The Book of Mormon and Rev. 22:18

I sometimes hear it said, or see it written, that The Book of Mormon must be false because it is an addition to the Bible, and God has commanded us not to add to, or subtract from, the Bible. The Book of Mormon is an addition, therefore it must be false.

One of the main justifications for this claim is Revelation 22:18-19, which reads,

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

John says that we are not to add to, or take away from, 'the book of this prophesy", or God will send plagues our way and remove us from the Book of Life.

But what does he refer to when he says, "the book of this prophesy?" It is commonly assumed that he refers to the Bible. The argument even depends on that assumption, but what is the Book of this Prophesy?

It is unlikely that it refers to the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist at that point. It is generally accepted that The Book of Revelation was written in about 95 AD. The Bible didn't exist until around the 4th century AD.When John speaks of "the book of this prophesy," he could not have been referring to The Bible. It didn't exist yet.

The only book in existence at the time of his writing, which contained "this prophesy" was the book he was writing, The Revelation.

This interpretation is further supported by the fact that this injunction against adding to the word of God had been given before. An often quoted instance is Deut. 12:32

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

If it were true that this referred to all of God's word, rather than the specific book or section in which it is found, then every sacred writing after this point would then be false. In attempting to disprove Mormonism, the argument effectively disproves Christianity and most of Judaism.


This command is also repeated in Proverbs 30:6, but if the injunction in Deuteronomy referred to the collected works up to that point, then this command, as well as the instance in Revelation, is also invalid because it an addition to scripture.


In addition, even the Bible seems to disagree with this interpretation. Among other things, Revelation describes to individuals in the Last Days who are specifically referred to as extra-biblical "prophets". Revelation 11:10 says,

"And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth."

If we apply the interpretation that revelation is finished, then we now have the Bible testifying of future prophets who will somehow prophesy without receiving the word of God. Prophets who don't prophesy.


The history of these churches also testifies that this interpretation is wrong. Early church fathers added to, and subtracted from, canon all the time. There is literally not a church in existence today which has not done it. Even the formation of the original Bible would have been a violation.

Scripture was added to collections previously recognized as the word of God countless times during the development of the Old Testament, and during the development of the New Testament. Church leaders and founders took existing, recognized canon and added whole books, or took books away. Clearly they did not interpret this as it is read today.

Critics of the Book of Mormon also sometimes say that the argument that the command refers to a specific book, or section of a book, rather than the Bible as a whole, still discredits Joseph Smith because his Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible did just that.

However, that reasoning clearly doesn't hold water because countless "true" Christians have come out with their own translations of the Bible, each of which has numerous alterations to the text, and yet none of these fall under this criticism.

The Book of Mormon cannot be criticized on the grounds of violating the warning in Rev. 22:18. If this criticism were valid, then most of the Bible would then be invalidated. In addition, the Bible clearly speaks of prophets other than those in the Bible, thus revelation must continue after Bible times, otherwise, the Bible is invalidated. Finally, numerous church fathers in history have added or omitted entire books from canon and modern Christians routinely make alterations without criticism.

(Gay) Mormon Guy: My Experience Being a Faithful Mormon

Guest Post from "Mormon Guy"

There are plenty of people who feel the words "gay" and "Mormon" are about as opposite as it gets. From the public view, it seems they stand opposite each other at political events, on moral issues, and even in the working definitions of social psychology. Popular culture propagates the notion that Mormons (insert epithet here - hate, abuse, vilify, torture, brainwash, deprive, etc) gays and points to Mormon doctrines about traditional families as proof of bigotry and hatred. That isn't my experience. I'm a single guy who's attracted to guys, who has lived in Mormon and non-Mormon communities around the world. And being Mormon is the best thing that ever happened to me... my experience in coming closer to God, loving myself for who I really am, and learning to have faith and hope and happiness in life together make my message a bit different from the one you hear in the media. If you want a better relationship with God and perspective on the purpose of life, try being Mormon. It's the best place for anyone - straight or gay - to find peace and happiness in life.

I grew up in a stalwart LDS family, complete with parents who served as leaders and taught me the gospel in our home. We had family prayer, weekly family home evening, and woke up to study the scriptures before school. It was never a question of if we would attend Church. We always did, along with every activity and fireside and service project.

