General Conference October 2014. Sunday Afternoon Session, by Jim Gourlay

 

Russell Ballard – Stay in the Boat and Hold On!

Mr Ballard’s message was, ‘Don’t leave the boat or you’ll drown.’ Of course, he left us in no doubt

what the ‘boat’ was: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What he meant by ‘drown’ he

left us to imagine.

 

Last week a couple of Mormon missionaries decided they no longer wanted to continue their

attempt in bringing me through their waters of baptism. I lacked sufficient alacrity in declaring my

confidence in the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation. Of course, they are entitled to leave me

and go fishing in what they will no doubt consider more fecund waters. But before they left I quoted

to them from that same Book of Mormon:

 

Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the

other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb

of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the

whore of all the earth. (1 Nephi 14:10)

 

God is opposed to the church of the devil a day is coming when ‘the wrath of God (will be) poured

out upon that great and abominable church’ (1 Nephi 14:15-17). So how could they say to me, ‘Hey,

you’ve got your thing going and that’s fine and we’re going.’?

 

It’s like this: the whole point of a ‘Restored Church’ (why the LDS version of Restorationism should

be the correct one is another question) is that there had to be an apostasy. And if the apostasy is at

all serious then how can modern missionaries adopt this, ‘You’re OK, I’m OK’ philosophy?

Mr Ballard seemed to take the notion of apostasy seriously when he quoted Brigham Young who

said that if I’m not on the ‘Ole Ship Zion’ I will ‘drown’.

 

If you told me, Brigham-like, I’m an apostate and that I need rescuing, I would respect that. If you

told me Joseph-like I was in the church of the devil, I would know where things stand.

If I was in real danger of the wrath of God wouldn’t it be loving to give a person like that more than

3-4 studies?

 

So which is it? Do missionaries, or for that matter any Mormons, really believe in the seriousness

of the apostasy like the early Mormons like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (in which case they

seem not to care for souls in danger). Or don’t they really believe in such things? Mr Ballard thinks

I am drowning because I am outside the Ole Ship Zion. But how does he preside over a church that

prepares its missionaries in such a way as pass by on the other side?

So when Mr Ballard says members are free to question if they have doubts, I wonder if he thinks

missionary time should be devoted to helping inquirers?

 

 

Alan Packer – The Book

Mr Packer believes that ‘through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved’. I have

italicised that little word ‘may’ since this is decisive. Speaking of those who may ‘qualify for

exaltation’ he says:

 

‘individually we must meet all of the requirements’

 

All of the requirements? I am reminded of the call to ‘deny yourself of all ungodliness’ (Moroni

10:32). All?! Has Mr Packer met this requirement he enjoins on others?

This ‘gospel’ is not good news at all because it is law. And the law is not the gospel. The law

tells the sinner what he must do, but has no good news to tell him about what Christ has done.

This ‘gospel’ denies the Scriptural witness to the total inability of sinful man to do enough works to

save or works of a sufficiently meritorious kind to achieve any better standing before a holy God.

For it is by grace you are saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of

God, not of works lest anyone boast (Ephesians 2:8)

Could the apostle of Christ, inspired by the Spirit of God, be any clearer?

Or again,

 

By works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight (Romans 3:28)

Mr Packer’s Jesus would never have said to the wicked thief, ‘This day you will be with me in

Paradise’, rather, ‘It is too late for you to qualify for exaltation.’

But wait, didn’t Mr Packer say that ‘through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved’?

Doesn’t he say that Christ has done something? That Christ has achieved an ‘atonement’ through his

death?

 

Well it appears that Mr Packer’s understanding of the atonement of ‘Jesus Christ’ is not that of

Christ and His apostles. It is woefully deficient. How?

 

The all-sufficient 66 books of the God-breathed out Bible declare of the Lord Jesus Christ:

You shall call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21)

Note carefully the difference between Mr Packer’s atonement and the Scripture’s. Where Mr Packer

has a ‘may’, a ‘might’, a ‘possibility’, God declares the atoning work of Christ to be an effective

reality. ‘He shall save’, not ‘He may save’.

 

The atonement of Christ does not make salvation a possibility for all but a reality for all who call

on Him in repentance and faith. To add anything as a requirement upon the consciences of men is

to fall into the Galatian heresy. And in case you didn’t realise, the apostle declared that burdening

men’s souls with works as a departure from the faith – it was ‘no gospel at all’ (Galatians 1:7).

Sure, the Galatians took the name of ‘Jesus’ on their lips (Matthew 7:21-23). Of course they

believed in an ‘atonement’ of some kind. But it was an atonement that only did so much. It only took

men a part of the way. It was a deficient atonement to which men must add the filthy rags of their

own righteousness (Isa. 64:6).

 

However, the gospel of the apostles of the Lord declares a ‘righteousness apart from the law’

(Romans 3:21) and that all are called to repent of self-righteousness and works righteousness and

be ‘clothed’ with the righteousness of Christ.

So to imply that baptisms for the dead and other such acts ‘add stamps to our spiritual passports’

is a doctrine that has been declared ‘anathema’ (Galatians 1:8) by the Spirit-inspired apostle. It is

to ‘pervert the gospel of Christ’ (Galatians 1:7).

Let me end with a better analogy if we wish to speak of passports as gaining access to God’s

heaven.

 

There are actually some countries that don’t let you in to their country if you have an Israeli stamp

in your passport. (If you haven’t heard about this prejudice you can look it up – it’s real). It doesn’t

matter what stamps you add to it you can’t get rid of that Israeli stamp. So you can’t get to your

desired destination. But you can get a second passport. This is a clean one and now you have access

to where you want to go.

 

Jesus gets us a second, clean ‘passport’. He doesn’t merely make it possible for us to earn a second

passport, He earns it for us and gives it to us out of His sheer goodness. Now we have access to our

desired ultimate destiny – heaven.

 

It comes down to this: who is earning your destiny? Jesus (alone) or you (+Jesus)?

 

 

David Bednar – Come and See

Mr Bednar directed his talk:

…specifically to individuals who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints. I will address a fundamental question many of you may have: “Why are Latter-
day Saints so eager to tell me about what they believe and to invite me to learn about their church?”

He gives the Christian answer in Christ’s words:

 

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with

you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:19–20).

 

This does not answer why Latter-day saints in particular are keen to share their faith. So he

explains:

 

Latter-day Saints take seriously this responsibility to teach all people in all nations about

the Lord Jesus Christ and His restored gospel. We believe the same Church founded by the

Savior anciently has been reestablished on the earth by Him in the latter days. The doctrine,

principles, priesthood authority, ordinances, and covenants of His gospel are found today in

His Church.

 

 

Mr Bednar has assumed there is such a thing as a ‘restored gospel’. But the commission quoted by

Christ makes no such mention. A restoration would, logically, require a universal apostasy (note the

qualifier ‘universal’ – Protestants agree there was some corruption, much apostasy in Romanism in

the Middle Ages but the gospel was never lost; there was never a universal apostasy).

 

But look again the words of Jesus quoted above: The Lord Jesus rose from the dead and said He

would be with His church ‘ always, even unto the end of the world.’ Do you believe Jesus dear

reader? I do. I believe Jesus has always been with His true church from its foundation to today and

on ’til the return of Christ in glory at the end of this age. But Joseph Smith did not. Joseph believed

Jesus was not with any of the churches of New York state or anywhere else in the 1820s.

