Yearly Archives: 2025

(Page 3)
Douglas Hendricks and Francis Nelson Henderson were there at this year's Sunstone, explaining what the wasmormon.org website is all about and showing a promo video.
Douglas Hendricks and Francis Nelson Henderson were there at this year's Sunstone, explaining what the wasmormon.org website is all about and showing a promo video.

Why Didn’t Cowdery, Whitmer, or Harris Expose Joseph Smith as a Fraud?

A common apologetic argument in defense of Joseph Smith is that his closest early associates—Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris—never outright denounced him as a fraud, even after they left or were cast out of the church. The logic goes: if anyone would have known the “truth” behind the origins of the Book of …

Continue reading “Why Didn’t Cowdery, Whitmer, or Harris Expose Joseph Smith as a Fraud?”

“Not one of the Three Witnesses [Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, or Martin Harris] ever denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon.” - Michael R. Morris, The Last Witness of the Three Witnesses, The New Era, January 2020 | [Oliver Cowdery] arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism. | “Smith, having become worldly and proud, has been forsaken of the Lord, and has become a knave and impostor.” - Martin Harris | “If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints.” - David Whitmer | wasmormon.org
“Not one of the Three Witnesses [Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, or Martin Harris] ever denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon.” - Michael R. Morris, The Last Witness of the Three Witnesses, The New Era, January 2020 | [Oliver Cowdery] arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism. | “Smith, having become worldly and proud, has been forsaken of the Lord, and has become a knave and impostor.” - Martin Harris | “If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints.” - David Whitmer
“As to his present relation to the Mormons—Martin Harris believes that the work in its commencement was a genuine work of the Lord, but that Smith, having become worldly and proud, has been forsaken of the Lord, and has become a knave and impostor. He expects that the work will be yet revived, through other instrumentalities. This we had sometime since from Harris himself, and it has been repeated to us within the last week by a brother of his.” - Martin Harris, Financier of the Book of Mormon and Witness of Gold Plates Painesville Telegraph, Volume 7: 1841 June 30, No 26, Page 3 | wasmormon.org
“As to his present relation to the Mormons—Martin Harris believes that the work in its commencement was a genuine work of the Lord, but that Smith, having become worldly and proud, has been forsaken of the Lord, and has become a knave and impostor. He expects that the work will be yet revived, through other instrumentalities. This we had sometime since from Harris himself, and it has been repeated to us within the last week by a brother of his.” - Martin Harris, Financier of the Book of Mormon and Witness of Gold Plates Painesville Telegraph, Volume 7: 1841 June 30, No 26, Page 3

Joseph Smith’s Twice “Inspired” Translation of Matthew: Two Versions and Considerable Differences

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet, seer, and revelator—one uniquely gifted by God with the power to translate ancient scripture by divine means. Among his translation projects was the “Joseph Smith Translation” (JST) of the Bible, also known as the Inspired Version. But a close look at this work raises serious questions about the …

Continue reading “Joseph Smith’s Twice “Inspired” Translation of Matthew: Two Versions and Considerable Differences”

