This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Note: CES Letter is teeming with many other logical fallacies, deceptions, and manipulative tactics. These are only the falsehoods. (This list is derived the March 2015 version of CES Letter. Some falsehoods may have been corrected in newer additions.)
| CES Letter Excerpt | Falsehood |
| “When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable… What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word?” | See Full Answer: Italic Words In Bible Quotes? 1. The Book of Mormon does not quote the bible’s translator’s words “word for word.” Sometimes the translator’s italic words appear in the Book of Mormon verses and sometimes they don’t. For example, look at the very first chapter in the Book of Mormon that quotes Isaiah. The translator’s italic words are not there in this verse: Isaiah 48:6 1 Nephi 20:6 Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. Thou hast seen and heard all this; and will ye not declare them? And that I have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. 2. CES Letter misquotes the KJV bible verse, turns an italic word into a normal word, to make the verse appear more similar to the Book of Mormon. The word her is actually italicized in the KJV bible, and the Book of Mormon omits this word. The Book of Mormon does not include the italicized word “her.” Therefore, the Book of Mormon does not copy italicized portions “word for word” in CES Letter‘s own cherry-picked example.  |
| “Additionally, Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea. The problem with this is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4:14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea, (b) “Red” sea is not found in any source manuscripts, and (c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away.” | See Full Answer: Isaiah 9:1 Incorrect In Book Of Mormon? 3.. The Book of Mormon quote of Isaiah 9:1 does not claim the Red Sea is in Galilee, which is over 200 miles away. It talks about the Way of the Red Sea, which was a real road that passed next to the Red Sea and led to Galilee. 4. We do not have source manuscripts of Isaiah to determine what they said. The oldest copy we have is from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it was copied from a different source than the brass plates. 5. Christ does not quote Isaiah 9:1 in the Book of Matthew. It is quoted by the author of gospel of Matthew who was not Jesus. 6. The Red Sea is not 250 miles away from Galilee. More like 200 miles. But regardless, the Way of the Red Sea passes into Galilee just like the Book of Mormon says in this verse. |
| “The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. These Book of Mormon verses should match the inspired JST version instead of the incorrect KJV version that Joseph later fixed.” | See Full Answer: Book Of Mormon Contradicts JST Bible? 7. CES Letter snips out parts of the JST bible translation to make it look like Joseph Smith omitted verses 25-27 of the Sermon on the Mount. CES Letter matches up the Sermon on the Mount from the JST bible with the wrong verses in the Book of Mormon. CES Letter incorrectly claims that these are the “same passages” and that the Book of Mormon “has the incorrect Sermon on the Mount passage.” No, the appropriate passages are there, CES Letter just matched them up wrong.  8. CES Letter says the Sermon on the Mount in the bible is “the same identical passage in the Book of Mormon.” No, these are not the same sermons.They were two different sermons given at two different times, in two different places, to two different people. A lot of what Jesus said was the same but there are some differences appropriate to the different contexts. 9. CES Letter claims the JST bible translation “should match” what is in the Book of Mormon. Why should it? This ignores differences in contexts and the nature of Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible, which included clarification of meaning and prophetic commentary. |
| “Anachronisms… Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC – 421 AD?” | See Full Answer: Anachronisms In Book Of Mormon? 10. Most of the animals claimed by CES Letter as not existing in pre-Columbian America certainly did exist. The American musk ox is an ox and existed in pre-Columbian America. Sheep are native to America. The peccary pig is native to America. Mountain goats are native to America. Cattle are native to America, though today’s common bos taurus cow wasn’t. Wheat is native to America, specifically the amaranth. Iron was used in ancient America. Skeptics have to cherry-pick 11 things out of the entire Book of Mormon to claim as anachronisms, and still most of those actually did exist. 11. CES Letter lists the “wheel” as “mentioned in the Book of Mormon” but this is false. The wheel is never mentioned in the Book of Mormon. 12. CES Letter claims this list of animals and technologies is “mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas “between 2200 BC – 421 AD,” including “elephants.” But this is false. The Book of Mormon mentions the elephant existing among the Jaradites shortly after 2400 BC, but does not mention elephants any later than that. The Book of Mormon does not claim elephants existed 2200 BC – 421 AD. Some say the Tower of Babel was built in 2200 BC at the latest, and likely much earlier. Mammoths or Mastodons did indeed live in the Americas many thousands of years ago around this time. Other items on this list likewise are not claimed to exist that entire time 2200 BC – 421 AD, such as steel and horses, but are only very briefly mentioned. |
| “Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived.” | See Full Answer: Names Taken From Joseph Smith’s Hometown? 13. Most names on Vernal Holley’s map which appears in CES Letter are wrong or in the wrong location. Vernal Holley’s Book of Mormon map errors:  Vernal Holley’s America map errors:  14. This map invents geography not mentioned in the Book of Mormon in order to make it look more similar to the region where Joseph Smith lived. This made-up geography also serves to boost CES Letter‘s implied argument that we ought to have enough detail to pin down the Nephite civilization to any one archaeological location. It helps convince us that the Book of Mormon gives enough indicators for us to validate or discredit the Book of Mormon by matching it with modern-day geography, which is false. Any honest map of Book of Mormon geography has very little detail so it is difficult to compare it with any map. |
| “Off the eastern coast of Mozambique in Africa is an island country called ‘Comoros.’ Prior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, ‘Camora.’ There is an 1808 map of Africa that refers to the islands as ‘Camora.’” | See Full Answer: Cumorah Taken From African Island? 15. Comoros was not Camora prior to 1841. This name Camora doesn’t appear anywhere in any historical map or book. 16. The obscure Irish book that CES Letter cites does not even appear to label it Camora, but Comora. The last vowel looks like an “a,” but the other vowels look like “o”s. It says Comora. Clearly. This is a complete hoax that Antimormons invented and spread on Wikipedia.  17. Camora is not an Arabic name. The closest to it is Camorra, which is an Italian word. |
| “The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly “Camora”)? Moroni.” | 18. The name Moroni did not exist yet in Joseph Smith’s time. So how is it relevant? |
| “‘Camora’ and settlement ‘Moroni’ were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd (a pirate and treasure hunter) which many 19th century New Englanders – especially treasure hunters – were familiar with…” | 19. Comora and Meroni were not common in any pirate and treasure stories. I haven’t seen one story or pirate book that mentioned Comora or Meroni, or the fake names that Antimormons on Wikipedia fabricated. |
| “View of the Hebrews compared to the Book of Mormon…” | See Full Answer: ‘View Of The Hebrews’ Influenced Book Of Mormon? 20. In their comparison of the View of the Hebrews and The Book Of Mormon, CES Letter incorrectly lists Sharon, Vermont as the location of the 1830 Book of Mormon. This is false. Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, but the Book of Mormon was first published in Palmyra New York, a distance away. 21. Many of the claims in this comparison are just false. The Messiah did not visit the Americas in View of the Hebrews. Quetzalcoatl was not the Messiah in that book. There is no mention of “many waters.” Migrants to America did not journey northward. No mention of Egyptian hieroglyphics. No prophets transmitting generational records. No mention that good and bad are necessary opposition. No division into two classes. No change in government from monarchy to republic. The Book of Mormon does not mention a valley of a great river. Etc. Etc. 22. CES Letter misquotes the View of the Hebrews and Book of Mormon to make them sound similar. Jesus ben Ananias Samuel The Lamanite CES Letter misquote: “Wo, wo to this city… to this people.” “Wo, wo to this city” or “this people” Correct quote: “Wo, wo to this city, this temple, and this people!” “12. Yea, wo unto this great city of Zarahemla… 15. Yea, and wo be unto the city of Gideon… 24. Yea, wo unto this people, because of this time which has arrived…” 23 CES Letter claims View of the Hebrews talks about “Government changes from monarchy to republic,” but there is nothing like this. They also make incorrect claims about “Long wars” being fought “between the civilized and barbarous” classes. These false parallels make it sound like both books portray Native Americans in a racist way and promote oppression of the poor class. |
| “LDS General Authority and scholar Elder B.H. Roberts privately researched the link between the Book of Mormon, the View of the Hebrews… Elder Roberts’ private research was meant only for the eyes of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve and was never intended to be available to the public.” | 24. There is no evidence that B.H. Robert’s research was “private,” “meant only for the eyes of the First Presidency,” and “never intended to be available to the public.” |
| “The Late War Between the United States & Great Britain… This was an 1819 textbook written in King James Version style language for New York state school children, one of them very likely being Joseph Smith.” | See Full Answer: ‘Late War’ Influenced Book Of Mormon? 25. In their comparison of this book with the Book of Mormon, many of the alleged parallels are false. Brass plates are not mentioned. Great darkness is not mentioned. Barges and “stripling” soldiers” are not mentioned. Etc. Other parallels are greatly twisted. For example, the “worthiness of Christopher Columbus” is not mentioned in either book, though some aspect of Columbus is. |
