The Truth About "The God Makers," 7

"The founding Prophet of the Mormon Church also declared that the moon was inhabited. "

No original sources verifying this have been found of which I am aware. The book quotes from an 1881 journal entry, published in 1892 by Oliver B. Huntington, who claimed Joseph Smith said there were moonmen. Huntington would have been about eleven years of age at the time, if he heard this from Joseph Smith personally, or even if the idea came from someone else. In fact, indications are that he heard it secondhand at best.

Van Hale answered the criticism against this assertion in his pamphlet, How Could a Prophet Believe in Moonmen? One excerpt:

Did Joseph Smith believe in an inhabited moon? From the historical evidence now available the answer must be: Not proven. But, all things considered, the possibility, or probability, that he did cannot reasonably be denied. For all others of that era the question seems quite insignificant, especially given contemporary beliefs. But in the case of Joseph Smith, he claimed to be a prophet. Some extremists contend that his claim demands that his knowledge in every area be superior to that of others in his era. If he believed any false notion of his day, so these critics say, his credibility must be doubted. Others, not so demanding of infallible insight in a prophet, would be more comfortable with a description of God's revelation which allowed for the human and the divine. As Rev. J. R. Dummelow so aptly described the authors of the Bible, so might one say of Joseph Smith:

"Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit, these men each had his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education— each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from one another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men.

"Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries . . . . (J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Bible Commentary, p. cxxxv)."

His scientific knowledge may be bounded by the horizon of the age in which he lived, but the religious truths he teaches are irrefutable and eternal (Ibid., p. xxx).

Dummelow, who is not LDS, is considered to be one of the foremost commentators on the Bible.

Biblical prophets sometimes apparently erred, but that does not detract from their being men of God. Some examples:

Jeremiah prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" (Jer. 54:4-5)) but Zedekiah saw his sons slain, was blinded, chained, and imprisoned, where he died (Jer. 52:10-11). Moses' pride kept him from entering the promised land. Aaron made a golden calf. There was contention between Paul and Bamabas and Paul and Peter. Two apostles argued over who should sit on the right hand of Jesus.

I told them [Church members] I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them; but if they would bear with my infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, I would likewise bear with their infirmities (HC 5:181).

Latter-day Saints do not believe their prophets are infallible, not every word they utter always true. See also commentary for Page 79, line 26.

"Brigham Young came forth with an even more amazing revelation—that the sun is also inhabited."

Are the authors equally critical of the Apostle John, in his vision of heaven, who claimed, "I saw an angel standing in the sun"? (Rev. 19:17).

The quotation comes from the Journal of Discourses which has never been sanctioned by the LDS Church as being authoritative. Many LDS and non-LDS historians admit to the limitations of this source. Actually Brigham Young is reported as saying, speaking of the sun, "Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is" (italics added).

The early members of the LDS Church believed in creations on other spheres. If the recorded account of what Brigham Young said is accurate (and it might not be), Brigham Young's opinion may have been in error. It is wrong to claim Latter-day Saints believe every idea expressed by their prophets is infallible. Taking a quote from a public meeting, written by a clerk in shorthand, before the availability of a tape recorder and where Brigham Young added "\ think," is using questionable evidence to attack the LDS Church. Since biblical prophets were not infallible, why do the authors demand more from LDS prophets? See Page 79, line 21 for earlier explanation of the fallibility of prophets in statements not inspired of God. See also Page 9, line 31.

"Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet and in Brigham, his successor. And I add, if you will believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph was a prophet, and that Brigham was his successor, you will be saved in the kingdom of God" the book quotes Brigham Young.

It is strange that earlier on Page 46, lines 6-7, it was claimed that Latter-day Saints don't testify of Christ.

"Mormons took such ideas quite seriously," the book says about the possible existence of life on other planets and of travel to and from them.

"His mother and others attested Joseph Smith had always been an unusually talented teller of tall tales."

There is no documentation given for this statement. Joseph Smith's parents testified of his truthfulness, and that is why they were among his staunchest followers. Why didn't his parents turn against their son or why didn't they disbelieve his stories about visits from heavenly beings if they thought he told tales? This is not explained. "We had the most implicit confidence in what Joseph said. He was a truthful boy. No sir, we never doubted his word for a minute," is what his mother actually said of her son (Journal History, January 20, 1894).

