Ex-LDS Steve Kay, Saved by Jesus Christ

You can download the video here.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Multimedia, Personal Stories and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Ex-LDS Steve Kay, Saved by Jesus Christ

  1. mobaby says:

    I was thinking today about religious ideas and testing them for truth while listening to a song – “Bedtime Stories” by Madonna. In this song she says something like “Let’s get unconscious. Words don’t stand for anything, especially sentences…” Okay, you’re probably wondering where this is going. I thought about the Mormon “gospel” and how people are pushed to pray for a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon – which really is an odd proposition. It’s like they are endorsing the spiritualist or Madonna approach to truth – get unconscious – don’t test the BOM based on any facts, just go with a feeling, a sense, an inner testimony – “words don’t stand for anything.” Which is EXTREMELY odd when you think about it. Madonna is endorsing some kind of oneness with the cosmic force spiritualist agenda, but Mormons are asking for belief in a concrete real book and history – with a COMPLETE LACK of actual historical evidence, rather, one should test it based on a feeling or inner spiritual testimony. Don’t trust in the words in the BOM, or look to discern it’s accurate representation of the world – instead trust in a feeling to validate a written history. Odd. Historical evidence can be found in the Americas – why not use those to test and confirm the BOM rather than rely solely on an inner testimony? I think the Madonna approach to truth and religion is completely backwards and opens one up to all kinds of potential deception.

  2. Mods,

    I am hoping that by now you have cross listed all of HankSaint’s ISP’s with all of Janet’s ISP’s. If any of them match, or are even from the same area, I would be more than suspicious. It seems clear to me that they are the same person. It takes more than a mere denial for me to accept that he is not she (if you look at the grammar of the “denial” it is no denial at all); just like a false book will tell you it is true, a false person will tell you he/she is true as well.

    If you have already done this then fine, but if you have then please let us know. If you have not then prudence suggests that you do so. If you tell me that you have done so, then I will not insist that Janet is Hanksaint.

    However, until you tell me that someone at MRM has done so, then I am not addressing Hanksaint/Richard/whatever as “Janet”. Richard or Hank is a dude’s name and it is more than creepy to call a dude “Janet”.

  3. Janet says:

    There seems to be some confusion as to whom I am. I have no idea who Hanksaint is or what he is accused of. This will be my last reply to any who doubt that I post as Janet, not my real name, but a very fond name of someone who meant a great deal to me in a earlier life. Female true and and though this evangelical seems want not to post to a dude, then he is privileged to not respond to any of my post, it matters not.


  4. grindael says:

    The quote Janet uses about horses from Sorenson comes from a book published in 1982. In a more recent book, ‘The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of North America’, published in 1996, it shows that any horse ‘fossils’ found in North America, (Yucatan) were identified as extinct Pleistocene animals, gone LONG BEFORE BOM times:

    “Currently, only one site in Mesoamerica supports the hypothesis of human occupation in lowland environments before 12,000 years ago. In the Puuc Hills of northern Yucatan, the lowest levels of excavations reported by R. Velazquez at Loltun Cave have produced some crude stone and bone tools along with the remains of horse, mastodon, and other now extinct Pleistocene animals. Felines, deer, and numerous rodents round out the archaeological assemblage. No radiocarbon dates have been forthcoming for this proposed early components that underlies later ceramic occupations. On the basis of stone tool typology and faunal association, MacNeish has proposed that the lower levels of Loltun Cave are somewhere between 40,000 and 15,000 years old.”

    This is taken from an excellent article affirming my first quote by Sorenson that there IS NO EVIDENCE of horses in BOM times. The evidence is JUST NOT THERE, NO MATTER WHAT FARMS SAYS. It also addresses and debunks the ‘Huns’ story they promote at Farms.

    Also, the link to the Farms article I quoted from Sorenson has been taken down by Farms. Wonder Why???


  5. Janet says:

    Here we have a Evangelical who is sympathetic to the idea of an older earth then what the Bible claims or many Christians believe, so scientific means and proof are acceptable to a least the idea that earth may be millions of years older then many are want to believe.


    “What is archeological proof? Due to the nature of archeology, we can never hope to know everything about an ancient civilization. Often believers use this fact to dodge contrary archeological evidence. Only a fraction of the physical implements of a Mesoamerican civilization can possibly be recovered, since the vast majority are biodegraded, buried, or otherwise destroyed. Archeologists do the best they can with the available evidence, but few pretend that the evidence is complete or that a theory is infallible. Thus, archeological evidence is generally positive; in other words, it is very difficult to show that something did not exist archaeologically. Some believers in the Book of Mormon would say, for example, that just because remains of horses have never been found in any site in Mesoamerica does not prove that horses did not exist definitively, since next week horse remains might be found. This seems a bit absurd when carried to such an extreme, but the because new archeological discoveries are constantly being made, it is admittedly difficult to prove the absence of something. Adding to this quandary is the tendency of early Mesoamerican groups to eliminate all remnants of a conquered group, which is attested archaeologically and alluded to in the Book of Mormon. Finally, the majority of the Book of Mormon record concerns 34 A.D., before the better-understood post-classic and classic periods of Mesoamerican archeology. In short, Book of Mormon believers have several forms of rationalization to insulate their belief from the lack of archeological evidence in its favor.