| “A “stripling” soldier “with his “weapon of war in his hand.”” |  26. Late War uses “stripling” as a noun, not as an adjective as CES Letter portrays it. That is a misquote. ‘Stripling’ is not an adjective like in the Book of Mormon. The word “stripling” is not associated with the word “soldier” like it is in the Book of Mormon. CES Letter adds another quotation mark after the word “soldier” to make it seem like this is the context, a misquote. Then, CES Letter says these soldiers “all gave their services freely for the good of their country” in the book. False, the people who gave their services “freely for the good of their country” are a completely different group than the striplings. 27. CES Letter references Hebraisms and chiasmus in Late War, but the chiasmus alleged by their source is fake. It fabricates phrases and matches up common words such as “great” that appear many times throughout the book.  28. CES Letter claims Late War talks about “Righteous Indians vs. savage Indians,” but there is nothing like this. There are British savages, American savages, and Native American savages in the book. For example, British Captain Woolbine is called a “white savage.” This false parallels make it sound like both books portray Native Americans in a racist way and promote oppression of the poor class, just like the false parallel with View of the Hebrews did. 29. CES Letter‘s claim that Late War “was used in Joseph Smith’s own time and backyard” is false. It was printed in New York City, but there is no evidence the book made it way up where Joseph Smith grew up or was living. There is also no evidence it was used for third grade or lower, which was the only education Joseph Smith received. |
| “Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, is shocking… It’s like reading from the Book of Mormon.” | See Full Answer: ‘First Book of Napoleon Influenced Book of Mormon? 30. In their comparison of this book with the Book of Mormon, almost all of the alleged parallels are misplaced or common phrases within the book. People often use three dots known as “ellipses” to paraphrase when they are quoting someone. But the phrases should be in the same order which they originally appear. CES Letter picks out small parts and rearrange them out of order into a single sentence, to make them sound similar to the Book of Mormon. Additionally, CES Letter cherry-picks words and phrases that are mentioned many times in the text and are not unique: CES Letter Misquotes Book of Mormon: Book of Mormon (corrected): “Condemn not the (writing)(misquote)…an account(this phrase appears 21 times)…the First Book of Nephi(misquote & wrong location)…upon the face of the earth(this phrase appears 26 times)…it came to pass(this phrase appears 1,297 times)…the land(this phrase appears 786 times)…his inheritance and his gold and his silver and(misquote & wrong location)…the commandments of the Lord(this phrase appears 27 times)…the foolish imaginations of his heart…large in stature(wrong location, doesn’t match First Book of Napoleon)…Jerusalem(this word appears 27 times)…because of the wickedness of the people.(this phrase appears 7 times) (Not a single sentence)” “…condemn not the things of God…The First Book of Nephi …his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and…large in stature…an account…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass …the land …the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of his heart…Jerusalem… because of the wickedness of the people…” CES Letter Misquotes First Book of Napoleon: First Book of Napoleon (corrected): “Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth(this phrase appears 2 times)…it came to pass(this phrase appears 13 times)…the land…their inheritances their gold and silver and(misquote & wrong location)…the commandments of the Lord(this phrase appears 2 times)…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…small in stature…Jerusalem(this phrase appears 5 times)…because of the perverse wickedness of the people(wrong location, 2 mentions). (Not a single sentence)” “…condemn not the feebly imitative manner of writing…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…their inheritances, their gold and silver …the land…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…because of the perverse wickedness …small in stature…Jerusalem.” 31. CES Letter gives an incorrect title of the book. Actually, it is much longer: The First Book of Napoleon, the Tyrant of the Earth: Written in the 5813th Year of the World, and 1809th Year of the Christian Era. Maybe it is just coincidence that when CES Letter shortens this title it sounds more similar to ‘The Book of Mormon’: The First Book of Napoleon? |
| “The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. Joseph Smith’s early theology also held this view… why would Joseph Smith hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead…?” | See Full Answer: Father & Jesus Were Same In Book Of Mormon? 32. Just because the Book of Mormon doesn’t explain something as fully as other Mormon sources doesn’t mean they are contradicting each other. Jesus is the fullness of the Father, the creator of everything physical, the Father of salvation, the character of the Eternal Father, and One God with the Father and Holy Spirit, just as the Book of Mormon says. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that differs or contradicts other Mormon sources. It is not Trinitarian. |
| “No one – including Joseph Smith’s family members and the Saints – had ever heard about the First Vision for twelve to twenty-two years after it supposedly occurred. The first and earliest written account of the First Vision in Joseph Smith’s journal was written 12 years after the spring of 1820. There is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832.” | See Full Answer: First Vision Not Mentioned Before 1832? 33. The claim that Joseph Smith did not talk to anyone about the First Vision before 1823 is demonstrably false. In 1829, reference to it was made in D&C 20:5, though very little detail was given. 34. CES Letter gives a chart about alleged contradictions in the First Vision accounts which is riddled with falsehoods. The 1832 account does mention a pillar of fire–“fire” is crossed out and replaced with “light.” The Nov. 9 1835 account mentions a host of angels, not one angelic being. The Nov. 14 1835 account does not mention a host of angels, but makes a quick reference Joseph’s “first visitation of Angels.” It is a quick one-sentence statement, so it is no surprise that many other details are not included. The 1838 “official version” mentions a pillar of light, which is reasonably the same thing as a pillar of fire. CES Letter separates the “2 personages” from God the Father and Jesus Christ, and they fabricate the angelic being in order to incorrectly imply discrepancies. The First Vision accounts do not contradict. 35. CES Letter claims the “1832 account states Joseph was 15 years old when he had the vision in 1821.” Actually, this was penciled in by Fredrick G. Williams later and was not written “by Joseph Smith.” It also never says he had the vision in 1821. Just a simply mix up by Fredrick G. Williams. |
| “The following is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile 1 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology.” | See Full Answer: Facsimile 1 Translated Correctly? 36. The diagram in CES Letter misplaces where Figure #11 is. This error covers up the obvious correctness of Joseph Smith’s interpretation for this figure. The figure actually means “pillars of heaven” just like Joseph Smith claimed. CES Letter‘s diagram locates Figure 11 in the zig-zagged lines to cover up this figure’s strong correlation.   37. Some of the “Egyptological Interpretations” in the diagram in CES Letter are simplistic to the point of being false. It interprets Figure 12 as “just the water that the crocodile swims in”. Uh, no. These diagonal lines represent the waters of Nun, the sky, which the spirit of the deceased person must cross to reach the afterlife. The diagram avoids giving the interpretation because it is so close to Joseph Smith’s interpretation: “firmament over our heads”. 38. The diagram in CES Letter dismisses this as a “common” funerary document. Actually, the lion couch scene was used in literature besides funerary documents. But the full significance of this particular lion couch scene is actually impossible to tell because many features of this particular Facsimile are not to be found among any any other Egyptian literature–including the deceased figure dressed in ritual garments, the figure with raised hands, the crocodile and waters, and the sacrificial table being present. 39. CES Letter calls this a “funerary scene.” Not true. In the Egyptian context this is Osiris being resurrected, not an embalming, which is sometimes shown in a similar lion couch motif. 40. CES Letter incorrectly claims Figure 3 is “not human.” Actually, this character was played by a human in Egyptian rituals and embalming rituals–a human who wore a mask of Anubis, like we see in Facsimile 3. 41. With each of the Book of Abraham Facsimiles, CES Letter lists “Joseph Smith’s interpretation” opposite “Modern Egyptological Interpretation,” falsely suggesting they should be the same. Why would they be the same? Joseph Smith did not literally translate most symbols or words but gave their meaning in a different context. In fact, he made it perfectly clear that there was the Abraham context and then there was the Egyptian context: “in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant…” Different case. Different subject. Different meaning. |
| “The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt” | See Full Answer: Facsimile 1 Correctly Filled In? 42. CES Letter uses Charles Larson’s illustration of what “Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like,” but it is full of mistakes–additions that don’t show up on the papyrus and parts on the papyrus that he omits. He tries to fit contradictions into the part that is missing from the papyrus. Red is the edge of the papyrus fragment. Blue are parts that Charles Larson draws in but are actually blank spaces on the papyrus. Green are lines that appear in on the papyrus but which Larson omits.  The shoulder line on the right is drawn lower than what we see on the papyrus. This higher shoulder line indicates a raised hand. At the top-right, Charles Larson draws in a horizontal line to make it look like the hand-lines continue horizontally to a bird instead of angling down to an arm. Larson incorrectly adds this line into blank space to change the angle of the hand lines, to make them slope horizontally. On the bottom-left, Charles Larson draws the arm extending to the crotch. This slightly overlaps to what is a blank space on the papyrus. On the upper-left, Charles Larson draws bird’s tail feathers that slightly overlap to what is a blank space on the papyrus. In his drawing, Charles Larson placed the bird and hand conveniently just inside the part missing from the papyrus, but they do overlap twice onto papyrus space that is actually blank. Oops! Charles Larson moves the arm of Anubis which extends from the left toward the reclining figure, up a good distance. Larson incorrectly moves the arm because otherwise it would overlap the bird’s wing (which is also incorrect) worse than it already does. But sorry, that’s blank papyrus there. Egyptians did not overlap figures if they could help it. They would have drawn the bird smaller or moved one of the other figures out of the way. 43. Charles Larson’s drawing locates the crotch higher than is anatomically correct. Also, how does one grab the phalus while wearing a kilt? That’s quite a feat! It also is never depicted in any Egyptian literature we know of. 44. CES Letter incorrectly claims that pencil markings behind the papyrus were “penciled in by Joseph Smith and his associates.” It is unlikely Joseph Smith made the pencil markings as they are different than the engraving that he approved. |
