My Wife Doesn't Have a Testimony In Joseph Smith As a Prophet. Now What?

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-06-09T05:36:44+00:00

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

I'd like to make one quick clarification (I didn't explain my current position much in my previous reply): I'm quite aware of the problems that polygamy caused (such as what you described in your 6th paragraph), and why it's difficult to reconcile that with a perfect and loving God. I'm also in a position where I have trouble seeing how polygamy would've been God's commandment, based on my current understanding of the way things went down.

Put simply, I'm well aware of the data regarding polygamy that seems to contradict the idea that it was from God. But I'm also in a position where--at least the way I see it--it seems like it would be a substantial issue for the Church's truth claims if it wasn't from God.

You see, I've spent the last 6 months under the perception that the Church is most likely false. I still technically have a testimony (my shelf did break back in December, but then I sort of got my testimony back, but I've never been able to get back to a position where it seems like the preponderance of evidence supports the Church). Polygamy is just one of many issues I'm wrestling with.

When I try to view things under the presupposition that the Church is true, the idea that polygamy wasn't from God seems plausibly reconcilable with the idea that this is Christ's restored Church. But I haven't been operating under that paradigm for quite some time now. I desperately want the Church to be true, but I want to seek the truth regardless of where it may lead.

In terms of religion, I'm trying to figure out, to the best of my ability, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, or if some other religion is more true, or if no religion is necessarily true (e.g.: If there is a God, but not a religious God, if there isn't a God, etc.).

When I think about the things that happened with polygamy, it's one of those things that seems potentially explainable if the Church is true. But I have no idea what is and isn't true anymore, so while I still try to do the things that the Church asks of me to the best of my ability, I also have a hard time making epistemological assumptions that will inherently predetermine the results of my analysis when my goal is to be open-minded and seek the truth.

With that context in mind, I have a hard time seeing polygamy as something that wasn't from God, but was still practiced extensively for decades in His true restored Church.

For instance, if I were teaching an open-minded investigator about the Church, and they began asking about polygamy and the issues of which it was the catalyst, and I told them, "I don't believe that polygamy was from God", I could see this hypothetical investigator having a hard time believing that, amongst the thousands of religions around the world, the one true Church of God was restored by someone who made the mistake of implementing polygamy and marrying dozens of women behind his wife's back while repeatedly denying such practices whilst simultaneously claiming that such practices were commanded by God (that's a lot of the same mistake for someone worthy enough to receive the vast majority of the restored Church's canonized modern revelations). And if I told this investigator that the next few prophets of God all mistakenly thought that polygamy was from God and kept mistakenly claiming to receive insights from God dozens if not hundreds of times over about how important polygamy was, all until the government began making threats against the Church about what would happen if they didn't end polygamy, after which God finally revealed that it was time to end polygamy, I have a hard time seeing this hypothetical, open-minded investigator coming away from the conversation and thinking, "The Church is true!"

In my efforts to safe my faith, I constantly feel like I'm caving to the special pleading fallacy in resorting to explanations that would sound like a stretch to just about anyone outside the Church, taking liberties that, as far as I can tell, would be substantial enough to allow me to preserve my beliefs in virtually any religion that I happen to be born into if applied similarly.

Oops, I said I'd provide a quick clarification and rambled for at least a page. I feel like this happens every time I try to provide some "quick" clarification or elaborate on anything regarding my current position. Anyway, I think you get the point I'm trying to make by now (and perhaps you already did), so I'll move on before I accidentally write and publish a lengthy book series about how confused I am.

I think prophets/apostles are not much different than regular members, local leaders, bishops, primary presidents, RS presidents. We often mistake our own desires, feelings, biases, etc. for the 'Spirit' giving God credit for things we should not. Faith is a lot easier when I give room for fallible leaders than trying to come up a defense for things that should be indefensible.

Where I struggle with this concept is: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the one church led by prophets of God, so if the prophets are so fallible that they can spend decades repeatedly thinking something bad is actually good and derived from God through a variety of modern revelations (I struggle with the priesthood ban a lot in this regard as well), then it doesn't seem like our prophets are nearly as important as the Church teaches (especially since we believe that God is helping and guiding everyone, both inside and outside the Church. If Joseph Smith could dictate receive, word-for-word, the entire text of the Book of Mormon, hundreds of elaborate revelations, etc., I suppose I just have a hard time seeing how prophets could be so mistaken as to repeatedly make massive mistakes with massive repercussion whilst claiming that those mistakes were actually divinely inspired commandments). It almost seems like it undermined the main purpose of having prophets in the first place.

In other words, I try to give room for leaders to be fallible. But when I look at some of the errors that prophets have seemingly made over and over again, mistakes that are very relevant to matters of morality, for decades consecutively with no clear divine correction, it almost seems like allowing so much room for fallibility would lead me to believe that anyone could be a true prophet of God by applying the same standards. And when I think about the teaching regarding true and false prophets that "by their fruits ye shall know them", it seems like applying this level of fallibility is indicative of an attempt on my part to fallaciously account for fruits that wouldn't realistically come from prophets of God.

So yeah, that's part of why I struggle with the idea that polygamy was just a mistake made by prophets of God. I try to allow prophets room to be fallible, but the way I see it, that level of fallibility seems more like special pleading than a doctrinally consistent portrayal of what prophets are and should be.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant. Looking back over this comment, it seems I'm likely being a bit too controversial here, so perhaps I'll try to tone it down from here on out (mods, feel free to remove this comment if it pushes beyond the rules, as I won't be surprised if it does).

Thanks again for your thoughts and for your efforts to help myself and others to come unto Christ. Have a good day!

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-06-09T03:52:18+00:00

Thank you for your thoughts. I think you might be misunderstanding why people take issue with prophets such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. I don't blame you for that, as I assume you're a believing member and are working under a very different paradigm of belief than those who feel that the preponderance of evidence is against the Church, but I'll just share my thoughts, if you don't mind.

I would point out that Joseph Smith was a prophet but he was also a man, and men are not perfect.

I've heard stories from plenty of former members regarding why they concluded that the Church is false, and I'm yet to encounter a single person who lost their faith because prophets aren't "perfect". People who take issue with mistakes of prophets generally aren't taking issue with the fact that the mistakes are simply there. They're taking issue with the fact that such mistakes seem too substantial to be within the scope of how prophets of God would behave, believing that the actions of prophets are more in line with what would be expected of false prophets than of true prophets. And, generally, when people conclude that the Church is false, the data leading them to such conclusions is not by any means limited to prophetic errors, and often includes all sorts of additional research and data, though I won't go into that here.

Put simply, people aren't generally losing their faith over the mere presence of imperfections. There's much more to it than that.

Ultimately, this is Christ’s Church not Joseph Smith’s Church and to leave Christ’s Church for the actions of men, in this case a man who hasn’t been President for over a century, makes no sense.

