Part 1 of Debunking "30 Bizarre Mormon Rules You Won’t Believe Are Real"

A Farmington, Utah chapel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

From time to time, some ridiculous and completely wrong article about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes across my social media feed. I usually ignore them. But sometimes, just to get a laugh at how wrong I know they'll be, I read one. 

Here's one that I've decided to pick apart. It's from one of those trashy blogs that exist only for search engines to find and display advertising as you're forced to click "next" 30 times to see the whole article. 

I write this so that at least some counter-answer will be available to balance out the misinformation and disinformation about us. Maybe someone searching for these keywords will come here instead of going there. This is, as Paul Harvey's catchphrase goes, "the rest of the story". In most cases, it's a complete refutation. 

Before we begin, there are two major overarching themes of these misinformed posts. 

1. an inability (or, often, a deliberate lack of attempt) to distinguish principles and doctrine from culture, tradition, or even policies within our faith. 

There are many cultural and traditional practices that creep into every organization on the planet that have little to do with or are even antithetical to their core principles. Those are the works of men and women, not God. 

The same has happened to us over the two centuries that we've been trying to get these things right as a church. We are human beings, fallible to our core, but nonetheless trying to do things the way the Lord wishes them done. We often fail to listen well. We make mistakes, but the Lord lets us learn through them, teaches us, and lets us try again. If He did not, then we would be forced at every turn to do things exactly as He wishes and all free will would be erased. We would cease to be His children and instead become slaves.

In addition, some policies have arisen to handle situations endemic to certain time periods. They were later rescinded, changed, or replaced. Policies are not first principles nor are they doctrines that are based on principles. They are merely rules established for organizational or transient purposes and are not always perfect.

2. a lack of understanding, or engaging in deliberate misinformation, about the distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) and the completely unaffiliated Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS). I have some experience with the FLDS having grown up only 40 miles from their communities and having been an LDS "stake missionary" sent to help some of them escape and convert to LDS teachings. But that's the subject of another future post.

Most of the error-filled points I am quoting from the article below have a mix of both 1 and 2.

You don't have to take my word for any of the following. I invite you to simply show up to a local Sacrament meeting on any given Sunday and see and ask others for yourself.

From: "30 Bizarre Mormon Rules You Won’t Believe Are Real"

1. Passing the ‘Chastity’ Test

Females as young as 8 and up to the age of 12 are asked questions about their sexual knowledge and, hopefully, the lack of it. A Mormon girl must be as pure and white as the driven snow in order to be a suitable life partner for her future husband. Any known form of previous hanky-panky would deem the girl to be tarnished.

The doctrines of chastity in Abrahamic faiths have been pretty well-established for thousands of years. The most concise expression of the Law of Chastity is that nobody shall have sexual relations outside of legal and lawful marriage between a man and a woman. 

So, it should come as no surprise that Latter-day Saints, who profess Christianity (in spite of our detractors' howls to the contrary), also strive to live the Law of Chastity.

Part of doing so requires us to teach that law to our children. This happens primarily in the home, where fathers and mothers are both asked, per their own discretion and methods, and as far as the ability of the child to understand at any given age, to proactively instruct as well as answer questions about what sex is, when it's appropriate, what is appropriate, and how it can bless our lives. 

That goes for boys, girls, women, and men alike. Not just girls.

Another part, on a more minimal level, does happen at church. Materials published by the Church in the past have included chapters on the Law of Chastity and still do. Exactly how that instruction was relayed has always been influenced by external and internal cultural and traditional pressures. It has rightly been a subject of controversy and change for such a sensitive subject being taught to people ranging from young to adult ages.

Ecclesiastically, the priesthood leaders, who have, for thousands of years, been God's designated gatekeepers to specific sacred ordinances, are given the responsibility of ensuring that those who participate in those ordinances are properly prepared and considered worthy to participate. This includes a discussion about all the laws of God that members are expected to follow, including chastity.

When bishops interview adults or youth to discuss their preparedness for participation in baptism, the sacrament, or temple ordinances, those bishops ask questions about members' adherence to the laws of God. 

So, yes, adults, as well as youth, are asked if they keep the Law of Chastity. That's part of the covenants we make from the age of accountability (age 8) and onward. 

Bishops are more trained now than ever before in how to sensitively and appropriately approach such topics without over-informing young people, creating a situation where abuse could be inferred or occur, or creating undue curiosity. In fact, the questions they ask anyone about chastity are very minimally-worded, yes/no types of questions. You can read them all for yourself.

And more safeguards are being added with each passing year to ensure the safety of youth in the presence of an adult priesthood leader who is asking such questions. Our prophet today, as he and other prophets have consistently been in decades past, is outspoken about the evils of all forms of abuse. In our General Handbook, even more emphasis is currently being given to intolerance of abuse in all its forms. And all leaders who work with youth are required to be trained regularly in how to keep youth safe from all forms of abuse.

On to the next one.

2. Hair should NOT be risqué...

Women are encouraged, or rather have to, wear their hair in a way that doesn’t draw attention so as not to shine a negative light on the Church community. A simple pony tail or plaits are the most risque styles that would be permitted. No stand-up spikes or brazen backcomb then!

This is simply not a thing. You can tell by this "listicle" point that the author has never known anyone from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nobody is officially policing women's hairstyles in our church. If they are, then they need to repent of being judgmental. 

In fact, as time goes on, our "For the Strength of the Youth" standards, while not compromising on the intent, have become less specific and more generalized. This is to allow the youth to learn how to exercise their own agency (free will) in tandem with their own personal relationship with and revelation from God.

Even in the early years of the For the Strength of the Youth standards when they were released, and even before it was written down, there was not a doctrine of any kind that anyone could point to that so specifically dictated women's hairstyles. 

Individual members often applied their own cultural and traditional interpretations of the standards for youth appearances. Some members unrighteously judged others for what they considered to be "risqué" styles. But nobody ever lost their standing or membership in the Church over any "extreme" hairstyle.

