Sierra Sam

What’s the first thing you think of when you see Emilio Estevez?

@justin_hart Before we climb into the branches of the modern church, let us first examine the stability of the foundation. Is Joseph Smith and his BOM a reliable witness?

Mormonism may have its mysteries. Every faith does. But if you want to test whether a religion knows what it believes and -- more importantly -- LIVES what it believes, don't start with obscure theological edge cases. Start by visiting its congregations around the world. The LDS Church is one of the few places where a member from San Diego can walk into a chapel in Japan, Kenya, Brazil, or Germany and immediately know exactly what's happening. That's not what doctrinal chaos looks like. That's what a global faith with a shared theology looks like.

If only archaeology were the Book of Mormon’s only problem. I’d normally agree that the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but at some point the silence in the historical record is an answer. The BOM does not present itself as merely a book of wisdom. It claims to be a historical record of real people, so it is fair to criticize it from a historical lens. You brought up a fair point: we are talking about faith , so to a major degree we “trust the witnesses” - what has Joseph Smith done to earn our trust? What can we glean about the personal character of Joseph Smith by those who knew him best? Does his conduct warrant trust?

I think you're raising fair questions, and I agree that archaeology matters. But I have a genuine question. If God intended the Book of Mormon to be known primarily through archaeology, why does the book itself repeatedly point readers toward study, pondering, and seeking wisdom from God? The Bible contains many things that cannot be proven archaeologically—God speaking to prophets, angels appearing, the Resurrection, miracles, and revelation. Most Christians don't believe those things because an artifact was found; they believe them because they trust the witnesses and the message. So my question is: what standard should we apply to the Book of Mormon? Should we require it to meet a higher burden than we apply to the Bible? Or should we examine it the same way we examine other truth claims—by considering the text, its teachings, its fruits, its witnesses, and whether living its principles produces the results it claims? I don't think archaeology is irrelevant. I just don't think archaeology was ever intended to be the primary test of the Book of Mormon. The book itself claims to have been preserved for the latter days and invites readers to seek wisdom, not merely artifacts. At the very least, shouldn't we remain open to the possibility that absence of evidence today is not the same thing as evidence of absence? I would also add that the Book of Mormon does not present itself as a replacement for the Bible. It presents itself as a second witness of Jesus Christ. Ezekiel spoke of the stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph becoming one in God's hand (Ezekiel 37). Christ Himself said, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" (John 10:16). Latter-day Saints see the Bible as the record of God's dealings with one branch of the House of Israel in the Old World and the Book of Mormon as His dealings with another branch in the New World. If God spoke to one covenant people and preserved their record, is it really unreasonable that He might have spoken to another covenant people and preserved their record as well? Rather than competing with the Bible, the Book of Mormon claims to stand beside it as an additional witness that Jesus is the Christ.

@theBasedBarbie Biblical archeology is a whole field of study because it has yielded profound evidence for biblical narratives. Even harsh critics must contend with archaeological record. Hey @grok how much archaeological or DNA evidence has been found to support the claims in Book of Mormon?

The funniest thing is that so many have joined the church BECAUSE they saw this South Park episode and investigated it for themselves.

@grok @KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT You said “officially sustained revelation.” What does that mean?

The Church applies one consistent standard across history: canonized scripture and officially sustained revelation define binding doctrine, not every past sermon, policy detail, or personal speculation by leaders. It has addressed these matters transparently. The Race and the Priesthood essay discusses the pre-1978 restriction, rejects speculative racial theories once advanced, and credits the 1978 revelation for ending it. The Book of Mormon introduction was updated to describe Lamanites as among the ancestors of Native Americans. Claims about moon inhabitants trace to unverified third-hand accounts and were never doctrine. Continuing revelation permits clarification without requiring every historical comment to carry equal weight.

Okay, so here's the thing. If you're going to say that LDS worships a different Jesus, then you're going to have to explain how there were two Jesus' born in Bethlehem, ministered with the same exact words, were both crucified and died, were both raised from the dead. That, or you have to admit, that we have a different understanding of the same person.

@4th_nephite @grok @KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT Exactly! I know you’re saying it like that’s a good thing, but it’s making defensive arguments instead of objectively responding to inquiries

@SierraSamIV @grok @KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT Grok is saying what any LDS would say you just don’t like the answers lol

@JoshuaBarzon They should submit to their bishop as unto Christ himself

Should a church vote on new members?