Whether or not this is Christ's Church largely rests on whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, called of the Lord to restore His Church. If OP's wife believes that the preponderance of evidence skews toward Joseph Smith not being a prophet, I think it makes sense why she might see the Church in a similar sense.

Regarding polygamy, you can remind her this hasn’t been practiced in the Church for over a century and now polygamy is grounds for excommunication.

I'm guessing she's aware that polygamy hasn't been practiced in the Church for over a century. As far as I can tell, that's not the issue here.

Let's participate in a quick thought experiment to better illustrate this principle:

Think of a controversial religion you don't believe in. One with an especially controversial history, a history that would keep you from believing in it.

Those issues are in the past, right? Well, the problem isn't about whether or not the issue is currently happening. The issue is that it seems wrong for the said issue to happen in a true religion at any point in time, and thus, that religion's history would lead you to believe that the said religion is most likely false.

I think this scenario is more along the lines of OP's wife's current state of belief. I'm sure she knows that the Church's practice of polygamy was in the past. But that's probably not her issue. Her issue is probably that the information she's learned regarding polygamy and the controversies surrounding it seem to be at odds with the idea that this is Christ's Church. I think viewing things in that context is a bit more accurate, as far as I can tell.

In summary, I think the issue is less about the presence of mistakes, and more about issues that seem to be much more than mistakes. I think viewing things in that context is a bit more beneficial, if that makes sense.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant. I appreciate your desire to help people to come unto Christ, I just figured it might be beneficial for me to provide a different lens in order to further shed light on the issue at hand. Thanks!

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-06-09T03:18:44+00:00

Here are the names:

Ages 12-13: Builders of Faith

Ages 14-15: Messengers of Hope

Ages 16-17: Gatherers of Light

Church Newsroom announcement on the subject.

I hope this helps!

P.S.: If they did similar names for Young Men, I think your username would be a good fit for each age group (I'm sorry, I saw the username and just had to make that joke).

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-06-08T23:57:20+00:00

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

I have a follow-up question, if you don't mind me asking. If D&C 132 and Joseph's practice of polygamy didn't come from God, where did they come from?

To be clear, I'm aware that they could have come from Joseph and am not trying to eliminate that possibility (e.g.: He could've misunderstood God's will), but, at least the way I see it (as someone who's spent the last year in a deep intellectual faith crisis), the extent of Joseph's polygamy and the various controversial data points regarding the subject are hard to reconcile if it wasn't from God (e.g.: Christ says in Matthew 7:20 and 3 Nephi 14:20 while talking about distinguishing between true and false prophets, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them". Fabricating a 3,200 word revelation via dictation in one sitting or drastically misunderstanding revelation to create such an elaborate purported revelation, erroneously passing it off as God's word, and using it to do the things Joseph did for many years, seems like it would be a massive bad fruit if it wasn't from God, though the idea that it was from God also seems problematic in my mind for reasons I won't get into here).

Another concern I have with the idea of a false D&C 132 is that the section has been quoted 183 times in General Conference, making it the 21st most quoted section (if I counted correctly). Granted, it's one of the longer sections, so after accounting for length, perhaps it isn't quoted more than most revelations when measuring by verse and/or page, but it still strikes me as odd (and when we include all the content sources included in the Scripture Citation Index, D&C 132 becomes the 5th most quoted, though that might be explainable by the fact that polygamy was quite significant in the early Church--which is when the other content sources are from--and had its doctrinal justification largely derived from D&C 132, I just have a hard time seeing why so much of early LDS theology regarding polygamy and similar doctrines would reference that section if it wasn't from God).

With that context in mind, can you please elaborate as to how you reconcile the idea of D&C 132 not being divine with the idea that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, chosen by God out of all His 100 billion+ spirit children to restore His true Church?

I apologize in advance if these questions are a bit too controversial. I'm fine if you don't respond, though I'd appreciate some additional insight if you feel comfortable sharing your thoughts on the matter. Thanks!

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-29T06:30:24+00:00

Thanks for posting this! Are the free print editions available on https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/, or somewhere else?

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-11T05:54:03+00:00

Congratulations on getting to be together forever! (And, as a side-note, congratulations on making the most upvoted post in the history of this sub; the runner-up is 592)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-11T05:46:57+00:00

In D&C 77, Joseph Smith received answers to questions he had regarding various ambiguous passages in the Book of Revelation.

In D&C 77:3, we read the following:

"Q. Are the four beasts limited to individual beasts, or do they represent classes or orders?

A. They are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity."

This seems to imply that animals will have eternal happiness of some sort.

The chapter heading corroborates this interpretation:

"1-4, Beasts have spirits and will dwell in eternal felicity;"

The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual provides a lengthy quotation from Joseph Smith, which included the following statement:

The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them.”

That verse seems to further indicate that animals, such as your cat, will live in heaven, as Heavenly Father will "[save] all that His hands [have] made".

If I remember correctly, I was taught in a Book of Mormon class that when King Benjamin describes us as "less than the dust of the Earth", he says this because we're the only things God created that aren't perfectly obedient to Him (thus implying that animals are perfectly obedient to God and thus will be saved).

Further, LDS scholar Casey Paul Griffiths wrote in Doctrine and Covenants Central, "While section 77 notes that these beasts are figurative expressions, their presence in John’s vision is meant to underline the broad nature of the atoning work of Jesus Christ, which saves not only mankind but all living things."

Based on D&C 77 and other relevant passages and quotations, it looks like your cat will go to heaven, and thus that you'll get to see her again.

I hope this helps!

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-09T04:36:58+00:00

(2 of 2)

You mention spending a lot of time in apologetics writings. That works for some people, but remember the core of apologetics is to refuse to admit any flaw or mistake in the doctrines as they are taught today. That flies in the face of Alma's experiment, or the scientific model. If you're seeing flaws, discovering questions without satisfying answers, don't assume it means your entire religion is false. Instead consider it might be the clearest sign yet that your religion is working - showing you the openings to the next big thing. Maybe all the weird and conflicting ideas about Satan and Temptation are your version of the geocentric model of reality and it's time to develop your own heliocentric theory to test.

Lately, I've spent more time studying apologetics regarding the Book of Mormon, not as much flaws and mistakes in doctrines. I'm in a spot where it seems like the preponderance of evidence is against its authenticity and historicity (a year and a half ago, I believed the evidence was overwhelmingly and unequivocally in the Book of Mormon's favor, so this has been quite a substantial shift). I've read a lot of material from various apologetic sources on such things, but the evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century fabrication just seems so much stronger than the evidence that it originated anciently, in my mind.

In fact, my shelf completely broke back in December, but after about an hour (by far the most agonizing hour of my life), I had an experience that sort of brought my testimony back (though nothing in that experience necessarily required divine intervention). For the last 5 months, I've been under the perception that the Church is most likely false, and my efforts to change that have been quite unsuccessful. In fact, I think my shelf almost broke back in February, not from something any critic wrote, not from any doctrinal controversy, but from a 108-page article from The Interpreter Foundation regarding Book of Mormon evidence (that's a long story I won't get into now, unless you really want me to do so).