My parents never talked about same-sex attraction when I was younger. Neither did any of my leaders or teachers. But, then again, there were lots of things they never really talked about. They talked about what applied in my life as a kid, and what applied to others. Dating issues. Morality. Honesty. Kindness. Forgiveness. Patience. Love. If I ever asked a question, they answered it, or helped me find the answer on my own - and I fell in love with the logic and simplicity of the doctrines of the Church.

One double-edged sword of LDS society is the expectation of goodness in others. You go to Church and honesty give people the benefit of the doubt - treating them as if they had no major problems and lauding them for their faith. It was double-edged for me because I couldn't imagine ever disappointing those around me... which meant that in the moments when I did, I couldn't share it with anyone.

The realization after my mission that I lived with same-sex attraction (or ssa or sga or gay or whatever you want to call it) was one of those moments. Marriage and family are huge in LDS culture, and perhaps even more important in my own family. The only thing I had ever heard (I have no idea where - not from my parents or from Church. It was probably some type of media...) was that being gay was a choice. Only one problem - I definitely had not chosen to be attracted to guys.

I looked back on my life and wondered if maybe I had been cursed because of past sins. I had a pornography addiction when I was young, struggled with pride in high school, and was sexually abused in my teenage years (and the abuse still felt like it was my fault - anyone who has been abused understands that dilemma). So I threw myself into the gospel and tried to repent of my sins to be freed from the curse.

And nothing happened. I grew closer to God, more able to make better decisions, and better at resisting temptation, but the attractions didn't go away with prayer, fasting, study, temple attendance, service, or blessings. I wondered if there was something fundamentally wrong with me. Maybe I was simply doomed to damnation because I wasn't cut out for faith... and this was just the proof of that. Maybe I hadn't tried hard enough. The one thought that did not cross my mind was, "Maybe it isn't true." I had enough experiences with the Spirit and with God Himself that I could never deny the truth of the LDS Church and all - ALL - of its teachings. So, if I was cursed, as the scriptures say, "men bring all curses upon themselves." So I must be the one at fault.

Except that I hadn't been cursed. The flaw wasn't in my nature or in the teachings of the Church. It was in my understanding of them.

I'm not sure when it was that I realized that I could be faithful no matter what. It was probably at the depths of my frustration, when I finally gave up everything to the Lord and committed to Him that I would keep His commandments even if I never made it. Somewhere, deep inside me, I realized that keeping the commandments was all that I needed to do... and that I hadn't been cursed at all. I had just been dealt a different hand in life... just like everyone else, and making it back to God involved playing the hand right... not having the right cards to play.

Sometime afterward, I learned that in the LDS Church, there is a doctrine that matches the revelation I got from God. There is a major distinction with regards to homosexuality that is often not made outside - that of action. In the words of Church leaders, there is no sin in the attraction part of same-sex attraction. The sin only comes if you act on that attraction. In that regard, all members are the same. If you keep the commandments, you can serve a mission, receive temple ordinances, hold leadership callings, and be a member in full fellowship (all of which have happened in my life). If you make a mistake, then you can repent - and the repentance process is the same whether you're attracted to guys or girls.

My folly was in believing the dichotomy that presents itself. Either 1) Homosexuality is a choice and a sin, should be avoided at all costs, and if you are righteous enough you will be freed from all sin, or 2) Homosexuality is inborn and immutable, and hence either I am a permanent sinner or will never get married or have a family. The reality is that sexuality is neither fully a choice nor fully immutable. It slides along a scale dependent on genetics, nurture, choice, environment, and as many other factors as you can imagine. And same-sex attraction isn't a sin.

That realization freed me. God loved me. He hadn't cursed me. And I had just as much of a chance to make it back to Him as anyone else if I kept the commandments.

The one thing I didn't do is believe that my attractions automatically meant I needed to follow them. God may not have made mistakes when He created the bodies of Adam and Eve, but He didn't create the part of me that is ultimately me. And, as part of my life, He gave me plenty of imperfections to work on to bring me back to Him. Being attracted to alcohol doesn't mean I should morally drink. Neither does being attracted to multiple women mean I should seduce each of them. In my case, being attracted to guys is just a characteristic I have. My actions don't directly follow unless I choose them.