By contrast, in the FLDS groups I was around as a youth growing up in an LDS town near them, I remember seeing such conservative and non-contemporary hairstyles worn consistently among the women of those groups. And there were very probably individual women who were "sent away" (as they called it) for violating the norms. But, again, that's the completely unaffiliated FLDS group, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Now, let's talk about food.

3. Vegetarian Summer

Officially, Mormons are supposed to be entirely vegetarian as the scriptures state that meat ‘should be used only in times of winter, or of cold or famine’. That means a barbecue of bean burgers and Quorn sausages with a side of corn on the cobs is the only way to eat without being frowned upon.

Again, the author implies that if any member of the Church doesn't fall in line with very strict food rules, that member is imperiling his or her good standing and will be shunned or excommunicated. 

That is simply untrue. 

Yes, we are supposed to eat meat "sparingly" per verse 12 of God's word about general health. 

Those of us who know this scripture and try to live by it, yet love a good burger or porterhouse steak, have this in the backs of our minds as we strive to keep that counsel, however imperfectly. And, if we're being honest with ourselves, our potlucks and food-oriented activities sometimes tend to include too much meat (plus too many sweets). 

If we eat less meat, yes, the Lord will be more pleased with us, and, yes, we'll enjoy "health in [our] navel and marrow to [our] bones". Not strictly following the "meat only in famine" advice is not something that stops us from being able to go to the temple or to be a member in good standing. Though, admittedly, everyone in and out of the church would all be healthier for eating more veggies and laying off sodas and pastries.

On the topic of censorship...

4. Keep Quiet…

The church has a committee called ‘The Strengthening Church Members Committee’ and they keep files on every church member, especially what these members might write. If a member is caught criticizing the leadership, the committee notifies their bishop, who must confront the person about it. It’s a case of button up and shut up if you have your own views.

I'm sorry...the...what, now?

Come on. This is really embarrassing for the author of this listicle. If they had done even cursory research, they would have found that there is literally no such committee with such tasks, nor has there ever been. In the chart of official callings of the Church, there is nothing even approaching or resembling a head of such a committee, as so characterized, let alone a committee itself.

Some have overexaggerated the Church's prerogative to correct individual members who teach false doctrine mixed with scripture in various settings such as Sunday meetings and even at church schools. At various times we've been accused of being against academic freedom and free thought. 

It's an overwrought accusation, though, because nobody has been physically threatened by Church clergy for speaking their minds about anything. It only becomes a problem for their membership status and only when they create a platform of false doctrines and teachings using Church resources to draw others away from the faith. 

At that point, as in any other orthodox religious, or even secular, organization with principles, standards, and rules in place to protect its integrity and membership, the Church has the right to transition that member to non-member status and revoke their authority and privileges. If they change and realign themselves with the Church's teachings, they're welcome to stay or to return to being members in good standing if their membership was previously ended.

If you want to find out more about how the Church disciplines members who unrepentantly stray (and/or purposely cause others to stray) from doctrines and teachings, read this entire section. You'll find it's a process that, if done according to the Lord's manner, is done with love and concern for the member and not in retaliation or with spite. 

5. Missionaries Restricted to Seeing Family

Christmas Day and Mother’s Day were, at one time, the only two occasions where a missionary could go home to see his family. The young missionaries had to spend pretty much every waking hour knocking on doors and trying to convert as many people as possible to the Mormon religion.

The only thing this one got right, and even that's in the past now, is that Christmas Day and Mother's Day used to be the only two days each year of an 18- or 24-month missionary term that a missionary could call home. 

Unless a missionary fell severely ill or was injured, they didn't actually go home. For missionaries serving domestically, they were quite often too far from home for that to be practical or economically feasible. 

For missionaries placed in foreign lands, it was prohibitively expensive and utterly impractical to send missionaries home twice each year. Also, it used to be that long-distance domestic and international calls (if phones were even available in some areas) would cost large amounts of money. So two calls per year was a reasonable compromise to avoid blowing each missionary's allotted budget. With up to 300 missionaries in a given mission, the cost of back-and-forth international travel twice each year per missionary, plus their initial arrival and final departure, would be astounding.

For the several decades that this specific restriction was the case, the policy's higher purpose (again, not doctrine, but policy) was to honor each missionary's (and their family's) sacrifices to send them on missions abroad. It helped to establish in each missionary's mind that they were there to serve the Lord "with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day" and "with an eye single to the Glory of God".

Remember, these were young adults, many of them away from home for the first extended time in their lives. Homesickness is a really difficult thing at that age. At the time the more strict policy was in place, the young adults of that time were more independent and more capable of having those family ties put on hold for the period of 6 months between each phone call. They were instead encouraged to write and mail letters to family members and some close friends every "Preparation Day" (P-Day).

For today's generation of young adult full-time teaching missionaries, the Church has now made it possible for them to have weekly contact, if they want it, via phone or email. This policy was changed to adapt to the circumstances of an always-connected, modern world where communication is inexpensive and, let's face it, where youth tend to be less independently-minded, so as to endure long periods without calling home.

My confession is that I broke with this policy a few times while I was a missionary in Guatemala several decades ago. There were a couple of situations that I felt I could not handle on my own or with my companion and that my mission president either wouldn't understand or be immediately available to help me with. So, I called home and got counsel from my parents instead. It was a decision I felt I was making through the Spirit in order to help myself stay serving in the mission field rather than give up and go home. I was glad I did it and, analyzing it in retrospect, I never would have been sent home, much less excommunicated, because of it.

One more thing on this topic: There are now two major types of missionary service. In addition to full-time teaching missions, the Church is now rolling out a program of service missionary work. 

In a vast majority of cases, Church service missionaries live at home while they serve their local communities. 

They work in soup kitchens, food pantries, homeless shelters, disaster cleanup, and other LDS and non-LDS situations where help is most needed. 

My oldest son served as one of the first local service missionaries in our area and my youngest son just started his service in the same mission as the 21st service missionary called here. 