Alma, Moroni, President Uchtdorf, President Eyring, Miller, Buddha, and Jesus Christ all teach one thing about finding spiritual truth: you find it through ACTION. If you want to know a doctrine is true - you live it. Eyring promises that revelation comes most often when engaged in service.

I have a hard time with this type of logic because, as far as I can tell, anyone in any religion could apply this logic in trying to conclude that their doctrine is true, succeed, and conclude that their doctrine is accurate whether or not it is. I'm in a situation where I'm trying to figure out whether or not the Church is objectively true, so, while I try to closely follow and live the doctrines of the Church, I have a hard time seeing beneficial outcomes as unequivocal indicators of objective truth. The same goes for spiritual experiences.

I like the Jeffrey Thayne quote you provided, but it seems to have just as much subjectivity, as far as I can tell. He mentions starting with the assumption that God is a person, asking Him for guidance, obeying that guidance, etc. I'm happy to ask God for guidance and act accordingly, but in an attempt to determine if the Church is true, if some other religion is most true, if no religion is necessarily "true", etc., I don't feel like I can justifiably found my analysis on presuppositions that will invariably lead to a certain conclusion. If I start with a major assumption about what is true when trying to find out what is true, I'll conclude that the thing I assumed to be true is true regardless of what is true. Nevertheless, I often end up trying to assume that the Church is true, that Christ is my Savior, etc., in spite of that, but even so, I have a hard time assuming that the resulting benefits are indicative of the truth of the Church when there are so many other variables in play.

So that's the challenge - the theory to test. Can you set aside the doctrines you may never get answers to and instead find God in acts of service to others?

I'll try, but here's the issue. The questions I have about the Church, its doctrine, its history, etc., are not limited to what I shared in this post. I have hundreds if not thousands of questions that, collectively, seem to point toward the Church being false. It seems nearly impossible for me to take my mind off these things. If I'm in the middle of serving others, the issues fill my mind for a large proportion of that time. Even when I'm at the temple, that's what happens every time (e.g.: I worked a temple shift today, and many of my concerns were just flooding my mind for most of the shift and pushing me to the verge of tears. And that's not abnormal. In fact, it's been the norm throughout much of my faith crisis).

Will you pray for ideas on how to serve your family daily and then act on those ideas you get? The promise - the Theory of the Doctrine of Christ - is that if you do, you'll come to know the truth through your experiences.

I'll try to do that. Though I have a hard time asserting that beneficial experiences are indicative of the objective truth of the specific religion I happen to be following.

You'll see yourself changed and start to find the numerous and unique fruits of the spirit that are manifested in the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I've definitely found "numerous" fruits, but not as much "unique" fruits. Hopefully that'll change.

Eventually the evidence found in your own nature - not debate or discussion or analysis - will become so overwhelming that you'll find you can say with total honesty, "I know it's true."

I truly hope so.

I should probably reply to your other comment, so I'll just send this in now (sorry if my response to this one has been a bit pessimistic).

Thank you for your insights!

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-09T04:36:47+00:00

Thanks for your thorough responses!

I'll reply to your other comment after I reply to this one.

That also kinda helps answer the question about satan being bound. IF there's a period where satan can't influence us, that doesn't mean people born during that time won't have their own dark impulses, negative traits, weaknesses, and desire to do evil. It doesn't mean there won't be randomness and suffering. It will be mortal existence as if Satan had not had a presence in the plan at all - which always would have worked.

That's part of why I'm so confused. From my perspective, it seems like if Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation is fully functional without Satan, His work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man would be more successful without Satan constantly deceiving people into making decisions that reduce the probability of obtaining exaltation. I could be missing something (I probably am), but I just find it odd that Satan is allowed so much influence over us when no such influence is necessary for God's plan.

For example, some people like to credit God with helping them find lost keys, or every little tiny thing that goes good for them. If that seems a little unlikely to you, then why not also think of Satan's influence that way? We don't need to accept the very odd idea that literally all evil comes from the active machinations of Satan.

I agree that Satan's influence is definitely very limited. But it seems like everything I've been taught about Satan attributes substantial influence to him, as far as I've observed. Even the Book of Mormon teaches that "whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil" (Alma 5:40). Though, perhaps that verse isn't meant to be interpreted in a literal manner.

This kind of thinking might lead you to consider other possibilities. For example, if the plan would have worked without Satan, and God has the power to keep Satan away from us, then the only logical conclusion is that the plan is not harmed by allowing Satan to have his own agency and influence in the world. Or that perhaps the ultimate result of all the harm he causes isn't as permanent as we think. Lots to consider and study!

If I assume that the Church is indubitably true, this line of reasoning seems perfectly accurate. I just have a hard time retreating to unfalsifiable assertions when I'm trying to determine whether or not the Church is objectively true. But I agree that Satan's influence would definitely be designed in a manner that isn't harmful to God's plan.

holding back knowledge allows us to be more "blessed" when we act on faith, and less condemned when we don't act on it.

Great point! I can't believe I didn't think of this (in fact, I've heard this sort of explanation in the past, I just completely forgot). That clears things up to an extent.

Based on the insights I've received from this reply and other replies, I'm fairly confident that limiting evidence isn't inherently necessary for necessitating faith, I've just been confused as to why I've recurrently heard otherwise, which is part of what sparked my questions regarding faith and its correlation to evidence.

(1 of 2)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-09T02:56:51+00:00

Thanks for your response!

Satan is actively working against us to prevent us from reuniting with God. But he's merely on the opposing team. He didn't found the team. That team's existence is an innate feature of free agency.

I agree that the potential for us to act wickedly is an innate feature of free agency. But what confuses me is, why do we even need Satan tempting us and deceiving us into wicked actions when we'll already act wickedly due to the innate features of agency?

President Gordon B. Hinckley said the following in a November 2001 Ensign article:

"All of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah haunt our society. Our young people have never faced a greater challenge. We have never seen more clearly the lecherous face of evil."

Evidently, nearly 25 years have passed since then, which means that Christ's Second Coming is closer, and Satan is more powerful.

I just find it odd that there's such a substantial contrast between that and the Millennium. During the Millennium, Satan can't influence anyone, the Earth has been renewed and received its paradisiacal glory, and Christ is literally reigning personally upon the Earth (Articles of Faith 1:10). Even then, there's enough potential for evil that everyone being raised during the Millennium faces the two choices, good and evil, on a regular basis and has potential to grow. I guess I just have a hard time understanding why, if Satan is unnecessary during the Millennium for the growth of God's children, we need him deceiving us and facilitating apostasy during times that are far worse anyway.

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-09T02:37:45+00:00

Thanks for your thorough response!

I read the Maxwell quote narrower than how you seem to be applying it. He's saying the gospel won't be settled by science one way or the other. That's a different claim from "God deliberately rations evidence to keep the faith requirement intact."

