of instances where God did not agree with himself, if indeed it is

supposed that He had anything to do with the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of

Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the other recorded utterances of Joseph Smith.

In the Book of Mormon, for instance, (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11) the remission of sins is the

accomplishment of baptism: “Yea, blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sin. Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sin.”

But in the Doctrine and Covenants (20:37), the direct opposite is stated: “All those who humble themselves and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”

Mormon theologians conspicuously omit any serious discussion of the contradiction.

Joseph Smith did not limit his contradictions to baptism; indeed, polygamy is a classic

example of some of his maneuvering.

“Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall

be saved. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.

And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many

people. ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 132:34, 32).

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, categorically states:

“Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of

old for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines

he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of woman” (Jacob

2:26–28).

It appears that Smith could manufacture revelations at will, depending upon his desires. In

the last instance, his reputation and subsequent actions indicate that sex was the motivating

factor. A final example of the confusion generated between the Book of Mormon and other

“inspired” revelations is found in this conflict between two works in the Pearl of Great Price: the

Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham.

“I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I

created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon

which thou standest” (Moses 2:1).

The Book of Abraham, on the other hand, repudiates this monotheistic view and states:

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning,

and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth”

(Abraham 4:1).

Just how it is possible to reconcile these two allegedly equal pronouncements from Mormon

revelation escapes this author, and the Mormons themselves appear reluctant to furnish any

concrete explanation. The question of false prophecies in Mormonism has been handled adequately in a number of excellent volumes, but it should be pointed out that Joseph Smith drew heavily upon published articles both in newspapers and magazines. In fact, one of his famous prophecies concerning the Civil War is drawn chiefly from material already published at the time.

In the History of the Church, Volume 1, page 301, Joseph Smith states, “Appearances of troubles among the nations became more visible this season than they had previously been since the Church began her journey out of the wilderness. The people of South Carolina, in convention assembled (in November), passed ordinances, declaring their state a free and independent nation.” From this we know that Smith could have been aware of South Carolina’s succession as early as November 1832. If not in November, he could have known about this from an article in the Boston Daily Advertiser & Patriot, December 10, 1832. This was a full fifteen days before Smith’s prophecy, and the Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde was in Boston that day. Smith declared in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 87:

 “At the rebellion of South Carolina the Southern States will call on other nations,

even the nation of Great Britain and then war shall be poured out upon all nations .

And slaves shall rise up against their masters and that the remnants shall vex the

Gentiles with a sore vexation.”

Though the Civil War did break out some years after Smith’s death in 1844, England did

not become involved in any war against the United States. “All nations” were not involved in

war as was prophesied. The slaves did not rise up against “their masters,” and the “remnants”

who were Native Americans were themselves vexed by the Gentiles, being defeated in war and

confined to reservations.

Prophet Smith was an extremely ineffective prophet here, as well as in Doctrine and

Covenants 124:22-23, 59, when he prophesied that he would possess the house he built at

Nauvoo “for ever and ever.”

The fact of the matter is that neither Joseph nor his seed “after him” lived from “generation

to generation” in the Nauvoo house. According to The Comprehensive History of the Church

1:160, “The Nauvoo House was never completed; and after its unfinished walls had stood

unprotected for a number of years and were crumbling to decay, they were taken down; the

foundations were torn up and the excellent building stone of which they were constructed sold

for use in other buildings in and about Nauvoo.” However, the LDS church has rebuilt the

house in “Nauvoo” and offers it as a tourist attraction.

These and other instances indicate that Smith was not only a poor scribe but a false

prophet, and his prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel to Palestine clearly reveals that

he anticipated the millennium in his own lifetime, whereas in reality the prophecy of Ezekiel

37 began to be fulfilled in 1948, more than a hundred years after Smith’s death.

The question quite naturally arises in summing up the background of the Book of Mormon:

Where did the book come from, since it obviously did not come from God? The answer to this

has been propounded at great length by numerous students of Mormonism, particularly E. D.

Howe, Pomeroy Tucker, and William A. Linn.

All the aforementioned concur that the Book of Mormon is probably an expansion upon the

writings of Solomon Spaulding, a retired minister who was known to have written a number of

“romances” with biblical backgrounds similar to those of the Book of Mormon. The Mormons

delight to point out that one of Spaulding’s manuscripts, entitled “Manuscript Story,” was

discovered in Hawaii more than 100 years ago, and it differed in many respects from the Book

of Mormon. But in his excellent volume The Book of Mormon, Dr. James D. Bales makes the following observation, which is of great importance and agrees in every detail with my research:

It has long been contended that there is a connection between the Book of Mormon and one of Solomon Spaulding’s historical romances. The Latter-day Saints, of course, deny such a connection. What if the Latter-day Saints are right and there is no relationship between the

Book of Mormon and Spaulding’s writings? It simply means that those who so contend

are wrong, but it proves nothing with reference to the question as to whether or not the

Book of Mormon is of divine origin.

One could be wrong as to what man, or men, wrote the Book of Mormon, and still

know that it was not written by men inspired of God. One can easily prove that the

Book of Mormon is of human origin. And, after all, this is the main issue. The

fundamental issue is not what man or men wrote it, but whether it was written by men

who were guided by God. We know that men wrote it, and that these men, whoever

they were, did not have God’s guidance. This may be illustrated by Science and

Health With Key to the Scriptures—the textbook of Christian Science churches. Mrs.

Eddy claims to have been its author, under God’s direction. There are others who

claim she reworked and enlarged a manuscript of Mr. Quimby and the evidence

seems to prove that such is the case. But what if those who so maintained failed to

prove their case? Would that prove that it was inspired of God? Not at all. It would

prove only that Quimby’s manuscript had nothing to do with it. But it would not prove

that some other uninspired being did not write it. Regardless of what human being or

beings wrote Science and Health, it is of human, not divine origin. Just so the Book of

Mormon is of human origin and uninspired, even though it were impossible to prove

what particular man wrote it.

It has not been maintained that all the Book of Mormon was written by Spaulding.

