(Updated with corrections on March 13, 2023)
May God save and bless whoever reads this message.
While letting some Mormon missionaries attempt to convert me again so I could test and preach to them (not that they could have succeeded), at about 9 PM yesterday, I finally decided to put forth some hard questions for them concerning themselves and Book of Mormon. I was going to test their teaching about salvation, and knew I could refute if I had to the chance.
So, there were two missionaries, both female, one new to me the other familiar. I first asked them if they knew any literature besides the Book of Mormon and some verses from the Bible, they didn’t answer. They didn’t even say, “Doctrines and Covenants” which is other Mormon literature that in supposed to be important to them, but perhaps they knew I meant besides Mormon literature. That they didn’t even bring up D&C matters as it shows they were not truly concerned for truth or not fully. They want the world to be “open minded” to their core religious teachings yet if they are only half-hearted about it, why should anyone take them seriously? They also claim you can know the truth from a feeling in your heart, yet, Scripture says that before a person is saved that their heart is so desperately wicked that no one can know how evil it is. Yet, Scripture does say that we can recognize truth to a degree, so, they are right to a degree as is anyone who claims you can know truth from a feeling, but, this only applies to basic right and wrongs and to whatever God decides to let you know is right or wrong beyond that. For example if you know nothing about some claim as to a new energy source, no one would merely pray to know if it were true by same feeling. Instead they would need to do research and consult others with knowledge of such things.
I asked them a question concerning what I thought was the wrong usage of the word “esteem” in the Book of Mormon, but it lead no where as it seemed I had misunderstood it. The rest of my questions stumped them and they repeatedly contradicted themselves as I try to show in this post. They tried to tell me that there were no mistakes in the Book of Mormon, but when I brought up that it had been revised, one missionary, who was new to me, twice said, “No man can explain that,” and yet soon after or a little while before that, had told me that God could make anyone understand the gospel (apparently referring to the Book of Mormon), even a baby (which is obvious and pointless to tell me to say), and by that contradicted herself again when I brought up the grammar errors again, and she claimed that the grammar rules might not have been same 200 years ago (which is an old Mormon counterargument, and deceptive). She was wrong I found out because the English language clearly did have grammar rules 200 ears ago otherwise 1) It wouldn’t have mattered how Joseph Smith arranged words here and there and there would be no point in copying verses from the King James Bible which he obviously did, almost word for word. 2) It’s a simple matter to look up on the Internet what the state of English grammar was and its development (but big surprise, Mormon missionaries are forbidden from looking up things like that). Here is a quote from Wikipedia on the development of English and the grammar in the Book of Mormon nonsensical and confusing grammar of Joseph Smith.
And regarding English grammar rules back then says http://www.englishclub.com/english-language-history.htm:
Early Modern English (1500-1800)
Example of Early Modern English
Hamlet’s famous “To be, or not to be” lines, written in Early Modern English by Shakespeare.
Towards the end of Middle English, a sudden and distinct change in pronunciation (the Great Vowel Shift) started, with vowels being pronounced shorter and shorter. From the 16th century the British had contact with many peoples from around the world. This, and the Renaissance of Classical learning, meant that many new words and phrases entered the language. The invention of printing also meant that there was now a common language in print. Books became cheaper and more people learned to read. Printing also brought standardization to English. Spelling and grammar became fixed, and the dialect of London, where most publishing houses were, became the standard. In 1604 the first English dictionary was published.
Late Modern English (1800-Present)
The main difference between Early Modern English and Late Modern English is vocabulary. Late Modern English has many more words, arising from two principal factors: firstly, the Industrial Revolution and technology created a need for new words; secondly, the British Empire at its height covered one quarter of the earth’s surface, and the English language adopted foreign words from many countries.
Varieties of English
From around 1600, the English colonization of North America resulted in the creation of a distinct American variety of English. Some English pronunciations and words “froze” when they reached America. In some ways, American English is more like the English of Shakespeare than modern British English is. Some expressions that the British call “Americanisms” are in fact original British expressions that were preserved in the colonies while lost for a time in Britain
Note that one of the presidents of the Mormon church, George Albert Smith, defended acknowledged the grammar errors in the BOM, he said:
“…[when] the Lord reveals anything to men He reveals it in language that accords with their own.* If any of you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding, and this very objection to the Book of Mormon is an evidence in its favor.” (bolding from me).