| “The following is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile 2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology” | See Full Answer: Facsimile 2 Translated Correctly? 45. The diagram in CES Letter incorrectly claims there was “no annotation given” for figures 22 and 23. Yes, there was. 46. CES Letter misspells “its” as “it’s” in Figure 6, in order to make Joseph Smith’s interpretation sound confusing. This misquote of Joseph Smith obfuscates this figure’s 100% match with the real Egyptian meaning: the four quarters of the earth.  Then, at the bottom of their diagram, it highlights this Figure 6 as if it is one of the biggest discrepancies with Egyptology in Facsimile 2! Wait, what?? There, they interpret it as simply “Sons of Horus” and pretend like the the four sons have nothing to do with the earth’s four quarters. 47. CES Letter‘s diagram incorrectly claims Figure 7, the Egyptian god Min, “is Heavenly Father” according to Joseph Smith. No, Joseph Smith never said that. Actually, he made it clear the Egyptian context was different, and never calls this Figure Heavenly Father. |
| “The following is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile 3 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology” | See Full Answer: Facsimile 3 Translated Correctly? 48. CES Letter‘s diagram identifies Figure 2 by the writing above the character Isis’s hand “Isis the great, the god’s mother.” But Joseph Smith was concerned with “the characters above his head” not the writing above the hand. 49. CES Letter‘s diagram (originally) called this vignette a “breathing permit.” The overall Book of Breathings was a breathing permit, yes, but this particular vignette is about judgement, not breathing. Why does CES Letter avoid talking about it being a judgement scene? |
| “The Book of Abraham teaches an incorrect Newtonian view of the universe… Just as the Catholic Church’s Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtoanian world model, however, the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view has since been discredited by 20th century Einsteinian physics.” | See Full Answer: Incorrect Science In Book Of Abraham? 50. CES Letter‘s claim that the Book of Abraham is Newtonian or teaches modern science is false. The Book of Abraham is not Newtonian, nor is its cosmology contemporary 19th century. CES Letter muddles Einstein’s physics, relativity, quantum mechanics, and Newtonian physics. 51. The Book of Abraham describes the universe geocentrically, as a world view. I’m not aware of any 19th century doctrine that follows Abraham’s teachings. 52. CES Letter‘s source, Keith Norman, incorrectly calls the Big Bang “creation ex nihilo,” the belief of creation from nothing. This “creation ex nihilo” doctrine is a concept from the Dark Ages, not modern science. |
| “86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12. Sixty-six out of seventy-seven verses are quotations or close paraphrases of King James Version wording.” | See Full Answer: KJV Bible Verses In Book Of Abraham? 53. CES Letter‘s claim that 86% of the verses in certain Book of Abraham chapters are “quotations or close paraphrases” of the bible is ridiculous. The Book of Abraham is totally different. These chapters are very different. You can’t just cherry-pick a few verses and say 86% are subjectively “close paraphrases”. This is science? Did CES Letter really just cherry-pick 60% of the chapters in the Book of Abraham, cherry-pick 86% of the verses in these chapters, and tell us some percentage of the words in these verses kinda sound sorta similar… maybe? Are you kidding me? 54. CES Letter calls it: “close paraphrases of King James wording,” but actually it is the other way around. The bible narrative is shorter and more concise than the Book of Abraham narrative. CES Letter has it backwards. To call it “close paraphrasing” is ridiculous. What does that mean? Many details are different. The two books talk about some of the same stories, so of course there will be similarities. |
| “With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal, and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star as claimed by the Book of Abraham.” | See Full Answer: Kolob Contradicts Modern Science? 55. CES Letter is incorrect that quantum mechanics first taught us the source of the sun’s energy is internal. If that were true, how did the United States build a fusion bomb without the use of quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is not how scientists discovered modern theories for the sun’s energy source. Rudolf Clausius developed the Virial Theorem in 1851. This 19th century theorem explains the potential and kinetic energy of a star as internal. 56. The Book of Abraham does not actually make this claim that the sun “receives” light from an external source. Facsimile 2 talks about what Egyptians believed governs the sun. Joseph Smith said this what the Egyptians believed, not what Abraham or Joseph Smith believed. CES Letter refuses to admit the obvious fact that Joseph Smith talked about two different contexts for the Facsimiles–the Egyptian and the Abrahamic meanings. 57. It is not really correct to say the sun does not get “its light from any other star.” Fusion is how the sun produces sunlight radiation from an internal energy source. But where did the sun get its internal energy source? The gravity that formed the sun was instigated by some “nearby supernova explosion, collision with another gas cloud, or the pressure wave of a galaxy’s spiral arms passing through the region.” When the Egyptians spoke of “borrowing light,” perhaps they referred to the transmission of photons that makes this movement possible: “A material particle moves relatively to another particle when it absorbs at least one photon energy.” |
| “There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled The Philosophy of the Future State. Joseph Smith owned a copy of the book and Oliver Cowdery quoted some lengthy excerpts…” | See Full Answer: ‘Philosophy Of Future State Influenced Book of Abraham? 58. CES Letter‘s quote of Klaus Hansen misquotes Philosophy of a Future State to make it sound closer to LDS cosmology. It reads “around one common centre” not “around a common centre.” 59. CES Letter‘s quote of Klaus Hansen incorrectly claims the book teaches “that matter is eternal.” Actually it teaches the opposite. This is an extremely important difference between this book and the Book of Mormon, especially considering CES Letter earlier quoted Keith Norman who incorrectly seems to think the Big Bang is creatio ex nihilo. This makes it seem like eternal matter is an outdated 19th century concept when actually the opposite is true. 60. CES Letter‘s quote of Klaus Hansen incorrectly claims the book teaches an “immeasureable distances” between stars. 61. CES Letter‘s quote of Klaus Hansen incorrectly claims the Book of Abraham teaches intelligences populating stars, the universe revolving around the throne of God, and a hierarchy of stars around the universe’s center. |
| “It is interesting that the only prerequisite that is mentioned for the man is that he must desire another wife…” | See Full Answer: Was ‘Desire’ Polygamy’s Only Requirement? 62. Desire for another wife was not a man’s only prerequisite for eternal sealings. It required consent of the first wife and faithfulness to all other covenants, “the conditions of this law are these: All covenants.” |
| “It does not say that the man must get a specific revelation from the living prophet, although we assume today that this is what was meant” | 63. D&C 132 said a man must get specific revelation from a living prophet. It says this very clearly. “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity… and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred, are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead.” |
| “D&C 132 is unequivocal on the point that polygamy is permitted only “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.”… Plural marriage are rooted in the notion of “sealing” for both time and eternity.” | See Full Answer: Polygamy’s Purpose Only To Reproduce? 64. Plural marriages were not always “rooted in the notion of sealing for both time and eternity.” The “new and everlasting covenant,” or eternal sealing was different than civil marriage and did not involve physical relations. Marriage for time and sealing for eternity were separate. One could be both married for time and sealed for eternity, but they were still two different things. 65. CES Letter incorrectly claims Joseph Smith was married “to Fanny Alger in 1833” prior to Elijah restoring the keys of sealing in 1836. Joseph Smith was not sealed to anyone prior to Elijah’s coming in 1836. 66. Bearing the souls of men, or multiplying and replenishing the earth, was not the only reason polygamy was permitted. D&C 132 gives other reasons for the new and everlasting covenant: 1. Restitution of all things through priesthood keys (v.40,45) 2. Fulfill promises and demand the sacrifices of Abraham (v.32, 51) 3. Multiply and replenish the earth to prepare for exaltation (v.62) 4. Give every woman the opportunity to bear souls and enter exaltation (v. 16, 17, 63) 67. CES Letter incorrectly claims Joseph Smith was married to Fanny Alger and it was “illegal” under “the laws of the land.” Joseph Smith’s sealing to Fanny Alger, if it actually happened, did not violate any laws of the land. |
| “In a September 1998 Larry King Live interview (14:37), Hinckley was asked about polygamy: Larry King: You condemn it [polygamy]? Hinckley: I condemn it. Yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. … Polygamy is doctrinal. Polygamy is not doctrinal.” | See Full Answer: Gordon B. Hickley Denounced Polygamy? 68. Polygamy was never doctrine but a policy. Policy is temporary and doctrine is eternal. 69. CES Letter claims Gordon B. Hickley “was asked about polygamy” in the interview, presumably Mormon polygamy, but actually he was asked about non-Mormon Mike Leavitt’s lawbreaking by taking multiple wives, not Mormon polygamy. |
| “Metallurgical tests revealed the [Kinderhook] plates to be a late 19th century construction… A farmer claimed he dug the plates out of a mound. They took the plates to Joseph Smith for examination and he translated a portion.” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Translated Forged Kinderhook Plates? 70. Joseph Smith did not “translate” the Kinderhook plates. The quote that they attribute to Joseph Smith is really written by William Clayton. According to witnesses, Joseph Smith and others merely remarked on the similarity of one of the plates to characters from the Egyptian Alphabet notes. 71. The plates were discovered by a “respected merchant,” not by a “farmer” as CES Letter claims. Why does CES Letter lie about how produced the Kinderhook plates? This lie appears to be random until you consider that Joseph Smith was a farmer when he discovered the gold plates and translated the Book of Mormon. This lie therefore builds false association between the gold plates and these Kinderhook plates, subtly making us think Joseph Smith was fooled about the gold plates as well. 72. The person behind the Kinderhook plates did not bring them to Joseph Smith as CES Letter claims and did not even want him to look at them. They were taken without his knowledge or permission. 73. Only one of the plates (or rather what we assume was one of the plates) have been found and tested, so it is incorrect for CES Letter to claim the “plates” underwent metallurgic tests–and in fact, the Chicago Historical Society’s earlier examination had concluded the plate was authentic. Only a later destructive test by the Mormon church concluded it was fake. 74. CES Letter‘s quote by skeptic Richard Bushman is without merit and is false: “Church historians continued to insist on the authenticity of the Kinderhook plates until 1980.” Church historians have always doubted that the plates were authentic. 75. CES Letter incorrectly calls the church’s drawings of the plates “facsimiles.” The church did not use this term and it is not correct. A facsimile is an exact reproduction of on old drawing or piece of literature. This was an illustration of an object. CES Letter uses this term “facsimile” to build false association between the Book of Abraham, which has three Facsimiles, and the Kinderhook Plates. |