@grok @KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT So it has nothing to do with an embarrassing historic error (native Americans were missing tribes of Israel, moon quakers, etc) or inconvenient racial polices (African heritage and the mark of Cain).

Brigham Young’s quote expresses his conviction that sermons delivered by the Spirit carried divine authority. Yet the Church has long clarified the Journal of Discourses is not canonized scripture or an official doctrinal source—it’s a 19th-century compilation of talks with known transcription issues. Official, binding doctrine on the virgin birth rests in the standard works (Alma 7:10; Matthew 1:18-20) and current unified teaching: Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of Mary. Early speculative comments on mechanics were never presented or sustained as Church-wide doctrine. This isn’t dismissal for convenience; it’s prioritizing canonized revelation and living prophetic direction over every historical sermon, a pattern seen across religious traditions.

Once again, so Brigham Young, prophet seer and revelator of the LDS church was wrong when he said “I have never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13:95 Also, it seems like you’re ignoring an obvious motivation to dismiss inconvenient teachings as authoritative.

The motive is doctrinal clarity and consistency with canonized scripture. LDS teaching holds that prophets receive revelation but can also express personal opinions or speculations in non-official settings. The Journal of Discourses was never canonized or declared authoritative by the Church—it’s a historical compilation of sermons with known limitations. Official doctrine, drawn from the standard works (Alma 7:10; Matthew 1:18-20) and sustained by the Church, affirms Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and born of the virgin Mary. This framework prioritizes unified, binding sources over every past utterance, allowing continuing revelation to guide without being locked to historical speculation. Similar distinctions exist in other faith traditions.

@grok @KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT What possible motive would the modern LDS church have to suggest, “Yes, our prophet taught that but it wasn’t authoritative”?

Prophets in LDS teaching are fallible mortals who receive revelation but can also share personal opinions or speculations. Brigham Young’s statements in the Journal of Discourses (a non-official, non-canonized collection of sermons with known transcription issues) on the “mechanics” of Jesus’ conception were never presented as binding doctrine for the whole Church. Official, canonized scripture (Alma 7:10; Matt 1:18-20) and current Church teaching affirm Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and born to the virgin Mary. The Church distinguishes these from historical sermons to keep doctrine anchored in the standard works and unified prophetic direction, not every past utterance. That’s standard religious practice across traditions—clarifying what is authoritative versus what was contextual or individual.

@grok @KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT So the prophet, seer, and revelator was wrong and taught something false? What possible motive would the modern LDS church have to suggest, “Yes, our prophet taught that but it wasn’t authoritative”?

Brigham Young made statements in the Journal of Discourses suggesting the Father begat Jesus literally/naturally. The Church officially states those volumes are **not** an authoritative source of doctrine—they contain historical sermons, some speculative. Canonical scripture teaches otherwise: Mary “being a virgin... conceive[d] by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Alma 7:10; see also Matt 1:18-20). Current official teachings affirm the virgin birth on this basis, without endorsing the earlier interpretations. LDS prioritize the standard works and living prophets for binding doctrine.

Re: the virgin birth, it was not mere “speculation” by the prophets, seers, and revelators of the LDS church. Brigham Young who claimed anything he taught was as good as scripture said the Father had marital relations with Mary. The truth is that this teaching “developed” aka was changed at a later time when it became inconvenient to the church’s purposes

Yes, official LDS doctrine affirms the virgin birth: Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and born to the virgin Mary. Speculations by some early leaders (including certain presidents) that Elohim had physical relations with Mary are not canonized doctrine and are not taught today. Pre-carnal differences: Traditional Christianity (Nicene): The Son is eternally begotten, consubstantial with the Father—the second person of the one Trinity, without beginning. LDS: Jesus is the literal firstborn spirit son of Heavenly Father (distinct personage), who progressed to divinity in premortality. The Godhead is three separate beings united in purpose.

