So, let's get to it:

Below you will find a list of 6 outright deceptions and lies that Dustin Phelps makes about the CES Letter and me.

As you will see, a shred of truth can be used to misrepresent the whole truth.

And please consider sharing this article. Pro-Mormon blogger claims that misrepresent the LDS Church’s essay-verified facts have been popularized in recent years.

Note: Dustin has deleted and altered a few things on his blog post due to online backlash. Here's a screenshot of the original blog post. Here's a screenshot of his blog post at the time this rebuttal was published online.

What's hilarious is that even though Dustin thought he could escape criticism and counterpoints by simply disabling his comments section of his blog post, he ended getting a ton on social media. Unfortunately, Dustin doesn't like transparency and openness because there are many reports from folks complaining about Dustin Phelps and Happiness-Seekers.com deleting and censoring legitimate comments (no profanity or attacks) offering rebuttals to different claims made on Dustin's blog post.

Dustin's False Claim #1

Dustin says...

The changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years have not been significant.

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Dustin claims that the Book of Mormon read today is only slightly different from the original manuscript. He claims that any differences are not important. But if they are not important and are insignificant, why make the changes at all? He misdirects his reader into believing that most of the changes were punctuation marks or the addition of chapter headings.

This is a great example of Mormon apologists contradicting each other. FairMormon rejects the Philosophies of Dustin Phelps Mingled With Scripture™ on this one and agrees with my point:

It’s on FairMormon’s website. Here’s the link. Go read it. I’ll wait.

Isn’t it funny how Dustin didn’t include these little annoying facts in his “debunking” of the CES Letter and Jeremy Runnells?

No mention of how many changes there were from Dustin either (over 100,000).

Further, Dustin lies in claiming that they were insignificant when even FairMormon is more honest than Dustin in admitting that yes, some of the 100,000 changes are indeed significant.

So, who’s right, Dustin? Which unofficial Mormon apologist should we believe? Dustin Phelps or FairMormon? We can’t believe you both because you’re both making mutually exclusive claims.

Now you understand, Dear Reader, why I took the CES Director’s offer seriously after angst and frustration of dealing with contradictory unofficial Mormon apologists like FairMormon and guys like Dustin in my desperate search and attempt to restore my testimony after learning about the LDS Church’s truth crisis.

Dustin's False Claim #2

Dustin says...

Polygamy is no big deal. Polygamy is "faith promoting - not faith weakening" once you "get the whole picture".

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Dustin offers a red-herring regarding polygamy. He claims that if you can establish that Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy was not driven by lust that any and all other possible claims that a non-believer wants to make in regard to Joseph’s polygamy/polyandry just magically disappears.

He claims to know that what “really bothers” people is that Joseph may have been driven by lust to marry teenagers and other living men’s wives. Yet, in his mind, virtuous Joseph was so pure and busy with all his duties (apparently of woodchopping and running an illegal bank) and child-making with Emma that he barely had time to have sex with only just a few of his child-brides and illicit unions.

Aside from the absurdity that “lust” is the only argument against Joseph’s polygamy, Dustin contradicts his own god who apparently orders Joseph to take these bonus wives in every sense of the word. If Joseph was commanded to raise up seed, then why not have sex with them?

Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, who was pressured into marrying Joseph Smith when she was only 14-years-old explains on page 7 of a pamphlet she published in 1884 titled Why we practice Plural Marriage:

“The principle was established by the Prophet Joseph Smith and all who have entered into it in righteousness, have done so for the purpose of raising a righteous seed.”

The LDS Church has no problem admitting that Joseph’s plural marriages included the “possibility of sexual relations” in its Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay.

The Joseph Smith Papers, part of the LDS Church, has no problem with Joseph Smith having sex with any and all of his plural wives:

In fact, the Joseph Smith Papers takes it further by stating that there is nothing in the revelation on plural marriage that provides any doctrinal reason for why any authorized plural marriage could not have included such relations. Contrary to Dustin’s unsubstantiated and unsupported pet theory, there is no divine or scriptural or doctrinal reason for Joseph to tame his sexual appetite or to restrain lust with his plural brides. They were his wives in the very sense of the word. The object of the game was to make babies. This was the fulcrum of Joseph’s “eternal progression” doctrine.

LDS polygamy scholar Todd Compton writes:

“… though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for this (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives, judging from later Mormon polygamy). And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations.”

- In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 807-809)

Of course, when we put Joseph’s actions and behavior under the microscope and get into the realm of basic morality, human decency and dignity, what Joseph did was horrible.

Todd Compton again:

On the one hand, it was more than secular, monogamous marriage– it was the new and everlasting covenant, having eternal significance, a restoration from the prophetic, patriarchal milieu of Abraham which gave the participant infinite dominion in the next life. On the other hand, day-to-day practical polygamous living, for many women, was less than monogamous marriage– it was a social system that simply did not work in nineteenth-century America. Polygamous wives often experienced what was essentially acute neglect. Despite the husband’s sincere efforts, he could only give a specific wife a fraction of his time and means. Plural wife Annie Clark Tanner described herself as raising her ten children “alone.” When one of her boys caused trouble, her “frank admission” to a neighbor was: “Well I am alone.” The ambiguous nature of Mormon polygamy, for women, is summed up in a paragraph from Tanner’s moving autobiography: “As a girl I had been proud that my father and mother had obeyed the highest principle in the Church … I was aware now that my mother’s early married life must have been humiliating and joyless on many occasions because of her position as a second wife.”

- In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 138-146)

Dustin says...

“So, even though Joseph had very limited time for sexual relations...”

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

I'm gonna put this right here:

"It is impossible to accurately determine how often Joseph Smith spent time with his plural wives, either in conjugal visits or otherwise." - Brian Hales on his website (same source Dustin uses)

Ouch. Getting debunked by your boy Brian Hales on the same source you're using for your own pet theory has got to hurt. I'm guessing, like the CES Letter, you skimmed briefly through Brian's site too, Dustin?