| “Just as it would be arrogant of a FLDS, Jehovah Witness, Catholic, Seventh-day Adventist, or Muslim to deny a Latter-day Saint’s spiritual experience and testimony of the truthfulness of Mormonism, it would likewise be arrogant of a Latter-day Saint to deny their spiritual experiences… LDCJC MEMBER… I know that Matthew P. Gill is the Lord’s true Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator today.” | See Full Answer: Why Are So Many Religions So Different? 76. This is a misquote. CES Letter makes a list of people who called themselves prophet and who use language similar to Mormons, to build association between them and Mormons. But Matthew Philip Gill calls himself “Prophet Seer, Revelator and Translator.” CES Letter adds extra commas after “Seer” and “Revelator” in the Matthew Philip Gill’s title for himself to make it sound more like the Mormon title for prophet. A “prophet seer” is different from a “prophet and seer,” and this guy Matthew Philip Gill is not like the LDS prophet. |
| “From the D&C 8 account, we don’t really know much about what exactly the ‘gift of Aaron’ is that Oliver Cowdery received… the original revelation contained in the Book of Commandments… contains wording that was changed in the Doctrine & Covernants 8. The term ‘gift of Aaron’ was originally ‘rod’ and ‘rod of nature’ in the Book of Commandments.” | See Full Answer: D&C 8 Told Oliver Cowdery To Use Divining Rod? 77. CES Letter lies when they say “rod of nature” was in the “original revelation.” Actually, the original revelation called it a “sprout.” This is an important difference because CES Letter argues it refers to a divining rod, and the word “sprout” clearly has nothing to do with divining rods. 78. CES Letter misquotes D&C 8: “Now this is not all they gift….” It is “thy gift.” (Fixed in later CES Letter edition) 79. CES Letter claims the revisions to D&C 8 indicate that in the LDS church there is a “whitewashing of its origins and history.” But why would Joseph Smith change it to “rod of nature” from “sprout” if he was trying to cover up the fact that it referred to a divining rod? Why would he make it sound more like a magic divining rod by changing it to “rod of nature” if that’s what he was trying to get away from? 80. Oliver Cowdery did not own a divining rod. D&C 8 does not refer to a divining rod. He did not “hunt for buried treasure.” There is not indication that he wished to translate ancient documents like Joseph Smith, but rather to assist Joseph Smith in his translating. 81. CES Letter claims some Mormons “base their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on these 11 witnesses and their testimonies.” This is silly to the point of falsehood. I have never heard anyone base their testimonies totally or predominantly on the 11 witnesses. I have also never heard missionaries be instructed to “teach investigators about the testimonies of the witnesses” as CES Letter claims. 82. CES Letter claims the “people in early 19th century New England” were “people who believed in… peep stones in hats.” I have never heard or read of 19th century New Englanders believing in supernatural stones in hats except for Antimormon literature about Joseph Smith. |
| “Joseph Smith, his father, and his brother (Hyrum) had a family business treasure hunting from 1820-1827… Joseph Smith was arrested and brought to court in Bainbridge, New York…” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Arrested For Treasure Hunting? 83. CES Letter claims Joseph Smith was arrested “for trial on fraud.” But none of the alleged accounts of the event claim that the charges were “fraud.” 84. The hearing could not have possibly been a “trial.” 85. There is no proof that he was arrested–though it is likely that Joseph Smith was arrested to be brought to the courthouse, as a pre-trial examination likely did take place. But we do not know how he got to the courthouse or even, really, that he did. 86. There is no evidence that the Smith family ran a “treasure hunting business” or that Joseph looked for precious items as early as 1820. Just fanciful allegations by virulent Antimormons. |
| “If the plates and the experiences were real and tangible as 21st century Mormons are led to believe, why would the witnesses make the following kind of statements…?” | See Full Answer: Witnesses Imagined Seeing Gold Plates? 87. CES Letter presents quotes from the Book of Mormon witnesses that supposedly indicates they saw the gold plates in their imagination. The first two quotes are given in first person, but they don’t actually come from any of the witnesses. They are fake quotes fabricated by Antimormon Anthony Metcalf. 88. CES Letter misquotes. According to the quote John Gilbert fabricated, Martin Harris said “No, I saw them with a spir[i]tual eye.” He didn’t say “He only saw the plates with a spiritual eye”. 89. CES Letter repeats several of these quotes and changes their attribution to make them look different. They attribute the quote about an “eye of faith” to Origin and History of the Mormonites (which they repeat) and then repeat a snippet from the quote again in a quote attributed to EMD 2:270 and 3:22. 90. CES Letter snips quotes out of context to make it look like they apply when they don’t. “They were shown to me by a supernatural power” This does not mean they were seen with one’s imagination. If you look at the context of that quote clearly has nothing to do with how they were seen, but the fact that an angel showed the plates to them. 91. CES Letter says, “It made no difference to these people if they saw with their natural eyes or their spiritual eyes as they were one and the same.” Well, apparently it did make a difference to the witnesses, because they made it clear over and over that they saw with their natural eyes. They made it clear over and over again that it was a natural, tangible, physical experience. |
| “While we have ‘testimonies’ from the witnesses recorded in later years through interviews and second eyewitness accounts and affidavits, many of the ‘testimonies’ given by some of the witnesses do not match the claims and wording of the statements in the Book of Mormon…” | See Full Answer: Witnesses Contradicted Their Testimony? 92. CES Letter presents a list of quotes from the Book of Mormon witnesses that supposedly contradict the Book of Mormon witness statement. But the witnesses did not make those statements. They are from modern Antimormon third hand sources. CES Letter falsely attributes the phony quote about the plates being covered with a table cloth to Martin Harris. He didn’t make that statement. 93. This quote about the plates being covered also couldn’t possibly apply to the event of the witnesses seeing the plates with an angel, as it is attributed to the year 1827, well before the Book of Mormon witness statement was written. The witness statement was about a totally different event. |
| “The closest thing we have in existence to an original document of the testimonies of the witnesses is a printer’s manuscript written by Oliver Cowdery. Every witness name except Oliver Cowdery on that document is not signed; they are written in Oliver’s own handwriting.” | See Full Answer: Witnesses Didn’t Sign Testimony? 94. CES Letter says the Book of Mormon testimony was “pre-written by Joseph Smith.” Not only is this false, it contradicts CES Letter‘s other observation that it was “written in Oliver’s own handwriting,” not Joseph Smith’s. 95. CES Letter‘s phony quotes are not “the ‘only’ real testimonies” from the witnesses about the Book of Mormon. CES Letter sets a weird standard where a “real” testimony has to be hand-signed, dated, and location given, but CES Letter‘s own quotes are not even from the witnesses much less signed and dated! |
| “This is what First Counselor of the First Presidency and once close associate Sidney Rigdon had to say about Oliver Cowdery: ‘…a lying, thieving, counterfeiting man who was ‘united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs in the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…” — February 15, 1 841 Letter and Testimony , p. 6-9’” | See Full Answer: Did Joseph Smith Condemn The Witnesses? 96. CES Letter misquotes Sigdney Rigdon. He actually said: “…Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Lyman E. Jonson, united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and backlegs of the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the Saints of their property, by every art and stratagem which wickedness could invent…” He only accused Oliver Cowdery of associating with counterfeiters. Not of being a counterfeiting man. |
| “Freemasonry has zero links to Solomon’s temple. Although more a Church folklore, with origins from comments made by early Mormon Masons such as Heber C. Kimball, than being Church doctrine, it’s a myth that the endowment ceremony has its origins from Solomon’s temple or that Freemasonry passed down parts of the endowment over the centuries from Solomon’s temple. Solomon’s temple was all about animal sacrifice. Freemasonry has its origins to stone tradesmen in medieval Europe – not in 950 BC Jerusalem.” | See Full Answer: Temple Endowment From Free-Masonry? 97. The Freemason rituals contain many references to Solomon’s temple, and many Freemason intensely studied Solomon’s temple. CES Letter‘s claim that “Freemasonry has zero links to Solomon’s temple” is silly. 98. The narrative that “Freemasony passed down parts of the endowment over the century from Solomon’s temple”comes from Freemasons themselves, not Mormons. 99. Solomon’s temple was about a lot more than just animal sacrifice. |
| “If Adam and Eve are the first humans, how do we explain the 14 other Hominin species who lived and died 35,000 – 250,000 years before Adam? When did those guys stop being human?” | See Full Answer: Death Didn’t Exist Before Adam? 100. CES Letter suggests other Hominem species like gorillas were human: “When did those guys stop being human?” Only Homosapiens are human. Other hominin species like gorillas were never human. They were gorillas. |
| “2 Nephi 2:22 and Alma 12:23-24 state there was no death of any kind (humans, all animals, birds, fish, dinosaurs, etc.) on this earth until the “Fall of Adam”…” | 101. The Book of Mormons does not say death did not exist for any creature before Adam and Eve. The verses cited by CES Letter don’t say this. |