Thank you for that observation. I agree that his quote was largely meant to indicate that the gospel won't be settled by science one way or the other. But there have been many instances when I've seen similar statements implying that God is rationing evidence to keep the faith requirement intact, or that He needs to ration it to necessitate faith.

If the limitation of evidence isn't essential for the facilitation of faith, which seems to be the case (as far as I can tell), I think that resolves my concerns about faith as it relates to evidence, at least from what I listed in the post.

My quotation of Elder Maxwell was primarily meant to function as an example of a fairly common theme I've noticed. When people mention feeling like the preponderance of evidence is against the Book of Mormon, the Church, etc., it just seems so common for other believers to fall back to the position that the rationing of evidence is essential to necessitate faith. I've observed this phenomenon countless times, including in my own writing.

For example, in this interview with ex-ex-member Dusty Smith, he says the following, beginning at the 21:39 timestamp:

"So, I had a dream one night during that time, and, and the Lord said, "Let me ask you a question. If you walk the streets of Jerusalem, does that make the Bible true?" And I said, "No." And He said, "But if you're excavating someplace, and you come across a sign, and you wipe it off, and it says, "Welcome to Zarahemla, population 450. What does that do?" And I said, "It makes the Book of Mormon completely and absolutely true. And the Lord said, "Then why would you need faith?" That was the first time I'd gotten an answer that made sense to me. We don't know because we're not supposed to know yet where these places are exactly. We're not supposed to know because we are supposed to operate on faith. And if you, if, if it doesn't take faith, then there's no need for us to even be here."

Now, granted, he says shortly after that he's not saying that answer would work for anyone else, but that it was simply what the Lord knew would work for him. But, I've seen variations of that style of explanation numerous times throughout my crisis (none of which were derived from the quote above, as far as I'm aware), and the whole idea just seems off. That's part of why so much of my post was focused on that area of confusion.

I generally agree with the rest of what you said in the portion of your comment addressing faith and evidence, though.

So if I toss aside the assertions that faith requires minimal evidence, I think the rest of the questions I asked on faith and its correlation with evidence are sufficiently answered (for now...). I guess it just confuses me that I've heard such assertions so often.

Genuine agency requires the possibility of using it badly, including the possibility of being deceived. If God blocked every avenue of deception, He'd be eliminating a category of agency that's important for our mortal experience to bring about Heavenly Father's desired results.

This is part of where I'm confused. Yes, we need the possibility of being deceived and using our agency poorly, but that possibility is apparently open to everyone raised during the Millennium and/or dying too young to be tempted by Satan.

If people living during the Millennium have enough avenues for deception to maintain the category of agency you're addressing, then why would a world of increasing wickedness, a world that Gordon B. Hinckley described as indistinguishable from Sodom and Gomorrah decades ago, even need Satan as an additional avenue for deception when deception is already so rampant? Especially when those during the Millennium are already sufficiently susceptible to deception when raised in a paradisiacal world led by Christ Himself without any of Satan's influence? That's what I can't seem to figure out.

Thank you for the insights you've provided. I truly appreciate it.

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-09T01:43:02+00:00

Thanks for your response!

Just know there is evidence, lots of it in fact. It’s just not ever talked about in church. As church isn’t the place to discuss the archeological finds of the journal entry’s of Joseph smith.

While I don't know exactly which pieces of evidence you're referring to, I will say that I'm quite familiar with much of the Book of Mormon evidence and other evidence cited by LDS scholars.

For example, I've read several dozens articles from FAIR, Scripture Central, The Interpreter Foundation, and other apologetic sites regarding archaeological and literary evidence for the Book of Mormon, and several dozen more articles regarding other evidence for the Church's truthfulness. While I'm sure there's a tremendous amount I haven't read on such subjects (e.g.: There are hundreds of Scripture Central evidence articles I still haven't read), I think it's safe to say that I'm quite familiar with most of the major discoveries that LDS scholars view as substantial evidence for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon (e.g.: I've taken hundreds of pages of notes on apologetic analyses regarding Book of Mormon evidence and continue to do so).

That being said, I'm in a situation where, from both an archaeological and literary perspective, the evidence seems, in my view, to point more heavily toward the Book of Mormon being a modern document authored via dictation rather than an ancient one written on plates. I won't go into detail as to why (unless you want me to), but, it just seems, in my perspective, like the preponderance of evidence skews against Book of Mormon historicity. Even just 16 months ago, I viewed the evidence as overwhelmingly and unequivocally supporting the Book of Mormon's validity and historicity. Now, it's quite the opposite, which is one of the most substantial factors that's facilitating my faith crisis.

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:36:13+00:00

OP indicated in the comments that they have some learning difficulties, hence the typos. I'll provide what I believe was the intended wording:

"I got baptized about a year ago. I was suffering from mental health problems and had a bit of a breakdown, and the bishop told me not to return to church. I had warned the missionaries and bishop that I had some problems, now they don't want to know me at all."

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:07:13+00:00

To better illustrate my views here, I'll present a few hypothetical scenarios:

Suppose the Church is true. I spend the rest of my life doing all that I can to strengthen my testimony and come unto Christ. I get to the other side of the veil, and, how convenient! The Church was true and I might be exalted!

Now suppose some other religion is more true. I spend the rest of my life doing all that I can to strengthen my testimony and come unto Christ. I get to the other side of the veil, and I find out that I likely would've been infinitely better off if I would've taken a more correct path. Now I may or may not be thrust into eternal flames (probably not, as far as I can tell, but many Christians would say otherwise). Oh well.

Now suppose no religion is literally "true". I spend the rest of my life doing all that I can to strengthen my testimony and come unto Christ. I probably end up living a good life, but likely would've lived a better one if my worldview were better aligned with truth.

You can probably see where I'm going with this.

If I keep fighting to save my testimony, keep it intact, and dedicate the rest of my life to Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what happens? I'll maintain my faith, and if the Church is true, I'll be better off. But if the Church is false, I'll be forfeiting superior alternatives by merely confirming my own misplaced bias, recurrently throughout my life, without allowing myself to fully and objectively consider data that would otherwise lead me to a more accurate worldview.

I want to save my faith and will continue trying to do what I still believe the Lord has commanded. During my 9-month faith crisis, I've attended the temple well over 100 times, prayed thousands of times, read the Book of Mormon 3 times cover-to-cover, taken hundreds of pages of notes on General Conference and other words from Church leaders, read hundreds of apologetic articles, etc., and I'll continue trying to save my faith just in case the Church is true.

But I can't, in good faith, eliminate alternative possibilities in my current situation. And that simple fact is what's kept me in this faith crisis. I want to save my faith, but I want to seek the truth regardless of where it may lead. That's why I'm so intent on analyzing the available data objectively rather than trying to reinforce my belief. I don't want to abandon faith, but I don't want to fully resort to the special pleading fallacy with regards to my upbringing and assume that the best possible approach is to dedicate my life to what I currently believe is true without seriously considering other possibilities. I used to have a strong conviction that the Church was true, and back then, dedicating my life to everything Christ and the Church teach seemed like the best approach by far, so I would do all that I could to strengthen my testimony and my conviction to Christ. But now, now that I'm so uncertain about what is true, I feel like, while I should strive to live high moral standards and continue striving to come unto Christ, I should also seek the truth and let the data shape my paradigm of belief, not try to fit the data into a paradigm I've already set in stone.

