My First Doubt- The Book of Mormon and the Bible

Search, Ponder and Pray

Growing up in the church, I was always taught to read the scriptures every day and study them. Ironically, it was studying the scriptures that casted the first doubts about the validity of the Book of Mormon.

I remember reading in the Book of Mormon certain chapters in 3 Nephi that were very similar to verses I had read in the New Testament. My initial reaction was that it was a testament of how both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are inspired works that Jesus would teach the same thing on the American continent that he did in Palestine.

Beginning of the End

However, when I cross referenced the chapters, I realized that the chapters were not just similar, they were exact word-for-word replicas. For example, 3 Nephi chapters 12-14 are word-for-word copies of the King James version of Matthew chapters 5-7.

As I read and compared the 2 books, I found it quite disturbing, as we are led to believe in the church that the Book of Mormon is a direct translation with the divine help from God from the Gold plates. In the LDS church, we are also led to believe that the Bible has all kinds of translation errors and the the Book of Mormon is there to clarify plain and precious things that have been removed from the scriptures as stated in 1 Nephi 13:28.

However, it was evident to me that Joseph Smith used sections of the King James version of the Bible and inserted them into the Book of Mormon. He didn't even try to hide this apparent plagiarism as the verses were pretty much all identical.

Joseph Smith Translation

According to the LDS church regarding the Joseph Smith Translation:

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.

Joseph Smith felt it necessary to re-translate parts of the Bible. The term 'translate' is used loosely by the church and can have various meanings, but keep in mind that this transpired years after the the Book of Mormon was published. The Joseph Smith translation is not canonized in the LDS church, but is footnoted in LDS published versions of the King James Bible. The Joseph Smith Translation is also known as the "Inspired Version" of the Bible and is canonized as scripture by the Community of Christ, formerly known as the RLDS.

Matthew 6:13

One example of these "re-translations" is found in Matthew 6:13, where the King James Version reads:

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil..."

The Joseph Smith translation reads:

"And suffer us not to be led into tempation..."

It is also footnoted in the LDS bible that the Syriac translation reads

"Do not let us enter into temptation."

This is a very important doctrinal change, as explained by the JST contents that the Lord does not lead us into temptation and therefore the King James version had a translation error.

Book of Mormon Equivalent

However, 3 Nephi 13:12 reads the same as the KJ version:
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

Book of Mormon: The Most Correct Book?

Now how is it that we are to believe that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book and that the Bible is flawed with translation errors, when parts of the Book of Mormon are exact copies, even including the translation errors from the King James version of the Bible. Then, after that, Joseph Smith is able to further clarify biblical passages by re-translating the verses to conform with the teachings, meanwhile, the Book of Mormon, which was supposed to be the most correct book still contains the exact same errors.

Discovering this shocked me and scared me and I stopped cross-referencing the scriptures from that moment on. I made myself believe that if I just kept reading the scriptures, praying and feeling the "confirmation from the spirit" that it was a much better way for me to know the truthfulness to the scriptures. I guess that I was simply following the first 2 of 6 ways that people deal with cognitive dissonance, as I talked about in a previous post.

Looking back, this discovery did not stop me from going on my mission, but it was the first Jenga piece as described in a previous post that ultimately led to my disillusionment.

Disillusioned Mormon Read more!

A Banana Testifies Of The Genius of God's Creation

Kirt Cameron says that a banana testifies of the genius of God's creation.

He talks about how a "well-made banana" is specifically designed by God to serve humans. I think his argument is cute, and I do think that a banana demonstrates the genius of God's creation, but not in the same way as this particular example.

What is a "well-made banana"?

Bananas come in all different shapes and sizes. Bananas have been cultivated and selected by humans to benefit humans. Say you have 50 different types of bananas. You would pick the one out of the 50 that best suits human interest and cultivate just that one. As time goes on, any time you come across a variation that benefits humans, you would select that one and cultivate it. If you run across a banana that is too big, or too small, you wouldn't cultivate that one and that gene dies off. The point is that the definition of a "well-made banana" is simply that by its own self-serving definition. The bananas that best serve humans are the ones that are selected and cultivated by humans themselves.

What about corn?