The problem in that defense is that 1) most American whites were well educated by the time Joseph Smith was born in 1805, and every year getting better educated and so would have noticed the nonsensical grammar.
Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar (published in 1784), and a reader (published in 1785). His goal was to provide a uniquely American approach to training children. His most important improvement, he claimed, was to rescue “our native tongue” from “the clamour of pedantry” that surrounded English grammar and pronunciation. He complained that the English language had been corrupted by the British aristocracy, which set its own standard for proper spelling and pronunciation. Webster rejected the notion that the study of Greek and Latin must precede the study of English grammar. The appropriate standard for the American language, argued Webster, was “the same republican principles as American civil and ecclesiastical constitutions.” This meant that the people-at-large must control the language; popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language.
The Speller was arranged so that it could be easily taught to students, and it progressed by age. From his own experiences as a teacher, Webster thought the Speller should be simple and gave an orderly presentation of words and the rules of spelling and pronunciation. He believed students learned most readily when he broke a complex problem into its component parts and had each pupil master one part before moving to the next. Ellis argues that Webster anticipated some of the insights currently associated with Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Webster said that children pass through distinctive learning phases in which they master increasingly complex or abstract tasks. Therefore, teachers must not try to teach a three-year-old how to read; they could not do it until age five. He organized his speller accordingly, beginning with the alphabet and moving systematically through the different sounds of vowels and consonants, then syllables, then simple words, then more complex words, then sentences.
The speller was originally titled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of the English Language. Over the course of 385 editions in his lifetime, the title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. Most people called it the “Blue-Backed Speller” because of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster’s book taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most popular American book of its time; by 1837 it had sold 15 million copies, and some 60 million by 1890—reaching the majority of young students in the nation’s first century. Its royalty of a half-cent per copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. It also helped create the popular contests known as spelling bees.
So this Mormon falsely gave the impression that millions of Americans had bad English, and that the best language for them to learn then was bad English. 2) If as Mormons claim God would only speak to people in a language they could understand rather than teach them (because Mormons claim that that is the logical thing to do) then why bother teaching babies? Using Mormon logic: no one would have language skills to begin with, or at best they would never progress in their language skills. 3) And supposing we somehow did learn language despite the bad Mormon logic, and we all got our own unique languages like we do today, then why hasn’t God made a Bible in each of those languages? But the Mormon flesh god isn’t a modern god, just a backwards sham, hence why these “Latter Day Saints” with their “prophets for modern times” are stuck hundreds of years in the past, and are always struggling with new knowledge. 4) And would God really perpetuate bad English? Would Joseph Smith seriously have not been able to understand correct English? Could God have not helped Joseph Smith to understand correct English? The new Mormon missionary girl herself said that God could make a baby understand the gospel, yet not Joseph Smith when he was a teen? He couldn’t have brought Noah’s Webster’s grammar rules to Joseph’s attention? This Mormon leader also contradicted the other Mormon argument for the King James having been heavily copied into the Book of Mormon, which is that it was because the Old English was still familiar to people of the 1800’s. But wouldn’t that have also included bad grammared Joseph Smith then? So Joseph Smith didn’t understand what he was copying from the King James, or understand it? Not only does the King James use the correct grammar Joseph didn’t have, but it’s 200 years older than Joseph Smith’s version of English! But oh, according to the Mormon leader George, God was just talking to Joseph in the language best known to American’s at that time: poor-boy English. The Mormon flesh god is truly an author of confusion. It’s one contradiction after another with the Mormons, because they don’t have the truth, but reject it. 5) How can you have two different excuses for Joseph’s Smith’s bad grammar?: a) God spoke to Joseph Smith in the same bad grammar so Joseph Smith could understand (because God is against teaching anyone anything new to this idiot Joseph Smith who, according to one of his wives, Emma, couldn’t even pronounce “Sarah” correctly when he had a vision of it) or b) because the English language was still being developed (had no set grammar rules, which is a lie as I’ve shown) or c) because God can’t do anything perfect through man. Or is it d) “God’s logic and grammar is above our own, therefore if you can’t understand the Book of Mormon, that’s why.” A contradicts C and D. If it was B, as some Mormons might say, then why did God bother speaking in “Joseph Smith’s” farm boy language rather than in another style of grammar: CORRECT GRAMMAR? Why didn’t God steer the development of the English language through THIS “MODERN PROPHET FOR MODERN TIMES,”? 