“The two [JST Matthew 26] translations are not identical; in fact, there are considerable differences... The most important changes were those that introduced new content or changed a verse’s meaning... some content changes were unique to one new translation or the other.... He made the same corrections but not in the same words or the same places. Why were the two inspired translations of the same chapter not identical?” - Kent P. Jackson “New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible” By Study and by Faith (Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2009) | wasmormon.org
“The two [JST Matthew 26] translations are not identical; in fact, there are considerable differences... The most important changes were those that introduced new content or changed a verse’s meaning... some content changes were unique to one new translation or the other.... He made the same corrections but not in the same words or the same places. Why were the two inspired translations of the same chapter not identical?” - Kent P. Jackson “New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible” By Study and by Faith (Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2009).
“Joseph Smith translated Matthew 26 twice, each with the help of a different scribe. The translations were done several months apart, and it appears that the Prophet simply forgot that he had translated the chapter already. We studied the duplicate translations carefully, believing that they would help us understand the nature of the JST better. The two new translations are not identical; in fact, there are considerable differences.” - Kent P. Jackson “New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible” By Study and by Faith (Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2009) | wasmormon.org
“Joseph Smith translated Matthew 26 twice, each with the help of a different scribe. The translations were done several months apart, and it appears that the Prophet simply forgot that he had translated the chapter already. We studied the duplicate translations carefully, believing that they would help us understand the nature of the JST better. The two new translations are not identical; in fact, there are considerable differences.” - Kent P. Jackson “New Discoveries in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible” By Study and by Faith (Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2009)
KJV Matthew 26 vs JST Matthew 26 (June 1831) vs JST Matthew 26 (Sept 1831) - KJV 25-26: Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. | JST June 1831: Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said truly, for thou art the man. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat of it. And a commandment I give unto you, and this is the commandment which I give unto you, that as you see me do, you shall do likewise in remembrance of my body. | JST Sept 1831: Then Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and brake it, and blessed it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is in remembrance of my body, which I gave a ransom for you. | wasmormon.org
KJV Matthew 26 vs JST Matthew 26 (June 1831) vs JST Matthew 26 (Sept 1831) - KJV 25-26: Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. | JST June 1831: Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said truly, for thou art the man. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat of it. And a commandment I give unto you, and this is the commandment which I give unto you, that as you see me do, you shall do likewise in remembrance of my body. | JST Sept 1831: Then Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and brake it, and blessed it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is in remembrance of my body, which I gave a ransom for you.
KJV 50: And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. | JST June 1831: And Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? And Jesus also said unto the captain, Friend, wherefore art thou come? And then they came, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. | JST Sept 1831: And Jesus said unto him, Judas, wherefore art thou come to betray me with a kiss? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. - KJV Matt 26 vs JST Matt 26 v1 and v2 - verses 25 and 26 | wasmormon.org
KJV 50: And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. | JST June 1831: And Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss? And Jesus also said unto the captain, Friend, wherefore art thou come? And then they came, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. | JST Sept 1831: And Jesus said unto him, Judas, wherefore art thou come to betray me with a kiss? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. - KJV Matt 26 vs JST Matt 26 v1 and v2 - verses 25 and 26
“Furthermore, insofar as the authorities of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its term, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933. | wasmormon.org
“Furthermore, insofar as the authorities of the Church are concerned, since this pretended revelation, if ever given, was never presented to and adopted by the Church or by any council of the Church, and since to the contrary, an inspired rule of action, the Manifesto, was (subsequently to the pretended revelation) presented to and adopted by the Church, which inspired rule in its term, purport, and effect was directly opposite to the interpretation given to the pretended revelation, the said pretended revelation could have no validity and no binding effect and force upon Church members, and action under it would be unauthorized, illegal, and void.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933.
“The First Presidency have recently received letters making inquiry concerning the position of the Church regarding the contracting of polygamous or plural marriages. It is evident these letters, a well as from certain published material—some of it distributed during our last General Conference—that a secret and, according to reputation, an oath-bound organization of misguided individuals is seeking to lead the people to adopt adulterous relations under the guise of a pretended and false polygamous or plural marriage ceremony.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933. | wasmormon.org
“The First Presidency have recently received letters making inquiry concerning the position of the Church regarding the contracting of polygamous or plural marriages. It is evident these letters, a well as from certain published material—some of it distributed during our last General Conference—that a secret and, according to reputation, an oath-bound organization of misguided individuals is seeking to lead the people to adopt adulterous relations under the guise of a pretended and false polygamous or plural marriage ceremony.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933.
“While the position of Church since 1893 has been repeatedly set forth, namely that polygamous or plural marriages are not and cannot now be performed, yet in order that there may be no excuse for any Church member to be misled by the false representations or the corrupt, adulterous practices of the members of this secret and (by reputation) oath-bound organisation (of which the history of the Nephites and Lamanites show so many counterparts), it is deemed wise again to set out the position of the Church on this matter, at the same time tracing the outlines of the historical facts lying behind the Church's position, of which many young Church members might not be fully aware.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933. | wasmormon.org
“While the position of Church since 1893 has been repeatedly set forth, namely that polygamous or plural marriages are not and cannot now be performed, yet in order that there may be no excuse for any Church member to be misled by the false representations or the corrupt, adulterous practices of the members of this secret and (by reputation) oath-bound organisation (of which the history of the Nephites and Lamanites show so many counterparts), it is deemed wise again to set out the position of the Church on this matter, at the same time tracing the outlines of the historical facts lying behind the Church's position, of which many young Church members might not be fully aware.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933.
“As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933. | wasmormon.org
“As to this pretended revelation it should be said that the archives of the Church contain no such revelation; the archives contain no record of any such revelation, nor any evidence justifying a belief that any such revelation was ever given. From the personal knowledge of some of us, from the uniform and common recollection of the presiding quorums of the Church, from the absence in the Church archives of any evidence whatsoever justifying any belief that such a revelation was given, we are justified in affirming that no such revelation exists.” - Official Statement from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, J. Reuben Clark) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret News, June 17, 1933.

The 1886 Revelation Denial and the LDS Church’s Longstanding Dishonesty

In the complex history of Mormonism, few documents expose the tensions between prophetic revelation and institutional survival quite like John Taylor’s 1886 revelation. This revelation, written in Taylor’s own hand, declared that the divine commandment of plural marriage would not and could not be revoked. Yet for over a century, the Church of Jesus Christ …

Continue reading “The 1886 Revelation Denial and the LDS Church’s Longstanding Dishonesty”

“Other churches at the time—including ones with which many early Church members were familiar—taught about the priesthood. The Disciples of Christ, from which many early members of the Church converted, for example, had developed its own priesthood doctrines, influenced by Alexander Crawford, a Scottish minister living in Canada. In 1827, Crawford had delineated the existence of three distinct priesthoods: a patriarchal priesthood (which he also called a priesthood after the “order of Melchisedec”), an Aaronical priesthood (originally held by Aaron)... Alexander Campbell and the Disciples of Christ were influenced by Crawford’s ideas...” - Matthew C. Godfrey “A Culmination of Learning: D&C and the Doctrine of the Priesthood” 2012, Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, Religious Studies Center, BYU | wasmormon.org
“Other churches at the time—including ones with which many early Church members were familiar—taught about the priesthood. The Disciples of Christ, from which many early members of the Church converted, for example, had developed its own priesthood doctrines, influenced by Alexander Crawford, a Scottish minister living in Canada. In 1827, Crawford had delineated the existence of three distinct priesthoods: a patriarchal priesthood (which he also called a priesthood after the “order of Melchisedec”), an Aaronical priesthood (originally held by Aaron)... Alexander Campbell and the Disciples of Christ were influenced by Crawford’s ideas...” - Matthew C. Godfrey “A Culmination of Learning: D&C and the Doctrine of the Priesthood” 2012, Exploring the Text of the Doctrine and Covenants, Religious Studies Center, BYU