Besides, how does Dustin know how much time Joseph had or didn’t have for sex? Is there such a thing as a man who doesn't have time for sex? What time frame is Dustin talking about here?

Does this include the time that Joseph made for the “transaction” in the barn with Fanny Alger that enraged Emma and Oliver Cowdery?

Does this include the time that Joseph had sex with Emily Partridge, a foster daughter who was living in the Smith home at the time? An affair that infuriated Emma to kick her out of the house?

Does this include the time that Joseph carved out of his “busy schedule” to sleep with another living man’s wife which led her to believe that her daughter, Josephine, was Joseph’s daughter? A secret she finally revealed to Josephine on her deathbed? (Disclosure: recent DNA has concluded that Josephine was not Joseph Smith’s daughter, but the fact is that Sylvia Sessions believed she was because she had sex with Joseph Smith).

Does this include all of the documented plural marriages that included sexual relations, Dustin?

Dustin then ventures into truly embarrassing territory when he makes the forehead slapping claim that “ in an era before birth control, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever fathered a child with a woman other than Emma .” In other words, without birth control, we should see children. We see no children (Dustin can’t honestly make this claim yet as we haven’t tested for all children) so therefore Joseph didn’t have sex because there was no birth control. Brilliant logic, right?

This claim speaks more of Dustin Phelp’s naiveté and ignorance of birth control and its accessibility in the 19th-century than it does in validating or excusing Joseph Smith in any way.

Dustin, I bet you never thought an “evil” “anti-Mormon” “liar” would teach you 19th-century birth control but hey, life is full of surprises:

There’s something called “Pull Out” or “Emergency Exit”. You should look into it sometime.

Diaphragms and other cap devices inserted into the vagina over the cervix and withdrawn after sex. They would melt suppositories designed to form an impenetrable coating over the cervix.

Lambskin/animal intestines condoms were invented and used.

Douching after intercourse designed to kill or drive out the sperm

Ever hear of oral, Dustin?

How about uh…anal?

Variety of rhythm methods

Abortion. There was a doctor by the name of John C. Bennett, an associate of Joseph Smith, who performed abortions. Sarah Pratt, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt and one of the women that Joseph approached to be his plural wife said this:

“You hear often that Joseph had no polygamous offspring. The reason of this is very simple. Abortion was practiced on a large scale in Nauvoo. Dr. John C. Bennett, the evil genius of Joseph, brought this abomination into a scientific system. He showed to my husband and me the instruments with which he used to ‘operate for Joseph.’ There was a house in Nauvoo, ‘right across the flat,’ about a mile and a-half from the town, a kind of hospital. They sent the women there, when they showed signs of celestial consequences. Abortion was practiced regularly in this house.” Source: Sarah Pratt quoted in Wyl, W[ilhem]. [pseud. for Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal]. Mormon Portraits, or the Truth about Mormon Leaders from 1830 to 1886, Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and His Friends: A Study Based on Fact and Documents. Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing and Publishing Co., 1886, 59 (see also 128). (Italics in original.)

At a High Council Trial in 1842 Sarah Miller testified that she was visited by Chauncey Higbee and William Smith (Joseph Smith’s brother and LDS Apostle) for sexual favors and:

"… [Chauncey] continued to press his instructions & arguments until after dark, & until I was inclined to believe, for he called God to witness of the truth, & was so solemn and confident, I yielded to his temptations, having received the stronget assure from him that Joseph app[r]ovd it & would uphold me in it. He also told me that many others were following the same coure of conduct As I still had some doubts near the close of our interview I suggested my fear that I had done wrong & should loose the confidence of the brthrn when he assurd me that it was right & he would bring a witness a witness to confirm what he had taught. When he came again [Apostle] William Smith came with him & told me that the doctrine which Chancy Higby had taught me was true. & that Joseph believd the doctrine. ... William Smith said that he would take all the sin to himself. – for there was no sin in it. … Chauncy Higby said that it would never be known. I told him that it might be told in bringing forth [pregnancy]. Chauny said there was no Danger Dr Bennt understood it & would come & take it away if there was any thing."

- Sarah Miller (Testimonies in Nauvoo High Council cases, 1842 May, MS 24557, Church History Library).

What is interesting is that Apostle William Smith was never held accountable by his older brother Joseph for his participation in these activities. When portions of these proceedings were published by Joseph, they omitted William’s name from them. In some of the documents, William’s name is scratched out.

A Redditor, Aethereus, made the following insightful comment and observation:

The author [Dustin Phelps] was particularly self-contradictory on this issue. He claims to prove that Joseph didn't practice polygamy out of lust by citing the lack of birth control in Joseph's lifetime. Sex + no birth control = babies. No babies, hence, no sex. So many problems with this logic: As someone with graduate degrees in the history of early modern medicine, his claim that birth-control didn't exist in the 19th century is total bollocks. Women have been sharing recipes for contraceptive simples for millennia, and abortive practices were common (though more dangerous than in modern times).



The author admits (or at least clearly implies) IN HIS OWN ARTICLE, that Joseph DID have sex with at least some of his wives.



"Like that almost half of Joseph’s “wives” were really just “eternity only” dealings. Or that the evidence indicates that Joseph’s more controversial “marriages” never involved intimate relations." So, Joseph both did and did not have sex with his wives? Brilliant. But if Joseph did have sex with these wives and Joseph was so fertile, then why didn't those encounters lead to the birth of children? The only possible answers are 1) Joseph wasn't as fertile as the author thinks, 2) Joseph's wives DID get pregnant but had access to birth control/abortion, and/or 3) Joseph was careful about when/how he had sex. The fact is, Joseph had sex. The sources show it and the church acknowledges it. Ergo, the lack of babies proves absolutely nothing about WHY Joseph engaged in polygamy. Lust is still on the table.