Neither of my sons has ever been "knocking on doors and trying to convert as many people as possible to the Mormon religion" as part of their service missions. Even full-time teaching missionaries are instructed not to do door-to-door contacting anymore except as a very last resort on a slow day, or when the Spirit prompts them to do so. Our contact work is typically done through member referrals of friends and family who have already opted into receiving lessons. 

So, say goodbye to the door-knocking LDS missionary stereotype.

In Part 2, we'll tackle another five myths.

Part 3 of Debunking "30 Bizarre Mormon Rules You Won’t Believe Are Real"

In Part 1 of Debunking "30 Bizarre Mormon Rules You Won’t Believe Are Real", I covered the first five of thirty different false narratives about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our beliefs. If you're jumping into this current post from a search engine result, I recommend reading at least the first part of Part 1 for better context before continuing. I'll wait here. 😁

All done? Let's get cracking with these next five, shall we?

A group of Latter-day Saint youth sitting in a circle in a yard and playing games together.

11. Same Sex Relationships?

Church leaders in the Mormon faith believe the Bible’s teachings that romantic relationships can only be ordained by the Lord if they are between a man and a woman. They are not allowed to engage in same-sex ‘liaisons’ so that must mean a large number of gay people have to live a lie or go behind the Church’s back – how sad in this day and age.

First, some clarity on the Law of Chastity, which is where our boundaries on this matter come from. If you need a primer on the Law of Chastity, see Part 1 and also "Chastity" in the Church's scriptural topic library.

Until extremely recently (relative to all of human history) this question has never been up for serious debate in all of the history of the Abrahamic faiths. Historically, not one single instance of gay marriage or even civil unions has ever been sanctioned, or recorded as sanctioned, in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic scripture. Other religions, maybe. Animal kingdom sexual relationships, yes. But those exceptions do not do away with the rule God made for all of humanity. His laws don't cease to exist merely because humans break them. And that is all outside the scope of this question anyways.

The Law of Chastity has not changed for us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1995, quite before the present-day tumult about same-sex relationships and gender identity, the First Presidency issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". 

It states firmly, in part, that "We...solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" and "the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

The language on this is crystal clear with no room for equivocation along the lines of making new marriage arrangements outside of heterosexual marriage. Quoting the Proclamation:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

and

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

and

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

and

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Strong words.

People both inside and outside of the Church rebel against this age-old notion of the traditional nuclear family. In fortunate democratically-structured nations, they have that right and we are NOT advocating for any kind of man-made theocracy that formally forces people to only participate in heterosexual unions. We believe only God will rule theocratically in His own way, and that still respects free will, when Christ comes to personally reign on the Earth again. 

Therefore, we recognize the boundaries between the religious, spiritual world we choose to inhabit and the secular, political world we are forced to inhabit. And though we try to respect those boundaries, we are also within our rights as citizens of the nations we live in to have opinions and to express those opinions at the ballot box and through free speech in the "town square" just like anyone else. Those who are agitating for us to be silenced are playing with a kind of censorious fire that sometime in the future may be turned to burn them as well.

Now, about "gay people have to live a lie". That's simply untrue. Everyone who wants to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can do so. Gay people are welcome at church. We love them and want them to be with us. Our General Handbook states:

God’s commandments forbid all unchaste behavior, either heterosexual or same-sex. Church leaders counsel members who have violated the law of chastity. Leaders help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Behavior that is inconsistent with the law of chastity may be cause for holding a Church membership council (see 38.6.5). It can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members feel same-sex attraction and are striving to live the law of chastity, leaders support and encourage them in their resolve. These members may receive Church callings, have temple recommends, and receive temple ordinances if they are worthy. Male Church members may receive and exercise the priesthood.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks also taught:

We seek to persuade our members that those who follow lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender teachings and actions should be treated with the love our Savior commands us to show toward all our neighbors. Thus, when same-sex marriage was declared legal in the United States, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve declared: “The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to love and treat all people with kindness and civility—even when we disagree. We affirm that those who avail themselves of laws or court rulings authorizing same-sex marriage should not be treated disrespectfully.”

Further, we must never persecute those who do not share our beliefs and commitments. Regretfully, some persons facing these issues continue to feel marginalized and rejected by some members and leaders in our families, wards, and stakes. We must all strive to be kinder and more civil. 

But the ancient and eternal Law of Chastity, as well as the clarifying "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", both remain in effect. Our clergy will not perform gay weddings in our chapels or temples. They are simply not authorized by God to do so and would be acting against their authority if they did, making it of no effect eternally. To force them to do it by law would violate First Amendment conscience rights under the United States Constitution and similar laws and rights in other nations.

Additionally, there will necessarily be a conversation between the priesthood leaders and any member who intentionally attempts to draw away other members with any teaching that opposes God's laws about marriage and family. That conversation can result in the person repenting and no longer working against God's laws, or it can end in that person deciding to part from us and pursue whatever path they wish. 

Nobody is forcing anyone to come to church. If any member no longer desires to be governed by God or His laws as we understand them, they are free to leave and be governed by whatever other laws they wish. We simply ask that we be respected in staying and following what we believe God has taught.

This topic is too vast to cover here. To understand more, see:

• His Yoke Is Easy and His Burden Is Light
• Why Marriage, Why Family
• Two Great Commandments
• Loving Others and Living With Differences

Now on to something a little less complex. Food storage.

12. Stock Up

One of the more unusual, some would say bizarre, rules in this faith is that a family should stock up with 3 months’ worth of food in case any untold emergency happens to be thrust upon them. Broken down, this adds up to an extremely large pantry and freezer as well as 48 packets of Haribos (or is that just me?)

I'm always puzzled as to why preparing for the future really trips people up about us. Or even outside of the context of the Church. In times past, it was considered common sense to stash away a little food, drinking water, money, and other resources "for a rainy day". There was nothing controversial about it.

But for some reason, when we do it, it's weird. It could be that people associate "religious people" doing any sort of preparedness (prepping) or even basic self-sufficiency with what they've seen in the media about extremist doomsday cults and even militias. Some even consider it "selfish" and "hoarding". Sure, there are always some people who take it too far. That's true for every human endeavor. But everything we do is pretty tame, common sense stuff. 