Who are we to believe—Joseph's family, or undocumented opinions by bitter authors who live 150 years later? Decker and Hunt say that Joseph Smith's experiences "may have been as real . . . and from the same demonic sources [as haunted houses and Mormon temples]." Which is it? Was Joseph having real demonic experiences or was he a teller of tall tales? Elsewhere the book is certain Joseph's experiences are satanic.

"[The credibility of the eleven persons] who claimed to have 'seen and handled' these mysterious plates of gold" is questioned because they claimed the Book of Mormon record was "shown unto us by the power of God. . . an angel came down from heaven and . . . laid before our eyes . . . the plates . . . . " A few lines later the book says, "it is clear that {the witnesses] were not bearing witness to an actual physical seeing and handling of the gold plates, but to a mythical event of the same kind as visions of angelic beings and visits from god-men."

The authors' choice of the word "mythical" is perplexing. The dictionary defines "mythical" as fictitious. On lines 15-17 the book suggests that some of Joseph Smith's experiences were real, but demonic. Is the book saying the demonic experiences of the witnesses are mythical (fictitious)? The book's charges are contradictory here as happens often.

Perhaps there is a "typographical error" here and the word "mystical" instead of "mythical" is meant. Visions and angelic beings visiting humans is how the dictionary defines "mystical." But this creates another dilemma. By categorically rejecting the "mystical" experience of Joseph Smith and the witnesses, to be consistent the authors must also reject the hundreds of mystical experiences recorded in the Bible they allege to believe, e.g., the voice of God from heaven at the time of Jesus' baptism.

The most serious error of these lines is the fact that only three of the eleven witnesses claimed to have had what the authors call a "mythical" or "mystical" experience. The very source they quote, from the last page of the introduction of the Book of Mormon, mentions that there are two kinds of testimony, one of "three witnesses" and one of "eight witnesses." The authors are aware that the eight witnesses had a very ordinary, everyday kind of "hands-on" experience in seeing the gold plates; they saw no angels or anything supernatural. The eight witnesses said, "We have seen and hefted," "we did handle with our hands," "we also saw the engravings," and "we lie not." Only three of the eleven witnesses were shown the plates by an angel.

The Latter-day Saints believe the Lord provided both types of testimony so that one who is skeptical of one or the other must still come to grips with both.

The authors claim that there is a contradiction as to how the plates were seen. The testimony they quote from in the Book of Mormon introduction says that the plates were "shown . . . by the power of God" and later, a witness said, the plates were seen "by faith." The authors claim seeing "by faith" and "the power of God" is incompatible. On the contrary, without faith the power of God usually is not made manifest.

The authors' ability to judge evidence is questionable. On one hand, they scoff at the testimony of eleven solid men and on the other hand they believe in evidence which lawyers dismiss that the LDS Church is satanic because "Mormo" means "devilish" in Chinese (see Page 72, line 28 and Page 263, line 19).

"A staunch supporter of Joseph Smith from the start, named Martin Harris . . . claimed that he had actually visited the moon," the authors state.

The incomplete reference the authors used. The Story of the Mormons (New York, 1902, p. 35), was a secondary source. The author of this charge (not included in the footnote) I found was William Alexander Linn, a bitter anti-LDS writer.

"With its own mythology, however, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has given its members a basis for feeling that they are completely different from historical Christianity and all the churches around them."

I find the first part of this statement false and the second part half true. There are many similarities between historical Christianity and Mormonism.

To fault a religion for its adherents believing they are different from other religions is to fault every religion. Every religion is different. Isn't Christianity itself different from what most of the world believes?

Although Mormons are somewhat different from other Christian religions today, Christians prior to the third century A.D. were also different from today's mainstream Christianity. Using The God Makers criteria for what is a "Christian" would disqualify all Christians during the time of Christ and the next three centuries. The authors define Christians as those who believe in the Trinitarian concept and salvation without works. Just the opposite was the mainstream Christian thought in early Christianity. Mormonism is closer to early Christianity than most of Christianity is today. (See J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrine, Harper and Row.)

The charge is made that the LDS convert's decision is not based on "scripture or reason."