 

So if you believe, like Mr Bednar, in this supposed total apostasy and wonderful ‘restoration’, here

is my question: where was Jesus? Or to put it another way, ‘If Jesus promised to be with His church

always, did He fail?’ Or had Jesus forgotten His promise?

 

So why are we non-LDS folk being evangelised? We are told:

 

As members of the Church, we do not receive prizes or bonus points in a heavenly contest.

I cannot search the hearts of the many missionaries I have met. I would not presume to know their

motives.

 

I would dare to venture that any given missionary will have mixed motives as is common

to all people. But I am a little sceptical of this claim by Mr Bednar that it is the interests of the

hearers that are primarily or exclusively in view when a Mormon missionary knocks on my door.

 

Why?

 

Because the theological system of Mormonism is works righteousness. Of course, Mormons

believe in grace and in the need for God’s help. But any honest Mormon must accept that at root

a Mormon’s progress to exaltation will depend on faithfulness, on doing stuff to please ‘Heavenly

Father’. That does not mean Mormons do mean, nasty stuff – not at all. It doesn’t mean that

Mormons are hypocritical liars who care nothing for others. That would be to twist what I say.

 

But I do suggest that to claim absolute purity of motive in evangelism with a works righteousness system

is not plausible. At least admit that being personally motived to gain godhood is part of the reason

why a young man will spend two years in a tiny bedsit in a dreary, cold English town away from the

sun-kissed orange groves of California where mum and family love him.

 

 

Mr Bednar then said:

 

Some of you may respond, “But I already believe in Jesus and follow His teachings,” …Our

invitations to you are not an attempt to diminish your religious tradition or life experience.

Bring all that you know is true, good, and praiseworthy—and test our message. Just as

Jesus beckoned two of His disciples to “come and see” (John 1:39), so we urge you to come

and see if the restored gospel of Jesus Christ enlarges and enriches that which you already

believe to be true.

 

 

But a parable in response:

 

Once a man owned Michaelangelo’s David and a nicely dressed man came to him and said, ‘I am

a handy sculptor. I know you have something very nice. I will not attempt to diminish your work

of art. But I can enhance it. I can enlarge and enrich this work of art of yours. Just one thing, it will

cost you a lifetime of service for my efforts.’

 

How would you answer?

 

The answer is obvious. But why? Surely the well-dressed sculptor has failed to recognise the

priceless work of art already owned. In short, you cannot improve upon perfection. There is a sense

in which to add is to diminish.

 

We diminish by addition in many ways: I diminish my carpet by adding spilt wine on it. I diminish

my shoes by adding what a dog has done to the bottom of them. You get the idea…

If I add to the perfection of what Jesus did on the cross by adding my supposed priesthood (are you

a physical descendant of Aaron?), ordinances, doctrines (the Bible is sufficient 2 Timothy 3:16-17),

then I take away from the glory of Jesus Christ.

 

I appreciated Mr Bednar’s humorous story about the fact that the brother who had been helped

was motivated to help. All that he said is true in that context. And as someone who is outside the

LDS church I want Mr Bednar and any LDS who read this to know that I am also eager to tell you

about what I believe and to invite you to learn about my Saviour. That is why I write these words –

because I have been helped: Not through an organisation but through Jesus Christ. I have not been

helped by a system of works that I may follow that may end in my exaltation, but that I have eternal

life right now just as John in his gospel speaks. Jesus said,

 

I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will

never thirst. (John 6:35)

And

“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:29)

 

When Mr Bednar says,

 

‘…the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a prerequisite to

heartfelt and authentic service that stretches far beyond merely “going through the motions,’

 

He almost sounds Christian. But read his words carefully and we know he is sadly on the works

righteousness treadmill:

 

We also have experienced the cleansing, the peace of conscience, the spiritual healing and

renewal, and the guidance that are obtained only by learning and living the principles of the

Savior’s gospel.It is that word ‘and living’

.

Can Mr Bednar say, as I can, “I have ‘the cleansing, the peace of conscience, the spiritual healing and renewal’ because Jesus died for me”? Or must he add, ‘these are only for those ‘learning and living the principles of the Savior’s gospel.’?

What a shame that Mr Bednar is unfamiliar with the gospel given by Christ to His Spirit-inspired

apostles:

 

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. (Romans 3:28)

Joseph Fielding Smith manual – Chapter 10: Our Search for Truth reviewed by Stephen Livings

Having been given free rein to pick a chapter from this year’s LDS adult Sunday School manual to review, I decided to see what would be being taught near the time my post was due to go online. I discovered that it was chapter 10, entitled: ‘Our Search for Truth’.

The title seems entirely appropriate, given the aims, intentions and purposes of our website.

The chapter begins with this quote:

“It is a requirement that is made of us, as members of this Church, to make ourselves familiar with that which the Lord has revealed, that we may not be led astray. … How are we going to walk in the truth if we do not know it?”

As a Mormon, one feels a sense of being in a safe place when immersing oneself in this world of church publications, which are all so well-produced to a high standard and give off an air of authority. The program is all there for you as laid out by the church, and all that is needed is to read, teach and learn from these authorised materials and you come away with a sense of purposefulness and security which is greatly appealing to those who feel lost or directionless in the world. So, from the standpoint of us who contribute to this website, what may be said of the intention of this chapter, that of making, “ourselves familiar with that which the Lord has revealed, that we may not be led astray”? Well, I intend to show that focusing on, and being familiar with, ‘that which the Lord has revealed’, can be a tricky business for the LDS seeker of truth.

Looking to LDS scripture, one can become easily confused when trying to ascertain a clear picture of the nature of God. For example, the Book of Mormon is clear in Alma 11 that there is only one God: “And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” There are many other passages in the Book of Mormon that affirm the same teaching, and the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon support this also, as stated at the end of their testimony printed at the front of the book: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.” When reading from The Pearl of Great Price, those words start to become problematic, since we have Moses 2 on the one hand, which reads: “And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light” whilst in Abraham 4 one reads: “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.” The problem of knowing what to believe when confronted with words that the LDS church claims are revealed by God starts to become apparent.

Further LDS teaching relating to the nature of God merely adds to the difficulties. For example, the Book of Mormon God is a spirit: “the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth.” (Alma 22:9-10) but the Doctrine & Covenants God “has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as man’s”. (D & C 130:22)

The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and later LDS scripture continue when faced with the teaching of whether or not God may dwell in people’s hearts:

Book of Mormon: “the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell” (Alma 34:36)

Doctrine and Covenants: “the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.” (Section 130:3)

Again, one can see in the following example that Book of Mormon teaching goes against subsequent teaching/ practice carried out in the LDS church. Let me present to you the words of Ether 8:18-19:

“And it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God; For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.”
Here it is plainly the writer’s intention for it to be understood that God does not go about working in a secretive fashion. This brings to mind Jesus’ words when on trial, “I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.” (John 18:20)

Yet we know that, for Mormons, God does indeed work in secretive ways, since the actions and wording involved in the secret temple oaths past and present are nowadays accessible to all who wish to learn about them. The ‘obligation of secrecy’ regarding the oaths taken in the Mormon temple are of the utmost seriousness to the temple-worthy Mormon. It is clear that the Book of Mormon theme of ‘secret combinations’, which is mentioned in several places throughout the book, presents a view that would suggest that God would not tolerate secretive oaths (even blood oaths as they were) to take place in his one true church.

