Back to Mormonism Researched Page

Have you Witnessed to Jim Spencer Lately?

Analyzed by Kerry A. Shirts

(A Brief note of importance - I attend Mr. Spencer's seminars as I can. He is usually presenting them with Ed Decker. The last I went to was at the Westbank in Idaho Falls on the gorgeous falls of the Snake River. When Mr. Spencer stood to speak, the microphone started squealching and squealing with ear-piercing frequency! It hurt our ears! Mr. Spencer slapped it and it quit. He started talking again and it squealched again! He grabbed it and it went totally dead. He put his hands on the microphone and ***commanded in the name of Jesus Christ and with the true Priesthood that he held, that the Microphone work.*** It stayed totally silent and dead for the rest of the night! A phenomenal demonstration of how seriously bankrupt this poor chap is... To be sure, that was the sermon. At least in my eyes he proved beyond all doubt there is nothing to fear from his vaunted arrogance and criticism of Mormonism. He had to cut his talk short in fact because he was so tired of speaking so loudly! The crowd was several hundred strong. To be sure, a significant event, and one which directly led to me finishing this review...One more thing. The sources in the Endnotes need serious looking into by critics and Mormons alike. It is time we start learning just what is available. I was curious if I could pull off a rather thorough analysis of some of the more obvious points of interest in his books with my own library. The sources I have, by no means exhaustive as I know I have missed several thousand(!), yet there is enough here to keep us busy for absolutely years. I have been into this stuff for around 16 years now and am amazed at how much there is. Not in my library, no, in the subject(s) that are discussed in critical circles, yet the vast majority of these sources are always ignored, with the result, I believe, of a very incomplete analysis of the issues in Mormonism. There are infinite possibilities, and the sources indicate just how shallow critics have been and continue to be. It is time to get serious and call the critics on their claims! Jim Spencer never refers to FARMS, yet he knows they exist, as he has asked L. Ara Norwood, a steady contributor to FARMS about the Book of Mormon - see FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 1, 1989, p. 85, where Norwood acknowledges that Spencer has been asking about Sorenson's and others geographical theories on the Book of Mormon. The other interesting aside, is if Jim Spencer now thinks the Tanners are "Demon-possessed" does he still subscribe to their arguments against the Book of Mormon? He certainly relied on them heavily in his research. We have yet to see an update from Mr. Spencer, for his using "Demon-possessed" materials to prove his own points against Mormonism! I have tried in this analysis to use as many Non-Mormon sources as feasible to establish my various points. I refer to hundreds of them, as well as hundreds of Mormon sources. I believe it is necessary to let all have their say, something Mr. Spencer studiously ignores and tries not to do, as you will see.)

James R. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, Tarrytown, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company: Chosen Books, 1984, 179pp: Have you Witnessed to a Mormon Lately?, Tarrytown, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company: Chosen Books, 1986, 212 pp.

This modest analysis will tackle two interrelated books by the apostate from Mormonism, Jim Spencer, both relatively short in length and easy to read. Why review these two particular anti-Mormon books? My main reason lies in Mr. Spencer's second book, Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately? (hereafter cited as Witnessed). The "Author's Note" (p. 11) claims that many thousands of letters have been written to Mr. Spencer, many of them from Mormons, who have said that his first book Beyond Mormonism: An Elder's Story, has helped them really understand Mormonism, and helped them "sever the myriad gossamer threads of unholy doctrine."

Lets Meet Mr. Spencer!

I had the good luck of conversing with Mr. Spencer personally after which he gave me a complimentary copy, so why not read it? I wasn't overly impressed the first time through it, and now with his second book claiming that his first book was so very effective on Mormons, I was curious to find out what was in both of them combined, that impressed the Mormons. I believe Mr. Spencer is fudging. I find it utterly gullible to believe his report and it is more likely that he is making up the tremendous influence on supposedly powerful thinking and researching Mormons. Making things up has been done before you know.[1]

What I found in just a few hours of reading and a few more days of researching was nothing strong at all, rather a blase, quite unsound, and high fah-looting sort of writing going on here. This is not a strong case against Mormonism, not by a long shot! In fact, this is one of the very weakest and most inane anti-Mormon pair of books in print on my take.

Mr. Spencer has yet to do the real homework involved with discussing the scriptures, especially the Book of Mormon and Bible Textual Criticism. I know of absolutely no sound Bible scholar who would agree with what Mr. Spencer says concerning Textual Criticism. It is not only time for we Mormon Christians to show why we don't accept this type of ludicrous argumentation, but it is time for Non-Mormon Christians as well to take a second look at this type of bleeting also. Does Mr. Spencer honestly represent current Christian thinking? I fear for Christianity if this is so. It is time for Mr. Spencer to justify to his readers why he is wasting so much of our natural resources (the trees for paper on his books and newsletters) incorrectly stating the issues, completely (I cannot over-emphasize this enough as you will see) misunderstanding the doctrines, approaching the history of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, and anything else to do with Mormonism with skewed methods and research using muddy gossip or simply repeating that which has been thoroughly answered already.

In other words, Spencer wants to make a buck. Big deal. I bet he wouldn't last very long on the Internet where real Mormon scholars can show him how utterly silly his arguments are. I, for one, am starting the process with this review, (whoopie!) others can take over from here, though it is doubtful if the time is well spent, and I'll have to answer to my personal Savior, for wasting so much of my time reviewing lame-brain arguments. But then, I have my free agency, and it's fun to show how utterly inane anti's become once they leave the church and go off on their own ways thinking now they are free thinkers, big, wise, strong-minded men and women who now... now... can begin to think, only to fall flat on their faces and bloody their noses, all the while swearing up a storm, complaining that some secret Mormon or other really tripped him! Oh my! Or something... anything like that to make Mormonism look stupid, insipid, nay the more ridiculous, the better, when in reality they themselves are to blame. So I guess I am not wasting my time, as the blame, being shifted onto Mormonism, is rightfully exposed for the shameful sham that it is. In other words, Mormonism is not the fault, the subjective views of critics is what they try to use to make Mormonism look as stupid as possible, with no regard for truth and reality.

Technically, the trouble with his second book is that the names were changed to protect the guilty [that's right, I said guilty] who wrote him and bragged his books opened their eyes. We have no "objective" (one of Mr. Spencer's very mostest favoritest words, and he hasn't a clue as to its real meaning. I kid you not! I'll be showing you here very shortly how this guy simply uses clown arguments with this word) way of knowing and testing if these letters were really written by so many Mormons, or if they have been made up to add extra weight to Jim's supposed credibility.

No matter, I find that, ironically, Mr. Spencer seems so interested in keeping his reputation untarnished, all the while tarnishing it beyond repair all by hisself![2] His poorly researched (he uses an Idaho Falls newspaper.... newspapers(!) to help him establish truths about Mormons). Oh now, there is a fine example of "objective" sources. Who west of Bulgaria is not aware that newspapers are the utter epitome of precise and skilled research? Right? Tell that to any Dead Sea Scrolls scholar who has read the silly things newspapers say about their studies! Oh for howling giggles!

Mr. Spencer - Authority because He Has the Inside Dope?

Jim Spencer wants us to know that he is an authority on Mormonism, since, of course, he used to be on the inside (ooooooo! shades of some mystery book or other! The name has been changed so you can't read it anymore than you can read the names Jim keeps hiding in his book as to who the Mormons were who wrote him, sorry, but this is Spencer policy, and I must obey).

In Beyond Mormonism, he lets us know that while he was a Mormon, he was fiercely active holding many important church positions. He even taught "the largest and most popular classes in the community."[3] Why, he even had a Gospel Doctrine class with 100 members attending, some of which were the Stake President and the Bishop mind you. No messing around with Mr. Spencer, he knew his stuff! (I wonder if there were really that many people in his ward there in Sugar City, Idaho, population 106, or there abouts, in the 1970's?)[4] No wonder the Stake President and Bishop were in his class! There was probably only one ward and one Stake, and they were altogether in one building. But Jim loves to puff up things so much more to help his sagging credibility. I mean, think about it! Can just anyone teach the Stake President and the Bishop, all together in one class? Oh the majesty! My goodness what secrets, and knowledge Jim must know! The rest of us poor stupid saps will just have to sit down, shut up, and obediently listen as Jim spins his yarns, for they are true, by implication of teaching the higher uppity-ups you know...such is the picture the critics love to paint......

The first annoying thing about both his books is the lack of Indexes (sheer laziness, and soundly unscholarly), whether subject indexes, scriptural indexes, or author indexes (we know why on this last one. Their names were kept secret - Shhhhh! Those Mormon leaders might find out who they are and.... oh my...... gulp....... excommunicate them!!! Keep the names all hush, hush, but hey! We have a hero in "Diamond Jim" Spencer, who will air our case for us!) This is the type of stuff we are in for folks on reading Jim Spencer's books. All this sorta sinister, evil, dark shadow type of masquerading, but

NEVER FEAR! JIM IS HERE! He's the great white hope, the shining hero, whose contagious smile with glistening pretty white teeth who will take care and whip-n-wrassle those dark, pesky rascal Mormon Leaders for hurting so many of their own kind that there is a mass exit and flood of crowds out of Mormonism! They are losing their congregations daily! Their wicked leaders know no bounds to evil perpetrated on their innocent brainwashed and utterly helpless victim audiences, who upon read Jim's book, and WALA ROSIE BABY! Eyes flutter open from coma-sleep of graceless indoctrination, and occult hypnosis practices (according to Jim) and by the literal gajillions and gajillions, they flock out and look for their savior only to find Jim! Hero at large, ex-Mormon comforter par excellence! (You think I exaggerate the melodrama??? You have no idea! Just you wait! I tell you I have never read anything quite so dastardly and dramatic concerning Mormonism than from Jim Spencer's books... well........., his mentor Ed Decker certainly gives him a run for the money).

Anyway, the lack of indexes is no surprise since we find, not surprisingly, his sources listed as Ed Decker, Dr. (not!) Walter Martin, Jerald & Sandra Tanner, and the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Hal Lindsay, Dave Hunt, Bob Larson and John Ankerberg, all rabidly anti-Mormon to the core, which indeed raises a questioning eyebrow in light of Mr. Spencer's objectivity/subjectivity discussions in his other book Witnessed.[5] That these sources are not the epitome of scholarly objectivity and exegesis on things Mormon has been amply shown.[6] No wonder Mr. Spencer's book is so Sophomoric.

So much of Beyond Mormonism is personal discussion between Mr. Spencer and many others supposedly, that there is no way to "objectively" check on the veracity of the exchanges along with the attitudes displayed between and among people. The picture Jim paints of himself for his readers is that of a typical country bumpkin bum. "I did not look like part of any establishment, civil or religious. I stepped into the smog and noise of Los Angeles with a six-month growth of beard, wearing faded blue jeans, a sweater and sports jacket. A half-pint of scotch stuck out of my jacket pocket. Pinned to my lapel was a small sign clipped from Mad Magazine that read, 'I'm not a beatnik - just a bum.'" (Beyond, p. 13). This "bum" joins the church, becomes one of the most celebrated, knowledgeable Mormons; an intelligent, fair, objective, courteous and thorough student of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, than which nothing is further from the truth, at least judging him from his writings, and religious seminars I have personally attended.