| “The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, here the overwhelming evidence is against it, is willful ignorance, not spiritual dedication. ” | 102. In my public school science class, I learned that science explores reoccurring physical phenomena, not that it proves what spiritual truth is, and not that science proves or disproves spiritual ideas. A scientist can’t prove how long Adam lived. Maybe in the Dark Ages scientists thought they could, but modern scientists don’t. |
| “They carried honey bees across the ocean? Swarms of them? All manner of them which was upon the face of the land? (Ether 2:3).” | See Full Answer: Science Discredits Mormon Beliefs? 103. Scripture does not claim that the Jaradites carried bees across the ocean. Ether 2:3 does not say this. |
| “People turning into salt in Sodom & Gomorrah.” | 104. Scripture does not claim that “people” of Sodom and Gomorrah turned into salt. It was one person, and she was not in Sodom and Gomorrah when she was pulverized into powder, but fleeing away from the city. |
| “To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed… death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on.” | See Full Answer: Did God Command People To Kill? 105. The law did not specify the death penalty for mixing different cloth. 106. The Law of Moses did not ban the mixing of cotton and polyester. It is an anachronism to claim the Hebrews had either one of these products. CES Letter incorrectly makes it look like “rebellion” and penalties were defined in arbitrary and petty terms in the time of Moses. 17. This law did not ban the wearing of two different kinds of cloth, but of weaving them (they only had linen and wool at the time) together to mimic priestly robes of the temple. |
| “Number 21:5-9 : God doesn’t like to hear whining and ingratitude so he sends out a bunch of snakes to kill the people.” | 108. Whining and ingratitude is not really what the brazen serpent is about. It was a teaching moment, that the correct path for survival is simple but restrictive. The scriptures say the people murmured “and” the serpents came. Not the serpents came “because” the people murmured. |
| “Dallin H. Oaks made the following disturbing comment in the PBS documentary… ‘It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.’” | See Full Answer: Mormons Believe Criticism Is Wrong Even If True? 109. CES Letter misquotes Dallin H. Oaks by taking a short phrase and passing it off as a complete sentence. This quote was not a whole sentence, but a small part of a sentence which was about the need to provide context when quoting people (ironically enough). To be fair, CES Letter probably just copied what was portrayed by the fake news journalists at PBS. This misquote started with PBS. |
| “Researching ‘Unapproved’ Materials On The Internet” | 110. There is no mention from church leaders of information being “unapproved” or approved. |
| “A few months before the September Six, Boyd K. Packer made the following comment regarding the three “enemies” of the Church…” | See Full Answer: ‘September Six’ Excommunicated? 111. There is no mention of “enemies” in Boyd K. Packer’s talk. |
| ”‘The September Six were six members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped by the Church in September 1993, allegedly for publishing scholarly work on Mormonism or critiquing Church doctrine or leadership.’” | 112. The ‘September Six’ were not excommunicated for critique or asking questions, but for apostasy, which includes persistently preaching false doctrine. CES Letter‘s quote from Wikipedia is totally false. 113. CES Letter alleges that the Strengthening the Church Members Committee is “spying and monitoring” on people. This is a fake conspiracy theory. |
| “I’m interested in your thoughts and answers as I have been unable to find official answers from the Church for most of these issues… Among the first sources I looked to for answers were official Church sources such as Mormon.org and LDS.org. I couldn’t find them.” | See Full Answer: No Official LDS Answers To Questions? 114. The church does give official responses to these issues, and CES Letter even talks about some of these gospel essays, as well as ‘official declarations.’ Antimormons may think these responses are insufficient but they are still official responses. |
| “What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?” | See Full Answer: KJV Bible Errors In Book Of Mormon? 115. The King James Version is a version, not edition, of the bible. |
| DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia. | See Full Answer: DNA Disproves Book Of Mormon? 116. Scientists have found two DNA markers in Native American populations which are shared with Middle Easterners: haplogroups Hg “x” and R. |
| “Archaeology: There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites/Lamanites who numbered in the millions.” | 117. 129 Archaeological Evidences For The Book Of Mormon See Full Answer: Archaeological Evidence For Book Of Mormon? 118. CES Letter uses the present tense “apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model”, as if the theory that the Book of Mormon took place in Central America is currently being developed and hasn’t been around for over a century, which it has. Joseph Smith indicated it could have taken place in Central America. 119. CES Letter is incorrect that the Nephites and Lamanites “numbered in the millions.” The Book of Mormon numbered them fewer. |
| “Unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America)… that the real Hill Cumorah is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere and possibly somewhere down there instead. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.” | See Full Answer: No Evidence Of Hill Cumorah Battle? 120. Apologists do not say Cumorah was not in New York. This is an incorrect portrayal of what most Mormons think. Rather, there could be multiple locations called Cumorah. Other prophets have not contradicted the theory that the Cumorah battle did not take place in New York, apart from a few speculative writings in much later years. 121. Joseph Smith never taught that Cumorah was in New York. He indicated the Nephites could have lived in Central America. |
| “We read about two major war battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Ramah to the Jaredites) that numbered in the deaths of at least 2,000,000 people. No bones, hair, chariots, swords, armor, or any other evidence found whatsoever.” | 122. Why would hair be preserved many thousands of years on the ground and be found? The only thing we could hope to find from an ancient battleground are bones or some kind of weapon. By far, the majority of those killed in these battles were Jaradites, and that happened many thousands of years ago. 123. The Book of Mormon does not mention swords, chariots, or armor existing anywhere near the time of the Cumorah battles. “Chariots” are specifically mentioned as not being used in warfare. So why would those things be expected to be found? 124. This number of killed in battle is incredibly false. The 2 million people mentioned in the Book of Mormon died previous to the battle at Cumorah. Only those left over after the 2 million died fought at Cumorah. Therefore, the number of dead at Cumorah is much less. 125. According to George Albert Smith, he and local farmers found “numerous spear and arrow-heads” at the Hill Cumorah site in New York. In 1901, Susan Young Gates said she saw “baskets filled with arrow heads” plowed up by local farmers. So yes, evidence has been found. |
| “And I’m supposed to believe with a straight face that Joseph using a rock in a hat is legit? Despite this being the exact same method he used to con people out of their money during his treasure hunting days?” | See Full Answer: Seer Stoned Used To Translate Book Of Mormon? 126. Joseph Smith did not use the seer stone to translate. This theory rests on totally unreliable quotes. 127. Even if the unreliable quotes were true, CES Letter can’t back up their claim that he “used the exact same method” to translate as he did to locate “buried treasure,” as the two are totally different activities. 128. The only credible evidence we have of Joseph Smith’s youthful activities indicates that Joseph Smith helped look for a silver mine once. All accusations of “treasure hunting” are likely false. |
| “He also used this same method for translating the Book of Mormon, while the gold plates were covered, placed in another room, or even buried in the woods The gold plates were not used for the Book of Mormon we have today.” | 129. CES Letter says Joseph Smith translated “while the gold plates were covered or put in another room or buried in the woods,” but no claims of the gold plates being covered are credible. These claims rely on phony quotes. 130. Nobody has claimed that Joseph Smith translated the gold plates while they were still buried. Where did this come from? 131. Even if Joseph Smith had used a seer stone to translate the gold plates as CES Letter incorrectly claims, it still would have involved the gold plates. “Second sight” is the ability to see far away things. |
| “These facts are not only confirmed in Rough Stone Rolling (p. 71-72), by FairMormon here and here, by Neal A. Maxwell Institute (FARMS), but also in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Update: The Church’s December 2013 essay admits this.” | 132. CES Letter‘s allegations are not “facts” which are “confirmed” by LDS sources. The church unfortunately gives too much credence to the phony rock and hat narrative, but the church does not call it official history. CES Letter points to these LDS sources yet insist that the church is “not being honest and transparent” about it. 133. The 1992 Elder Nelson talk about the seer stone is not “obscure” as CES Letter claims, but was delivered to hundreds of mission presidents and widely distributed in the church’s official magazines. |
| “The following are respected Egyptian scholars/Egyptologists statements regarding Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham…” | See Full Answer: Egyptologists Debunk Book Of Abraham? 134. CES Letter quotes three people and calls these 1800’s-era academics “respected Egyptian scholars/Egyptologists.” They were Egyptologists, yes, but they were not Egyptian scholars (as in, an Egyptian who is a scholar). They were not Egyptians. 135. CES Letter says they “are” respected scholars rather than they “were” respected scholars. This implies that they are still living, which is false. They lived in the 1800’s. Also, their associations with White Supremacy (all three were racists) don’t exactly make them respected. |
| “The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham.” | See Full Answer: LDS Church Admits Translation False? 136. The papyri fragments were not what Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham, and the church never claimed that they were. CES Letter misrepresents what the church says in their essay. |