I could continue with a great many more such differences, but will add only one more. Let us look together at Jacob 2:24, “David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.” There are a great many examples in the Book of Mormon where such a stance regarding plural wives is taken. Yet other LDS scripture has the opposite view, expressed in strident terms: “I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory… David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” (D & C 132: 4 & 38)

Clearly verse 4 is stating in no uncertain terms that the ‘new and everlasting covenant’ of plural marriage is essential in order to ‘enter into (God’s) glory’, and part of the justification for this ‘new and everlasting covenant’ comes from the precedent stated in verse 38, that of David, Solomon and Moses receiving many wives (and concubines!) which was not sinful of them! Yet the Book of Mormon has God saying this was an abomination. Great confusion reigns here once again.

To return to chapter 10 from the ‘Teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith’ manual, remember those words quoted earlier: “How are we going to walk in the truth if we do not know it?” Points 2 and 3 from chapter 10 state: “The Lord has commanded us to search the scriptures… We have a great responsibility to hearken to the message of truth that the Lord is now revealing to His servants.” I wonder how the truth can be known using LDS scripture with so many blatant contradictions with which to contend.

Fortunately, there is another way:
“ …whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 14:4-11)

This is the way. HE is the way. HE is the truth! Ultimately that is what counts. Not seeking ‘the truth’ in LDS scripture. It is about knowing and (more importantly) being known by, God Himself. When we trust that Jesus is our way and is the truth, we can begin to understand that He is also ‘the life’. This is His gospel and it is far richer and more liberating than the ‘impossible gospel’ of Mormonism.

President Thomas S Monson – Summonsed to British Court for Fraud

Just  last night the Mormon Facebook world has gone crazy with the Mormon Think website releasing an article saying that Thomas S Monson President and Prophet of the LDS Church has been summonsed to British Courts on the allegations of fraud on the 14th of March this year, here are the summons letters. The Mormon Think article is well worth a look, particularly regarding some of the financial information it shares.

Stephen Bloor and Chris Ralph  are both British ex Mormons who have very publically left the Mormon Church in the last few years. Tom Phillips (still an LDS member) who seems to be organizing this also runs the Mormon Think website and is well known for his interview with John Dehlin where he disclosed many details about a secret Mormon Temple ritual, called the second anointing.

Just this morning I saw that the USA Today Website has an article on this as well, quashing some claims that this is just a Mormon Think creation. Understandably many people are saying that this will not go far, a well thought out comment on my facebook page said this:

Can’t see this reaching a real court. Magistrate Courts deal with low-end proceedings and legal matters. The order has been signed and passed on to a higher court where it will probably be thrown out, it may even get as high as Crown Court but I think a Judge will dismiss it.

Not that it wouldn’t please me to see this play-out in court but I think it is unlikely to happen. I agree with most of the points, but it will not be aired.

There are other laws protecting freedom of religion enshrined at European level. I think the Mormon Church will have plenty of grounds to use those to defend themselves. The cases against Scientology are different as they have not managed to convince all European juristrictions they are even a religion (think in Germany they are classed as a corporation). Mormonism is better protected in these regards.

The precedence set would mean a lot of Evangelical churches could face similar claims based on Science v Church Teaching. It would open the floodgates to hundreds of speculative cases against religious groups of all flavours by ex-members and secularist groups.

Whilst the case against the Mormon Church is bigger in the sense they teach things which totally historically and scientifically incorrect. The precedence set would mean other things which are dubious or difficult to defend in other religious groups would face public trial.

This will not happen.

Even if this ends up being the case, I still think this is going to be a very interesting situation to watch, its interesting how just recently LDS.org has had various articles dealing with many aspects of Mormon History and Belief. Some of which suggesting do not necessarily believe that the earth is 6000 years old, right before this summons came. As ever the LDS Church is excellent at public affairs, however it will be interesting to see how it responds to even more of its troubling history such as the Book of Abraham issue, being told to the public, even if nothing else that may be a good thing that comes from this.

More on this as it comes.

Getting Some “Fair” Attention Part 4, by Mike Thomas

The review of the final day of the outreach to Mormons at the British Mormon Pageant 2013, written by Jason Thickpenny, made mention of the controversy surrounding the long discredited Mormon “scripture,” The Book of Abraham. The subject had come up in discussion with Mormons and Jason commented, “They had no idea about the fact it had been proven to be falsely translated.”  There was little more on the subject, simply a link through to the CARMS website where further research might be carried out.

The typical Mormon response to criticism is nicely summed up in a short conversation Jason reproduced for us:

“Right at the end we spoke to a Lady who said that we are in error because we don’t accept that today we have a priesthood. I showed her Hebrews 1:1-2, to which she said ‘your not using the Kings James Bible’ – I showed the side of it, and then showed her the front – to which she then said ‘well…that bit must not have been translated right’……..’you young man need to read the book of Mormon’, I said ‘with all due respect why would I need to when God has already given me the answer in the bible?’ She left pretty sharp after that!!”

There is so much that might be said but I want you to note how easily a Mormon dismisses the Bible. It is an attitude you will come across time and again and, as we consider the Book of Abraham controversy, keep in mind that a typical Mormon will even dismiss the word of God in Scripture rather than consider their prophets might be wrong.

No, No, No

Ned Scarisbrick is a Mormon of long experience who began his podcast, The 4th Watch, in March 2013. It is an apologetics programme to help Mormons better understand their faith and, to this end, he has produced, “a compilation response  to several articles posted at the anti-Mormon web site, ‘Mormonism Investigated UK’…” (I will have more to say next week about “anti-Mormons” and other epithets so beloved of Mormons)

By the time you come to the end of his podcast, where he deals with the BofA, you are used to his avuncular style and the simple Mormon side-step of answering evidence with unsubstantiated assertions. “No, no, no” he insists as he refutes each challenge with barely more than unadorned denial. As he warms to the subject of the BofA he begins by making an ad hominem attack on the source cited, i.e. CARMS.

“CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned. Well, I carry no brief for Matt Slick but this is not about Matt Slick, it is about the Bof A. Does Ned have anything compelling to say that might disprove what Matt Slick and many others have to say about the Bof A? Well let’s see what Ned comes up with as he commits almost every Mormon  faux pas and in mere minutes.

Ad hominem attack: “CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned.

Assertion: “It has not been proven false.”

Appeal to Biased Source: Ned sends us to FAIR, the people for whom he is producing these podcasts.

Opinion: “He wants us to take his own view as fact,” Ned says of Jason’s post, before going on to share his own opinion (another assertion), “But it is not falsely translated.”

False Trail: He then asserts that what manuscripts we have today are nothing to do with the Bof A, as demonstrated in Dr Hugh Nibley’s book, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Again, hardly an unbiased source since Hugh Nibley was the Mormon church’s go-to man for any and every expert opinion. This is the same Hugh Nibley who is quoted in the December 1967 issue of The Daily Universe, pb.BYU, “The Papyri scripts given to the church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true…The church has been caught flat footed by this discovery.”

Rewriting History: “The church,” Ned insists, “has never claimed these have anything to do with the Book of Abraham.” Yet, in the Improvement Era of January 1968 we read,

“Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.

Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet.”

It certainly sounds like it it has something to do with the writing of the BofA and the official church Improvement Era says as much.

Lingua Obscura: This is a classic Mormon defence in which the message is – We don’t really know. This stuff is very hard and, after all, translating stuff isn’t easy; culture, language, idiom, historical context, hard stuff like that. Who knows? Lets leave it to the experts to thrash it out, remembering no two experts will give the same translation, nobody agrees, its pretty hopeless really, so just let the Spirit work. Just believe.

So many problems with what Ned is saying here. First, wasn’t there some talk of living prophets? The mantle of Joseph and all that? So, why doesn’t the prophet cut through all this speculation and simply get the job done? Come out and explain what this is all about and put people’s minds at rest for goodness sake.

Secondly, if translation is so fraught with pitfalls and imponderable difficulties how come we have the Book of Mormon in so many languages? That is supposed to be an ancient document. The Bible certainly is an ancient document and we get by somehow in producing modern translations and in different languages that pretty much agree with each other. So where’s the fire?

Thirdly, if you ask any and every Egyptologist worth his salt they will all agree on one thing. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. Do you want evidence of this? Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry has written a helpful article. (I know Ned wants to say, “MRM? You trust MRM? Bill McKeever? No, no, no.” but maybe he should look at what Bill actually brings to the table before judging. After all, that’s what Mormons would ask for their message)

Bill’s article can be found here. What is interesting is the list of scholars and their unanimous opinion. Here are their comments:

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England

“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University

“Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”

James, H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago

“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”

Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art

“The plates contained in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are rather comical and a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals.”

Dr. John Peters, Univ. of Pennsylvania

“…the explanatory notes to his facsimiles cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination.”

Rev. Prof. C.A.B. Mercer, Ph.D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collection, Egyptian Reproductions.

“The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the ‘Book of Abraham,’ and ‘translated’ or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are parts of the well known ‘Book of the Dead.’ Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book.”

Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin

“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”

Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich

Of course, for any true believing Mormon no amount of unbiased,  expert opinion will be enough. Remember Jason’s conversation and how ready the Mormon lady was to reject the Bible. But the American theologian John Gresham Machen observed:

“Because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not make a person a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary, to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.” (quoted in John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, p.59)

The Joseph Smith Papyri [Book of Abraham]

If there is one thing that struck me at the recent British Pageant, its how much Mormons often don’t know about the history of their movement.

One of the more significant issues in Mormon history, is that a while ago much of the Papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was found. The findings of this have been a life changing issue for many.

This is a really good video explaining that issue. I would really encourage anyone not aware of this to give this video a watch and have a think for yourself.

Final Day of the reach out to Mormons – Review

Final Day of the reach out to Mormons

So this is it…. the final day of the reach out to Mormons at the British Pageant 2013.

Today saw a record number of papers being given out, and once more some people more people came to talk to us :-

Every person that I spoke to tonight this was at least the second time they had been to the pageant, so I think by now some people where getting a little bit tired of us being there! One person cried out the window “Your wasting your time mate!!” to which my reply was “preaching the gospel is not a waste of time”.

I again felt so sorry for some of these guys who had clearly not been told the truth regarding some things in there own teachings. The subject came up about the book of Abraham that is in the pearl of great price. They had no idea about the fact it had been proven to be falsely translated.

If you would like more information on this please click the link below :-

http://carm.org/book-abraham-papyri-and-joseph-smith

Lucy had a tract on this subject and was able to give it to the people asking the questions about it.

Right at the end we spoke to a Lady who said that we are in error because we don’t accept that today we have a priesthood. I showed her Hebrews 1:1-2, to which she said “your not using the Kings James Bible” – I showed the side of it, and then showed her the front – to which she then said “well…that bit must not have been translated right”……..”you young man need to read the book of Mormon”, I said “with all due respect why would I need to when God has already given me the answer in the bible?” She left pretty sharp after that!!

So that as they say is that……. its over!!

Thank you so much everyone for your prayers, for your support at the reach out, and thank you Chapel house Christian fellowship who every night have shown there support to reaching out to these people. And as much as it pains me to say Bobby Gilpin – your organisation and commitment to this reach out campaign has been brilliant. Thank you so much for organising this and getting on my nerves prior to this event to make sure it all ran smoothly. It has been a pleasure to work along side you as well as others.

Finally thank you Mormons for giving us the opportunity to come and talk to you, we have been here for the last 2 weeks because we love you. We want you to know the truth about Jesus, and we want you to know the truth about your prophets and tell you the stuff the leaders would rather you did not know.

If you have any issues or would like to discuss anything to any member here at UK Partnerships for Christ, we would love to here from you.

Love you all!

Jason

Letter to the First Presidency & Quorum of Twelve, By Chris Ralph

A while ago Chris Ralph  wrote a letter that was published here and on Ex Mormon Bishop now atheist Steve Bloor’s Blog to the Europe Area Presidency. This has been met with no response.

Please see below a further letter from Chris addressing his concerns to the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve.

This is something that to many members may seem futile, however to the many people that are leaving the LDS Church due to the issue’s Chris is raising it seems like high time that the leadership of the Church addressed these things themselves, rather than quietly standing back letting those that seek to defend the Church with no authority to speak for it do all the talking, which is the situation we are currently in.

Please enjoy and leave any thoughts below.

Dear First Presidency & Quorum of Twelve,

I am sorry I am writing this letter.

That is not an apology; it is a plain statement of fact. I sincerely am very sorry. It is regrettable that such a letter as this needs to be written at all.

However, when bishops and stake presidents find themselves unable to answer members’ basic concerns, and the Europe Area Presidency pointedly refuses to respond to crucial questions about the church’s foundational claims, it becomes obvious that something is very worryingly amiss. In such circumstances, what other option is there for troubled truth-seekers, than to refer the same unanswered questions to the fifteen men who are periodically sustained as prophets, seers and revelators, and who are sometimes reverentially termed “the living oracles”?

These matters are profoundly important, potentially influencing the daily lives of millions. Accordingly, answers are required from the governing body of the church. Whatever apologists, (self-appointed or otherwise), may have to say on the subject is irrelevant, unless of course, you, as that governing body, decide to endorse their ideas officially. In other words, a response needs to come directly from the horse’s mouth, and not from the mouth of just any aspiring stable-boy currently left to sweep up; stable-boys are hired and fired, and so their words carry no weight or authority.

You will, I assume, have some familiarity with my two Open Letters which were published earlier this year. If not, then they may be found here:

http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/08/28/an-open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-by-chris-ralph/

and here:
http://mormonisminvestigated.co.uk/2012/10/04/second-open-letter-to-area-presidency/

or alternatively here:

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/open-letter-to-europe-area-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

and here:

http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/a-second-open-letter-to-the-europe-area-presidency/

For the sake of brevity, I will not at this point repeat the full content of those letters, but ask for your considered responses when you have read them. Please answer honestly and openly, and please do so without further undue delay.

We have clearly arrived at an important crossroads in the evolution of the church, and history will almost certainly not judge you kindly if the content of those letters continues to be ignored. They represent the questions of many thousands already conversant with the uncensored historical information which is increasingly available to inquiring minds.
In the UK it is becoming apparent that we are nearing tipping point. The proclamation just published by twelve British members is the clearest evidence that disengagement is well underway. They represent thousands in this land who might now be properly described as “closet doubters”.