Does corn testify of the genius of God's creation? Of all the varieties of corn in the world today, not one is wild. The reason is simply because the plant we call corn today is physically incapable of regenerating itself without the active assistance of man. To the left you can see a picture of teosinte, an ancestor of modern-day corn. Teosinte is not edible and still exists today in Mesoamerica. It is a grass and has tiny little cobs inside of little pods about 4 cm small and they do grow naturally. Compared to modern day corn, It is practically useless, and I would not consider it "well-made" in the context of describing a plant that is beneficial to humans.

Why Can't Corn Reproduce Naturally?

In my research into the cultures of pre-Colombian Mesoamerica, I learned about how they cultivated maize from a grass-like plant to modern corn. During this research, I came across an interesting tidbit on how modern corn had to have been manipulated genetically by humans and by no other means. In Reader's Digest Mysteries of the Ancient Americas, it says:

Modern corn's strength and its weakness lie in its unique grain-bearing "ear," a highly specialized flower cluster whose hundreds of seeds are compactly arranged along a rigid cob, the lot enclosed in tight-fitting, multi-layered husks. These husks prevent the seed kernels from dispersing on their own either on the stalk or when the ear falls to the ground. in fact, only when the ear is shucked and the kernels are forcibly freed can the seeds go fourth to start another season's growth...corn had somehow been manipulated genetically, from varieties that were less satisfactory in size and productivity to varieties that were large and yielding more food value.

What is a "well-made" ear of corn?

When defining a "well-made" ear of corn(as in beneficial to humans), you would consider the food value, the size fits well in your hands, not too big, not too small, it tastes good, etc.

The paradox, if you are to consider intelligent design, is that corn doesn't grow naturally. What you would consider a "well-made" ear of corn has been cultivated by humans over time to benefit humans. This is evident in the fact that there is no such thing as wild corn. Corn has been cultivated over time and the variations that benefit humans the best have been singled out, selected and cultivated. The ancestors to corn like tripsacum and teosinte are of little use to humans, and when compared to corn, they would in no way be considered "well-made" in this context. There did exist wild corn some 7,000 years ago, but it was very similar to teosinte in that it was very small and grass-like. Wild corn doesn't exist anymore today and the only corn that exists is what has been cultivated and selected by humans.

I don't dispute that God has given us this wonderful thing called nature in all its splendid beauty. After all, without teosinte, we wouldn't have corn, so for that I do thank God. However, I do dispute the argument that everything is designed perfectly by God to benefit man as defined and explained in the video. Now, I have to be careful, because I am not saying that God didn't design everything perfectly, I am saying that the definition of intelligent design that I have heard is not congruent with what one can see simply by looking at an ear of corn. God has given us the tools and means to cultivate our agriculture to our benefit by our own liking, or own choosing and by our own definition. It is almost as if we are given some kind of "free agency" in this selection process. The true intelligent design is the fact that God has provided us with plants and animals that can change and adapt to the environment as well as what we consider "well-made". It seems to me that the most intelligent design is something that can change and go through a selection process.

If there is such a thing as "intelligent design" as defined by many, I think the banana is a very poor example to use. The ability of obtaining the most beneficial banana to humans through the selection process is really what testifies of the genius of God's creation.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

Plant-Life Test and the Book of Mormon

I would like to get back onto the topic of the geography, geology, archaeology and overall culture of the Book of Mormon and how it compares to what we find in ancient America. Today I will talk about the plants that are described in the Book of Mormon and how they compare with what is found in the real world.

Plants Described in the Book of Mormon:

• Barley (Mosiah 7:22, Mosiah 9:9, Alma 11:7, Alma 11:15)

• Corn (Mosiah 9:9, Mosiah 9:14, Mosiah 7:22)
  

• Figs (3 Nephi 14:16)

• Grapes (2 Nephi 15:2, 2 Nephi 15:4, 3 Nephi 14:16)
  

• Neas (Mosiah 9:9)

• Sheum (Mosiah 9:9)
  

• Wheat (Mosiah 9:9, 3 Nephi 18:18)
  

First of all, you might be wondering what the heck are neas and sheums. Well, you are not alone, because according to the Book of Mormon index, they are unidentified plants. Since we have no idea what these plants are, there is no way to compare them with the real world. They could be turnips and green beans for all we know.

Book of Mormon Plant Test with Ancient America

When comparing the known plants with ancient American plant life, we see the following results:

Barley: None found.
Corn: Maize is found.
Figs: None found.
Grapes: None found.
Wheat: None found.