Understanding how same-sex attraction fit in took much, much longer than I ever imagined, and applying the gospel has taken much more work than I thought it would. It's not enough to be faithful just while on a mission, or to graduate from BYU or Seminary, or even to serve as Elder's Quorum president. There aren't as many resources as I wish there were, few Conference talks and fewer references in Church manuals like For the Strength of Youth.

Ultimately, If God and teachings of His Church aren't bringing you happiness, then either you have a flawed understanding of His teachings (which was my case), you're doing something wrong (sin), or you just need to right the chemicals in your brain (also a very real issue). It's not an issue with God or His Church.

Today I'm an active, faithful member of the Church in every way. I love the support it gives, and have had only positive experiences (well, except for one) with leaders in private discussions on same-sex attraction. Everything applies to me, even though I wonder about the talks that focus so heavily on dating. As far as my long-term plans? I don't know what's going to happen. As long as I'm doing what is right, the Lord will take care of me. Maybe I'll fall in love with a girl (that'll take a miracle), get married, and raise a family. Maybe I'll be single for the rest of my life and able to bless tons of other people's lives. But the key is finding happiness and peace today - not worrying about the future. And I've found that embracing my circumstances in life, matched with living the gospel (as soon as I actually understood it and how it applied in my life) has done that and more.


"Mormon Guy" is the author of (Gay) Mormon Guy. An amazing and insightful blog sharing a perspective that is often overlooked and a voice that is rarely heard. Mormons and Non-Mormons alike could learn quite a bit from this individual.

Stone Age Europeans Discovered America

Here is an interesting article saying that new discoveries indicate that the first settlers of the Americas were not Siberian-originating ancestors of today's Native Americans. New finds, such as arrowheads and other tools show that some Europeans made it here about 10,000 years before those who crossed over the Bering Strait.

"A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland, discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.

The new discoveries are among the most important archaeological breakthroughs for several decades - and are set to add substantially to our understanding of humanity's spread around the globe."

READ MORE

This doesn't directly support anything taught by the LDS church, but at the very least, I hope we can realize that we do not have a full grasp of the history of the American continent, and I hope we can be a little more open-minded towards some LDS claims.

LDS Church Responds to HRC Petition

Here's an interesting video I stumbled across from a few years ago when Prop. 8 was at it's height. Elder Packer, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles made some comments in a General Conference that upset some people, so the HRC issued a petition asking him to take back what he said.

10 Ways to Tell if You're in a Cult or a Conga Line

Here is an interesting infographic from Cracked.com letting the reader know how the difference between a conga line and a religious cult. The picture is obviously meant to be funny, and it is, but I like it because it really illustrates the fact that if you really tried, you could make anything sound like a religious cult.

View graphic HERE!!!

IAmA Former Mormon Missionary. AMA

So Reddit.com has a subsection called IAmA where people post threads stating something unusual about themselves and invite readers to "Ask Me Anything" (AMA). There are some interesting threads by a girl who survived a school shooting, a Daily Show intern, the saxophonist from the Saturday Night Live band, and others.

I posted a thread called IAmA Former Mormon Missionary AMA, not really expecting much to come of it. Much to my surprise, it got over 300 comments. I spent about 9 hours answering questions. Even more to my surprise, the vast majority of questions were civil, polite, and respectful. There was lots of good discussion on a lot of topics that don't often see the light of day.

Check it out at the link above and feel free to leave a question!

Omniscience and Learning by Ryan Stringer

Ryan Stringer, at Infidels.org., wrote and article called Omniscience and Learning. The article's main argument was that if God is omniscient (all-knowing), then it seems that he would have to know what it is like to learn. However, in order to know what it is like to learn, one must have learned something, which involves moving from a state of not-knowing to a state of knowing.

This entails that at one time we were in a state of not-knowing a thing that was learned, then experienced what it is like to learn. But if God is essentially omniscient, he always is and has been omniscient, so was never in a state of not-knowing. Because being in a state of not-knowing is necessary to know what it is like to learn, we would seem to have to say that God does not know what it is like to learn.

But this contradicts the original claim that he does know this based on his omniscience. Thus, it seems that God's omniscience generates a contradiction. Consequently an omniscient God cannot exist.