Back to the DNA stuff. Contrary to Dustin’s desperate leap to perceived victory, the DNA research is still ongoing and it is still inconclusive. Yes, it has ruled out some children but not all of them. Further, there are some children that we just cannot test for various reasons (died in infancy, family line stopped, etc.).

Regardless, the sex is not the main issue here. What Dustin and polygamy defenders like him just do not get in their rabid zeal to shield their beloved Brother Joseph from blatant immorality and adultery is this: it’s a fidelity and honesty and character issue.

Joseph kept many of these marriages, women, girls, and other living men’s wives from the knowledge of Emma. He kept them in the dark and lied about them to Emma, the Saints, and the world for most of his adult life. (For many affidavits about these plural wives, see “Raiders of the Lost Archives: The JFS Affidavit Books,” by Jonathan Streeter).

In fact, just a few weeks before his death and after he married all of these women, girls, and other men's wives in the dark, Joseph had the audacity to make the following lie and denial:

“...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

– History of the Church, Vol. 6, Chapter 19, p. 411

In fact, Joseph was married/sealed to at least 22 other women and girls before finally being sealed to his first legal wife, Emma, on May 28, 1843. As mentioned above, Emma was not aware of most of these marriages beforehand. Why was “elect lady” Emma the 23rd wife to be sealed to Joseph?

Dustin makes the unsupported claim that “ whatever intimate relations may have occurred – they were pretty close to non-existent ” and then he naively uses as a source, the controversial fringe Mormon polygamy defender and apologist Brian Hales as citation. To give you an idea of how fringe and isolated Mormon apologist Brian Hales is within polygamy scholars – both LDS and non-LDS (See FairMormon’s own website):

I highly encourage you to read Brian Hales’ controversial theories and hypotheses that Dustin points to as his foundational framework for Joseph’s polygamy/polyandry. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that it was from reading Brian Hales’ apologetics and unbelievable claims that completely obliterated their testimonies. Here's Hales' website. I’m currently working on a debunking piece on Brian Hales that will be posted on cesletter.org.

Notice that Dustin doesn’t dare go near polyandry (women with multiple husbands) or into deeper detail of Joseph Smith’s polygamy on his blog post but then he touches it lightly in one of the citations (#17 and 18) with an unsupported claim and pet theory. I’m personally not surprised as polyandry is a nuclear bomb. Dustin stays high level with his stupid “no birth control + no kids = Joseph is a good man!” pet theory. Despite Dustin’s attempt to minimize or wave away polygamy, it’s a huge problem and stumbling block for a lot of members of the Church that is not only not going to go away but will worsen as more and more members learn just how truly bad it really is.

Dustin says...

“Like that almost half of Joseph’s 'wives' were really just 'eternity only' dealings. Or that the evidence indicates that Joseph’s more controversial 'marriages' never involved intimate relations.”

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Since Dustin won’t touch polygamy and polyandry in deeper detail while making the despicably false claim that “ once you get the whole picture, polygamy will be faith promoting – not faith weakening, ” I will go ahead and share some details and facts on why once you get the whole picture, polygamy is actually very faith-destroying.

It is obvious from Dustin’s claims and sources that he has an elementary understanding of the topic and has probably spent an hour or two one lazy Sunday afternoon visiting 3-4 pages of Mormon polygamy defender and apologist Brian Hales’ website. It is also obvious that Dustin’s polygamy worldview is latched onto the insane Philosophies of Brian Hales Mingled With Scripture™.

Joseph Smith was married to at least 34 women. At least 11 of them were married to other living men (polyandry).

Not a peep from our blogger Dustin about how polyandry is in direct violation to D&C 132:61, which very explicitly condemns polyandry as adultery:

–if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to spouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

Facing the serious problem and dilemma of Joseph Smith being an adulterer, the Church and apologists, including Dustin’s above claim, now attempt to justify these polyandrous marriages by theorizing that they probably didn’t include sexual relations and thus were “eternal” or “dynastic” sealings only. How is not having sex with a living man’s wife on earth only to take her away from him in the eternities to be one of your [Joseph Smith] 30+ wives any better or any less immoral? Some of these men were apostles and members of the Church. What right did Joseph have to snatch their wives away from them for the eternities?

In fact, Joseph himself wrote a First Presidency Message in 1842 condemning this (while he was hypocritically secretly marrying other living men’s wives in the dark at the same time) that said:

"And the same should be taught to all the Saints, and not suffer families to be broken up on any account whatever if it be possible to avoid it. Suffer no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever, nor any woman to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. These things are an evil and must be forbidden by the authorities of the church, or they will come under condemnation… Behold this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness; and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light; that is, they are more crafty; and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world. And the man who leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, has his mind overpowered with darkness, and Satan deceives him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware he is disgraced forever: and greater is the danger for the woman that leaves her husband, and there are several instances where women have left their husbands, and [pg. 2] come to this place,& in a few weeks, or months, they have found themselves new husbands, and they are living in adultery; and we are obliged to cut them off from the church. I presume There are men also that are quilty of the same crime, as we are credibly informed. We are knowing to their having taken wives here and are credibly informed that they have wives in England."

(See “Brian Hales’ Polygamy: Sylvia Lyons and the 1869 Utah Affidavits”, by Johnny Stephenson, online here)

During the summer of 1841, Joseph Smith tested Helen Mar Kimball’s father, Apostle Heber C. Kimball, by asking Heber to give his wife, Vilate – Helen’s mother – to Joseph:

“...shortly after Heber's return from England, he was introduced to the doctrine of plural marriage directly through a startling test—a sacrifice that shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate. He had already sacrificed homes, possessions, friends, relatives, all worldly rewards, peace, and tranquility for the Restoration. Nothing was left to place on the altar save his life, his children, and his wife. Then came the Abrahamic test. Joseph demanded for himself what to Heber was the unthinkable, his Vilate. Totally crushed spiritually and emotionally, Heber touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights and continually sought confirmation and comfort from God. On the evening of the third day, some kind of assurance came, and Heber took Vilate to the upper room of Joseph's store on Water Street. The Prophet wept at this act of faith, devotion, and obedience. Joseph had never intended to take Vilate. It was all a test.”

– Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer, p.93

If Joseph’s polygamous/polyandrous marriages are innocuous “dynastic sealings” meant for the afterlife, as the Church and apologists like Dustin are now theorizing, and Joseph wanted to “dynastically link” himself to the Kimball family, why was Apostle Heber C. Kimball so troubled by Joseph’s command for his wife that he “touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights”?

Out of the 34 women that Joseph married, 7 of them were teenage girls as young as 14-years-old. Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior. Even by 19th century standards, this is shocking.

Joseph took 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball’s hand in marriage after his disturbing Abrahamic test on her father, Heber, while promising Helen and her family eternal salvation and exaltation if she accepted:

“Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle of Celestial marriage, and having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seemed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched until they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife and she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me the principle and asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning and with my parents I heard him teach and explain the principle of Celestial marriage - after which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.’ "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God and angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart – when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied, ‘If Helen is willing, I have nothing more to say.’ She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older and who better understood the step they were taking, and to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.”

– Helen Mar Kimball Whitney 1881 Autobiography, A Woman’s View, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1997, p.482-487

Why all the agony and anguish if this was an innocuous “Dynastic Linking” and sealing for the afterlife? Why did it seem “cruel” to Vilate, “whose heartstrings were already stretched”?

Joseph was married to several girls included Joseph’s own foster daughters who lived and worked in the Smith home (Lawrence sisters, Partridge sisters, Lucy Walker).

When Joseph Smith married the Partridge sisters, Emma objected and wanted them removed from the house. Here is what Joseph did, according to Emily Partridge:

"When we went in, Joseph was there, his countenance was the perfect picture of despair. I cannot remember all that passed at that time, but she insisted that we should promise to break our covenants that we had made before God. Joseph asked her if we made the promises she required, if she would cease to trouble us, and not persist in our marrying some one else. She made the promise. Joseph came to us and shook hands with us and the understanding was that all was ended between us. I, for one, meant to keep the promise I was forced to make). Some might think that Emma was justified in the course she took. She might have been in some cases, but when the Lord commands, His word is not to be trifled with. … After our interview was over, we went down stairs. Joseph soon came into the room were I was. Said, “How do you feel, Emily?” My heart being still hard, I answered him rather short “that I expected that I felt like anybody would under the circumstances.” He said, “You know my hands are tied.” And he looked as if he would sink into the earth. I knew he spoke truly, and my heart was melted, all my hard feeling was gone in a moment (toward him), but I had no time to speak for he was gone. Emma was on his track, and came in as he went out. She said, “Emily, what did Joseph say to you?” I answered that he had asked me how I felt. She said, “You might as well tell me, for I am determined that a stop shall be put to these things and I want you to tell me what he says to you.” I replied, “I shall not tell you, he can say what he pleases to me, and I shall not report it to you. There has been mischief enough made by doing that. I am as sick of these things as you can be.” I said it in a tone that she knew I meant it. …Emma could not rest until she had gotten us out of the house, and then she was not satisfied, but wanted us to leave the city. She offered to give the money to pay our expenses if we would go. We consulted Joseph, and he said we might make a visit to some of our relatives who were living up the river two or three hundred miles. So we agreed to go, and she gave us ten dollars. Joseph said it was insufficient and for us not to go, so we gave it up and returned the money to Emma."

- (“What I Remember” by Emily Dow Partridge Smith Young, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 7, 1884, MS 5718, Church History Library).

So, Joseph married these two young girls in March, 1843, had sex with them, and then shook their hands and cast them off when it got inconvenient for him in the fall of that same year? Emily later testified that she had sex with Joseph. Emily then wrote:

"I got a place (or Joseph did for me) with a respectable family. The lady [Sylvia Lyon] was very kind to me in some things, and I suppose she meant to be in everything, and I felt very thankful to her, but the work was rather hard. I had to sleep in the same room with her and her husband [Windsor Lyon] in order to be where I could get up nights and tend her baby when it was worrisome. Some nights I would get up several times and have sat before the fire nodding for hours trying to get the baby [Josephine Lyon] to sleep. I made no complaints, but left when I thought I could stand it no longer." I do not remember of seeing Joseph but once to speak to after I left the Mansion House and that was just before he started for Carthage. (ibid).

Joseph was at that same time married to Sylvia Lyon (Windsor Lyon's wife), yet Emily states that Sylvia was living with her husband Windsor and their baby Josephine, who Sylvia secretly thought was Joseph Smith’s child.

Among the women and girls that Joseph was married to was a mother-daughter set and three sister sets.

If some of these marriages were non-sexual “dynastic” “eternal” sealings only, as theorized by the Church and apologists, why would Joseph need to be sealed to a mother and daughter set? The mother would be sealed to the daughter and would become part of Joseph’s afterlife family through the sealing to her mother.

Further, Joseph died without being sealed to his children or to his parents. If a primary motive of these “sealings” was to be connected in the afterlife, as claimed by the Church and apologists, what does it say about Joseph’s priorities and motives to be sealed to a non-related and already married woman (Patty Sessions) and her 23-year-old already married daughter (Sylvia Sessions) than it was to be sealed to his own parents and to his own children?

The Abrahamic test on Heber C. Kimball for his wife (both Helen Mar Kimball’s parents). The pressure on 14-year-old Helen to marry a 37-year-old man under the pretense of salvation and exaltation for her and her family. The anguish and misery placed upon Helen’s mother, Vilate. The anguish placed on Heber C. Kimball. Telling women that an angel with a sword was threatening him with destruction unless they married him. Joseph marrying other men's wives. Joseph marrying mother-daughter sets. Joseph marrying sister sets. Joseph excommunicating and threatening the reputations of those who dared speak truth about Joseph’s secret polygamy (William Law, Oliver Cowdery, some of the women, etc.).