Thus, it has not been claimed that the theological portions were put in by him. Those

portions bear the imprint of Smith, Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon (see the proof offered

in Shook’s The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, pages 126ff.). It is maintained,

however, that some things, including a great deal of Scripture, were added to one of

Spaulding’s manuscripts and that his work was thus transferred into the Book of

Mormon (see the testimony of John Spaulding, Solomon’s brother; Martha Spaulding,

John’s wife): They maintained that the historical portion was Spaulding’s. (E. D. Howe,

Mormonism Unveiled, 1834, 278ff; Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon,

94ff).

The Mormons contend that the discovery of one of Spaulding’s manuscripts

demonstrates that it was not the basis of the Book of Mormon.

“I will here state that the Spaulding manuscript was discovered in 1884, and is at

present in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio. On examination it was found to bear

no resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon. The theory that Solomon

Spaulding was the author of the Book of Mormon should never be mentioned

again—outside a museum.” (William A. Morton, op. cit., 6.)

There are three errors in the above paragraph: viz., that Spaulding wrote but one

manuscript; that the manuscript discovered in 1884 is the one that non-Mormons have claimed

constituted the basis of the Book of Mormon; that the manuscript in Oberlin bears no

resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon.

(a) Spaulding wrote more than one manuscript. This was maintained by D. P.

Harlburt [Hurlbut] and Clark Braden before the Honolulu manuscript was found

(Charles A. Shook, op. cit., 77). Spaulding’s daughter also testified that her father had

written “other romances.” (Elder George Reynolds, The Myth of the “Manuscript

Found,” Utah, 1833, 104). The present manuscript story looks like a rough, unfinished,

first draft.

(b) The manuscript found in Honolulu was called a “Manuscript Story” and not the

“Manuscript Found.” This Honolulu manuscript, The Manuscript Story, was in the

hands of anti-Mormons in 1854. However, they did not claim that it was the

manuscript which was the basis of the Book of Mormon. It was claimed that another

manuscript of Spaulding was the basis of the Book of Mormon, (Charles A. Shook, op.

cit., 77, 15, 185. The “Manuscript Found or Manuscript Stop” of the late Rev. Solomon

Spaulding, Lamoni, Iowa: Printed and Published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1885, 10).

(c) Although the Manuscript Story has not been regarded as the Manuscript Found,

which constituted the basis of the Book of Mormon, there is a great deal of

resemblance between the Manuscript and the Book of Mormon. These points of

similarity can be accounted for on the basis that the Manuscript Story was the first, and

rough draft of one of Spaulding’s works, which he reworked into the Manuscript Found.

“Howe, in 1854, published a fair synopsis of the Oberlin manuscript now at Oberlin

(Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled, 288) and submitted the original to the witnesses who

testified to the many points of identity between Spaulding’s Manuscript Found and the

Book of Mormon. These witnesses then (in 1834) recognized the manuscript secured

by Harlburt and now at Oberlin as being one of Spaulding’s, but not the one that they

asserted was similar to the Book of Mormon. They further said that Spaulding had told

them that he had altered his original plan of writing by going farther back with his

dates and writing in the old scripture style, in order that his story might appear more

ancient” (Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled, 288; Theodore Schroeder, The Origin of the

Book of Mormon, Re-Examined in Its Relation to Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found,” 5).

This testimony is borne out by the fact that there are many points of similarity

between the manuscript in Oberlin College and the Book of Mormon.6-15

It is fairly well established historically, then, that the Mormons have attempted to use a

manuscript that is admittedly not the one from which Smith later copied and amplified the text

of what is now known as the Book of Mormon as the basis for denying what eye witnesses have affirmed: that it was another Spaulding manuscript (Manuscript Found) that Smith drew upon to fabricate the Book of Mormon. Dr. Bales is right when he states:

There are too many points of similarity for them to be without significance. Thus,

the internal evidence, combined with the testimony of witnesses, as presented in

Howe’s book and reproduced in Shook’s, shows that Spaulding revised the Manuscript

Story. The revision was known as the Manuscript Found, and it became the basis of

the Book of Mormon in at least its historical parts. Also its religious references

furnished in part the germs of the religious portions of the Book of Mormon.

However, in ordinary conversation, and in public debate on the Book of Mormon, it

is unnecessary to go into the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. The really

important issue is whether or not the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. There are

some Mormons who seem to think that if they can prove that Spaulding’s manuscript

had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, they have made great progress toward

proving its divine origin. Such, however, is not the case. And one should show, from

an appeal to the Bible and to the Book of Mormon itself, that the Book of Mormon is

not of divine origin.6-16.

Let us not forget that the Manuscript Story itself contains at least seventy-five similarities to

what is now the Book of Mormon and this is not to be easily explained away.

Finally, students of Mormonism must, in the last analysis, measure its content by that of

Scripture, and when this is done it will be found that it does not “speak according to the law

and the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20) and it is to be rejected as a counterfeit revelation doubly

condemned by God himself (Galatians 1:8–9).

Joseph Smith, the author of this “revelation,” was perfectly described (as was his reward) in

the Word of God almost thirty-three hundred years before he appeared. It would pay the

Mormons to remember this message:

¹ "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder,
² and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,'  ³ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴ "You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him.  ⁵ "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. ⁶ "If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known,  ⁷ of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end),  ⁸ you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. ⁹ "But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. ¹⁰ "So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  (Deuteronomy 13:1–10).

The Book of Mormon stands as a challenge to the Bible because it adds to the Word of God

and to His one revelation, and the penalty for such action is as sobering as it is awesome:

¹⁸ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; ¹⁹ and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.  ²⁰ He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:18–20).

It does no good for the Mormon to argue that Revelation 22:18–20 only pertains to the book

of Revelation, since this serves only to prove our point. In the 1981 edition of the King James

Version of the Bible, published by the Mormon Church, they have no less than forty-five verses footnoted in the book of Revelation where Joseph Smith added and took away from the “words of the book.” These footnotes are conveniently noted as JST (Joseph Smith Translation), beginning at Revelation 1:1 and ending at 19:21. He truly did what the apostle John warned against. Smith both added to and took away from the book of Revelation.

We need not make this a personal issue with the Mormons, but a historical and theological

issue, which, for all the politeness and tact demonstrably possible, cannot conceal the depth of

our disagreement. Even the famous “witnesses” to the veracity of the Book of Mormon are

impugned by their own history. This does not speak well for the characters of those concerned

or for their reliability as witnesses.

