Answering a Question About the Book of Mormon

As anyone who might read this blog knows or should know, the Dutkiewicz Family are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or commonly and sometimes affectionately referred to as "the Mormons".

Recently I received a question from a close relative regarding an article which appeared at the following link:

Have you seen this? Curious as to what your take on it is. Honestly speaking, it would appear to me to be yet another example of the many inconsistencies in the LDS doctrine.http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0111az-mormonbook11-on.html

I read the e-mailed question on Friday and thought I would post the question and answer on my blog, as all of my close relatives are not LDS and some are, quite frankly, anti-Mormon and have very strong feelings against our faith. I think it would be fair to say that some of our close relatives would shout for joy if we ever disavowed our faith in the church as they believe that our salvation is as stake because of it.

Sometimes, when such a situation exists, it can be difficult to separate the deep love and affection one might have for a close relative with the deep feelings one might have for a faith. Indeed, when it comes to matters of salvation, who other than our loved ones do we want to share our beliefs and thereby enjoy what we believe is the pathway for salvation? Certainly this is true for members of my faith, and I would imagine for those who suscribe to most faiths, especially those who would espouse the various forms of Christianity out there, as Christ's command to Peter was thrice given: Lovest thou me? Feed my lambs...Feed my sheep. Thus, most Christian churches have some sort of "missionary" aspect to them.

I therefore acknowledge that when I get a question such as this from a loved one, whom I know has a conviction for his or her own faith, I assume a few things:

First, I assume that the person asking is not asking because they really want to learn about my faith for the purpose of someday converting. In fact, after fifteen years of membership in the church, I have come to the conclusion that my family members are not interested in joining the church and that if they are, they have all the knowledge necessary to go about doing that. And after a couple of years of marriage, I have come to the same conclusion about my wife's side of the family as well. We just do our best to live our lives and always try to answer any questions given us regarding our faith because if people are going to disagree with us, it's nice to know they disagree with the facts, and not some anti-Mormon literature they've obtained which they allow to define us.

Second, I assume that because the person asking has no sincere interest in becoming a member of the LDS faith, then there are only two reasons to ask the question: Either a) the person is just interested on an intellectual level about our faith or b) the person thinks that someday, they will bring the right question to my attention, I won't be able to answer and POOF! I'll see the light and renounce my faith. I may be missing another category of reasons to ask such questions if you aren't really interested in joining the faith, but I think these are the two main ones.

That being said, I'm going to answer this question under both frameworks. It's important though that the reader realize that I find no offense in being asked any question about my faith. In fact, there are a lot other more interesting questions to ask me other than the change (or addition, really) of a word in the introduction of the Book of Mormon. If any reader out there is interested, just e-mail me the question at cdutkiewicz@yahoo.com. Please don't use my blog for asking more questions, as the purpose of my blog is for the Dutkiewicz Family to put what WE want on here. I reserve all rights to edit my blog because it is a quasi-journal for me. So I put stuff on here that interests me and my family. So just respect that. No one is forcing you to read my blog, so don't give me any grief about how I choose to put what on my blog.

Now, on to the answer.

First, I take exception to the form of the question, which seems to require me to accept the suggestion that there are any other inconsistencies in the LDS doctrine to even answer the question. I identify such a suggestion as a false premise and reject it. There are no more inconsistencies in the LDS doctrine than there are with Christianity as a whole.

Second, I note that the article is referencing a change that occurred with the 2006 Version of the Book of Mormon. This change took place more than two years ago and the Arizona Republic is picking up on it now? Talk about making "the news" an oxymoron. While I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, it seems convenient that such old news that just so happens to criticize the LDS faith comes up two weeks before Super Tuesday. The comments to the article are by and large hurtful and show the common prejudice people have against our faith.

Third, I will admit to the questioner, no, I did not see that and to be honest, I had no idea the change had even occurred. To us, it is so insignificant that there was no "churchwide" announcement about the "big change" in the introduction.

What's my take? Well, I don't think the change is a tacit admisison of anything. The author cites Thomas Murphy, "a Mormon" who had some harsh criticism of the church, as though if someone is a "Mormon", whatever they say has merit. Many people call themselves Mormon and then go on and do or say things that very non-Mormon. I don't espouse anything that individual said and frankly, neither does the church. There are other comments on there, such as the one by John L. Sorenson, which are not necessarily the Church's either, but I would probably agree with them.

The church's position is apparently found in the quote from the Church spokesperson:

"That change takes into account details of the Book of Mormon demography which are not known," church spokeswoman Kim Farah said, adding that the change will also appear in future editions of the book.

Whether the Lamanites are or are among the ancestors of the American Indians seems to me to one in the same idea. We believe that the Lamanites came from the bloodlines of Lehi, who was a prophet who originally lived in Jerusalem. Apparently, there is "DNA" evidence out there that suggests this is not scientifically possible. Really? So what? Please see this link which opposes that DNA evidence might refute or support the Book of Mormon: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/dna.php?selection=dna&cat=dna

My point though is this: I could care less whether some nerd in a laboratory did a chemistry experiment and determined that something is wrong with my belief. My faith isn't founded on scientific proof. If it were, I would have problems with:

The fact that Adam and Eve's children slept together, produced child after child and yet no maleffects whatsoever occurred, or at least were recorded in the Bible.

The fact that the Bible doesn't adequately explain scientifically how the animals survived on the ark for the amount of time they did.

The fact that the Bible teaches a man lived inside of a whale for an extended period time.

The wonderful fact that a man, a God even, resurrected himself after he was crucified.

These things are all part of the Christian faith and are laughable by the scientific world. But Christians believe them. Why? Faith. We believe that God makes things happen for his own purposes and we do not rely on science to qualify our beliefs. We believe because the Holy Ghost puts feelings into our hearts and we react to them.

For some reason, it is o.k. for mainstream Christianity to believe in something that seems to fly in the face of reason and science, but if a Mormon does that, or even appears to do that, well, it's just another inconsistency of the doctrine. Proof the church isn't true.

That's naive. I would like to discuss the various changes the Bible has gone through over the years, but first I'd have to pick which one. The Bible, which didn't even exist in the form it is now at the time of Christ, has been interepreted various times, and has various forms and versions. Depending on which "kind" of Christian you are, your version of the Bible will vary. I can hear the reaction to that, "Well, the message is still the same, the version doesn't matter." Really? Well try getting a congregation that uses the KJV to switch to the NSV. See how that goes over.

If you made it this far in the post, get a life! But thanks, for reading. I believe the Book of Mormon is true not because there is scientific backing for the claims made therein, but because the Holy Ghost tells me in my heart it is true. Am I concerned about the change mentioned in the article? Nope. I believe that this Church is run by a Prophet who does what God wants him to do. Therefore, if they want to add "among" to the introduction of the Book of Mormon, then so be it. It has no effect whatsoever on my position that it's true, that the Book of Mormon has changed my life for the better, that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and that Gordon B. Hinckley is the Prophet and President of the Church.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for the question.

Dutkiewicz