The Gospel According to Jeffrey

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....

A couple of days ago, I posted a response to Pastor Wil’s Top Ten Questions for “Mormons”. As long-time readers know, I have blogged about dissenting opinions in the past. What makes this time different is that the dissenting author has actually seen fit to respond. Pastor Wil, if you’re reading, I greatly appreciate this courtesy. Much as I am apparently “the only member of the [C]hurch [of Jesus Christ] who has answered all the questions,” so you, Pastor Wil, are perhaps the only non–Latter-day Saint who has responded to a relevant blog post. You thus have my gratitude, as well. Now, normally when someone comments on my blog and I need to respond, I will do so in the same venue as the initial response, i.e. in the comments section. The problem with that method, however, is that it becomes quite unwieldy when a response requires more than a paragraph or two. In this case, I feel that Pastor Wil’s comment does indeed necessitate a more lengthy response, so I hope my other readers wi...

For the last few weeks, a man who goes by the name of “PastorWil” has been tweeting about the Church of Jesus Christ and so-called “Mormonism.” Today, he tweeted a link to a recent blog post entitled My Top Ten Questions For Mormons . As a so-called “Mormon” myself, I will endeavor to respond to each of his top ten questions. Here we go! :-) 1. Do you believe the Bible has been corrupted? Of course I do. I suspect you do, too. There are literally thousands of Bible translations. No two are exactly alike, and they often contradict each other. Do you believe that the Inspired Version of the Bible (used by the Community of Christ) and the New World Translation (used by Jehovah’s Witnesses) are both 100% accurate? If not, then you, too, believe that the Bible has been corrupted. 2. If the Bible is corrupted, then why does the LDS church still use the King James and not the Joseph Smith Translation? This is actually a trick question. The Church does use the Joseph Smith Translation...

One of the things that has always fascinated me about the First Book of Nephi is the first phrase of the headnote: “An account of Lehi and his wife Sariah and his four sons, being called, (beginning at the eldest) Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi.” The Small Plates of Nephi were written long after most of the events therein, indeed some 30-40 years after the family left Jerusalem (see 2 Nephi 5:28-34 ). So realizing that Nephi is now an older man, why does he only speak of Lehi’s “four sons”? Why not “six sons”? Nephi obviously wasn’t trying to hide his 30ish-year-old brothers, Jacob and Joseph; heck, in the same chapter as he makes the plates, he “consecrate[s them] that they should be priests and teachers over the land of [his] people”! ( 2 Nephi 5:26 ). So what gives? A couple of weeks ago, this concern was brought to mind as I was reading Understanding the Book of Mormon . In his section on Nephi, Grant Hardy deals with Nephi’s characterization of others. As he points out: “Aside f...

(This is part two of my explanation of the Book of Abraham. Of course,  part one  is also available.) As discussed previously, the most significant problem with the Book of Abraham is that each of the three Facsimiles found therewith have been translated by Egyptologists—both Latter-day–Saint and otherwise—and the result has been unanimous: Joseph Smith’s interpretation of these writings have absolutely nothing to do with their actual translation. When these hieroglyphs were first authored by our ancient Egyptian cousins, they had nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham or even Judeo-Christianity; they dealt with Egyptian mythology and beliefs, and that’s all there is to it. End of story. The problem with this thinking is that it overlooks an important, even essential issue: when Joseph Smith Jr. set forth the meaning of these texts, what, exactly, was he interpreting? Let’s return to the Book itself. The Book of Abraham is a not an Egyptian document. Everyone agrees that ...

As mentioned in my last post , I would like to take the time to respond to Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid Podcast: specifically, Decrypting the Book of Abraham . But first, let’s be fair: Skeptoid is a ten-minute show, so Brian’s treatment thereof is certainly not on the same level as the volumes and volumes that have been written on the subject. Perhaps it is for this reason that he has ignored several well-established facts that would detract from his argument, and I expect that I, being limited by time and reasonable space, shall do the same. However, I think we need to return to the context I so often speak of. Brian, this one is for you. Brian begins his Podcast by giving a brief history of the papyri which, after being purchased by the Church of the Latter Day Saints (as it was then, inexplicably, known), resulted in a translation of a portion of the Book of Abraham. To be frank, this history is probably the most accurate summary I’ve seen, in so few words. Yes, there are a few mista...