Our Church welfare system is the envy of nations. When leaders of other countries are given tours of our food and goods processing and shipping facilities, they always come away amazed and ask for information on how they can replicate such a system for their own people.

Three months of food and supplies don't really add up to "an extremely large pantry and freezer". The author of the post must be confusing that with those of us who decide to stock up for a year or two. In those cases, yes, the pantry has to be enlarged and we typically add another or larger freezer.

Haribos are pretty gross. Not sure why anyone would want that in food storage, except maybe as a laxative. Just my personal opinion. 

13. Under-Clothing

After going through the temple, Mormons have to wear special under-clothing which are known as ‘garments’. They are usually made from silk or cotton and are a reminder to be honest, virtuous, pure, chaste and to keep the Commandments. It is a myth (thank goodness) that they protect the wearer from evil and harm).

Always this fascination with our underwear! Ok, it's pretty simple. People of other faiths wear special or symbolic clothing on the outside as a reminder of what they believe or the promises they've made to God. We just happen to wear ours under our clothing. What's the big deal?

14. Tattoos

These are strictly forbidden if you are of the Mormon faith. Not even a butterfly on your bum or your parents’ initials on your wrist is allowed. The reasoning is because the body will no longer be pure. The few brave soldiers who go against their religion’s wishes, with a full sleeve, are ordered to have the ink removed by laser.

No, not strictly forbidden. That makes it sound like, again, we have police running around pulling up people's sleeves and looking for "renegade ink". Nobody is ever "ordered to have the ink removed by laser" by any church official. Maybe some parents get really upset about a teen getting ink without permission and take them to have it removed, but that's a personal family matter the Church doesn't get involved with at all. 

The basis for this accusation stems from a couple of talks given in two of our General Conference sessions years ago by the late President Gordon B. Hinckley. Taken in the context of what was once considered "normal" (relatively few people engaging in extreme tattooing and piercing), his remarks and cautions made perfect sense both to him and to the majority of mothers and fathers he was addressing, as well as the youth listening to each of those talks.

Yes, times have changed. It seems like everyone in this world has a tattoo or is planning on getting one. At least one beloved and now-prominent member of our Church, Al Carraway, who has many tattoos (obtained prior to joining our faith) has built a social media presence, has written books, and has a speaking circuit talking about her faith journey. Many, many other LDS folks, both lifers and converts, have tattoos. They're still members in good standing. As are our beloved Tongan/Maori and other non-Western members who were tattooed as a result of living in their respective cultures which include tattooing as a rite of passage.

Nobody is chasing them down, tying them up, and forcing them to have laser tattoo removals.

15. Sundays

Forget about heading out to the garden centre for a Begonia plant or meeting up with friends for Sunday lunch and a giant Yorkshire pudding. Sunday is Church day for Mormons and a day of reflecting. That means no tv, no radio, no shopping and not doing anything that might be seen as enjoyment.

Again, there is no Mormon Police force checking up on members about this. Do we hold Sundays, our sabbath, as something to be honored? Absolutely. There are suggested things we are counseled to do and not to do. The main ones are avoiding working or shopping. But we're also not absolutists about what people do or don't do. 

Growing up in my family, we regularly took Sunday drives and stopped to eat at a restaurant along the way. Sometimes, on a three-day holiday weekend, we'd travel further, go to events on Sundays as part of the trip, and return home. Lots of other folks in my small, mostly LDS town went hunting, played sports, traveled, etc. None of us were excommunicated for doing so.

As I said earlier, we were counseled against it, though. That's a whole different thing than what the article writer implies. God wants us to treat the Sabbath as holy. That hasn't changed in the Ten Commandments since ancient times. For Jewish people, that's Saturday. For us, generally, and for most Christians, it's Sunday. But He lets us choose what we'll do. And when we choose properly, we are blessed for it.

Time to end this post, but there's more in Part 4!

Part 2 of Debunking "30 Bizarre Mormon Rules You Won’t Believe Are Real"

In Part 1 of Debunking "30 Bizarre Mormon Rules You Won’t Believe Are Real", I covered the first five of thirty different false narratives about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our beliefs. If you're jumping into this current post from a search engine result, I recommend reading at least the first part of Part 1 for better context before continuing. I'll wait here. 😁

All done? Let's get cracking with these next five, shall we?

A portrait of an LDS family in Ghana.

6. It’s OK To Lie

No one should be encouraged to tell porky pies but throughout the history of the church, it has been acceptable to lie to outsiders to protect the Church. Mormons share the Ten Commandments with Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The commandment about not giving false testimony doesn’t really hold the same ground in Mormonism that it does in the other religions.

No. No, it's not. We never have taught or accepted this, we don't teach or accept it now, and we never will. For an article made of almost nothing but lies, this is a very bold assertion for its author to be making.

Some of our detractors make this claim because they pretend to find inconsistencies in what we say to individuals about our faith as we endeavor to teach the Gospel through missionary work. Or because they resent that some of the more sacred parts of ordinances in the temple are not made open or public knowledge by the Church. Or because they feel that our history is too "messy" for their tastes and that we aren't regularly and openly airing our warts enough before the world. (As if no other religion, organization, or governmental or non-governmental entity has problematic parts in their own history.)

Also, from their perspective, they call it a "lie" when someone who we've just started talking to doesn't get the entire doctrinal "brain dump" all in one session (an impossible task). 

With exceptions for the extremely rare, extremely motivated learners who are the most eager to ask about and accept everything immediately upon reading or hearing it, learning the Gospel, like learning any complex topic, is something that necessarily happens in stages. 

In the Bible, the apostle Paul calls this putting the milk before the meat.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Paul was writing to Greek saints (church members), some of whom not only had no knowledge of Christ before becoming converted but had little to no context from the foreign (to them) religion of Judaism about why a Savior was awaited or even necessary. 