This is completely false. Through much of the book. Latter-day Saints are accused of misinterpreting scriptures. Doesn't every church have a different interpretation of scripture? Isn't that one reason there are so many Christian churches? Do the authors mean that Mormons don't believe in scripture or that they misinterpret scripture? At least let the readers know that Latter-day Saints claim to be scriptural, as most members and tens of thousands of converts each year agree. The authors are right; the LDS Church also asks a person to gain a "burning of the bosom," as they point out, or "a feeling of peace" (D&C 6:23) as they failed to point out. The book also fails to mention that these feelings are to be achieved through studying, pondering and praying to God.

"North Carolina [is] where official Mormon publications have claimed that Noah built his ark. "

Since the authors did not give us a reference on so important a point, I spent hours researching this charge. The source of the story seems to be Oliver B. Huntington. Three of the four accounts state South not North Carolina and are from articles in the 1890s. This "claim" is absolutely not an official LDS teaching.

"Discrepancies . . . were never a problem to Joseph Smith, nor apparently to his followers."

The book cites the LDS claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Of course the authors choose to make it a problem and don't even mention the logical LDS explanation. Why couldn't the Ark have started in what is today the United States and end up, after 120 days of floating, on the other side of the world? The continents were not divided until later, in the days of Peleg. Why couldn't Noah's people have given the names of previous rivers they knew to the new area in which they landed? Why couldn't the four rivers that flowed out of Eden have been those now known as the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Platte or other rivers that may have flowed those thousands of years ago? The authors may disagree, but they should mention that to Latter-day Saints, this is not a discrepancy.

"Prophet Smith declared that at His second coming, Jesus Christ would return to Independence, Missouri, in spite of the clear statement in the Bible that He will come back to the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem."

Actually Latter-day Saints do believe that Christ will come to Jerusalem again. LDS doctrine also teaches that Christ's second coming will include a visit to an LDS temple and a third appearance to the world in general.

But the incorrect implication the authors make is that Latter-day Saints don't believe Christ will come to Jerusalem.

"Unfortunately, the site that Prophet Smith 'divinely chose' for the Zion Temple that must be built prior to Christ's return, is owned by the Church of Christ—Temple Lot."

No mention is made that this group owns only 2 ½ acres of the original 63-acre temple lot and the LDS Church owns 25 acres, plus hundreds of acres in the Independence and Kansas City area.

One could criticize the Jews for believing that some day they will again have a temple on Mount Moriah, but "unfortunately" the Moslems now have their "Dome of the Rock" on that site.

This is a minor technicality, but they do not all believe that. The "Temple Lot" group merely believes they are the custodians of the temple site until the day comes when they will be inspired to turn it over to the rightful group. Some offshoots claim the LDS Church is true, but is incomplete. At any rate, there are hundreds of offshoots in Christianity. Why do the authors criticize LDS offshoots when the same criticism can be made of Christianity and most world religions?

"From the evidence, it would appear that the followers of Prophet Young have no priesthood authority, because they broke the line of succession from Prophet Smith . . ." As evidence the book refers to a "handwritten document dated January 17, 1844, and signed by Joseph Smith just five months before his death":

Blessing given to Joseph Smith III by his father Joseph Smith, Junior. . . . Blessed of the Lord is my son Joseph who is called the third. . . . For he shall be my successor to the Presidency of the High Priesthood; a Seer, and a Revelator, and a Prophet, unto the Church; which appointment belongeth to him by blessing, and also by right.

The authors did not care to point out that, from the LDS point of view, the document, even before it was declared a forgery, did not make clear that "Mormonism's founding Prophet passed his 'authority' to his son Joseph Smith III," as claimed on Page 84, line 5.

The authors may or may not have been aware of Elder Gordon B. Hinckley's general conference talk a month later in which he pointed out that at "various times Joseph Smith had indicated a number of men or groups of men who might possibly succeed him. These included his brother Hyrum, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, his son Joseph III, even his yet unborn son David; and most importantly, on a number of occasions, the Council of the Twelve Apostles."

As a matter of fact, the recipient of the blessing, Joseph Smith III, himself testified in 1893, in the U.S. Circuit Court in Kansas City, "\ did not state that I was ordained by my father: I did not make that statement. I was not ordained by my father as his successor: according to my undertanding of the word ordain, I was not. I was blessed by him and designated, well in a sense chosen . . ." (Ensign, May 1981, p. 20).

