To see Cal Grondahl’s post that goes with this blog, click here. Here’s the best-known LDS folklore regarding Cain as a monstrous figure roaming the earth. In 1835, LDS apostle David Patten was riding a mule in Tennessee. “I met with a very remarkable personage who had represented himself as being Cain … I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me … for about two hours. … He wore no clothing but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. … I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence and he immediately departed out of my sight.“
Patten was killed a few years later fighting anti-Mormons. This account is secondhand, from LDS apostle Abraham O. Smoot. Nevertheless, it is accepted Mormon lore, included in the late Prophet Spencer W. Kimball’s still-published book, “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” That lends it credibility in LDS circles. I recall hearing it often on Sundays as a child. In fact, those outside the LDS Church don’t know that Cain plays a bigger, more malevolent role in the LDS scripture “Pearl of Great Price.”
I read a fascinating essay, “A Mormon Bigfoot: David Patten’s Cain and the Conception of Evil in Mormon Folklore,” by Matthew Bowman in the new Signature Books’ anthology “Dimensions of Faith: A Mormon Studies Reader.” Patten’s account is not the only instance of Cain appearing in Mormon folklore. Another incident, as late as 1921, E. Wesley Smith, president of the Hawaii temple, told future church Prophet, apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, “A man came through the door. He was tall enough to have to stoop to enter. His eyes were very protruding and rather wild-looking, his fingernails were thick and long. He … wore no clothing … (I) commanded the person in the name of Jesus Christ to depart. … on being commanded to leave, he backed out the door.” Fielding Smith told Wesley Smith that it was Cain who visited him.
Also, in the 1920s, missionaries in Mexico encountered a large, dark, hairy creature who said he was Cain. Later in the 20th century, missionaries in Georgia were attacked by “a huge black negro,” who chased them away. They were told by their mission president it was Cain.
As Bowman writes, “It is true that the single most frequent use of the word Cain in the legends and folk doctrine has been in association with the concept of a “curse” of dark skin, a mark of spiritual inferiority, and until 1978 the inability to hold the priesthood.” This begs the question, are the accounts of Cain apparitions an extension of the priesthood-banning prejudice against black skin? Bowman includes a poem that Mormon poet Eliza Snow wrote in 1884: “As seen by David Patten, he was dark – When pointing at his face of glossy jet – Cain said, ‘You see the curse in on me yet’ – The first of murderers, now he fills his post – And reigns as king o’er all the murd’rous host.” In the 19th century, some Mormons believed that the skin of apostates darkened when they renounced the church.
As Bowman explains, a walking “Wandering Jew” type of Cain would seem natural to 19th century Mormons, who saw evil as tangible, walking the earth and combating the Saints. An example cited by Bowman is the discourses of early LDS leader, Heber Kimball, who described his battles in England with “legions of wicked spirits,” with accounts that rival scenes in modern films, such as “The Exorcist.” Kimball added that Joseph Smith told him of Sidney Rigdon being “pulled out of bed three times in one night” by Lucifer.
This yen for the supernatural has not left the culture of the LDS Church. Talk to a dozen long-time, temple-attending members and at least half, if not more, will confidentially, or publicly recount an instance of a spiritual vision or feeling — usually positive, but still occasionally a battle with evil. (I must confess that I am not immune from claiming a positive experience).
However, as Bowman notes, in the past generation-plus there has a move away from a dark Cain and the emergence of film footage of a creature called Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, who replaced the “huge black man” as Cain in many LDS circles. It’s reasonable to assume that the end of policy-driven LDS priesthood and membership prejudice against blacks have soured the previous concept of Cain among many Mormons.
As Bowman recounts, one of the first “Bigfoot” visions occurred in the Top of Utah in 1980, when a South Weber teen and her cousin both reported seeing a large black “creature” or “figure” in the fields. Huge prints were discovered in the snow. The story was pursued by the Standard-Examiner. At that time, Cain was not associated with the sightings, but within 10 years, South Weber residents “had begun associating these local sightings of Bigfoot with Cain.” A 1997 story tells of Boy Scouts in Utah who claimed they were chased by a big hairy man they called Cain who yelped in pain when he climbed through a lit chimney. Another, 1998 story, tells of an animal-like “Cain-beast” who chased two Mormon elders to a car.