  6. falcon says:

    Romans 16:25-27 should be a wake-up call to anyone holding to Joseph Smith’s revelation(s). A common tactic of false prophets is to declare the accepted revelation and Scripture as false and instead propose that the revelation they have is not just new and improved but the “original” (revelation) that has been lost and now found. The declaration that the accepted Scripture has been tainted or corrupted gives the false prophet free reign in promoting his particular new view.
    The above quoted passage of Scripture is plain regarding what the revelation is and who the God is that reveals it.
    Paul constantly refers to “my gospel” in his writings. This gospel is not hidden but very plain in all of Paul’s writings. He tells us that the gospel is all about “Jesus”, that it was a “mystery” a “secret” but now it has come forth by the Scriptures of the prophets. This mystery, we are told, has come to us by the command of the “eternal God”. The meaning of eternal is plain. He is the first cause and is not subject to anything but Himself because He is the omnipotent God. Paul further describes God as “the only wise God”. “Only” means he stands alone. There are no others.
    In order to get to where Mormons want to go, the Bible has to be ignored. In-the-end Mormonism basically borrows a little from the Bible, a little from folklore, and a lot from the imagination of Joseph Smith and his propensity to take various ideas from others and mold them into his own particular brand of religion.
    Steve Kay came out of the darkness of a false gospel into the light of God’s love. Through Jesus He found eternal life and peace with God.

  7. grindael says:

    “This seems a bit absurd when carried to such an extreme,

    It is, especially with all the Mormon quotes the guy uses in his paper. This has all been refuted, nicely, by this website:


    All apologists…all the time…

  8. Ralph says:

    So Grindael,

    Are you saying that some of the stories in the Bible are just that – made up stories? The Bible describes the Israelite kingdom ruled from Jerusalem as a large kingdom, but most archaeologists say that is false, it was just a city kingdom, and that’s OK with you? The Israelites destroyed a city down the road from Jericho, whereas the Bible states it was Jericho – another fictional story from the Bible and your willing to still believe the Bible is true and infallible.

    I also agree with Janet, you are willing to agree with and use scientific evidence that supports what you want to say about the BoM, even though it proves the Bible wrong. You come up with the ‘DNA evidence does not support the BoM’ statement. If you really did the research into it, the DNA evidence you are using to prove the BoM wrong also proves the Bible wrong. I went to the original manuscripts in the journals that many LDS critics use to make these statements and have read them. They place the last mutations at over 12000 years ago – far outside the Biblical range. The fall was 6000 years ago, which means that any fossil evidence can only be that old as that is when death first came into this world through Adam and Eve.

    So if you want to use DNA evidence you also have to hold the Bible to the same standard.

  9. Janet says:

    “Archaeological artifacts are not found on demand; their discovery is essentially due to chance. A classic example is the lion. The Bible mentions lions in the Holy Land in the time of Samson (Judges 14), David (1 Samuel 17), Jeroboam I (1 Kings 13), Ahab (1 Kings 20), and at the captivity of the ten tribes (2 Kings 17). Yet no lion remains were found in Israel until 1988, and the single specimen found at that time remains the only one to date.2 In other words, archaeologists had been excavating in Israel for more than a century and a quarter before they found the first evidence for lions.

    Similarly, excavations in Mesoamerica have not yet turned up convincing evidence for horses mentioned in the Book of Mormon. But since archaeological work in that area has been going on for a much shorter period of time than in the Holy Land, with less than one percent of the Preclassic (Book of Mormon period) sites having seen excavation, this should not surprise anyone. In a recent discussion published in Biblical Archaeology Review, a representative of the biblical maximalist camp advocated a wait-and-see attitude on biblical archaeology.3 LDS scholars recommend a similar approach to Book of Mormon archaeology.”

    Insights: An Ancient Window

    Insights Volume – 17, Issue – 5
    Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute

  10. Janet says:

    [Janet, please review the Mormon Coffee comment policy. Please note the section that reads “Rule #3: Unless permission is otherwise granted by a moderator, links or references to Mormon apologetic material by Mormons must be accompanied by a summary (in your own words) of the key arguments made.” Thanks.]

    In the nineteenth century, some archaeologists made a concerted effort to find evidence for the Bible. They had some success, especially in the first decades of this century. But most of what they discovered neither directly supported the biblical story nor contradicted it. Then came discoveries at Jericho that disclosed that none of the walls dated to the time in which archaeologists had placed the conquest of Joshua.

    Because of such discoveries, the term “biblical archaeology” has fallen out of favor. Most archaeologists no longer look for evidence to support the Bible, but are content to let the sherds fall where they may. Even the maximalists tend to reject the historicity of some parts of Bible, especially in the accounts of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan.


  11. falcon says:

    If someone, anyone, comes to me and says they have a “revelation”, I’m going to check it out by testing it. My test isn’t whether or not I’m getting a confirming “feeling”. Now I know in Mormonism the confirming feeling is a huge deal as it supposes the person receiving the feeling is hyperspiritual and super-connected to God/god. Believing in and trusting one’s feelings as a test for spiritual truth is a sure formula for disaster and a perfect set-up for being misled.
    Notice when Steve Kay was challenged regarding his Mormonism he responded by studying the Bible. In fact he took quite a long time to do this. It’s especially noteworthy that when he took off his Mormon glasses, he began to see the Word of God clearly and understood it like he hadn’t before.
    Trusting in Joseph Smith’s visions/revelations won’t lead anyone to God. If fact, trusting in Joseph Smith will lead someone away from god and into a false religious system of paganism. In Smith’s religion there are many gods and men may progress to become gods. This in effect usurps the authority and recognition of the One, true, eternal God. In Smith’s system, the gods are subject to universal laws. The Smith gods are not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. These gods are pretty much limited by whatever universal principles and laws that happen to be there. What a marvelous snare Satan developed and the bait is irrisistable.
    Our Mormon friends would probably rather discuss whether or not horses and whatever else that are mentioned in the BoM really existed. All I have to know is who they think God is. Everything after that is pretty trivial.