| “Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women. Polyandry: Of those 34 women, 11 of them were married women of other living men.” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Married Women Already Married? 137. It is not correct to call this polyandry, as Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with women who were married. The “new and everlasting covenant” of eternal sealing was different than civil marriage and did not involve physical relations, unless it was for both time and eternity. Two different kinds of relationships. 138. CES Letter‘s claim that “The Church admits the polyandry” is false. They claim, “Church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen and unofficial apologists like FairMormon do not dispute the polyandry.” This is false. They could have been sealed for eternity, but did not have physical relations. The church doesn’t claim they did. |
| “Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior.” | See Full Answer: Polygamy Included Teenage Girls? 139. CES Letter incorrectly claims “The Church now admits that Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball.” They never admit this. They say she was “sealed to Joseph,” not married, an important difference of words. Helen said it was “eternity alone” which means it did not involve physical relations and was not comparable to a standard marriage. It was merely a matter of saying words in a ceremony. |
| “Among the women was a mother-daughter set and three sister sets. Several of these women included Joseph’s own foster daughters.” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Married Foster Daughters? 140. CES Letter incorrectly claims the Lawrence sisters, Partridge sisters, Fanny Alger, and Lucy Walker were Joseph Smith’s “foster daughters.” This is a flat-out lie. 141. CES Letter claims these were “young girls.” Some were 17 years old, but Eliza Partridge was 22 years old. By 19th century standards, they were not very young. |
| “If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent.” | See Full Answer: Wife’s Consent Not Required? 142. D&C 132 required that the first wife consent for a man to take a polygamous marriage. Mormon scripture did not allow men to be polygamous without the first wife’s consent, nor did Mormons do this. The only rare exception was if there was a compelling reason for mediation with the church President for the sake of propagation. 143. It is incorrect to use present tense grammar in discussing these polygamy policies as they are defunct and polygamy is now banned. |
| “Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed” | See Full Answer: Desire For Virgin Only Requirement? 144. D&C 132 talks about virgins marrying, but there is nothing that states only virgins may marry or anything about destroying them. |
| “Dishonesty in public sermons, 1835 D&C 101:4, denials by Joseph Smith denying he was a polygamist… Joseph continued secretly marrying multiple women as these revelations/scriptures remained in force.” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Denied Polygamy? 145. Joseph Smith did not deny polygamy in the way he was practicing it. Joseph Smith did not even write D&C 101, and it was published before he ever started eternal sealings. Policies change. 146. CES Letter is incorrect in their allegation that polygamy was kept secret “behind the scenes” until 1852. Mormons were pretty open about it before then. |
| “In an attempt to influence and abate public rumors of his secret polygamy, Joseph got 31 witnesses to sign an affidavit published in the LDS October 1, 1842 Times and Seasons stating that Joseph did not practice polygamy.” | See Full Answer: Mormons Denied Joseph Smith’s Polygamy? 147. Joseph Smith did not get “his buddies” or anyone to sign the affidavit, and the affidavit had nothing to do with him. 148. Polygamy was not a “rule or system” when the affidavit was signed, and they did not lie or perjure. 149. The signers were not “witnesses” of anything. Perhaps CES Letter uses this word “witnesses” to poison the word, to smear the Book of Mormon “witnesses” whom CES Letter attacks later on. 150. CES Letter says Joseph Smith was lying to “the world” about polygamy “over the course of 10+ years.” But Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844 (by Antimormons), and there is no evidence of eternal sealings or polygamy before 1836. That’s only 8 years, if he was lying. |
| “I have a problem with this. This is Warren Jeffs territory. This is not the Joseph Smith I grew up learning about in the Church and having a testimony of. This is not the Joseph Smith that I sang ‘Praise to the Man’ to or taught others about two years in the mission field.” | See Full Answer: Comparable To Warren Jeffs? 151. Joseph Smith did not commit adultery and is nothing like Warren Jeff’s cult. This is an appalling and extremely offensive comparison. |
| “Fanny Alger… Age 16” | See Full Answer: Many Wives Of Joseph Smith Diagram 152. The “Many Wives of Joseph Smith” graphic incorrectly claims Fanny Alger was 16 when she was allegedly sealed to Joseph Smith. She was 19, not 16, if it happened at all. 153. The “Many Wives of Joseph Smith” graphic uses modern sillouettes of child-looking women that are much different than what these 19th century women actually looked like. Some were quite old. |
| “President Brigham Young taught what is now known as ‘Adam-God theory.’ He taught that Adam is ‘our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’” | See Full Answer: Adam-God Theory? 154. Brigham Young did not teach that Adam was God the Father. 155. Mormon leaders did not “renounce” the Adam-God theory as CES Letter claims: “Prophets and apostles after Young renounced Adam-God theory as false doctrine.” Not true. Mormon leaders denounced apostate splinter sects who misinterpreted what Brigham Young had said. 156. CES Letter takes a snippet of quote out of context to misportray Brigham Young’s teachings. The entire context makes it very clear that Adam and God were separate people, and that Brigham Young was talking about God only when he said “the only God with whom we have to do.” 157. CES Letter claims: “I was told that Brigham Young was acting as a man when he taught that Adam is our God.” I’m not sure who told them that, but it isn’t true. Mormons don’t believe Brigham Young taught Adam is our God, as a man or prophet. |
| “…Young taught a doctrine known as “Blood Atonement” where a person’s blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins as it was beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ.” | See Full Answer: Brigham Young Taught Blood-Atonement Killing? 158. The Blood-atonement doctrine, that “a person’s blood had to be shed to atone for their own sins as it was beyond the atonement of Jesus Christ” was never doctrine. Brigham Young was speaking of a rebellious behavior which results in natural consequences, and the denial of the Holy Ghost which is not helped by retributions–two totally separate things. CES Letter is mixing two separate issues. 159. CES Letter incorrectly claims Brigham Young’s doctrine “was later declared false by future prophets and apostles.” 160. CES Letter claims: “The Church now confirms in its May 2014 essay that Blood Atonement was taught by the prophet Brigham Young.” But the only thing the church confirms in that essay is: “leaders taught that some sins were so serious that the perpetrator’s blood would have to be shed in order to receive forgiveness.” This is different than how CES Letter characterizes what was taught. |
| “I’m told that prophets are just men who are only prophets when acting as such (whatever that means)… Never mind that Brigham Young made it clear that he was speaking as a prophet…” | See Full Answer: Speaking As Man Or Prophet? 161. Brigham Young made it clear when he was speaking as a prophet, statesman, or if he was just “reckoning” his personal opinion. |
| “This is the best God can come up with in revealing His truth to His children? Only .2% of the world’s population are members of God’s true Church. This is God’s model and standard of efficiency?” | See Full Answer: God Reveals Truth Through Feelings? 162. God’s method of revealing truth is not through feelings. Mormons do not believe truth comes from feelings. |
| “Joseph Smith received a revelation, through the peep stone in his hat, to send Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery to Toronto, Canada for the sole purpose of selling the copyright of the Book of Mormon…” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Failed To Sell BoM Copyright? 163. CES Letter snippets out the part of David Whitmer’s quote that proves he was lying, they were never promised success in selling the copyright. We have the original written revelation as proof. 164. David Whitmer did not say Joseph Smith got a revelation through a “peep” stone. He simply said “stone,” which could refer to the Urim and Thummim. There is no credible evidence that Joseph Smith used a “peep stone” to receive revelations or translate anything. 165. David Whitmer didn’t make his allegations in a “testimony” but in a book that he wrote after he went apostate and was trying to smear Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet. CES Letter uses this word testimony to equate the allegations with a typical Mormon’s knowledge of the gospel, which is faulty logic. |
| “In other words, repeat things over and over until you convince yourself that it’s true. Just keep telling yourself, ‘I know it’s true… I know it’s true… I know it’s true’ until you believe it and voila! You now have a testimony that the church is true and Joseph Smith was a prophet.” | See Full Answer: Mormons Bear Testimony Before Having One? 166. CES Letter incorrectly portrays testimonies as statements of what you “know is true.” But a testimony can be only what you believe or hope for. Who is CES Letter to tell me what my testimony has to be? |
| “I felt the Spirit watching ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and the ‘Schindler’s List.’ Both R-rated and horribly violent movies… Does this mean that Lion King is true? That Mufasa is real and true?” | See Full Answer: Feeling The Spirit From R-Rated Movies? 167. Mormons never claimed there was no truth in R-rated movies or anything that can teach good principles. What matters is how the content is portrayed and the message it gives. |
| “Like the First Vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith’s family had ever heard prior to 1834 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834.” | See Full Answer: Priesthood Restoration Not Mentioned Until 1834? 168. The priesthood restoration was widely talked about and written about in publications inside and outside the church prior to 1835, as well as the First Vision. The premise of this argument is flat-out false. It is debunked by many quotes in Church history, scripture, newspapers, and witness acounts. 169. CES Letter says: “Were the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist recorded in the Church prior to 1833, it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments.” No, lots of material was recorded in the Church but not mentioned in the Book of Commandments. The Book of Commandments was a very short book compared to the D&C and was destroyed by the Antimormon mob before it could finally be completed. |