In response, I offer the following:

"As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." - Lorenzo Snow

But Stringer predicted a defense much like this. He says,

"...a critic could reject committing to God's essential omniscience—the notion that, as an essential property, omniscience necessarily (and thus always) belongs to God. This imagined critic might think that at one time God was almost omniscient, and shortly thereafter acquired his last two pieces of knowledge—X, and what it is like to learn. However, this strange position has no obvious candidate for X, and in any case does not seem to be a real threat to the argument because P1[An essentially omniscient being, God, exists.] is a necessary truth by stipulation of the traditional conception of God as essentially omniscient."

In other words, it's possible to resolve this issue by admitting that there was a time when God "learned" something, but that would require the rejection of the traditional conception of God.

I'm OK with that.

Church Volunteerism

I recently posted an infographic representing the results of a recent study on LDS church members which gave some statistics about their lifestyle, including volunteer work. One reader wondered how much of those numbers were part of regular church activities, such as Home Teaching and Visiting Teaching. At the time, I could only guess, but last night I stumbled on this article, also by Mormonnewsroom.org, on Church Volunteerism.

Also, it just happens to have another infographic!

Rev. O'Neil Dozier's Request that Romney Renounces Racist Mormon Religion

Rev. O'Neil Dozier

Rev. O'Neil Dozier is the senior pastor for The Worldwide Christian Center Church on Pompano Beach, Florida. He released a statement over the weekend demanding that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney renounces his "racist Mormon religion."

"The purpose of this request is to foster and maintain good race relations here in America," the press release says. "The Mormon religion is prejudiced against Blacks, Jews and the Native American Indians. These allegations are substantiated and validated by the writings of the former Prophets and Seers of the Mormon Church."

In other words, Dozier believes that the LDS church should be renounced because it's past leadership has held controversial views regarding race.

But if this is the case, shouldn't Rev. Dozier renounces his own religion, as well? After all, both the Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham are incidents of the Biblical "Prophets and Seers" promoting racist values. Some may argue that these verses of scripture are subject to interpretation, and that they did not necessarily teach racism, but it is undeniable that these verses were used all through the Middle Ages to support serfdom, and well into modern times to support the Colonial African Slave Trade.

So if Romney should renounce the LDS church because past leadership may have held racist views, then shouldn't Rev. Dozier renounce Christianity for the same reason?

One may say, "Sure, Christianity has been just as racist as Mormonism or just about any other organization, but that was in the past. We have renounced those practices," but again, the same can be said of the LDS church.

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught:

“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”

This came forty-one years before Southern Baptists officially renounced racial doctrines.

In addition, in 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

This position was reaffirmed recently, when the church released a statement on another matter, saying;

"The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form... We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

However, I don't think Rev. Dozier would renounce Christianity, no matter how racist its history is, because I'm not sure his motivation in releasing this statement was as altruistic as he says. After all, Rev. Dozier claims to be an outspoken social activist, but he openly criticizes gay rights and once declared that homosexuality was  "something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit."

"Oh, but let's not use scripture to
discriminate against a whole group
of people..."

The point is, I'm not sure he's terribly concerned with Christian scripture being twisted to make inappropriate judgments against a group, since he does so himself. In fact, I'm not even sure he's really bothered by the LDS church at all, since he was an ardent supporter of George W. Bush Jr..

 In 2004, Dr. Dozier was enlisted by the Bush-Cheney Campaign Committee to make radio advertisements for President George W. Bush in his bid for re-election. Rev. Dozier is credited with garnishing a record-breaking percentage of the black vote in Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach Counties in that election.  The whole time, Rev. Dozier was not at all bothered by the fact the George W. Bush often visited the LDS president, Gordon B. Hinkley for advice and counsel.

"Oh, by the way, a friend of mine totally thinks you're all racist,
but that's OK, because I don't care about black people."

Rev. Dozier, author of the book, Who's On the Lord's Side Politically, is clearly more politically motivated in this case. The release comes shortly after Rick Santorum praised the conservative endorsement of the Florida pastor, who is an honorary chairman of Santorum's Florida campaign, and after Santorum visited Dozier's congregation. 

Dozier's statement is less about social activism or Romney's involvement with the LDS church, and more about Dozier using his position to influence voters and help his favorite candidate.

Who Are the Mormons?

A few days ago, Mormonnewsroon.org released an article called Mormonism 101:FAQ, which had a lot of interesting, basic information about the church and its teachings, and also this infographic...

Bott, Blacks and the Priesthood

The fact that African-Americans and Africans were not permitted to be ordained as priests in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, until 1978, is controversial, to say the absolute least, even among members of the church.