If Paul immediately gave them a complete and total "download" of everything there was to know and said, "See? There! Now you know everything and you can't say I've deceived you!" it would have taken reams of parchment or papyrus and would have come across as pure nonsense. Almost nobody learns well that way. Instead, he opted to gradually ease them into basic concepts and followed up with more as they were willing and able to receive it.

The Savior Jesus Christ was the model for this way of simple-to-complex teaching. But, He also taught the people using parables or stories. Contrary to common belief, these were meant as riddles, not ways to ease understanding using relatable concepts. Jesus stated to his disciples that his intention with parables was to hide His teachings within symbolism that faithful seekers would recognize, but that the merely curious, or his enemies, would not understand. So, to be consistent, the accuser of the Latter-day Saints will also need to point that accusing finger at the Savior Himself.

In all things, people are always encouraged to study and ask questions. The more humble they are in learning, the more they'll receive. Matthew 7:6-8 is clear.

6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

For the person reading this who says "but what about this teaching or that one that missionaries don't cover in detail?" I urge you to consider that literally everything we teach, excluding only the most sacred (not secret) parts of the ordinances of the temple, has been keyword searchable since the early 2000s and available to view online at https://churchofjesuschrist.org. The temple is available to everyone on the planet who gets baptized into the Church and lives according to the commandments of God. 

No lie.

7. Here are the rules on kissing

When it comes to kissing, Mormons have they their own set of guidelines. Teenagers are allowed to pucker up providing there is no passion. The kiss can’t last long (not sure if a stop watch is used) and absolutely no tongues. Hugging and holding hands follow the same rules.

Going back to Part 1 of this series, this seems to refer to the Law of Chastity in general and, more specifically, the "For the Strength of the Youth" guidelines. 

Let's not be naïve or obtuse here. We all know from personal experience that being a teenager was/is a really confusing and fraught time with regard to physical intimacy. It's a total rollercoaster of hormones, lust, and emotion. There are constant pressures from peers, society, and the entertainment world to engage in all kinds of behaviors. Some of those behaviors are within the bounds the Lord has set and others are decidedly not.

In past editions of "For the Strength of the Youth", more specifics were, indeed, given when it comes to kissing (and several other related aspects of intimacy). None of these were founded in puritanic prudery at all. The adults writing those guidelines were fathers and mothers and had, at one time, been teens themselves. They were writing from a practical place of knowledge and experience with those strong emotions emerging at tender ages in themselves. They had seen the devastation that misuse of those feelings led to in their own world. They were trying to spare the next generation the deep sorrows of the negative consequences of unchaste behaviors.

Tongue-kissing, the "soul kiss", or "French kissing" was the one I remember being called out the most. The other two were "petting" (basically all about not touching people's erogenous zones under or over the clothing) and "necking" (basically all about not kissing below the face). But when you think about it in rational, mature adult terms, tongue kissing really does simulate (and stimulate the desire for) sexual intercourse in a way that a simple kiss on the cheek or lips does not. And groping or kissing another person below the face is almost always signaling that sexual intercourse is on your agenda, or will eventually be.

Did I want to engage in these things? Um, yes! I was a red-blooded hormonal teen growing up in the 1980s like so many others around me. But I trusted my parents and leaders who signaled to me that, at least outside of marriage, it was not wise to do so. And, being an observational learner, I saw how other teens went from those behaviors to far more intimate contact very quickly, followed by decisions and consequences they would later regret.

Hugging, holding hands, and other aspects of teen romance were also given guidelines, but not always total prohibitions. The current edition of "For the Strength of the Youth" largely does away with specifics and focuses on Law of Chastity principles, respecting each youth's individual agency, and allowing the youth to study it out in their own minds and make decisions based on revelation and their relationship with God. 

8. Divorce? Not a chance

Divorce is a filthy word to Mormons. The Church considers it a necessary evil although they will accept an annulment (probably if cash is handed over). Mormons have two weddings, one where families are invited and there is the usual food and cake (maybe even a chocolate fountain). The other wedding is the sealing (for ever) of their marriage at the Temple and that seal can never be broken, even in the afterlife.

Ok, personally, I do consider divorce to be a dirty word. In fact, as children of divorce, both my wife and I decided that we would not say that word in our home. If we did so (as a casual reference, say, to someone else's divorce) we would follow that up by apologizing for using the word. It was our way of strongly signaling to each other our total commitment to our marriage and to being "chain breakers". It was one of the best things we ever did at the start of our marriage.

Also, there are not "two weddings". The author of that post is describing the wedding reception that usually happens the evening of or a day or two after the temple marriage. Sometimes that reception will include a ring exchange and/or discussion of marriage promises (but it's not performed as nor is it  considered a ceremony). That is usually done for the benefit of non-LDS family members who weren't in attendance at the temple sealing ordinance.

This business about annulment (a word we don't use) or cash being handed over? I don't know where that is coming from. Our weddings don't involve paying the clergy to perform them. The clergy presides over weddings for free, in all cases. It would be mockery against God to charge a fee to perform such a sacred ordinance. And there's certainly no money exchanging hands to allow divorces. That's just plain insulting.

If by "two weddings" the author refers to civil vs. temple marriage, that can sometimes be the case. But the prophets past and present have emphasized that where permitted by earthly law and a couple's ability to get to a temple, a temple marriage (called a "sealing", as in sealing an eternal agreement between God, man, and woman) is the ideal marriage ordinance every faithful member should participate in.

On occasions when members marry under civil terms first and later go to the temple to also be sealed, the former is only recognized by God as "for this life only". Unless later sealed in the temple, after the couple parts in death, they are not considered bound by marriage under God's law (with an exception noted below). The sealing is recognized by God as eternal in the afterlife if and only if both the man and the woman remain faithful to each other and to their temple covenants. It's a conditional promise, not an unconditional guarantee.

Because we are all flawed mortals, divorce does happen in the Church. Even God knew divorce would be necessary due to our sinful natures. 