6) Why would God tell us something about how to be saved in the Book of Mormon when, as I and others have shown is riddled with errors and in some cases require some deep study to show has bad arguments defending it? In other words: Why would God over complicate things by introducing yet another large book rather than leave the Bible as it is and which already has mountains of literature about it? Who needed Joseph Smith and Mormonism? 7) If God’s logic and grammar are higher than man’s, as this new Mormon missionary girl said to me, then why should I bother reading the Book of Mormon or listening to any Mormon doctrine since God’s logic is too high for me according to the new Mormon missionary? It’s a contradiction. Of course some Mormon or even a true Christian might say in defense, “But you can understand him, just not everything” and of course “everything”, but the heart of the issue isn’t “everything”, it is what does the Bible teach regarding how to not end up in Hell forever or any tormented state of existence and to instead be happy under Christ’s rulership forever, simply put, how to be “saved”. 7) According to the logic of the “the English language was still changing” excuse, there can be no grammar errors or even spelling errors or punctuation errors. So then, why not put all the words of the Book of Mormon in a bag, jumble them up, and throw them all onto a table and read from what you see? Does it matter what arrangement the words are in if grammar rules didn’t matter? So obviously, it matters. 8) Martin Harris, one of the alleged witnesses of the existence of the translation process that produced the Book of Mormon, made it clear that Joseph Smith could not produce what was an error because their flesh god made it clear if an error was being made and the correct translation would remain till it was copied correctly. 10) Martin Harris’ and Emma’s testimony contradict Mormon George Smith’s. Emma made it clear that Joseph couldn’t understand everything he was seeing, therefore their flesh god wasn’t simply speaking to Joseph only in a way he could understand. 11) English is always in development, and using Mormon logic, it wouldn’t matter then how bad anyone’s grammar was, it would still make sense using the grammar rules of the person with the bad grammar, and so there would be no such thing as bad grammar. I could say, “I could say.” and that would be a correct and logical sentence. Or I could say, “Or.” and that would be right. And Joseph Smith could have done so and still have been right.
Neither missionary gave me an answer as to why the Book of Mormon was missing 116 pages.
Additionally, Mormons claim that God must be addressed with “thou”, as if using that single word was more important that making sense to everyone when you talk. What matters the Bible says is that people understand what you are talking about, not the original word. If USING the original words were necessary to please God and be saved, we would all need to know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In reply to that a Mormon may say, “hence God spoke to us in English!” But that doesn’t necessarily mean in the bad English of Joseph Smith, does it? What is more important: correct grammar, making sense when you talk to God, or saying “thou” instead of “you” to God?
Further, when I asked the Mormon woman who was new to me what her proof was for her claim that the grammar rules might have been different, she said, “faith”. Come on, can’t I also say “faith” to their accusations, like, “My faith tells me you are wrong” or “my feelings”? What makes it special when they say, “faith” but not me or anyone else who doesn’t believe them? They might as well say, “Our faith is better than yours being we feel so and unless you believe us we’re condemning you as an abomination as our leader Joseph Smith did, based on his feelings too, and we don’t even need to know what Joseph said because it is mere faith in what he supposedly said that saves us.” And people: That’s the real Mormon gospel and reasoning behind every false religion, that is, again, “just trust ME.” This is the reasoning of a liar and confused person who ultimately either does not care what is true or only partly cares. The Bible does say faith is necessary for salvation, but it doesn’t mean faith merely that what you here is true, but faith that God, the Father, Spirit and Christ and all the things the Bible mentions in addition to that THAT WE CANNOT SEE are true. It is a faith in what we cannot see directly BASED on logic, truths and basic evidence for what we CAN see.