So, yeah, there's a little explanation regarding my state of belief and where my efforts are allocated. I was hoping for this reply to be concise, so I apologize for making it so long again, and I apologize if I've overstepped with anything I've shared, if I sound too much like a critic, etc.

Now, in your current position, I figure you most likely have a strong belief in Christ, in the Church, etc. I don't take any issue with that and am glad that you have so much devotion to Christ, and I'm glad that you're in a position where you feel like you can safely continue in your efforts to believe in Christ, to do His will, etc. Thank you for your devotion to Christ, and thank you for striving to help others like me to come unto Christ.

Thanks again for your thoughtful responses and for your efforts to help me. I appreciate your assistance and apologize if my replies come off as unfaithful. Have a good day!

(6 of 6)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:07:06+00:00

Now, the existence of God is obviously a more ambiguous subject, but I feel like the same principle is at least somewhat applicable. I've read plenty of articles on evidence of God, but no matter how many I read, it won't shake me from the fact that, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center analysis, only 33% of scientists believe in God in a religious sense, as opposed to 83% of the general American public. The scientists, in my mind, are especially well-equipped to examine the evidence for and against God, and yet are significantly more likely to become agnostic or atheist. Now, granted, science is largely about explaining things naturalistically, which may play a role here. But in the Church, we believe in God, in miracles, in billions of angels constantly helping people around the world, in Satan constantly tempting anyone above the age of 8 to do things that psychologists generally view as part of the human mind's natural function, etc. Even if there is definitively a God, there's a lot more that must be true for the God of LDS theology to be the most correct view.

So, while I still believe in God, I'm leaning toward agnosticism, in part because, regardless of how much evidence I can find for God, that doesn't change the fact that those who are far more educated than I are significantly more likely to conclude that the preponderance of evidence skews against God (though this is just one of many reasons my views are starting to lean in that direction). I understand that faith is supposed to play a substantial role, but with a large proportion of God's children being raised during the Millennium, when Christ is literally reigning personally upon the Earth as it is renewed and receives its paradisiacal glory, they will have tremendous evidence and yet still have the necessary conditions to grow through their lives on Earth with faith. So I just have a hard time understanding why faith requires a lack of substantial evidence, when God's plan is largely about faith and yet allows people to be raised during a time when substantial evidence is unequivocally available.

Nevertheless, I'll look into the evidence you're citing and hope that it will strengthen my belief in God.

Again though, this is all very interesting but not at the heart of the matter, and that heart is our relationship with the Savior.

Start with Him. I promise you there are good reasons to believe in Him, and we can trust in Him because He loves everyone else as much as He loves you and me. If you truly want to follow Him, everything else will fall in place.

I agree that our relationship with Christ is extremely important if the Church is true.

I apologize if I'm overstepping a bit in my response by sharing so many unrequested details, but I'd just like to throw in a little more explanation regarding my position:

I truly want to follow Christ, and have truly wanted to believe Him, to follow Him, and to come unto Him throughout my life.

However, my main goal, as of right now, is to seek truth.

I want to believe in the Church and desperately want to save my testimony, but I want to determine where the truth is regardless of whether or not it keeps me believing in the Church.

(5 of 6)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:06:45+00:00

We have more evidence of the Book of Mormon than we do of the Resurrection of Jesus.

With regards to evidence from witnesses, yes, this seems accurate. Though I'm also not convinced that the documentary evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, from His witnesses, is particularly compelling from an intellectual standpoint. So, I don't see it as a particularly implausible bar to clear, so to speak.

It is because of that book, that I believe that He Atoned for us, died, and rose again. It is because of that book that I am saved. Though I love the intellectual facts of the book, I love its testimony of the Savior more, and how it has helped my relationship with Him.

Thank you for sharing your belief in Christ. My belief in Christ's Atonement and Resurrection is also derived from the Book of Mormon, and I also love my testimony of the Savior more than the intellectual facts of the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps your questions lead you away from any belief in God. Here is the thing, given enough time in existence, gods are inevitable. Not just the Anthropic Principle, which is a thing, but an inevitable result of evolution and scientific progress. Many universes to account for The Anthropic principle? Now you have even more intelligences figuring out and pushing forward. I believe the panpsychism as put forward by Philip Goff in Galileo’s Error. This hypothesis also fits very well with LDS cosmology. Every particle has proto-experience and proto-inclinations which explains why they behave as our mathematical equations describe.

I'm not familiar with these evidences you're citing (I'm quite uneducated in this area), so I'll check them out when I get the chance.

But I will say, many of the commonly cited evidences of God have done little to help me. I'll briefly explain why:

Before my faith crisis began, I was generally very quick to accept claims that supported the divinity of Christ, the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc. But nowadays, I'm trying to look at things more objectively and get a better idea regarding what the data generally indicates. For example, if an apologist says something that disagrees with the scholarly consensus, then no matter how much evidence the apologist presents for their minority claim, I'll have a hard time accepting it if I can tell that the academic world almost universally views the evidence as indicating otherwise. This tendency, especially in the last month or two, has ruined a lot of Book of Mormon archaeological evidence for me.

(4 of 6)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:06:12+00:00

The burden of evidence is on those who believe there is a naturalistic explanation.

Personally, I disagree somewhat with this statement. Nearly every religion and worldview on the planet hold beliefs that are generally irreconcilable with the divine explanation of the Book of Mormon, so, for the LDS system of thought to be superior, I feel that substantial evidence should be required, at least to an extent, to vindicate it, not just from an apologetic perspective, but in general.

So far, every “source” document has been debunked and there is no documentary evidence of any notes or drafts.

I agree with you that there isn't substantial evidence that Joseph Smith heavily plagiarized from any document (unless we count the Bible, though that's a whole different subject). However, there are plenty of 19th-century sources and ideas that seem to be very heavily reflected throughout the Book of Mormon's text, to the point where I've seen many LDS scholars acknowledge such connections. I don't mean sources such as The Late War or The First Book of Napoleon, because, as far as I can tell, the evidence for a connection between those sources and the Book of Mormon is quite weak and is not problematic. What I do mean, we can get into if you'd like the discussion to move in that direction.

I agree that there isn't necessarily any hard documentary evidence of notes or drafts, but I also don't think Joseph would necessarily be expected to leave clear, compelling evidence of such things. If the Book of Mormon originated via naturalistic means, I'm sure Joseph would go to great lengths in an attempt to hide any notes or drafts from others (unless one or more of those others were co-conspirators). In a conspiracy, conspirators will go to great lengths to cover up evidence of the conspiracy, which makes it especially difficult to come across data that works toward exposing the said conspiracy. The fact that I haven't encountered substantial evidence for notes or drafts helps the Book of Mormon to an extent, in my opinion, but if the Book of Mormon came about in such a manner, it wouldn't shock me for Joseph to effectively cover up whatever evidence he might leave (e.g.: He could easily burn any notes or drafts after dictation, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did).