Moonmen and Prophetic Lunacy - of Spencer's Argument

That he blunders into ascribing to Joseph Smith the statement that men live on the moon and then claims it was a prophecy is enough to show how shallow and silly Mr. Spencer's research is.[7] It never bothered Mr. Spencer that the reference he used is dated 1892. Was Smith alive in 1892 since he died in 1844? Things like this don't bother Mr. Spencer. This is Oliver B. Huntington's source who claimed this, and in 1892 long after Smith had died. Huntington based his story on two sources; a description of moonmen allegedly given by Joseph Smith to Philo Dibble, which Huntington later transcribed into his own personal journal in 1881, and Huntington's own patriarchal blessing, given to him, not by Joseph Smith, Sr, as he alleged, but by Oliver's father, William. Thus Huntington's reminiscences are third-hand at best and separated by half a century from the alleged events. There is no direct evidence, however, that Joseph Smith ever claimed that the moon or sun was inhabited."[8]

In fact, though, the idea of plurality of worlds was actually a realistic context for the times. But no, context is not important for Mr. Spencer who labors at trying to make Joseph Smith look stupid, when in fact, it is Mr. Spencer's own research and conclusions that are stupid.[9]

Mr. Spencer Not Interested in Seeing the Real Mormonism

My personal experience in talking with Jim Spencer was the same type of experience which the Browns had when trying to talk to Walter Martin on his radio talk show. He was curt, short, and cutt off any discussion at all. It is the same with many L.D.S. people who try to discuss Mormonism with James R. White on the computer bulletin board called MORMON echo. The cool, mature, polite character Mr. Spencer claims in person isn't necessarily so, anymore than James R. White is cool, mature, and polite.[10]

When I was showing him how Joseph Smith's view of the Bible was the one many scholars are vying for today, namely its incompleteness and being poorly transmitted through time with many errors, he simply cut me off and ordered me out of the building. I wrote him and he replied in his newsletter Through the Maze that he is certain the Book of Mormon is not true and that "Joseph Smith did not write it." This shows how confused he was, because that was my contention! He then went through the various changes in the Book of Mormon as well as challenging me to learn about them with first hand scholarship. I wasn't to believe it because my bishop told me. (hints at why Spencer himself is so unfamiliar with scholarly sources? The reason I say this is because most folks are aware that bishops are not scholars, nor should they be, rather they are humble men of God trying to perform their callings in the ward, not philosophizing in the book stacks in universities.)

To intimidate any Mormons who want to discuss Mormonism with him he wrote "I am, however, not up for emotional rhetoric."[11] Yet he constantly dishes out the emotional rhetoric himself with such statements as "The Zion curtain has cracked," "...the doctrinal abyss of Mormonism," "the insanity of Mormonism," and Mormonism is "a system hatched in hell and birthed in the necromancies of Joseph Smith."[12] Mormons would rather see solid, well researched discussions rather than name calling. Mr. Spencer has none of this type research in his books, uh, other than name calling. His scholarly performance is nil, and at best dismally inept and incompetently incomplete. However, in the intervening years, I have come up with some research that is not emotional rhetoric, so I am ready to review, compare and contrast, whether Spencer is ready or not is irrelevant. He has had enough time to learn. Now... when oh when will he get his own Internet Website?

An "Exhaustive Researching" Into Mormonism?

Mr. Spencer claims he was troubled after seeing some of the inner workings of Mormonism. After exhaustive research he made his decision to leave the church. Exhaustive research? In only ten years of being a Mormon, and a couple of years after he left, he writes two books wherein he cites only 100 sources? I am being very generous in ascribing that large a number. At the risk of sounding self serving, for my Senior Thesis on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in only one semester (11 weeks), I used a bit more than 100 sources.[13-Internet link in footnote] So where is all his exhaustive research? Why doesn't he show us all the ins and outs of his conclusions; his philosophical, logical, philological, scriptural, historical and exegetical analysis? He bought a set of Journal of Discourses, as well as the Documentary History of the Church and searched them for only six months and concludes that everything is wrong in Mormonism!?[14] Is he kidding? Is he serious?! Six whole months! My oh my!

He only cites the Journal of Discourses 40 times in both books combined. Yet while he was in Mormonism, as a careful and thorough student, he had the example of Hugh Nibley, to name one among many, on how to do fairly exhaustive research. He would have profited greatly from Nibley's article "Educating the Saints" wherein Nibley cites the Journal of Discourses some 161 times, at least four times the amount of Mr. Spencer's use of them in over 390 pages! Mr. Spencer knows nothing of Hugh Nibley in his writings.

Mr. Spencer fails to acknowledge the scholarly contributions of the Religious Studies Center at BYU. The Religious Studies Center has been kicking out invaluable research into Mormonism for almost eight years before Spencer wrote his second book after ditching Mormonism. He likewise fails to acknowledge FARMS (The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) contributions up to 1986 in his book Have You Witnessed. He displays no awareness of the many articles in the Improvement Era's from 1890-1986, nor anything from BYU Studies. No matter how many times he uses a genuine historical source, it is second or third hand, and usually from an anti-Mormon book, the least objective kind of book on Mormonism available. This is not objective scholarship, not that I am saying there is such a thing, but Mr. Spencer sure does![15]

He seems oblivious to the current understanding in scholarship of the ephemereal nature of objectivity.[16]

Mr. Spencer's bias shows up crystal clear when he discusses the so-called "Adam-God Doctrine" since he ignores the large amount of research available to him.[17] In line with this type of approach is his describing answers to prayer. At p. 96f (Beyond Mormonism) he says Mormons want you to have a subjective feeling for testimony of truth. All the points of a testimony are invalid because of their subjectivity. Yet what about his own experiences? Didn't Mr. Spencer feel confused? Didn't he, after talking to the Presbyterian minister pray? And didn't his prayer get answered? Why are Mr. Spencer's answers to his own prayers objective, while the Mormon prayers are subjective? He never clairifes this point. He proclaims in a stentorian voice full of power and conviction "I call on my Mormon friends to the enduring Word of God and away from subjective experience." Yet he has made his own abiding decisions in his life, i.e. to change from Mormonism to evangelical Christianity, on the subjective experience of prayer! He can get his answers to prayer mind you, but when a Mormon does, oh this is just a feeling, or else it is not valid for Mr. Spencer or what have you.[18]

Mr. Spencer a One-Time Stalwart in the Faith?

Mr. Spencer wants us to know he was a stalwart of the faith, a pillar in the community, yet on the other hand, the minute some Reorganized folk show up on his porch, he immediately has questions concerning priesthood, polygamy, and plurality of Gods. What had he been studying all his time in Mormonism? Did absolutely no one in the church talk to him about these ideas? That, quite frankly, is a little hard to swallow. There is an abundance of literature dealing with these subjects in church literature as well as from LDS scholars. His being so wishy-washy convinces no one that he was one of the most learned and popular men in the church. It seems as if the minute he is confronted with a question, he starts losing faith instead of doing the natural thing Mormons do, namely studying it out. He is lost and doesn't know where to turn. How, honestly, could he have had the most popular Gospel Doctrine class? Many, many LDS authors are confronted with questions of faith, doctrine, history, etc. And with far stronger questions than Mr. Spencer has raised, and we have their example to show how they handled it.[19]

Mr. Spencer's categorization of himself as a naive true believer doesn't fit at all with the way he handled questions about church members leaving Mormonism, or his problems adjusting to supposedly problem information dealing with, say, plurality of Gods, which B.H. Roberts had definitively discussed and answered, yet Spencer didn't get that far in his research. Why not? The man had ten years. Is Roberts difficult to find? Not at all! Heavens, Spencer went to Ricks College for crying out loud! That is where I personally gathered all my Roberts information. Not to mention Hugh Nibley's James E. Talmage, Bruce R. McConkie's, John A. Widtsoe's, etc., etc., etc. For crying out loud the library has two entire floors of LDS authors and their writings, amounting to several tens of thousands of books and articles. What was Spencer's problem? Simple. He seemed more interested in chess and gabbing than researching when he was at Ricks.[20] He does not betray the mark of a true believer, naive, informed, or otherwise. His actions speak much louder than any hundreds of books he may write, that he was a doubter.His testimony was weak and he never really converted, although he certainly was zealous, or so he says. In fact, speaking of zealous, he even had Hugh Nibley's very article on this subject, "Zeal Without Knowledge," to get him started out on the right foot, yet he seems to have ignored it also.[21]

Mr. Spencer Goofy on Joseph Smith & the Bible

Mr. Spencer's statement "Joseph Smith wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he wanted to throw out the Bible" is totally irresponsible.[22] Spencer ludicrously concludes that "at some point in Joseph's ministry, he penned the eighth Article of Faith in an attempt to cover himself by discrediting the Bible. By taking this position he was saying, in effect, 'When the Bible agrees with me, it is right. When it disagrees with me, it is wrong.'"[23] If this is Spencer's conclusion after exhaustive research into Joseph Smith's life, Bible studies, etc., then I submit that the meaning of "exhaustive" has changed for the worse. Fortunately we have an abundance of Joseph Smith's own writings which Mr. Spencer has oh so conveniently ignored, much to his subjective detriment in credibility.

Dean C. Jesse has gathered the vast majority of Joseph Smith's own writings, letters, diaries, journal entries, histories, etc. and has noted that no one can really understand a person by others' writings about them. The importance of having Smith's own writings is that we can see for ourselves "his expression of his own thoughts and attitudes, his own contemplations and reflections... his moods and feelings ."[24] And what do we find about Joseph Smith's own feelings about the Bible? He was enraptured with studying the Bible. He relished the time in reading it, which is a far different attitude than Spencer makes up for Joseph Smith instead.

When we look through his diaries we find reference after reference of his spending time learning Hebrew.

Monday the 15th [February 1836] attended the Hebrew School at the usual hour - spent the afternoon in reading Hebrew, and perceiving and waiting upon visitors - on this day we commenced translating the Hebrew language, under the instruction of professor Seixas, and he acknowledg's that we are the most forward of any class he ever taught, the same length of time."[25]

What this reveals is that Joseph Smith was very sharp at studying the Bible's languages, at least Hebrew. It also implicitly says he was very active in studying and learning the Bible itself.[26] On one occassion the prophet exclaimed:

"...and my soul delights in reading the word of the Lord in the original, and I am determined to persue the study of languages untill I shall become master of them... and with the blessing of God I shall succeed to my satisfaction."[27] (original spelling retained)

This seems the opposite of Spencer's claim. I see no reason to follow silly speculatory ramblings about Joseph Smith's attitude regarding the Bible when I have the words of the Prophet himself.

If Mr. Spencer would have bothered to consult any of the diaries or journal entries of many of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, he would have found they had recorded sermons Joseph Smith gave on the Bible, and seen the love he had of the scriptures, rather than Spencer's inaccurate caustic attitude.[28] When Mr. Spencer says Joseph Smith wanted to throw the Bible out, how does he account for the prophet's lifelong interest in quoting it, and in the Hebrew, German and Latin to boot?[29] Joseph Smith even made his own translation of the Bible going through it throughout his life![30] And this is throwing it out? Notice none of these sources are consulted by Mr. Spencer. Not one can be found in anything he has written, so it is safe to just make up history as he goes. Only it is not safe. Anyone with a few minutes can check it out and find Spencer has misrepresented everything he has mentioned, not only us Mormon Christians, but the Non-Mormon Christians also! Is it any wonder he reaches such tortured conclusions as he does then? Were he to consult proper sources instead of anti-Mormon sources concerning Joseph Smith, he would have avoided this obvious embarrassment.

Spencer makes the mistake, by painfully tortured forced context, of declaring the the whole meaning of the New Testament, no less (!) is found at Romans 3:20-28, the old favorite, we are saved by grace alone. Well what had he been doing all those years of intense research while he was a Mormon? Hadn't he understood Bruce R. McConkie's commentary? Had he even read it? Has he yet?![31] Mr. Spencer is completely in the dark concerning the serious non-Mormon source which discusses this saved by grace doctrine and finds it incorrect, namely, John Dillenberger's article, "Grace and Works in Martin Luther and Joseph Smith."[32] Mr. Spencer just acts like he has no interest in learning nor understanding basic doctrines of Mormonism, skipping even the rather famous Richard Lloyd Anderson's fine text, Understanding Paul.[33] And again, had he read B.H. Roberts, Outlines of Ecclestiastical History, or James L. Barker's phenomenal, Apostasy From the Divine Church, or even James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy, or Hugh Nibley's World and the Prophets, or even Nibley's Improvement Era articles, "Controlling the Past" which continued into the series "The Way of the Church" he would have understood far more about the New Testament, Christian History, and the apostasy than he does today. His ignorance of these issues, coupled with his bragging of performing "exhaustive research" is simply laughable. Inexcuseable, but also laughable.[34] None of this information is too difficult to access or read, just what is Spencer's problem then? He wants to make a buck on gullible people. Unfortunately, for them, he succeeds. Good gracious man! I'LL write books for CHEAPER than what Jim does if people really want to spend their money learning about Mormonism! The side benefit will be mine will be accurate and well documented!