Bowman writes that besides the disappearance of being dark or a negro, “Cain’s new activities of stalking barns and running through fields seems far less satanically malicious than Elder Patten’s Cain or the gigantic demon that stalked Wesley Smith. … Cain, rather than a supernatural fiend, is more the stock monster of a campfire tale. He is less a damned soul and more Bigfoot.”
As racism seeped out of the Latter-day Saints’ Cain legend, so did much of the malice. Indeed, the idea that Cain wanders the earth is a 19th century one. However, the appeal of adversaries who defy us on the earth has not departed from many Latter-day Saints so long as Bigfoot remains to personify Cain.
Ahead of the Game
Behind the Zion Curtain
Bishop’s Counsel
Blogging the Rambler
Boxing, MMA News
Economics, etc.
Eye of Faith
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vegan
Inside the Ropes
Orrin’s Musings
Prep Sports Spotlight
Standard.Net Development
Standing Out
The Baseball Report
The Political Surf
Through My Lens
Why are you crying?
WSU Sports Blog
There is 1 Race of Man on earth. Racism is used by ignorant bigots to divide and conquer. How about Love God and Love our Neighbor not just those that are White and Delightsome?
Sure, I believe it. Cain is a giant, naked, hairy black man who appears to Mormons for no apparent reason. At least the three Nephites usually DO something when they appear.
Cain: “Just stopped by to say hey.”
Wow, Boowman’s essay is really making the rounds. It is also available in the book, “Between Pulpit and Pew: The Supernatural World in Mormon History and Folklore.” The book edited by W. Paul Reeve and released by USU Press back in May.
And it is a very interesting article.
I guess those particular Mormons forgot to read ahead to Genesis 5 & forward where God flooded the world and everyone (including Cain & his offspring) except Noah and his family and whatever else was in the ark was destroyed and died…
More “Mormons” were embarrassed that “blacks” couldn’t hold the priesthood. Many members had no problem with the idea. Yes there were bigots, there still are. But, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (Articles of Faith 1: 2) It is clear that if there was a reason for the blacks not having the priesthood, it had nothing to do with their linage and there is no proof that “blacks” came from Cain or were evil by nature. They were welcomed into the Church from the beginning.
1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.
1844: Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1846: William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1900: Enoch Abel, the son of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1935: Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1958: All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippines even earlier)
1978: Revelation on Priesthood gives the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of color.
1990: Helvecio Martins becomes first black General Authority Seventy.
Additional blacks were ordained in the early years of the church.
For more information see the History Timeline.
http://www.blacklds.org/history
You said:
“It is clear that if there was a reason for the blacks not having the priesthood, it had nothing to do with their linage and there is no proof that “blacks” came from Cain or were evil by nature. They were welcomed into the Church from the beginning. ”
None of these statements above are true. The exact reason that blacks were banned from receiving the priesthood in the LDS Church is exactly because LDS leaders thought blacks were of the lineage of Cain— which was a common 19th century belief. There a numerous instances of LDS prophets, seers and revelators clearly identifying this belief as the reason for the ban. In August 1949 First Presidency Statement, the LDS First Presidency quoted Brigham Young to clarify the Church’s position on the ban:
“Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
The statement went on to say:
“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.”
So not only did the LDS Prophets think blacks were the descendants of Cain but also that they were born in to the curse as such because of their performance (or lack thereof) in the pre-existence.
You may want to think otherwise but clearly blacks in the Church were not welcomed as equals into the Church and did not get to participate in the priesthood or temple worship….until 1978.
Modern apologists like to say what happened and what was believed back in the day. Problem is, First Presidency Statements and teachings of LDs leaders trumps yer opinion every time.