It was Joseph Smith who declared theological war on Christianity when he ascribed to God

the statement that branded all Christian sects as “all wrong,” their creeds as “abominations,”

and all Christians as “corrupt having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof”

(Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

The onus of hostility rests upon the Mormons, and their history of persecution (largely the

result of their mouthing of Smith’s abusive accusations and their practice of polygamy) may be

properly laid at their own doorstep. They were the initial antagonists, not the Christian church.

We do not excuse those who persecuted the early Mormons, but in a great many instances

those who were involved were provoked to action by Mormon excesses. (Note: An example of

this would be the Mormon expulsion from Jackson County, Missouri.)

We may safely leave the Book of Mormon to the judgment of history and Mormon theology

to the pronouncements of God’s immutable Word. But we must speak the truth about these

things and keep foremost in our minds the fact that the sincerity of the Mormons in their faith is

no justification for withholding just criticism of that faith or of its refuted source, the Book of

Mormon and the “revelations” of Joseph Smith. The truth must be spoken in love, but it must

be spoken.

Corrections, Contradictions, and Errors

There is a great wealth of information concerning the material contained in the Book of

Mormon and the various plagiarisms, anachronisms, false prophecies, and other unfortunate

practices connected with it. At best we can give but a condensation of that which has been

most thoroughly documented.

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the first edition has undergone

extensive “correction” in order to present it in its current form. Some of these “corrections”

should be noted.

The former major revision of the Book of Mormon was in 1920. That standard edition is still

found in many public libraries and in millions of homes. In the latest revision, 1981, a subtitle

was added to the cover: “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” and no less than 100 verses were

changed without consulting the missing golden plates. A note closing the introduction to the

1981 edition says, “Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the

Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material

into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the prophet

Joseph Smith.” Without blushing, the Mormon Church boldly asserts the unfounded claim that

the prepublication manuscripts agree with their most recent changes. Our access to the

handwritten copies of the original Book of Mormon deny such a claim and proves once again

that the Mormon Church will sacrifice truth for the sake of public relations.

1. In Mosiah 21:28, it is declared that “King Mosiah had a gift from God”; but in the

original edition of the book, the name of the king was Benjamin—an oversight that

thoughtful Mormon scribes corrected. This is not, of course, a typographical error, as

there is little resemblance between the names Benjamin and Mosiah; rather, it

appears that either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made

a mistake when he translated it. But the Mormons will admit to neither, so they are

stuck, so to speak, with the contradiction.

2. When compared with the 1830 edition, 1 Nephi 19:16–20 reveals more than

twenty changes in the “inspired Book of Mormon,” words having been dropped,

spelling corrected, and words and phraseology added and turned about. This is a

strange way to treat an inspired revelation from God.

3. In Alma 28:14–29:11, more than eighteen changes may be counted from the

original edition. On page 303, the phrase, “Yea, decree unto them that decrees which

are unalterable,” was dropped in later editions, but strangely reappeared in 1981.

(See Alma 29:4.)

4. On page 25 of the 1830 edition, the Book of Mormon declares:

“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal

Father.”

Yet in 1 Nephi 11:21, the later editions of the book read:

“And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the son of the

eternal Father.”

5. The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original

edition of the Book of Mormon, which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that

Mary is the mother of God. “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.”

Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, Joseph Smith and his

considerate editors changed 1 Nephi 11:18 (as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 32; 13:40), so

that it now reads: “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of

God.”

From the above, which are only a handful of examples from the approximately 4,000 word

changes to be found in the Book of Mormon, the reader can readily see that it in no sense can

be accepted as the Word of God. The Scripture says, “The word of the Lord endures for ever”

(1 Peter 1:25); and our Savior declared, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth”

(John 17:17).

The record of the Scriptures rings true. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is patently

false in far too many instances to be considered coincidence.

Added to the evidence of various revisions, the Book of Mormon also contains plagiarisms

from the King James Bible, anachronisms, false prophecies, and errors of fact that cannot be

dismissed. Some of these bear repetition, though they are well known to students of

Mormonism.

The testimony of the three witnesses, which appear at the front of the Book of Mormon

(Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) declares that “An angel of God came down

from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and

the engraving thereon. ”

It is quite noteworthy that Martin Harris denied that he had actually seen the plates with his

“naked eyes.” In fact, when pressed, he stated, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye”

(Recollections of John H. Gilbert, 1892, Typescript, BYU, 5–6).

The Mormons are loath to admit that all three of these witnesses later apostatized from the

Mormon faith and were described in most unflattering terms (“counterfeiters, thieves, [and]

liars”) by their Mormon contemporaries (cf. Senate Document 189, February 15, 1841, 6–9).

A careful check of early Mormon literature also reveals that Joseph Smith wrote prophecies

and articles against the character of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, which in itself

renders their testimony suspect (cf. Doctrine and Covenants, 3:12; 10:7; History of the Church;

3:228, 3:232).

Mormons try to cover this historical predicament by saying that two of the three witnesses,

Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were rebaptized into Mormonism. What they fail to reveal is

more significant: The Times and Seasons (2:482) published that Oliver Cowdery denied his

Book of Mormon testimony. He spent several years as a baptized Methodist before his

rebaptism into Mormonism. Martin Harris, likewise, has suspicious circumstances surrounding

his rebaptism. He denied the teachings of Brigham Young after rebaptism and was banned

from preaching by Young because of their differences. David Whitmer changed the details of

his testimony concerning the angel with the golden plates to say that it was a vision and not an

actual visitation by an angelic person (An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 32). Certainly

testimony from such unstable personalities is dubious at best.

The Holy Spirit in Mormonism

Having discussed the nature and attributes of God in contrast to Mormon mythology and its

pantheon of polygamous deities, it remains for us to understand what the Mormon teaching

concerning the third person of the Christian Trinity is, since they deign to describe Him as “a

personage of spirit.” It is interesting to observe that in their desire to emulate orthodoxy where possible, the Mormons describe the Holy Ghost in the following terms:

“The term Holy Ghost and its common synonyms, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord,

or simply Spirit, Comforter, and Spirit of Truth occur in the Scriptures with plainly

different meanings, referring in some cases to the person of God the Holy Ghost, and

in other instances to the power and authority of this great personage, or to the agency

through which He ministers. The Holy Ghost undoubtedly possesses personal powers

and affections; these attributes exist in Him in perfection. Thus, He teaches and

guides, testifies of the Father and the Son, reproves for sin, speaks, commands, and

commissions. These are not figurative expressions but plain statements of the

attributes and characteristics of the Holy Ghost” (The Articles of Faith, 115).