  12. falcon says:

    “From its inception, the revelatory tradition in Mormonism engendered strife. The doctrine of modern, continuing revelation, begun by Joseph Smith and accepted by most groups claiming descent, leaves social order open to counterclaims that strike at the heart of ecclesiastical order. If one person may speak for God, why may not another? By claiming an ongoing dialogue with divinity, Joseph Smith opened the door to a social force he could barely control.” (Richard L Saunders, “The Fruit of the Branch)
    In his book “Under the Banner of Heaven”, Jon Krakauer explores the revelatory impact on Mormonism and what it has wrought.
    In the seventh chapter of the book he presents the prophet Robert Crossfield. He was a devout convert to Mormonism, married in the temple, very active in the religion. In March of 1961 “the still small voice of the Lord” suddenly came to him, revealing that he had been chosen to serve as God’s mouthpiece-that he was a holy prophet of the Lord. And the very first words God uttered to him that day affirmed the correctness of D & C 132 and the principle of plural marriage.”
    He had more revelations and it confirmed what his mentor had said. That is, “….the leaders of the LDS Church had ‘cut themselves off from the voice of the Lord’ and betrayed some of Joseph Smith’s most important tenets-including the sacred principle of plural marriage”.
    It seems that by 1972 Mr. Crossfield had received twenty-three revelations. He collected them into a single volume titled “The First Book of Commandments”.
    One revelation that he received was: “I will raise up one mighty and strong among you, having the scepter of justice in his hand, who shall grind in pieces all those who would oppose My work, for the prayer of the righteous shall not go unheeded.” He believed he might just be “the one”.
    Well, I guess if he had a revelation, and he sincerely believes it, it must be true. What can anyone test it against anyway?

  13. falcon says:

    In the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, the supreme leader holds the titles of President, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. According to Jon Krakauer:
    “This is because from its inception, Mormonism was a faith in which religious truth and ecclesiastical authority were supposed to be derived from a never-ending string of divine revelations. In the beginning, Joseph Smith had emphasized the improtance of personal revelation for everyone. Denigrating the established churches of the day, which were more inclined to filter the word of God through institutional hierarchies, he instructed Mormons to seek direct ‘impressions from the Lord,’ which should guide them in every aspect of their lives. Quickly, however, Joseph Saw a major drawback to such a policy if God spoke directly to all Mormons, who was to say that the truths He revealed to Joseph had greater validity than contradictory truths He might reveal to somebody else? With every one receiving revelations, the prophet stood to lose control of his followers.”
    Joseph Smith was very good at receiving revelations to solve all sorts of organizational and personal challenges. Low and behold Joseph got another revelation from the Lord; “No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations n this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jr.” Well the genie was out of the bottle (Krakauer perceptively tells us) and “many of these Saints quietly ignored the edict and continued to heed the voice of God, whether He was talking to them about matters of theology or personal issues.” The result of course was that since 1830 there have been at least 200 splinter Mormon groups from Smith’s original creation. This is an on-going process within Mormonism.
    In order to make his religion “take” Joseph Smith had to convince people that the Bible was not a reliable standard for judging revelation. He also had to convince them that the established Christian faith had gone into error and apostasy.

  14. falcon says:

    Well, in a direct way, Joseph Smith and the SLC LDS church is getting a taste of their own medicine when it comes to getting labeled “apostates”. The many splinter groups would be quick to apply that label to not only Smith but the mainline LDS church.
    “On the night of August 27, 1894, the angel Moroni-the same Moroni who had given the gold plates to Joseph Smith sixty-seven years earlier-visited (John) Koyle in a dream. Moroni guided Koyle to the top of a nearby mountain, where the ground opened to admit them deep into the earth. There, Moroni led Koyle through nine enormous caverns over-flowing with gold. It had been gathered by the Nephites of the BoM, but all that wealth had made them prideful and covetous, so God had taken it away from them some two thousand years ago and hidden it deep beneath this mountain, along with ancient records documenting the entire history of the Mormons forebears.” (“Under the Banner of Heaven” p.81)
    Now John Koyle got some startling “revelations” from Moroni. The gold, you see, would stay hidden in the mountain until the Second Coming of Jesus. Now there would be all sorts of calamity on the earth but not to worry. At precisely the right time John Koyle would dig up the Nephite gold and provide for the faithful. Moroni was good enough to tell Koyle where to start digging. So in September of 1894 Koyle got a claim on a hillside east of Salem a community twelve miles south of Provo, Ut. It became known as the Dream Mine and Koyle got the financial support of many faithful Mormons for the venture. How many shares of stock were sold? Try seven hundred thousand. A shaft was dug and by the mid-1940s it reached 3,400 feet. Well no gold was found but remember Moroni revealed it wouldn’t happen until right before Christ’s return.
    Koyle was eventually excommunicated by the Mormon church but today thousands of his followers still believe the prophecy. Who would be so naive? The same ones who believe Joseph Smith’s “revelations”.

  15. Enki says:

    “If fact, trusting in Joseph Smith will lead someone away from god and into a false religious system of paganism.”

    Well, not really. That person would still be worshiping jesus.

  16. falcon says:

    Sorry, we’ve been down this road before. The Jesus described in Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Mormon Jesus, in fact, bears no resemblance to the Biblical Jesus. I think even Mormons would agree with this. Mormons have a different god(s), a different Jesus, and a different Holy Spirit.
    Joseph Smith made a decision to reject the God of the Bible for his own (false) god. Mormon leaders have been plain in expressing this. It’s a fact, however, that they don’t like to announce openly because their missionary efforts would be hampered if people knew the truth up front.
    Steve Kay reached a point where he had to make a decision as to if he should continue following the Mormon false god or God. He chose the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ. Having believed he then was saved and the Holy Spirit came to indwell him as God promises all those who receive the free gift of eternal life He offers us through faith.
    The Mormon “jesus” is not the Biblical Jesus. Mormonism is a religion that defies God, teaching that men can become minigods.