Next we will hear about elephants charging Hill Cummorrah, blood running down the streets as water down a storm drain from Ogden to Salt Lake City, Jesus building wooden submarines in the Land of Nimrod, Adam Ondi Ammon being the real Garden of Eden in Kansas and how Ephramites turn into Levites and then into Melchisedek Priests from Judah. Quite a world of make believe eh?
One where Cain and Bigfoot escape God’s Wrath and alien pond scum evolves into people. “Oh mortal man, Is there nothing you cannot be made to believe” Jesuit Priest of Canon Law at Ingolstadt Germany Adam Wieshaupt. No worries, he has tall tales about Ignatius Loyola and the miraculous birth of the Jesuits on Aug 15, 1534
Howard, Howard…
You are making fun of people who believe whacky stuff?
Sorry Mr. Pot, your credibility on the whacky scale is zero.
As a lifelong, raised-in-Utah, married to a bishop Mormon I have never heard this “popular” Mormon story about Cain. Even if I had I would have considered it one of the stupidest stories about the early church I had ever heard and I would have completely dismissed it. Believing that this is Cain may make one appear racist and definitely appear an idiot. Mormons deserve more credit for brains than this–they are not as gullible as people think.
Well SWK cites it in ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness’, are you calling him gulluble? I think this story would have died down a long time ago if a so-called prophet didn’t cite it as 100% literal.
The very teaching of blacks being descended from Cain is a direct contradiction of the very scripture the LDS church claims to hold sacred, since Cain and his descendants were completely wiped out in the flood according to the Bible. Yet these things, disproved by the Bible, are taught as truth by the Mormon leadership, and Mormons are expected to believe the words of their prophets if they can ever hope to achieve exaltation. And since that’s really the ultimate goal of any faithful Mormon, it would be easy for someone on the outside to call faithful Mormons gullible. But in truth, I think there are many logical, truth-seeking Mormons that are troubled by their church’s teachings. While many of them will ultimately leave their church, many will, sadly, continue to give their time, money, and most worryingly their souls to the church for one reason or another.
God has given us minds to use, and those very minds, put to proper use, testify to who God is and confirm his existence and his true characteristics. Romans 1 talks about that. So why does the church discourage “anti-Mormon” literature, non-Mormon resources for teachers, strong relationships with non-Mormons, or even the objective study of the faith using resources not published by the church? Also, why do they discredit the accuracy of the very Bible they claim belief in, despite all evidence that the Bible as translated today is as close to the original as physically possible? Surely an examination of all evidence and scripture should reveal that the LDS church is true?
Ultimately every person will be accountable to God, and that’s why every Mormon has a duty to ignore church leadership and study his/her faith using every resource available to him/her. It’s not enough to ask God for truth and then believe something that contradicts the truth he has revealed through his word, the Bible. I believe God does reveal truth to those who ask for it and genuinely, actively seek it, but it’s also the responsibility of the seeker to reject cleverly disguised false gospels, no matter how good they make them feel or how many spirits testify to them its truth. Believing lying spirits and trusting our feelings are warned about in the Bible.
Interestingly, I was reading an article in Ensign the other day that talked about how we got the New Testament that we have today. For anyone interested, it was in the January 2011 issue on page 50. The ironic thing is that this article used history to show how the New Testament as we have it is the genuine Word of God preserved since the time of the apostles. It’s mind-boggling how the very same church could contradict itself and says the Bible has been changed or translated incorrectly when the Bible directly contradicts their teachings.
According to Abraham chapter 1, Ham, one of the documented survivors of the alleged flood, and son of Noah, married a Canaanite woman named Egyptus. Accordingly his offspring was said to be cursed pertaining to the Priesthood, though “…they would fain claim it from Noah” . Many of the the LDS institute manuals justify this argument using the account in Genesis chapter 9, where Noah cursed Ham for spreading word of his father’s “nakedness”. Noah uses the phrase “servant of servants”, which is a phrase that Brigham Young used often seeming to suggest that 19th century American slavery was a fulfillment of that prophecy from Noah. Even still, this account in Genesis was part of the shaky ground from which many of the protestant faiths of that time used to justify slavery, even using the same biblical phrasing “servant of servants”. But this account really doesn’t explain a great deal. For many of the biblical scholars who are familiar with the ancient practice of wearing a patriarchal garment, there is a subtle implication into what was meant by Ham seeing Noah’s “nakedness”, followed by he and his two brothers covering themselves and their father. It is implied that they made copies of this garment, and for some reason Noah became upset with Ham, but not the other two. The biblical record remains silent here and offers little helpful clarification beyond the implication that Ham was the son of Canaan (still, even this name is ambiguous at best).