Though it is strongly discouraged, it's not (or is no longer) the hush-hush taboo the author of the post claims. And, there are times when divorce is not only allowed, but recommended, especially in cases of abandonment, abuse, and adultery leading to a spouse leaving and living with or marrying another person. All parties in a divorce are carefully counseled by bishops and stake presidents to ensure everything is according to God's law and the wishes of the ex-couple. 

Couples in the church who were sealed can obtain civil divorces but also decide not to have their temple sealings canceled. That was the case for my parents. I won't share the details, but the situation leading to their civil divorce was not one that they felt also necessitated a cancelation of their sealing. They still loved each other profoundly, but couldn't live together in marriage under their particular circumstances. All sealing matters, including sealing cancelations, are approved by the First Presidency of the Church. 

As noted earlier, there's an exception for civil-married-only couples who have passed on. That is done through a proxy temple sealing ordinance they or their descendants can perform "for and in behalf of" them after one or both pass away.

For example, if a man and woman are married by a Justice of the Peace, then later decide to get sealed in the temple (as was the case with my maternal grandparents), they can do so. But if, as with my paternal grandparents, they were married by the law of the land and then both died without being sealed in the temple, their descendants, with next-of-kin permission, can perform the ordinance for them by proxy. Likewise, if one of the civil-married pair still alive wishes to be sealed by proxy to their departed spouse, they can do so in the temple.

By-proxy ordinances are never thought of or taught as forcing a deceased person into accepting the ordinance. Vicarious ordinances are always contingent upon the spirit of the deceased person accepting it of their own free will and choice. We simply do the ordinance as a service so as to make it available for the deceased person. They are free to accept or reject of their own free will and choice.

9. Non-Mormons Don’t Love As Much

Mormons believe that the love felt between spouses and families of ‘outsiders’ is not as strong as for those within the faith. Their views are that they are brought together on this earth for a reason and that creates a higher love. Meeting a partner in Wetherspoons, falling madly in love and living happily ever after cannot be judged as the love between two Mormons.

This is simply absurd. Never in my life have I been taught in any version of any Sunday School, Seminary, or Institute manual nor by any prophet or teacher that I am to love the people of the Church more than those who aren't members. Christ's teachings about loving others come to us from our leaders and prophets and from the same scriptures we read that all Christians read.

Perhaps this accusation springs from non-LDS people who, from the outside of our faith looking in, see us socializing in ways that are different from how we socialize with them. That's more a function of typical in-group psychology all humans engage in and has nothing to do with the Gospel we believe in. It is decidedly not the case that we've been taught to love others less. 

We have dear, dear friends who are not members of our church but with whom we have vacationed, have frequent get-togethers, and otherwise treat as family members. They are a de-facto aunt and uncle and their kids are like cousins to our kids who, being born of two only-child parents, won't have the blessing of by-blood, first-degree aunts, uncles, and cousins. If you asked these friends if we treat them "less" than we do our LDS friends, they would laugh loud and hard in your face. Especially since we invite them to LDS get-togethers and out to eat with our LDS friends, who they also love to be with. We've, of course, shared our beliefs with our friends and they have politely declined to follow us in it, but that is of zero consequence to how we all continue to treat and feel about each other.

10. Marrying Age

It is quite usual for Mormons to marry in their late teens so much younger than the rest of the British and American population. Once the man has completed his missionary work, at the age of 18, he sets his sights on finding a wife. There is no need for him to register on Tinder as there will be an abundance of females that he knows in the Church and one of them will win his heart.

There's so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start. I guess I'll start in the middle with the age of completion of missionary service. Young men can begin missions at 18 and young women can begin at 19 but they never end missions at those ages. Missions usually end at 20 for men and 21 for women. Or older depending on if they waited to go to college for a bit before starting their missions.

Marriage in one's late teens almost never happens anymore. It once did, up to 100 years ago, when the necessity to be getting on with life and establish yourself was more urgent, and cultural norms allowed for it under parental guidance. But as society progressed in marrying ages, so, respectively, did the young men and women of our Church in their marrying ages. Even though per capita we still, on average, choose to get married younger than society at large, it has never stayed static. We move in the same river as the rest of humankind. We just tend to row against it a little more.

In fact, we have (for better or worse) whole congregations dedicated to being just for single young men and young women, both before and after serving missions, to attend. The idea is to give them a chance to meet and serve together in their own age bracket of 18-30 years of age. In so-called "family wards", serendipitous meetings of single people in this age bracket is noticeably less likely, so it makes a certain sense to put them together in a "singles ward" setting. 

Increasingly, though, singles wards are waning in popularity as well as effectiveness in helping people find their future mate. Some just are not ready for marriage and they postpone it. Others are looking to finish their educations and build their careers, which can put some past the age-30 threshold for continuing in attending young single adult wards. (Contrary to popular belief, we do find it weird for a 30-year-old to be looking for dates among 18-21-year-olds...it happens, sometimes, but not as often as some people think).

Online apps are becoming a popular avenue for single LDS people to meet. Most prefer LDS-oriented dating apps like Mutual (not owned by or affiliated with the Church) because it helps them find like-minded dating partners more quickly. But there is still a significant number of young single adults who use Tinder and other non-LDS-oriented dating apps to look for their soulmates.

Time to end this post, but there's more in Part 3!

New LIDAR Survey Uncovers Major Mesoamerican Structures

ALFONSOBOUCHOT/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS (CC BY-SA)

LIDAR keeps bringing us new and interesting discoveries. This time, in the digital unearthing of over 32,000 square miles of land in Mexico. 

Scientists have uncovered nearly 500 Mesoamerican monuments in southern Mexico using an airborne laser mapping technology called lidar. Dating as far back as 3000 years ago, the structures—still buried beneath vegetation—include huge artificial plateaus that may have been used for ceremonial gatherings and other religious events.

Also:

The analysis resulted in the discovery of 478 formal complexes—many new to science—the team reports today in Nature Human Behaviour. Several of these monuments had the same layout as Aguada Fénix, including an even more ancient Olmec site in San Lorenzo. Researchers continue to argue over whether the Olmec, which predate the Maya, are more of a mother or sister culture to them. The researchers estimate these Olmec and Maya complexes were built between 1100 and 400 B.C.E., and would have been used for ceremonial gatherings.