In the great revelation on priesthood which we know as Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which was received and recorded on March 28, 1835, the Lord spoke of the governance of his Church and said of the Twelve after speaking of the Presidency: "They form a quorum, equal in authority and power to" the presidency (D&C 107:24).

Two years later, on July 23, 1837, this principle was again affirmed through revelation: "For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time" (D&C 112:30).

Again on January 19, 1841, the Lord said through the Prophet Joseph "\ give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council; which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature" (D&C 124:127-28).

Yet the book claims, "from the evidence, it would appear that the followers of Prophet Young have no priesthood authority. . . ."Submitting only one of dozens of documents available on the subject is hardly presenting the evidence.

When the Joseph Smith III document was first offered to the LDS Church in 1981 by a document dealer, they did not agree to buy it. A few weeks later the LDS Church historian's office did offer to buy it. However, when they learned that the RLDS Church thought they were under a binding agreement with the collector to purchase it, the LDS Church agreed to trade it to the RLDS Church. (See Sunstone Review, August 1982, p. 1.) However, this document too, has now been declared a forgery.

This is not an accurate parallel because Mecca only permits Moslems to go there and anyone is welcome to live or visit in Salt Lake City. Moslems are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, but Latter-day Saints are not required to visit Salt Lake City.

Temple Square is described as having "high, impenetrable brick walls . .., one has the peculiar feeling of having stumbled upon an ancient monastery cloistering some mystical order of monks . . . with its haunting sense of history. "

"Visitors to Temple Square, eager to learn early American history, unwittingly become captive audiences for the sharp Mormon guides. " Temple Square is then called a "classic tourist trap."

Does anyone ever visit a religious shrine not expecting to hear something about the significance of that landmark? I suspect every tourist visiting Temple Square expects to hear about Mormonism. Does anyone visit the Vatican expecting to learn only early European history?

I think most people consider "a tourist trap" a place that really offers little for an exorbitant fee. Hours can be spent on Temple Square and the adjacent historic museums, viewing the latest multimedia presentations at no charge.

"The Mormon hierarchy closely guards early diaries and other documents that would reveal the sordid facts. "

How do the authors know that those documents reveal sordid facts, since they have not seen them? Why don't they point out that probably every library and archive in the world—university, church, government, public or private—places restrictions on some of their materials? Why doesn't the book point out that most items in the LDS archives are available to serious, qualified researchers when they request it? Why don't the authors point out the vastly expanded program of the LDS Church in publishing more and more original manuscripts such as the Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons and The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith both compiled by Dean C. Jessee, which have been acclaimed by the respected non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps?

When Latter-day Saints were hurriedly forced to leave Nauvoo in 1846, wagon loads of documents were packed in boxes and were stored away and neglected for a century. Now as these precious manuscripts are coming to light the accounts add to the truthfulness of Mormonism rather than 'revealed sordid facts."

Why don't the authors point out that when the LDS Church has released copies of rare diaries that these have sometimes been used by anti-Mormon writers who then quote from them out of context for their purposes? Having sometimes been hurt by such selective quoting, one can understand why the LDS Church sometimes is reluctant to release certain materials. One pair of anti-Mormon writers whom the authors quote often in their book were recently found by a federal court to have used and sold reprints of a copyrighted document. They have since appealed the case and were acquitted. However, they continue to print, distribute and sell reproductions of unauthorized documents with their own, often erroneous, interpretations. See Page 49, line 12 for earlier comments.

"Archaeologists within [the LDS] ranks confess that not one shred of evidence has been found to support the Book of Mormon. "

There is no mention if it is two archaeologists or a hundred! There is no reference given for this statement. The authors do quote one non-LDS archaeologist, using his negative statement on the top of Page 87, line I, beginning with ellipses. Checking to see what they chose to omit, one finds that the writer said "Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples between 2000 B.C. and A.D. 421."

The book is correct in stating that John L. Sorenson, the LDS chairman of the BYU Anthropology Department, considers LDS amateur "experts" to be "naive" as well as harmful in their " 'cut-and-paste' efforts." The authors of The God Makers themselves use this procedure throughout their book.

One example of "cutting" that the authors did with the above quotation is that Dr. John L. Sorenson in the very same article says that one of the books he is criticizing "in some cases has information of value . . . concerning wheeled 'toys' for example."