It is interesting to recall that according to Talmage, writer of The Articles of Faith,

 “It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean

that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present

in more than one place at one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are

compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an ‘immaterial’ being, under

which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God,

cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a

form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension

in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such

limits ” (42–43).

Here exists a contradiction in Mormon theology if ever there was one. Talmage declares

that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, obviously “an immaterial being” and obviously God

(cf. Doctrine and Covenants, 20:28), and yet not possessing a form of material nature; hence,

not limited to extension and space, and therefore rendering it possible for Him to occupy at

one time more than one space of such limits, in direct contradiction to Talmage’s earlier

statements in the same volume. For the Mormon, “a thing without parts has no whole and an

immaterial body cannot exist” (Articles of Faith, 48), and yet the Holy Spirit is a “personage of

Spirit,” one of the Mormon gods, according to Doctrine and Covenants. To cap it all, “He is an

immaterial being possessed of a spiritual form and definite proportions!” Mormon theology

here appears to have really become confused at the roots, so to speak; but Talmage does not

agree with Talmage, nor does Doctrine and Covenants; they are forced into the illogical

position of affirming the materiality of God in one instance, and denying that materiality in the

next instance where the Holy Spirit is concerned.

Parley P. Pratt, the eminent Mormon theologian, further complicated the doctrine of the

Holy Spirit in Mormon theology when he wrote: “This leads to the investigation of that substance called the Holy Spirit or Light of Christ. There is a divine substance, fluid or essence, called Spirit, widely diffused among these eternal elements. This divine element, or Spirit, is immediate, active or controlling agent in all holy miraculous powers. The purest, most refined and subtle of

all these substances and the one least understood or even recognized by the less informed among mankind is that substance called the Holy Spirit” (Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1978, 24–25, 64).6-23

In the thinking of Pratt, then, the Holy Spirit is a substance, a fluid, and a person, but this is

not the teaching of Scripture, which consistently portrays God the Holy Spirit, third person of

the Trinity, as an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Being, sharing all the

attributes of Deity, and one with the Father and the Son in unity of substance. Mormons are, to

say the least, divided in their theology on the issue, although Talmage bravely attempts to

synthesize the mass of conflicting information and “revelations” found within the writings of

Smith and Young and the other early Mormon writers. Try as he will, however, Talmage

cannot explain the Mormon confusion on the subject, as evidenced by the following facts. In

Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 the following statement appears:

“All those who humble themselves and truly manifest by their works that they have received

of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his

church.”

Joseph Smith the prophet was the recipient of this alleged revelation and he is to be

believed at all costs; yet the same Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, which

unreservedly declared: “Yea, blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sins. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling of the commandments unto the remission of sins” (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11).

In one instance, Smith taught that baptism follows the initial act—remission of sins—and in

the second instance, the initial act—remission of sins—reverses its position and follows

baptism. According to Talmage, “God grants the gift of the Holy Ghost unto the obedient; and

the bestowal of this gift follows faith, repentance, and baptism by water. The apostles of old

promised the ministration of the Holy Ghost unto those only who had received baptism by

water for the remission of sins” (The Articles of Faith, 163).

The question naturally arises: When, then, is the Holy Spirit bestowed? Or indeed, can He

be bestowed in Mormon theology when it is not determined whether the remission of sins

precedes baptism or follows it? Here again, confusion on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is

evidenced in Mormon thinking.

It would be possible to explore further the Mormon doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially

the interesting chapter in President Charles Penrose’s book Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City,

1888), in which he refers to the Holy Spirit as “it” more than twenty times—devoid of

personality, although, in the usual polytheistic Mormon scheme, endowed with Deity. Penrose

closes his comment by stating:

“As baptism is the birth of water, so confirmation is the birth or baptism of the Spirit.

Both are necessary to entrance into the Kingdom of God. The possessor of the Holy

Ghost is infinitely rich; those who receive it can lose it, and are of all men the poorest.

But there are various degrees of its possession. Many who obtain it walk but

measurably in its light. But there are few who live by its whisperings, and approach by

its mediumship into close communion with heavenly beings of the highest order. To

them its light grows brighter every day” (pp. 18–19).

Mormonism, then, for all its complexities and want of conformity to the revelation of God’s

Word, indeed contradicts the Word of God repeatedly, teaching in place of the God of pure

spiritual substance (John 4:24) a flesh-and-bone Deity and a pantheon of gods in infinite

stages of progression. For Mormons, God is restricted to a narrow, rationalistic, and materialistic mold. He cannot be incomprehensible, though Scripture indicates that in many ways He most certainly is. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8–9). Mormon theology complicates and confounds the simple declarations of Scripture in order to support the polytheistic pantheon of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It is obvious, therefore, that the God of the Bible and the “god” of the Mormons, the “Adam-god” of Brigham Young and the flesh-and-bone deity of Joseph Smith are not one and the same; by their nature all monotheistic and theistic religions stand in opposition to Mormon polytheism. Christianity in particular repudiates as false and deceptive the multiplicity of Mormon efforts to masquerade as “ministers of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:15).

The Mormon Doctrine of God

It will be conceded by most informed students of Christianity that one cannot deny the

existence of the one true God of Scripture and at the same time lay claim to being a Christian.

The New Testament writers, as well as our Lord himself, taught that there was but one God,

and all church theologians from the earliest days of church history have affirmed that

Christianity is monotheistic in the strictest sense of the term. Indeed it was this fact that so

radically differentiated it and the parental Judaism from the pagan, polytheistic societies of

Rome and Greece. The Bible is particularly adamant in its declaration that God recognizes

the existence of no other “deities.” In fact, on a number of occasions the Lord summed up His

uniqueness in the following revelation:

¹⁰ "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
¹¹ "I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.

 (Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 21–22, emphasis added).

