Reason #173: More Politically-Correct Book of Mormon Changes
Recently the LDS Church has changed chapter headings in its online Book of Mormon (a revised print edition isn’t currently scheduled.) But, given the burgeoning number of people who read primarily online, these changes are significant. They reflect the way the LDS Church is distancing itself from its pervasive, foundational, historic racism against people of dark skin and against American Indians in particular. They removed the words “skin of blackness” from the introductory italicized summary in 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, which details the “curse” God put on Lamanites who were unfaithful. Some Mormons might argue that the headings were not part of the text on the golden plates and were not thus inspired and can be revised. However, a church built...
Reason #172: Packham’s Logic about LDS Book of Mormon Apologists
My atheist friend, Richard Packham, has an excellent online article that shows the shallowness of LDS arguments to support the Book of Mormon. Below, mostly in Packham’s words, are some of the arguments he makes in his article: Most Mormon defenses of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from several severe logical flaws. The authors of Mormon apologetics are inadequately informed about ancient history and science. Or, perhaps they are informed about it, but dismiss it or ignore it. Mormon apologists frequently must distort what the Book of Mormon plainly says (disregarding, apparently, that their own scriptures contain God’s assertion that its words are “true” (D&C 17:6)). They gloss over the wide...
Reason #156: The Book of Mormon Restored What?
Does the Book of Mormon itself restore—or even mention—doctrines missing from the Bible? No, in fact, the theology of the Book of Mormon isn’t Mormon – at least, not twenty-first century Mormonism. Latter-day Saints quote Doctrine and Covenants 20:9, 42:12, and 135:3 which claim that the Book of Mormon has “the fullness” of the everlasting Gospel. But as ex-Mormon writer Bob Witte has pointed out, most of the elements that make modern Mormonism distinctive aren’t in that book. In addition to temple worship, plural marriage, and the Negro-priesthood issue, Witte notes that the Book of Mormon also does not teach the following recently-advocated LDS doctrines: God has a body of flesh and bones God is an exalted man God is a product of eternal...
Reason #145: The Doctrine in McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine
The dust is finally settling in yet another effort by the LDS Church to bury its past. Recently the church-owned Deseret Book publishers announced that, due to lack of sales, the classic Mormon Doctrine by the late LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie. (There’s considerable controversy about the “lack of sales” part. See this article, especially the comments.) What’s the big deal about a book going out of print? My Mormon Mirage (1st and 2nd editions) stayed in print almost 20 years, but then went out of print. Almost all books do. McConkie’s book was extraordinary because it listed in encyclopedia form all the issues of LDS doctrine. It wasn’t McConkie’s own systematic theology, it was just the listing of Mormonism’s...
Reason #137: The Nahom Controversy
Some LDs writers have said that a settlement in southern Arabia named NHM is the Nahom of the Book of Mormon. In Hebrew (and I’m just a student, not an expert), vowels are not written out in most cases. Thus NHM, whose root means “mourning” could be Naham (1 Chron. 4:19), Nehum (Ne. 7:7) and Nahum (Na. 1:1) and not a name unique to the Book of Mormon, which tells of “Nahom” in 1 Nephi 16:34. Read an article with the pros and cons of the controversy, along with links for further study here. One LDS writer says it is the first archaeological proof for the Book of Mormon. What is your opinion? For more information, see The Mormon Mirage 3rd Edition: A Former Member Looks at the Mormon Church Today(Zondervan, 2009). Also...