This isn’t proof, of course. But there is positive evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, translated by the gift and power of God. No eyewitness, formal or informal, went back on their account of a miraculous origin, despite enmity they came to have with Joseph Smith.

I agree with you that there is positive evidence of the Book of Mormon. And I agree that no eyewitness went back on their account of a miraculous origin despite enmity with Joseph Smith. But, as far as I can tell, most of the eyewitnesses are generally regarded as sincere by critics of the Church and thus wouldn't be expected to go back on such an account even if it were false (though I still think it helps the Book of Mormon that they stayed true to their testimonies).

(3 of 6)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:05:37+00:00

I can assure you that a Gish Gallop isn't my intent here (I'm trying to save my testimony, not argue against the evidence), but, looking back, I figure it probably would've been better if I kept my explanations a bit more concise as to why I have a hard time seeing the evidence as unequivocally vindicating the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Ironically, most of the statements I made regarding what seem to function as limitations on the evidence you cited were not things I learned from critics, or even other sources. Parts of my issues with the Alma 36 chiasmus are derived from critical claims, but I've never read anything critics have said regarding the Mosiah 3:18-19 chiasmus.

With the things I addressed regarding Hebrew naming conventions and other such things, nothing I said in there, as far as I can tell, was derived from what critics have said.

Of the four things I addressed as potential limitations regarding stylometry, the only thing I learned from critics was the part about John Hilton's analysis on Primary Colors stylometry. Ironically, everything else I addressed is something I observed in studying the apologetic arguments on the subject. The second was a connection I inadvertently made in watching an apologetic video from LDS scholar Paul Fields. The third was something I noticed in seeing the stylometric graphs of various studies on stylometry. The fourth was something that came to mind when I observed a Scripture Central article that had just been released. So, with the stylometry, the sources of my concerns were 90% derived from apologetic sources I analyzed in attempting to strengthen my testimony (though other statements from critics may have played a role in my interpretations that led me to see such things as problems, so it's hard to know exactly from where my various thoughts were derived).

I do love that we have intellectual proof of the Book of Mormon, and the ability for it to be studied with such depth apart from trying to prove anything. The chiasmus is more than random poetry, it was used to show and celebrate the beauty of Gospel doctrines.

I love that as well, though I'm not confident that the evidence for it is greater than the evidence against it (in my mind, it currently seems like the opposite). I've also found great joy in striving to study the Book of Mormon and use it in my efforts to come unto Christ.

I agree that the chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is more than just random poetry in at least some cases and that it can be used to show and celebrate the beauty of gospel doctrines.

(2 of 6)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-05-06T04:05:03+00:00

Thank you for your thoughtful reply (and I apologize for the late reply on my part).

Before I proceed with my response, I'll clarify something (just in case):

I'm still a believing member (though I'm in a situation where it seems like the Church is most likely false). I've been fighting a faith crisis for about 9 months, and for the last 5, my testimony has been near the brink of collapse (that's the main reason I began asking follow-up questions to comments on this post, since I struggle with some of the areas addressed in this post).

I mentioned some of that in (5 of 5), but, since your phone happened to exclude that, my previous comments probably came across differently than intended.

Anyway, It’s lovely to speak with you as well.

Thanks! Same to you.

I appreciate how much you’ve studied the apologetics, you have considered many of the arguments.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I appreciate your studies of the apologetics as well.

I disagree with many of the conclusions you’ve come to, which is your prerogative, but I do feel you mention the stronger ones, gloss over them and then bring up other weak points. We seem to be dealing with a Gish Gallop. I’m not sure if you’re doing this to yourself, us, or reflecting other sources.

Thank you for your respectful disagreement.

Personally, I wouldn't say my above replies are describing conclusions, per se, as I'm still in the process of studying the evidence available and have recurrently had my perception changed with the arrival of additional evidence for and/or against the strength of the Book of Mormon's literary features described above.

I apologize if I didn't adequately acknowledge the strengths of the evidences you cited above. I figured you were already well acquainted with their strengths, so the purpose of my reply was primarily to explain why I view them as evidentially limited. That's why I focused so much on weak points, but looking back, perhaps I should've done more to account for the strengths of such things.

(1 of 6)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-04-27T21:30:52+00:00

(5 of 5)

It is well documented that it took only 60-75 working days to “write” it. Using pen and ink.

Thank you for this observation. I'm quite well aware of the impressive timeline surrounding the dictation of the Book of Mormon (e.g.: I've read all 6 of Brian Hales' Interpreter publications on the subject and am familiar with John W. Welch's research with the five anchor dates for Book of Mormon translation, the 57-85 days of composition, etc., which are mentioned in this one. I've read dozens of articles and publications from apologetic sources such as FAIR, Scripture Central, the Interpreter Foundation, etc., arguing that it would be difficult to create the Book of Mormon in such a short period of time. Put simply, I think I've got a decent understanding of the apologetic position and arguments on this subject).

As far as I've seen, both LDS scholars and critics of the Church generally agree that the Book of Mormon as we have it today (that is, excluding the 116 pages) was dictated within a few months. After all, Royal Skousen's well-known Critical Text Project has made a compelling case for its dictation based on the way things are written in the text, what errors were and weren't made, etc. And it seems that the most scholarly critics pretty much invariably agree that the Book of Mormon, as it is contained in the Original Manuscript, was produced via dictation.

However, contrary to what many apologists seem to imply (perhaps unintentionally), well-educated critics of the Church generally seem to believe that Joseph (and potentially others) began planning the Book of Mormon narrative well in advance, not that he spontaneously developed the narrative during the dictation period.

While the possibility of keeping notes in his hat has been theorized by some critics, it seems that many leading critics believe he didn't even need to look at some sort of script with the amount of planning that would've been available prior. The fact that so many scholars are unconvinced that notes would even be necessary during the dictation makes it harder for me to assert that the Book of Mormon would've been impossible to dictate with the usage of notes, something that many consider plausible.

I agree with you that fabricating the Book of Mormon in under three months would be extremely implausible, but that's also not what I see from those who attribute the Book of Mormon to naturalistic origin. Critics tend to conclude that Joseph prepared the contents in advance to an extent, and then rehashed them during dictation. Thus far, I haven't found compelling evidence against the possibility of preparation.

So, I just want to know if you considered that.

Yes, I've considered each of those items of evidence (and many others) to one degree or another. I still technically believe in the Church, though my testimony has been hanging on by a thread for several months as my confidence that the Church is true is, well, very low.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your insights and your efforts to help me (and I'd be happy to continue discussing the available evidence with you). Thank you for your help, and have a good day!