And who is to blame for that doubt? Are the members themselves culpable, or the local leaders perhaps? Hardly so. Those now leaving in significant numbers had, in many cases, been stalwart defenders of the faith for many years; they are not luke-warm converts of a few weeks’ duration, who have turned away for lack of understanding of gospel principles or church government. The current local leaders in many cases find themselves placed in the unenviable position of trying to advise men and women who are more knowledgeable than they themselves are about the issues. It is not the bishops’ and stake presidents’ faults that they soon find themselves in retreat, incapable of answering and unable to help. Blame for this situation rests squarely with the institutional church itself.

In an age of rapid information exchange, the practice of serving up sanitized history and empty spiritual placebos to the overworked and under-valued members, is without doubt poisoning the whole body of the church. The physician can hardly blame the patient for this perilous mis-judgment.

The tide is rising rapidly, and millions more who have yet to awaken to the uncomfortable facts, (usually because they have been actively discouraged from looking for them by church leaders and teachers), will before long also find out. And then the fairytale must give way to an era of post-fairytale reality. That means pain, and fear, and a sense of the deepest emptiness for many who are undeserving of such traumas, but it is a process which cannot be halted, because surely the God of Truth has willed it this way.

I am reporting this to you, but presumably you are already more than cognisant of these enormous challenges, and so you will also understand that this situation leaves you with a plain choice: either to continue to lead the people in a state of perpetual denial and ignorance, or to teach them to live by a new-found faith and trust in objectivity, which will permit truth to lead us where it will. It ought not to be too difficult for men of real integrity, men of God, to make an enlightened choice. Have we not sung together many times: “Do what is right, let the consequence follow”? The time is upon us when trust in that admonition needs to be expressed both in word and deed.

It is essential above all else to acknowledge that a brazen denial of the past has never been true faith, but just an avoidance of reality; and stubbornness has never been genuine strength, but just arrogance in disguise. This nettle before you must be grasped; this bullet must be bitten. It is for you to act now if you do not wish to stand condemned, not by history alone, but by all honest men and women throughout the world who value truth.

Take for example the case of the Book of Abraham. Scholars have been in no doubt about its true provenance for well over 40 years. However, the church hierarchy has in effect concealed the known facts from the tithe-paying membership. Why? Why are such vital historical discoveries not taught to the members as a matter of honour and integrity? Why is the myth of the Abrahamic papyrus still perpetuated even though it is proven to be false? After all, we read in church-approved manuals: “When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.” (p. 181 Priesthood & Relief Society manual, see http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng).

Why then the deafening silence over something so radically important to the issue of belief in the prophetic office of Joseph Smith? Brethren, as the manual properly affirms, this kind of concealment is dishonesty; it cannot be called anything else. That fact alone is deeply distressing, but there is worse, for when such dishonesty is coupled with soliciting donations from a membership which lives in fear of spiritual condemnation if it fails to comply, it might perhaps be argued that institutional dishonesty has crossed a line and has become deception with intent to defraud. Or at any rate that is what we would probably call it in the UK. That reflects shamefully on all of us, and so I urge you to address this issue, or risk your names being forever tainted.

In the UK, most members pay their donations with added tax relief, and that resulting relief is additionally solicited by the church. This means that if deception with intent to defraud were ever to be proved, the long list of victims would not be limited just to the donors, but might also include the UK government, and therefore, in some way, each citizen of the UK. Assuming that UK offerings annually amount to a conservative £50m, it seems likely that the UK government is surrendering £10m per annum to the church as a corollary of the process. How much, therefore, has the average UK citizen unwittingly “donated” to the church over the last 40 years? This must be viewed as a potentially significant issue.

For most of us though, the deepest concern goes well beyond the earnings we have handed over under questionable circumstances. It is the devaluing of our standing in the eyes of our families and friends, which is most injurious to us, and it seems to occur whenever we place honesty above ecclesiastical loyalties.

I have a son I love and cherish as much as anything God has given me. I know he loves me too, but following my sincere attempt to be open with him about real church history, he concluded I had “lost the spirit”, and that I was no longer the person I had once been, the one he had always looked up to for advice and moral support. That wounded me deeply.

Why would he take such a view? Am I less honest, less charitable, less moral today than I was when I taught him at an early age to “follow the brethren”, and encouraged him to prepare to serve a mission for the church? Not at all. I am sure I am as much the person I ought to be now, as I ever have been. I have not really changed, even though my understanding of reality has. His respect for me has waned because you, (and those who formerly occupied your seats at General Conference), have consistently failed us. It is not his fault that he is afraid to look at the historical evidences which have opened my eyes. Nor is it his fault that he lives in fear of losing his own precious little eternal family if he should discover that my concerns are actually well founded. You have taught him throughout his life to fear the consequences of discovering the truth, and now he and we suffer daily for it.

It grieves me to know that he undoubtedly lives in a state of constant sorrow over what he sees as the disaffection of his parents and his siblings from the only divinely approved vehicle of salvation there is in this world. His life is needlessly streaked with unhappiness because of the fear of uncorrelated spiritual discovery you have sown in him since he first attended Primary. The demonstrably false tenet that God will not permit you, the Brethren, to lead the church astray has insidiously interpolated itself between us and his full trust, and so we are all condemned to suffer, as he doggedly tries to live an existence of false hope, vainly longing for things to be as they once were, but not knowing, (and, through fear, not wanting to know), the scale of the problems you have kept from him.

Having striven always to be honest with my fellow men, and having constantly held up that kind of example to our children, I find that a hidden wedge, (sometimes referred to by others as the “invisible elephant in the room”), has now resulted, and I am sure it is because he cannot prevent himself from measuring my worth by my unwillingness to pay you lip-service allegiance. As I no longer feel able to be supportive of your chosen ethos, he perceives that the fault is in me, for he has been thoroughly persuaded that you would not lead him astray. This is ironic on multiple levels, isn’t it?

We are more fortunate than many however, who, finding themselves in similar circumstances, are no longer even able to bring themselves to speak civilly to one another, for so great is the animosity arising from this issue of leadership infallibility. Tragically, Voltaire has been proven correct many times over in his observation that “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices”.

Many LDS families have suffered and continue to suffer such injustices because of this infallibility belief first promulgated by Wilford Woodruff. It is time therefore to de-commission that pernicious and destructive teaching, which is currently instrumental in destroying so many kin relationships and friendships throughout the world.

There is a great need instead to re-enthrone the liberating principle of honest inquiry that all may freely discover the facts for themselves. This has been advocated by various leaders in the past, such as James E. Talmage, who stated:

“The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding… In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion or criticism is worth defending”

and J. Reuben Clark, who said:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed”

and Hugh B. Brown, who observed:

“Only error fears freedom of expression.”

This current “control neurosis” should cease. It is time to do as Jesus would do, and teach a gospel of inclusiveness once more, which emphasizes that nobody should ever be considered a lesser person for pursuing ultimate truth, even if their quest leads them in due course to the conclusion that such truth is not found within Mormonism.