Throughout the Old Testament, God is known by many titles. He is Elohim, Jehovah,

Adonai, El Gebor, and He is also spoken of by combinations of names, such as

Jehovah-Elohim, Jehovah-Sabaoth, etc. If the Hebrew Old Testament tells us anything, it is

the fact that there is but one God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord”

(Deuteronomy 6:4). And Jewish monotheism, as all know, at length gave birth to Christian

monotheism, the one developing from the other by progressive revelation from God the Holy

Spirit. It is not necessary to belabor the point; it is common knowledge that the facts as they

have been stated are true. But as we approach our study of the Mormon concept of God, a

subtle yet radical change takes place in the usage of the vocabulary of Scripture as we shall

see.

It must also be admitted at the outset that the Bible does designate certain individuals as

“gods,” such as Satan who is described by Christ as “the prince of this world” and elsewhere in

Scripture as “the god of this world.” It must be clearly understood, however, that whenever this

term is assigned to individuals, to spirit personalities, and the like, metaphorical and

contextual usage must be carefully analyzed so that a clear picture emerges. For instance, the

Lord declared to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall

be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). The Hebrew indicates here, when cross-referenced with Exodus

4:16 (“And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to

thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”), that a definite relationship

was involved. The context also reveals that Moses, by virtue of the power invested in him by

God, became in the eyes of Pharaoh “a god.” Aaron in turn became a prophet of the “god”

(Moses) that Pharaoh beheld because he was the spokesman for Moses. So metaphorical

usage is obviously intended, from the very usage of the language and its contextual analysis.

On this point all Old Testament scholars are agreed. But this should never cloud the issue that

there is only one true and living God as the previous quotations readily attest.

Another instance of similar usage is the application of the term “Elohim,” the plural usage

of the term often translated God in the Old Testament. In some contexts the judges of Israel

are referred to as “gods,” not that they themselves possessed the intrinsic nature of Deity but

that they became in the eyes of the people as gods, or more literally, “mighty ones” (Psalm 82,

cf. John 10:34), representing as they did the Lord of Hosts. In the New Testament usage, the

apostle Paul is quite explicit when he declares that in the world, i.e., as far as the world is

concerned, “(there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father,

and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:5–6), a statement emphasized by our Lord when

He stated, “I am the first and the last: I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am

alive for evermore” (Revelation 1:17–18). We conclude, then, that polytheism is totally foreign

to the Judeo-Christian tradition of theology. In fact, it is the antithesis of the extreme

monotheism portrayed in Judaism and Christianity. The God of the Old Testament and the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same Person; this the Christian church

has always held. In addition to this, God’s nature has always been declared to be that of pure

spirit. Our Lord declared that “God is spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in

spirit and in truth” (John 4:24—as correctly translated from the original Greek text). In numerous

other places within the pages of the inspired Word of God, the Holy Spirit has been pleased to

reveal God’s spiritual nature and “oneness.” The apostle Paul reminds us that “a mediator is

not a mediator of one, but God is one” (Galatians 3:20). The psalmist reminds us of His

unchangeable nature, “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2); and Moses

records in the initial act of creation that “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”

(Genesis 1:2). The “gods” mentioned in Scripture, then, are never gods by either identity or

nature; they are “gods” by human creation or acclamation as we have seen. This, then, is a far

cry from comparison with the one true and living God described by the writer of the epistle to

the Hebrews as “the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9; see also Galatians 4:8–9).

The Mormons misuse John 10:34, “Ye are gods,” falsely implying that Jesus endorsed

godhood for man. This cannot be true for several reasons. It does not fit the context of John

10:24–36, where Jesus shows his equality with the Father and deservedly is called God. In

contrast, the judges (so-called gods) in Psalm 82:6 were so called because of their lofty

position over the people, but God rebuked them for their sins, and they were proven to be not

gods after all but fallen, sinful men.

How this passage is to support the Mormon position is baffling, because Mormons say they

are gods in embryo and they have not yet reached godhood. Whatever they wish John 10:34

to say, it does not support their position. The Mormon can only say he hopes to become a god.

Psalm 82 and John 10:34 are in the present tense, a distinction apart from their position.

In fact, upon a reading of Psalm 82, it is a wonder that Mormons would want to identify

with the Psalm at all. It says nothing good about these men. But if that is the position they

desire, only the judgment of God follows.

Furthermore, the Mormon should be made aware that LDS Apostle James Talmage

correctly identified the “gods” of Psalm 82 and John 10:34 when he wrote, “Divinely Appointed

Judges Called ‘gods.’ In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called ‘gods.’

To this Scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon’s Porch. Judges so

authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title ‘gods.’

” (Jesus the Christ, 501).

Plagiarisms—The King James Version

A careful examination of the Book of Mormon reveals that it contains thousands of words

from the King James Bible. In fact, verbatim quotations, some of considerable length, have

caused the Mormons no end of embarrassment for many years.

The comparisons of Moroni 10 with 1 Corinthians 12:1–11; 2 Nephi 14 with Isaiah 4; and 2

Nephi 12 with Isaiah 2 reveal that Joseph Smith made free use of his Bible to supplement the

alleged revelation of the golden plates. The book of Mosiah, chapter 14, in the Book of

Mormon, is a reproduction of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah the prophet, and 3 Nephi 13

copies Matthew 6 almost word-for-word.

There are other instances of plagiarisms from the King James Bible including paraphrases

of certain verses. One of these verses (1 John 5:7) is reproduced in 3 Nephi 11:27. The only

difficulty with the paraphrase here is that the text is considered by scholars to be an

interpolation missing from all the major manuscripts of the New Testament, but present in the

King James Bible, from which Smith paraphrased it not knowing the difference.

Another example of this type of error is found in 3 Nephi 11:33–34, and is almost a direct

quotation from Mark 16:16, a passage regarded by many New Testament Greek scholars as

one of three possible endings to that gospel. But Joseph Smith was not aware of this, so he

even copied in translational variations, another proof that neither he nor the alleged golden

plates were inspired of God.

Two further instances of plagiarisms from the King James Bible that have backfired on the

Mormons are worth noting. In the third chapter of the book of Acts, Peter’s classic sermon at Pentecost paraphrases Deuteronomy 18:15–19. While in the process of writing 3 Nephi, Joseph Smith puts Peter’s paraphrase in the mouth of Christ when the Savior was allegedly preaching to the Nephites. The prophet overlooked the fact that at the time that Christ was allegedly preaching His sermon, the sermon itself had not yet been preached by Peter.