The introduction of the Book of Abraham actually seems to give fuel to the race argument. Professor Hugh Nibley argued that the curse mentioned in the Book of Abrahm was result of the fact that in some way Egyptus, the wife of Ham, had tried to immitate the patriarchal order by using her son(s) to set up a false government. His intent, it would seem, was to try and suggest that LDS scripture was not supporting the racist suppositions of the 19th century. I’m almost compelled by his arguments except that the account in chapter 1 contains these verses:
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
In verses 21-22, we learn that the blood of the Canaanites was “preserved” in the land – meaning that it came before. And in verse 24 we learn that through Ham came a race of people in which a curse was “preserved”. The argument of a Matriarchal priesthood is supported in verses 23-24, and suggest that the establishment of this order was an event that occured afterwards. In other words, by use of the word “preserved”, it seems that the Book of Abraham is suggesting that the Priesthood curse existed prior to anything after the settlement of Egypt, that it was tied to the race of Canaanites, and therefore seems to borrow steam from the argument that the Curse of Cain was black skin and a restriction from the Priesthood. Church leaders from Brigham Young to Joseph Fielding Smith have defended the ban using these scriptures as justification – so I’m not sure that it is a contradiction of LDS scripture.
“I recall hearing it often on Sundays as a child.”
Sorry – you lost me there. Either you lived in a very strange and abnormal ward (and thus is not representative at all), or methinks you are quite liberal with your memory.
Ditto that. I’m a lifelong Mormon, over half my life in Utah, and this one is new to me.
Interesting that some insiders of the church have and some haven’t heard of this. I have heard this within the last two years among insiders–taken as either factual, or just a possibility. But the racial undertones are gone. Now its the brunette version as in the famous sideways glance at the camera/Harry and the Hendersons.
What difference does it make whether life-long members have heard this or not. It’s pretty well documented, as noted above even in First Presidency declarations…so.
I read some where that the account of Cain had been dismissed as an Urban Legend and that Spencer W. Kimball had just fallen prey to a common Urban Legend.
As mentioned it came from a recollection of Abraham O. Smoot— LDS pioneer, Bishop, Stake President, first head of the board of trustees of Brigham Young Academy (BYU) and a major financial contributor to the Brigham Young Academy. In the 1830s he 1836 was a missionary with David W. Patten in Kentucky and Tennessee. It was Patten — LDS apostle and arguably the first LDs martyr who had the experience which Smoot recalled. Patten was shot an killed in a battle with Missouri militia in 1838.
It is only an “rural legend” if either Patten and/or Smoot were delusional and/or lying. It has made it into the LDS narrative because it came from trusted leaders who claimed these events. If this is nothing more than lore how do you know the rest of LDS foundational events aren’t as well?
That is what we refer to in the legal business as hearsay, and is not conclusive evidence that President Kimball did not get tricked by an urban legend. As the legal community has learned the hard way, even eyewitness testimony is not very reliable. So, it could just be that someone misremembered a conversation, or embelished a conversation or the recollection was passed on incorrectly, or all of the above. Someone doesn’t have to be lying for their memory to be untrue.
In fact, based on some historical research, the whole tragic history of the Church’s race policy, may have been the result of imperfect leaders of the church giving in to hearsay. That, of course doesn’t excuse some of the dreadful things that were said by Mormons about black people. It should serve as a warning to Mormons regarding the dangers of the all to prevelant Mormon urban legends.