There is evidence for 1 out of the 5 known plants as described in the Book of Mormon. Some people say that maize is not corn, but that is silly and I think a little dishonest. That would be like saying a plantain isn't a banana. Technically they are different species, but when translating something like maize to English, it would be reasonable to use the word corn. However, barley, figs, grapes and wheat are not found in ancient America.

Significance of lack of evidence

It is important to note that these plants did exist in other regions of the world during this time period such as places mentioned in the Bible. Those areas have abundant evidence to demonstrate that these plants existed in those areas of the world in ancient times. Also, you can see plenty of evidence in archaeological findings for other non-Book of Mormon plants that did exist in ancient America, such as lima beans, tomatoes, squash, etc.

Even if the plants described in the Book of Mormon disappeared off the face of the earth, archaeologists have uncovered numerous art renderings in murals and stone sculptures that depict ancient plant life. Artwork containing plant life of that time is commonly found. In the mural above(click to enlarge), you can see a typical mural found in ancient America. It accurately depicts maize plants as found in ancient America. However, none of the other Book of Mormon plants are depicted anywhere on any of the artwork that has been discovered.

Unfortunately for the Book of Mormon plant-life test, the major plants of ancient America can be identified all the way back to 5,000 B.C. and there is no sign of barley, figs, grapes or wheat.

How often are these plants mentioned in the Bible?

I am convinced that Joseph Smith used the bible as a source when writing the Book of Mormon. All of the known plants from the Book of Mormon are mentioned numerous times in the bible.

Barley:(Ruth 3: 2, 15, 17,2 Kgs. 7: 1, 16, 18, Ex. 9: 31, Ruth 2: 17, 23, 2 Chr. 2: 10, 15, Ezek. 4: 9, 12, Hosea 3: 2, John 6: 9, 13, Lev. 27: 16, Num. 5: 15, Deut. 8: 8, Judg. 7: 13, Ruth 1: 22, 2 Sam. 14: 30, 2 Sam. 17: 28, 2 Sam. 21: 9, 1 Kgs. 4: 28, 2 Kgs. 4: 42, 1 Chr. 11: 13, 2 Chr. 27: 5, Job 31: 40, Isa. 28: 25, Jer. 41: 8, Ezek. 13: 19, Ezek. 45: 13, Joel 1: 11, Rev. 6: 6)

Corn:(Gen. 42: 1-3, 5, 19, 25-26, Gen. 41: 5, 35, 49, 57, Neh. 5: 2-3, 10-11, Lev. 2: 14, 16, Josh. 5: 11-12, Hosea 2: 8-9, 22, Gen. 27: 28, 37, Ex. 22: 6, Deut. 16: 9, 13, Deut. 23: 25, Ruth 2: 2, 14, 2 Sam. 17: 19, 28, Neh. 13: 5, 12, Job 24: 6, 24, Ps. 65: 9, 13, Joel 1: 10, 17, Matt. 12: 1, Mark 2: 23, Luke 6: 1, Judg. 15: 5, )

Figs:(Jer. 24: 1-3, 5, 8, Matt. 21: 19-21, Mark 11: 13, 20-21, Judg. 9: 10-11, Song. 2: 13, Isa. 34: 4,Jer. 8: 13,Joel 1: 7, 12,Nahum 3: 12,Luke 13: 6-7, John 1: 48, 50, James 3: 12, Rev. 6: 13,Gen. 3: 7, Num. 13: 23, Num. 20: 5, Deut. 8: 8, 1 Sam. 25: 18, 1 Sam. 30: 12, 1 Kgs. 4: 25,2 Kgs. 18: 31, 2 Kgs. 20: 7,1 Chr. 12: 40,Neh. 13: 15, Ps. 105: 33, Prov. 27: 18,Isa. 36: 16)

Grapes:(Isa. 5: 2, 4, Num. 13: 20, 23-24, Deut. 32: 14, 32, Gen. 40: 10-11, Lev. 25: 5, 11, Num. 6: 3, Deut. 28: 30, 39, Song. 2: 13, 15, Song. 7: 7, 12, Jer. 31: 29-30, Gen. 49: 11, Lev. 19: 10, Deut. 23: 24, Judg. 8: 2, Judg. 9: 27, Neh. 13: 15, Job 15: 33, Isa. 17: 6, Jer. 25: 30, Ezek. 18: 2,