In addition to this, 3 Nephi makes Christ out to be a liar, when in 20:23 Christ attributes

Peter’s words to Moses as a direct quotation, when, as we have pointed out, Peter paraphrased

the quotation from Moses (Acts 3:22–23); and the wording is quite different. But Joseph did not check far enough, hence this glaring error.

Secondly, the Book of Mormon follows the error of the King James translation that renders

Isaiah 4:5, “For upon all the glory shall be a defense” (see 2 Nephi 14:5). Modern translations of Isaiah point out that it should read “For over all the glory there will be a canopy,” not a defense. The Hebrew word does not mean defense but a protective curtain or canopy. Smith, of course, did not know this, nor did the King James translators from whose work he copied.

There are quite a number of other places where such errors appear, including Smith’s

insistence in Abraham 1:20 that “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood,” when in reality the

dictionary defines the meaning of the term Pharaoh as “a great house or palace.”

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible renders Isaiah 5:25, “And their corpses were as

refuse in the midst of the streets,” correctly rendering the Hebrew as “refuse,” not as “torn.” The King James Bible renders the passage “And their carcasses were torn in the midst of the

streets.” The Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 15:25) repeats the King James’ text word-for-word,

including the error of mistranslating , removing any claim that the Book of Mormon is to be

taken seriously as reliable material.

Scientific Evidence Against the Book of Mormon

In an attempt to validate and justify the claims of the Book of Mormon, the highest authority in Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, related an event which, if true, would add significant weight to some of the Mormon claims for their sacred book. Fortunately, it is a fact on which a good deal of evidence can be brought to bear. Smith put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:62–64, 1982 edition), and it is worthwhile to examine it:

I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments.

Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.”

According to Joseph Smith, then, Martin Harris, his colleague, obtained from the learned

Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University a validation of Smith’s translation of the

reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic characters found on the plates that Moroni made available to

him. The difficulty with Smith’s statement is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing,

and fortunately he went on record in a lengthy letter to Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of

Joseph Smith who did one of the most thorough jobs of research on the Mormon prophet and

the origins of Mormonism extant. Upon learning of Smith’s claim concerning Professor Anthon,

Mr. Howe wrote him at Columbia. Professor Anthon’s letter reproduced here from Howe’s own

collection is a classic piece of evidence the Mormons would like very much to see forgotten.

New York, N.Y.

Feb. 17, 1834

Mr. E. D. Howe

Painsville, Ohio

Dear Sir:

I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a

reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be

“reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false.6-14 Some years ago, a plain and

apparently simplehearted farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our

city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer

would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand.

Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a

trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the

writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A

“gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of

a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state

of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These

spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes

would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question

being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the

plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to

understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a

young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole

possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm

house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or

rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and,

having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain to

those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates

having been deciphered “by the gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by

the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added that he had been requested to

contribute a sum of money toward the publication of the “golden book,” the contents

of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and

save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his

farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the

plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York

and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he

brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book,

although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the

spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and,

instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a

part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions

to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing,

which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with

him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked

characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person

who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and

Hebrew letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were

arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a

circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and

evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a

way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the

contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the

subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper

contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time after, the same

farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and

offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the

book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was

strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion

practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed

me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a

magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon

him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had

recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of

God” upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would

incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the

rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of

Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately,

should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully,

Charles Anthon, LL.D.

Columbia University

Professor Anthon’s letter is both revealing and devastating where Smith’s and Harris’

veracity are concerned. We might also raise the question as to how Professor Anthon could say that the characters shown to him by Martin Harris and authorized by Joseph Smith as part of the material copied from the revelation of the Book of Mormon were “Egyptian, Chaldaic,

Assyriac, and Arabic” when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were

“reformed Egyptian,” the language of the Nephites. Since the language of the Book of

Mormon was known to “none other people,” how would it be conceivably possible for Professor Anthon to have testified as to the accuracy of Smith’s translation? To this date, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest trace of the language known as “reformed Egyptian”; and all reputable linguists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected them as mythical.

The Truth About the god of the Mormons

In sharp contrast to the revelations of Scripture are the “revelations” of Joseph Smith,

Brigham Young, and the succeeding Mormon “prophets.” So that the reader will have no

difficulty understanding what the true Mormon position is concerning the nature of God, the

following quotations derived from popular Mormon sources will convey what the Mormons

mean when they speak of “God.”

1. “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they

came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” (Teachings of

the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).

2. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man ”(Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).

3. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s: the Son also;

but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit ”

(Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).

4. “Gods exist, and we had better strive to be prepared to be one with them”

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:238).

5. “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become” (Prophet Lorenzo

Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105–106).

6. “Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and His Father, being in possession

of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious immortal body of flesh and bones ”

(Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1978, 23).

7. “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning,

and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth”

(Abraham 4:1).

8. “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and

mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of

advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point

where He now is” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 1:123).

9. “Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the

Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life

similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God—an exalted

being—through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given

opportunity today to obey” (Hunter, op. cit., 104).

10. “Christ was the God, the Father of all things. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am

the Father and the Son” (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14, Book of Mormon).

11. “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a

celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and

organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about

whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the

only God with whom we have to do”6-22 (Brigham Young, in the Journal of

Discourses, 1:50).

12. Historically this doctrine of Adam-God was hard for even faithful Mormons to

believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young stated: “How much unbelief

exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I

revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father

and God.

“ ‘Well,’ says one, ‘Why was Adam called Adam?’ He was the first man on the

earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into

existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and

live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was

faithful, I received my crown and exaltation’ ”(Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308).

It would be quite possible to continue quoting sources from many volumes and other

official Mormon publications, but the fact is well established. The Reorganized Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which disagrees with the Utah church on the subject of

polytheism, steadfastly maintains that Joseph Smith Jr. never taught or practiced either

polygamy or polytheism, but the following direct quotation from Smith, relative to the plurality

of gods and the doctrine that Mormon males may attain to godhood, vexes the Reorganized

Church no end. But, it is fact, nonetheless.

The following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the Mormon

newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, 5:613–614) four months after Smith

delivered it at the funeral of Elder King Follett, and only two months after Smith’s

assassination in Carthage, Illinois.

Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith notes that the King Follett sermon was given

at the April conference of the Church in 1844 and was heard by around 20,000 people. The

argument that Smith was misquoted is discounted by the fact that it was recorded by four

scribes, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and Thomas Bullock. The

Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Smith’s two-hour-and-fifteen-minute message “may be

one of the Prophet’s greatest sermons because of its doctrinal teachings.”

It is significant that the split in Mormonism did not take place for more than three and a

half years. Apparently their ancestors did not disagree with Smith’s theology, as they

themselves do today. Nor did they deny that Smith preached the sermon and taught

polytheism, as does the Reorganized Church today. But the facts must speak for themselves.

Here are the above mentioned quotes:

“I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. What sort of a being was God

in the beginning? First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves if you were to see him today, you would see him in all the person, image

and very form as a man”.

“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was

God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the

simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God,

that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the

Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did what did Jesus

say? (mark it elder Rigdon) Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so

hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious.

Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn

how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have

done before you—namely, by going from a small degree to another, from grace to

grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who

sit enthroned in everlasting power”.

Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is inhabited by

different gods who procreate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different

planets, “Elohim” being the god of this planet (Brigham’s teaching that Adam is our heavenly

Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but they hold firm to the belief that their

God is a resurrected, glorified man). In addition to this, the “inspired” utterances of Joseph

Smith reveal that he began as a Unitarian, progressed to tritheism, and graduated into

full-fledged polytheism, in direct contradiction to the revelations of the Old and New

Testaments as we have observed. The Mormon doctrine of the trinity is a gross

misrepresentation of the biblical position, though they attempt to veil their evil doctrine in

semi-orthodox terminology. We have already dealt with this problem, but it bears constant

repetition lest the Mormon terminology go unchallenged.

On the surface, they appear to be orthodox, but in the light of unimpeachable Mormon

sources, Mormons are clearly evading the issue. The truth of the matter is that Mormonism has

never historically accepted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; in fact, they deny it by

completely perverting the meaning of the term. The Mormon doctrine that God the Father is a

mere man is the root of their polytheism, and forces Mormons to deny not only the Trinity of

God as revealed in Scripture, but the immaterial nature of God as pure spirit. Mormons have

gone on record and stated that they accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but, as we have seen, it

is not the Christian Trinity. God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, a fact

clearly taught by our Lord (John 4:24, cf. Luke 24:39). Mormon Apostle James Talmage

describes the church’s teaching, as follows, in his book The Articles of Faith:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the

incomprehensible God, devoid of “body, parts, or passions,” as a thing impossible of

existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of

scripture and revelation. Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily

offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and

also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh. Jehovah,

who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father” that Jesus Christ, whom

we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, in the work of creation as

set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, Chapter IV (48, 466–467).

In these revealing statements, Talmage lapses into the error of making Elohim and

Jehovah two separate gods, apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that Elohim “the

greater god” and Jehovah—Jesus the lesser god, begotten by Elohim—are compounded in the

Hebrew as “Jehovah the Mighty One,” or simply “Jehovah God” as any concordance of Hebrew usage in the Old Testament readily reveals (LORD—; God—). This error is akin to that of Mary Baker Eddy who, in her glossary to Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures made exactly the same error, she too being in complete ignorance of the Hebrew language. In this grammatical error, Christian Science and the Mormons are in unique agreement. Talmage’s argument that “to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole and an immaterial body cannot exist” is both logically and theologically an absurdity. To illustrate this, one needs only to point to the angels whom the Scriptures describe as “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:7), beings who have immaterial “bodies” of spiritual substances and yet exist. The Mormons involve themselves further in a hopeless contradiction when, in their doctrine of the preexistence of the soul, they are forced to redefine the meaning of soul as used in both the Old and the New Testaments to teach that the soul is not immaterial, while the Bible clearly teaches that it is. Our Lord, upon the cross, spoke the words, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Certainly this was immaterial.  And Paul, preparing to depart from this world for the celestial realms, indicated that his real spiritual self (certainly immaterial, since his body died) was yearning to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better (Philippians 1:21–23). The martyr Stephen also committed his spirit (or immaterial nature) into the hands of the Father, crying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). And there are numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments that indicate an “immaterial nature” can exist, provided that form is of a spiritual substance as is God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as was Jesus Christ as the preincarnate Logos (John 1:1, cf. John 1:14). Far from asserting their “belief and allegiance to the true and living God of Scripture and revelation,” as Talmage represents Mormonism, Mormons indeed have sworn allegiance to a polytheistic pantheon of gods, which they are striving to join, there to enjoy a polygamous eternity of progression toward godhood. One can search the corridors of pagan mythology and never equal the complex structure that the Mormons have erected and masked under the terminology and misnomer of orthodox Christianity. That the Mormons reject the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no student of the movement can deny, for after quoting the Nicene Creed and early church theology on the trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares:

“It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as here. The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God’s person and attributes ”(p. 48).

After carefully perusing hundreds of volumes on Mormon theology and scores of pamphlets

dealing with this subject, the author can quite candidly state that never has he seen such

misappropriation of terminology, disregard of context, and utter abandon of scholastic

principles demonstrated on the part of non-Christian cultists than is evidenced in the attempts

of Mormon theologians to appear orthodox and at the same time undermine the foundations

of historic Christianity. The intricacies of their complex system of polytheism causes the careful

researcher to ponder again and again the ethical standard that these Mormon writers practice

and the blatant attempts to rewrite history, biblical theology, and the laws of scriptural

interpretation that they might support the theologies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Without fear of contradiction, I am certain that Mormonism cannot stand investigation and

wants no part of it unless the results can be controlled under the guise of “broad-mindedness”

and “tolerance.”

On one occasion, when the Mormon doctrine of God was under discussion with a young

woman leaning in the direction of Mormon conversion, I offered in the presence of witnesses to

retract this chapter and one previous effort (Mormonism, Zondervan Publishing House, 1958) if

the Mormon elders advising this young lady would put in writing that they and their church

rejected polytheism for monotheism in the tradition of the Judeo-Christian religion. It was a

bona fide offer; the same offer has been made from hundreds of platforms to tens of thousands

of people over a twenty-year period. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is well

aware of the offer. To the unwary, however, they imply that they are monotheists, to the

informed they defend their polytheism, and like the veritable chameleon they change color to

accommodate the surface upon which they find themselves.