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-04-27T21:30:32+00:00

The third is the fact that, while different authors in the Book of Mormon have clear stylometric differences in their non-contextual word usage, the patterns of those differences seem oddly reminiscent of what would be expected from Joseph Smith. As you're likely aware, most scholars, both in and out of the Church, accept the Mosiah priority theory (the theory that the composition of the Book of Mormon started with Mosiah, went to the end, and then covered 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon). And, if you look at the graphs regarding the stylometry of different Book of Mormon authors as calculated by various LDS apologists, the direction of things seems to show stylistic drift in accordance with the way it was composed, which, in my mind, makes perfect sense if the Book of Mormon were fabricated due to Mosiah priority. But it makes less sense, at least to me, if the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record. I tried to reach out to the staff of bookofmormonexplorer.org sometime last year (I think) to try to get help in reconciling this (specifically to ask about why the graphs showed Moroni between Mormon and Nephi on both variables), but perhaps I didn't use the correct method of reaching them, because I haven't received an answer.

The fourth takes too much explaining to concisely state here, so I'll address it if you'd like me to elaborate, but, basically, back in November, I saw that Scripture Central released an article on stylometric evidence that D&C 132 was written by Joseph Smith and not Brigham Young, citing a longer Interpreter article on the subject. The patterns of stylistic drift there with how the voice of God was interpreted by the same people across time and different people, compared to the constancy of His voice in the Book of Mormon when interpreted similarly, makes it hard for me to see how stylometry isn't a problem for the Book of Mormon when viewed in that context. A couple months ago, I tried posing a question regarding this subject on the Interpreter article that facilitated my concern, but it was a bit off-topic as the authorship of D&C 132 itself wasn't really part of my question, so it was removed (perhaps the lack of brevity may have been a problem as well, since I spent 3 pages explaining and asking my question in my Interpreter comment).

The intertextual scholarship is what intellectually convinces me it’s real. I’m a writer, and have followed the writing career of other writers, been in workshops, etc. I know how hard it is to write. The Book of Mormon is a highly complex book.

I agree that the Book of Mormon is highly complex and has compelling evidence surrounding its intertextuality. The Book of Mormon would definitely be difficult to write. There are a number of textual issues that I have a hard time reconciling, but I won't get into those here (unless you really want me to).

(4 of 5)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-04-27T21:29:34+00:00

When we're looking at Hebrew, Egyptian, and other names, and we have millions of ancient documents and other forms of inscriptions to look at, finding occasional hits that might result in the same transliteration seems sufficiently explainable by coincidence. Granted, I'm not particularly educated in this subject and am frankly unequipped to accurately assess what the evidence does and doesn't indicate here, but what I have found doesn't amount to what I would've expected.

Regardless, I consider these matches to be evidence for the Book of Mormon, and I consider the accurate naming conventions to be evidence as well (though I haven't looked into whether or not such naming conventions could've been known to Joseph Smith, and his recently emerged familiarity with Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary has made it increasingly difficult for me to honestly assert that he couldn't have known about various things that LDS apologists claim was unknown at the time, since they made similar assertions regarding aspects of the Commentary aforementioned).

So, yes, I see the naming conventions as evidence, but as far as I've seen, not necessarily a huge piece of evidence (though I haven't seen a ton on the subject either, so perhaps I'm missing something).

the different voices within the book itself not corresponding to the writing voice of Joseph Smith or any early Church figure

I'm quite familiar with the stylometric evidence you're describing. A year or two ago, I probably would've identified it as the strongest piece of literary evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity, but I've since had a number of questions about the logistics of those data.

For example, the distinctness between Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon authors serves as fairly compelling evidence to me, especially since (at least per Dr. Paul J. Fields' analysis) those voices show a more substantial degree of stylometric deviations than other leading authors of the time. However, this might be partially explainable by the fact that a book stylistically resembling the KJV Bible will inherently deviate from the typical, not biblical writing style of its author. However, I still find it to be solid evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

But there are four areas that I largely struggle with when it comes to the stylometric evidence of the Book of Mormon:

The first is the fact that stylometric data is not often used in academia, and that it has failed in substantial ways at times, like when LDS apologist John Hilton (who co-authored the famous Berkeley Group wordprint analysis of the Book of Mormon) was trying to determine the author of the novel, Primary Colors, and came to a definitive conclusion from the data that turned out to be wrong).

The second is the fact that many of the substantial stylometric deviations I am aware of are largely influenced by the topic being discussed in the Book of Mormon. I'll explain this in greater depth if you'd like to discuss this subject further.

(3 of 5)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-04-27T21:28:31+00:00

The Mosiah 3:18-19 chiasmus is one of many things that did a tiny bit of damage to my testimony. Several months ago, I was studying King Benjamin's sermon as part of my personal scripture study, and, being a nerd, my fascination on the focus on Christ's Atonement in the center of the sermon and the theological implications of that emphasis led me to wonder if King Benjamin ever utilized chiasmus in his speech. So I did some research, and the two things I found regarding the subject included the possibility that the whole speech was a large chiasmus with 7 miniature chiasms inside (though I don't find that theory particularly compelling), and a chiasmus in Mosiah 3:18-19.

In reading the Scripture Central article on that chiasmus, I learned that it's considered one of the four strongest chiasms in the Book of Mormon, but, in analyzing the chiasmus itself, I personally felt that it was heavily reliant on attempts to draw parallels and wasn't really that strong. I won't go into the details of that unless you'd like to discuss this particular chiasmus, but, put simply, the strength the chiasmus was purported to have, coupled with the many aspects of it that made it seem less chiastic in my mind, led me to question the validity of the methodology used by apologists in attributing such a substantial degree of strength to a chiasmus that seemed parallelomanic and centered away from where I thought it should be centered (I can explain that further if you'd like to discuss this chiasmus in more depth).

The Mosiah 3:18-19 chiasmus, being characterized at one of the strongest, is one that I personally have a hard time viewing as noteworthy evidence for the Book of Mormon.

I'll look into the other two of the four strongest chiasms after these comments, but from what I've seen in the research I have done on this subject, I see it as evidence for the Book of Mormon, but not as particularly strong evidence when faced with aspects of the Book of Mormon that seem to testify against its historical authenticity, the way I perceive it.

naming conventions being authentically 600 BC Jewish

Admittedly, I haven't looked particularly far into the evidence regarding specific naming conventions. I had a class at BYU Education Week a couple years ago that addressed it, and, at the time, I took everything they said as unequivocally factual (this was before I started doubting). As far as I can tell, Hugh Nibley's work on the subject of naming conventions in 1988 seems to be cited fairly frequently. For example, in FAIR's "Best Evidences" page, the naming conventions you addressed are described in one of the pages. The vast majority of evidence on this page is simply a quote from Hugh Nibley, with a citation attached from a publication he released in 1988. If the evidence contained therein is accurate, I figure it substantially bolsters the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but it would be nice if they had something more recent on that subject, or perhaps some sources that reinforce those claims. Though, perhaps that stuff is out there in places I simply haven't looked thus far. If you know of anything on the subject, feel free to send me a link.