She also contradicted herself on if the BOM were perfect, why it had been revised, and as usual, the missionaries avoided the question. They also made it clear to me (and were deceptive about it before) that you must believe the Book of Mormon first BEFORE even reading it. So then they show I am right that their religion isn’t actually based ultimately on what Smith literally said, but on personal feelings, even a trend teaching, as in some teaching accepted for the moment and having no root in grounded truth, in Christ.
Then, when I prayed before them at their offer to know if the BOM was true within the hour, they apparently felt threatened, because (the one I was familiar with) then said to take up her challenge and read it for an hour. So, do we need to read it or not? It’s endless contradictions from Mormons.
The Mormon who laid upon me the pointless condition to first read the BOM for an hour wanted me to get baptized based on a little bit of info she had given me about her religion. Is that wise? But this is how Mormon missionaries are it seems: they are eager to put a notch on their belt and slam dunk you into their religion without going through the hard work of explaining why they should be believed.
Here is more evidence that Mormonism is based on feelings over logical reasoning: Joseph Smith, WHO HAD NO BOOK OF MORMON and who was clearly a poor studier if at all of the Bible, who prayed to know if God existed (and doesn’t the Bible say that God does NOT answer prayers not made in good faith or without belief in Him rather) and don’t Mormons say TO BELIEVE FIRST else nothing will be revealed as true?! YES!, and Joseph Smith also claimed that he prayed, “Oh Lord, what church shall I join?” and that gods appeared to him, the head flesh-God and his son, flesh-god Jesus (who is just one of many sons according to Mormons) and told him that they were all corrupt and conveniently didn’t explain why or have Joseph do any thinking as to why right away, but according to Mormons, spent nine years “translating” using his own imperfect ability, hence the imperfections and that God only showed him what to write, and doing that isn’t translating at all. And that prayer Smith supposedly made to know what church to join is doubtful, because Joseph’s own mother said that he merely was, “pondering which of the churches were the true one,” and that at that time an angel told him that none were.
One missionary even told me that he didn’t know what apologetics was and when I asked him what he thought about defending his religion, he replied, “You don’t have to defend your beliefs, it’s your beliefs, you know?”, but then why should Mormons even preach to others who believe differently if “beliefs shouldn’t be challenged” or based on more than feelings? Our feelings would not have even existed had God not spoken truths into existence, had not used logic to create the universe. Life was not born of a lie, but of God’s true word. Further, it is apologetic/a defense of what you believe to defend it by claiming you need not defend it, so there is another contradiction. But Mormon defenses are clearly wrong, their apologies are contradictions. How dreadful Judgment Day will be for teachers who taught false religions to others and so sunk their followers into a worse situation that if they had been less ignorant before going to Hell. Dreadful, dreadful, dreadful.
May God come back soon and put a stop to all lies and those who are against the Old Testament verse, “let us reason,” but who want you to trust in your “desperately wicked heart” rather than in what is clearly God’s word:
“No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” John 15:4–6
“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living,” 1 Corinthians 15:3-6
“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.” John 3:20–21.