This is not Warren Jeffs territory, Dustin? You are living in the fantasy world of Brian Hales.

Besides, isn’t it crueler to take the childbearing capability away from a woman while she is only a 14-year-old girl? By marrying Joseph, her family somehow obtained the highest level of the Celestial kingdom and he avoided destruction from an angel with a sword but if she didn’t even get sex out of the union, what was the benefit to her? The church’s own essay says that marriage of girls this age was common. Was it common though, for a man to take multiple young women as wives? To coerce their parents into agreeing to the unions by holding their eternal salvation over their heads? So, how was it a kindness to her to deprive her of some other loving middle-aged man who would have actually had the decency to sleep with her and give her legitimate children?

By limiting the perceived problems with polygamy to one of “lust” only, Dustin creates his own false-dichotomy. Let’s cut right to the chase on this one. Polygamy does bother a lot of people and the numerous “official” explanations raise more questions than they answer. Lust is not the only problem we have with it, although it is a big one. Frankly, if Joseph Smith were alive today, he would be more at home in Warren Jeffs’ fundamentalist sect than he would be with the modern-day Brighamites and reformed polygamists. Anyone who claims otherwise has not spent enough time studying the early church or the FLDS groups.

The Church also admits on its own website that it repeatedly lied about the depth, breadth, purpose of and existence of polygamy for years. It lied to members and non-members alike. It lied about when it started, who was involved, when it stopped. Again, the Church admits that it has lied about this. Now, however, literally thank our lucky stars for blogger Dustin, he has managed to show up and finally blog the truth for us.

I’m glad Dustin has managed to find a way to be at "peace" with something that lacks a coherent and clear theological purpose. It is no surprise that his answer for polygamy seems to be cobbled together from bits and pieces he’s picked up from the Philosophies of Brian Hales Mingled With Scripture™. Is his testimony strong enough that if the current prophet wanted to marry his wife he would gladly comply? Would his current wife be a willing hand-maiden? Would she sit by quietly and accept her fate as a sister-wife if the Lord wanted to reward all Dustin’s inner-city non-profit work with the blessings of multiple simultaneous matrimony?

Dustin's False Claim #3

Dustin says...

"Contrary to the author's assertion, the accounts do not

contradict each other - they enrich one another."

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Notice that Dustin doesn’t go into the details. He stays high level as usual. Like polygamy/polyandry, it’s when you get into the details that Dustin’s claims and assertions fall apart.

Here’s the details and contradictions that Dustin fails to share with his readers:

In the only handwritten account by Joseph Smith, penned in 1832, but not publicly published until much later, describes the first vision in an unfamiliar way:

“...and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life...”

No mention of two beings.

12 years after the vision happened.

Age is 15-years-old (“16th year of my age”), not 14-years-old.

No reference to asking the question about which church he should join.

No description of being attacked by Satan.

Here's the blatant contradiction between the first vision accounts that Dustin doesn't share with you:

1832 handwritten account by Joseph Smith:

Official 1838 First Vision account:

So, the " accounts do not contradict each other - they enrich one another ," Dustin? Right.

Here is a correction of Dustin's misleading and false Venn diagram:

Late appearance of first vision claims:

No one - including Joseph Smith’s family members and the Saints – had ever heard about the first vision from twelve to twenty-two years after it supposedly occurred. The first and earliest written account of the first vision in Joseph Smith’s journal was 12 years after the spring of 1820. There is absolutely no record of any claimed “first vision” prior to this 1832 account. Despite the emphasis placed on it now, the first vision does not appear to have been widely taught to members of the church until the 1840s, more than a decade after the church was founded, and 20 years after it occurred.

James B. Allen, former BYU Professor and Assistant Church Historian explains:

“There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830’s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the first vision...The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.”

Dustin next tries to spin a yarn, again without any power or authority of his own save a nice graphic, that all the contradicting versions of the First Vision shouldn’t matter. Well, the entire story of the First Vision didn’t matter at all to most of the early Saints because they didn’t even know about it. The Church, and Dustin, suffer from a problem not just because of the sheer number of conflicting first vision stories but also of their chronology. They claim that all these versions are just different takes on the same event given to different audiences for different purposes. Some have claimed it is much like how the gospels in the New Testament share different views of Christ’s life. Except the gospels have different views because they have different authors. The relevance to the many versions and the timeline of those versions is because at different times in church history, leaders have sought to hide relevant facts from investigators and members. Missionaries tell a white-washed version of events that is completely out of order.

Dustin claims it would be weird if Joseph gave the exact same account of, according to his theology, the most important event since the death of Christ. How strange it would seem to him, if this event was imprinted so deeply in his brain that he would actually remember if he saw just God or God and Jesus or God and some Angels or just Angels. How weird if he actually remembered why he prayed, why his prayer was answered and who showed up. Dustin absurdly claims that the nine different versions don’t contradict each other and then disproves his own point by offering an unsanctioned graphic that contains a fancy Venn diagram showing some overlap.

His diagram conveniently leaves out at least five of the versions readily available and admitted to by the Church. Yet, as is the nature of Venn diagrams, he shows 7 of the 11 key elements not matching in all versions. These are the elements Dustin chose to include and his own graphic clearly shows things like seeing lots of angels, learning that all existing churches are wrong and the literal presence of Satan. These are the kinds of details that shouldn’t be classified as “minor” yet even Dustin admits they are not shared by all versions.