The authors also fail to note that Dr. Sorenson himself points out many evidences of the Book of Mormon in his writings as do bona fide LDS archaeologists (see John L. Sorenson articles in September and October 1984 Ensign and his 1986 book. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon).

The facts still remain that the Book of Mormon in addition to teaching of a white God, Jesus, in ancient America, also mentioned horses, steel, wheels, white skinned people, metal toys, barley, etc. In Joseph Smith's day, charges against the Book of Mormon stated that these were anachronisms. Today these items are verifiable.

There are other approaches to verifying the Book of Mormon such as language and cultural peculiarities and how these people compare to Semitic people. But the real test is the prayerful reading and studying of the book.

Actually a number of scientific studies have been made and are continuing to be made concerning the Book of Mormon text. A few examples: Dr. John W. Welch has found chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Chiasmus is a rhetorical device used prevalently in the Bible and in other ancient literatures and was unnoticed by modern Western civilization until the mid-nineteenth century. "Since there is no evidence that anyone in America understood chiasmus in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published, the remarkable presence of complex chiasms in the Book of Mormon testifies to the ancient origin of the text" (Noel B. Reynolds, ed. Book of Mormon Authorship, p. 34).

Dr. C. Wilfred Griggs has pointed out the striking similarity to the Book of Mormon Tree of Life story and other sixthor seventh-century B.C. texts which have been found in burial sites around the Mediterranean. Griggs reviewed these writings and noted the Near Eastern, or more particularly Egyptian, origin of the texts. He then compared Lehi's dream with these ancient texts and "concludes that the Book of Mormon account is highly similar both to the writings on metal tablets and to the related Egyptian literature" (Ibid, p. 75).

Dr. Hugh W. Nibley has examined two sections of the Book of Mormon—the account of Lehi's exodus from Jerusalem and the account of Christ's ministry in the Americas—in light of recent scholarship. He rigorously compared the Lachish letters, discovered in 1935, with Lehi's story, and found truly astonishing parallels in form, style, subject matter, and even mention of specific names and events. Nibley also compared early Christian writings called "Forty Day Literature" to 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon, and again found striking parallels and similarities (Ibid, p. 103).

Dr. Eugene England has made a comparison of the details of Lehi's Arabian journey as in the Book of Mormon account, published in 1830, with subsequent cultural and geographical findings. This study revealed no contradictions and numerous remarkable correspondences. England developed the argument that the Book of Mormon account of Lehi's journey across the Arabian peninsula could not have been written in the 1820s. More than twenty significant geographic details accurately described in the Book of Mormon, but not known in America in Joseph Smith's time, serve as evidence that it is indeed an ancient document, written from firsthand information (Ibid, p. 143).

Dr. Wayne A. Larsen and Dr. Alvin C. Rencher have reported their findings from a statistical analysis of style in the Book of Mormon. Using "wordprint analysis," a method of determining idiosyncratic subconscious patterns in the writings of any author, they conclude that (1) the Book of Mormon was written by many authors, and that (2) no Book of Mormon passages resemble the writing of any of the commonly suggested nineteenth century authors. "The clear yet hitherto unnoticed characteristics of the Book of Mormon discovered by Larsen and Rencher strongly support Joseph Smith's account of the book's origin" (Ibid, p. 158).

"The Mormon Church persists in the fraudulent claim that archaeology substantiates [the Book of Mormon] as a true history of early America."

Although Latter-day Saints like to point out evidence for the Book of Mormon when such comes forth, the LDS Church does not claim to prove the Book of Mormon by "external evidences," but by the "internal evidences" of reading the book. Nor does the LDS Church claim the Book of Mormon to be a history of all pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas. It is the religious account of three groups that came to the Americas prior to 421 A.D. There undoubtedly were many other groups that could have come independently including groups coming across the Bering Strait, as much evidence shows.