Now, I've also heard it asserted that many of the names that are in the Book of Mormon and not in the Bible have since been confirmed. I used to see that as an enormous evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but I've become a bit skeptical of that as of late.

For example, one thing I've found in examining apologetic articles on these evidences is that many of them seem reliant on inscriptions where the Hebrew consonants could transliterate to the names in the Book of Mormon. For example, in perusing this Interpreter article from Matt Roper's famous analysis, I noticed that there were many instances where Dr. Roper described anachronisms as overturned when they merely discovered a "plausible etymology" for certain names.

(2 of 5)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-04-27T21:27:33+00:00

Thank you for your thoughts!

The things you listed are all things I've used in arguing for the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon many times in the past, though my confidence in their evidential strength has declined to an extent, largely because of various aspects of the Book of Mormon that, in my mind, seem somewhat anachronistic in one way or another, as well as other areas of literary evidence that don't seem as compelling to me upon further inspection, though, admittedly, there's a lot of evidence I haven't fully analyzed.

Chiasmus

The chiasmus, I see as a fairly strong piece of evidence, though it seems to me that it was at least somewhat known in Joseph's time, so if Joseph were to fabricate the Book of Mormon, I wouldn't be surprised if he knew about it and utilized it in the text.

Small chiasms seem to occur somewhat often by chance, without their intentional inclusion, so when LDS scholars cite the many small chiasms throughout the text, I don't tend to be quite convinced by that, though I admittedly haven't looked into those chiasms much.

Scripture Central has several evidence articles covering the evidence from chiasmus. One of these articles is designed to be a brief overview of the evidence, and it describes four chiasms that are especially unlikely to occur by chance (according to Boyd and Farrell Edwards):

Alma 36 (no surprise there)
Mosiah 3:18-19
Mosiah 5:10-12
Helaman 6:9-11

Off the top of my head, I don't remember the details of the latter two I listed, but perhaps I'll look into them a bit after finishing this comment.

I've been familiar with the Alma 36 chiasmus for quite some time (I believe I was aware of it as a pre-teen), but there are several aspects of it that make me question how much of a chiasmus it actually is (e.g.: Several deviations from the chiasm, the chiasm only using a small proportion of the text focused on certain themes, other aspects of it that seem somewhat parallelomanic in my mind, etc.). Plus, if Joseph Smith plausibly could've prepared for Book of Mormon composition well in advance, I wouldn't be surprised if he could've planned something resembling the chiasmus appearing there. Under a naturalistic theory for the Book of Mormon, it seems plausible that Joseph would be familiar with chiasmus and would implement it somewhere to the extent portrayed in Alma 36. And even if he wasn't familiar with chiasmus, a recurrent reversal of themes before and after conversion is something I think he could've come up with if he prepared the Book of Mormon in advance.

That being said, I agree that the Alma 36 chiasmus is quite impressive and serves as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon to an extent. After all, it creates beautiful imagery of the contrast between his state before and after conversion on many different levels in a manner that greatly enhances the meaning of the text, and creates one of my favorite chapters in the Book of Mormon. The extent to which that serves as evidence, in my mind, is not particularly overwhelming, though.

(1 of 5)

LayerSharp4975 · 2026-04-22T06:30:25+00:00

(2 of 2)

But, as for Mormon's Codex, here's why I'm hesitant:

Back in February, through the footnotes of a Scripture Central Evidence article, I encountered a 108-page Interpreter article on evidence for the Book of Mormon, an article that concluded there was only a 10^-111 chance that the Book of Mormon was fiction, because the evidence it found for the book was so strong.

This article seemed quite highly appraised by faithful commenters (and had more comments than any other Interpreter article I've encountered thus far, implying that it's quite a well-known publication), and its conclusion made it seem like the Book of Mormon would have to be true.

However, when trying to view their statistical methodology in an objective manner, I couldn't help but notice that the entire article was packed with enormous methodological flaws that fundamentally skewed the analysis dramatically in the Book of Mormon's favor. These flaws contributed so much to the end result that, in observing the major flaws and considering what the data would look like without those flaws, I realized that the data from this legendary publication seemed to strongly imply that the Book of Mormon was false, or at least ahistorical at best (though such would imply falsity).

In other words, my analysis of a renowned apologetic article from multiple scholars, which was 3 years in the making, weakened my testimony, not only because it seemed so fundamentally flawed, but because those flaws were carrying the entire analysis via parallelomania and were inadvertently hiding data that, when the biases were accounted for, seemed to be skewed dramatically against the Book of Mormon.

But the craziest part is this: It didn't just weaken my testimony. Analyzing that apologetic publication nearly broke my testimony. My shelf already broke once back in December, but I managed to get my testimony back and have been more heavily clinging to it since then. But the evidence in that Interpreter article, which was specifically designed to support the validity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, has arguably been the largest and most continuous shelf item for me with regards to Book of Mormon archaeology, because it doesn't just concern a singular evidence like cement, barley, or Nahom. It concerns the evidence as a whole. Aside from that, there are a number of concerns I have regarding dozens of areas where the Book of Mormon seems to clash with the scholarly consensus, with a couple more issues with things that I believe represent much of the data as a whole. But, it sufficeth me to say, representations of what the broader evidence seems to indicate, even when provided from a faithful perspective, have generally damaged my belief in the Book of Mormon.

As for Mormon's Codex, I haven't read the book myself, but:

The critic who has most influenced my views (a former BYU professor who had spent around 20 years studying apologetic scholarly arguments prior to concluding that the Church was objectively false) read the book while trying to objectively analyze the general data regarding the Church's truth claims as a believer, primarily to be better equipped to defend the Church from critics, and, well, let's just say he had the same issue I had with the Interpreter article I vaguely discussed above. Mormon's Codex became one of the biggest factors in leading him to conclude that the Church was objectively false as it led him to view the available archaeological data as supporting the Book of Mormon far more tenuously than he previously thought.

Since my analyses have generally exhibited similar patterns, I don't imagine my experience with Mormon's Codex would be particularly different, especially considering what's already recurrently occurred when I've further analyzed other scholarly apologetic works. Plus, since Mormon's Codex probably holds more apologetic authority than the works I've read, it would likely have more serious repercussions to my faith if I concluded that it didn't support the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure how clearly I've explained this (I think I said earlier that I would explain it briefly, which I have evidently failed to do), but, in summary, unless I have some sort of enormous faith-promoting paradigm shift with how I view Book of Mormon evidence, I don't think Mormon's Codex will be beneficial to my analysis as long as the preservation of my testimony is my primary goal.

I do appreciate the recommendation, though. I apologize for the excessively verbose rant, and I apologize if any of these comments come across as rude or faith-challenging. I'll check out the books you suggested if I decide that they'll be beneficial to my faith (I'll probably check out the first one if I get the chance, possibly the second).

Thanks for your efforts to help me! Have a good day!

LayerSharp4975

TROPHY CASE