As you consider the humble origins of this church, and of Joseph Smith junior its founder, on this his 207th birthday, please don’t allow yourselves to be deceived into thinking that the finery and sophistry purchased with accumulated wealth in recent times, will ever be sufficient to cover up the sins of the past. The eventual cost of misleading the people at this crossroads would prove far greater than any price you would pay for championing transparency and inclusiveness. And if your courage begins to fail you as you stand upon this momentous brink, then please exercise full faith, and do not attempt to count the cost as you cast off the worn and torn rags of misrepresentation which, to be truthful, have adorned Joseph Smith’s church throughout its history.

Provided your intentions are worthy ones, we, the many disillusioned members, are ready to help in every possible way if you will only begin to speak to us, and also listen to what we have to say, just as Elder Holland promised he would do on BBC television earlier this year.

However, your desire for realignment must be full and sincere. Half-truths will no longer do, for they are also half-falsehoods, and will be found out. The searing light of truth must be shone upon every concern. Full disclosure is the only hope there is that the patient may be healed of his otherwise terminal
condition.

The time has come; this moment of opportunity may never return.

In hope,
Chris Ralph

An Open Letter to Europe Area Presidency by Chris Ralph.

The following letter was sent by the Europe Area Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to its Stake Presidents and Bishops, and various other leaders in April 2012. It was sent in response to the increase in levels of disaffection of members who were encountering the problematic history of the church through the medium of the internet. The letter was soon afterwards leaked to rank and file members and ex-members, and became a public document. It is here reproduced, together with my response in the form of an open letter to the Europe Area Presidency:

Dear Europe Area Presidency,

While your letter to local leaders of the church, dated 10th April 2012, was not originally intended for public dissemination, “the technology and modern communication tools of our day”, as you refer to them in that letter, have swiftly rendered this a widely read public document.

As such it is clearly deserving of a constructive response from the intended end-beneficiaries, and I, (being one of a rising tide of long established members who have in recent years been deeply affected by an array of distressing historical disclosures), now offer the following thoughts in the hope that the sense of wounded trust may be positively addressed.

Firstly, I applaud the encouragement you have given to local leaders to “work patiently and lovingly” with those of us who, more often than not through devotion to the church and its history, have had our eyes opened to challenging historical facts. How much better and in tune this is than certain regrettable past attitudes, which sometimes labelled those who had discovered uncomfortable historical facts as “unrighteous”, or as “having lost the spirit”, or worse still as “anti-Mormon”.

Whenever the term “anti-Mormon” is employed in an attempt to disqualify those whose avowed purpose is “pro-truth” and “pro-history”, then surely the church is upon very uncertain moral ground. Please, therefore, may I ask you to discourage that kind of name calling which can only cause further damage, and please do what you are able to reignite among the membership that same spirit of enquiry and quest for truth which a couple of generations ago was so aptly articulated by President J. Reuben Clark when he stated: ‘If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.’

Perhaps also we could have clarification about whether we, as Latter-day Saints still believe, (as I was taught and believed when I was converted to the church over forty years ago), that truth is better than riches because it will set us free? Do we still place value upon the title Truth which the Saviour took to himself? Can it justifiably still be claimed that truth is the common currency of the LDS church in 2012? If so, then surely there must be a respectable place within the LDS church for those of us who love transparency enough to speak it, and share it, and stand for it, even though some of us have hitherto been despised and misunderstood for doing so.

Sadly, too many faithful advocates of historical truth have been shunned and discarded over the years, simply because they cared enough to question that which, although not of their own making or choosing, was nevertheless right there before them. What else could they do if they valued their integrity? It has long been a puzzle to me how we, as a church, might teach that the glory of God is intelligence, while, at the same time promoting the idea that when it comes to historical realities, ignorance is accounted a virtue. This, surely, is a contradiction which needs to be reconciled in the eyes of a quizzical world.

The concern extends beyond routine circumvention of intellectual discomfort however, to the weightier matter of commissioned institutional misrepresentation. The charge we, as Latter-day Saints of all levels of understanding, must confront is that the church has actively sought to replace authentic narratives of its history with deceitful mythologies.

For example, all of the contemporary accounts of the translation of the Book of Mormon refer to Joseph Smith using a seer- or peep-stone nestled inside his hat, into which he gazed for inspiration as he dictated the text, while the plates themselves were typically not present in the room. This process was of course an obvious extension of Joseph’s previous occultist practice of “scrying” during his treasure hunting days, (or “glass-looking” as the court papers referred to it when he was convicted of that misdemeanour in 1826). We have very detailed and reliable accounts of the actual translation process followed, and so a growing number of historically informed members feel concern that the church attempts in its publications to promote a different story without foundation in historical reality; these show Joseph apparently translating the gold plates by studying and touching them. Is this portrayal not disingenuous, given that we have a clear knowledge of how the text was actually produced, and also a tacit admission that the real history is perceived by church leaders to be an embarrassment?

Book of Mormon translation according to [1] The Ensign (Church Magazine), and

[2] South Park. NB: The South Park version is much more historically accurate

It is disconcerting when our children alert us to the true facts of this crucial event in Mormon history after watching an episode of South Park. The discovery that the creators of South Park place a higher value on historical authenticity than do the Brethren creates spiritual shock-waves from which some members never recover. And may I state the obvious here? This faith-shaking disparity between what the missionaries are trained to teach, and what the world already knows about our spiritual heritage, can hardly be blamed upon those members who accidentally stumble upon it, or on their children, or on the creators of South Park; the burden of responsibility for the misrepresentation rests firmly upon the shoulders of the Brethren, who allowed, and apparently encouraged it to be introduced into LDS popular culture. It is a sin of commission no less. Furthermore it is most distasteful to suggest, as some do, that because the sin was committed by the Brethren, it is authorised by Jesus Christ, unless of course they are suggesting that the Saviour is a deceiver.

Is it not sadly ironic therefore that your letter advises local leaders that “some choose to dwell on half-truths or inaccurate information regarding the church, its history, or its leaders”? That statement is undoubtedly true, but the accusing finger is readily shown by numerous examples, such as the one already mentioned, to be pointing in quite the wrong direction. Nor is it enough to assert, as you have, that the church does not hide historical facts, when it may so easily be demonstrated that it has done so in the past, and continues to do so even today. To make such a claim is just adding a further layer of untruth to that which already exists, and will not accomplish any honourable purpose. How is this practice worthy of God’s servants?

Might I humbly suggest that some soul searching and realignment with reality is urgently needed? It is certain that the regaining of spiritual equilibrium, which your letter laudably aims to accomplish, is going to take a great deal of constrained dialogue, empathy, understanding, and, where necessary, concession. Only when truth is acknowledged as sovereign will equilibrium ever be regained. Inclusiveness is a very positive first step in this vital process though, so thank you for offering some hope in that respect. May I comment, that my own Stake President has to date been commendable in his sensitive attempts to understand and handle my case? It is a pity that others in a similar position, I am informed, have done rather less well in dealing with these challenges.

We may of course ascribe much of the present situation to human failing. We might ask: is it wrong to fail if we acknowledge failure, and try again? Do we ever truly repent and learn when we cover our sin? It seems to me that we do not, and what applies to the individual, also applies to the institution.