In each of the versions included, the competing stories do not “enrich” each other as Dustin claims as most of the stories are still not even known by many faithful members. These oh-so enriching competing visions are also not shared with investigators. Any intelligent and reasonable person could go to the church’s own website and see that the official narrative does not match these documents. The church offers this level of transparency to the intellectual curious who go digging for it but it certainly does not promote the rich tapestry of competing visions for the very logical reason that Dustin seems to overlook. Having these many stories that do not back each other up in key details casts doubt on the entire narrative itself.

If having such a wealth of tales to draw upon was actually helpful in creating belief and faith, the Church would talk a lot more about it. It is only in response to those who point out these versions that we get this knee-jerk, smarmy intellectualism that it is all good and right and there is nothing to see here.

If all the versions of the first vision are so cohesive, why did church historian Joseph Fielding Smith intentionally remove the 1832 account (literally tear the page out of the journal) to lock it up in his safe for over 20 years until it was discovered and forced out of the safe in 1965? It’s now taped back into the journal – you can see the tear of the page on the Joseph Smith Papers website.

I wonder if Dustin would provide the same excuses, rationalizations, and mental gymnastics if the multiple conflicting accounts and contradictions were given by L. Ron Hubbard, Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or any other leaders. It is always amazing how apologists will pretzel themselves up in desperate attempts to keep a fragile and disprovable belief system intact with duct tape.

Dustin's False Claim #4

Dustin says...

Joseph Smith did not hold a Trinitarian view of Godhead

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

I respond to each one of Dustin’s claims and assertions below.

Dustin says...

One of those minor adjustments has really excited anti-Mormons over the years. Why? Because if you remove the relevant context and place it in just the right light, it appears much more controversial than it really is. So, here’s the change: There are four places where Joseph Smith added “Son of” to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. These are places where Jesus Christ was initially referred to as “God” or “the Eternal Father” but were adjusted to read “Son of God” and “Son of the Eternal Father.”[17] The author claims that this is proof that Joseph Smith used to see Jesus and Heavenly Father as one personage. He claims that this change to the text was an attempt by Joseph to hide his “evolving” views. He further argues that Joseph’s other early teachings and revelations also reflect this Trinitarian view of the Godhead.

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Alright. Let’s unpack this deception of Dustin’s.

First, it’s a strawman fallacy for Dustin to claim that “the author claims that this is proof that Joseph Smith used to see Jesus and Heavenly Father as one personage.” No. I’m saying that this is among a multitude of evidences that demonstrate that Joseph Smith had a view of God that was consistent with the Christian Trinitarian views that contradict the Mormon Godhead theology we have today.

Here’s the screenshot from the CES Letter that shows the list that Dustin is trying to sell us his “minor adjustment” pet theory on:

Take a good look at the above table. Notice that the ONLY changes that have been made between the two editions on these verses is that Joseph added in “the Son of”. These are not mistakes or “minor adjustments.” These are major doctrinal adjustments.

Also, they’re not taken out of context at all. In fact, they fit nicely with the other Book of Mormon verses that Joseph missed in his later clean up and which Dustin is ignoring here:

I further unpack this and go deeper into detail below in response to Dustin's other claims.

Dustin says...

#1 The author argues that Joseph saw the Father and the Son as one personage until at least the mid 1830s. But that is demonstrably false: In 1830, just a few months after the publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith received the revelation for the Book of Moses in which we read the following: “And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.“ This revelation tells us that the Adversary asked to receive the role of the Son, but then Jesus stepped forward, presenting Himself as an alternative. It is impossible to read that verse and continue to argue that Joseph’s early view of the Godhead is that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are the same person. And it’s not just in the Book of Moses. Joseph’s other early teachings and revelations clearly indicate a distinction between the Father and the Son. For proof, click here.

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Sigh. Another strawman fallacy from Dustin: “The author argues that Joseph saw the Father and the Son as one personage until at least the mid 1830s .”

No, Dustin. I don’t make the "until at least the mid-1830s" claim. There is nowhere in the CES Letter where I write or claim this. If you had actually read the CES Letter instead of all of the FairMormon Repackaged® links you point to, you wouldn’t have made this strawman. Please stop misrepresenting me and my letter with claims that I do not make. Dustin then goes on to attack an argument that I never even made.

I don’t know exactly when Joseph started changing his views on the nature of God. I don’t make any claims on when he made his changes. I just pointed out the inconsistencies of Joseph’s teachings of the nature of God and how his teachings have evolved from God vs. Gods and Godhead to the CES Director in hopes he could resolve this for me.

The Bible has conflicting statements about the Godhead – yet numerous Christian denominations and Christians see it as describing the trinity. This was especially true in the burned-over district of Joseph’s era.

Since Joseph was copying themes, phrases, and yes, errors from the King James Version Bible, it is no surprise that there are mixed themes in the Book of Mormon as well. The key is to see what changes Joseph made in the Book of Mormon as well as how his teachings outside that scripture evolved over time.

Joseph's evolution of the nature of God appears to have gone through the following sequence:

Trinitarian - Modalism - Polytheism

Joseph’s earliest teaching on God:

In Alma 11:28-29, 38-39, 44, we learn:

Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No … Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father … Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God.

Joseph’s latest teachings on God (Plurality of Gods Sermon just weeks before his death):

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods." "If Abraham reasoned thus—If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it. I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before. He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys, &c. I know it is good reasoning."

Additionally, the famous King Follet Sermon also teaches the plurality of Gods.

Since Dustin decided to bring up the Book of Moses in his attack on an claim that I do not even make, I'll bite.

Isn't it interesting how Dustin has to 1) Make a strawman and fake claim that I do not even make while 2) Going outside of the Book of Mormon to another book written after the Book of Mormon to support the claim that the Father and Son are separate personages in the Book of Mormon?

If this doesn't speak volumes to my point that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic/Trinitarian, I don't know what does.

So, the Book of Moses. Dustin points to the Book of Moses as support for separate personages of the Father and Son. He states that "In 1830, just a few months after the publication of the Book of Mormon" that Joseph had this revelation that stated the above scripture and story.