As for the rest of LDS foundational events–the important stuff is all pretty well documented and corroborated by multiple sources.
I’d be curious as to what you consider corroboration and adequate documentation regarding the Book of Mormon plates, the accuracy of the translation, the variously claimed visits from angels, etc., that all form the foundation of the church. Because I have read the words of the witnesses themselves, and they’re often contradictory and the sources themselves are hardly reliable.
Interestingly, many of the witnesses to the church’s foundational events eventually turned on Joseph Smith and called him a false prophet. Some of them did come back to the church later on, and some didn’t or joined other branches of the church. But ultimately, there are very few witnesses for any of these events, and none are reliable. They even contradict each other in that some of the people who claim to have witnessed the Golden Plates say they and the others who claim to have seen them only saw them through visions, while others say they saw them in person. It’s a big mess really. Ultimately, only about three families are really represented among any witnesses of any of these events, and one of those is Joseph Smith’s own, and all of the witnesses were close friends of Smith’s.
It’s hard to imagine how you can call it hearsay that the story of Cain is attributed to church leadership and brush it off as unproven, but willingly believe something that the evidence is even more dubious regarding and that has far more importance.
Those who have not heard of this either haven’t read Spencer W Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness or didn’t pay attention. He talks about Smoot’s account of what Patten claimed to experience. Like most of the weird stuff I didn’t hear about this till I served my mission.
Haven’t blacks always had opportunity to enter temples & do baptisms for the dead?
Pingback: Awareness of racism eased Mormon folk tales regarding Cain, Bigfoot – The Political Surf | Heber, UT
My goodness! what ignorance, really. The LDS Church, after Joseph Smith, began preaching the Cain theories. They were backed by the previous version of the book of Mormon that stated that the skin of blackness was a curse. The defense by members that they are ignorant of their churches teachings is mind-boggling on so many levels. Read the BY teachings that even one drop on negro blood in you will cause you to be unworthy or going to heaven, nice.
Here is the deal: the church likes to teach what they call unchanged, revealed doctrine. When said doctrine becomes unpopular and threatens the church financially, the doctrine gets downgraded quickly to a “teaching” or a “guideline”, then a further downgrade to a “practice”, it is then removed from manuals and books (hence why people of different generations heard or did not hear the stories). Then the practice can simply be “discontinued”. They begin with the Lord has said X because Y is a true principle, live by it or go to hell, then they begin saying well we have been taught in the past that X=Y, then they begin with the “we don’t understand, but we are sure there is a mysterious purpose as to X is somewhat related to Y, but it is not for us to question the Lord”, then the blatant downgrade: we no longer “practice X, X practice has been discontinued, it is not really tied with Y”.
The reality is that the LDS church had inclusion criteria based on race. When it became apparent that the NCAA would allow teams like Stanford to avoid playing BYU and therefore the Church was having their non-profit status reviewed by the IRS, then suddenly (within a month) God changed his mind. Same with polygamy, it went from we will die before we give it up, we will break the law cuz God is a higher law, to sending ppl to Mexico to practice it to eventually pretending it really did not happen for that long or that it was because it was just a trial, there were too many men, etc. The current backpedaling is because of the gay marriage issue, first it is evil in any form, then you can have those feelings just don’t act on them and now they don’t oppose civil union and members that speak out for it don’t get excommunicated anymore. Now its all we want them at church, holding callings, they will un-gay later, but for now bring them on!
It is amazing to me, shocking really, that people are gullible enough to believe that a never changing restored gospel needs changing all the time, and surprisingly to accommodate cultural pressures. I cannot believe that people that believe in prophets can also believe that those prophets can not agree on basic doctrine, to the point that Joseph Smith, if he were to come back, would be excommunicated from the church he founded because of his beliefs and practices. I also love the new hipster Mormon commercials…so much for a peculiar people…
By the way I love the comment of “they got to do baptism for the dead so we like them” good old Mormon racism is alive and well.