In an absolutely absurd interview which I was ashamed to read, this idea was brought to light once again when Prof. Randy Bott, of BYU, was interviewed regarding the ban by the Washington Post. Basically, nothing Bott says in the interview is doctrine.

In one particularly shameful section, he says:

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood... So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

The LDS church quickly, and rightfully, condemned Bott's comments, saying:

" The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form... We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

Professor Bott told The Daily Universe that he wasn't available for comment, but he did release a statement affirming the Church’s view of the article in the Washington Post. However, his students said he discussed the interview in class and said he felt he was misrepresented.

Quinn Rice, a freshman in one of Bott's classes, said, “He said they had a nice long interview, like two hours long. He said that he was misquoted, and misrepresented... He wouldn’t go against the Church’s principles.”

The Book of Mormon Challenge

The existence of the Book of Mormon is a serious puzzle if it is not an ancient text, translated into English, as it claims. We are often told the Joseph Smith concocted and wrote the story himself. However, if he did write it himself, it would almost be no less amazing that a 21 year old farm boy in 1830 with only two years of formal education could produce such a book.


The following text is taken from the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 8, Ch. 11, pp. 221-2:

"Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials. 

"Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck! 

"To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done."

Hugh Nibley never expected any of his students to accomplish this task. Even with the use of modern information technologies, the assignment is almost impossible. For a 21 year old farm boy to produce a 500+ page "ancient text" in two months which would cover every aspect of ancient life, yet not be conclusively proven false by the world's scholars for almost 200 years is a daunting task.

But if, as critics say, anyone could do it, then why haven't we seen it done, or even attempted?

"Deseret, Which, by Interpretation, Is A Honey Bee"

Critics of the Book of Mormon often point out the mention of bees as an anachronism. Here's the verse, Ether 2:3,

And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

This is allegedly an anachronism because the honey bee was not known in America until they were brought by the Spanish.

This argument is almost as silly as the Adieu Argument. The biggest problem with the argument that the Book of Mormon claims that honey bees were in America is the fact that the Book of Mormon does not make that claim.

The verse above takes place before they left the Old World and they are never mentioned again. A few chapters later, in Ether 6:4, we are told what they brought with them overseas.

And it came to pass that when they had prepared all manner of food, that thereby they might subsist upon the water, and also food for their flocks and herds, and whatsoever beast or animal or fowl that they should carry with them—and it came to pass that when they had done all these things they got aboard of their vessels or barges, and set forth into the sea, commending themselves unto the Lord their God.

Bees are not mentioned here. It could be that they were brought, but were just not mentioned specifically, but there are two very good reasons to think that the Jaredites did not bring them to the New World.

First is that nobody in their right mind would enclose themselves on a barge in the middle of the ocean with a bunch of livestock and swarms of bees.

Second, and more convincing, is this: The Jaredites journey across the sea took 344 days. This we are told in Ether 6:11. No hive of bees would last that long without being able to gather pollen to produce honey and feed the hive. They couldn't bring bees to the New World if they tried. This was much easier centuries later for Spanish sailing ships because the trip was only about two to three months.

So the Book of Mormon does not claim that the honey bee was known in America before they were brought by the Spanish. In fact, it implies the opposite.

Growing Evidence of Book of Mormon Claims

Here's a couple of charts I found while looking up information for another post. The first is a list of claims made by the Book of Mormon and whether or not they were confirmed by science, archaeology, etc, in 1842. The second is the same list in 2005.

"Adieu" in the Book of Mormon

Hey! Is that French? Faaaaaaaaaaaake!

There are many arguments against the Book of Mormon. Some of them make valid points and are difficult to resolve. This is not one of them.

Some critics of the Book of Mormon try to claim it as a fraud because one verse (Jacob 7:27) contains the French word, "Adieu."

This is allegedly a problem, an anachronism, because the word "adieu" was unknown to the ancient Hebrew authors of the book. Therefore the book must be false.

First and foremost, I would like to remind such critics that the Book of Mormon contains around 300,000 words in English, none of which were known to ancient Hebrews.

The presence of a word in a translated text does not mean that that word appeared in the original document. It is a translation! The translator is free to use any word at their disposal which they feel best conveys the required meaning.