Anti-Mormon writers usually refuse to update and keep abreast of current developments in scholarly issues. This is the biggest reason why Mormons do not find them persuasive at all. Jim Spencer suffers the same malady, which I believe is deliberate. Almost without exception, each and every single issue Jim Spencer raises in his two books, could have been understood, and also seen to not be such Mount Everests had he consulted the literature available to him up to the writing of his books in 1986, let alone what has been written in the ensuing 11 years.[35]

Mr. Spencer on the Journal of Discourses - Lazy Research

When Mr. Spencer grapples with the concept of God, he fails miserably, especially with the Mormon concepts, for obvious reasons. Jim bragged that he had purchased a set of Journal of Discourses to research in. Then why didn't he? For one thing God is mentioned over 17,000 times in the Journal of Discourses, so there was plenty of material for him to digest. The fact is he refuses to look in the Journal of Discourses for an understanding of God. He admitted that the idea of a plurality of Gods disturbed him.[36] So why had he not understood the explanation in the Journal of Discourses? Orson Pratt noted the example of when Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, His Father, for which he was martyred for so testifying of. "Here, then, the Father and Jesus, two distinct personages, were seen, and both had bodies."[37] Three of the fundamental interrelated ideas expressed in the JD's is our doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, and Salvation, and on all these three, Spencer is at a loss to understand, because he has not read the relevant literature.[38]

Mr. Spencer says he pored over books and papers often late into the night learning about Mormonism. Later he gave himself away when he says his wife started looking at his private study materials which were "prepared by former Mormons and cult investigators.[39] (my emphasis) Well no wonder he blunders so terribly! In other words, Spencer thinks he has the skinny on Mormonism by studying such bogus researchers as Ed Decker,[40] Walter Martin,[41] and the Tanners.[42]

The in-Fighting of Mr. Spencer and Other Anti-Mormons

And apparently Jim Spencer has been in hot water with his other anti-Mormon cohorts. It seems as if the Tanners have accused him, along with fellows Bill Schnoeebelen and Ed Decker, with fraud! And in like manner Jim Spencer has hurled back the charge to the Tanners of being demon-possessed! So why does Spencer bend over backwards to simply repeat the Tanners' bogus charge against Mormonism and the Book of Mormon? Is he so bankrupt that he has to use one enemy against another?Spencer's alignment with the "New Age" anti-Mormonism of the likes of Loftes Tryk has as much plausibility as it would if Mr. Spencer joined the Flat-Earth Society and proclaimed God has told him the truth about the real shape of the earth. Daniel C. Peterson has demonstrated this.[43]

The "Cult" of Mr. Spencer Himself!

Mr. Spencer's constant referencing to Mormonism as a "cult" is annoying as it is inaccurate. Dr. John E. Crawford contends that Mormonism does not have cult activities and is not a cult. As usual, Spencer ignores this because it refutes one of his pet theories.[44] It is actually quite interesting that even up to today, Christian scholars refer to Christianity (yes the "cult" that Jim Spencer himself belongs to!) is referred to as a "cult," not a religion. In fact we read "That Jesus should have founded a mystery cult should not be surprising. It was something men of extraordinary religious powers were expected to do. Such cults were generally attributed to great men of the past (including Moses)... There were, for instance, mysteries of Ptolemaic kings and of Roman emperors. Lucian (who classed Christianity as a mystery cult) has left us a full account of the founder and founding of an unusual successful second-century cult...W. Burkert has done well, in his perceptive book Mystery Cults to emphasize that these were cults..."[45] It's a funny thing to note how pots call kettles black in our day. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks have shown how the anti-Mormons are desparately illogical and come to really wacky conclusions when they base their premises on Mormonism being a cult because the doctrines are different! Their book is a must read for anyone interested in this silly phenomenon of calling Mormonism a cult, and hence not being Christian.[46]

Silly Misunderstandings For Self-Aggrandizement & Glory

Spencer's subjectivity gets him into all kinds of trouble with incorrectly stating issues concerning Mormonism to saying things about Joseph Smith that I have checked into and found to be blatantly false. For one thing he contends that apostasy is the most serious failing for a Mormon, and in his case it was doubly grave because he was an Elder with the Melchizedek Priesthood! Oh my! Oh Golly! Oh Gee! He also claims that Excommunication is the final judgment of the Mormon Church and that what had happened to him was "unheard of."[47] My how he loves to inflate the serious importance of himself to the church! Unheard of, to be sure. Hadn't Ed Decker and the Tanners and others been excommunicated before Jim? Were they not Temple Mormons, true and faithful also? Is Jim more important than the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon? They were also excommunicated and had, I don't hardly doubt, far more intimate and immediate communion with God than Jim has ever dreamed of before. Was Jim as a mere Stake Missionary more important and stalwart than any of the Apostles, who in the last 155 years been excommunicated? My the unbridled arrogance here is sheer melodrama. And apostasy is not the most serious failing, becoming a Son of Perdition is, strictly in line with the New Testament teaching of Jesus Christ. Excommunication is not the final judgment, people have a chance to repent and come back. Spencer has it all goofed up to emphasize his own, big, proud, important self!

Jim also overstates things such as saying Joseph Smith was fond of saying some old Jew changed the scriptures. Really? Where? I know of only one instance where Joseph Smith said this, so does Jim know and can he document where the Prophet constantly went around blurting this out? We have many of Smith's writings. Can Mr. Spencer show us the hundreds, nay even thousands of times Smith said this? Incidentally, the definition of "fond" means "foolishly affectionate, having a strong liking (for)" according to C.T. Onions, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, reprinted with corrections, 1983, p. 367.

Mr. Spencer on Text Criticism - Critically Wrong!

Mr. Spencer uses this idea of Smith's that the Bible has been changed, along with Orson Pratt's[48] astute observations that Christianity does not have a complete set of scriptures (Mormons don't either, but this is seen as a fatal weakness), preserved with perfect accuracy, to touch off his ideas on Textual Criticism, which is his major flaw in his books. Spencer is so totally at odds with absolutely every Bible scholar on this issue that it is astounding! It is as if he has not heard of what the scholars have been doing for the last 200 years. Let me show you just how abjectly stupid the arguments he uses here are in order for him to get one up on Joseph Smith, which he fails miserably to do.

Spencer claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls have made it so "we could be sure that we possessed, preserved with minute accuracy, what the apostles John and Paul and others actually wrote."[49] Other than Mr. Spencer himself, I know of absolutely no Dead Sea Scroll scholar who claims this bit of fantasy. His only reference is to the discredited Christian Fundamentalist Josh McDowell. There are no representatives of Dead Sea Scroll studies or Textual Criticism referenced in Spencer here. And, I suppose, we are to believe that this is another of his "exhaustive researched" subjects also? The very latest information from Dead Sea Scrolls scholars indicate nothing of the sort! Who west of Siberia, for instance, is not aware at this late of date that the vast majority of Dead Sea Scrolls have to do with the Old Testament and not the New?[50] He further contends that whether Jew, Christian or Gentile or even secular peoples, all have "declared categorically that the text of the Bible was accurate."[51]

Now this is very interesting! He contends in his 2nd book, Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately?, that what fellow Christians need to do when talking with their Mormon friends is "...snake them out of complacency...provide irrefutable documentation."[52] Would that he would have followed his own advice! The irony here is rich, filthy rich. This is indeed one of the most educational arguments for Mormons to learn from of any in print, so we can thank Mr. Spencer for that. His argument is simplified for the benefit of lesser scholars than himself:

The Bible Perfectly Preserved and Perfectly Written?

Mr. Spencer's Proof that the Bible has been perfectly and totally preserved:

1. It is illogical that God would give scripture if He knew it would be lost.

2. It is illogical that only one or two generations would have God's word and then it was lost.

3. It is illogical and inconsistent to think God would give us Scripture and then be foiled by the foibles of man.

4. It is illogical to think God sent his scripture and men lost it.

5. "It is logically inconsistent to think that God inspired Scripture if he did not intend to preserve it."[53]

Thus Mr. Spencer reasons, and thus Mr. Spencer is wrong. I mean, considering basic Bible history, we know Mr. Spencer is ignorant of, shows that every single one of his above premises are exactly incorrect. Consider Tischendorf's story! There he was at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and the monks were stoking their fires with the ancient text of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament! Who knows how much they had destroyed? Tischendorf had at least convinced them "that such things were too valuable to be used to stoke their fires."[54]

How Records are Lost & Preserved At the Same Time

That things were lost is amply shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These documents also demonstrate how scriptures were hidden (a key Book of Mormon theme), to come forth in later days. They even wrote their most precious writings on ancient metal rolls, such as the copper roll (another Book of Mormon theme).[55] In fact, writings on metal plates were commonly buried in stone boxes as well in antiquity (another Book of Mormon theme).[56] In 4 Baruch we learn that Jeremiah buried the sacred implements of the temple into the earth because God commanded it done, in order for them to be saved and come forth in a later day. We also know that the Book of Mormon idea of keeping a book safe, by burying it and bringing it forth later was understood by the ancient Jews. R.H. Charles commented on this saying: "The secret revelation is to be written down in a book and preserved in a secret place for the future till the time for publishing it arrives."[57]

We are informed in a 1986 source that Mr. Spencer certainly could have read if he had wanted to that "The tradition of secrecy begins with Enoch: When Enoch found the Book of Adam and read it, 'he knew that the human race would not be able to receive it. So he hid it again, and it remained hidden until Noah.' But the practice began with Adam, who received the golden book from Michael and hid it in the crevice of a rock. The Torah itself was buried when Israel sinned, to be dug up in later times. The Copper Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls shows us how in times of dire peril all those sacred things that have been dedicated, including the holy writings, were buried for safety, a practice clearly set forth in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 13: 18-20.) From early Babylonian sources comes the report of Berossus, that Kronus ordered Xisuthros (Noah) to inscribe in writing the beginning, middle, and end of everything, and to bury the records in the city of Sippar, to be exhumed after the Flood."[58] We are also told in the Puranic version of the universal flood story, that the fish god, identified as Vishnu warned his human protege that he should conceal the sacred Scriptures in a safe place and preserve the knowledge of the antediluvian races. And in Mesoptamia, Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, was instructed to take the sacred records and bury them in the City of the Sun at Sippara.[59] Sacred things are always hidden from profane eyes as witness the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail.[60] But just because sacred implements and sacred Scriptures are lost to us humans, does not mean God failed to preserve them! That is archaeologically refuted, as well as historically and literarily an unsound view based on incorrect assumptions about hos God does preserve his word. Joseph Smith got it right, Mr. Spencer muffed it.

Mr. Spencer lacks the understanding that God's records are not so lost, as they are buried to be dug up later, exactly as the archaeological evidence has demonstrated, and especially the pattern set forth by the Book of Mormon.

More of Spencer & Text Criticism - Funny Methods!

More to the point, Mr. Spencer's stand using textual criticism is not at all correct as is Joseph Smith's understanding of the Bible.