  17. grindael says:


    You can ‘hold out’ for evidence on the BOM. That is your prerogative. As for the Bible, there is enough evidence there to show that what those writers described did take place. Faith fills in the blanks in history. In the case of the BOM though, there is NOTHING there. ZIP. Even looking at the Maya and the Aztecs, it is obvious to all that those societies did not spring from a society that worshipped Jesus. There is no correlation and you have no evidence to prove it otherwise. There have been many many discoveries verifying the Bible, while there have been NONE for the BOM. Why are your prophets so strangely silent about BOM locations? Seems to me they could put the matter to rest easily, but will not. Why? Because they can’t because the BOM is fiction.

  18. Ralph says:


    Here is an interesting quote for you about Biblical archaeology from one of the world’s leading Biblical archaeologists William G. Dever, –

    “Archaeology certainly doesn’t prove literal readings of the Bible…It calls them into question, and that’s what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so.” From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the “archeological revolution.” Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that’s very disturbing to some people.”

    Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the ‘larger than life’ portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence….I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed ‘stories,’ often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information

    (bold mine)

    Yes, we can find things that concur with history and places like Jerusalem, but we also know that Washington DC is a city and that the Vietnam war occurred – does that make Forrest Gump true?

  19. Ralph says:

    You asked where Zarahemla was – just because we can’t go into the jungle and find a sign saying ‘Zarahemla This Way’ does not mean that it did not exist. If you read the BoM, 3 Nephi 8, you will find that a great many cities were totally destroyed after the Crucifixion. Some were burnt to the ground, others were sunk into the earth or ocean, while others were taken up into mountains. Zarahemla was burnt to the ground, so there would be very little left showing its existence these days.

    As far as there being no evidence of the BoM, there is a book called ‘Discovering Lehi’ which follows the journey from Jerusalem to the land of Bountiful on the Arabian Peninsula. This shows that many of the things that happened on the journey in the BoM are plausible including the land of fruit and wild honey. Many of the things described in the BoM about this journey are things that very few if any people knew in JS’s days. Even today very few know that there is an area on the Arabian Peninsula that is not desert but has plenty of rain and is fertile and full of trees.

    The city Nahom has been found on the Arabian Peninsula – you can say it’s a coincidence or just good research by JS, but it was described in the BoM as a place where there were mass burials. The city NHM found on the Arabian Peninsula was used as a burial place in ancient times – is this also a coincidence besides the name? But wait – going on your comment about Jerusalem and how we can find it today then the Bible is true – well we can find NHM today so the BoM must be true.

    Why doesn’t the GAs ask for revelation? It does not work that way – we do not dictate to God what to give us in the way of revelation. If He wants to give it to us He will. But the Bible and the BoM are books of faith. Ultimately they will be proven true to all, including the non-believers.

  20. Janet says:

    Fiction or true. Mormons still believe that it is the capstone of our religion. Many have tried to disprove the BOM and come up miserably short. What is so frustrating to those who are investigating is the volume of different theories that have been used to criticize the BOM, when it would seem obvious that only one theory is needed. There are those who have tried to prove plagiarism of Eighteenth and Nineteenth century books, but when the single two and thee word phrases are compared it still comes up short as to thoughts and ideas.

    So what is your theory.


  21. grindael says:


    Your comments are … interesting. As to revelation in the Mormon Church, it is just not done that way now…by convenience. Look at your history. Smith was asked constantly about this and that, and always had an answer…to things that could not be proved. Is asking for a revelation…dictating to God? Gee, with the fate of the world resting on whether this is the true church or not, I would think your God would be happy to oblige… but as it is all fiction, why should He be bothered? Your prophet hinckley got around this by saying you ‘had enough’ revelation.
    Again, NHM could mean anything… and I have to laugh at the ‘grasping’ of your Mormon scholars. Let’s keep to the evidence in this hemisphere, where THERE IS NONE. NADA. ZIP. ZERO, and SILENCE from the one man on earth who could, but chooses not to … enlighten the world. And just like every other mormon i’ve encountered, you attack the Bible when backed into a corner on the BOM. Gee, could you get original, like you claim I am not?

  22. grindael says:


    Can you say NOVEL? View of the Hebrews? Treasure hunting, peep-stone looker? Adulterer? The ‘capstone’ of your religion came from a c-h-a-r-l-a-t-a-n. Who is frustrated? I have not heard one refutation of the above evidence, only the denigration of the Bible, and your cutting and pasting skills from apologist sites. When it comes down to meaty comment, you are lacking. When any real evidence comes along (take a look at the Kinderhook Plates & the BOA) smith comes out to be what he was, a liar and a phony. P.S. The plagiarism is proven.

  23. It looks to me like Janet and Ralph are holding out a mythological view of scripture.

    What I mean by a “mythological” view is a kind of “the important thing about these stories is that they tell me whom I am”, in contrast to a “literal” view, which is kind of “the important thing about these stories is that they are a factual record of what actually happened”.(Maybe these are the wrong terms, and someone else has a better definition, but I’ll use them).

    The way I read it is that Ralph and Janet are saying something like “if its OK to believe the Bible in a mythological sense, then its OK to believe the BoM in a mythological sense too”. It follows, then that if we believe in Bible/BoM mythologically, then the question of evidence is irrelevant.

    How does this fit with the Bible? My view is that different Christians fall into the whole spectrum, from those who believe it mythologically, to those who believe it literally. I suspect that in each of those individuals, there are a range of mythological/literal perspectives on different aspects of the Bible.

    I don’t have a problem with this. I also suspect that the Biblical record is more accurate than William G Dever might believe, but I’m willing to take the archaeological evidence into account in my interpretation of scripture (and vice versa).