The authors quote non-Mormon archaeologist Michael Coe when it pleases them, but do not quote him from the same article where he correctly says, "Neither the [LDS] Church in Salt Lake City, nor the Reorganized Church in Independence takes an official stand on the identification of the events and places described in the Book of Mormon." The authors also do not quote archaeologist Coe of the Smithsonian Institution when he said in the same article:

There can be no question that the BYU sponsored New World Archaeological Foundation's program has been an unqualified success. Its twenty years of excavations and exploration in Chiapas have put that state on the archaeological map and have established one of the longest and best archaeological sequences for any part of the New World. Credit for this goes to the foresight of [Thomas Stewart] Ferguson and the original directors, but especially to the first-class [LDS] archaeologists who have carried out the program. First and foremost among them, I would name Gareth W. Lowe, who has been field director for a number of years and who has established himself as the outstanding expert in the field of Formative Mesoamerica. And full praise must be given to the generosity and wisdom of the [LDS] Church leadership in providing financial backing for the foundation. "Mormon archaeology" is no longer something that brings chuckles in Gentile circles. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," Summer 1973, pp. 41-46.)

"The world's great museums contain huge quantities of evidence uncovered by archaeologists that verifies Biblical history to the minutest detail."

Yes, there is some evidence to support parts of the Bible, but no reputable archaeologist would make such an absurd statement as this one by the authors. Even archaeologist Coe, whom the authors partly quote on the previous point when it suits their purposes, said in the very same article, "Not even the best and most advanced research has ever been able to establish on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the Bible, for instance the existence of Jesus Christ" (Ibid.). The authors' logic, to be consistent, must then teach that Christ did not exist.

However, the Book of Mormon that is being discredited testifies of Christ and the Bible in no uncertain terms.

"The admission by Mormon archaeologists and anthropologists that no one knows the location of even one Book of Mormon city . . . is absolutely fatal to the claims of the Mormon Church and exposes The Brethren as brokers of fraud."

Since the ancient Book of Mormon civilizations were completely destroyed it should not be surprising that the location of specific cities is not certain.

The authors must be aware that some LDS archaeologists feel they have good evidence for locating many of the sites (even though the LDS leaders have not taken an official position). The Book of Mormon sites may or may not prove accurate, but many biblical sites have been changed over the years, too. Aren't the authors aware that dozens of biblical sites have not been found? How can the authors quote certain LDS archaeologists and not point out that they continue as true believers of the Book of Mormon? In their quote by LDS Professor Dee F. Green they ignore that he believes that the cultural and historical evidence that has been done is much more impressive than archaeological evidence. After all, the Book of Mormon deals with people. Archaeology deals with things.

All "the LDS Brethren" have asked the world to do is read, ponder and pray about the Book of Mormon.

"Nor has anyone ever been able to unearth even one gold plate (which would be one of the world's greatest archaeological finds and would prove the Book of Mormon)." The parenthetical material is included in the book.

Not one original biblical manuscript exists either, yet the authors claim acceptance of the Bible.

If the authors mean that records written on gold plates have not been found they are wrong, because a number of such ancient metal records, dating to Book of Mormon times, have been found, a fact the book omits. (See Paul R. Cheesman, Ancient Writings on Metal Plates.)

The authors, although their statement is not clear, probably mean an actual Book of Mormon gold plate. If such were found they probably would change their argument to, "the devil forged it to deceive Latterday Saints," since they use a satanic explanation to Mormonism as one of their basic conclusions throughout the book.

The LDS Church only claims that the Palmyra, New York, area is where Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon plates. No official claim is made as to where the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon was located. Moroni could have brought the plates to New York after his many years of wandering as a fugitive or angels could certainly relocate plates if they wished.

For the next page-and-a-half the book is critical that some degree of "faith" is required to know of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Elsewhere, however, the authors maintain that only "faith" in Christ is necessary to be saved. They then say, "One wonders why God allowed literally tons and mountains of evidence to remain in verification of the Bible."

This exaggerated claim of evidence for the Bible is not enough to convince most of the world that the Bible is true.

Those who are strong believers in the Bible also must exercise "faith." Faith is fundamental to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it is to the rest of Christianity.

In view of the many biblical admonitions on faith, one has to wonder why the authors feel a necessity to depreciate it when it applies to the Latter-day Saints and to extol it in connection with their own beliefs. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23) "for we walk by faith, not sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). See accompanying list of scriptures dealing with faith.