Mr. Spencer claims that textual criticism is very simple in theory. Scientists simply gather all the known copies of ancient texts and compare them. "Our certainty of the context of the original is linked to the degree to which the copies agree."[61] (de-emphasis mine) And here is the first clue that Jim Spencer hasn't got a clue about textual criticism. Our second clue follows hard on the first with Spencer's statement, "We know that textual critics, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist, are in agreement regarding the miraculous preservation of the biblical text."[62] He further misrepresents textual critics by saying "If the copies vary widely, the textual critic will be uncertain about what the original said. But if the copies are in strict agreement, the textual critic knows, with a high degree of confidence, what the original said."[63] The textual Critic knows nothing of the sort! Textuals critics, no matter what their backgrounds are certainly are not "in absolute agreement." But Mr. Spencer wants to have his cake and eat it too. His punch line is now this: Mormon scholars, as if under pressure with the new discoveries, have to agree that the ancient manuscripts agree in 99% of the Bible verses, and there are no major problems with the Bible.[64] Lets summarize his statements and compare them with what textual critics really say shall we?

1. The certainty of the original is in direct proportion to the manuscripts agreeing

2. All textual critics agree as to the miraculous preservation of the biblical text

3. If various texts agree the textual critic has a high degree of certainty as to what the original said.

4. There are no major problems for the Bible. It is essentially in tact and faithfully written and preserved.

Now to the textual critics.

Leon Vaganay and Christian - Bernard Amphoux say there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts, which have possibly 250,000 variants, and "the fact is that it would be difficult to find a sentence, even part of a sentence, for which the rendering is consistent in every single manuscript. That certainly gives plenty of food for thought!"[65] Changes have been made, and what's more, these changes have been deliberate, have been done by sloppy, unprofessional scribes, and have actually been doctrinal in nature in quite a few more cases than we have ever been led on to believe.[66] There are no pristine copies of any of the scriptures as Mr. Spencer assumes, and exactly as Orson Pratt had elaborated on many years ago. The Mormons have correctly understood the nature of the Bible from the start. A Bible scholar says "No copy of an ancient composition is pristine...copying in other words, is a source of both survival and corruption for a text...such a text, because it has been exposed so often to the danger of copying, is especially liable to corruption."[67] Joseph Smith said "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."[68] Each and every one of those points in that statement have been verified explicitly, as I will show, using the finest Bible scholars in the world, while Jim Spencer's view is blatantly contradicted, not only by textual criticism, but historical criticism, and redaction criticism, nay, but by every serious study of the Bible.

Mr. Spencer claims that the original can be known with certainty, yet one of the finest textual critics is on record as saying, within just the last couple years no less, that among textual critics in the last 40 years that there is not even a certainty that the Masoretic text is original! It is, rather, "one witness of the biblical text, and its original form was far from identical with the original text of the Bible as a whole."[69] In fact, There was a complex of texts, none of which were all alike, directly against Mr. Spencer's claim.[70] Bleddyn J. Roberts also acknowledges that "...there never was really a text which could be designated as the Masoretic text."[71] In fact, directly opposing Mr. Spencer's claim, Bible scholars have acknowledged that the Masoretes preserved a text which had already been corrupted earlier on!And if the Masoretic text was the original of the Bible we still have to ask, in light of the evidence, which Masoretic text?[72] Mr. Spencer is blissfully ignorant of James A. Sanders, simply one of the finest Bible scholars to ever grace the arena, of saying "I think it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our Bible committee got closer to it [the urtext, or original] than their committee did." He ends by saying that there have been differences between the manuscripts all along and that those who believe in the infallibly correct and perfect Bible [Jim Spencer all the way here folks!] are wishfully thinking. Its time to get a little more realistic concerning the true nature of the Bible.[72, again]

The Christian Fundamentalist view of the Bible is not in agreement with current Bible scholarship, especially regarding the Masoretic text as the original Bible, nor has any text been perfectly preserved. Who is Mr. Spencer using? The annoying lack of references here is Spencer's downfall. The subjectively (remember this is bad in Mr. Spencer's eyes) states an unsupported assumption based on a mistaken Orthodox Christian view of the Bible. Mr. Spencer would have done well to understand Vaganay and Amphoux's point that "determining the original form in these cases [of the source variants] is a delicate business and the critic who has too much confidence in his own personal preferences is in the greatest danger of making a mistake."[73] Mr. Spencer would have done well had he heeded A. E. Housman's advice and wisdom as well. He says textual criticism is not susceptible to "hard and fast rules," and that if one pretends to have them and use them (Mr. Spencer here all the way!) then "you will have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity will render them inapplicable to problems that are not simple..."[74] In fact, we are told today, by Bible scholars, no less, that "...75% of what the average Christian or Jew 'thinks' about the Bible is interpretation and not scriptural at all... Origen, Philo, and perhaps some contemporary evangelicals find their justification in the belief that the essential or 'real meaning' of the texts is spiritual and that what it literally says is, so to speak, a veil cloaking that meaning. So long as some form of that opinion continues to influence biblical study, what the Bible means will 'mean' more than what it says."[74, again]

Mr. Spencer oversimplifies textual criticism in order to rid it of its central finding, which is, of course, that no two manuscripts are alike and the Bible has not been perfectly preserved as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and every other intelligent Mormon scholar has known since at least the late 1840's.

More to the point. Vaganay and Amphoux show that in order to determine a correct reading among all the manuscripts one must compare the number of witnesses as well. However, "Non nemerantur sed ponderantur. A fault may be copied as many times as you like, you will never make a correct reading out of it."[75] In line with this and that of the general character of the witnesses, "a correct manuscript may preserve a faulty text if it faithfully reproduces a manuscript which is itself the result of a bold revision, full of tendentious alterations."[76] Emanuel Tov, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Frank Moore Cross, Bruce M. Metzger, Eldon Jay Epp, Gordon D. Fee, and a host of other textual critics have demonstrated this copying of errors conclusively. In fact, Hugh Nibley demonstrated this point which powerfully confirms Joseph Smith's idea of the Bible when he said that some old Jew certainly changed the very first word in the very first verse of the Bible, and we have had the corruption through copying ever since, regardless of how lously Mr. Spencer howls against the idea![77]

And make no mistake about it, Mr. Spencer wants to disqualify textual criticism as he concludes, by using textual criticism, that the Bible has been perfectly preserved, which tenet textual criticism absolutely destroys. James Barr, in fact, has shown how Fundamentalists use textual criticism, not in order to appear to be open-minded, but in order to discredit textual criticism.[78] The trick for Fundamentalists is to explain how errors got into a completely inerrant, perfectly preserved, perfectly written book. As Barr explains it, either the Holy Spirit inspired an incorrect statement, and if He did so once, there is no guarantee that it did not happen many times, because then inspiration is no guarantee of truth. Or else, the Holy Spirit did not inspire the passage of scripture which has an error in it, in which case, there may be others uninspired, and hence "we cannot know that the entire scripture is inspired."[79] This is exactly the point Orson Pratt was making in the quote that Mr. Spencer used in Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately?, (p. 101), though Mr. Spencer, being a Fundamentalist, failed to understand Pratt's point, though no Mormon has. Mormons are not in the minority here at all on this issue. Mormons are attacked as not believing the Bible and attacking it, when in reality, what is being attacked is exactly these incorrect views of the Bible that Fundamentalists hold to, which have been completely undone by Bible scholars, even to the Christians' exacerbation.

The Fundamentalist, such as Mr. Spencer, cannot have it both ways, that there are errors, but that they are insignificant to the meaning of the scripture. Mormonism takes a middle ground, as do Bible scholars today. Scripture was inspired as originally given and written down, but sometimes evil and designing men changed some of it to fit their preconceptions and their own notions of what doctrines ought to say. Other parts, they threw out, or rewrote, including entire books of scripture ones held sacred to ancient Jews and Christians alike! This is amply documented folks![80] No, I'm serious! Read the sources in that footnote!

Text Criticism Proves Bible Changes Quite Serious

The doctrinal changes made in the Bible have now been shown to be legion! It used to be thought that a little period here or a comma there was all there was to this. Not with current historical research and textual criticism however. Today scholars have become rather honest and actually adamant at demonstrating just how much has been changed in the Bible, and this including the major doctrines! I'll relegate the evidence to a humble footnote, with the underpinnings of how seriously supportive this is of the Mormon position.[81]

One such doctrinal change thanks to textual criticism which is not adversly affecting Mormonism, but strengthening her doctrines, is the "Sons of God" idea at Deauteronomy 32:8. The KJV has "Sons of Israel", but we know that an ancient scribe, trying to avoid the obvious polytheism, changed the verse, and hence changed a doctrine. Now that it is restored, it supports Mormonism better than ever. Deuteronomy 32:8 has been cross referenced with Psalms 82:1 and i Kings 22:19, Psalms 96:7, Isaiah 6; Psalms 82, and Daniel 7:9-10, Jeremiah 23:18, Genesis 1:26f; 3:22, and 11:7, all dealing with the plurality of Gods, the council of the Gods in heaven in a premortal existence, all of which are Mormon doctrines, and now textual criticism as well as Biblical scholarship are showing the meanings of these verse, which Mormons have known about all along.[82]

The Mormons have had these doctrines from the beginning, and know we are the "Sons and Daughters of God", who were in a premortal existence with God, who presented his Plan of Salvation in His Council of the Gods, which we participated in as well. Part of the Plan was to come to earth, live, die, and return to our heavenly home as "divine beings" or "Gods." This is basic Mormon Doctrine, and had Mr. Spencer been half the Mormon scholar he brags he was, he would have realized all this. He fails to show he has any understanding whatsoever of the Mormon literature dealing with this grand subject.[83]

Had Mr. Spencer looked half as hard as he claims he did at the JD's (Journal of Discourses) certainly would have found this teaching consistently taught by Mormon Leaders, as well as explained how the Bible teaches, not only that we are gods, but also the "Sons of God" and heirs to the promise of eternal life, all teachings of Jesus himself.[84]

During and since Mr. Spencer's utterly useless mini-course in textual criticism many important ground-breaking studies have been written which demonstrate, not only Joseph Smith's uncanny ability to get things correct concerning the Bible, but also powerfully demonstrate that he was right on target with the Book of Mormon. I give one example, among hundreds to choose from, for its succinct and delicious appeal to Bible studies, because it involves a supposed problem with the Book of Mormon. John Welch's superb analysis of whether the Book of Mormon is merely plagiarizing the Bible has not received the attention it deserves, and certainly not from anti-Mormons! Stan Larson is one of the rare few who has discussed this book. When 3 Nephi 12:22 is compared to the KJV Matthew phrase in the Sermon on the Mount, "without a cause" is left out of the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, New Testament scholars likewise favor its deletion by an enormous majority as do the major New Testament manuscripts. As Welch has noted, "The removal of 'without a cause' has important moral, behavioral, psychological, and religious ramifications."[85] While negative statements against the Book of Mormon come out that there is no ancient textual support for what it says, we now know there are very good supports from ancient times and using textual criticism has only strengthened the fact, if critics will only look, that the Book of Mormon is far stronger than they make it appear to be.[86]

Mr. Spencer would have profited greatly had he bothered to even read texts which demonstrate textual and historical criticism at work. Several examples are available to him to this day if he would ever bother getting serious about learning what it is all about. A gold mine would have been Ward Allen, Translating For King James.[87]

The Literature dealing with comparing of texts, various historical situations, philological considerations in helping us understand documents' origins and meaning is really rather abundant in fact! Mr. Spencer would do well to acquaint himself with much of it to broaden his view on all aspects of how scholars work with ancient texts, trying to understand their relationship to one another, the meanings of words through times, learning how documents are related to each other and how, etc., etc.[88]

Now, since Mr. Spencer's writings, it has been shown that the very careful and scrupulous care in copying and trying to preserve the scriptures was done after 200 A.D., and with many text which already had corruptions in them. Yes, we are very grateful to those wonderful scribes who worked to preserve the scriptures as best they could, but this in no way demonstrates that we have the originals, nor that we understand that Paul and Peter said exactly what the New Testament records.[89]

The Original Bible - Complete - Intact - Masoretic Text?