    How does this fit with the BoM? Well, it becomes much more problematic. The problem is that the LDS movement wants us to view the BoM literally. This is apparent in Joseph Smith’s statements and, more recently, the excommunication of the (Australian) geneticist who contradicted the BoM’s genealogy of North America’s indigenous population.

    I wonder that if the LDS movement had stopped at the BoM, and not expanded its One True Prophet/Church paradigm, then Christians might be presented with a real dilemma. For example, we might view the BoM apocryphally, like the Shepherd of Hermas; in other words, an interesting read, but not theologically authoritative.


  24. …ctd…

    However, it is LDS HQ that has attached all the baggage about Joseph Smith being a prophet, the LDS being the One True Church, such that we can’t accept the one without accepting the other. Indeed the BoM is presented as the proof of Joseph Smith’s prophetic credentials, and there appears to be little point in promoting it for any other reason.

    So, in taking a mythological view of the BoM, Ralph and Janet are going in a different direction to the movement that they claim to represent.

    Further, by consigning the Bible to the purely mythological realm in an attempt to establish the veracity of the BoM, they do a great disservice to it. This is because, as the archaeological evidence shows, the Bible does record factual events, at least in part, and as such it cannot be viewed as a purely mythological fiction.

    I find the history of the Bible incredibly interesting. Given that it was written over several centuries by people from a wide range of backgrounds, I find it fascinating to read how the later authors related to the writings of their ancestors. A particular concern of the NT authors appears to have been to consider the stories (“myths” if you like) that they had received in scripture, and take them to their ultimate, logical conclusion. One way to view this is that the Bible underwent a very prolonged peer review, spanning many generations, and it includes “real” history.

    The BoM, by contrast, was written by a small group of people at a single point in history (1830’s North America) with no historicity whatsoever. It is the quintessentially pure mythological fiction.

    It is wrong to tar the Bible with the same brush as the BoM.

  25. Janet says:

    Straw-man tactics, stating an assumption as a fact. How important is it to Evangelicals to make up manufactured criticism, and then state it as fact? As a believer both in the Holy Bible and all other LDS Scripture, never did I not believe in a literal historical story and I am completely opposed to the mythological realm. Even thought archaeological evidence is in a constant progress of findings and research. I have conviction that eventually even hard evidence will be forthcoming in all areas of Biblical and BOM studies.

    It’s also interesting that DNA is brought into the study with the express disapproval assumed of the GA’s in which it is supposed someone is excommunicated for bringing forth evidence that contradicts our beliefs without mentioning names or source. Why not just state that DNA by a LDS scientist was examined and found to be a contradiction of LDS claims of Hebrew Genetics. Unless you show proof that he was excommunicated for his or her beliefs it is all irrelevant to making your point.


  26. Ralph says:


    Did you miss my last sentence? I wrote “Ultimately they will be proven true to all, including the non-believers.” I believe in them fully as true and factual, not myths. All I am pointing out is that for anyone to believe in the Bible properly, they have to ignore scientific and archaeological evidence, just as Grindael accused us LDS doing to belive in the BoM. But since Grindael chooses to use scientific evidence to refute the BoM which also refutes the Bible, then I am wondering about how he believes in the Bible, whether he thinks some things are stories or if he believes that it is all true.


    Martin is referring to a Dr Simon Southerton who works for the CSIRO in Canberra. He is a plant biologist but has done paper research into the DNA evidence from around the world and has come to his own conclusion that it does not support the BoM. He has written a blog (and I believe a book) about it. He and his family and siblings and their families have left the church when he discussed his findings with them. He has since been excommunicated. I have met his stake president and found that there was much more to the excommunication story than just him looking into the DNA evidence. Exactly what, the stake president did not say, as that is confidential information, but the DNA fiasco did play a part, but there were other things in play.


    DNA evidence disproves the Bible, as well as migratory evidence and archaeological evidence. The fall took place about 6000 years ago. That is when death first came into the world – meaning that all fossil evidence of dead animals and humans can only be 6000 years old. Scientistat are finding skeletons that are 100000 years old. Big discrepency. That last major mtDNA mutation that is used to distinguish between races occurred more than 12000 years ago and the first about 50000. Unless Adam and Eve were procreating that long ago with everyone of their children immortal, how did these mutations occur?

  27. Ralph says:

    Then there is migration to consider. The last migration that can be found to the American continent occurred about 10000 to 15000 years ago. There were others before then, but that was the last. This does not concur with the Bible as Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden until after the fall some 6000 years ago. Unless they had immortal offspring that decided to move house. Hell, the Australian aboriginals were supposed to have been here in Australia between 40000 and 70000 years ago. This was done by dating skeletons found in archaeological digs. Now this really contradicts tha Bible. So using the ‘DNA evidence proves the BoM wrong’ is shooting one’s self in the foot as it also proves the Bible wrong. Why use it then?

  28. falcon says:

    “Gone With the Wind” or any other historical novel has more credibility than the BoM. I can’t believe that seemingly rational people would even consider the BoM than anything other than a work of fiction. I’ve had contact with someone from the Community of Christ and have been told that their members have a choice as to whether or not the BoM is a “spiritual” book or actual history.
    Well even as a “spiritual” book it fails miserably. Smith copied the Bible a bunch, grabbed some ideas that where common regarding Indians being descendants of Jews, threw in some Christian revivalism and a bunch of homespun ideas and had himself a tome that Samuel
    Clemens called chloroform in print.
    A person has got to really want to believe this fiction in order to go through all the mental gymnastics necessary to believe and defend it. That’s why the test is a “burning in the bosom”. A person could generate the same emotion reading other books and no one would claim it as a witness or revelation from God.
    Again, this discussion reveals that if someone has a desire to believe in something or somebody they will do all the mind bending necessary to make it work. This is a good discussion to reveal the psychology of the true believer.