G. B. Arbaugh, in his classic volume Revelation in Mormonism (1932), has documented in

exhaustive detail the progress of Mormon theology from Unitarianism to polytheism. His

research has been invaluable and available to interested scholars for over sixty years, with the

full knowledge of the Mormon Church. In fact, the Mormons are significantly on the defensive

where the peculiar origins of the “sacred writings” are involved or when verifiable evidence

exists that reveals their polytheistic perversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is extremely

difficult to write kindly of Mormon theology when they are so obviously deceptive in their

presentation of data, so adamant in their condemnation of all religions in favor of the “restored

gospel” allegedly vouchsafed to the prophet Joseph Smith. We must not, however, confuse the

theology with the person as is too often the case, for while hostility toward the former is

scriptural, it is never so with the latter.

Continuing with our study, Apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared:

“In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of

whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him previous to his redemption,

while yet in his mortal state” (p. 37).

In this terse sentence, Pratt summed up the whole hierarchy of Mormon polytheism, and

quotations previously adduced from a reputable Mormon source support Pratt’s summation

beyond reasonable doubt. The Mormon teaching that God was seen “face to face” in the Old

Testament (Exodus 33:9, 11, 23; Exodus 24:9–11; Isaiah 6:1, 5; Genesis 5:24, etc.) is refuted

on two counts, that of language and the science of comparative textual analysis

(hermeneutics).

From the standpoint of linguistics, all the references cited by the Mormons to prove “that

God has a physical body that could be observed” melt away in the light of God’s expressed

declaration, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus

33:20).

Exodus 33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered “intimate,” and in no sense is it

opposed to verse 20. Similar expressions are utilized in Deuteronomy 5:4, while in Genesis

32:30 it is the Angel of the Lord who speaks, not Jehovah himself. The Old Testament is filled

with theophanies (literally, God-appearances), instances where God spoke or revealed himself

in angelic manifestations, and it is accepted by all Old Testament scholars almost without

qualification that anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to God) are the logical

explanation of many of the encounters of God with man. To argue, as the Mormons do, that

such occurrences indicate that God has a body of flesh and bone, as “prophet” Smith taught, is

on the face of the matter untenable and another strenuous attempt to force polytheism on a

rigidly monotheistic religion. Progressing beyond this, another cardinal Mormon point of

argument is the fact that because expressions such as “the arm of the Lord,” “the eye of the

Lord,” “the hand of the Lord,” “nostrils,” “mouth,” etc., are used, all tend to show that God

possesses a physical form. However, they have overlooked one important factor. This factor is

that of literary metaphor, extremely common in Old Testament usage. If the Mormons are to

be consistent in their interpretation, they should find great difficulty in the Psalm where God is

spoken of as “covering with his feathers,” and man “trusting under his wings.” If God has eyes,

ears, arms, hands, nostrils, mouth, etc., why then does He not have feathers and wings? The

Mormons have never given a satisfactory answer to this, because it is obvious that the

anthropomorphic and metaphorical usage of terms relative to God are literary devices to

convey His concern for and association with man. In like manner, metaphors such as feathers

and wings indicate His tender concern for the protection of those who “dwell in the secret place

of the Most High and abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” The Mormons would do well to comb the Old Testament and the New Testament for the numerous metaphorical usages

readily available for observation. In doing so, they would have to admit, if they are at all

logically consistent, that Jesus was not a door (John 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), a vine

(John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a loaf of bread (John 6:51), and other metaphorical

expressions any more than “our God is a consuming fire” means that Jehovah should be

construed as a blast furnace or a volcanic cone.

The Mormons themselves are apparently unsure of the intricacies of their own polytheistic

structure, as revealed in the previously cited references from Joseph Smith, who made Christ

both the Father and the Son in one instance, and further on indicated that there was a mystery

connected with it and that only the Son could reveal how He was both the Father and the Son.

Later, to compound the difficulty, Smith separated them completely into “separate personages,” eventually populating the entire universe with his polytheistic and polygamous deities. If one peruses carefully the books of Abraham and Moses as contained in the Pearl of Great Price (allegedly “translated” by Smith), as well as sections of Ether in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Discourses of Brigham Young, the entire Mormon dogma of the preexistence of the soul, the polygamous nature of the gods, the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer, and the hierarchy of heaven (telestial, terrestrial, and celestial—corresponding to the basement, fiftieth floor, and observation tower of the Empire State Building, respectively), and the doctrines of universal salvation, millennium, resurrection, judgment, and final punishment, will unfold in a panorama climaxing in a polygamous paradise of eternal duration. Such is the Mormon doctrine of God, or, more properly, of the gods, which rivals anything pagan mythology ever produced.

Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon

Some Latter-day Saints, in their zeal to give tangible authenticity to the Book of Mormon, have told prospective converts that the Smithsonian Institution has used the Book of Mormon to verify sites in the New World. In response to numerous requests on this subject, the Smithsonian has issued the following paper detailing their position on the matter.

Information from the National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.

Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon

1.       (1) The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any

            way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct

            connection between the archaeology of the New World andthe subject

            matter of the book.

2.     (2) The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid,

       being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern,

       central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates

       that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World

       – probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering

       Strait region during the last Ice Age -- in a continuing series of

       small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3.      (3) Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this

       continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the

       northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then

       settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached

       Mexico or Central America.

4.      (4) One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding

        that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred

       at all, were of very little significance for the development of

       American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal

       Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog)

       occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American

       Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs,

       chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and

       horses were in the Americas along with the bison, mammoth, and

       mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000

       B.C. at the time the early big game (sic) hunters spread across the

       Americas.)

5.      (5) Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before

       1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native

       copper was worked used (sic) in various locations in pre-Columbian

       times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the

       Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times

       involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6.      (6) There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the

        Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South

        America began several hundred years before the Christian era.

        However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been

        the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern

        Asia. It is by means certain that even such contactsoccurred;

        certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews,

        or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.

7.      (7)  No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology,

              and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any

              relationship between archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological

              remains in Egypt.

8.      (8)  Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World

              writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently

              appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of

              these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No

              inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have

              occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune

              stones which have been found in Greenland.

9.                There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the

             National Museum, of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.