Hosea 9: 10, Amos 9: 13, Obad. 1: 5, Matt. 7: 16, Luke 6: 44, Rev. 14: 18)

Wheat:(Matt. 13: 25, 29-30, 1 Chr. 21: 20, 23, 2 Chr. 2: 10, 15, Amos 8: 5-6, Gen. 30: 14, Ex. 9: 32, Ex. 34: 22, Num. 18: 12, Deut. 8: 8, Deut. 32: 14, Judg. 6: 11, Judg. 15: 1, Ruth 2: 23, 1 Sam. 12: 17, 2 Sam. 4: 6, 1 Kgs. 5: 11, 2 Chr. 27: 5, Ezra 6: 9, Job 31: 40, Prov. 27: 22, Song. 7: 2, Isa. 28: 25, Jer. 12: 13, Jer. 23: 28, Ezek. 4: 9, Joel 1: 11)

I think it is very likely that Joseph Smith noticed that the plants were specifically referenced in the bible and decided to include it as a way of making the historicity of the Book of Mormon seem more believable. However, the difference is that the missing plants in ancient America can be found in the regions of the bible.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

"Cursed Is He That Putteth His Trust In Man"

"Cursed Is He That Putteth His Trust In Man"
2 Nephi 28:31

According to LDS scripture, we are not to put our trust in mankind, but in God. The reason we should trust in God more than man is simple. Our own understanding is limited, but God's understanding is unlimited.

Who created Nature?

Nature has been around a lot longer than mankind. If you take away mankind, nature would still get by without us. Nature doesn't rely on mankind at all; in fact, I think nature would be in better shape without us. Nature is not man-made, God created nature.

Who created Words?

Words have not been around longer than mankind. If you take away mankind, words would not exist and even if they did, they would have no bearing on nature. Words are man-made. Words have been invented by men. Even if God instructed Adam and Eve in a pure and Godly language, words have been shaped, developed, altered and tailored to suit man's interests.

Words have had a reputation to deceive millions. That isn't to say that every word shaped by every human is deceptive. However, if one was to compare written words with nature, since words are man-made and nature is created by God, to me that means nature carries more weight. I am not trying to convince anyone that my point of view with my words. I want people to do their own research, look at the natural world and let everyone know what you have discovered. As I said, not all words are bad.

I see God in nature. I think God has the greatest understanding and a perfect knowledge about science and the laws that govern our universe. When we learn about the laws of physics or study different aspects of nature, we are able to see little glimpses of God's understanding.

Is Nature Deceptive?

One can not just look at nature and take everything they see at face value. From our perspective, the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth. The way we perceive nature is very important. A telescope is a perfect example. Our eyes alone are very limiting and without special instruments, we would only see things from our own perspective. A telescope is one way to open up to a much greater understanding of the Universe. Since the Universe is so much bigger than us, in order to understand it, we have to see it on a much grander scale than just our natural eyes. A telescope is one way we can break out of our physical limitations of our natural eyes and see things in the universe beyond our own physical limitations.

Our natural eyes are limiting. We can look through telescopes to see things much bigger or look through microscopes to see things much smaller. These instruments are ways to see beyond our limitations and give us a greater understanding of the scale of the universe.

Of course our instruments are also created by men. All I can say is that they magnify our natural abilities to see, feel, touch, smell and hear. As man-made objects, these instruments still limit our ability to see an even greater vastness to the universe than we could possibly imagine. Maybe there are tiny particles so small that no instrument or device we could ever construct could see it. Perhaps we are somewhere within the much greater scale of the universe and our entire understanding of the scale of the universe is only a tiny portion of an even greater scale.

Regardless of our limitations, we are able to broaden our perspectives and see things as they are by looking, measuring, studying, weighing and carefully examining aspects that we see in the natural world. Nature is very large and we are very small. A telescope is a way for us to see things much bigger than ourselves. Nature is also very small and we are very large. Microscopes help enable us to see things much smaller than ourselves as well. I don't think nature is deceptive, it just exists. It is our limited perceptions that see things in an incorrect manner.

Our perception of nature is also limited and hindered by time. The time we have on this Earth is just as limiting as our ability to see the scale of the universe without any special instruments. Looking at fossil records and archaeological research is one way for us to see nature beyond our own physical limitations of time on this Earth.