Many wrestle in their spiritual progress with the behavioural problems of past leaders. They cannot understand why it was necessary, for example, for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to marry and have relations with other men’s wives, particularly, (in the case of Joseph), when his own wife was not even aware of several such relationships. They also baulk at the idea of an angel threatening Joseph with a sword if he did not enter into clandestine polygamous unions with numerous women, and they cannot begin to see the relevance of his secret marriage unions with teenage girls, some as young as fourteen. That kind of behaviour just does not resonate with their concept of what a prophet is, or ever has been. If you insist, as your letter does, that Joseph Smith was not a fallen prophet, then those who have become disillusioned and deeply offended by such disturbing disclosures, will need a full and honest explanation from you, which goes a long way beyond counsel to read the scriptures and pray. Perhaps the Brethren might follow that counsel themselves and seek the necessary inspiration about how the membership may be taught the historical truths, contextualising Joseph’s own fallibility. Nothing less will begin to win back a good number of members who presently feel disaffected for this reason.

However, even the behavioural anomalies of past leaders, is not the most serious concern causing disaffection. For some years I for one have taken the view that it matters far more what God did than what Joseph is recorded as having done. That Joseph was fallible, fallen even, is ultimately acceptable to the believer, for he was a man; however the scriptures, or Standard Works, are at the very foundation of LDS doctrine and practice. We, as members, are duty bound to acknowledge them as the mind and will of God, and as the means available to us for measuring spiritual truth. I ask you in all sincerity therefore to explain publicly an anomaly which apparently undermines the very authority of the LDS scriptures in the minds of many. The reason I ask for a public explanation is so that all may learn where the half-truths as well as the untruths may be identified in this matter.

I refer principally to the deeply disturbing anomalies encountered in the Book of Abraham, for they above all else have caused my own uncritical acceptance of LDS authority to unravel. I wish it had not been so, but nevertheless that is how it was for me, and once again, please remember that the circumstances were not of my choosing. In fact, like many others, I only became aware of the problem because I was attempting to defend, not attack, the position of the church. I and thousands like me now need a credible explanation from the Brethren if any degree of our support is to be regained.

You are probably already familiar with the concerns I shall raise, and also perhaps with some of the unconvincing apologetic responses which have been offered. In brief however, those concerns may be summed up as follows:

• The Book of Abraham was, (according to official documentation), in 1835 translated by the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith, from Egyptian papyri which Joseph Smith said contained a record of Abraham, and also one of Joseph who was sold into Egypt.

• The resulting text of the Book of Abraham states that the record was made by Abraham’s own hand upon papyrus. This would presumably have been c 1900 BC. The papyrus actually dates to the first century BC.

• When it is translated by modern Egyptologists, no mention at all of Abraham is found in the text. The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was produced, is in fact a late copy, (Ptolemaic), of The Book of Breathings, a regular funerary text, which maps pagan Egyptian beliefs concerning the state of the soul after death.

• The Book of Abraham produced by Joseph Smith from this papyrus refers in the text to associated “Facsimiles”, which also constitute part of LDS canon. Facsimile 1, (see below), for example allegedly shows Abraham fixed to an altar about to be sacrificed by the priest of the pagan god Elkenah, before being saved from this fate by an angel of the Lord. The official church website dramatically portrays this event in the “Gospel Art Picture Kit” with the following illustration:

• Note in both illustrations the inclusion of the lion-headed couch, and the presence of tell-tale canopic jars, which were routinely used by ancient Egyptians during the process of embalming. These formed part of the pagan funerary rites, and the same motifs may be found on the chamber walls of later pyramids, as for example:

• This well-known scene actually depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld, by his son Anubis, the jackal-headed god.
• There are differences certainly between Facsimile 1 and the images found in Egyptian burial chambers, but they are only the consequence of Joseph Smith incorrectly having guessed what had originally been recorded in the gaps where the papyrus was damaged. Fortunately, we are able to assess from the original papyrus the areas where Joseph employed his faulty guesswork, as the following photograph illustrates:

• The damaged and missing portion of the papyrus explains perfectly why the jackal-headed Anubis was absent from Facsimile 1, and in his place the otherwise unknown (to historians) priest of Elkenah was inserted by Joseph Smith. Creative though this idea may have been in 1835, according to the best scholarship presently available, it was wide of the mark.
• It is also very apparent that Joseph Smith had a misinformed idea about the original use of hieroglyphs. By comparing the glyphs on the papyri with an “Egyptian grammar” which was prepared under Joseph’s direction in 1835, it is apparent that Joseph considered that each glyph represented whole, complex sentences, rather than simple sounds or concepts. Accordingly we find one particular glyph, which resembles a reversed capital E, and which we now know means “water”, rendered by Joseph as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”

Even overlooking the anomaly, upon which historians are agreed, that the Chaldeans did not exist in the time of Abraham, or for several hundred years afterwards, how can such a mis-reading of one simple glyph leave any margin for doubt that Joseph Smith got it all very wrong in this case? Does it not take wilful blindness, and a high degree of spiritual contortionism to overcome plain common sense and believe otherwise? Are we really expected to believe that God, who gave each of us sufficient intelligence to reason and make sense of our environment, would require us in this instance not to use that same intelligence? In order to demonstrate faith, is it really necessary to practice such denial, or have faith and denial become one and the same?

For those of us who utilised native intelligence to renounce as hypocrisy those worldly systems and values around us when we turned our backs as converts on the world, and joined the LDS church, is it now reasonable to expect us to lay aside those same powers in considering this issue? Is it not more authentic, and pleasing to God, just to acknowledge the simple conclusion that Joseph may have tried but he failed? For me and for many others there is far greater peace in that course of action than in any amount of dissembling in a vain attempt to defend what is, and always will be indefensible. Can you or anyone, in the full glare of reason and reality, say I and others are wrong to feel as we do?

Brethren, where are the half-truths? Where are the falsehoods, and the false claims when the facts are properly and fairly illuminated?

It appears to me an impossibility in the light of the foregoing to disagree with the conclusion of one Egyptologist who remarked concerning the papyri: “Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.” (James H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago)

I have not mentioned Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the other two Facsimiles, which are just as profoundly flawed; nor have I touched here upon any of the other scriptures revealed by him, but for now this one example will suffice. Please explain, with reference to the Book of Abraham, and the detailed evidence we now have concerning its provenance, how one may remain in harmony with Truth, and at the same time continue to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired.

You speak in your letter of providing the best possible answers. That is good, because those answers are what I and the rest of mankind deserve to hear, and we sincerely look forward to your response.

Please do not exclude me or others because we cannot agree with the position you feel forced to defend by virtue of your callings. Please accept us as those who wish for truth, wherever it may be found, to be upheld in the end as victorious over error. I agree with you that faith, (in truth at least), will always be a conscious choice, which is why I care enough to write and invite you to demonstrate the truthfulness of this matter to the world. Faith in that which is shown to be untrue however, is not worthy of the name. The apostle Orson Pratt, (writing with concern to the Book of Mormon, but his words may equally be applied to the case of the Book of Abraham), stated it well:

“If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion, may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments–by evidences adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines–to reclaim mankind from their errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked impostors.”

So, please provide your best answers, (even if those answers convey a sentiment of doubt), and please extend an honest hand of friendship to me and the many in my position, opening up a constructive dialogue with us, so that all may see that we are able to work together from here onwards in promoting truth and discarding past errors.