| “He was a very popular speaker who told powerful faith-promoting war and baseball stories. Many times Dunn shared these stories in the presence of the prophet, apostles, and seventies.” | See Full Answer: Paul H. Dunn Made Up Stories? 170. CES Letter says Dunn was “caught lying about all his war and baseball stories.” But not all of his stories were exaggerated. (Later CES Letter edition removes “all”) 171. I have not found any evidence that Dunn told the stories in front of prophets, apostles, and seventies. 172. I have not found evidence that “Members of the Church shared how they strongly felt the Spirit as they listened to Dunn’s testimony and stories.” 173. CES Letter incorrectly claims Dunn was “forced” to apologize. Nobody forced him. 174. CES Letter incorrectly claims Dunn was “removed” from public life. |
| “There are many members who share their testimonies that the Spirit told them that they were to marry this person or go to this school or move to this location or startup this business in this investment. They rely on the Spirit in making critical life decisions.” | See Full Answer: Can Holy Ghost Lead To Failure? 175. Mormons do not rely on the Holy Ghost in making critical life decisions. We certainly ask for help but we also accept responsibility for ourselves. |
| “This poses a profound flaw and dilemma: if individuals can be so convinced that they’re being led by the Spirit of God but yet be so wrong about what the Spirit tells them, how can they be sure of the reliability of this exact same process in telling them Mormonism is true?” | 176. Who said inspiration about whether Mormonism is true is the exact same process as help about school or business? Those are very different issues and handled by the Spirit of God in very different ways. We don’t expect to get the exact same result for a totally different circumstance. 177. Skeptics say the Holy Ghost is something we go to for blessings with anything we need, like help with a business or financial investment. But Mormons do not believe the Holy Ghost is some kind of magic oracle. Mormons go to the Spirit of God for support and help, not for free handouts. The responsibility for our merit in life is always on us. |
| “Martin Harris was anything but a skeptical witness. He was known by many of his peers as an unstable, gullible, and superstitious man.” | See Full Answer: Was Martin Harris Reliable Witness? 178. Martin Harris displayed plenty of skepticism. According to one story, he secretly replaced the seer stone with a similar stone to see if it would work. Martin Harris took a copy of some characters from the gold plates to a professor in New York named Charles Anthon to see if they were authentic, who verified they were “true characters.” He also took them to an expert named Dr. Mitchell. Martin Harris repeatedly insisted that Joseph Smith give him the Book of Mormon translation to show his wife and prove the legitimacy of his work. 179. The detractors who besmirched the character of Martin Harris were not his “peers,” but competing religious leaders. 180. Martin Harris made it clear that he saw and felt the gold plates, in a very literal sense. 181. CES Letter says Martin Harris joined the Shakers, but this is impossible because the Shakers advocated celibacy. Martin Harris definitely was not celibate. 182. CES Letter‘s claim that Martin Harris joined five religions before Mormonism is completely false, and references a phony Wikipedia article. |
| “If David Whitmer is a credible witness, why are we only using his testimony of the Book of Mormon while ignoring his other testimony claiming that God Himself spoke to Whitmer “by his own voice from the heavens” in June 1838, commanding Whitmer to apostatize from the Lord’s one and only true Church?” | See Full Answer: Was David Whitmer Reliable Witness? 183. God did not command David Whitmer to apostatize. God was only telling David Whitmer to remove from the Saints after having already apostatized and having been excommunicated. 184. CES Letter say “David claimed in early June 1829 before their group declaration” that he saw a Nephite under the shed in 1829, but this story doesn’t show up until 60 years later. |
| “Also, Oliver Cowdery was not an objective and independent witness. As scribe for the Book of Mormon, co-founder of the Church, and cousin to Joseph Smith, a conflict of interest existed in Oliver being a witness.” | See Full Answer: Was Oliver Cowdery Reliable Witness? 185. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were not cousins, but very distant relations. 186. Oliver Cowdery was not co-founder of the Mormon church. Co-founders don’t tend to leave the church they started. |
| “Every single living Book of Mormon witness besides Oliver Cowdery accepted Strang’s prophetic claim of being Joseph’s true successor and joined him and his church. Additionally, every single member of Joseph Smith’s family except for Hyrum’s widow also endorsed, joined, and sustained James Strang as ‘Prophet, Seer, and Revelator.’” | See Full Answer: Mormon Followed James Strang? 187. James Strang’s witnesses did deny their testimony. This may be according to second-hand accounts but CES Letter ought to consider this “direct evidence” considering CES Letter relies on flimsy anonymous third-hand accounts in other arguments against Mormons. 188. CES Letter fails to back up their claim “every single living Book of Mormon witness” accepted Strang. I can only find evidence for a couple of the 11 witnesses possibly showing interest in Strang, and the interest was shallow and brief. |
| “Why did the Church remove the blood oath penalties and the 5 Points of Fellowship at the veil from the endowment ceremony in 1990? Both 100% Masonic rituals? What does this say about the Temple and the endowment ceremony if 100% pagan Masonic rituals were in it from its inception? What does it say about the Church if it removed something that Joseph Smith said he restored and which would never again be taken away from the earth?” | See Full Answer: Temple Endowment Parts Removed? 189. Parts of the endowment were not totally removed but just slightly altered. 190. The temple endowment and associative Masonic rituals are not Pagan. The Pagans may have created rituals based on them, but that does not make them it the same thing. 191. The Mormon temple ordinances and associative Masonic ceremonies did not originate from medieval Masons. Masonic literature indicates the Masonic ceremonies were derived based on the temple in Jerusalem. 192. These two parts of the LDS endowment presentation are not “100%” the same as Masonic rituals. There are huge differences. 193. Joseph Smith never said the exact same temple ceremonies of ancient times were restored or that they would never be taken away. Where do skeptics get the idea that wording and details of the endowment are not allowed to change? Nobody ever said we have the exact same ceremony Solomon had. |
| “Is God really going to require people to know secret tokens, handshakes, and signs to get into the Celestial Kingdom? If so, Masons, former Mormons, anti-Mormons, unworthy Mormons as well as non-Mormons who’ve seen the endowment on YouTube or read about the signs/handshakes/tokens online should pass through the pearly gates with flying colors.” | See Full Answer: Exaltation Depends On Temple Ceremonies? 194. Knowing signs and tokens from a Youtube video doesn’t mean anything, just as swimming in water is not a baptism. 195. CES Letter misrepresents the function of LDS temple ordinances and what they mean. The point is not to get secret knowledge that gives you a free pass to heaven. |
| “Am I expected to believe in a god who would wipe out the entire planet like that? Kill millions of women and innocent children for the actions of others?” | See Full Answer: How Noah Fit Animals Into Ark? 196. CES Letter incorrectly characterizes the population that died in Noah’s flood as women and children who died because of the sins of others. 197. CES Letter incorrectly assumes there “would not have been nearly enough herbivores to sustain the carnivores” in the ark. That would only be true if there were an equal number of herbivores as carnivores, and there wasn’t. 198. CES Letter incorrectly characterizes the “literal” story of Noah from the bible as two or seven of every “creature.” The Genesis story says two “of every sort,” not of every species. 199. CES Letter incorrectly characterizes “millions” perishing in the flood. If you take the timeline and genealogy line literally as described in Genesis, there is no way mankind could reproduce that quickly to have been in the millions. |
| “Science has proven that there was no worldwide flood 4,500 years ago.” | See Full Answer: Science Discredits Mormon Beliefs? 200. The LDS understanding of Noah’s ark is different than mainstream Christianity, and CES Letter seems to mingle the two. CES Letter seems to copy the typical atheist talking points against mainstream Christianity and assume they apply to Mormons. The scriptures don’t necessarily say the flood covered the entire globe at one single time. |
| “Other events/claims that science has discredited: Tower of Babel” | 201. Science has proven that nobody in ancient times built a big tower? People’s languages didn’t change and they didn’t immigrate to different places around the world? CES Letter does not indicate how science could have possibly discredited the Mormon narrative about the Tower of Babel. |
| “They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some alive, he angrily says: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So they went back and did as Moses – the Lord’s prophet – commanded, killing everyone except for the virgins.” | See Full Answer: Moses Killed Midianite Women & Children? 202. CES Letter misquotes Numbers 31 to cover up the reason for the conflict. That is not what Moses said. And it is not correct to use present tense. |
| “The Lord commands Nephi to murder (decapitate) Laban for the brass plates. Never mind that Laban was drunk and defenseless… This story has been used as a defense in killings by religious people.” | See Full Answer: Nephi Killed Defenseless Laban? 203. I find zero evidence that Ron Lafferty was at all inspired by Mormons or Nephi’s experience, in his murder of a woman and child over thirty years ago. Lafferty was not a Mormon, and Mormons believe in obeying the law. 204. The Lord did not command Nephi to kill Laban only for the brass plates, but also for the sake of self-defense, the survival of Nephi’s new civilization, and because it was legally justified. |
| “Along with the above First Presidency statement, there are many other statements and explanations made by prophets and apostles clearly ‘justifying’ the Church’s racism.” | See Full Answer: Church Justified Racial Ban? 205. The priesthood policy was not “doctrine and revelation.” It was only temporary policy. Policy is temporary and doctrine is eternal. 206. CES Letter quotes statements from church leadersthat describe gospel concepts and describe the priesthood policy, but these statements do not talk about the origin of the ban. |
| “Further, they effectively throw 10 latter-day ‘Prophets, Seers, and Revelators’ under the bus as they ‘disavow’ the ‘theories’ that these ten men taught and justified…” | 207. The church never disavowed the origin of the priesthood policy. They disavowed apostate theories about the policy. The church has disavowed some theories, but those were never doctrine. |