If we could live out our lives for millions of years, then we could rely on our own perspective of nature, since it is also millions of years old. However, since our time on here is short, we can't really rely on our own perspective when studying nature. From our limited perspective, the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth and animals don't evolve or change species.

Words Vs. Nature

I believe in God. I believe there has to be a creator. Why is nature so beautiful? Would nature still thrive if it were ugly? I believe it makes sense for God to create beings that can adapt to the ever-changing environment on this earth. I also believe as stated at the beginning of my post that looking at nature carries more weight than written text. Words are man-made and nature is God-made. That doesn't mean every word written or spoken is void, however, it does mean we should scrutinize everything that people say, including this blog you are reading.

I am not saying we shouldn't listen to people, or that we shouldn't read books. I am simply saying that if someone tells me that the earth is flat, but if the natural world is telling me something else, guess which one holds more weight in that argument? Someone else could also be using words to tell me the earth is round, but I could look at nature and see some evidence to support those claims.

Galileo, a devout Catholic, was persecuted and put under house arrest by the church for spreading the false doctrine that the moon had craters. It was believed and taught by the Catholic Church that everything in the sky was perfect and without blemish. Galileo still wanted to maintain his Catholic ties, but maintained that if you just look through his telescope, you can see that the moon has LOTS of craters, big ones too. There are many words in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon that are easily disproved by just looking at the natural world. Some examples that come to mind are DNA proving that Native Americans are not Israelites as the Book of Mormon claims.Other examples from the Bible are evolution, which is also supported by DNA, and the literal story of a global flood of Noah’s Ark as talked about in my previous post. Some have told me just to have faith and believe the stories in the scriptures regardless of DNA, fossil records or archaeological evidence. To me, that is putting more trust in Man than God, because as I said, words are man-made, but nature is God-made.

Skeptical Mormon

Read more!

Building a replica of Noah's Ark

I was reading an article that talks about how Greenpeace is building a replica of Noah's Ark. They are building the replica to promote their ideas about global warming. Their point is that we will face great floods due to polar ice caps melting in the coming years if nothing is done about global warming. Ironically, I wonder how many trees they had to cut down to build this thing. I am sure for them it is better for one tree to perish than an entire nation to dwindle and perish as unbelievers of global warming.

The Replica of Noah's Ark is a symbol

Nobody is suggesting that Greenpeace is building a replica of Noah's Ark in order to literally survive the coming floods. Greenpeace is building the replica as an object lesson to draw awareness to the consequences of global warming (i.e. floods). Their re-construction of the ship is not to be taken literally.

The Story of Noah's Ark is also a symbol

If they build it to the same specifications as described in the bible, it would be interesting to see how many animals they could actually cram into the replica of Noah's Ark. According to Genesis 6:15, Noah's Ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits high, or around 450' X 50' X 45' high. That seems like a fairly large ship. So large in fact, that I wonder if a wooden ship that large could withstand the torque of the open sea.

Literal view of the story of Noah's Ark

Genesis 6:17 says that the lord is about to create a flood that will destroy all flesh, and "every thing that is in the earth shall die". There is no doubt that it is talking about a global flood. In Genesis 6:19, it says that Noah is to gather 2 of every kind of animal there is in the world, male and female, into the Ark to preserve their seed. And what about bacteria? Did he have to carry the millions of bacteria cultures on his ship in containers as to preserve the bacteria, but not to infect any of the animals?

Herein lies a problem with the literal interpretation of the story of Noah's Ark- there are millions of species in the world today. We would have to think that he put in not just every species, but every subspecies as well. In other words, Noah didn't just put in 2 Elephants, he put in 4 Elephants, 2 African Elephants and 2 Asian Elephants. He didn't just put in 2 Giraffes, he put in 6; 2 Rothschild Giraffes, 2 Masai Giraffes and 2 Reticulated Giraffes. After all, if he only had 2 Giraffes aboard the ship, are they going to somehow "evolve" into different subspecies after the flood?

You also couldn't just stop at 2 bears, you would have to include 2 of each type of bears. So you would also have to include 2 Panda Bears, 2 Grizzly Bears, 2 Black Bears, 2 Sun Bears, 2 Brown Bears, 2 Polar Bears and 2 Sloth Bears. Remember, these Bears can't "evolve", so you would have to include every one of them on the ship.