Long discredited now is the argument that there aren't nearly enough structures in Mesoamerica to serve as evidence that a large and complex population once occupied the area as possible evidence of the Book of Mormon's claims.

Record-Keepers in the Book of Mormon - Downloadable Chart

Becca Wilson Jones created the images below and gave permission for all to print, download, use, and share. I have not fully verified what is in the chart, so please do your own research. I merely had a few moments in my day to post it so that I could come back to it later. 

And, so that it might possibly help some who believe the Book of Mormon to be the work of a man and not of God. I simply cannot fathom how Joseph Smith, being so unlettered and unlearned as he was, could produce such a complex work that includes this complicated transfer of record custody across such a long span of time. If I, having a greater secular education than many in his time period could have ever imagined (which isn't saying much for me relative to others in my own time, actually) would have struggled to produce this kind of writing, how, indeed, was he able to do so without help from God?

White Background for Printing

Black Background Option

What Evidence Exists of the Book of Mormon’s Authenticity?

Here is a super-list of multiple evidences, links to which I’ve gleaned from the excellent EvidenceCentral.org website, that point toward the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. For all the people who've ever asked or will ask me to show them evidence of the Book of Mormon being a true work of scripture and not a fictional story, this list is for you. To criticize the book in an intelligent and thoughtful way, you must first go through the entire list and read and understand everything as if you mean to speak credibly.

If he made it all up, how could Joseph Smith possibly have been so "lucky" to guess all these things so correctly in all of his writing? Especially if much of this scholarship appeared over a century and a half after he translated the Book of Mormon. Indeed, God must have prepared the record for him and at that time to "confound the wise" (or those who think they are wise) as to its true origin.

As always, I emphasize that the ultimate experience of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is to read it, pray, and ask Heavenly Father whether it is true. If you do so with sincere intent to follow God’s commandments, you will know that it is true. However, if your intent is less than sincere, i.e. to continue to malign Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it will be difficult to hear the Spirit of the Lord speaking the truth to you.

• Ancient Literary Features

• Calendrical Patterns
• Editing
• Repetitive Resumption
• Subscriptio
• Egyptian Writing
• Parallelisms
• Chiasmus
• Gradation
• Poetry
• Arabian Desert Poetry
• Nephi’s Psalm
• Politeness Formula
• Prophetic Perfect
• Simile Curses
• Testament of Lehi
• Wordplays
• Iron Rod/Word of God
• Irreantum
• Wordplay on Benjamin
• Wordplay on Enos
• Wordplay on Jershon
• Wordplay on Noah
• Wordplay on Zeezrom 

• Ancient Records

• Codices in Stone Boxes
• Doubled Documents

• Biblical History

• Many Prophets
• Mulek

• Complexity

• Doctrine
• Christ’s Gospel
• Remember and Forget
• Editing
• Book of Ether
• Editorial Promises
• Previews and Summaries
• Small Plates Pattern
• Intertextuality (External)
• Bands and Chains
• Christ’s Priestly Blessing
• Didache and Moroni 2-6
• Isaiah/Micah in 3 Nephi
• Intertextuality (Internal)
• Alma’s Conversion
• Ether's Genealogy
• Fulfilled Prophecies
• Historical Context for Moroni 9
• Jaredite History
• Lehi and Zenos
• Limhi's Words
• Mosiah-First Translation
• Sermon at the Temple
• Narratives
• Flashback (Alma 56-58)
• Flashbacks (Alma 17-27)
• Flashbacks (Mosiah 9-24)
• Narrative Symbolism of Apparel

• Culture

• Customs and Ceremonies
• Blessing Food
• Infant Baptism
• Long Quotations
• Sacrifices and Cannibalism
• Scourged with Faggots (torches/firebrands)
• Festivals and Holidays
• Autumn Festival
• Covenant Renewal Formula
• Mosiah's Coronation
• The Passover Tradition
• Gestures
• Falling Down
• Hand Gestures (ANE)
• Hand Gestures (Mesoamerica)
• Government
• Divine Deliverance
• System of Judges
• Views of Monarchy
• Law
• Apostate Cities
• Cursing with Speechlessness
• Military Exemption
• Slaying of Laban
• Thieves vs. Robbers
• Zemnarihah's Hanging
• Sacred Numbers
• Lehi's Seven Tribes
• The Number 10
• The Numbers 12 and 24
• Symbols
• Engraven Image
• Symbolic Time
• Tree Growing from Heart
• White/Light Fruit
• Traditions
• Primordial Monsters
• Shining Stones
• Warfare
• Burning Cities
• Cimeters
• Geurilla Warfare
• Seasonal Warfare
• Total Warfare

• Fulfilled Prophecies

• Prophecy of Columbus
• Prophecy of the Three Witnesses

• Geography

• Jerusalem's Elevation
• Land of Jerusalem

• Material Culture

• Art and Construction
• Cement
• Early Ceramics
• Highways
• Large Stones
• Markets
• Nephi's Garden and Tower
• Olmec Iron
• Thrones
• Watch Towers
• Food and Crops
• Barley
• Wine and Vineyards

• Plates and Artifacts

• Composition of the Plates
• Sword of Laban
• Urim and Thummim

• Science

• Snake Infestation
• The Beheading of Shiz

• Translation

• Earliest Manuscripts
• Joseph Smith's Education
• Rapid Translation

• Witnesses

• Martin Harris

Does DNA evidence directly disprove the Book of Mormon?

In "DNA reveals we are all genetic mutts", David Reich, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, talks about how migration shaped human populations. The TL;DR for people who want to know the "yes" or "no" answer to my post title is: 

"It's complicated."

Read the article.

One question genetics can’t answer, he said in response to an audience question, is exactly how population replacement happened. “In the case of Britain after 6,000 years ago,” he asked, “did new people come in and kill the old ones, or just crowd them out? 