Tov, in his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 9, 28f describes the Masoretes as copying an already corrupt version of the manuscripts at their disposal. On pp. 19, 22 he expands his discussion of the Masoretic text as being one in a family of texts, and only later it was copied meticulously, with other variants from other manuscripts being incorporated into it as well as vice versa. Further, on p. 41 Tov analyzes the concept of the traditional reading of the Bible texts as not necessarily being identical with the "original intents" of the manuscripts. On p. 75 he discusses problems of counting the Masoretes encountered, thus demonstrating Mr. Spencer's argument for perfection invalid.On p. 177 Tov shows why there is a single literary form. Like Hugh Nibley so many years ago, Tov says because all the others were harmonized to fit the literary tradition of a specific time and place (pp. 24, 42, including note 19, 85-88, 98f, 261). P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., in his book Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, p. 12, also shows where that copying is a two edged sword. Not only does it preserve, but it also corrupts the text. Spencer misses this very important point concerning copying, as well as the problem of dealing with perishable materials which did not preserve all ancient copying of words. On p. 14 McCarter notes that a smooth reading in a manuscript can very likely mean that a scribe had inadvertantly strayed from the text, and hence wrote something familiar to himself, hence an easy reading is preserved, although not a perfect copy, but an error. McCarter gives many examples of this, notably Exo. 22:19, according to McCarter, a polytheistic scripture (p. 35).

Mr. Spencer and Polished Polytheism - Refuted Again!

Spencer unjustifiably abhors this idea of polytheism because he misunderstands the whole process and idea of polytheism and how it relates to monotheism. Spencer goes so far as to claim that "polytheism is paganism. It is a degeneration of thought.[90]

And of course, we are not surprised at seeing the total lack of substantial references to support his pet peeve. Typical, I suppose, however, when we look into Bible scholars for their own thoughts we find something very different. Archaeologically, "a flood of publications has been provoked by the phrase yhwh...w'shrh... with its possible indications of a Yahwistic polytheism... The biblical asherah has been variously identified as the name of a goddess, a sacred tree, a cult object, a grove, or a shrine. The Old Testament indicates that Canaanite deities with consorts were still worshipped under the Divided Monarchy, but the idea that Yahweh could have one, as perhaps suggested by this text and isolated inscriptions found earlier, has raised fundamental questions about the history of religion in early Israel."[91] Interestingly, even the most ardent of skeptics recognize in the Bible an early polytheism in Genesis, because as any Bible scholar knows, Elohim is the plural form, translated as gods.[92] The Harper's Bible Dictionary recognizes that polytheism is the belief in many gods and notes that "In the environment of the Bible most societies were polytheistic: there were "many gods and many lords," (1 Cor. 8:5)...Polytheistic religions are known in detail from ancient Egypt, Mesoptamia, Greece, and Rome; particularly relevant for the OT is the Canaanite polytheism of Ugarit...in which occur divine names known also from the Bible; El, Elyon, Baal, Anath, Athirat, [cf. Hebrew "Asherah"], Dagon...Certain echoes of it continue in the various names for God, perhaps in the plural form Elohim [Heb. "God"], in the concept of the "sons of God" or court of heavenly beings, in the imagery of battles with hostile superhuman powers, in the occassional recognition that another land is the sphere of another god...Finally hostility to polytheism tends to become caricature and ridicule; it ceases to include any real analysis of polytheism or any profound understanding of its workings or its attractions."[93]

One scholar claims that the Hebrew prophets "moralized" the old deities, and in a spiritual sense the gods became incapable of being confined to wooden images, or metal, etc. The God of Israel hence "...is no longer just one among many gods with whom he contends on behalf of...He is exclusive. God of gods; potentially at least he is God of all men..."[94] Interesting, on serious historical investigation, Mercea Eliade, after examining the Indian religions concluded "neither the religions called 'primitive' nor those classed as polytheistic are ignorant of the idea of a God who is the Creator, omniscient and all powerful."[95] Where does Mr. Spencer get his idea that it was a degeneration of thought? He never says. He merely asserts.

In the council of the gods, and cosmic mountains as part and parcel of the polytheistic picture we see echoes of this in the Bible, namely at Mount Sinai (Exo. 26:30; cf. 25:9, 40; 27:8; Num 8:4). The implication of course, being that Yahweh lives in a tent on the mountain, the tent of meeting originally being a term for the assembly of the gods.[96] William F. Albright recognized this court, or assembly of the gods while noting the biblical implicatons of polytheism including Satan being involved in the heavenly assembly, and he cites Zech. 3, Job 1, and the older conceptions in 1 Kings 22:19ff.[97] Nay, this idea takes on sinister connotations for Christians who, like Mr. James R. Spencer, cannot fathom the scriptures being changed, and who continue to argue in the face of the evidence that changes are not doctrinal, but rather insignificant commas or periods here and there. Two of the finest Bible scholars on our planet have demonstrated conclusively that the scriptures have been changed, and what's more, one of the clear doctrinal issues involved is polytheism! At Exo. 22:19 the original reading zbh l'lhym yhrm "he who sacrifices to gods will be placed under the ban." We read that "The implicit meaning of gods was other gods, that is, other than Yahweh. At some point in the development of MT a scribe felt it necessary to make this meaning explicit and added the gloss blty lyhwh lbdw, "except to Yahweh alone."[98] Emanuel Tov notes that at Deuteronomy 32:8 the scribe "did not feel at ease with this possibly polytheistic picture and replaced 'sons of El' with 'sons of Israel', thus giving the text a different direction by the change of one word." He also notes the same ideas occurring at Ps. 82, 1 Kings 22:19, as well as Ps. 96:7. He even notes that Ps. 29:1 is "the presumably original (polytheistic) text..." Tov even goes on to say that the very notion of the assembly of the Gods in the Bible "provide a polytheistic picture..."[99] Frank Moore Cross noted that the assembly of the Gods in Hebrew, the bene elim is the "holy ones" involved in Yahweh's heavenly court, clearly a polytheistic picture.[100] Interestingly the God Yw (Yah) has been found to exist in ancient Syria, Ras Shamra, The Assyrian inscriptions, and the Phoenicians, according to some scholars, all polytheistic nations![101] Yahweh, of course, was a storm God as well, which was an attribute of the Canaanite deity Baal.[102] Yahweh was also called Yahweh ze yihweh, as well as the appellation of Yahweh in Judges 5:5 Ze Sinai, "the one of Sinai," showing his tie with the mountains.[103]

Edwin C. Kingsbury in his fascinating article demonstrates that anciently with mere scattering mention in the Hebrew scriptures, was the concept of the prophet participating in the polytheistic heavenly council of the gods. It was this direct participation which was a demonstration of the prophet's authenticity in fact! Kingsbury notes Zech 3:1-5; Ps. 29:1; The prologue of Job; 1 Kings 22:1-38; Isaiah 6:1-13; Ezekiel 1, 2, 10; Amos, Jeremiah 26; 23:18, Isaiah 40.[104] What caught my eye was the same experience that Lehi had in the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon where he saw the heavenly assembly and learned of the fates of the nation! This is an authentic touch in the ancient genre, only discovered since W.W. I, long after the Book of Mormon had come out. Interestingly Hugh Nibley also demonstrated long ago, and entirely ignored by Mr. Spencer, that the imagery of the "Star" was throughout the ancient Near Eastern literature as well, which is interesting because Nephi saw figures who he called stars (1 Ne. 1:9-11).[105]

The huge scholarly study of Julian Morgenstern cannot be skipped without mentioning his serious analysis of the gods in the heavenly assembly among the "sons of God" also demonstrating at terrific length the serious polytheistic understanding of the ancient Hebrews, though it has be obscured through time with scantily written sources, scattered throughout the Bible, but it is now coming out against everything Mr. Spencer says. Among other things that is most interesting is his contention that in Genesis1:26 the "we" mentioned is the Gods talking among themselves in the council concerning the creation! The word for God in Genesis is Elohim, the plural, and now demonstrated to mean multiple Gods.[106]

This is not to mention the female deities that most certainly were involved in ancient Israelitish worship! They have been suppressed, stamped out, and trodden under foot of men for centuries, until archaeological evidence brought their existence back into play, thus causing a general re-assessment of ancient Israelitish religion with some of the finest Bible scholars ever to begin sifting and analyzing the evidence, much to the consternation of those who "know better." Polytheism is a re-discovery that is gaining strength through time and research. The literature is becoming so astonishingly large that we are almost forced to claim Mr. Spencer is simply conducting lazy research as he does not demonstrate an awareness of any of this material I put in the footnote, and which has serious and interesting implications for the ancient Hebrew as well as the biblical religion in general.[107]

Mr. Spencer quotes Isaiah 43:10-11, Isaiah 44:6-8; Isaiah 45:5-6, 18-22; Isaiah 46:8-9, in order to demonstrate Monotheism.[108] What he is misunderstanding is that God is telling the Israelites that to them there is only One God. The other gods of the nations they are not to worship. In fact, biblical scholars have arrived at this conclusion after exhaustively studying the ancient Near East and the ancient Hebrews and their interactions with other religions and cultures. Robin Lane Fox has demonstrated that even the First Commandment does not prove there were no other gods, but only that Israel was to worship the most important God, namely Yahweh. "The claim for Yahweh's exclusiveness, in the sense that Yahweh alone has existence, is not contained in the First Commandment. The text need only have been saying that Yahweh is Israel's Number One among other lesser divinities."[109] Frank Moore Cross contends that in early Israel, the religion did not systematically deny the existence of other gods at all. Interestingly, in discussing the Shema (Deut. 6) which states "Hear O Israel:The Lord is our God, the Lord is one," Cross says the literal translation is "Hear O Israel: Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone." In light of this, Cross says "Israel was required to worship only one God and to confess his unique and universal power in the historical realm. At least in early Israel, Israelite religion did not systematically deny the existence of other gods or divine powers."[110] Mr. Spencer is apparently unaware of this.

Miscellaneous Errors & Wrap-Up

Mr. Spencer claims Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most "perfect" book, which is incorrect. It is the most correct, which Hugh Nibley analyzed years ago, so Mr. Spencer has no excuse for making this say one thing while Joseph Smith meant another. Ignoring Nibley's writings has cost mr. Spencer his credibility, especially in light of his bragging that he "exhaustively researched Mormonism."[111]

Mr. Spencer claiming he is above subjectivity while Mormons are never objective is ludicrous. Pray tell, what are we to make of his statements such as (found in Have You Witnessed)

"The Zion Curtain has cracked." (p. 19)

"How can a bright educated person swallow this?" (p. 24)

In discussing his conversations with Mormons who have read his books, he says, "One common denominator runs through all the conversations: fear. Black, sticky, paralyzing fear." (p. 33)

"Mormonism is a system hatched in hell and birthed in the occult necromancies of Joseph Smith." (p. 33)

"I want you to know how Mormons think. What they feel. How they have come to the doctrinal abyss of Mormonism." (p. 33)

"Under cover of darkness, swords, and incantations and occult manipulations grew more radical and gruesome." (p. 41)

"The Christ of Mormonism is too insipid to save." (p. 54)

"The point is that when you encounter True Believers, you may as well risk a bold shot. You really have nothing to lose. This is a tactic some Mormon experts call "knocking the polish off their testimony." (p. 59)

He says the goal in talking to Mormons is to "hopefully move your friends down the committment scale toward Doubter." (note the silly capital "D", p. 65)

In telling his motivation with discussions with Mormons he admits "I want her to begin to question the authority of the Mormon Church in her life." (p. 66)

"Sometimes, as in Mormonism, it is necessary to shake people loose from false theology." (p. 72)

"As we destroy the false religious system of the cultist we also have to present the Gospel to him. We chip out a piece of false doctrine and we replace it with the truth." (p. 72)

Of Mormons he says: "These were people who had been programmed with faulty information. They were innocently in error." (p. 73)

"...they innocently believe to be God's plan of salvation but, which, in reality, was forged in the fiery councils of hell to lead men to eternal damnation." (p. 74)

"Who will educate themselves to combat the cults? Who will sit down with Latter Day Saints and take apart the sophistication of the devil, line upon line?" (p. 74)

Of Moroni 10:4,5 he says "This is a particularly insidious proposal... First God is not into burning bosom formulas" (p. 115)

"Mormonism, by its ungodly doctrine of polytheism, has disqualified itself from consideration as a Christian Church." (p. 133).