Don't forget to include 2 of every Ape, Warthog, 80 Dogs, Horse, Zebra, Rhino, Buffalo, Cows, 100 cats, 6 Bisons, 12 Elks, all the different types of snakes, lizards, Ostriches, Bluebirds, Blackbirds, Owls, Cranes, Crows, Ducks, Eagles, all 26 Chickadees, and don't forget all 35,000 different species of worms. Oh, and who is going to feed all these animals? What are they going to eat? Is there room on the ship for food?

To add more work for an already exhausted old sea captain, after the water subsided, I think the 600 year old Noah had a challenging task in sending the animals back to their home origins, I mean how do you make sure the Frilled Neck Lizard makes it to his home country of Australia? As if living in close quarters with all those other animals on the sea voyage didn't make him angry enough. Once off the ark, how did they get to Australia, it is more than a skip across the water. Did he and the female have to climb aboard some Sea Turtles to take them to their home country?

To add insult, in Genesis 8:20 Noah offered some of the surviving animals up as sacrifices to God. Imagine surviving the flood and going through those years of rough seas only to be killed by Noah as a sacrifice after the flood subsided. I can't help but to feel sorry for those poor Unicorns.

It is almost absurd to even consider that the story of Noah's Ark is a literal history of an event that actually happened. It is possible that the story was based on a real event, there is evidence of smaller, localized floods from the ice age. However, at best it was extremely exaggerated. On the other side, there is no archaeological or geological evidence to support a global flood. Even if all the polar ice caps melted, there wouldn't be enough water to flood the whole earth.

Non-Literal View of the Story of Noah's Ark

I think it is more likely that the story of Noah's Ark is an allegory that was probably originally published as a fictional story, but as time went by, it became a real history, after all, flood stories are very common in world mythology. A fictional story turning into a real event happens quite frequently. Have you ever received an email about a story that claims to be a true event, but when it is traced back to the original source, it turns out the original author said from the beginning and always maintained that it was fictional? This happens all the time. Another example is demonstrated in how people have started a real religion based on the Star Wars Trilogy. The name of the religion is called "Jedi". Perhaps in 1,000 years followers of Jedi will believe that George Lucas wrote a true history of events that actually happened.

Most people that I have talked to don't believe there was a global flood in the literal sense. There are many that still believe the story is based on a real event, but that the biblical version is greatly exaggerated. There are not many people that I have talked to that believe in the literal version of Noah's Ark, in that there was a global flood.

The Paradox of Noah's Ark

To say that there was a global flood means you have to say that Noah didn't have to include EVERY subspecies on the ark, and therefore he could fit all the animals onto the ship. For example, Noah didn't have to bring all 6 giraffes, he only had to bring 2 of the Masai Giraffe and they would evolve to the other 2 types after the flood. The contradiction in taking this literal view of the Bible is that you have to accept evolution, which contradicts earlier chapters in Genesis about the creation. However, if you view the bible to be literal, you have to accept a global flood, because the bible says it was a global flood, not a localized small flood. To what degree of evolution you accept depends on how high up the taxonomy hierarchy you go. In other words, at what point is evolution plausible? Can different Subspecies evolve from one species, or can different species evolve from a Genus, but no higher than that?

Not only would one have to accept evolution, you would have to believe that animals evolve much faster than any scientist could ever imagine. Instead of millions of years to evolve, you are talking about a few thousand years from the time of Noah's Ark to develop all the different variations and subspecies. Scientists would be calling YOU crazy for believing that evolution was that swift.

To say that Noah's Ark was a real localized event, but it was sensationalized and exaggerated creates a problem with a literal view of the Bible as well. To prove the Bible, you would have to discredit the Biblical verses. Remember Genesis 6:17 says that it was going to be a global flood and every thing in the world was going to perish.

This begs the obvious question: If the story of Noah's Ark is an Allegory and not a real event, what else in the Bible is symbol? After all, the Cross is an ancient pagan symbol of suffering, and the story of Jesus and his Crucifixion wasn't written until at least 70 A.D., 40 years after his death. How does one sift through the text and figure out what is historically accurate and what is myth? That I don't know at this point. I do know, however that it is stories like Noah's Ark and Giants that are found in the Bible that leads me to believe that many of the stories are allegories and based on mythological creatures from the time period they were written.