We just don’t know. What genetic data does is provide facts about movements of people and changes in groups. We are not the experts to describe how that happened.” 

One important takeaway from this study, he said, is that humans inherently derive from mixed ancestry.  

“No population is, or ever could be, pure,” he said. “Ancient DNA reveals that the mixing of groups extremely different from each other is a common feature of human nature. We do not live in unusual times; profound events have occurred in our past. We should learn and feel more connected from that.”

I don't feel particularly like going into the details of why people are wrong when they say the Book of Mormon isn't true is because Native American DNA doesn't have any Jewish DNA mixed in. It's all been covered in much better detail and depth elsewhere. So, enjoy the links below.

The Book of Mormon and DNA Studies

Basic principles of population genetics suggest the need for a more careful approach to the data. The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas. Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples, and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected. For these same reasons, arguments that some defenders of the Book of Mormon make based on DNA studies are also speculative. In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans

Our findings reveal that western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans.

Are all Native Americans descendants of Lehi?

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups. At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after. [emphasis added]

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Joseph’s wife Asenath, daughter of Potipherah priest of On, is the ancestral mother of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 46:20). While her genealogy is unknown, there is no reason to believe that her mitochondrial lineage or that of her descendants, including the Lehites, would have matched that of the tribe of Judah. The presence of mtDNA types in Native Americans that do not match those found in modern Jewish groups is fully consistent with both Book of Mormon and Bible accounts. [emphasis added]

LiDAR Survey Sheds Even More Light on Book of Mormon Authenticity

For decades, critics of the Book of Mormon have made the evidence-free claim that “all” the ruins we could find in Mesoamerica have already been discovered and that nothing resembling a Book of Mormon-like civilization could have existed, does now exist, or would ever be found. Furthermore, the idea of large fortifications and centuries of large-scale warfare just weren’t evident in the archaeological record the way the Book of Mormon says.

National Geographic and the PACUNAM LiDAR Initiative, likely unwittingly, beg to differ with that assessment. 

In February 2018, National Geographic broke the story of the PACUNAM LiDAR Initiative, a sweeping aerial survey of some 800 square miles (2,100 square kilometers) of the Maya Biosphere Reserve in northern Guatemala. Using revolutionary laser technology, the survey revealed the long-hidden ruins of a sprawling pre-Columbian civilization that was far more complex and interconnected than most Maya specialists had supposed.

How very wrong these critics were. We haven’t discovered a tenth of what is yet to be found. And I am confident that, within my lifetime, someone will finally find a written record of something or someone in Mayan history that directly references an event, person, place, or thing from the Book of Mormon.

Archaeologists guided by laser images of a remote region of northern Guatemala have discovered 20-foot-high walls, watchtowers, and other evidence that ancient Maya societies waged large-scale warfare over many years. The finds have upended long-established impressions of a civilization that tamed the jungle and built thriving cities, then declined and disappeared beneath the dense tropical forest.

Among the most startling discoveries was a large fortress complex now called La Cuernavilla. Built on a steep ridge between the Maya cities of El Zotz and Tikal, the heavily fortified site included high walls, moats, watchtowers, and caches of round stones that likely served as ammunition for warriors’ slings. It is the largest defensive system ever discovered in the region, “and possibly in all of the ancient Americas,” says Stephen Houston, a Brown University archaeologist and Maya scholar.

As a side note, I love the symbolic completeness of how these new discoveries are coming to “light”. It’s literally a tightly coherent light from the heavens cutting through the obscurity of the forest canopy and revealing truths hidden underneath. Isn’t that how the truth about God is always obtained? Through revelatory light from Heaven? And could it be that God has just a bit of a sense of humor in how we are coming to these new scientific truths?

Is the Book of Mormon a Forgery?

One more time for the people in the back with their tar and their feathers.

The Book of Mormon's Grammar Isn't So Strange...If You're From the 14th Century!

Something even lifetime Mormons have been aware of with the Book of Mormon is the seemingly awkward phrasing of some passages and sentences of the Book of Mormon. To our modern ears, they don't seem to fit the way people speak or write today.

Critics of the Book of Mormon have long held that the Book of Mormon's phrasing is the simplistic product of Joseph's unlettered mind trying to grasp at the language of the King James Version of the Bible.

But, as it turns out, according to new studies of the language and grammar of the Book of Mormon, the phraseology isn't all that bad. If you lived in the 1500s, it was perfectly natural, in fact.

Several sections of The Nature of the Original Language are dedicated to showing that virtually every expression that scholars and critics have proposed as representing the language of Joseph Smith’s time turns out to have existed in earlier English, including such striking expressions as “to endure the crosses of the world” and “to sing the song of redeeming love.” Some of these, indeed, are truly archaic expressions that died out of English prior to 1600 and that would, accordingly, not have been used by Joseph Smith in his own language. 

Nineteenth-century critics of the Book of Mormon typically mocked what they viewed as the Book of Mormon’s inelegant phraseology. For instance, the Rev. Alexander Campbell, in his blistering 1831 critique of the Book of Mormon, identified 121 of what he derided as “Smithisms.” Yet it turns out that all but one of them occurred in Early Modern English. In fact, some of them actually occurred in the King James Bible, but somehow Campbell, famed as a biblical scholar, failed to recognize them.

In his research, Royal Skousen identified 80 word uses, phrases, and expressions that didn't exist in Joseph Smith's time but were common up to three centuries prior.

So, the Book of Mormon is not a crude copy of the King James Bible language usage after all, as its critics have supposed, but was received in a direct translation using actual 1500s King James English, such as was not spoken in Joseph Smith's time at all. There's simply no other explanation, unless one wants to argue that Joseph was not unlettered, but rather a brilliant linguist who had the only copy of archaic idioms and grammar that other scholars of his time were not aware of.

It's almost as if God is challenging the learned of the world to figure out this mystery of how Joseph Smith got so many things right that people thought were so wrong for so long. The answer, for those who have the eye of faith, is that the Book of Mormon was given by direct revelation in exactly the way God intended it to be delivered.