Sincerely and faithfully,

Christopher Ralph

A CONTINUING JOURNEY OF LOYAL DISSENT (Part 2):

This is part 2 of recent updates with Chris Ralph’s Journey out of Mormonism. Chris is a fascinating guy who has a very fair perspective on Mormonism despite the many historical issues he is facing which is ultimately leading him out of the Church. Part 1 can be found here.

Also just below. is the audio from a recent interview Chris did on BBC Radio Bristol, Trevor Fry’s “Sunday Starts”. Looking at the history of the Mormon church in Bristol, very interesting discussion.

Chris Ralph BBC Radio Bristol, Trevor Fry’s “Sunday Starts”

A CONTINUING JOURNEY OF LOYAL DISSENT (Part 2):

It is no secret that my testimony has been challenged enormously in recent years by information which is increasingly available on the internet and elsewhere. Some of the principle building blocks of that testimony have been found, upon close examination, to lack substance, and to be unfit for the intended purpose. That isn’t my fault, although I know some may choose to attack me for it, for I am merely the quality controller, not the manufacturer. Never again, for example, will I be able to view Joseph Smith as God’s ordained prophet now that I have seen for myself that his translation of the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian papyrus was ludicrously at variance with its authentic meaning. I do not see how one Egyptian glyph which we know translates as “water” can be mistakenly translated by God’s true messenger as: “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”?

It just isn’t tenable, no matter how much I might wish to believe it is. Now, whether Joseph Smith knew in 1835 when he supposedly translated the Book of Abraham that he was foisting upon the world an out and out deception, or whether he was completely swept up in the mesmerism of his own charisma, (which I personally suspect he was), hardly matters in the end; the fact is inescapable that his “translation” has misled millions in the name of divinity, and that cannot be dismissed as a trivial matter. (Yes, I have read the apologists’ explanations in my vain attempt to salvage something from the wreckage, but their spiritual contortionism is unconvincing and only saps confidence further). The conclusion that Joseph Smith was not the prophet I wanted him to be was not mere speculation on my part on a bad day, but was soundly supported by a higher quality of evidence than that required by criminal courts of law to condemn men to gaol. It is widely available evidence, obtained from multiple sources, which takes us far beyond all reasonable doubt. When I first confronted that evidence, and realized what it meant, my stomach turned. I felt physically sick. I so wanted Joseph Smith to be the prophet I had believed him to be for over 35 years. But pretense is not my forté.

The CJCLDS, (which, supposedly through divine revelation, canonized the Book of Abraham in the 1880s), has for over forty years possessed primary evidence of this deception in its vaults, but has done little or nothing about informing its tithe-paying membership of the historical realities of the matter. That non-response is for me the much greater concern, because, if institutional integrity means anything to God, that silence is surely indefensible. Why is this not by now headline news in every ward and branch of the CJCLDS throughout the world? Why is there not a frank and open discussion of these matters in General Conference? If there has been a major error of judgment, then the only right thing to do is to confess the error and seek forgiveness for it. Or are the Brethren not bound by the same laws which are incumbent upon rank and file members?

You see, had I, as an individual, knowingly misrepresented crucial facts about my credentials for the purpose of obtaining significant financial gain, (the CJCLDS apparently receives billions of dollars in tithing each year, much of it donated trustingly by the poor and needy), and had I done so over the course of forty years, it would rightly become a matter which would bar me for the time being from holding a temple recommend; it might even lead, with full justification, to action being taken against me because of my un-Christian conduct, and the possible loss of my membership. One might ask therefore why the institutional church, and those directing it, are not subject to the same spiritual and moral laws as ordinary members. Is the silence due to lack of courage, or lack of conscience?

The uneasy question also arises, if Joseph Smith couldn’t translate regular Egyptian in creating the Book of Abraham in 1835, how well qualified was he to translate so-called Reformed Egyptian six years earlier, when he produced the Book of Mormon, the keystone of the Mormon religion? It too, has been scrutinized of course, (not that the average member would know it), and with what results? So far academic research into native American linguistics, anthropology and archaeology, stylometric analysis of the text, and molecular DNA analysis, offers nothing of substance which supports the proposal that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record, despite the best efforts of Mormon apologists to suggest it does.

Put simply, the pieces just don’t fit. I have done enough research in my time, albeit into local and family history, to know that when enough pieces of the puzzle don’t fit, the hypothesis is flawed, even though our most heartfelt wishes and personal loyalties may be invested in it. In the real world, which is where, by divine decree we find ourselves, facts must inform feelings, and not vice versa. Anyone who doggedly insists that feelings may override facts, has already surrendered the argument, and also their ability to think critically. Sadly, there are many good but frightened LDS members caught in the jaws of this cruel dilemma, and I can only see those numbers escalating in the years to come. Historians may, I suspect, look back upon this decade as the era of the great Mormon meltdown in the British Isles. We can only hope and pray that growing disillusionment will not turn to utter despair. I am learning daily that God is far bigger than I previously ever understood, and there is everything still to hope for.

So, in summary, investigation reveals that some of the building blocks acquired during my long years of LDS membership, consist of a very fragile substance which crumbles under scrutiny. I wish it were not so, (I really do), but it is, and honesty must be valued above loyalty. That doesn’t take anything away, however, from the many good people I have been privileged to know within Mormonism, or from my own gains in having lived within that circle for so long, and it certainly doesn’t erase my sense of shared identity with Mormon friends. I so hope those friendships and associations will continue, for they are part of me. The apostle Paul was as committed a Christian as any, but he was also a Jew and a Roman citizen. His Jewish and Roman identities did not cause him to align himself personally with the judgments of Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate. Likewise I wish to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of my earthly life, but my acquired identity is undeniably with the Mormon people, and I still count myself a fellow citizen with them for family and cultural reasons, even though the evidence in my view invalidates LDS theology. The theology won’t matter much with the passage of time. It is only certain that it will change as it has done in the past; it is going to have to in order to accommodate the 21st century blizzard of information which challenges many of its past assumptions.

It’s going to be a very rough ride in years to come, and many LDS will seek shelter from the storm as they stumble over the shocking truths for themselves. I think of my own children and grandchildren for example, and hope that they will find a safe haven. It’s a journey I am ready to make with them, but this journey can only be a journey of loyal dissent. Whether it is a journey I will be permitted to continue unimpeded has yet to be decided by those appointed to judge such things for the good of the membership. I will only say I feel encouraged though. If my Stake President is in any way representative of the main body of believers, then some ears will be ready to listen, and some sensitive, caring hearts and minds will be ready to consider the sincere newly found narratives and experiences of bruised and battered truth seekers like me. Perhaps Christian inclusiveness and unquestionable openness will yet come to characterize modern Mormonism.

The door, I sense, is presently open ajar, and, as long as those in higher places have the wisdom and humility not to slam it shut, there is, I think, yet real cause to hope that two-way fellowship and constructive dialogue will have important parts to play. Perhaps it will be finally accepted that people like me, who care deeply, are going to be of greater value commenting within the necessary processes of change, than would be the case if they were excluded or shunned. It should amount to this really: what would Jesus do? The name “Jesus Christ” may appear large in the title of the LDS church, but who will honestly dare to suggest that Jesus would approve of institutional cover-ups? Surely his message would always be that error should be confronted, acknowledged, rooted out, and repented of, and rebirth sought in line with truth.

Therein, I think, is found the Way, the Truth, and the Life which is genuinely worth following. The Lord has never needed anyone to lie for Him.