Discussing non-doctrinal issues, which were not brought up to wound or ridicule us (Who does he think he's kidding?) he says he brought these issues up to enable his Christian friends "to use to snake them (Mormons) out of complacency. I pray that you will use wisdom, compassion, yet unfailing determination to rescue Mormons from the insanity of Mormonism." (p. 155). Notice also how he can pray for something, but we can't pray about the Book of Mormon because he claims it is an insidious proposal! Oh for consistency!

Mr. Spencer's overbrimming yacking about subjectivity is really honestly quite amusing! He calls us names such as cult (p. 33, 34-36), ridiculously humorous (p. 41, 45-47, cult (54f, 58, 60, 63, 65, 72), cult (74), cult....again (77, 83, 95, 102, 104, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 130), cult....again and again (160, 211), cult....SHEESH!!! Will Mr. Spencer revise this in light of Louis Midgley's analysis "The Challenge of Historical Consciousness:Mormon History and the Encounter with Secular Modernity," in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, vol. 2, 1990, pp. 502-551? It is doubted.

Appendix C, Spencer resorts to the Solomon Spaulding as the key to the Book of Mormon. These days this is every bit as unscientific and lame as still trying to prove that man has not landed on the Moon, or that the earth is flat. That anyone brings this up, especially in light of the fact that one of their own, namely Fawn Brodie demolished the Spaulding claim, is simply laughable. Spencer is bankrupt if this is one of his key evidences.[112]

Appendix B Spencer brings up B.H. Roberts losing faith in the Book of Mormon which is so thoroughly answered that this out of date bit - o- fantasy is amusing.[113]

In Appendix B in his other book Beyond Mormonism, He notes the supposed confusion of the prophets. What is his point here? If confusion is proof of falsity, pray tell, what about the confusion with anti-Mormons now, with the Tanners lambasting Spencer and Decker, and Spencer and Decker lashing back out accusing the Tanners of being demon-possessed? Would Spencer allow us to draw the same conclusion he tries to that this proves all of them false? Such is the idiot-logic used by critics when so desparate to get something on Mormonism.

For Spencer to use newspapers to make his points is abjectly amateurish and utterly inane on each and ever count. Does he really believe that quoting the Los Angeles Times (p. 27) and the Salt Lake Tribune (p. 27) will prove something? Does he really believe the Idaho Falls Post Register is an unbias and objective, reliable source??? (p. 28). Exhaustive research takes him to the Encyclopedia Britannica? (p. 82)

Spencer completely misuses (pp. 126f) John Sorenson's Limited Geography Model of Mesoamerica as a refutation of the Book of Mormon! He says Sorenson is one of the Mormon scholars who challenge the historicity of the Book of Mormon! He is so completely backwards on this as to be stuptifying! Utterly unbelieveable that he can so misread one of the Book of Mormon's finest defenders, which only goes to show that Mr. Spencer is sloppy, and worthless as a researcher into Mormonism.[114]

He says (p. 154) that under a failed prophecy is Brigham Young claiming the earth was alive. How is this a prophecy?

Orson Pratt said vegetables had a spirit, and the human spirits are compressed and hence lose their memory of the pre-existence. These are prophecies?

Mr. Spencer's convoluted arguments impress no one who has bothered to look just a little bit into Mormonism. He is simply not a good source to go to, as he is muddled in his thinking of Mormonism and baseless in so many accusations as to be laughable. There is a good point to his materials however, this is a perfect place to start to find out what Mormonism isn't. Mr. Spencer makes so many amateur mistakes concerning the Bible and Christian history as well that it is time Christians also look at him and ask him to justify his unbelieveably incorrect stance. If he is representative of Christian thinking, then I submit Christian thinking has become false, arrogant, ignorant, and abjectly ridiculous, all of which I sincerely doubt, so why don't we all begin asking Mr. Spencer to update and get more honest in everything he writes about. This I believe is all our duty, and I am only too glad to take the first plunge.....

Endnotes

1. L. Ara Norwood book review of James White, Letters to a Mormon Elder, in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 317-354.

2. Spencer, Witnessed, p. 189 where he instructs those who want to leave the church to threaten it with legal action if their reputation is hurt. So, when will Spencer sue himself?

3. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 12.

4. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 96.

5. Spencer, Witnessed, pp. 95-97.

6. L. Ara Norwood, Matthew Roper, and John Tvedtnes reviewed the Tanner's recent publication Covering the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon, in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (Hereafter RBBM), F.A.R.M.S., Provo, Utah: Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 158-230. Matthew Roper reviewed the Tanner's book Mormonism, Shadow or Reality?, RBBM, Vol. 4, pp. 169-215. Daniel C. Peterson reviewed John Ankerberg and John Weldon Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Mormonism, in RBBM, Vol. 3, 1993, pp. 1-86. William J. Hamblin reviewed the Tanners publication Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, in RBBM, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 250-272. Tom Nibley reviewed the Tanners Covering the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon, in RBBM, Vol. 5, pp. 273-289. Robert and Rosemary Brown have reviewed the many false lies Walter Martin made both with himself and Mormonism in They Lie in Wait To Deceive, Vol. 3, Mesa, Arizona: Brownsworth Publishing, 1986. Gilbert W. Scharffs has found many thousands of misrepresentations and outright lies in Ed Decker's notoriously stupid book and film, The Godmakers, in The Truth About the God Makers, Salt Lake City, Utah: Publisher's Press, 1986. Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks examines all the critics silly claims that Mormons are not Christians in Offenders For A Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah: Aspen Books, 1992.

7. Spencer, Witnessed, p. 23f.

8. Erich Robert Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 108. Cf. Dan Vogel, and Brent Lee Metcalfe's "Joseph Smith's Scriptural Cosmology," in The Word of God, Dan Vogel, Ed., Signature Books, 1990, p. 209, where they admit that "Joseph Smith was purported to have expressed his belief..." that people were on the moon. (my emphasis). Where on earth Spencer gets the idea that this was a prophecy is utterly beyond me.

9. Michael J. Crowe, The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750-1900: The Idea of a Plurality of Worlds from Kant to Lowell, Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.: 1986. For early Christian cosmology see David Fideler, Jesus Christ Sun of God, Quest Books, Wheaton, Ill: 1993.

10. See RBBM, Vol. 5, 1993, pp. 319-321, footnotes 7 & 8.

11. Spencer, "A Letter to a Returned Missionary," in Through the Maze, Shiloh Foursquare Church Newsletter, 1983, No. 7, p. 6.

12. Spencer, Witnessed, pp. 19, 33, 155 respectively.

13. Kerry A. Shirts, The Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy: Discussions Among Historians Concerning the Identification of the Teacher of Righteousness, 1992, Unpublished manuscript, presented at the Northwest Historical Conference at Missoula, Montana. You can read it here.

14. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 98.

15. For example, in Witnessed p. 39 citing the Palmyra Reflector in the Tanners Mormonism, Magic and Masonry; p. 40, citing Joseph Smith's Bainbridge, New York Court Trials, from Wesley Walters which in turn was found in the Tanners, Ibid.; p. 207 citing Mormon Portraits in Cowdery, Davis & Scales, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? On Spencer's objectivity, Have you Witnessed, pp. 54f, 95-97, 110.

16. At the very least, since Jim Spencer want to impress us with his "exhaustive research" and his vast learning, contending that objectivity is important in understanding the truth in and of history, I would require him to learn the arguments of Barbara Tuchman, Practicing History, New York: Ballantine Books, 1982, pp. 19, 29, 59-60; R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, New York: Oxford University Press, 1967, part v, (pp. 205-344); James West Davidson & Mark Hamilton Lytle, After the Fact, 2nd edition, Vol. 2, New York: Knopf, 1982; Paul K. Conkin & Roland N. Stromberg, The Heritage and Challenge of History, Toronto: Dodd Mead & Co., 1971, Ch. 11; Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, Preface, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1967; David Earl Bohn, "No Higher Ground," Sunstone, May-June, 1983, pp. 26-32, before he blurts out anything or any other tirade concerning objectivity. Since Mr. Spencer has published he sorely needs to update himself by reading Stephen D. Ricks review of Hugh Nibley's text Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, in RBBM, Provo, Utah: FARMS, Vol. 2, 1990, esp. pp. 140f; Louis Midgley's review of Robert Basil, Mary Beth Gehrman and Tim Madigan, eds., On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict, in RBBM, vol. 4, esp. pp. 10f, footnote 13; the definitive context of historians in Daniel C. Peterson's review of Brent Lee Metcalfe's book, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, in RBBM, Vol. 6, pp. 524-562. Gary Novak in his review of the book "Dale Morgan on Early Mormonism: Correspondence and a New History" in FARMS - Review of Books, vol. 8, p. 149. Daniel B. McKinlay's analysis of Alan Goff's Master's Thesis - "A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts: Historicism, Revisionism, Positivism, and the Bible and Book of Mormon" (1989), in Review of Books, Vol. 2, 1990, pp. 87-9) notes that Goff has some seriously wonderful insights we can all benefit from. Novak's review of Quinn's essay in George D. Smith's book "Faithful History":George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History (Gary F. Novak, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.232-23. Midgley's Review of Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition ,Jan Shipps, "Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition: Reviewed by Louis Midgley, (FARMS, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol.7, Number 2, p.234-238), Marvin Hill in his review of D. Michael Quinn's "The Mormon Hierarchy" in "Sunstone" Dec., 1995, pp. 77-79. Melvin T. Smith, "Faithful History/Secular Faith," in Dailogue, 1983, Winter, pp. 65-71; Kent E. Robson, "Objectivity and History," in Dialogue, Winter 1986, pp. 87-96; Thomas G. Alexander, "Historiography and the New Mormon History: A Historian's Perspective," in Dialogue, Fall 1986, pp. 25-47; M. Gerald Bradford, "The Case for the New Mormon History: Thomas G. Alexander and His Critics," in Dialogue, Winter 1988, pp. 143-150; Clara V. Dobay, "Intellect and Faith: The Controversy Over Revisionist Mormon History," in Dialogue, Spring 1994, pp. 91-105; David B. Honey, Daniel C. Peterson, "Advocacy and Inquiry in the Writing of Latter Day Saint History," in BYU Studies, Spring 1991, pp. 139-179. Though not anywhere near exhaustive, this I feel, is a necessary minimum to understand if Jim Spencer is serious about having informed Mormons giving him a nod in the future concerning his pet ideal of objectivity.

17. Van Hale, "What About the Adam-God Theory?" in Mormon Miscellaneous, July, 1982; Elwood G. Norris, Be Not Deceived, Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1978; David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," in Dialogue, Spring 1982, pp. 14-58; Carl Broderick, Jr., "Another Look at the Adam-God Doctrine," in Letters in Dialogue, Vol. 16, #2, Summer 1983, pp. 4-7; Hugh Nibley, "The Expanding Gospel," in Nibley on the Timely and Timeless, Provo, Utah: Vol. 1 in the Religious Studies Monograph Series, 1978, pp. 21-47. For an interesting cosmic view of Adam and mankind. Cf. Nibley, "Before Adam," in Old Testament and Related Studies, Provo, Utah: Deseret/FARMS, 1986, pp. 49-85.

18. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, pp. 110f.