The official narrative states that the end date for the “translation” (dictation) of the Book of Mormon was June 1829. Joseph didn’t begin his “Inspired” Version of the Bible (which later became part of Book of Moses) until June 1830. So, it’s not just a “few months” as claimed by Dustin. It was a whole year. The “material in it was revealed between June 1830 and February 1831” so that’s a year and a half instead of “a few months”.

I want to thank Dustin for bringing the Book of Moses into the discussion here as it's an excellent illustration of Joseph's Monotheism/Trinitarianism (One God) to Plurality (Multiple Gods) evolution. Have a look at the following graphic which shows a side-by-side comparison between the Book of Moses (written earlier in Joseph's evolving theology of god) and the Book of Abraham (written later in Joseph's evolving theology of god).

Pretty fascinating, huh?

I think it's absolutely hilarious that Dustin is trying to discredit me with the Book of Moses (JST) when Joseph Smith himself discredited the Book of Moses by preaching about the first words of the Bible in the King Follet Discourse and presenting something totally different than the JST as the original words: Evaluating Joseph Smith's Hebrew Exegesis.

One of the most astounding things about the JST is that Joseph took a King James Version verse that seemed compatible to the Mormon concept of the Godhead and completely turned it around to make it Monotheistic. For example, Luke 10:22:

King James Version Luke 10:22:

All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. JST Luke 10:22:

All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

In the questions and answers, at the end of each lecture (Lectures of Faith), we find clarification:

Q: What is the Father?

A: He is a personage of glory and of power. (5:2.)… Q: What is the Son?

A: First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2.)… Q: Why was he called the Son?

A: Because of the flesh. Q: Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?

A: They do. Q: What is this mind?

A: The Holy Spirit.

Dustin says...

"#2 In terms of the Godhead, the Book of Mormon reads very similarly to the Bible which means that depending on which scripture you take out of context, you can support any number of views on the Godhead, including the LDS view. But, just like with the Bible, there are too many verses which indicate a distinction between God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son, to honestly argue that the only way to read the Book of Mormon is from a point of view that holds the Father and the Son to be one and the same."

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Maybe this is why you made the ad hominem attack on the “cartoon director” (which you later removed from your blog post). You wanted to “discredit” the “cartoon director” while ignoring his following quote and explaining why his quote is not accurate.

Boyd Kirkland made the following comment that talks about this:

Unlike the Bible, which has gone through numerous hands, translations, and meddling, the Book of Mormon came directly from the Mormon god through a rock in Joseph’s hat. It didn’t go through all of the crap that the Bible went through.

So, why does the Book of Mormon contain monotheist/Trinitarian verses and teachings, Dustin? Why is it adding to the confusion? Why isn’t the Book of Mormon clearing up questions about the Godhead which have raged in Christianity for centuries?

Why did you have to go outside of the Book of Mormon to another book - the Book of Moses – written after the Book of Mormon to show us an example that the Father and Son are separate personages in the Book of Mormon, Dustin?

Dustin says...

“#3 In the very first chapter of the Book of Mormon—Lehi’s dream clearly distinguishes God, the Father, and Christ, the Son as separate personages.”

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

It does, Dustin?

How about we pull out 1 Nephi Chapter 1 to see what it actually says? Here’s the relevant verses:

And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen. And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.

By the way, I compared this to the 1830 Book of Mormon and they both match.

So…this shows God the Father, and Christ, the Son as separate personages…how?

“God sitting upon his throne.” Okay. Check.

“And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven…and he also saw twelve other following him.” Okay. Check.

And...? That's it?

My question: how does this demonstrate that they’re separate personages? You know, God can get up from his throne, right? You do get that there’s nothing here stating that this happened all at once and all at the same time, right?

Also, if you want to try to plug in your current Mormon Godhead paradigm into this 1830 scripture verse and claim that God the Father couldn’t descend from his throne because he had a resurrected physical body…I hate to break the news to you:

The Lectures of Faith 1835:

…We shall, in this lecture, speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible, whether in heave, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son – the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image;…

Later on April 2, 1843, Joseph contradicts himself with D&C 130:22, which would eventually become the new foundational Mormon theology of the Godhead:

22. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Spirit has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage

An integral part of the original Doctrine and Covenants was the Lectures of Faith. While these lectures were removed from canonized scripture in 1921 and no longer form the ‘Doctrine’ part of the D&C, the seven lectures were once deemed the very foundation of Church doctrine. Following them being taught in the School of the Prophets, they were actually supposed to be memorized, such as their doctrinal significance. Lecture Fifth in particular, became an embarrassment for the Church and although still available today, the lectures are seldom referred to and are now largely ignored and conveniently forgotten.

The reason the lectures were deleted is because they confirm that when written, Smith still believed God was a spirit without a body.

Why all of this contradiction and confusion about the nature of God and that God is a spirit - wait, no, God has a tangible body? Didn't Joseph supposedly see God the Father and Jesus Christ in the sacred grove in 1820? Separate and distinct beings with resurrected bodies? If so, we shouldn't see all of this contradictory and confusing mess about the nature of god.

So, Dustin, your claim that the “very first chapter of the Book of Mormon…distinguishes God, the Father, and Christ, the Son as separate personages” is misleading and false.

Dustin says...

"#4 If the author had actually bothered to open the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, he might have noticed that Alma and Amulek spend almost 30 verses explaining that the Zoramite view of a singular God is incorrect. It’s actually one of the most masterful sermons in the Book of Mormon. They use stunning clarity to teach that Jesus is the Son of God and is distinct from the Father. To launch the sermon, Alma quotes the prophet Zenos and then asks the Zoramites if they noticed that when Zenos was praying to God he said the following: 'And it is because of thy Son that thou hast been merciful unto me…' That scripture clearly distinguishes the Father and the Son from one another. And it is that same scripture that Alma and Amulek use to passionately teach the Zoramites about it the true nature of the Godhead (Alma 33:11-23; 34:1-15)."