Mike, it is amazing and shocking to me that a person who claims to have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ for so long never, apparently, gained the smallest understanding of its teachings regarding prophets and revelation. And, notwithstanding your ignorance of such basic tenets, you hold yourself out to be the ultimate authority on the Church of Jesus Christ. It seems the only one who believes the Restored Gospel is never changing is you and others like you who don’t ascribe to it.
P.S. Please provide any evidence supporting your claims that the Church changed its position on blacks and the priesthood due to NCAA pressure (which is laughable) or because the IRS was examining the Church’s tax exempt status (which is laughable and unconstitutional).
P.P.S. Here is a good summary if you are really interested in the history, which of course you’re not, or you wouldn’t be here spouting half truths about the Church of Jesus Christ.
Interesting thought on Noah’s flood and Cain’s demise; I can see that Mormon folklore may prescribe bigfoot to Cain in Utah but what about the history of national sightings from the 19th century to present?; What about the lineage of Ham were blacks are concerned; and to say you are a life-long Utah resident and bishop’s wife therefore have some credit is ridiculous. Living in Utah one’s entire life really is telling as to your experience base…or lack thereof.
Without weighing in on this particular debate, I just wanted to shout “Robert E. Howard lives! Despite another despicable Conan movie….” Well named, Solomon Kane.
Citing the LDS church website to support the LDS church’s version of history is a little bit flawed and unreasonable. Mike makes a good point, but I think one of the most important things that he forgot to mention is that the Book of Mormon itself has seen significant changes to its text that changed church doctrine massively. One example would be how the original version calls Jesus the Father. It’s hard to imagine how the original Book of Mormon, being called the \most correct book on earth\ by Joseph Smith, would need to be changed in such significant ways. The interesting thing is that the Book of Mormon is less accurate to the original than the Bible is, despite being written thousands of years later, but the church makes a point to discredit the accuracy of the Bible whenever it contradicts its teachings.
Don’t be deceived. You are smarter than this. Why do you embrace something that you know isn’t true? Have you considered the consequences of entering into eternity believing something proven false? God has a monopoly on truth, but Satan is the author of many convincing deceptions that look and feel like truth but ultimately lead to hell. He is transformed into an angel of light, and his offers are often appealing on the surface. They may come in the form of a delicious and good-looking fruit that gives knowledge of good and evil, or a burning in the bosom, but they all ultimately lead to death in a physical sense and an eternal, spiritual sense.
Christ did not die on the cross so that you would have to follow the arbitrary commandments and burdens placed upon you by the so-called prophet at the head of the LDS church. He died so you could be free! You do not need to be \good enough\ to get to the top level of heaven. He already accomplished that on your behalf, and faith is all you need. The LDS church preaches a gospel of works, but Jesus promises to transform the faithful and make them do good works through a transformed heart and mind when they place their faith in him. That’s why you see faithful Christians doing the same good things you do, but with no hope of eternal progression.
So set aside superstition and read about the Jesus Christ of the Bible; one who has always existed, through whom you were created, who exists from everlasting to everlasting as God, and yet who came in the flesh as a servant. He lived perfectly and paid the full price for every believer’s sin on the cross, suffering the weight of our transgression on that tree and dying in our place. Then, being resurrected, he gained victory over death and hell forever. You can’t play a role in any of that, and you certainly don’t have the power to save yourself, or to add any saving power to Christ’s work. If anyone must add anything to Christ’s work, then we are doomed to defeat!
Joshua,
you make an excellent point that I skipped because there is just too much to say, but it does, as you suggest, boil down to this: if the BOM was translated by a prophet, why are there so many changes to it? There are over 3,000 changes documented and these do not include grammatical errors. That is a lot of editing for the most perfect book on earth, let alone the fact that not one iota has been corroborated by fact.
Veritas, please provide me the part of the constitution that you are referring to. Every single one of your statements is not true so I don’t have the time to provide you with an education. You go on saying whatever makes you feel better until you believe it, as your church counsels you to do.
Pingback: Mormonism’s Bigfoot. | Defending. Contending.
Pingback: Link bomb #11 | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Jon Adams Exmormon « Mormonism Scam or True Blog