19. Philip L. Barlow, ed., A Thoughtful Faith: Essays On Belief by Mormon Scholars, Centervill, Utah: Canon Press, 1986; Susan Easton Black, ed., Expressions of Faith: Testimonies of Latter Day Saints Scholars, Deseret Book, Provo, Utah: 1996; Eugene England, Dialogues With Myself, Orion Books, 1984; Eugene England, Why The Church is as True as the Gospel, Bookcraft, 1986; James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter Day Saints, Deseret Book, 1976; Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young:American Moses, Knopf, 1985; Duane Crowther, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Bookcraft, 1963; David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah: New Evidences for the Book of Mormon From Ancient Mexico, Horizon Books, 1981; Kirk Holland Vestal and Arthur Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, LL Company, 1981; Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, University of Illinois Press, 1984; B.H. Roberts, Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Horizon Books, 1982 reprint from 1903 debate with the Catholic Priest Van der Donckt; Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, Vintage Books, 1979; Truman G. Madsen, Eternal Man, Deseret Book, 1981; Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1982; John M. Lundquist, Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith, 2 vols., Deseret/FARMS, 1990; Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation" Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary, BYU Press, 1975; John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth, Prophet of God, Deseret Book, 1951; Spencer J. Palmer, Mormons and Muslims:Spiritual Foundations and Modern Manifestations, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1983; John Tvedtnes, The Church of the Old Testament, Deseret Book, 1980; Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, Deseret/FARMS, 1987; John Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon, Deseret/FARMS, 1985; Stephen D. Ricks, William J. Hamblin, eds., Warfare in the Book of Mormon, Deseret/FARMS, 1990; Stephen D. Ricks, John Welch, eds., The Allegory of the Olive Tree, Deseret/FARMS, 1994; John W. Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, Deseret/FARMS, 1990; Noel B. Reynolds, Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, Deseret/FARMS, 1997; Eugene Seaich, Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, Sounds of Zion, 1980; Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism, Mormon Miscellaneous, 1983; John Taylor, The Mediation and Atonement, Photographic reprint Salt Lake City, Utah: 1979; Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, Stevens & Wallace, Salt Lake City, Utah: 1945; George Reynolds, Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, Deseret Book, 1980; Jerald R. Johansen, A Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price: A Jewel Among the Scriptures, Horizon, 1985; David H. Yarn, Jr., The Gospel, God, Man, & Truth, Classics in Mormon Literature, Deseret Book, 1978; J. Reuben Clark, Why the King James Version, Classics in Mormon Literature, Deseret Book, 1979; Victor L. Ludlow, Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet, Deseret Book, 1982; Monte S. Nyman, Great are the Words of Isaiah, Bookcraft, 1980; Robert L. Millet, ed., Studies in Scripture, Acts to Revelation, Deseret Book, 1987; Kent P. Jackson & Robert L. Millet, eds., Studies in Scripture, The Gospels, Deseret Book, 1986; Kent P. Jackson & Robert L. Millet, eds., Studies in Scripture, The Old Testament, Genesis to 2 Samuel, Randall Book, 1985; Kent P. Jackson, ed., Studies in Scripture, 1 Kings to Malachi, Deseret Book, 1993; Robert L. Millet & Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, The Doctrine and Covenants, Randall Book, 1984; Robert L. Millet & Kent P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, Randall Book, 1985; Robert L. Hamson, The Signature of God, Sandpiper Press, 1982; Donna Hill, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon, Signature Books, 1977, to list just a small sampling of the literature that Mr. Spencer could have read had he bothered, as well as current literature available to him now if he bothers to start getting serious instead of clowning around.

20. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p.72f. He also made a big whoop-tee-do about Coca Cola, the Ricks faculty being able to drink it while it was suppressed from students! Oh my, what a deadly doctrinal issue this is!

21. In Nibley on the Timely and Timeless, pp. 261-277.

22. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 139.

23. Ibid., p. 139.

24. Dean C. Jesse, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1984, p. xiii, quote on p. xviii.

25. Jesse, p. 160.

26. Other references indicate an abiding interest in studying the biblical Hebrew as time permitted, i.e. Jesse, pp. 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 117 (for studying Greek), 118, 120, 123, 124, 125, 130, 141-142 (very interesting exchange of letters between professor Piexotto and Warren Parish about Piexotto being excused from teaching the brethren Hebrew), 142, 143, 150, 152, 154, 155, (note how many times he says he attended the school, as usual), 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167 (translates Genesis 17), 168 (translates Genesis 22), 169, 170 (4 days worth on one page), 171, 181.

27. Jesse, p. 161.

28. Andrew F. Ehat & Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, Vol. 6, Religious Studies Monograph Series, 1980, pp. 4f, 8-15, 17-28 (endnotes with literally dozens of scriptures), 32-34 (Divinity of Jesus, the character of God, children's salvation if they die, etc.), 38-44 (priesthood in the Old and New Testaments), 59-61 (Paul, Melchizedek, Moses, the nature of God), 63 (discusses Peter in the New Testament), 65-70 (Malachi 3, Jesus' baptism, John the Baptist, Malachi 4, John 14, 16, Romans 9), 72-74 (Hebrews 1,2, King David, the resurrection, Romans 6, Zion and Election), pp. 106-109 (Revelations 14, etc.) You get the point, don't you?

29. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 139. Cf. Ehat/Cook, Ibid., p. 347, 351, 354, 358, 366 (he claimed the old German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew translations all say its true, and they cannot be impeached, "the old German translators are the most correct" he felt), 371, 402 (where he asks a German in the audience to confirm his reading of the Bible from the German and he says "yes"), Jesse, Personal Writings, pp. 91-93, 96-98, 108-109, 158-165, 651 (for Heber C. Kimball's studying it with the intent of using it as the Prophet had throughout his life).

30. The definitive study of this is Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, a History and Commentary, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 1975; Cf. Monte Nyman & Robert Millet, eds., The Joseph Smith Translation, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, Vol. 12 Religious Studies Monograph Series, 1985.

31. Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1971, vol. II, Acts-Philippians, pp. 299-308.

32. in Truman G. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, Vol. 4 in Religious Studies Monograph Series, 1978, pp. 175-186.

33. Richard Lloyd Anderson, Understanding Paul, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1983. The Ensign also had an article on this, April 1986 issue under "I Have A Question."

34. Nibley's articles were in the Improvement Era, Jan. 1955- Dec. 1955.

35. Not to mention the sources in footnote 19, there was also available to Mr. Spencer (these sources I list are what I have in my library and are simply not exhaustive by any stretch):

James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret reprint, 1975; Talmage, The Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City, Utah: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1975; The set of Religious Studies Center Monograph Series, Provo, Utah: BYU, Spencer J. Palmer, ed., Deity and Death, Vol. 2, 1978; Jacob Neusner, The Glory of God is Intelligence, Vol. 3, 1978; Neal E. Lambert, ed., Literature of Belief, Vol. 5, 1981; Truman G. Madsen, ed. Temple in Antiquity, Vol. 9, 1984; Monte S. Nyman, Ed., Isaiah and the Prophets, Vol. 10, 1984; Paul R. Cheesman & C. Wilfred Griggs, Eds., Scriptures For the Modern World, Col. 11, 1984; C. Wilfred Griggs, Ed., Apocryphal Writings and the Latter Day Saints, Vol. 13, 1986; Milton V. Backman, Joseph Smith's First Vision, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980; Joseph Fielding McConkie, His Name Shall be Joseph: Ancient Prophecies of the Latter Day Seer, Salt Lake City, Utah: Hawkes Publishing, 1980; Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1985; Hyrum L. Andrus' trilogy, God, Man, and the Universe, Vol. 1, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1968; Principles of Perfection, Vol. 2, 1970; Doctrines of the Kingdom, Vol. 3, 1973; Orson Pratt: Writings of an Apostle, Mormon Heritage Publishers, 1976; Elden J. Watson, Ed., The Orson Pratt Journals, (interesting patterns in his teachings using Isaiah 29, 49; Ezekiel 37, 57, Romans 11, pp. 20, 37, 38, etc.); Orson Pratt's Works, Deseret News Press, 1945; N.B. Lundwall, Ed., Masterful Discourses and Writings of Orson Pratt, Bookcraft, 1962; N.B. Lundwall, Ed., Orson Pratt's Wonders of the Universe, 1937; Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Deseret Book, 1985; Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, A Voice of Warning, Deseret Book, 1979; Pre-Assassination Writings of Parley P. Pratt, Mormon Heritage Publishers, 1976, not to mention the incredibly voluminous writings of Hugh Nibley! Or Bruce R. McConkie! Or Sidney B. Sperry!

36. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 128.

37. Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses (Hereafter JD), 26 vols. (London: Latter Day Saints' Book Depot, 1855-86), 18:288. Cf. Orson Hyde, in JD, 1:124; 2:64; Orson Pratt in JD, 19:282.

38. Thus Brigham Young in the very first discourse, JD 1:1-6, 349-353; 2:309-317; 4:296f; 6:93-101; 7:331-334; 9:246-250; 11:119-128; 16:23-32; Lorenzo D. Young in JD 6:222-226; John Q. Cannon in JD 25:213-214; William C. Dunbar in JD 17:15-23; Amasa A. Lyman in JD 3:164-177; 7:296-308; Parley P. Pratt in JD 3:177-191; Erastus Snow in JD 19:266-279; 322-329; Orson Hyde in JD 6:313; Lorenzo Snow in JD 18:371-376; Charles W. Penrose in JD 26:18-29; George W. Bywater in JD 22:59-67; John Taylor in JD 23:47-68; George Q. Cannon in JD 24:339-346; 368-376; 25:148-160; Orson Pratt in JD 1:53-66; 2:334-346; 15:229-241; 15:241-253; 18:286-297; 19:311-321.

39. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 135, 158.

40. Decker's ludicrous film and book The Godmakers, has been thoroughly reviewed and found to be worthless when learning about Mormonism by Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth About the Godmakers, Salt Lake City, Utah: Publisher's Press, 1986.

41. Walter Martin, of course, was exposed by the Browns in their 3rd volume of They Lie in Wait to Deceive. The rather humorous expose of Martin quoting JD vol. 4, p. 385 was fun reading. Of course, vol. 4 does not have that many pages! Martin sued for damages, and lost, typically predictable. And Spencer relies on Martin for many of his points! Typical. See Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, pp. 144, 158 for example.

42. The Tanners have been totally discredited, see footnote 6 above.

43. Daniel C. Peterson, "A Modern Malleus maleficarum" in RBBM, FARMS, vol. 3, 1991, pp. 258-260.

44. Cited in Robert and Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, III, 1986, pp. 119-131.

45. Morton Smith, "Two Ascended to Heaven - Jesus and the Author of 4Q491," in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Doubleday, 1992, p. 291.

46. Daniel C. Peterson, Stephen D. Ricks, Offender's For a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah: Aspen Books, 1992.

47. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, pp. 12f.

48. Spencer's reference here is Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 167, which is not Orson Pratt, rather it is John Taylor.

49. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 138.

50. Robert Eisenman, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, Element Books, 1996; Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, Viking, 1996; John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Ancient Literature, Doubleday, 1995; Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, Scribner, 1995; Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated,E.J. Brill, 1994; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Doubleday, 1994; James C. Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, Eerdman's, 1994; Neil Asher Silberman, The Hidden Scrolls, Grosset/Putnam, 1994; Klaus Berger, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth Under Lock and Key?, Westminster John Knox Press, 1995; Devorah Dimont and Uriel Rappaport, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, E.J. Brill, 1992; Harold Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament, Tyndale House, 1993; James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Doubleday, 1992; Herschel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Random House, 1992; Herschel Shanks, James C. Vanderkam, P.Kyle McCarter, Jr., James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution, Oct. 27, 1990, Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991; Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, Element Books, 1992; James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, Doubleday, 1998, not to mention several older titles that have escaped Jim Spencer's attention, such as, Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Penguin Books, 3rd edition, 1987; Theodor Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, Doubleday, 3rd edition, 1976; Krister Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament, Crossroads publishing, reprint of 1957 edition in 1992; James H. Charlesworth, ed., John and the Dead Sea Scrolls, reprint 1991; R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch, E.J. Brill, 1957; Suitbert H. Siedl, Qumran eine Monchsgemeinde im Alten Bund: Studie uber Serek Ha-Yahad, Desclee & Co., 1963. This is not even listing the plethora of thousands of articles on this most fascinating subject, all ignored by Spencer, to be sure! And none of them say what Spencer said!