| “She was married for 7.5 months and was about 6 months pregnant with her first husband, Henry Jacobs, when she married Joseph after being told Joseph’s life was in danger from an angel with a drawn sword.” | See Full Answer: Zina Jacobs Married While Already Married? 208. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not commit polyandry with Zina Young. She was split from Henry when she married Brigham Young and the sealing with Joseph Smith did not involve physical relations, as eternal sealing is a completely different thing than civil marriage. 209. Brigham Young did not tell “Henry that Zina was now only his (Brigham) wife.” |
| “Not only is the manual deceptive in disclosing whether or not Brigham Young was a polygamist but it’s deceptive in hiding Brigham Young’s real teaching on marriage: ‘The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.’ – Journal of Discourses 1 1 :269” | See Full Answer: A Teaching Manual Removes Polygamy Reference? 210. Brigham Young made clear polygamy applied to only those times. And there is no reason why this particular teaching manual should talk about polygamy, as it is a defunct policy and the manual is not about history. |
| “Why is the one and only true Church keeping its books in the dark… The Church used to be transparent with its finances but ceased disclosures in 1959.” | See Full Answer: Church Transparent With Finances? 211. There is the audit report every General Conference. There are yearly tithing reports individually. There are leaked financial documents. Finally, there is full transparency to the government IRS, as required of non-profit organizations. 212. The church did not stop being “transparent with its finances” in 1959, but gives full transparency to governments as required by law. |
| “Total Church humanitarian aid from 1985-2011: $1.4 billion Something is fundamentally wrong with “the one true Church” spending more on an estimated $1 .5 billion dollar high-end megamall than it has in 26 years of humanitarian aid.” | See Full Answer: Church Paid For City Creek Mall? 213. The $1.4 billion sum of humanitarian aid by the LDS church falls short because it does not include in kind contributions. 214. It is ridiculous to consider this shopping center a “luxury megamall.” It’s just a shopping center like any other. 215. CES Letter seems to imply with their wording that tithing went to fund the mall project: “God really place parents in the horrible position of having to choose whether to feed their children or pay what little they have to a multi-billion megamall owning Church.” Tithing did not fund the City Creek mall. |
| “President Hinckley made the following dishonest statement… ‘that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world.'” | See Full Answer: Tithing Info Belongs To Tithe Payers? 216. President Gordon B. Hinckley said Mormons don’t publish a budget because the benefits of tithing belong to tithe payers of the church and not “the people” of the country or world. How is that dishonest? If the church published the budget, obviously it would become public to everybody and not just people in the church. |
| “After deciding ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ on April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith made the decision on May 3, 1834 to change the name of the Church to ‘The Church of the Latter Day Saints’.” | See Full Answer: Church Name Changed? 217. “Church of Christ” was never the church’s official name. The April 6, 1830 revelation reads: “The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days…” Where does it say the name is to be “Church of Christ”? It doesn’t. It simply says that the church is Christ’s, which is true. The name “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” was used from the beginning. 218. Joseph Smith did not make the decision to make the name “Church of the Latter Day Saints.” Signey Rigdon proposed it and it was voted on by the conference. |
| “Is it reasonable to assume that God would instruct His Church leaders to entirely leave out the name of Jesus Christ?” | 219. There is no evidence that direct revelation was involved in this meeting or church resolution. Meeting minutes prove they were simply trying to figure out how to “style” the church’s name, which the April 1830 record proves was already established fully as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” 220. CES Letter uses a photo of Kirtland Temple with the phrase “Church of the Latter Day Saints” in it. But this sign is a creation by the RLDS splinter-sect (they claim it is based on how it originally looked, but that can’t be verified). |
| “What’s interesting about Packer’s above quote is that he’s focusing on history from the point of view that a historian is only interested in the ‘weaknesses and frailties of present and past leaders.’” | See Full Answer: Ignore History Not Faith-Promoting? 221. No, Packer never said historians are only interested in negatives. Boyd K. Packer said he was referring to “that historian or scholar” who is only interested in “debunking.” He didn’t say he was referring to all historians. |
| “Elder Neil L. Anderson made the following statement… targeting the medium of the internet in a bizarre attempt to discredit the internet as a reliable source for getting factual information… With all this talk from General Authorities against the scary internet and daring to be balanced by looking at what both defenders and critics are saying about the Church, it is as if questioning and researching and doubting is now the new pornography.” | See Full Answer: Suppress Information From Internet? 222. LDS leaders did not say to avoid the internet, but to watch out for lies and fake news on the internet. 223. Mormons never said we shouldn’t get both sides of every argument. |
| “As a believing members, I was deeply offended by the accusation that the Church was a cult. ‘How can it be a cult when we’re good people who are following Christ, focusing on family, and doing good works in and out of a church that bears His name? When we’re 15 million members?'” | See Full Answer: When Prophet Speaks Debate Is Over? 224. Being good followers, doing good works, and having a large population of 15 million are nice. But no, this is not why Mormons think we are not a cult. |
| “Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder. NWAF was financed by the Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950s and 1960s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon.” | See Full Answer: LDS Archaeologist Found No Evidence? 225. Thomas Stuart Ferguson helped found the NWAF as fundraiser, yes, but it only became a subset in BYU’s anthropology and archaeology division, and he was quickly replaced when BYU acquired it, because he was not a professional or educated archaeologist. 226. Ferguson was not tasked by BYU or the church to find anything. And I do not find anything that reveals how long he spent “digging,” or what digs he participated in at all. |
| “Chaldeans? Egyptus? Pharaoh? braham refers to the facsimiles in 1:12 and 1:14. These facsimiles did not exist in Abraham’s time as they are 1st century CE pagan Egyptian funerary documents.” | See Full Answer: Anachronisms In Book Of Abraham? 227. These names as used in the Book of Abraham are not anachronisms. For example, Chaldea, in Hebrew ‘Kadsim’, is from a Babylonian word that likely existed in Abraham’s time. 228. The portrayals in the facsimiles existed long before the 1st century A.D. |
| “Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview… Is ‘I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God’ really the best answer that a ‘prophet, seer, and revelator’ can come up with to such a profound problem that is driving many members out of the Church?” | See Full Answer: Jeffrey R. Holland Didn’t Know How Translated? 229. The LDS church has never said anything to lead us to believe that apostles should know the process of translating Egyptian. Different gifts of the Spirit are given to different people for different reasons. 230. BBC News and CES LetterCES Letter’s transcription take Elder Holland’s comments totally out of context, clip out much of his explanation, and falsely implies that he provided no further explanation. The full question isn’t there so we don’t know what he was “directly asked” about. |
| “This event initiated a chain of events that ultimately led to his death at the Carthage jail.” | See Full Answer: Joseph Smith Destroyed Printing Press? 231. CES Letter says “Joseph’s destruction” of the newspaper “started the chain of events that led to Joseph’s death.” This is not really fair to say. Yes, the Antimormon mobs were angry that their incendiary newspaper was shut down, and it’s true that the Antimormons murdered Joseph Smith soon after, but Joseph Smith’s actions did not start this chain of events. William Law started the chain of events when he started printing libel and violent threats in that newspaper, when he advocated for the genocide of Mormons. 232. CES Letter says the Nauvoo Expositor “dared expose his behavior.” Does this imply CES Letter thinks the newspaper’s allegations about Joseph Smith were true? That Joseph Smith was guilty of murder? The newspaper’s claim that Missouri’s genocide was legally and morally justified was true? Evidence please. |
| “Heavenly Father likes blacks enough to give them the priesthood under Joseph Smith but He decides they’re not okay when Brigham Young shows up. And He still doesn’t think they’re okay for the next 130 years and the next 9 prophets until President Kimball decides to get a revelation.” | See Full Answer: Priesthood Ban From Racist Theories? 233. CES Letter incorrectly claims “black individuals and families were blocked from the saving ordinances of the Temple.” They were just delayed, along with many people who for one reason or another don’t get a chance in this lifetime to go through the temple. This is why we have vicarious ordinances. 234. CES Letter incorrectly suggests the priesthood ban was revoked because of “Jimmy Carter’s IRS potentially revoking the Church’s and BYU’s tax-exempt status.” The church was not in danger from the IRS because of the ban. |
| “In the early to mid-1980s, the Church shelled out close to $900,000 in antiquities and cash to Mark Hofmann – a conman and soon-to-be serial killer – to purchase and suppress bizarre and embarrassing documents into the Church vaults that undermined and threatened the Church’s story of its origins.” | See Full Answer: Mark Hofmann Revealed Dishonesty In Church? 235. CES Letter claims the church “shelled” out “cash to Mark Hofmann,” but I find no evidence that the church or church members paid him in cash for anything. Also, the use of the word “shell” insinuates that the cost was excessive, which I also don’t find any evidence of. 236. CES Letter claims there were “speeches by Dallin H. Oaks and Gordon B. Hinckley offering apologetic explanations for troubling documents,” but I find no evidence of this. Elder Oaks’ speech was not apologetic. CES Letter claims, “Oaks evidently thought” the Salamandar letter “was real and legitimate at the time.” If you read the entire speech, that is clearly false. He only said we should be open to the possibility until the experts could determine authenticity or debunk. 237. Elder Oaks says in the speech which CES Letter references (they snippet out this part): “We recognize that our forebears were human. They doubtless made mistakes” The priesthood does not give people the power to read minds and tell if a piece of paper is a forgery. Mormons never claimed this ability. |