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

This is hilarious because the same Amulek that Dustin is pointing to as support that “clearly distinguishes the Father and the Son from one another” also said this in Alma (Alma 11:28-29, 38-39, 44):

Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered, No … Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father … Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God.

How come you didn’t mention this too, Dustin?

What Dustin doesn't get:

The KJV Bible also contains verses that can be interpreted as distinguishing the Father and Son as separate personages. Such as:

“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

- Matthew 3:17

“And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt.”

- Matthew 26:39

Yet Christian denominations and folks in Joseph’s era still held Monotheistic/Trinitarian views of God. There are still to this day Christian denominations and Christians holding a Trinitarian view of God.

It’s not surprising that the Book of Mormon adds to the Bible in creating confusion on the nature of God as Joseph - evident of the 1769 KJV edition errors in the Book of Mormon – copied from the KJV Bible many verses, elements, and themes. Unless you want to turn your god into an imbecile and claim that he instead was the one who gave Joseph Smith the 1769 KJV edition errors to put into the Book of Mormon?

Dustin says...

“Still not convinced? How about 3 Nephi 11 where God introduces Christ by saying: 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.'"

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

Right. I touched on this above.

This is also in the KJV Bible – you know, the same bible that Joseph copied the 1769 KJV edition errors into the Book of Mormon from:

“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

- Matthew 3:17

Yet, despite this and stuff like Jesus praying to the Father in Gethsemane in the New Testament, Christian folks still held (and still do) a monotheistic/Trinitarian view of the Christian god.

The bottom line:

There are Trinitarian verses in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was the perfect opportunity to clear this Nicene mess up once and for all. But it didn’t. It just added to the mess and confusion. It failed. It failed in being a clear "second witness" of Christ. There is a clear evolution in Joseph’s view of the nature of God. This causes serious problems with the First Vision and other foundational truth claims.

Dustin says...

"Or, better yet, Mosiah 15:7 where the Book of Mormon introduces a striking delineation between the Father and the Son: 'Yea, he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.'”

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

I love that you point to this verse, Dustin. This is another excellent example of how the Book of Mormon is Trinitarian.

Let's put this into context. How come you didn't give us the verses before Mosiah 15:7, Dustin? Let's have a look!

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son — The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son — And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God , suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

God himself...because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God...being the Father and the Son...The Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son...they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father...Son to the Father, being one God...

This is Trinitarian, bro.

Dustin says...

“Those 4 little clarifications Joseph made were just that—clarifications. They certainly don’t equate a doctrinal transformation. Our doctrine of the Godhead was already there. Jesus was already referred to as the “Son of God” and the “Son of the Most High” all throughout the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.”

VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

No, Dustin, the current plurality Mormon concept of the Godhead is not present in the Book of Mormon as it did not develop until later after the printing of the Book of Mormon. These are not "little clarifications". They are major doctrinal shifts.

Dustin says: ""Jesus was already referred to as the “Son of God” and the “Son of the Most High” all throughout the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon."

Let's pull up the so-called "4 little clarifications" again:

There's two things that are special about these 3 spots missing "Son of" verses: they're next to "Mother of God" and "Eternal Father".

When you search the entire 1830 edition Book of Mormon for "Mother of", guess how many relevant results you get? (counting out all the mother of harlots, mother of abominations, mother of 2,000 warriors, etc.)? 2. You get 1 Nephi 11:18 like above and you get another Trinitarian verse:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of Heaven and Earth, the creator of all things, from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

- Mosiah 3:8 (page 160 in 1830 Book of Mormon)

When we look into "Eternal Father", we get 7 results. Out of 7, 4 of them are explicitly Trinitarian. The remaining 3 are "in the name of Christ" prayers (Sacrament and Moroni's Promise) and can still be interpreted as Trinitarian (they do not show Father and Son are separate personages).

The 4 of them are:

And the angel said unto me; Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the the Eternal Father!

- 1 Nephi 3 (p.25)

These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world

- 1 Nephi 3 (p.32)

And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

-Mosiah 15:28

…teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, which is the very Eternal Father. Amen

-Mosiah 16:5

The Book of Mormon has a Trinitarian view of God.

Dustin says...

“The reason is perhaps because the author deceptively uses an 'LDS Scholar' to make the claim seem unquestionable. As it turns out, however, that 'LDS Scholar' is a cartoon movie director whose profession and education provide no academic expertise.” Note: Dustin deleted this on 7.25.17 VERDICT:

Jeremy's Response

This is an ad hominem attack on Mr. Boyd Kirkland, who passed away in 2011. This is a common attack used by apologists against those who take a position that the apologists do not like. When you're on their team defending the LDS Church? No big deal what your qualifications are. But if you're critic? "You have no academic expertise." Mormon apologist Daniel Peterson did the same thing with Thomas S. Ferguson in attempting to diminish Ferguson's work and contributions because Mr. Ferguson had an awakening to the LDS Church's truth crisis later in his life.

What Dustin doesn't tell you about this "cartoon movie director" (who was a god, by the way, as he was behind X-Men: Evolution and Batman the Animated series!) is that he was educated on these issues.

Mr. Kirkland had his work and research published in Sunstone Magazine, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, and chapters of Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine.

I think we can both agree that there are extremely knowledgeable individuals in and out of Mormonism who are very educated on Mormon history but who haven't completed degrees in history or theology. To claim that only those with degrees can have a monopoly in the marketplace of and exchange of ideas or have credibility for their contributions on the subject is ridiculous.

Here's Mr. Kirkland's quote that I use in the CES Letter that Dustin ignores and doesn't discuss while attacking Mr. Kirkland personally:

After major backlash online, Dustin deleted his

comment from his blog post on July 25, 2017.

Dustin's False Claim #5

Dustin says...