Applying the same logic to the Book of Mormon

If one is to accept that some of the stories in the Bible are allegories and not to be taken as a literal history, then they can be open to accepting the same thing about the Book of Mormon. Since the Book of Mormon was written in the 1800's by Joseph Smith, it is also an Allegory which happens to contain 19Th century Christianity.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

New Anti-Mormon video is distributed

Search for the Truth

This video entitled "Search for the truth" was distributed to thousands of members of the church for free. Although I was not selected to receive the DVD, anyone can watch it on the Internet. Overall, I thought it was pretty boring but it did have some good points as to why I no longer believe in the Mormon church. The part about the Book of Abraham was the most important part for me, because when I learned about the Book of Abraham, that is when I completely lost faith in the Mormon Church. I will discuss my discoveries on the Book of Abraham at a later time. Just like most "Anti-Mormon" productions made by evangelicals, I found about 15 mins worth of substantial information in a 1:30 hour presentation. It was a typical over-impassioned film, but it did have some worthwile and accurate information, even if it was watered down at times.

Evangelicals and Hypocrisy

I find it fascinating that Evangelicals are quick to point to DNA and archaeology to disprove the Book of Mormon, yet they fail to recognize that the same science disproves many aspects of the Bible as well. DNA disproves creationism for one, and there is no scientific evidence to back up the story of Noah's ark. There is some evidence to support some events in the Bible, but there is also evidence to contradict other events and stories. In the video, there was a part where someone was saying "scientists are not debating the origin of the Native Americans". However, there is also no debate in the scientific community on the origin of man either. Scientists have used DNA evidence to link Homo sapiens to the Homo heidelbergensis and the Homo ecrectus species. So, if we can apply DNA evidence to prove that Native Americans are from North Eastern Asia and not Israel as the Book of Mormon claims, we can use the same DNA evidence to prove that men came from apes and not Adam and Eve. My point is if you discredit DNA evidence when it disproves the Bible, you have to discredit it completely.

Locations as Evidence for the Bible?

It is interesting that people would point out that the locations mentioned in the Bible exist and therefore that proves that it is a true book. However, the cities mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants exist. I can go to Independence, Missouri, Carthage, IL or Palmyra, NY and see evidence that Joseph Smith existed. I can look at archaeological evidence to support that Joseph Smith was a real person and that the people groups that are mentioned existed. Does that mean that the Doctrine and Covenants is a true book?

Mormons and Hypocrisy

On the flip side, I am also amazed at the reaction of church members. Most members of the church are repulsed by the idea of someone sending them a video that questions their faith and is trying to ram their beliefs down their throats to get them to change religions. Then, I laugh because the LDS church is doing the exact same thing, it looks like people don't like the taste of their own medicine.

I know all about what LDS missionaries do, because I was one. As a missionary, I was trained to destroy other people's faith in their religion. We would send videos along with other medias, but the point is that now that the shoe is on the other foot, LDS members need to understand why other people are mad when we try to shove our beliefs down other people's throats.

Everyone is a Hypocrite

Evangelicals like to use science to disprove Mormonism, but when the same science disproves the bible, suddenly science isn't reliable. Mormons like to drop by unannounced and show people videos that they didn't ask for, but get bent out of shape if someone else does the same thing to them. I suppose it is just part of human nature to only see what we want to see. I am sure I do the same thing. As for the quality of the video, I have seen other videos that are better.

Church Response to the video

LDS apologists offer some insight. This is the part where I lose faith in Mormonsim. LDS apologists can't refute what is said on the video, all they can do is attack the source. The worst is the part where they admit that the Book of Abraham is a hoax and the church has known it since 1967.

The official church response is very angry and upset about the video. Once again, they can't refute any of the facts on the video, they can only attack the source of the video. "one religious group chooses to target another with a DVD full of distortions of its doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of the producers." Pot, meet Kettle. You want to talk about a group that distorts LDS doctrine and church history, look in the mirror. I just mentioned the Book of Abraham and how the LDS church has known since 1967 that it was a hoax, but yet the church hides and distorts that fact from the general church population. The Book of Abraham is still an officially cannonized scripture.

By their own words, a religious group that is full of distortions of the LDS doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of that group, we should not trust anything said by that religious group. Nobody has distorted and misrepresented LDS history and doctrine like the LDS church.

Skeptical Mormon
Read more!