Gen. 15:6 (1-6)	he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for
Ex. 14:31 (29-31)	believed the Lord. and his servant Moses.
Num. 14:11 (11,12)	how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the
Deut. 32:20	froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
2 Sam. 22:3	in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of
2 Kgs. 17:14 (13-15)	their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their
2 Chr. 20:20 (20,21)	believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be
Job 13:15	though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will
Ps. 25:2 (1-5)	O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let
Ps. 27:14 (13,14)	wait, I say, on the Lord.
Ps. 28:7 (6-8)	my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore
Ps. 31:14 (14,15)	but I trusted in thee, 0 Lord: I said, thou art my God
Ps. 34:22 (21,22)	none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.
Ps. 78:22	because they believed not in God, and trusted not in
Prov. 3:5 (5,6)	trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not
Isa. 7:9	if ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
Isa. 43:10	ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am
Dan. 6:23	no...hurt was found...because he believed in his God.
Nahum 1:7	Lord...knoweth them that trust in him.
Hab. 2:4	the just shall live by his faith.
Matt. 6:30	shall he not much more clothe you. ..ye of little faith
Matt. 7:7 (7,8)	ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall
Matt. 8:10 (5-13)	1 have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Matt. 9:29 (27-31)	saying, according to your faith be it unto you.
Matt. 17:20 (19,20)	if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall
Matt. 21:21 (21,22)	if ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do
Mark 1:15	God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Mark 9:23 (14-26)	all things are possible to him that believeth.
Mark 11:22 (20-24)	Jesus answering saith unto them, have faith in God.
Mark 16:16 (15-18)	he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
John 3:12	ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you
John 3:16 (15-18,36)	whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
John 5:24	heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me
John 6:29	ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6:40	believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I
John 6:47	he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 8:24	for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in
John 10:25 (24-27)	I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do
John 10:38 (37,38)	though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye
John 11:15	to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go
John 11:25 (11-44)	resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me
John 12:36	while ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may
John 12:44 (44-50)	he that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on
John 14:12 (10-14)	he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he
John 14:29	when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
John 16:27	ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out
John 17:8	they have believed that thou didst send me.
John 20:29 (19-29)	blessed, ..that have not seen, and yet have believed.
John 20:31 (30,31)	that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Acts 3:16	yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this
Acts 10:43	whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of
Acts 14:9 (8-10)	and perceiving that he had faith to be healed
Rom. 1:17 (16-17)	the just shall live by faith.
Rom. 3:28	man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
Rom. 4:3 (3-22)	Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for
Rom. 4:16 (12-16)	to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is
Rom. 5:1 (1,2)	being justified by faith, we have peace with God
Rom. 10:17	faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
Rom. 12:6	prophesy according to the proportion of faith
Rom. 14:23 (22,23)	for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
I Cor. 12:9	to another faith by the same spirit; to another the
1 Cor. 13:13	now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the
2 Cor. 5:7	(for we walk by faith, not by sight
Gal. 2:20	the life. ..in the flesh I live by the faith of the son
Gal. 3:11	the just shall live by faith.
Gal. 5:6	but faith which worketh by love.
Gal. 5:22	fruit of the spirit is love...goodness, faith
Eph. 2:8	for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
Eph. 6:16	above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye
I Tim. 4:10	saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Heb. 4:2	not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Heb. 11:1 (1-40)	now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
Heb. 11:6 (1-40)	without faith it is impossible to please him: for he
James 1:6 (5-6)	but let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for he
James 2:18 (14-26)	I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James 2:20	faith without works is dead
James 2:23	Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
James 5:15 (14,15)	and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the
I Jn. 3:23	commandment...we should believe on the name of his Son
I Jn. 5:10 (5-13)	he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness
I Nc. 3:7	I will go and do the things which the Lord hath
1 Nc. 16:28 (26-29)	pointers...did work according to the faith and
