Easy Questions for “Mormons” to Answer

A woman on Twitter just referred me to page called Difficult Questions for Mormons to Answer. I thought the page was so concurrently sad and funny, I just had to post the questions (and my responses) here. Enjoy.

If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).

The Book of Mormon isn’t about Indians; it’s about the descendants of a Bedouin sheik. You’ll notice that the Lamanites whose skin became “white” are not all those who joined the Church, but those who actually amalgamated themselves into Nephite *society*. This is completely consistent with Bedouin culture, which regards city dwellers as “white-skinned” and nomads as “dark-skinned,” presumably at least in part because of the dirtier lifestyle of the latter.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

Well, first of all, there’s no such thing as “the Mormon church,” so it couldn’t change anything if it wanted to. But even if there were, Gerald and Sandra Tanner’s count of changes is fairly ludicrous. It includes things like modernization of spelling, ornamental capitalization, etc.. Ultimately, the changes in the Book of Mormon that can even be construed to affect meaning number fewer than 100. (For more information, check out FAIR’s Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon and Jeff Lindsay’s Have There Been Thousands of Changes in the Book of Mormon?)

How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, p. 262, 34th ed.) 

The plates weren’t made of gold, and neither Joseph nor any of the witnesses claimed they were. If they had been, they wouldn’t have been able to contain the writings, as gold is an extremely soft metal. The only people who have ever claimed the plates were made of gold are the people who made up this argument.

If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

Well, again, there’s no such thing as “the Mormon Gospel,” so he couldn’t have practiced it. But as a faithful Christian, he will be in an angelic state until the Final Judgment.

Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

Many don’t ignore that part. Those who do are simply proving that they, like the rest of us, are still imperfect.

Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).

To be honest, I’m not sure why this question is even here. The passage (link above) commands the Saints to build a house—the Nauvoo House—“for the boarding of strangers,” and to allow Joseph Smith, Jr., and his descendants to also live there. I wonder if the question might be trying to imply that this passage constitutes a false prophecy, but since the passage doesn’t contain any prophecy at all—false or otherwise—the question seems kind of odd.

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50). 

First of all, the Journal of Discourses is neither canonical nor error-free, so citing it is somewhat an exercise in folly. However, even if this passage be accurate (which is certainly possible), neither it nor any other source claims Jesus was conceived through sexual activity. There are some Latter-day Saints who believe this urban myth (perhaps including then-future President of the Church Joseph F. Smith, an obscure writing by whom can be interpreted that way), but there’s no real basis for it.

How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17).

The cited passage specifically states that Nephi’s temple “could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple” (v.16). Even if it were “like unto Solomon’s temple,” though, what gives you the idea that there were only “a few men on a new continent”? This also seems to contradict the Book of Mormon quite egregiously.

Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 46, or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 324).

First of all, History of the Church is not necessarily a reliable source. It’s got some good info, but it’s hardly scripture. Even so, Doctrine & Covenants 132 does not deal with polygamy per se; it deals with celestial marriage, which occasionally includes the plurality of wives. As History of the Church 6:46 (the quote included in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 324) specifically states, “I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.”

Perhaps Joseph was playing semantics to keep himself and his people safe; perhaps he used the respective terms to denote completely different concepts. Either way, he’s not around, so we can’t ask him. But one thing is for sure: “celestial marriage” and “polygamy” are not exactly the same thing, so he was technically being truthful, even if (and this is a big “if”) he was being somewhat misleading.

God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies?

Genesis 3:21 does not say anything about God rejecting Adam and Eve’s fig-leaf aprons, but even if it did, the aprons used in the temple are symbolic—just like everything else in the temple. Thus, even if they did have a different meaning outside the temple (which, as far as I know, they don’t), that meaning is completely irrelevant to their symbolism therein.



So, bottom line, a bunch of silly questions, none of which were particularly difficult to answer. Better luck next time!