  29. grindael says:

    An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    After a 3 hour disciplinary council meeting on Sunday in Canberra, Simon Southerton, author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Book of Mormon, was informed his relationship with his religion of 30 years would be officially severed, Southerton said in an email to The Associated Press.

    Southerton was charged by church authorities with adultery, but finally excommunicated for “having an inappropriate relationship with a woman,” he said.

    Southerton doesn’t deny the relationship, which occurred two years ago, while he was separated from his wife. The Southertons have since reconciled, & his wife testified on behalf of her husband.

    Southerton said he refused to discuss his personal life with church leaders on Sunday, instead asking them why he was not answering to charges of apostasy for having widely published on the internet and in his book his doubts about the church and his beliefs about DNA science. AdvertisementAdvertisement

    Church leaders responded, Southerton wrote, by saying they were not avoiding the “issue of apostasy & that the charge they were investigating was more important.”

    “I am now convinced that they were intent on avoiding a council on the charge of apostasy,” Southerton said in his email to the AP.

    “I was clearly instructed before the meeting that if I attempted to talk about ‘DNA’ and my apostasy that the council would be immediately shut down and that it would be completed in my absence.”

    A former church bishop, he voluntarily left the Mormon church seven years ago, after deciding he could no longer believe some of its teachings.

    His book, published in 2004, outlines how existing DNA data for American Indians does not support the beliefs that the continent’s earliest inhabitants were descendants of Israelite Lehi.

  30. grindael says:

    The church teaches that Lehi was an ancient seafarer who came to the New World about 600 BC, according to church founder Joseph Smith’s 1830 Book of Mormon. Smith claimed to have translated the text from inscribed gold plates unearthed from an upstate New York hillside. His book is viewed by many members as a literal record of God’s dealings with early Americans.

    Australian church authorities have discussed the book at length with Southerton, who works as a plant geneticist for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and believes church concerns about his writing are the underlying reason they sought his excommunication.

    “I also told (church leaders) that it was extremely unusual for the church to pursue someone who hadn’t had anything to do with the church for the last seven years,” Southerton wrote.

    Southerton plans to appeal the decision to the Mormon church’s Salt Lake City-based leaders, known as the First Presidency.

    Ultimately, if the decision stands, Southerton’s name will be removed from official church rolls in Salt Lake City.

    Southerton’s excommunication makes him the seventh author from the Salt Lake City-based Signature Books, a publishing house for Western and Mormon studies, to be released from the church after publishing a work critical of Mormon beliefs.


    Here is the story that Martin was referring to. Whatever this janet person might say, these are the FACTS, that many authors are being ex-communicated for dis-believing the ‘official’ church history propagated by the current church hierarchy. Why did they pursue this man for adultery, when smith was doing it with knowledge of the church for years? How hypocritical is this? The man admitted his apostasy, but the church would not pursue it, even though they had no proof of the adultery. Again we see the devious and loveless tactics of a cult worried more about image than it’s members.

  31. grindael says:

    Perhaps Ralph

    You ought to re-evaluate the DNA quotes I used above from MORMON Thomas Murphy:

    “So far, DNA research has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Instead, genetic data have confirmed that migrations from Asia are the primary source of American Indian origins… While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested in the Book of Mormon.” – Thomas Murphy, Mormon anthropologist, American Apocrypha, 2002, p. 47-48

    These are MORMONS making these claims…why? Here is a quote from the MRM site:

    “While speaking on this subject at the 2002 Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City, Murphy cited others who have come to conclusions similar to his. For instance, Dr. David Glenn Smith, a molecular anthropologist from the University of California Davis, said, “Genetic research, particularly that using mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers, provide quite emphatic refutation of any such relationship between Jews and Native Americans.”

    Murphy closed his remarks by asking, “Now what do we as Mormons do? We’ve got a problem. Our beliefs are not validated by the science.” Murphy believes that Mormons have a moral and ethical responsibility to relegate this notion as a “mistake of men.” http://www.mrm.org/dna

    Obviously all the evidence is not in on the BIBLE, but as Christians we believe it. Mormons are the ones tearing down their own BOM because they see the TRUTH. Smith & his statements about all the descendants of this continent coming from Lehi or Hebrew (middle eastern migrations) are just wrong.

  32. grindael says:


    For a great video on DNA vs. THE BOOK OF MORMON, GO HERE AND WATCH IT FREE:


    Do not let other Mormons sway you with redundant disparagings of the Bible, which IS the WORD OF GOD.

    Take the Challange: Pray to Jesus and make HIM the centerpiece of your life, not the mythical BOM and the false prophet Joseph Smith.

  33. grindael says:

    To Clarify

    “And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.” -Helaman 3:8

    The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.” -Mormon 1:7 about 322 a.d.

    Many LDS writers, including Apostles & Prophets, have emphatically stated these ‘scriptures’ to be true.

    In the light of ‘millions’ of people, & building covering the whole face of the land (including North America) cf. D&C 54:8 there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, linguistic, archeological, dna, etc. to verify any of the above statements. This is the ‘keystone’ of the Mormon Religion, based upon fiction and shown to be false in every way.

  34. falcon says:

    I’m kind of waiting for Ralph to do his rap on the type of boats the Jews used to sail across the ocean.
    Look folks, the DNA evidence doesn’t matter because in the mind of the Mormon, the (LDS) church is true. Mormons can make anything work. Let’s face it, anyone who can look at Joseph Smith and think the guy was a righteous prophet, ignoring not only his sexual sins but things like the phony BoA, and on and on, isn’t going to snap out of it. It’s the mind of the true believer and as I’ve said countless times, the more absurd the better for the typical cult member. It’s just too hard for them to give it up. So they’ll make it work.
    Having never been in a position that calls for this type of suspension of reality, I have no idea what it’s like. ExMormons like jackg and the others who post here, know what that mind set feels like.

