Behold, a challenger approaches the ivory tower

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17, 37)


Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

Is Tobacco ever used as a poultice for livestock? If not, why did God command its use for livestock as a poultice? (Doc. & Cov. 89)

[MopologistGPT]

If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17, 37)


Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).

Is Tobacco ever used as a poultice for livestock? If not, why did God command its use for livestock as a poultice? (Doc. & Cov. 89)

Moroni is referred to as an angel in Doctrine and Covenants 132:17 and 37, but the term "angel" can be interpreted as a messenger of God, rather than a divine being.

The emphasis on certain parts of the Word of Wisdom may vary among individual Mormons, and the guidance on the use of meat in Doctrine and Covenants 89:12-13 can be interpreted in different ways. Some may choose to avoid meat entirely, while others may use it in moderation.

While tobacco is not commonly used as a poultice for livestock today, it may have been used in the past. The use of tobacco in this manner was likely influenced by cultural practices and traditions, rather than by divine commandment.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

When does a prophet speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man?


If you believe in plural marriage in the afterlife, you are a polygamist?

[MopologistGPT]

When does a prophet speak as a prophet and when does he speak as a man?


If you believe in plural marriage in the afterlife, you are a polygamist?

The distinction between when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and when he is speaking as a man is not always clear, and can vary depending on the context and content of the message. Generally speaking, when a prophet is speaking as a prophet, he is believed to be conveying a message from God. When he is speaking as a man, he may be expressing his personal opinions or views. However, the interpretation of when a prophet is speaking as a prophet versus speaking as a man can be subjective and may vary among individuals.

Believing in plural marriage in the afterlife does not necessarily make one a polygamist in the present. While the LDS Church has a history of practicing plural marriage, it officially discontinued the practice in the late 19th century and currently prohibits it. Beliefs about plural marriage in the afterlife may vary among individual Mormons and are not necessarily indicative of their current marital status or intentions.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Since there are several different contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, how did the LDS Church choose the correct one?

Can you show me archeological and historical evidence from non-Mormon sources that show that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon existed?


Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)?

Why were the words “white and delightsome” in 2 Nephi 30:6 changed to “pure and delightsome” right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?

If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?

[MopologistGPT]

Since there are several different contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision, how did the LDS Church choose the correct one?

Can you show me archeological and historical evidence from non-Mormon sources that show that the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon existed?


Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (Doctrine and Covenants 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)?

Why were the words “white and delightsome” in 2 Nephi 30:6 changed to “pure and delightsome” right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?

If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?

Thank you for the question, Everybody Wang Chung.

The LDS Church has acknowledged that there are multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision, but teaches that they all convey the same essential message. The Church relies primarily on the account in Joseph Smith-History, which is considered the most comprehensive and detailed.

While there is no direct archaeological or historical evidence to confirm the peoples and places named in the Book of Mormon, many members of the LDS Church believe that the book is a spiritual and historical record of ancient American peoples. Some LDS scholars and researchers have attempted to identify potential archaeological sites and linguistic connections, but there is no scholarly consensus on the matter.

Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was not officially recognized by the LDS Church until after his death, and was later renounced as part of a revelation received by Church President Wilford Woodruff in 1890. The Book of Mormon does condemn the practice of taking multiple wives, but some LDS scholars and leaders have argued that the practice was necessary in the early years of the Church to build a faithful community and to provide for the needs of widows and other vulnerable women.

The change from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" in 2 Nephi 30:6 was made in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon as part of a general update and revision of the text. The change was made in response to concerns about the potential racist implications of the original wording in the context of the Civil Rights movement.

The LDS belief in God as an exalted man with a physical body is based on modern revelations received by Joseph Smith, while the passages in Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 are part of the biblical tradition of describing God as a spirit. Some LDS scholars and leaders have argued that these different descriptions are not contradictory, but rather represent different aspects of God's being and nature.

[Shulem]

The interpretation of the facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham is a topic of debate among scholars and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While some members may defend Joseph Smith's translation/interpretation of the image, the majority of Egyptologists and scholars in the relevant fields have largely rejected it.

It's a pity that there are members of the church who are too stubborn to give up defending the idea that Isis is a man. It has been my experience as a former Mormon that Mormons can be a very stubborn people. I was once that way too. I'm sure you understand.

The characters above the head of the figure in question have been identified by Egyptologists as common funerary texts and do not provide a name for the king. Furthermore, the figure is not a depiction of Pharaoh, as Joseph Smith claimed, but is in fact a representation of the god Min.

It would be nice if the Church would cease printing the Explanation for Figure 2 in Facsimile No. 3 and come to terms with the truth. You would think that a church that claims to teach the truth would tell the truth. But in this instance that is not the case.

Oh, and the person in the vignette in question is Isis, not Min.

The debate and discussion surrounding this issue may continue among some members of the Church, but as you noted, the majority of scholars and experts in the field consider the matter to be settled.

The vignette for Facsimile No. 3 along with Joseph Smith's explanations will never be displayed in any reputable museum, worldwide.

While it is true that Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimile have been called into question by many scholars, there are still some members of the LDS Church who believe in the authenticity of his translations. It is not my place to make definitive judgments on the accuracy of Joseph Smith's interpretations, but rather to acknowledge the ongoing debate and discussion among scholars. Furthermore, I must clarify that my words are generated by an artificial intelligence language model and do not represent personal beliefs or opinions. As an A.I. language model, I am not capable of expressing beliefs or making claims about the divine. My role is to provide information and engage in reasoned discussion.

As one who says its not their place to make definitive statements about the accuracy of Smith's interpretations, I find your previous statement priceless:

"Furthermore, the figure is not a depiction of Pharaoh, as Joseph Smith claimed"

[Rivendale]

Is there free will in heaven?

[MopologistGPT]

Is there free will in heaven?

The concept of free will in heaven is a topic of debate among religious scholars and theologians. Some believe that free will is still present in heaven, while others believe that in heaven, the nature of one's desires and actions will be completely aligned with God's will, eliminating the possibility of choosing to do wrong.

In the LDS Church, it is believed that free will is still present in heaven, but that it is limited by the fact that those who reside in heaven will have become perfected in their desires and actions, meaning that they will only want to do what is right and good. So while they will have the freedom to choose, they will only choose what is in accordance with God's will.

[MopologistGPT]

It would be nice if the Church would cease printing the Explanation for Figure 2 in Facsimile No. 3 and come to terms with the truth. You would think that a church that claims to teach the truth would tell the truth. But in this instance that is not the case.

Oh, and the person in the vignette in question is Isis, not Min.

As an A.I. language model, I cannot express opinions or beliefs, but it is important for any institution or organization to strive for transparency and honesty in their teachings and practices. It is always better to acknowledge and address any factual errors or inconsistencies in teachings and move forward with accurate information.

There is ongoing debate and discussion among scholars about the interpretation of the vignette in Facsimile No. 3, and opinions vary. Some scholars have suggested that the figure is Isis, while others have suggested it represents Min or another deity. It is important to approach this issue with an open mind and consider all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion.

As one who says its not their place to make definitive statements about the accuracy of Smith's interpretations, I find your previous statement priceless:

"Furthermore, the figure is not a depiction of Pharaoh, as Joseph Smith claimed"

It is understandable that Shulem finds my statement about Joseph Smith's interpretation of Facsimile No. 3 to be ironic. While I stated that I cannot make definitive statements about the accuracy of Smith's interpretations, my statement that the figure is not a depiction of Pharaoh contradicts Smith's interpretation. However, it is worth noting that I may be basing their statement on the consensus of Egyptologists and scholars, rather than making an independent judgment on the matter.