51. Spencer, Beyond Mormonism, p. 138 - I sure wish he'd drop some names around here for us to check into. I promise, I will list the textual critics I use! Just see below for full information and years worth of reading.

52. Spencer, Witnessed, p. 155, and p. 65.

53. Spencer, Witnessed, p. 104f.

54. Brute M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 1992, p. 43f-47 for a thorough smashing refutation of Spencer's pet illusive theory. Cf. also the excellent and scholarly treatment of Eldon Jay Epp, Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993, every chapter! And especially those dealing with the quotes of the Patristic Fathers!Very interesting how sloppy and carefree they were in supposedly quoting the Bibles they were using. Mr. Spencer's theory has been shown to be utterly wrong.

55. John Allegro, The Treasure of the Copper Scroll, Doubleday, 1960, p. 27f. See also P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "The Mystery of the Copper Scroll," in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991; John Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reappraised, Penguin Books, 2nd edition, 1966, pp. 101ff, 193ff; P.Kyle McCarter, Jr., "The Mystery of the Copper Scroll," in Herschel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, Random House, 1992, pp. 227-244; James C. Vanderkam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, Eerdman's, 1994, pp. 68f, where he notes "if a writer took the trouble to have his many words stamped into copper, he intended for it to be a lasting record." Also, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "The Mysterious Copper Scroll, Clues to Hidden Temple Treasure?" in Bible Review, Vol. VIII, #4, Aug. 1992, p. 38ff; Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, Scribner, 1995, pp. 117-130, 161-164; Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Doubleday, 1995, pp. 397-399; Hugh Nibley discussed the significance of the Copper Scroll for the Book of Mormon practices, in Since Cumorah, Deseret Book, 1967, pp. 61ff. William J. Adams, Jr., discussed the finding of two silver plates found at Jerusalem which date back to 600 B.C., they being found in 1980, in "Lehi's Jerusalem and Writing on Metal Plates," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 3, #1, Spring 1994, pp. 204-206. See also his update, "More on the Silver Plates from Lehi's Jerusalem," in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 4, #2, Fall 1995, pp. 136f, where the plates are itemized as one of the ten most important archaeological finds ever.

56. H. Curtis Wright, "Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes," in By Study and Also by Faith, John Lundquist, Stephen D. Richs, eds., Deseret Book, 2 vols., Vol. 2, Ch. 10.

57. R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., Oxford, Clarendon Press, reprint, 1979, vol. 2, p. 614. Cf. James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseuepigrapha, 2 vols., Doubleday, 1985, vol. 2, p. 419. Hugh Nibley discusses at great length the pattern of writing down a record from a revelation from God, then burying it to come forth in later times in his magnificent book, Enoch the Prophet, Deseret/FARMS, 1986.

58. Hugh Nibley, "A Strange Thing in the Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch," in Enoch the Prophet, Deseret Book, 1986, pp. 151f. Cf. Nibley, "Qumran and the Companions of the Cave," in Revue de Qumran, 5(April 1865): pp. 177-98; Nibley, "To Open the Last Dispensation: Moses Chapter 1," in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, Truman G. Madsen, ed., Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1978, Ch. 1; Nibley, "The Expanding Gospel," in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless, Ch. 2. "The Haunted Wilderness," Ch. 9 is a reprint of his article "Qumran and the Companions of the Cave."

59. Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, Crown Publishers, 1995, p. 491.

60. Graham Hancock, The Sign and the Seal, Crown Publishers, 1992; Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, Richard Leigh, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Delacorte Press, 1982; Andrew Sinclair, The Sword and the Grail, Crown Publishers, 1992; Norma Lorre Goodrich, The Holy Grail, HarperCollins, 1992.

61. Spencer, Have You Witnessed, p. 105.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid., p. 106.

64. Ibid., p. 107f.

65. Leon Vaganay & Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Initiation a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament, (An Introduction to NewTestament Textual Criticism) translated by Jenny Heimerdinger, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 2.

66. See Stanley R. Maveety, "The Glossary in the Rheims New Testament of 1582," in The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 61, 1962, pp. 562-577, for Sir Thomas More and William Tyndale deliberately translating the Bible to reflect their own theologies and fir their own preconceptions of what the scripture should say; Also P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986, pp. 11f for Erasmus not changing an error in the Bible because he was so used to it, even after it was proven to be incorrect!

67. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Ibid., p. 12.

68. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (hereafter TPJS), Compiled by Joseph Fileding Smith, Deseret Book, 22nd printing, 1973, p. 327.

69. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992, p. 170. For interesting Book Review, see Bible Review Magazine, Aug. 1993, pp. 11f.

70. Tov, Ibid., p. 170.

71. Bleddyn J. Roberts, "The Old Testament: Manuscripts, Texts and Versions," in John Maier and Vincent Tollers, eds., The Bible in its Literary Milieu, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1979, p. 221. Cf. John Allegro's invaluable discussion in his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal, Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, reprinted 1966, pp. 59-83; Also Frank Moore Cross, "The Text Behind the Text of the Hebrew Bible," in Herschel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York: Random House, 1992, pp. 139-155; Frank Moore Cross, "Light on the Bible From the Dead Sea Caves," in Shanks, Ibid., pp. 156-166; Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version, New York: Vintage Books, 1993, pp. 101-105, 155-158; Hugh Nibley, "Controlling the Past," in the Improvement Era, Jan. 1955- June 1955, discussing how scribes have changed the Bible and when older and more correct texts have been found, they were thrown out because they didn't fit! Cf. Manfred Barthel, Was Wirklich in der Bibel Steht, (What the Bible Really Says), Avenel, New Jersey: Wings Books, 1992, p. 15 for his claims in confidence of translation because we have the original text. According to Tov, Ibid., (p. 330, 195) The Masoretic text did not triumph over other texts, (p. xxxviii) where the Massoretic text and the Biblical text is not identical.

72. Tov, Ibid., pp. 9, 28f, 11, 21-25. James A. Sanders, "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text," in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, Biblical Archaeology Society, Symposium Oct. 27, 1990, p. 71.

73. Vaganay, Ibid., p. 83.

74. Bruce M. Metzger, "The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism," in Maier and Tollers, The Bible in its Literary Milieu, p. 244. See also Morton Smith and R. Joseph Hoffman, What the Bible Really Says, HarperSanFrancisco, 1989, pp. 242f.

75. Vaganay & Amphoux, Ibid., p. 62.

76. Vaganay, Ibid., p. 64.

77. Hugh Nibley, "Controlling the Past," in Improvement Era, March, 1955, pp. 152f.

78. James Barr, Fundamentalism, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1978, pp. 279-303.

79. Barr, Ibid., p. 302.

80. Manfred Barthel, What the Bible Really Says, noted that originally there were over 80 Gospels!, p. 16; Hartmut Stegeman, "Is the Temple Scroll a Sixth Book of the Torah - Lost For 2,500 Years?" in Herschel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1992, Ch. 10; Ronald S. Hendel, "When the Sons of God Cavorted With the Daughters of Men," in Shanks, Ibid., Ch. 13; The Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgotten Books of Eden, World Bible Publishers, no date; David R. Cartlidge & David L. Dungan, eds., Documents for the Study of the Gospels, Revised and enlarged, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994; James A. Sanders, "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text," in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, Biblical Archaeology Society, 1990, pp. 57-73; Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, 1981; Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, Hendrickson Publishers, 1992; Willis Barnstone, The Other Bible, HarperSanFrancisco, 1984; Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, Doubleday, 1987; Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel:The Book of Q and Christian Origins, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993; Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels, Polebridge Press, 1992; Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Trinity Press International, 1990; Robert M. Grant, The Formation of the New Testament, Harper & Row, 1965; Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Story of the New Testament, Univ. of Chicago Press, 17th edition, 1971; David Rosenberg, Harold Bloom, The Book of J, Grove Weidenfeld, 1990; Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?, Harper & Row, 1987; Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993; Giovanni Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, Basil Blackwell, 1992; Simone Petriment, A Separate God: The Christian Origins of Gnosticism, HarperSanFrancisco, 1990; James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., Doubleday, 1985; R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2 vols., Oxford at Clarendon Press, 9th edition, 1979; Hugh Nibley, The Book of Enoch, Deseret/FARMS, 1986; George W.E. Nickelsberg, ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham, Society of Biblical Literature, 1976; Eta Linnemann, "Is There a Gospel of Q?" in Bible Review, Aug. 1995, pp. 18-23, 42, arguing no; Stephen J. Patterson, "Q, The Lost Gospel," in Bible Review, Oct. 1993, pp. 34-41, 61; "An Interview with David Noel Freedman: How the Hebrew Bible & the Christian Old Testament Differ," in Bible Review, pp. 28-39; Robert J. Miller, "The Gospels that Didn't Make the Cut," in Bible Review, Aug. 1993, pp. 14-25; Adam S. Van der Woude, "Tracing the Evolution of the Hebrew Bible," in Bible Review, Feb. 1995, pp. 42-45; James C. Vanderkam, "Jubilees: How it Rewrote the Bible," in Bible Review, Dec. 1992, pp. 32-39, 60; James C. Vanderkam, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity," in Bible Review, Feb. 1992, pp. 16-23; Alan R. Millard, "Re-creating the Tablets of the Law," in Bible Review, Feb. 1994, pp. 48-53; Michael D. Coogan, "The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew," in Bible Review, June 1994, pp. 44-48, 55; John P. Meier, "Why Search For the Historical Jesus?", in Bible Review, June 1993, pp. 30-34; Pamela J. Milne, "Feminist Interpretations of the Bible, Then and Now," in Bible Review, Oct. 1992, pp. 38-43; "The Catholic Church and Bible Interpretation," in Bible Review, Aug. 1994, pp. 32-35; "Scholars Face Off Over Age of Bible Stories," in Bible Review, Aug. 1994, pp. 40-43, 54; Carolyn Osiek, "The Shephard of Hermas - An Early Tale that Almost Made it into the New Testament," in Bible Review, Oct. 1994, pp. 48-54; Christian History: How We Got our Bible, Issue 43 (vol. XIII, No. 3), 1994; J. Reuben Clark, Why the King James Version, Classics in Mormon Literature, Deseret Book, 1979; Jacob Milgrom, "The Dead Sea Temple Scroll," in Paul R. Cheesman & C. Wilfred Griggs, eds., Scriptures for the Modern World, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, vol. 11, pp. 61-73; C. Wilfred Griggs, ed., Apocryphal Writings and the Latter Day Saints, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, BYU, vol. 13, 1986; Harold Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndal House Publishers, inc., 1993, pp. 15-38, 107-140 for excellent discussion of textual criticism and the impact the scrolls have had on Bible translations, and books of sacred scriptures. This is just to list a small list of the ever-growing realization of this situation.

81. Foremost among the most recent seriously analyzed and quite comprehensive is the work of Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,Oxford Univ. Press, 1993; Cf. Emanuel Tov, Ibid., as well as Eldon Jay Epp, Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, and last, but not least, Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 1991.

82. Ronald S. Hendel, "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men," in Herschel Shanks, ed. Ibid., Ch. 13, pp. 172, 302; Emanuel Tov, Ibid., pp. 269, 365; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Ibid., p. 59; Harold Scanlin, Ibid., pp. 109, 112.

83. On the premortal Council in Heaven, Joseph Fielding McConkie, "Premortal Existence, Foreordinations, and Heavenly Councils," in C. Wilfred Griggs, ed., Apocryphal Writings and the LDS,Ch. 9; David Winston, "Preexistence in Hellenic, Judaic and Mormon Sources," in Truman G. Madsen, ed. Reflections on Mormonism, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1978, Ch. 2; Edward T. Jones, "A Comparative Study of Ascension Motifs in World Religions," in Ellis T. Rasmussen, ed., Deity and Death, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1978, Ch. 4; Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos, Deseret/FARMS, 1992, pp. 182-195; Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet, pp. 172f, 242f. For council in heaven in many ancient Enoch texts. Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, Deseret Book, 1976, p. 170 where the