2 Nc. 9:23	having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or the
2 Ne. 26:13 (8-13)	working...miracles, signs...according to their faith.
2 Nc. 31:19 (18-21)	by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, rely
Enos 1:8 (1-19)	because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never
Enos 1:11 (11-12,15)	my faith began to be unshaken in the Lord; and I
Jarom 1:4	many as arc not stiffnecked and have faith, have
Mosiah 3:9 (8-12)	salvation might come... through faith on his name; and
Mosiah 4:3 (1-3)	exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who
Mosiah 24:16 (8-25)	so great was their faith and their patience that the
Mosiah 27:14 (8-37)	prayers...might be answered according to their faith.
Alma 2:30	Alma...being exercised with much faith, cried, saying
Alma 5:48 (45-48)	sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his
Alma 11:40	transgressions of those who believe on his name; and
Alma 13:3 (2-11)	called...on account of their exceeding faith and good
Alma 14:26 (24-28)	give us strength according to our faith... in Christ
Alma 15:10 (1-12)	heal him according to his faith which is in Christ.
Alma 22:16 (12-18)	call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall
Alma 24:19 (1-30)	Lamanites...brought to believe...were firm...unto
Alma 31:38	prayer of Alma; and this because he prayed in faith.
Alma 32:21 (18-43)	faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things
Alma 34:17 (15-17)	may begin to exercise your faith unto repentance, that
Alma 57:26 (19-27)	spared...because of their exceeding faith in that
Hel. 5:41	even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was
Hel. 5:47 (44-50)	peace, ..because of your faith in my well beloved, who
Hel. 8:15	look upon the Son of God with faith, ..might live, even
3 Ne. 11:35 (31-39)	whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also
3 Ne. 19:35 (27-36)	so great faith have I never seen among all the Jews
3 Ne. 26:9 (8-11)	try their faith..then..greater things be made manifest
3 Ne. 27:19	washed...garments in my blood, because of their faith
Morm. 7:5 (5-10)	believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God
Ether 3:15 (1-28)	never has man believed in me as thou hast. Scest thou
Ether 3:19 (19-20)	he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.
Ether 4:7 (6-19)	in that day that they shall exercise faith in me
Ether 12:6 (1-40)	no witness until after the trial of your faith.
Ether 12:13 (11-30)	it was the faith of Alma and Arnuick that caused the
Moro. 7:33	if ye will have faith in me ye shall have power to do
Moro. 7:42 (1-48)	if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for
Moro. 10:4 (4-7)	with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will
Moro. 10:11	and to another, exceeding great faith; and to another
D&C 8:10 (10-11)	without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in
D&C 10:47 (46-52)	granted...according to their faith in their prayers
D&C 11:17 (15-22)	even according to your faith shall it be done unto
D&C 18:19 (18,19)	have not faith, hope, and charity, you can do nothing.
D&C 19:31 (31-32)	declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and
D&C 20:29	endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot
D&C 35:9 (8-11)	whoso shall ask it in my name in faith, they shall
D&C 42:48 (48-51)	he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not
D&C 45:8	even unto them that believed on my name gave I power
D&C 46:19 (19-20)	to some it is given to have faith to be healed
D&C 63:10 (8-11)	signs come by faith, not by the will of men, nor as
D&C 67:3	ye endeavored to believe that ye should receive the
D&C 84:54	minds... have been darkened because of unbelief, and
D&C 88:118 (118-119)	as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach
D&C 98:12	he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept
D&C 104:55	these properties arc mine, or else your faith is vain
D&C 105:19 (19,24)	should be brought thus far for a trial of their faith.
D&C 138:33 (31-35)	these were taught faith in God, repentance from sin
Moses 5:15	as many as believed in the Son, and repented of their
Moses 6:23 (22,23)	and faith was taught unto the children of men.
Moses 7:13 (13-16)	so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the
Moses 7:47	through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and
A of F 1:4	first principles, ..arc: first, faith in the Lord Jesus

Source: A Topical Guide to the Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pp. 113-115.

The LDS Church requires "blind faith in a Prophet" and this "is the primary mark of a cult." (See Page 28, line II and Page 91, line 34 for previous discussions on faith.)

The authors' interpretation of cult is obviously negative, and this is perhaps why they oppose any concept of prophets. The authors completely ignore the numerous biblical scriptures which show the necessity for prophets. "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). Christ also taught that his church would always have prophets (Eph. 4:11-13; Eph. 2:20). Actually Christ warned against those who would eliminate prophets when he said, "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killeth the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! " (Matt. 23:37). Is not The God Makers a verbal stoning of today's prophets?

The authors obviously feel strongly that the LDS Church is not led by prophets, but to suggest that following prophets is the sign of a cult is to go against the Bible. See accompanying list on the mission of prophets.

7. "A Marvelous Work" (Isaiah 29:14)