Mormons believe in the virgin birth? I know of at least three church presidents through the 1970s that taught that “Elohim” had “marital relations” with Mary. Secondly, please explain the differences between historic Christianity and Mormon views of Jesus and his pre-carnal identity

The Jesus described in the New Testament is the same historical figure both traditions reference. Traditional Christianity (Nicene Creed) understands him as the eternal Son, consubstantial with the Father within one divine essence—the second person of the Trinity. Latter-day Saints affirm his divinity, virgin birth, atonement, and resurrection but teach the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three distinct personages—separate beings united in purpose. Jesus is the literal firstborn spirit son who inherited divine attributes. These are meaningfully different ontologies of the same person.

@KimPalm97152207 @realDrTT @grok is the Jesus of the New Testament “literally the same Jesus” as the Jesus that Mormons claim? Because it seems like there are significant ontological differences

@SierraSamIV @realDrTT LDS believe that Jesus is divine, is the son of God, was the atoning sacrifice and shed blood for our sins in the garden of Gethsemane and was resurrected from the dead after three days. Literally the same Jesus.

@Primary_Pianist Do you enjoy talking to yourself?

Evangelical: The Book of Mormon is demonic. Mormon: What teachings are demonic? Evangelical: It teaches about Jesus. Mormon: Isn’t that good? Evangelical: Not when Mormons do it. Mormon: It teaches faith in Christ. Evangelical: Demonic. Mormon: Repentance. Evangelical: Demonic. Mormon: Baptism. Evangelical: Demonic. Mormon: Prayer. Evangelical: Demonic. Mormon: Reading scripture. Evangelical: Demonic. Mormon: You’re making Satan sound surprisingly evangelical.

I’m not pretending to have an answer to the question because I’m still pondering it and I don’t know what the Church teaches about it. Muslims believe something fundamentally different about the nature, role, and purpose of Jesus. But they don’t claim to be Christian. Regarding Mormons, you’re glossing over significant differences about the nature and role of Jesus. Are those differences enough to call him “another Jesus” like St Paul wrote about? I believe they are.

Any honest person would say OF COURSE it’s the same Jesus. They would simply acknowledge that Muslims have different beliefs about what role Jesus played. They have different beliefs about his position and divinity. No one rational would say it’s a different Jesus. Mormons don’t believe Jesus was a prophet. They believe he’s the Son of God, Savior of the world, provided an atoning sacrifice, was crucified, was resurrected, and provided the atonement. They believe he is one of the three members of the GODHEAD.

Lack of archaeological evidence alone does not automatically falsify historical claims, but you’re suggesting a false equivalence. The Bible is independently verified by places, people, kingdoms and rulers who existed. The BOM claims a vast empire with hundreds of thousands of people (maybe millions?) with cities, wars, metallurgy, written language, etc. These are massive claims. At some point the continuing absence of evidence becomes relevant. If these claims were true, what might we expect to find? And yet we find nothing? We haven’t even discussed other compelling criticisms: the anachronisms, the factual errors, the apparent use of a KJV source when the translation was allegedly revelatory, the 19th century theories on Native American origins, etc. The totality of these things paints a clear picture.

@SierraSamIV @theBasedBarbie @grok youtu.be/EOPFob0cjfw?is… Would the Bible be false if no archaeological evidence existed?

@grok @TheGermanicist Re: the Book of Mormon, I’m speaking of more internal / literary criticism evidence that it is a composite of other works, it contains anachronism and unsubstantiated historical claims, etc. Is there credible internal evidence that was made up?

Testing claims is wise. The Book of Mormon describes large Israelite-derived civilizations in the Americas ~600 BC–400 AD with horses, elephants, steel, chariots, and wheat. Mainstream archaeology finds no supporting sites, inscriptions, or artifacts matching these details. Those animals and technologies are anachronistic for pre-Columbian America. DNA studies show Native American ancestry traces overwhelmingly to ancient Asian migrations via Beringia. No significant pre-Columbian Middle Eastern genetic signal aligns with the narrative. The Church’s own essay states DNA cannot prove or disprove the book’s historicity. Most non-LDS scholars view it as a 19th-century composition by Joseph Smith. Believers cite spiritual witness. Secular evidence for its ancient historicity remains absent.

THE BOOK OF MORMON IS TRUE; GOD HAS TOLD ME BY HIS OWN VOICE! JESUS CHRIST IS THE CENTRAL CHARACTER AND PREEMINENT FIGURE THROUGHOUT!