“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.” 1 John 2:16–17
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.” 1 John 1:9-10
“For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.” Psalm 51:3–4
“Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned,” John 6:14–17
How Can You Know if You or Someone Else is Saved
Finally, beyond knowing if someone is an “antiChrist” or not, that is, basically, an evil person who should not be trusted rather than not, a person who is rejected by God, how else can they be known as good or evil if perhaps they are merely wise and able to imitate the truth? Of course it would be to see if they do good deeds, consistently. It could be as simple as taking care of an animal and it clearly not being an evil act, like giving food to a chicken with a peaceful or happy demeanor. Also, such actions would continue even if they were not in full compliance with God, so, even if they were doing great evil or sorts at times, there would still be goodness being done. In general, a good person doesn’t just confess essential truths, they do so out of love for God, and their behavior then will show this love by good deeds, actions. You would also, in general, be able to see improvements in their teaching and overall behavior as time passed on. For example, you might notice it becoming harder and harder for them to express evil or do evil and an avoidance of it. You might also note that evil people in general avoid them or even people who are good but not as good as them. Of course good people could be avoiding you if you are actually evil or seeing you as unclear in your beliefs and behavior, but that would only be temporary. Decent and good people tend to group together even if they don’t much directly associate much. Peaceful people want to live in proximity to other peaceful people, they do not want to live near violent or impure people but rather, avoid them, even if it means living in a thorny desert with little food and peppered with bad people. But to go to an even greater length, suppose such a person is actually living this way to live near to others who are bad or to take advantage of them. Then you would notice this: such a person contributes nothing good to those whom they are taking advantage of other than being a parrot. They don’t add any doctrinal help and don’t assist with anything, not prayer, money, labor or even standing around to greet anyone or help them around at church. They don’t pick up trash, they don’t won’t read prayer requests, they won’t stop by even for a moment in case the church should need help, and heart-wise, they don’t even have an intention to help any one apart of the church, they merely want to take from it and so, ultimately, their words will be of low to no comfort, empty and shallow. Better a Christian who tells the truth willingly and only does a few good deeds in life as they grow in Christ then one who avoids the truth and is known for nothing. In summary, look not just to see if a self-proclaimed Christian says what is true about the Bible, but if they are struggling to be good or are good. If you see no struggle or no goodness, it is a dead tree you are looking at, person who deluded or merely pretending to be a Christian with some insignificant acts. But before you judge others, remember the parable Jesus gave of the widow’s two cents:
”And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”” Luke 21:1-6
So then we can conclude a true Christian doesn’t just tell the truth and allow themselves to be questioned about their life so others may come to Christ and be saved, but they do deeds that are not convenient for them personally, they go the extra mile to put it another way. They don’t just do simple things that anyone can do with a decent life. They may, besides donating everything they have to give money wise, jeopardize having little good food to eat in an emergency by giving away their chickens to someone they see as good to animals so those chickens will have a better life rather than simply keeping them around for food as if that is all chickens should be kept for, is food, and not to be shown love if they become as children to be looked after the one who raised them, or in addition to that, preserved in a better way in case of an emergency so that they or their eggs can be food in a time of starvation for the church. And the last way to tell is by how they act when they do a deed that may be good: do they seem angry and resentful about it, or overly sad, or okay to do so, and better, happy to do so knowing it could help not just their animals but save human lives, especially the lives of other Christians? The last clue is their behavioral stability: is their over all behavior consistent with a Christian who has been changed in their heart and is not simply trying to appear as one of fool themselves into believing they are one? Are they emotionally all over the place, angry suddenly and raging and the next moment peaceful then suddenly enraged or deeply sad or babbling one moment and then suddenly back to normal? Does their personality keep changing over time or do they strongly appear to resist changing what they said they believe and what qualifies as good behavior and deeds? God put it this way:
“Even children are known by their behavior; their actions show if they are innocent and good.” Proverbs 20:11
“wisdom is proved right by all her children.” Luke 7:35
Is an evil child easy and comfortable to bear, are they a burden or is it pleasant or joyful to have the child around?
Also, consider a Christian’s circumstances. Suppose they seem or are stuck in a bad environment, their behavior will as with anyone possibly reflect that. A saved Christian will show hints of peace and a happy attitude even in a bad situation while maintaining beliefs in essential truths, an exceptional one will be happy even in a very bad situation, and an outstanding one will be joyful even in a very bad situation.
One last clue: no Christian wants to hear evil teachings for it’s own sake. For example no Christian wants to hear evil teachings, a false gospel or false prophecies that appear to or obviously contradict the Bible. They may listen to see if any confirm the Bible but won’t look for some new claim that is not compatible. As an example, the Bible clearly teaches a vast amount of people will die before Jesus returns, and that He will save all Israel and vanquish the AntiChrist. From what I know, most Christians, or many, even Catholics believe or teach this. So then they will not like to hear or tolerate for long any teaching outside that traditional one. In summary: Evil attracts evil and good attracts goodness. Evil provides evil for evil people and goodness provides goodness for good people.
I fell into traps for many years telling others not to judge others harshly while doing so myself, learn that lesson from me: be totally careful before judging even an evil person or making them out to be unforgivable, lest God do so to you to.
May God save and bless whoever reads this message.