For example, In 1737, William Whiston (1667-1752) produced a translation of The Life of Flavius Josephus, written by a Jew born in Jerusalem in A.D. 37. Whiston's translation reads, in part:

Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me...

Critics would apparently have us think that either Josephus never existed and William Whiston was a fraud, or that Josephus spoke French.

In addition, even if it were true that the presence of a french word made it a fraud, the argument still wouldn't make sense, because Adieu is an English word. Adieu entered the English language in the 14th century from Middle French. Adieu has been part of the English language longer than the word "banquet", which is also a word in modern French, but banquet entered the English language only in the 15th century. Adieu is no less English than commence, nation, psychology, Bible, vision, or any other word that can be traced back to Latin, Greek, German, French, Spanish, or any other language.

The presence of adieu is no more a challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon than the 36 uses of "banquet" in the NIV is a challenge to the historicity and authenticity of the Bible.

The word “adieu,” along with other words of French origin, is listed as an English term in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, which reflects American English of Joseph Smith’s day.

So Joseph Smith does not even use a French word, he only uses a word of french origin, and even if he did use a French word, it would have nothing to do with the historicity or authenticity of the Book of Mormon any more than it would for the Bible or any other translated book ever.

A Logical Proof That Mormonism is False?

There is an organization called the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministries which posted an article allegedly describing a logical proof that Mormonism is false.

You can read the full article here, but the main point of the argument revolves around the LDS concept of Exaltation.

The LDS church teaches that through obedience to Gospel principles, we can, at some point in the eternities, eventually become like God.

Lorenzo Snow, a former President of the LDS church, also taught that, “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”

From these two ideas, it is inferred that God has a God, who has a God, who has a God, and so forth. This sets up an infinite regress, which is impossible.

There are two main problems with this "logical proof."

First of all, the Mormon church does not teach that God has a God, who has a God, etc. To the best of my knowledge, the church's official position on this topic is, "We don't know and, frankly, we don't care." Therefore, any inference of an infinite regress is just the unofficial conjecture of the members, or words put in our mouths by CARM, but it is not LDS doctrine.

Second, even if it's true that God has a God who has a God, and so forth, it does not necessarily lead to an infinite regress.

For example, it is a common idea in Christianity that God exists outside of time. He is not bound to a linear chronology the way we are. In other words, He is capable of time travel.

Imagine that in the beginning, there was nothing. Then a God appears, creates a world populated by people, some of which go on to be exalted and receive Godhood. Then, one of those exalted beings travels back and becomes that first God who appeared.

Is that what happened? I don't know. Probably not. But the point is that it is entirely in line with LDS doctrine and resolves CARM's "logical proof."

So CARM's argument fails in two ways. First is that it is based on a doctrine which is not even taught by the church. Second, even if the LDS church did teach such a doctrine, it would not necessarily lead to an infinite regress.

Sir Francis Drake's Elusive Horse Sighting

Sir Francis Drake and his wondrous pantaloons.

While looking into the history of horses in America, I frequently come across the claim that Sir Francis Drake was able to see large herds of wild horses as he sailed up the coast of California and Oregon in 1579, long before the Spanish reached the territory.

Drake allegedly saw large "bands of wild horses," and wondered how it could be, since the Spaniards found no horses in Mexico or South America.

I can find the quote credited to two sources.

The first, and most common, seems to be Arcano Del Mare, by Robert Dudley, Earl of Northumberland, in 1630.

I have also found it credited to Richard Hakluyt's description of Drake's landing in California.

The problem is that I cannot find a copy of either of these accounts, either a hard copy, or digital. The Library of Congress has a copy of the Arcano Del Mare, but not online.

I was tempted to dismiss this as a non-existent quote, created by some misguided LDS member trying to defend the Church, but I got more curious when I saw this account referenced by a non-LDS source. Archive.org has a document from UCLA which references the event.

If anyone reading this can provide me with a reliable source for this account, I will give them a batch of home-made cookies (from the supermarket of their choice,) and the biggest hug they've ever seen.

DNA and the Book of Mormon

For the sake of diplomacy, I try not to disparage the beliefs of other denominations, but it's always a little confusing to me when fundamental Christians attack the Book of Mormon on the grounds that, so far, no DNA evidence has been traced back to Lehi's party.

The reason it confuses me is that these are the same people who deny genetic evidence of evolution.