  35. Ralph asked

    So using the ‘DNA evidence proves the BoM wrong’ is shooting one’s self in the foot as it also proves the Bible wrong. Why use it then?

    Why not? Look, there is a large audience of skeptics out there, and we’d be fostering their skepticism by refusing to engage with the evidence (fossil record, DNA etc).

    Further, if we take the theological position that God intends us to search out the truth through what we can see, then we’d be acting un-Christianly not to do so. However, this is a orthodox Christian position that LDS have traditionally rejected in favour of their “revelations”.

    I can’t help concluding, however, that your objections are a smoke-screen. As I posted earlier, there appears to be no reason to promote or defend the BoM other than to establish Joseph Smith’s credentials as a prophet. Following your implied directions, the route you and Janet appear to have mapped out is something like this;

    * Get me to doubt the historicity in the Bible so that I view it as pure mythology

    * Introduce the mythology of the BoM as an equivalent to the mythology of the Bible

    * Move me from a mythological understanding of the BoM to a literal understanding of it, and when I have affirmed the literal truth of it…

    * …believe in Joseph Smith as a true prophet…

    * …and commit my self to Mormonism

    …which is ironic, because you don’t find Mormonism in the Book of Mormon (and its a myth anyway).

    So, I’ve got to abandon the historicity of the Bible in order to embrace the un-historical BoM. I’ll have to ignore what I can see, in order to see what I can’t. Its the topsy-turvy world of Mormonism where black is white, war is peace and love is hate.

    No thanks.

    BTW, I wonder how long I would last in the LDS Church if I got up regularly and said “I believe in the BoM in the sense that it is a myth that has no relation to actual historic events”.

  36. Relating to Ralph’s point about the fossil record, DNA and the Bible, here’s my brief response.

    One of the hurdles we have to overcome is the common perception that the Bible is a homogeneous block of literature that was written by a small group of people at a single point in time. This is a common idea in the promoters of the “Great Apostasy” theory (such as Dan Brown and Joseph Smith), and it usually comes across as “the Bible was re-written by the Council of Nicea in AD325”.

    It’s actually a collection of literature, spanning several centuries, cultures and languages. Some of this literature is clearly intended to be understood mythologically (e.g. the parables of Jesus, which have never beed regarded as actual records of real events), and some is intended to be regarded historically (e.g. the Gospel of Luke). The in-house debate on the creation narratives hinges on whether they are intended to be regarded mythologically or mythically.

    I tend to think the creation narratives are more mythological; my main reason being the symmetrical and poetic structure of Genesis 1. I know that won’t satisfy some of the posters here, but there it is.

    What is important to me, however, is how the later authors related to the writings of their ancestors. I have no doubt that they regarded these ancient writings mythologically (“these stories tell us who we are”), and they may have even regarded them literally (“these stories are an accurate account of what happeded”). Importantly, by NT times the writings of the OT had been established and accepted as authoritative.

    So, what we see in the NT is the authors viewing the same scriptures that we have today, and taking them to their logical conclusion, which is the worship of Christ. As NT Wright argues, the Christian Gospel invites us to live in the same story, in which we come to the same conclusion.

    That’s not to say that this story has no historicity in it, rather that it is a mix of myth and history. Just like me.

  37. jackg says:

    How sad that Ralph has chosen to fight for the existence of the BOM by fighting against the authority of the Bible. Very Mormon.


  38. Enki says:

    “So using the ‘DNA evidence proves the BoM wrong’ is shooting one’s self in the foot as it also proves the Bible wrong. Why use it then?”

    Have you considered that perhaps they are both wrong?

  39. Ralph says:


    So which parts are mythology and which parts are real history – and how do we know or determine this? If the creation and the fall are mythology as you have stated then why does Paul teach that through Adam death came into the world and because of this we needed Jesus and His resurrection, if it wasn’t true? Why does Jesus and His disciples believe in and teach the Creation if it wasn’t true? That is the argument against the BoM – if it’s a myth then why believe in it? So too with the Bible, if its historical fiction (ie part mythology and part true) then why believe in it?


    I am not fighting against the authority of the Bible. I have never said that it is not true. I am pointing out the double standard of the argument against the BoM that it has no scientific, historic or archaeologic evidence so it is false so don’t believe in it – but then believe in the Bible when it too has very little evidence and has been proven wrong in some things by the scientists, historians and archaeologists.


    No I have not considered that both are wrong. I know that both are correct and true and the Word of God. I have received my evidences for this from God, who is the author of all truth, so what more do I need? As I said earlier, I know that some time in the future both books will be shown to be true to all believers and non-believers, and I look forward to that time.


    Thanks for putting in the evidence that it was not just the DNA that got Dr Southerton excommunicated. At least he’s man enough to tell all what he did wrong. And as I said, the DNA had a part to play, but it was not the whole story. It’s easier to rejoin the church if ex’d for adultery than apostacy, so I think they were giving him an easy out.

  40. Ralph asked

    So which parts are mythology and which parts are real history – and how do we know or determine this?

    Its not difficult. You look for the history that can be verified by the archeaological record. For example, if there’s a real city called Jerusalem that had a temple in it in NT times, its not difficult to verify the context of the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.

    This highlights another problem with blanket statements about the historicity of the Bible. Whereas the archeaological evidence for the early historical narratives (or “pre-history”, as some scholars call it) is obscure, absent, contrary or disputed, the available evidence for the later narratives generally confirms their context. I’m thinking particularly of the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles in 721 and 587 BC respectively, and the cultural environment of the NT narratives. So, if you assert that the Bible is not historical, my reaction is which parts of this collection of literature are you referring to?