As long as the discussion is on the LDS church, genetics is rock hard science which cannot be denied or ignored, but when the topic turns to evolution, genetics suddenly becomes this mystical, devilish pseudo-science which is not to be trusted.

I don't mean to make any generalizations about any particular denomination, but there are simply some individuals who need to make up their minds.

Is genetic science reliable, in which case, evidence against the Book of Mormon is inconclusive, but evolution is true and their belief is deeply mistaken?

Or is genetic science unreliable, in which case evidence against the Book of Mormon is inconclusive and their argument falls apart anyway?

Wade E. Miller's Pre-Columbian Horses

A common criticism against the Book of Mormon is it's mention of horses in a Pre-Cumbian era. Next to Elephants in America, it is one of the strangest anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.

Mainstream scholarly thought is that American Horses died out about 10,000 years ago and remained extinct until they were reintroduced by Spanish conquistadors.

In a presentation called Science and the Book of Mormon, given at the eleventh annual FAIR Conference, 6 August 2009, Wade E. Miller mentions carbon-dating done on horse bones found in America. Many of them date back before the known extinction date for horses in America, but a few have dates ranging from 1400 to only 800 years ago.

In the final paragraph, he says,

"Horses weren't here in America after about 10,000 years ago according to Smithsonian archaeologists. As you know horses ... are mentioned as being present among both the Jaredites and Nephites. It might surprise most of you that the history of the horse is mainly here in America. The very first horses come from North America, and their record goes back to about 58 million years ago. Horses were small, forest dwelling animals at the time. It wasn't until much later that horses reached the Old World, being roughly the size of modern forms then. Columbus only reintroduced the horse to America. I've actually done a lot of work with fossil horses from many areas and from different periods of time. A lot of my work has been done on them in Mesoamerica, primarily in Mexico. While the vast majority of dates for these various kinds of horses are well before man was known in the New World, a few of the dates are very surprisingly young. I have Carbon-14 dates on horses that are as recent as 800 years. Other dates are only 1200 years to 1400 years ago. More dates in this range are needed to be able to convince others that horses were indeed here before 1493, when they were reintroduced. Other paleontologists have produced dates on fossil horses that show they lived here long after the 10,000 years before stated. This slide is of a partial horse skeleton that was put together with my colleagues in Mexico. An earlier slide showed the location where it was collected. It was that picture that I said to remember from Durango, Mexico, where a lot of fossils were found within one small area."

I look forward to reading about the details of these and any other results he may have found.

The Atheistic Argument From Physical Minds

The atheistic APM was first formulated by atheist philosopher Michael Tooley in an oral debate on the existence of God. It has since been defended by agnostic philosopher Paul Draper in his oral debates. According to this argument, the fact that minds are physically dependent upon the brain is some evidence for atheism.

The argument claims that since all known mental activity has a physical basis (the brain), there are probably no disembodied minds. But God is conceived of as a disembodied mind. Therefore, God probably does not exist.

The problem with this argument is that it takes incredibly specific premises and claims to draw a general conclusion from them. It claims that the idea of a non-physical God makes no sense, therefore there probably is no God.

As a syllogism, it would look like this:

1. All known thought is a physical phenomenon.
2. There probably is no non-physical mind (from 1).
3 God is a non-physical mind.
Therefore:
There probably is no God.

But what about a physical God?

This argument is not a good argument against the existence of God because God's existence is not contingent on whether or not he has a physical body. It simply does not attack a critical issue. A Latter-Day Saint, for example, would respond to this argument by saying, "Sure, but didn't Jesus eat fish after His resurrection?"

"Touch me not... not that you could anyways."

If God has a physical body, then this argument has absolutely no force, and even Christians can't agree on whether or not He has a body.

In other words, this is an argument against the rationality of a Christian God with which many Christians would actually agree, and that is not a good sign for the argument.

But even if God has no physical body, we should hesitate when speculating in this way.

For example, this same kind of reasoning was used by scientists to suggest the existence of Aether. It was thought that all known waves propagated through a physical medium. If space has no physical medium, then light should not be able to travel through space. We should not be able to see stars and planets. Therefore, there must be some sort of medium, aether, through which light waves propagate. We now know this to be false. Light is, in part, a wave that requires no physical medium.

A wave that requires no medium seems as impossible as thought with no body, yet we do see celestial bodies.