    Another issue is the use of the term “myth”. I wish I could find a better word, but I can’t think of one. You see, we tend to associate “myth” with “fiction”. I’m trying to describe “a story with meaning”, so the “story” can be historical but the important dimension is the “meaning”. A modern equivalent would be the story of the Anzac landings at Gallipoli in WW1. The “story” dimension relates to the actual events, and the “myth” dimension relates to the Australian sense of self-identity. For the non-Aussies out there, this is THE story that Australians use to tell what it means to be Australian.

    In the same way that “being Australian” means living in the Anzac “story”, “being Christian” means living in the Gospel “story”.

    So, what’s more important, the historicity of the story, or the myth? I don’t think I can answer that adequately, though I don’t think you can have one if the other is completely missing.

  41. grindael says:


    Dr. Southerton’s wanted to be tried for apostasy. The Mormon Church backed off because of what would have come out in the trial. How many inactive members does the church pursue on charges of adultery? It was all about his DNA views, and the way they handled it was loveless and despicable.

  42. Regarding Dr Southerton’s excommunication,

    Even if, for sake of argument, his adultery was the primary cause of his excommunication, how did the charge of apostasy come about?

    Wasn’t it because he posted evidence against a “literal” reading of the BoM?

    The clear message from this is that the LDS leadership have no tolerance for people who prefer a metaphorical or fictional reading of the BoM (such as, for example, the RLDS, as falcon has noted previously).

    So, you have to regard the BoM as a real account of ancient north American history, with genuine historicity, or you get expelled. This puts the question of evidence very much in the spotlight.

  43. PS

    Hi Enki, nice to “see” you again.

  44. jackg says:


    The very essence of Mormonism is grounded in painting the Bible as unauthoritative. Just look at your 8th AOF. Your entire belief system is built on the teachings of JS and NOT the Bible. You might claim that you never said it is not true, but the mere fact that you are Mormon says that for you. If the Bible were truly authoritative for your life, you would leave the Mormon Church and holler for your name to be removed from its records.

    Praying for you…

  45. setfree says:

    Sorry, I gotta put my two cents in here on Ralph’s apostasy/adultery thing.

    “I have met his stake president and found that there was much more to the excommunication story than just him looking into the DNA evidence. Exactly what, the stake president did not say, as that is confidential information, but the DNA fiasco did play a part, but there were other things in play.”

    When my parents ASKED to be excommunicated, they asked for a hearing. In it, they shared the gospel message, and all their reasons for leaving (which were doctrinal, not sin-related). The bishop, WHO WAS AT THAT HEARING, stood up then, in Sacrament Meeting, and told everyone that my parents had been excommunicated, w/o saying why. He and the other persons at the hearing told many people not to talk to my parents anymore. As you might can imagine, Ralph, having done this in a small rural community, the rumors were immediate. My folks had decided to join a polygamist group. My dad had forced my mother out against her will. Etc etc. I’d call this a sin of omission, wouldn’t you?

    My point? that your stake president assured you that there were “other issues” is just EXACTLY what I would expect him to do. This is how the church acts… It’s not OUR fault, it’s… god’s, their’s, someone else’s

    Check out that latest article in Mormon Times about the english errors in the bom being the scribes fault. i’m telling you… it’s the same thing over and over and over and over

  46. Enki says:

    Yes, there is a catholic jesus, the evangelical jesus, the essene jesus, bahai jesus, hindu jesus, the LDS jesus etc. etc….

    I don’t think the LDS faith is any more tolerant of other religions than any other version of the christian faith.

  47. Enki says:

    If you compare two statements you made, there is a conflict of information.

    “No I have not considered that both are wrong. I know that both are correct and true and the Word of God. I have received my evidences for this from God, who is the author of all truth, so what more do I need?”

    “Hell, the Australian aboriginals were supposed to have been here in Australia between 40000 and 70000 years ago. This was done by dating skeletons found in archaeological digs. Now this really contradicts the Bible.”

    I am missing something. What did you do with this information which you say contradicts the Bible?

  48. Enki says:

    “Hi Enki, nice to “see” you again.”

    Thank you for noticing and commenting. How have you been?

  49. Enki commented

    Yes, there is a catholic jesus, the evangelical jesus, the essene jesus, bahai jesus, hindu jesus, the LDS jesus etc. etc….

    Enki, thanks for asking. We’re beginning to cool off here after a fairly hot summer.

    A quick note on the different “species” of Jesus out there.

    There’s actually a considerable consensus of opinion on who Jesus was (his person and his mission) and the environment he lived in, in those religions that regard the canonical Gospels as being better sources than the rest.

    For example, N T Wright (Anglican Bishop of Durham) came to lecture at the Catholic University here a couple of years ago (dang, I missed him), and you can download his discussions with Anne Rice (Catholic, author of the “Christ the Lord” trilogy). I have also finally finished Theophylact’s “Explanation” (Commentary) of Matthew’s Gospel. He was Greek Orthodox (12th Century Bulgaria), and I found his description of Jesus immediately recognizable.

    So, here we have Greek Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants with a common understanding of whom Jesus was and what he set out to do. I guess that’s not surprising if you consider that they are all getting their information from the same sources.

    Other religions differ because they get their information from other sources, for example the Gnostic Gospels. So, it becomes a question of which sources you look to most.

    For me, it’s fairly simple. I rely on the sources that were closest to Jesus in time and space. They have been reliably recorded and preserved in the New Testament, and there is a robust case from the historical evidence that these sources are closer to Jesus than anything else.

    When the best information we can get is in the Bible, why tolerate information from lesser-grade sources, when it contradicts what we know from Bible?

    I know he’s not “my” Jesus, but if someone came along and said Jesus played Scott Joplin on piano, I’ve got to wonder where they got their information from.

Leave a Reply